Waiting for Rajoy.

"Waiting for Godot set"
by KlickingKarl. [A]

Where the fuck is Mariano Rajoy?

"Aquí hay un presidente del Gobierno que va a dar la cara y no se va a esconder" ("here is a president of the Government [Prime Minister] who will face the people and not run away", my translation, see here in Spanish), Mariano Rajoy reportedly said in interview with EFE news agency boss, Alex Grijelmo in January 10, 2012.

Ever since, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, Rajoy's second in command, has had to face the people and make the official announcements.

So, for a change, the "Rajoy austerity package" had to be announced by Sáenz de Santamaría.

In a nutshell:

1. 27bn euros (AU$ 35bn) budget cuts: 2.3% to 2.5% of estimated 2011 GDP.
2. Average ministerial budget cuts: 16.9%. But public works cuts to reach 34%.
3. Public sector wages and salaries frozen.
4. Electricity and gas, increase by 7% and 5%.
5. Housing subsidies and employment policy cuts: 2bn euros (AU$ 2.6bn).
6. 12.3bn euros (AU$15.9bn) tax increases, supposedly from big corporations but including fiscal fraud amnesty fees (10% of the fiscal debt!); personal income tax (1.9% increase) (See here. Spanish)

VAT remains unchanged, unemployment benefits frozen, age pensions indexed by CPI.

----------

While in opposition, Mariano Rajoy rejected changes in industrial relations laws and personal income tax increases.

María Dolores de Cospedal, general secretary of the ironically called People's Party, had called fiscal fraud amnesty "unthinkable", "unfair" and "anti-social". (See here. Spanish)

Incidentally, for readers whose Spanish is a bit rusty: the adjective "anti-social", in Spanish, has the connotation of "criminal".

Clearly, Rojoy's "mandate" exempts him from delivering his and his party's electoral promises.

----------

Together with the labour market reforms already announced and previously rejected by Rajoy, these measures prompted the BBC's Gavin Hewitt to write:

"Privately some in government accept these calculations involve a risk.
"The economy is in recession and some predict it will shrink by around 2% this year - even before these savings are made.
"The fear is that Spain could be tipped into a downward spiral.
"It is also unclear how the public will react to more austerity. The unions held a general strike yesterday and are threatening further disruption." (See here)

In plain English: that's just the beginning.

----------

With views like the above in mind, the El País op-ed page, often a reliably moderate voice, sounds pathetically confused, almost to a grotesque extreme:

"Más allá de los incidentes y de los que pronostican finales apocalípticos, la cuestión de fondo es que ni la economía ni la confianza de los inversores necesitaban este paro. Menos aún otras posibles huelgas venideras."("Beyond the incidents and the apocalyptic prognostications, the underlying issue is that neither the economy, nor the investors' confidence, needed this strike. Even less other future strikes"). (See here. Spanish. My translation)

No, estimados señores, lo que está fuera de lugar es vuestra preocupación con los sentimientos de los inversores y las necesidades de "la economía", cuando España, enferma de severa anemia, es obligada a desangrarse.

No es el pataleo lo que está matando a España. Es la hemorragia.

La muerte del paciente no tranquilizará a los inversores, ni les dará "confianza", porque no recuperarán sus préstamos. Y una muerte lenta, como la de Grecia, es lo que le espera. Los inversores lo saben, aún si vosotros os negáis a reconocerlo.

Pero, aún si el sacrificio de España sirviera para apaciguar al demonio de "la economía",  y devolviera a los inversores su preciosa "confianza", de vosotros, yo me preocuparía primero por España.


Image Credit:
[A] "Waiting for Godot set. Theatre Royal Haymarket 2009", by KlickingKarl. Wikipedia. My use of the photo does not imply KlickingKarl endorses me or my use of it. It doesn't imply the opposite, either!

Magpie's Law.

I'm sure you have already come across "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies". Mike Godwin, who named the law, first made reference to it in an article in Wired in 1994.

This is how Godwin defined it: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one". (See here)

Under a logical perspective, these gratuitous comparisons are considered fallacies and are called humorously "reductio ad Hitlerum", inspired in the reductio ad absurdum: "Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy. The fallacy claims that a policy leads to-or is the same as-one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so 'proves' that the original policy is undesirable".

With this, Godwin's Law is re-stated thus: as an online discussion grows longer, someone is bound to fall in the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy.

I ain't no Mike Godwin, but I think I have identified a similar phenomenon in economics. It goes like this: the probability of using the mysticism/metaphysics charge increases as a discussant is challenged by views he/she dislikes but doesn't understand. And I call it: Magpie's Law!


Eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Steve Keen. [A]

Here are two excellent examples: Paul Krugman replies to Steve Keen (Keen's first post, and reply to Krugman).

Paul Krugman states that, as a working economist, the reason he reads "old books is for insight, not authority". Here Krugman is professing to be a logical thinker (therefore, immune to appeals to authority) and a pragmatist. Fair enough.

If something in those old books "helps crystallize an idea in your mind (...) that’s really good". He goes on to say: "but if where you take the idea is very different from what the great man said somewhere else in his book, so what?"

Krugman goes further: "my basic reaction to discussions about what Minsky really meant (...) is, I don't care".

So, if there are two different views, what to do then? Just pick the one you like?

Paul Krugman. [B]

Let's think about it. What if the two views aren't very different at all, only you didn't understand them in the first place and that's why you think they are different? What if they are indeed very different and you picked the wrong one? What if you picked the right one, and those opposing you picked the wrong one. Couldn't you use that to strengthen your case?

What kind of insight can one get from an old book, if one is not sure one actually understands what the great man who wrote it really meant?

That's not Talmudic scholarship or banking mysticism, Prof. Krugman. It's plain common sense.

And by the looks of it, Krugman didn't understand what the great man said:

"In particular, he [Steve Keen] asserts that putting banks in the story is essential. Now, I'm all for including the banking sector in stories where it's relevant; but why is it so crucial to a story about debt and leverage?"

A story about debt and leverage... without banks (!?). I rest my case.

----------

For another great way to cover one's ass when one is losing an argument, see Circular Reasoning!

Image Credits:
[A] Steve Keen. Wikipedia.
[B] Paul Krugman. Wikipedia.

Spanish Patriotism.

The Countess of Murillo. [A]

The Most Excellent Esperanza Aguirre y Gil de Biedma, The Countess of Murillo, Grandee of Spain, Honorary Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and lastly, President of the Madrid Community, called the "trade-unionists anti-patriots, willing to transform Spain into Greece" due to the general strike. (See here, My translation from Spanish).

It is ironic that the Spanish people are being charged with being anti-patriots willing to transform Spain into Greece, when it is the so-called People's Party the one applying in Spain the same economic shock policies applied in Greece, to benefit foreign bankers in Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels and London.

If I may, I would remind Her Excellency that Spaniards are not bound by loyalty to those foreign elites. If Her Excellency is confused on that, perhaps she should reconsider where her loyalties lie.

[B]

I would also remind Her Excellency that her salary is paid by the Spanish taxpayer. Therefore, while this may be unsavory to Her Excellency, the Spanish people, even though commoners, are her employer.

If Her Excellency finds it burdensome to loyally satisfy her employer, or finds it in her interests to serve another master, perhaps Her Excellency should resign.

Alternatively, the Rajoy Government should legislate to make it easier for the Spanish people to sack their public employees, even Grandees of Spain.

Image Credits:
[A] The Countess of Murillo. Wikipedia.
[B] The Spanish flag. Wikipedia.

The Deliberate Auto Goal.

Soccer team formation [A]

A long time ago, in a place far, far away...

Believe it or not, when I was a kid I was the crappiest soccer player in town.

In fact, my only virtue was my size: taller and stronger than average, I shouldn't have been such a bad defender (for instance, the blue dots in the figure). Or, at least, that's what my teammates hoped.

You see, a big defender can be clumsy with the ball and not particularly fast running; he mainly needs to kick the opponent attackers' shins, and that's not terribly difficult to do.

When a penalty comes around, he is placed in front of the ball, as part of the barrier, to take a ball for the team. You see now why height is an advantage.

The problem arises if the other team brings in a big, strong forward and you are placed right in front of him, in the barrier. And that day, a powerful kick, deliberately or not, propelled the ball straight to my crotch.

If you ask me now, I couldn't say what happened exactly. In spite of crossing my hands to cover myself, I was hit right there; I think I bent over and somehow I must have kicked the ball... Next thing I knew, it was an auto goal.

While our opponents were understandably amused and delighted, my frustrated teammates asked me what had just happened. A very embarrassed and astounded 10-11 year-old version of me couldn't come up with a better excuse than: "I wanted the other team to win; the striker is my mate" or something to that effect (!!!).

Somehow I was reminded of that episode by these two notes:

ABC News Online: "Palmer Hints CIA Claims a Poll Distraction Ploy" (26-03-2012)

Fairfax Media/SMH Online: "Palmer does Not Regret CIA Claim" (26-03-2012)

Don't worry, Clive. I believe you. Campbell Newman wouldn't have gained in QLD without your auto goal. (See here)

----------

So that you don't think it's only me making this kind of auto goals, just look at this:

PS,
Needless to say, that was the end of my soccer career!

Image Credit:
[A] 4-4-2 modern soccer formation. Wikipedia.