I received this from a long-time subscriber and requested permission to publish in the interest of presenting both points of view:
Dear Colin,
Being a subscriber to Incredible charts for many years and liking it very much, for some external reasons I was not reading articles for a long time, but when I happened to read the latest “Europe leads markets lower” article I was completely taken aback how it is politically charged and how it seems to be based on mass media propaganda, not on unbiased facts and analysis… It does not leave a good impression at all. I don’t mind other people having their own opinion, but I think that it should not be imposed on others in supposedly non-political, business articles, so may we respectfully ask your editors to refrain from politically motivated language and argumentation in the business articles and leave it to politicians and political forums instead ? I am talking about the anti-Russian bias and rhetoric – I am a Ukrainian citizen and lived in Ukraine for 30 years before moving to Australia 20+ years ago and I still have friends living in Ukraine, so I think that I am a bit more qualified on this topic than Mr. Abbott’s speeches or Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers. The plain fact is that neo-nazi thugs came to power in Ukraine as the result of coup-de-tat in February (supported and sponsored by some Western countries) and once the Constitution was thrown out of window, the law and order does not exist any more there (so called theory of “controlled chaos” is in full swing), all power ministry heads and many personnel were replaced with ultra-nationalists, civil war was started and atrocious war crimes are committed as we speak – anyone with the different view to people in power at the moment is declared an enemy, people are disappearing, burned alive (in Odessa on 2nd of May), etc. Ukrainian army and semi-legal “national guards” battalions are bombarding south-east regions after they declared that they are not recognising Kiev’s neo-nazi government and everyone who knows a little bit of history would understand why that was their choice voted in referendum by majority of these regions population. This has nothing to do with Russia, but has everything to do with the people in power in Ukraine and their western supporters. In fact, Russia’s showed and still showing a great deal of patience for so many years and seems to be the only country that tries to find some peaceful solution without depriving people of their basic rights to choose the way of living. As for Crimea, this was Russian people/territory for hundreds of years until year 1954 when it was given (read stolen) by decree from the then General Secretary of USSR communist party of Ukrainian nationality and that decree was not legal even by laws of that time – no one raised strong objections at the time simply because it was the same country anyway. Later, when breaking apart Soviet Union (again not legally and against the will of people who spoke on referendum), no one cared about sorting this out properly and for 23 years Ukraine was ruling in Crimea while Russia and people of Crimea were somewhat patient about it until the February coup-de-tat in Kiev and neo-nazi coming to power. Parliament and people of Crimea made their choice very clear in law and referendum where 97% of people voted to become independent state (not unlike Kosovo so cherished by Western countries) and their natural choice and only protection would be to ask Russia to join it which Russia accepted and why it should not ? People of Crimea were saying at the time that “we may not be joining the Heaven in Russia, but definitely we are escaping the Hell” which is exactly what happens now in the former south-east region of Ukraine. If anything, Mr. Obama and other western leaders should stop baseless and counter-productive aggression against Russia and tell their buddies in Kiev to stop this violence and start diplomatic efforts. My apologies for such a long email, but I am just very saddened by the way how it is portrayed in Western media – brainwashing people who are not multilingual and cannot access alternative points of view.
Regards,
Name Withheld
Dear Name Withheld,
I appreciate you taking the time to write and express your views.
I am very concerned about the state of affairs in Eastern Europe. It is, and always has been, a tinder box. And one unintentional spark can start a fire that none of the parties intended. Respect for borders and for the rights of other countries and their citizens is one of the fundamental safeguards to prevent such outbreaks of war. Russia, no matter how strong a regional power, does not have the right to simply take territory by force because it once belonged to them or because they need the territory as a “buffer” to protect themselves from “encirclement” or outright aggression. If all states acted like that we would be in a constant state of war. They have to respect the conventions designed to safeguard the world from future wars and pursue the matter through negotiation or the international courts.
If history serves me correctly, the territory is neither Russian or Ukrainian, but Crimean. It should be up to the people who reside in the region and those who originate from there, like the Tartars, to negotiate its future and not be subjected to a ballot at the point of a gun.
Please can I post your letter on my blog in the interests of giving both points of view — with your name withheld if you wish.
Regards,
Colin
Reply received from Name Withheld:
Colin,
Somehow my point was missed – I was not saying that you are not entitled to your views whatever they are, I was rather saying that highly charged political agenda should be better left out of business articles – it seems to be inappropriate to be there, not to mention that it sounds highly disrespectful, if not offensive to people who are in ultimately much better position to judge the situation. Imagine how I am concerned about these affairs being a Ukrainian citizen and seeing how my country is robbed and destroyed by mad extremists drunk with their ‘revolutionary’ powers and unquestionable support from some western countries no matter how much people’s freedom and even lives are destroyed. One always should look to the root cause, not to superficial slogans – if it’s not for anti-constitutional coup nothing of the rest would happened. I completely agree that people of Crimea should be in charge of their destiny and that was their overwhelming wish and all the talking about a ballot at the point of gun is a complete nonsense (as it would be for East Germany joining back West Germany) – people simply did not want to be under new born neo-nazi regime as many of us would not want too, it’s just amazing to see how western mass media distorts and cooks the facts. People’s lives and wishes are of the most importance, not the artificial borders when the legitimate government of your country is taken over in anti-constitutional coup by extremists – people are entitled to live after all, not to die. And somehow I don’t remember too much noise in Western media about ‘borders’ when USSR was broken apart (with terrible consequences for many ordinary people), Yugoslavia broken apart and so on. Unfortunately, it seems that double standards became a very norm in the global politics… I am not interested in blog participation – experience shows that sooner or later any conversation tends to degrade to personal attacks and unfounded claims, not to mention that very often not real people are behind the conversation, rather computer bots or paid people, but if you wish so, you may publish my letter with any of my personal details withheld.
Regards,
Name Withheld
Dear Name Withheld,
Unfortunately we can no more separate business and politics than politics and war or war and religion. They are two facets of the same issue. What disappoints me is the cheap propaganda and deceitfulness — practiced by both sides. I am also not a big fan of the winner-takes-all style of democracy, practiced in most Western countries, which does not work in highly polarised societies such as Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, etc. Instead I favor the more-inclusive style of democracy practiced by the Swiss, where each major party has a say in government. It promotes stability rather than confrontation. All major parties in Ukraine deserve a say in government. Not just the ones who won the last election. Much the same is true of Crimea. But this cannot be achieved while there is ongoing conflict and it is important to force all sides to lay down their arms and negotiate, including neo-nazis and separatists. This requires both Russia and the US/EU to resist arming the protagonists as it only fuels the conflict and hardens attitudes, making settlement even more unlikely.
Regards,
Colin
I can certainly feel [name withheld]’s frustration. There are always two sides (often more) to any conflict, and it must feel horrendous to be an unwilling participant, even a remote one, in a bloody war created by power crazed thugs – legally elected or not – who are tearing up your homeland just so they can feel good about themselves.
I would offer two points regarding opinions in this blog:
1. If we wish to be a fully integrated and tolerant world community, we can’t put human beliefs and opinions into discrete boxes (politics in one, finance in another, religion in another, etc etc) and discuss each one as if the others didn’t exist. When a person acts (eg picks up a gun), he/she acts with the combined sense of “rightness” of all their beliefs and opinions. I for one am not offended when politics pops up in a financial blog. Indeed I would be very surprised if it didn’t.
2. A blog can feel biased for many reasons. One reason might be simply that more people agree with one “side” than the other. But biased input information (propaganda) is another. With news media ownership being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands we should always be vigilant to this. [Name withheld] reminds us there are other views that have to be heard and considered. But they too must be sure that they aren’t also influenced by propaganda. Unbiased sources are rare these days.
As for all the wars going on simply everywhere in the world, I just wish someone would lock up all the weapons’ suppliers, who are no doubt lying on a beach somewhere laughing their heads off.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my unnamed fellow subscriber to your newsletter, Colin. Like him/her, I am a follower of your excellent charts for some years now. On purely business, finance and economics insights, your analyses are among the best. However, there is an increasing trend towards political coloring that I find disturbing. It distracts from the main purpose of your newsletter. I accept your argument that business, politics and war are interlinked and so, therefore, they have implications for your analytical work. What bothers me is the selectivity and one-sidedness of your postings, as also the poor connection to your analyses.
A glaring example of selectivity is your silence on the ongoing Israeli offensive in Gaza. To call it a war is a travesty considering how unequal the two sides are in arms, supplies and support from the US-led Western powers. Volumes can be written on the sheer inhuman brutality of waging war on a largely civilian population packed into a narrow strip of land blockaded on every side. For the present purpose though, let me stick to the economic impacts. This war, or offensive, is taking place at the same time as parallel, very serious, turmoils in Iraq, Syria and Libya. How is it that oil and gas prices are plunging instead of rising? Mainstream media puts this down to an expected fall in demand due to slowing global economic growth. Yet, the US just posted a second quarter GDP rise of 4%, along with the EU, it continues to assure us all is well with its recovery, China’s economic indicators remain positive overall, and the rest of the emerging economies are getting along, even if not spectacularly so. At worst, oil and gas prices could have experienced a small correction but not this steep collapse in the face of simultaneous supply-disruptive events in the Middle East and Ukraine. In the past, even one such conflict or tension involving a major oil/gas producer will have sent prices soaring. With so many conflicts/tensions building up at the same time, why doesn’t the dog bark? The likely explanation is this price collapse is engineered by the West as a part of its economic war on Russia. Even if you disagree with my conclusion, I would have expected your postings to be much broader than Ukraine and Russia, with a clearer connection to your analyses.
My unnamed fellow subscriber has expressed quite adequately how one-sided your postings have been on Ukraine itself. I won’t belabor the point beyond supporting his/her views. I should observe though that your concern for the sanctity of national borders is questionable. Why should Russia be lambasted over Ukraine, but it is perfectly all right for the West to violate the borders of Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yugoslavia (to name just a few) in the name of whatever noble cause it claims? The West has been tearing Syria apart with its open support for rebels there, even forming and officiating over a Friends of Syria club bent on regime change. Where is your concern on that?
You say you are against buffer zones. Fair enough. What do you think then about the 3 km buffer zone Israel has declared in Gaza, amounting to 44% of that already overcrowded strip of land with over 1.5 million Palestinians crammed into a hellish ghetto for decades? To extend further, why do you think the West has been expanding the membership of the EU and NATO relentlessly over the years if not to create its own buffer zone against Russia?
The point is this. A conflict, by definition, cannot have only one story line. To the extent you concentrate on only one viewpoint, you run the risk of alienating those of your subscribers who respect your analytical work and expect you to be even-handed. I recognize, of course, this is your personal blog and you are under no obligation to your subscribers who benefit from your work free of charge. My comments are offered in the spirit of preserving the value of your work. I wouldn’t have taken this much time to express myself otherwise.
KV,
If we all agreed it would be a boring world. I think we do agree however, that conflicts should be resolved by peaceful means and not by force. We probably also agree that two wrongs don’t make a right: US invasion of Panama, Grenada, Iraq, etc, does not justify Russian invasion of Afghanistan, Crimea, Ossetia, Eastern Ukraine, etc. As for selectivity, I use more than one medium. Gaza is not a conflict that presently threatens global stability, so I have not addressed the conflict on these pages which have a predominantly business, economics and finance focus. But I have stated on Twitter that I do not believe there is a two-state solution and this is basically a stalemate.
That said, I appreciate your writing. It always pays to examine both points of view.
Regards, Colin
Russia did not invade Afghanistan. The Soviet Union did. They are two different entities with distinct political-economic ideologies. Crimea was not invaded either. If it were, it must be the most bloodless invasion in history, especially compared to the carnage of the West’s successive invasions since 9/11. An overwhelming majority of Crimea’s population chose to rejoin Russia. Nor did Russia invade Ossetia. It responded to a Georgian invasion instigated by the West. And it has not invaded Eastern Ukraine, yet. The same way the US and fellow Friends of Syria have not invaded Syria. Yet. Indeed, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has kept to its own borders. Its few military confrontations have all been within or on its own borders. Not in faraway lands on some imperial neocolonial rampage. Such conflation, intended or unintended, lies at the root of the West’s visceral hostility towards the Russian Federation.
These are not minor differences of opinion to alleviate intellectual boredom. They are cold, sobering facts. Playing fast and loose with them is to play with fire. If the West persists with its aggressive policies against Russia, and China, a nuclear holocaust will ensue. I think this is a large enough stake for any form of journalism to stay objective, to hold irresponsible politicians to account, wherever they are, instead of siding with one or the other. Of course, that leaves open the question if blogging is journalism. Not being a blogger, I do not have the answer to that.
Regards.
KV,
That’s where we differ. I see one common approach: subversion and coercion.
“If the West persists with its aggressive policies against Russia, and China, a nuclear holocaust will ensue.” – So you think American isolationism would be a good thing? Russia and China would not feel threatened and would leave the world in peace? A power vacuum is a dangerous thing — look at Syria/Iraq.
You seem to approve of Vladimir Putins approach to bringing democracy to the Chechens, but disapprove of Ukraine’s actions in Eastern Ukraine. I am not sure that I see the distinction.
Of course MONEY (territory= money), (power= money), (fame often= money) is at the root of all this killing. Governments make conflict happen or allow it to happen as they see fit, depending on their own ultimate best interests which is money (in its various forms).
Thank you Collin for putting up these alternative viewpoints, since these conflicts are not simply black or white. As you say, there is way too much totally polarized media reporting as it is. Adding to the problem, media power is more concentrated in the hands of just a few than it has been in past decades, so most world audiences are led into holding polarized, black or white views.
Young children, at least in this nation, are not taught to grow up being aware and prepared to participate in LOCAL politics, where they could find out by action rather than words how the real world operates and eventually be less victimized by polarized media campaigns. That’s a separate topic though — Education.
In regards to the Ukrainian internal conflict it would be helpful if people were to understand that there is a clear distinction between ‘right (fair) and wrong(unfair)’ and respective national interests. Nations have national interests – increasingly economic in nature this is the overriding guiding principle behind how they behave and who they ‘support’. These are the glasses you need to put on when reading the ‘media’.
Nations have national interests: economic and security. You can’t trust any nation entirely, but you can trust them to follow their own self interest.
This a cynical distinction invoked by the power elite to absolve themselves of immorality in the name of an amorphous national good that they themselves get to define. It matters little if they acquire power through a democratic process or undemocratic means. Once in the saddle, power is intoxicating and addictive. That functioning democracies (one could count them on one’s fingertips) have certain curbs on power as compared to authoritarian regimes makes only a marginal difference. Like the fine line between a socialite alcoholic and a barroom drunkard. In fact, more people have been slaughtered around the world for the national goods of democracies than those of dictatorships.
Accepting such a spurious distinction is to lose track of all bearings on one’s moral compass. Individuals can exist without being part of a nation. The reverse is not true. As such, what applies to an individual should, by extension, apply to a nation. The difference between murder by an individual and mass murder by a nation is only a matter of scale. They are both crimes. Just as living within one’s means is praiseworthy in an individual, so also governments that balance budgets are to be commended. To argue otherwise is to accept two different sets of law whereby the one that applies to whole nations will tend to prevail, simply because it is wielded by the most powerful. Law-abiding citizens cannot exist in a law-violating nation for long. Eventually, either they will force the nation to abide by just laws or will mirror their government’s lawlessness in their personal lives.
Unrealistic? Not world-wise? All ideals are so. But without ideals to aim at, we have no direction. Putting on glasses to be able to read the distorted offerings of mainstream media is to surrender to the status quo. We should be forcing the media to comply with our natural vision.
“In fact, more people have been slaughtered around the world for the national goods of democracies than those of dictatorships.”
Are you classifying Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot as democratically elected leaders?
“Just as living within one’s means is praiseworthy in an individual, so also governments that balance budgets are to be commended. To argue otherwise is to accept two different sets of law…”
It’s called macroeconomics and microeconomics. Governments may at times be forced to borrow money and invest in infrastructure when the private sector is deleveraging after a financial crisis. Otherwise we would face a downward spiral similar to the Great Depression.
To your first comment:
I actually had in mind Truman onwards up till Obama, and their enthusiastic contemporaries from the rest of the ‘free world’. Beginning with the breakout of ‘peace’ after WW II till date.
To your second comment:
As an economist, I would say you are confusing Keynesian economics with macroeconomics. There are alternative schools of economic thought. Incidentally, a Great Recession is only one step away from a Great Depression.
“I actually had in mind Truman onwards up till Obama…”
That still includes Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
“I would say you are confusing Keynesian economics with macroeconomics…”
Milton Friedman must be turning in his grave. Keynes was not the only one to advocate running deficits when the economy is below full employment.
“Incidentally, a Great Recession is only one step away from a Great Depression.”
Yes, but a big step. By 1933 unemployment had soared to 25% and GDP fallen by 33%, compared to unemployment of 10% and a 2% GDP fall in 2009.
Hitler didn’t survive WW II. The post-WW II killings of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are far less than the estimated 30 million deaths from US-inspired wars around the world in that period. (Not to put too fine a point on it, I thought you had said earlier on something about two wrongs not making right!)
Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Marx must also be turning in their graves. Friedman should rest in peace. He has a worthy successor in Krugman.
The step to a Great Depression is smaller than you think. Real unemployment in the US is 22% after accounting for dropouts from the work force, part-time jobs and low-paying jobs. If real inflation of 7-8% (using earlier, non-hoodwinking, methodologies) is taken into account, GDP growth has been negative every year since 2008.
Indeed, we could debate this till the cows come home. As for the use of force and individual freedom, we don’t have a difference. So long as we apply it universally to all states, regardless of political ideology.
It is time I got on with other things that can’t wait any longer. And guess you need to get back to your charts. Good luck with the rest of your day, and until your next bait…!
The numbers do not matter. All killing of innocents is unjust.
“It’s a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” ~ Harry Truman
..until our next bait 🙂
KV,
We can debate these issues until the cows come home, but I have faith that your intentions are good — and that you are against the use of force by states and support individual freedom (to the extent that it does not impinge on the freedom of others).