One of the myths which was debunked by the mass protests of internauts against ACTA is an extraordinary ability of the current government to sense the public feeling and to effectively communicate with it.  Right from the first hours when ACTA became the topic no.1 in Polish media, the government committed one gaffe after another. Michał Boni – Minister of Administration and Digitalisation – was giving confusing explanations concerning the open debate, and finally stated that it has been lasting since 2008 and that this issue is demonised in Poland. Indeed the debate was conducted by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage.  Among the organisations invited to the debate one could find only those which benefit from ACTA, i.e.:  Foundation of Audiovisual Works Protection, Polish Audiovisual Producers Chamber of Commerce, Society of Authors ZAiKS and the like. One can equally well invite Big Bad Wolf, Kaa Snake and Mr. Badger to debate on the problem “Should the henhouse be open at night?” Minister Zdrojewski, do you know these fairy tales?

Paweł Graś brilliantly stated that the governmental websites hang because they generated too much interest, however, only one day later on the www.premier.gov.pl (Prime Minister’s website) one was welcomed by Mrs Basia stylised as Wojciech Jaruzelski.  If it is the truth that the password and login were ‘admin 1′ and ‘admin’, we should actually be grateful to the hackers for drawing attention to this – the embarrassment could be bigger.

Until recently the Polish government was boasting of forcing the ACTA agreement through, calling it on the Innovative Poland portal www.pi.gov.pl to be the “success of Polish presidency.” “Polish presidency can be also proud about another success. According to what the Ministry of Economy stated, the Council of the European Union made the decision to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The resort underlined that this was one of the priorities chosen for the period of Polish leadership in the Council of the European Union.” After exposing the ACTA case they became – in the same text – only one of the decisions made by the Council of the EU during Polish leadership.

Donald Tusk was defending the decision on signing ACTA in Tokyo, as it was announced on Thursday 26th January, referring to the fact that Poland belongs to the democratic countries club which, with absolute certainty, cannot be suspected of any attempt to limit freedom (reminds of the democratic traditions of South Korea and Mexico – the country of law), not mentioning the fact that the USA government, influenced by the resolute protests, secretly starts to withdraw from the SOPA pack, which can limit the privacy of internauts to the greater extent. It is worth noticing that, with absolute certainty, closing, among others, the Wikipedia website warmed up the atmosphere in Poland and the protests against ACTA which already were intensive. Tusk stated the following: “the intention of the Polish government and the previous government under my management is not to a lesser extent limiting the freedom in the Internet. I definitely share such liberation enthusiasm of all these people who appreciate the Internet because of the fact that, among others, it is the space of freedom.”

Could he really forget that only the resolute protests of internauts caused that the government partly withdrew from the gambling act which was passed very quickly? He definitely forgot about the promise made to the internauts that each new law that will concern them will be consulted with this social group. Among others, Vagla reminds that “Of course I remember when during the meeting with the internauts the Prime Minister said that the decisions concerning ACTA will not be made without thorough explanations (to public opinion) of all the doubts which were signalled during the works on this agreement which was long kept secret.” That disrespectful treatment of the internauts and unilateral imposing the rules of the game can end up badly for the government was foreseen soon in December by Wacław Iszkowski “if the young generation will organise an e-demonstration, then each demonstration outside this building (The Chancellery of the Prime Minister) would be nothing compared to that one.“

Indolence of the Civic Platform (the leading party in the Polish Government) is incredible, especially when one would take into consideration how efficiently they used to cope with containing conflicts and distracting attention from them. Even on the occasion of the action against the open pension fund, the media did not transmit to that extend the comments which were critical of the government. Of course as the time will go by, after signing the document, when it appears that the protests are pointless they become less intensive. Most probably it was on one hand because of the feeling that after the victory at the election the party can do anything and, on the other hand, because of the total lack of understanding of the governing generation 50+ for people for whom the Internet is as real as the world outside the window (or even more real). Poland is among the world leaders in the exchange of files. It was easy to guess that an attempt to limit what is perceived as something absolutely natural for millions of Polish people (just like Telexpress (a very popular news programme) or the soap opera after work for old generations) will end up badly for the government (what would happen if they stopped emitting Bold and Beautiful?). But they could not understand that.

The mobilisation of the internauts will not end up with establishing a party – the protesters have nothing more in common than the opposition to the agreement. However, it has a great unused political potential. It’s a wonder that the opposition parties manage so poorly with taking advantage of this public outrage at the government of the Prime Minister Tusk – but these people belong to the same generation and are equally alien in this world. The government can be sure of one thing – the internauts will never forget what it did. Things don’t just disappear in the Internet, Mister Prime Minister.

Translation: Joanna Brodowska

We have to come to grips with the unemployment problem among young people if we do not want to lose hope for the better future of hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country, and not to lose our hope in them.

Unemployment among youths is quickly becoming a more serious social and economic problem in Poland and in a lot of other European countries, Spain for example. As “Gazeta Wyborcza” and its text about so-called NEETs (not in employment, education or training) say, “according to International Labour Organization, last year 23.7% of people between the age of 15 and 24 were unemployed in Poland, which adds up to 250,000 people”.

Together with the crisis, the situation of young people entering the labour market is still getting worse. As far as during prosperity the situation in Poland was changing to an employee’s (who was able in some trades at least, to look for a job by any possible means) advantage, in the period of slowdown the new graduates are condemned, especially within some bigger companies, to the persistent looking for a job, which ends in either finding a job under one’s qualifications (often on the border of financial independence) or the resignation and vegetation close to one’s parents, doing some odd jobs. Apart from the personal drama, unemployment has a very negative influence on economy. Eurofound researches, as the same text in “Gazeta Wyborcza” states, are estimating that one NEETs costs a tax-prayer 37,000 zloty every year, which means 5 million euro yearly, about 1,5% GDP, quite a lot in comparison to the European Union average.

Reasons of status quo

One of the status quo causes is, undoubtedly, the education system, which does not prepare pupils and students afterwards to come to grips with “the authentic world”. The years of education, especially if the parents’ education values do not force their children to connect learning with working, range from carefree laziness to  intensive cramming, only from time to time they are connected with the authentic self-development. Unfortunately, in most cases during the crash with the market realities none of those attitudes gives, carefully speaking, a specifically high rate of return. Changing the way of teaching at school and university, and adaptation of the 19th century institutions to the 21st century needs is a gigantic undertaking, which is indispensable if we count on the fact that Poles should be more than only assembly plant workers or employees of Chinese corporations.

Solutions needed now

Before we carry out a total system change, we should begin with the temporary actions, we do not have time to lose. First of all, we have to create an occupational counselling service, which will be accessible both for secondary school students (before they decide what subjects they will do at their high school exams and for what faculty at university they will apply) and for students, who finally will have a place, when they find not only available jobs, internships or trainings offers in Poland, but also the professional advice for their occupational competences, people who will be able to help them in the conscious forming their career. Career offices of universities do not fulfill do that duty – they offer other places for keeping the unnecessary and unprocessed information, which is served by not very useful university administration workers. In such a career office a university or secondary school student could familiarize himself both with what in reality the job in the definite trade depends on – thanks, for instance, to the research in the particular firms (what idea about work in advertising can even the most creative humanist, who has never gained any experience even in copywriting, have) or together with the expected demand on the stock market for a particular specialization, while he will be finishing his studies (here, again, extensive research is needed). The information about the amount of money the graduates from each faculties earn (and in what professions)  and the predictions of the changes in those earnings in the future are also important.

Businessmen, as well as students and universities, will be interested in such places, which let them understand each other and adjust their expectations and behaviour, the last two being especially important.  Such an intermediary causes that a student, who is busy with learning, does not have to visit dozens of firms, and a businessman who is busy earning money does not to have spend half of his time at the university. A secondary school student needs reliable information (and universities, unfortunately, do not secure it for them) about his possible future, which depends on the faculty at university he chooses, and a student needs a support in the soft switch, instead of the brutal crash, from the carefree reading time, parties and examinations, to the demanding world of projects, deadlines and Excel tables.

We seriously have to accept this challenge if we do not want to lose hope for the better future of young citizens of this country, who are still living in the carefree unawareness (“Beautiful moment, do not pass away!”), and not to lose our faith in them. In the end someone will have to earn money for our pension, even when we spend the retirement in Ciechocinek, not in Barbados, and pay for the soft pillows for us, which will be pushing nearer to our hurting lower backs by home help.

Translation: Milena Dawidzionek

Israel and the USA

The fundamental difference between Israel and the USA (who never officially ruled out the attack to stop Iran from creating a nuclear bomb) is:

1) the stage of the development of the Iranian nuclear programme

2) defining the critical moment after which it will not be possible to stop Iran

3) assessing the value of different intelligence materials.

Benjamin Netanyahu refused to give Obama any consultation or even information in advance concerning the possible attack.  Both sides are currently working on mutual consultations on establishing their ‘red lines’ which will indicate the necessity to intervene.  This is a big success for Israel for whom a unilateral intervention would mean a further international isolation, conflict with all the neighbours and, above all, war with Hamas and Hezbollah armed by Iran, terrorist attacks and a direct Iranian conventional rocket and air counterattack whose scale is hard to foresee.

External conditions in favour of Israel

The external situation can work in Israel’s favour. Syria is at civil war, incapable of external action, intensive support for Hezbollah and anti-Israeli action in Lebanon. Suppressing the protest and strengthening Assad’s power means coming back to the direct danger of terrorist attacks in Israel. His collapse would equal to the fact that the last ally of Iran in the region went down in history which could result in unpredictable consequences, including an outbreak of sectarian war of everyone against everyone, Sunni majority revenge on Alawis, currently mercilessly murdered rebels against the supporters of the regime, Muslims against Christians – there are plenty of possibilities.
Netanyahu could save Assad by launching the attack on Iran, in such case there would be a chance for Syrians to consolidate against the common enemy, particularly because of the fact that the pressure on the part of Iran would be undoubtedly enormous.  The dictator, in order to save his weak leadership, could in despair try to launch an aggressive action against the “Little Satan”.
Egypt is also busy with its own business. The situation after the elections should stabilise indeed, however during the next months one will decide upon the future of the Egyptian Constituent Assembly which is to establish a constitution and therefore decide about the character of the democratic Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood government, or, particularly, the fact that the radical elements are more and more popular (given strong anti-Israeli and anti-American moods in the Egyptian streets) creates in a longer run a very dangerous situation for Israel, concerning the fact that Egypt is the only country in the region that can directly threaten Israel by virtue of the military potential, and the new government will not be so susceptible to the Washington as Mubarak used to be.  It is possible that the 1979 peace treaty will not be worth the paper it was written on.

How Israel can influence the USA?

Because of the election in the USA, on one hand Israel obtains, by means of influencing the Congress and the excellently organised lobby, the chance to put pressure on the incumbent President as well as on the republican pretenders, which can influence (and is influencing – Iran is practically the only subject of foreign policy that is constantly mentioned in the republican primary election) their declarations concerning the Iranian nuclear programme. Simultaneously, before the election in November Obama will, to absolute certainty, want to avoid both the American intervention and the Israeli attack on Iran, which will at least lead to a very serious crisis, if not a regular war in the region, therefore there will be an increasing pressure put on Israel to avoid the unilateral action of Tel Aviv.

Importance of rhetoric

The current rhetoric of Iran is, indeed, perceived by, among other people, Fareed Zakaria as a sign of weaknesses, especially that it is not in the interest of this country to close the Strait of Hormuz, however, there is a threat that harsh words can lead to unpredictable consequences, especially because of the fact that none of the sides will step back for fear of being accused of weakness by its own hard-liners. As Farhang Jahanpour, from the Faculty of Oriental Studies at the University of Oxford, described in the report drawn up by the Reuters agency: ‘Both parties use harsh words. Unfortunately, this can easily get out of control and set fire.  The hawks on both sides play a very dangerous game of chicken’ (two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course, the one who swerves – loses).

*Barbara Ann, the Beach Boys song in the original version of John McCain

Translation: Joanna Brodowska

Iranian threats

Ataollah Salehi, the Iranian army commander-in-chief warned the USA against the return of their aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf area. “Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning” – he said – according to the IRNA national information agency. These words together with the first Iran vice-president Rez Rahimi’s threat concerning a blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, provided that there is embargo on sale of oil imposed on Iran in combination with great maneuvers of the Iranian navy in the Gulf, caused that the possibility of the American and Iranian war is seriously considered in media all around the world. Professor Jolanta Sierakowska-Dyndo has already announced its beginning on the TOK FM radio, because she thinks that “Sanctions is a type of using force but economic one. It is the same war like classic or military”.

The American unique position in the world depends among others on the fact that Americans care about maintaining a free international trade, and their navy does not allow to disrupt the sea communication routes. That is the reason, why they cannot allow themselves to present weakness and the victory of Iran in the rhetorical as yet “battle” for Hormuz.

No open armed conflict yet

Despite the fact that the two parties do not seemingly avoid confrontation, there will not be an open armed conflict at least now. There are some reasons. Firstly, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is very doubtful. As Jonathan Rue from the Institute for the Study of War says, Iran does not have such military potential. Even during the Iraq-Iran war, the two parties of the conflict hindered admittedly the movement of oil tankers across the strait even though they did not blockade it completely. Any type of action e.g. mining the Hormuz would be quickly revealed and countered by the USA that have significant forces in the area (among others in Bahrain), which would come to a bad end for Iran because of differences in military potential between the two countries. Besides, extremely strong sea current in the strait does not favour mining. More important fact is that Iran would lose most on such a blockade. It would be impossible for Iran to provide clients with its own oil. What is more, Iran would also make it impossible for itself to import petrol (it lacks own refineries, which could process enough amount of oil), which would have tragic consequences for the fuel internal market – the government withdrew large subsidies to petrol, replacing them with 40 USD subsidies for the poorest. Irregular increase of energy prices makes of course increase in all other economy sectors. The Iran riyal exchange rate in relation to dollar has already dropped to its lowest level in the history in recent days.

Ambigious signals sent by Iran

The above analysis indicates that the Iranian threats remain only threats as for now, directed probably to the internal purposes as part of power struggle before parliamentary election in March. The ruling camp, when the internal threat in the form of “Green Movement” lacks – reformists herald a boycott of an election – it is now divided, which was already noticed when basij attacked the British Embassy and incoherent announcements sent by different regime representatives. Fundamentalists, who earlier were the president Ahmadinejad’s direct powerbase, act against the group gathered around him. The growing economic problems in relation to already applicable sanctions and the perspective of the new, more severe ones, are also responsible for tightening rate towards the West, which enables signing the Act by Obama on the last day of 2011 on economic sanctions towards the countries buying the Iranian oil. The signals sent by Iran are also ambiguous, Tehran probably wants to play for time and delay implementing sanctions and heralds readiness to talk about its nuclear program.
Ivan Eland from the Independent Institute in the “Commentary” questions the political effectiveness of economic sanctions, which cause activation of the citizens around the regime in his opinion. The collapse of the USSR or the RSA’s apartheid happened above all due to internal, not external, factors. Sanctions imposed on Cuba have not brought any effect for years and lots of American politicians call for lifting them. Moreover, even declining oil export from Iran does not have to mean the drop of influence, provided that the prices will rise by virtue of the reduced demand and threats connected with the exacerbated situation in the area.

What if diplomacy fails?

However, there is a possibility that a consistent attitude of the USA and the European Union (provided that it will join the Americans, which French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alan Juppe called for) will force at least partial adaptation of the countries, which would not otherwise support any additional sanctions. According to the “New York Times”, one will have known by January if the EU supported the American sanctions. In February, according to Mark Dubowitz – the director of the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Department of State will announce which countries still buy oil from Iran and decide whether to impose sanctions against them. One will have known if sanctions effectively reduced the income of Iran from the sale of oil by June, if not, then it means the end of sanction. When diplomatic means fail, then one can only get used to the inevitable, that is to Iran having the atom bomb or relying on changes in the regime or overthrowing it, which seems to be unreal today. It is like Israel’s getting used to the fact that its deadly enemy has nuclear weapons at its disposal. Then, the bombs will talk instead of diplomats.

Translation: Sylwia Syposz

Leszek Jażdżewski: The greatest economic crisis of last thirty years seems to be over. But the example of Greece shows that the restitution will not be easy. The econimies of almost all of the developed countries are groaning under the weight of their debts. The public debt of the United States has reached 12 billion dollars (that is 90 percent of its budget) and is still rising. Niall Ferguson warns us and recalls past cases of world’s superstates falling  suddenly and unexpectedly when small vacillation was enough for the gap between commitments and their resources led to a catastrophe. The issue of the crisis, analysed throughout by the media and economists from all around the world, has become the question to answer in a serious debate of the world and economy order.

The word ‘crisis’ has been perpetually used over last two years, hundreds millions have been spent, the state has considerably enlarged its share in economy at cost of a massive public debt. The greedy bankers have been generally reproved. It does not seem, though, that all that rhetoric and extemporaneous national interventions have brought about the change of the paradigm, just like it had been changed by the slumps of the 30s and the 70s. Or perhaps is it just a illusion as we lack the distance? Are we  – after the time of New Deal, FDR and Keynes, Reaganomics and Friedman – approaching a new era, for instance the era of Obama and Krugman?

Jacek Żakowski: There is no new project and the old one has declined in meaning. No one has come up with a thesis of forming of a new paradigm publicly, but the intellectual breakthrough is behind us. The two rationales have been discredited intellectually and by the reality. The first one: that the markets regulate themselves, and the second one: the rationale of the rational expectations controlling the market. It is hard to maintain the opinion that the government regulation is unnecessary and it should be restrained. The establishment, which has been forming for the last 25 years and has educated thousands of its economists, will never discard its own theory of market’s self-regulation, only because it has failed.

Economy as a social science with political associations, where power plays matter, represents distinct lobbies. It is difficult to break through with rational opinions and it is hard to officially push ahead something that is called into question by economists. We have got rid of the economic variation of hepatitis C. The reality we are facing is though and complex, there are no universal rules valid for everybody. We are dealing with small steps, careful analysis, precise tools. Not an axe but a laser, although it is easier with an axe. We still want to believe that ‘there is no alternative’ , but in reality there is an enormous variety of paths we need to go by.

Jan Winiecki: I would put it differently. People criticising capitalism have been always by the score. They simply become loader when troubles arise, for example during the previous crisis wave on the turn of the 60s and the 70s. But the capitalism is not to blame for what happened.  There were three reasons for the American crisis, which has spread all over the world.

Firstly, Greenspan’s politics. He – when conducting self-criticism – forgets that he is a president of not a private bank but the national central bank and it is his policies, not the bankers’ work, what destabilised the economy (banks reacted on the policies). The central bank used to intervene only when the economy slowed down, never when it expedited rapidly (connect the dots!). Secondly, also the pressure of the social politic with the theme of wide accessibility of dwellings on the financial markets brought about the crisis. The constant emphasis on lowering the credit standards for the less-earning (or not earning at all!) caused the erosion of standards of granting mortgages. This way the European and American standard, spreading for 100-150 years (20% of prepayment, 80% of credits for the period of 20-30 years), became an exception, not a rule. In 2006, just before the crisis started, only one third of American credits were up to the standards. Moreover, the state politicians are also to blame. In many states the ‘no recourse’ principle was introduced. It meant the possibility of dispensing with every kind of liability by the loaner by giving bank their keys. It only dampened the level of self-discipline of borrowers.

Credit bureaus are also said to be to blame. Only because of the wrongly designed regulation from 1976, a small group of such agencies has become the virtual monopolists in assessing the creditworthiness. We should remember what Adam Smith once wrote: “The spirit of a monopolist is narrow, lazy and mean”. In fact, this deleterious regulation is just a part of the third field of the state’s responsibility for the crisis. Numerous analysts point out to a whole string of partial regulations of financial markets, which had influenced the structure of commercial banks’ assets, instead of making it safer.

The enthusiasts of DIY in the regulation system have not drawn conclusions. Those who brought on the crisis to the American and world economy are still designing our world according to their – amateur and flattering the public’s – expectations.

Krzysztof Rybiński: Ca. 1350 AD, near the Nanjing port, trees were planted because the Chinese Emperor planned to send the Chinese flotilla abroad in 50 years. During his numerous journeys and for almost 100 years before Columbus, general Zheng travelled half of the globe, established relations, tried to recognise other cultures, hired translators. He demanded only that the other nations would surrender and accept the Emperor’s authority. For over 100 years there was no other place like China, where the technology and tactical thought would be so advanced. Not until later, the centre of the world moved to Europe (Venice, Genoa, Amsterdam, London) and the to the USA (Boston, New York). Today, in the time of the Internet, the centre of the world has moved far West – to California, which, if it were a country, would be the sixth of the biggest.

The history has come full circle. After 700 years we are in Asia again. In some time, the bee’s knees, the new politic, cultural and economic centre and the heart of world innovations will appear in Asia once more. It should not be recognised as a kind of new order, but rather as a return of the old one.

The theory and practice of economy is also changing. During the period of the Asian crisis the IMF recommended full liberalisation and rising of the interest rates to stabilise the rate of exchange and the speeding up the privatisation, although today they say otherwise. There are no universal truths and answers. From the one point of view, we see the history repeat itself and the centre moves to Asia, from the other, the economy is remarkably weak as a discipline which is not able to come up with an enduring notion of the reality for longer than 10 years. I do not expect anything new to emerge in this situation. I am much worried by the policymakers consoling one another and repeating constantly the same ideas how to renew the world after the crisis. A few potent financial institutions led to the crisis, and they are still growing in power.

Henryka Bochniarz: There was a film about a London broker ‘A Good Year’. I saw it couple of years ago together with a group of young stock-jobbers, for whom it was obvious that one could earn a million dollars, taking shortcuts, in one day. Now, as it has turned out, the formula is quite different. Greed and impunity, which made this crisis so severe, are not accepted. This is the main moral venting from the situation. We have to take into account human behaviours and rationalise them. There is no deft state  without a deft market.

I look at the crisis with great optimism, which stems from my experience as an entrepreneur – somebody who set up a company in 1990. I witnessed a few such breakdowns and every one of them brought about something valuable: made one verify their strategy, thinking and behaviour. We will not find any fantastic device that will solve all our troubles, but we will be able to map out new tasks. If only it happened, the world would be so much better. We should keenly observe the shares of individual players in economy and watch the both sides of the pitch, instead of just assuring that the rapacious bankers have their earnings radically cut. Blaming them for all what happened is oversimplifying the issue. The politicians, who in 1999 introduced a change into credit regulations in the US, bear the blame.

In Poland there was economic freedom  in 1990 and 1991. One could actually set up a company in five minutes then. Afterwards we introduced another regulations to block this freedom without making the market more efficient. If we keep on claiming that we are the ‘green island’ and nothing else, this green island will turn red. We should start to talk about it. If something works, it does so in small structures: on the level of entrepreneurs and non-governmental organisations. Unfortunately, we have a very feeble administration and giving it larger power would mean getting rid of all what we have managed to achieve during the last 20 years. We should draw from our own experience, not just imitate others’ solutions. The key to success is discussion. Less ideology, more practice.

Szymon Gutkowski: I can confirm that the biggest companies of various trades were established at the beginning of the 90s and those several years give them a great advantage.  The Internet companies are the sole exception. Every state intervention has its consequences for the entrepreneurs. The ‘green island’ effect turned up just in time. 20 years after the transitions and reforms it makes us feel a lot better. Up until now, Polish successes were not numerous. And suddenly, in the most important valuation for the European economy we are the leaders, the ‘green island’ in the red sea of recession. It can have its effect of the self-esteem of Poles. What is important, also ordinary people discuss the issue. I believe that we, as a society, have the chance to be proud of Poland and the green and red map became even at one point a new national emblem. However, everything must be done to retain the pace of economic development. The image of “thrifty” Poland is being created by the Polish managers, many of whom have a firm position in global companies. So we have more than Chopin, of whom it is hard not to make a mention this year. When thinking of Chopin and the future it is worth remarking that in his music he also placed the Chinese soul and sensibility – today most of the distinguished Chopin players are Chinese. If the Chinese 50 years before the planned journey planted a forest, we should start learning Chinese and Chinese culture. We will not benefit from it, but our children will.

Ludwik Sobolewski: Yesterday I was at the Parliament, which is the church of democracy as an idea of social organisation. The democracy is much imperfect, but we do not have anything better, the same applies to capitalism. The capitalism of the largest on the financial markets banks proved to have a built-in element of self-destruction. It is the easiest to say that a financial institution is to blame. A financial institution is impersonal, it consists of shareholders. Capitalism, which relies on the stakeholders who demand the income, is a mechanism of self-destruction shows that it is an imperfect phenomenon and the role of the state as a regulator is essential and it carries also the responsibility for the quality of this regulation.

Economy is not only a phenomenon which may form into a science. It is a science which already exists and it rests of the ‘to my mind’ formula. It is improper to discuss the economic issues as if they were some kind of natural phenomena. We let the economists use the language which makes us think of them as of the representatives of some natural science. But it is a science of man and society. Of society also in crisis, not only in the material but also in the psychological sense. The bourse is not just an invisible hand, it is a conglomerate of emotions which can influence the individual actions but also the behaviour of the collectiveness. We should consider what is economy and capitalism for us.

L.J.: Has the crisis undermined the theory of rational choice popularised by the followers of Milton Friedman? Has it proved that a human being, developed according to Keynes in the book of Akerlof and Shiller, is directed by animal spirits?

J.W.: There is such philosophy, established by Tomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi and von Hayek, which divides knowledge on communicable and non-communicable. The former can be codified and transmitted, the latter results from the individual experience and the environment in which one gains their knowledge. Hayek called it “the knowledge of time and space”. Numerous decisions are taken in this way, not only in the realm of science but also in the world of business – people know why to do something that way and not the other but they cannot explain why precisely that way.

What is more, the law of unintentional and often unexpected consequences operates. Sometimes the consequences are positive. For instance: the American financial regulation from 1963, which demanded the authorities assent for the transfer of the American companies’ funds abroad, led to the inception of a huge euro-dollar market. The range of its revenues was higher than the range of the credits granted in the biggest financial centre of the time – New York.

However, we should remember that the unintentional consequences are more often pejorative. That is why the liberal economists warn us against – as Hayek called it – “the sin of constructivism”. While trying to regulate anything we should keep in mind that the comparisons of the real systems with the intellectual constructions are methodologically wrong. The latter are known only from the intended perspective and we know nothing of their unintended effects.

L.J.: Is it worth continuing with the model of present consumption on credit? Or perhaps should we resign from it at all?

J.Ż.: I think that we are not able to foresee what to slow down and when. The whole appeal of capitalism lies in the fact that it rushes, but it should not stampede. The state is still perceived as the enemy of capitalism though it is not the enemy of human freedom. The greatest foe of capitalism today is the leviathan of corporations, impersonal creation which eats away the market. The professor mentioned the credit agencies and gigantic monopoles. When one looks at the market, the level of concentration there is dangerous. The model of capitalism functioning in Poland looks as follows: set up a company and sell it to a corporation. People are aware that the capability of development has its boundaries, especially when it comes to a collision with a hulk of some kind. One cannot beat it, so one should sell their company to other, who dominates the market. Uncontrolled growth of hulks of moderate efficiency is a very dangerous phenomenon, because if they fail, we have to help them. Today, those who pretend to defend capitalism from the state leave it in the lurch and sell it to the monopoles. The capitalists should believe that the state defends their freedom and return to reading Adam Smith – the greatest critic of all of these unfunctional economic constructions which are necessary in many ventures. However, if they are not controlled, they destroy all what is around them. We should stop dreading the state.

Coming back to Adam Smith who came up with a thesis: freedom and judicature are the source of wealth. There is no market that can properly function without the judicature and the state’s efficacy in pursuing and adjudging litigations. Also in the States the difficulties with the judicature are the reason for very serious economic issues. We should return to the belief that good state – not communist or fascist one, has to be guarantor of the market’s functioning and is not its greatest threat, just the opposite: the state can be the market’s ultimate defender. The lack of faith in the above statement can be the source of the crisis.

L.J.: Will the unprecedented scale of public support lead to negative consequences?

K.R.: In the report about Poland published by the OECD there is a diagram that compares the productivity of work in various trades over a span of the last 10 years. Also the productivity of public administration was measured and it fell by half. The administration’s productivity falls down in the time when TV-sets are produced more efficiently and they are several times cheaper. Not so long ago the share of public expenses in GDP amounted to 42%. In 2010 it is going to be 48%. There is no other country that has so inefficient administration which expands and costs more and more. From all of the OECD countries, Poland controls the economic circulation at the most. Poland is an unproductive country, it costs more and more and often intervenes into running one’s business. This should change. The means of disciplinasing the state that we have is the sheet of paper we cast at ballot box every four years. The governing, however, are afraid of this discipline. And as for now we do not see first symptoms of any transition. Despite the weakness of the state and the overregulation of economy, Poland is a green island indeed. But let us imagine how fast would we develop if some reforms would be introduced.

Marek Borowski: There are various types of capitalism: the European model, the Anglo-Saxon, the Swedish one. It is worth looking at the differences and which really works. How should capitalism and free economy function? They have to be transparent and truthful, the market has to work according to its own rules. Who should regulate them? The state, whose intervention is necessary. It is about the honesty, not taking in the citizens, about the powers that the commission of financial supervision has, which of them it used while raising the bar for the credits. Such authority is much valuable and has helped us a lot. What we need is the state’s measures taken to resolve the monopoles and make them transparent so the information about commodity and its advertisement were reliable and true. The crisis we are experiencing now is a result of not following those rules, mainly in the US but also in Europe. The issue of bankers’ salaries play a subsidiary role, although it keeps irritating me when and odd president of some not really big bank earns couple million zloty. That is an exaggeration.

L.S.: Here, in the church of capitalism, we believe that the state is necessary. The state should claim responsibility for introducing pro-developmental solutions and being a productive country. Crisis will be a permanent phenomenon. Lenin, if he were to rewrite his work today, he would have named it ‘Crisis as the highest stage of capitalism’.

J.Ż.: Capitalism is the issue of safety and hazard. If a bank wanted to lend money only those who would surely give it back, it would not make any money on that. The bank has to come to the edge just like every entrepreneur in capitalism. A good example here is ski slalom: if the competitor wants to reach the finishing line safely, he will arrive at the 35^th position. But if he wants to reach the podium, he must risk a severe accident, sometimes even a fatal one. That is what capitalism is about and we will not change it. We can change only the relation between the risk and the safety. During crisis, more safety and less hazard is guaranteed.

A question from the room: How much time do we have to fix the crisis?

Krzysztof Rybiński: Approximately 10 years. In 2020 the numerous generation of the last baby boom will retire, an expensive climate policy will be introduced and we will lose the accelerator of the EU funds. We have only 10 years to catch up with the West in respect of the level of life.

J.Ż.: The world and the capitalism have changed a lot. If somebody had been analysing a similar issue three years ago, he would have invited Leszek Balcerowicz and that would have been enough. Today one has to invite 10 people and every one on them has their opinion – all unclear. This fundamental and radical change began in the States and came to Poland. There is nothing worse than the feeling of obviousness. If everyone is saying the same, everyone is wrong. This change has already led to the failure of the myth of the US – not as a superstate, because it will always be a superstate, but as a standard. Several years ago the American health system was set as an example for Poland. Today there is no longer such an issue. Some myths remained and they are extremely menacing, for instance the myth of turning a hospital into a limited company as such companies cannot fall into debt. However, numerous public limited companies are fatally indebted and they fall in full view. How much time? Either we do not have it at all, or we better switch to demography and regain the balance. We should not think that in 20 years there will come a generation that will pay all of our debts. Today, the emptiness pays our debts.

H.B.: The surveys show how much the criteria of company efficiency have changed. The importance of profit has diminished while the incorporeal values are raising in strength: the transparency, watching over the employees. In Europe there are countries which rush along, but the finishing line is somewhere else. The issue of demography is extremely substantial and here we have not enough examples for the state’s productivity. If somebody thinks that single allowance aid can solve the demographic trouble, they are spending all taxpayers’ money in vain. There are examples of countries that managed to solve the problem, of course they only postponed the issue. Talking about the state, it should listen to other participants of the market and try to communicate with them better. Capitalism – yes. But no warps.

L.S.: After the crisis a lot has changed in the field of debate, commenting and cogitations on what capitalism is. Socialism appealed to the main human features: altruism, social instinct, equality, group affiliation, equalitarianism, and on that ground it built something socially pejorative. In contrast, capitalism appeals to egoism, individual interest, the will to be recognised, and on this base it provides many useful things like the social responsibility of business – because of our will to make profit we do socially utile things. In capitalism nothing can function well unless it is based on the interest idea and we should accept that and try to tame it when needed. This is the sole essence of the system and it confirms its virtual functioning. Now is the time for the afterthoughts, but I am not sure whether it is going to last long.

Translated by A. Kumycz

Marcus Tullius Cicero

The Polish politicians treat the rule of separation of Church and State even less seriously than the Polish Catholics treat their religion.

Undoubtedly, the lay character of the state guaranteed by the Polish constitution is not fully respected. The straightforward reason for this seems to be the conformism of the politicians who are afraid to antagonise the influential Church hierarchy or the well-organised and politically active group of voters, for whom religious issues are of fundamental meaning. However, a much more serious problem emerges from behind the political conformism.

To say that democracy coexists peacefully with religion is to lie. Or to disparage the former or the latter. All religious dictates have one thing in common – they are not negotiable (except for a few cases such as immediate life risk). Their origin is not natural – created by man – but supernatural -divine. The principal rule of democracy, however, is a compromise, which replaces violence that will inevitably occur when the compromise is lacking.

How can someone who thinks a compromise equals the eternal condemnation agree to the compromise?

How can they value any wordly laws above God’s will? Our mundane world is but a short stop on their way to the real life. For a religious, devout person it would be a sin, perhaps a mortal sin (in such issues as, for instance, accepting abortion).

The Praise of Religious Indifference

Then, how has it been possible to reconcile religion with democracy, especially in countries like Poland – countries where the former still plays a considerable role. The answer seems to be simple – in democratic countries religion is not treated absolutely seriously and consistently by the majority of followers any more. We have come a long way from the zeal of the first Christians who preferred to die on a Roman circus’s ring torn apart by wild beasts rather than renounce the faith in Christ.

Yet, that’s fine. If people still regarded religious dictates absolute, our life here on earth (which in common view might be the only life one can get and there won’t be any better) would be an endless and annihilating fight amongst the followers of different denominations, or between all believers and atheists. Some tactical alliances would most probably be contracted (even as extraordinary and exotic ones as the alliance between the Catholic France and pagan, sorry, Muslim Turkey during the Thirty Years War), but a long-standing ‘Pax Dei’ would be impossible – unless one group cuts down all the other ones to a man.

Therefore, every reasonable person must be glad that today we live in quite a secular community (the whole history of mankind taken into account) and disagreements – although heated – are nevertheless resolved peacefully, in the Parliament chamber.

In liberal democracy, the will of the majority expressed in general elections is restricted by the rights of the minority. These rights are reflected by the regulations of the lawful state and the constitution. When such safety measures are not taken into consideration, the minority has no interest in validating the unfair system. Then we have to deal with a civil war – either ‘hot’ like in many African countries or until recently in the Balkans, or ‘frozen’, whose elements one could notice even in Poland under PiS rule.

The Dictatorship of the Majority

In Poland people admitting membership in the Roman Catholic Church definitely prevail. According to the data gathered by GUS (the Main Statistical Office) in 2007 there were 33.9 million Roman Catholics in Poland (this is the number of the baptised). Even if one excludes those who religious weddings and baptism of their children dashed off only for the sake of peace, there still remains an absolute majority of those who have full rights to express their religious beliefs at the ballot box.

Why should they restrain from voting for the ban on divorces or practising pederasty (that is to say “homosexual intercourse”)? Why should they do so if they consider such rules to be moral and useful for the salvation of their human fellows’ souls as well as their own ones?

There are two possibilities. Firstly, we can acknowledge that the Catholic majority is actually entitled to such rights, which they don’t benefit from only because they are indeed unusually tolerant (in a traditional, Polish climate). But if they wish they can change their minds and then for the atheists and other pagans there’s no use counting on leniency. Alternatively, we can admit that it follows from the fundamental rule on which our contemporary democracy is based that no majority, not even 99% majority, can impose their religious rules upon the minority for the sake of a high ideal – that is the respect of individual rights – and for the sake of realism – that is the social order. As long as we treat liberal democracy with reverence we must opt for the latter alternative.

The question follows – what about the instantly noticeable privileges of the Catholic faith: religion lessons at school, crosses on the walls of public institutions, services with the participation of the Republic of Poland’s major civil servants held to celebrate bank holidays or laws inspired by the Church preaching?

‘Cool’ Secularity of the State

In Poland the rule concerning the separation of Church and State is treated even less seriously by our political class than the Catholic religion is treated by its followers. As the citizens baptise their children merely for the sake of peace of mind, similarly the politicians for the same reason consistently choose not to enforce the separation of Church and State. For the right-wing, predominating in Poland, this solution seems to be quite a convenient one.

Perhaps this painfully achieved ‘cool’ attitude towards secularity of the state is not any worse than the religious indifference mentioned before as we have managed to avoid a civil war since the year ‘89. Who cares for crosses or religious education classes? That’s it. Even if nobody cares, somebody should. The secular character of the country is either binding or it is not. If not, then we are barely separated from the ban on divorces or trading condoms (which are against the Church doctrine). We are merely separated from such bans by someone’s political will. Would people for whom those dictates and bans were an outright encroachment upon their freedom agree to them? What would happen to our Polish democracy? I dare to say – it could vanish.

This is not completely unlikely. We have come close to such possibility of imposing fundamentalists’ opinions as obligatory laws. We need to point out – not the majority’s opinions, but opinions of a politically effective minority. A situation like this took place during the recent stormy debate over abortion that ended with Marek Jurek’s group’s departure from PiS. Let us imagine that such a group shapes Polish law according to their beliefs. In the line with the practically accepted today doctrine of turning a blind eye and ‘cool’ attitude towards the rule of lay state, such solution appears possible by all means. Fortunately, not during the present term of the Parliament, though.

Unless one draws a clear line beyond which any majority, be it religious, ethnic or political, can impose its will upon the minority, consequences must be considered. Where the door is left ajar, somebody might always put their foot in and set it wide open.

Translation:
Magdalena Jermacz

Jerzy Buzek

The trouble is that Buzek  might become just a mascot, a prominent symbol of the end of the gap between two Europes. This could actually hinder the process of integration, which is more than perceptible in every aspect of life. Each argument concerning insufficient representation of the Mid-Eastern Europe’s interests in EU may be simply refuted by invoking Buzek’s case.

We spent a lot of effort on the fight for the chairperson. After months of negotiations our partners have finally agreed to the Polish candidate (Mario Mauro as a declared Catholic, for whom the European buffoon Berlusconi canvassed, had little chances for a broad support since the very beginning, especially for socialists’ support), but it is unlikely that they soon succumb to our next pressures. The price was high; whether it was worth it or not depends on Jerzy Buzek himself. It depends on Buzek, who seems to be conciliatory-minded, popular, always pertaining to the subject matter, even if not particularly famous for his political determination.

In Germany many people still do not know who Hans-Gert Poetering is; and his appointment was received with no extraordinary emotions. In Poland the whole campaign for the EP was run under the banner of Buzek. Therefore, the vote for PO became nearly a civic duty. However,  is it any good if we consider the fact that our amiable professor form Gliwice (during many months of being a candiadte to the most important function in EP) never mentioned the vision of Europe which he would like to make true as the chairperson of this organisation? The only factor that matters is his Polish identity. Enough is enough.

Sadly, a country with leadership amibitions (at least within its own EU region) cannot afford as much as pretending to understand what European interests are. The country doesn’t bother to make impression that it can, be it with hardly any conviction but at least rhetorically, take the floor to speak about matters concerning the entire EU. Without that, there is no chance to force our own postulates. Yet, here in Poland even the pro-European and liberal media couldn’t cross the charmed circle of wondering whether it is better to have Buzek as the head of EP or perhaps Lewandowski or Hubner holding an important portfolio in the Commission.

Admittedly, the function of the EP chairperson is a symbolic one; ther is no comparison with the half-dictatorial authority of the Speaker of the Polish Parliament, based on rules and regulations. Not neccessarily this must be a blame. EU, except for its economic dimension, is just a symbolic body – a project whose words, ideas and the Marxist ’superstructure’ often remain ahead of  ‘the centre’.

On the position of the chairman, Buzek will enjoy quite a remarkable freedom of expressing his opinions. It will be the greatest benefit for Poland if he manages to define Europe taking into consideration the interests of its Eastern, discriminated against, part. The first press conference, during which he spoke about Russia and human rights in China, looks promising.

To that aim, it is neccessary to master the language of European politics, which seemed to pose a probem for our representatives – thus far, that is to say. Excluding the late lamented Bronisław Geremek. Inflecting the word ‘Poland’ by all possible cases doesn’t do good the country in question. On the contrary, it shows that we are still ‘the worse’ – the ones who cannot see past the end of their nose within the common European project. Buzek should fulfill the vision of Europe – Europe, which is united, solidary, economically liberal, caring for human rights and leading common foreign, defence as well as energy policy.

Such a Union apparently agrees with the Polish interests. Why apparently? Because since our accession 5 years ago we still have not  achieved our Polish vision of Europe. Nor have we started a serious debate over it. The only thing we were able to fight for is a bundle of separate, disconnected and incoherent aims, such as Eastern Partnership, power industry and the resistance against the set of climatic laws. However, this is not a reservation about Buzek but rather about the entire political class. The class that has not managed to accept this vital, as far as Poland is concerned, challenge. The unability in question might be caused by laziness, the lack of intellectual qualifications or  the fear of being rejected by the electorate. To put it in a nutshell, this  problem is not ours.

Article was oryginally published in Liberte.pl and was translated to english by Magdalena Jermacz.

Photo comes from Wikipedia.

Inaugural Parade Ticket

Until now, right–wing Polish MP from Law and Justice party (PiS), Artur Gorski with his exotic political views was relatively harmless. “I always considered him as an harmless monarchist”, described him Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski. Unfortunately since Gorski decided to discredit Polish parliament describing new US President–Elect Barack Obama as a “black crypto-communist”, “the incoming catastrophe, the end of white man civilization”, he became extremely harmful.

Polish raison d’etat demands that Law and Justice – the biggest opposition party in Poland not only condemn these unacceptable words but also prove its commitment with firm actions. Our alliance with USA, not to mention basic principles of civilized societies can’t be compromised. Artur Gorski should be immediately expelled from Law and Justice. Otherwise one might suspect that his words, however widely criticized, are the element of party tactics to address most nationalistic groups in Poland that still cling to racist and anti-Semitic prejudices.

In recent days our country set an infamous record in alienating a new American administration. At first, Barack Obama was congratulated by Polish president Lech Kaczynski as a “President-Elect of the United States of North (sic!) America, then he was offended by racist remarks of Polish lawmaker, then, after a telephone conversation with US President-Elect, Polish president announced that Obama supports an anti-missile shield installation in Poland – only to deny these words the day after, because of American official contradiction.

There is no doubt that Poland thanks to such statements has not become a more reliable and convincing ally to the United States. Perhaps their only result is to make “Polish jokes” – American stereotypical jokes about Poles, harmless idiots, to be more convincing than ever.

Photo is licensed on Creative Commons and was taken by tony.eckersley