The show thus far of the race for the White House has certainly taken an ugly turn. The man best qualified for the post has dropped out of the race - Bernie Sanders. He is best qualified, because it appears that amongst all the candidates only Sanders is willing to bring some real change to the country and take on the establishment. There is evidence that at least partly due to the Democratic Party's rigged internal system Sanders is now not on the Democrats' ticket.
Now we are left with these two people on offer - Hilary Clinton on the left and Donald Trump on the right. This is truely a choice of the lesser of two evils. Voters who are old enough would still have difficulties in recalling when it was the last time that they were faced with such a hard choice.
To understand why this is a hard choice, one must first have a grip on the current problems of the country. Obviously, there are many social problems facing society today. To name just a few - poverty, inequality, gun control, security. However, one must not lose sight of the root cause to all these social problems facing the country, and more broadly the world today, i.e. globalisation.
Understandably, not everyone share the above view of globalisation. There are many who have benefited from it the last three decades. The problem is there are many more who are left behind and outside the door of globalisation. Inequality is the issue.
Back to our original issue. Who should you vote for, Clinton or Trump? The voters can only take their decision on the basis of what these two people have said and done in the past. First, Clinton is an insider through and through. She has been there for too long (read this as too intertwined with the vested interest of the establishment) to be able to bring any change. It's all business as usual for Clinton no matter what rhetoric she uses.
Next come Trump. A man who has a proven track record of labour exploitation, and relentless business dealings. He is a man who would say anything to get what he wants (read this as he has no principles and no ideology). Whatever later turns out to suit his best interest at the time, he would go back on his words without hesitation. You cannot trust this man for a single second, because he is trying to figure out every second how to make use of you.
Obviously, voters may also consider voting the Liberals or the Greens or not at all. If there are enough voters who decide to vote say the Greens, they may actually create enough momentum to bring about some real change to the present corrupted system. The problem though is it is a two party system and, any candidate from other than the two main parties stands a slim chance of being elected.
Come November this year, if you still care enough to vote my advice to you is - hold your nose and vote for Trump. Yes, he still is an invertebrate liar. However, hopefully the checks and balances in the ssytem will limit whatever damage he may be able to wreak. If he becomes the president, his business instincts would tell him that it works for him with his tactics. Don't forget - he is an unprincipled bloke. He would say whatever no matter he means it or not to get what he wants. But when it comes to reality, he would always take what's best for him, and by extension hopefully for the country.
Yes, indeed this is an interesting ride from now to November this year. Let the show roll on.
2016年7月28日 星期四
2016年7月27日 星期三
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
An autocracy's dilemma
A classic difficulty for any system is control and efficiency - the more control one has the less efficient will be the system. This is a millenia old dilema for any political system as well. There is a tendency for a part of the society that is lucky enough to rise up to the highest political echelon to retain that control as much as and as long as possible. A particular example is the Chinese Communist Party in the present day China.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
The dilema lies in the unsolvable difficulty in maintaining control over the system and keeping up with the efficiency of the system itself. As with other systems in general, a political system in order to survive must tackle with and solve the issue of economic efficiency of the system, i.e. the society over which it tries to maintain constant control. Without a sufficent level of economic efficiency, the marginal return on investment will stagnate and eventually diminish. Society as a whole will not be able to remain its productivity as a result of the lack of efficiency.
To keep up with that ellusive economic efficiency, an autocracy must loosen up its grips on the system economically at first and, subsequently up to certain point politically. However, the process of lossening up will undermine its much treasured control of the system. This would inevitably lead to the opening up of the political system, as in the case of Taiwan, or the demise of the antocratic regime itself. The CCP is presently subject to the dictates of its survival instincts - that is it is trying to retain its control and stifle any discontent as much as possible.
In doing so, the system itself would gradually become less and less efficient. The evidence for this is apparently the building up of the debt heaps. Now that the system is becoming less efficient, the autocratic control over it will become more difficult. The reason for this problem is - the energy of society which would have been diverted to economic activities would now be used against the very autocratic regime itself. As a result, more resources of the society will be used by the regime to maintain its control over the system, hence worsening the efficiency even further. A good example is the five-cents army of the CCP.
The other option for the autocrat will be to forego its control at all whatsoever. This is truely a choice between a rock and a hard place. The fact that the ruling echelon may continue to suck up the fats of the land is predicate upon the fact that, for example, the CCP continue to dictate the lives of billions of Chinese people. This is simply not an option open to them.
Historically, there has been no autocratic one-party system that has succeeded in solving this dilema between control and efficiency. The former Soviet Union is a good example. All the Chinese dynasties have been in a sense one-party systems and have all failed in the same way spectacularly. Therefore, at some point of its development the tension between control and efficiency would grow so severe as to break up the very fibrics of the autocrat's control once and for all. An autocratic system is indeed a very undesirable model for progress of civilization, because it lacks any linearity for progress. An autocratic system will inevitably make and then break and repeat the process again by another bunch of blokes.
The beauty of this dilema is so clear that it is almost as inherent in the nature of things as a physical law. All are subject to the dictates and effect of this dilema be it democracy or autocracy.
2016年7月8日 星期五
A mid-summer night's walk
A mid-summer night's walk
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
On once familiar path
To places long last passed
Vivid images reflected 'long the way
Old melodies reverb'rated all over 'gain
On the journey of life we march
Holding onto the remains of past
Which is slippin' 'way fast
It's yesterday once mo' 'n' future no mo'
~ In memory of the death of my past
2016年7月1日 星期五
The next PM
Who should be the next PM? For a start, the next PM will come from the Conservatives, unless the the Conservatives decide to call a general election. Of course, given the present divided state we find the Labours in, they may not want one at this point, either.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
Since the now famous Article 50 sets out the two year period in which the exit mechanism shall be completed, the new PM has to be someone who can unite not just a divided Conservative Party but also a disunited country in a relatively short span of time.
As the votes show, the leave supporters are roughly similar in number as the remain supporters. I reckon that nation wide there may be slightly more people in the remain camp than the leave camp. If that was not true before 23 July 2016, it certainly is the case now.
What this will mean to the new PM is from whichever camp she (yes, I mean she.) is to be selected, about half the country's population in the opposite camp may distrust her as well as those in the Tories. Without this trust and confidence, it would be hard for her to negotiate any new terms with the EU.
Say, if a leaver (if this is a proper term) becomes the next PM, the vindictive Europeans may tend to make it hard on the UK when it comes to negotiating new terms. Those in the remain camp may resort to foot dragging creating more difficulties and say we told you so before.
Bo Jo may have sensed this difficulties and realised that the water is still too shallow for a full plunge at this point. In any event, Bo Jo should probably never see his days as a PM. I confess that I am not a great fan of his. I do not admire his hairdo (if indeed this is a proper word). I suspect that it is not even naturally blond and someone should help him comb his hair if he is not minded to do so. Anyway, at this point he is perceived as having stabbed David Cameron in the back. His political allies may not forget and forgive Bo Jo so lightly. He is cunning enough to pull out now and bid his time.
That said, it may be more advisable to have a remainer (again my apologies for this term) as the next PM. She would probably receive more sympathy from the Europeans on negotiating new terms and understanding or benefit of doubt from either camp.
I just hope the UK will not see another Maggie Thatcher whose policies till towards the rich and have made the poor miserable. In short, this is indeed uncertain times. Just when the UK needs to have the most capable leader at the helm to steer the country out of troubled waters, it finds itself lacking exactly this.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)