Trust

"As this book should have indicated by now, the more one is familiar with different cultures, the more one understands that they are not all created equal. An honest multiculturalism would recognize that some cultural traits are not helpful in the sustenance of a healthy democratic political system and capitalist economy."

The above citation comes from the 1995 book Trust by Francis Fukuyama. Fukuyama says the neoclassical economy is to 80% correct. The rest is culture dependent. All individuals are created equal with human rights to match but then they end up in various cultures with different potentials.

I found this book when I arrived at the conclusion that I did not know how to increase trust in societies that lacked this. Fukuyama's book does not mention the Middle East as low-trust but well France and Italy that aspires to good relations with the low-trust North Africa and Middle East in the Club Med association. He does not have a recipe for increasing trust either.

The main message of the book is that familiarism countries, with low-trust to people outside the family, like China or Italy, does not produce such large corporations like high-trust countries like Japan, Germany and the US. These countries would then not have the same potential economically. China today seems to defy this rule, however. Perhaps they are compensating for high-trust outside the family with "systems" of people held together by fear?

Leading by example is in my opinion much superior to leading by fear. Protestantism offered a more individualistic situation for people that then could relate to each other rather than to an authority like the parish priest. The fear of God was not used as a motivation. God became someone you related to directly on a more equal basis than Catholics and Muslims.

If the high-trust outside the family has not passed the North/South divide in Europe it is not likely that it will spread to North Africa and the Middle East. Today we have a situation in Europe where Southern European countries are in worse economic shape than Northern states. It should be remembered in this context that the Western Civilization started in the Netherlands and England. Cultural factors then important for breaking the Malthusian ceiling could still be in operation.

As Fukuyama points out, the melting pot America have managed to unite around common values and principles but have recently performed worse in this context. Fukuyama speaks about individualism taking precedence. The EU project is in actuality not even trying with its divisive motto "united in diversity". Is this good or bad? Perhaps it all depends on how large the optimal size of a nation is.

Why did the people of Germany and France chose such different leaders?

Europe's 'Opposite Twins' Clash Over Future - WSJ.com: "In Paris, Mr. Sarkozy sometimes referred to the German chancellor as the 'woman from the East' during cabinet meetings, a spokesman let slip. Aides to the president say he was often frustrated because Ms. Merkel didn't show enthusiasm for his initiatives"

The cited article is a must read for anyone trying to understand the status of the current Europe. Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are so different that they might be able to collaborate just because of this but, of course, each leader have chosen an administration of people they get along with and these two teams have been fighting it out for a while now after the debt crisis of Greece.

Yesterday there was an article by Hans-Werner Sinn, apparently one of Germany's heaviest economists who writes for Project Syndicate, where he blamed president Sarkozy for the unnecessary bail-out on €750bn of the "Club-Med". Sinn does not agree but the political elite in Germany speak in terms of separating northern Europe from southern where they want to place France. Polls are down for both Sarkozy and Merkel but most worries are for Merkel whose coalition with FDP, that have gone from a 15% support at the election to 5% now, is in apparent danger. Bo-Inge Andersson at SVT claims the animosities are real between CDU and FDP.

Right now there is an ongoing process of establishing an economic government for the EU. According to observers, France and Germany differ in the proper understanding of what this steering mechanism actually would entail. The Economist reported a while ago that 50% of the people of France think capitalism is kaput vs. 8% for the people of Germany. The export machine of Germany is therefore running full steam while the French ponder what to do next.

I'm not sure but there might be a polarization in Europe on whether there will be more integration or not. Charlemagne made an interesting note on the difference between politicians in member countries and the Eurocrats in terms on how they value money. The Eurocrats anticipate a bright future with increasing revenue for their trade whereas the nationals worry on how to make ends meet, being the ones that actually are the bread winners.

The Day After the EU Summit

De Gaulle and Churchill have a message for Sarkozy and Cameron Timothy Garton Ash Comment is free The Guardian: "Simply put, Churchill concluded that Britain could no longer rely on France and must secure its own survival, security and, so far as possible, continued greatness, through a special relationship with the United States. De Gaulle concluded that French greatness must be restored through a fierce independence from the US, but also from Britain, and by finding partners on the European continent"

Well, Germany is apparently having their way so far which might be what Garton Ash means with a civil1940. I agree with Angela Merkel that it is better with a 27 country "economic government", whatever that will come to mean. After all Sweden would not be a part of Nicolas Sarkozy's Euroland government. I don't know what they mean with a two speed Europe though, talking about the Eurozone, because many of the countries outside the zone are in the high speed circle?

Watching the intense media hype around the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I have begun to wonder if it could alienate the US and the UK? There was a discussion of a vanishing "special relationship" even before this debacle. With Clegg aboard the British ship Cameron might steer the British government in the direction of the EU after all. Charlemagne believes that France and Germany will iron out a joint position after the dust of the debt crisis has settled, if it does.

A lot of people are tip toeing around the concept of an "economic government". Anders Borg, the Swedish Minister of Finance, believes this government must come from within the states. There is no way some little green guys in Brussels will helm the EU ship. The question then becomes how is this self reliance enforced. Borg was very reluctant to suggest remedies. The invisible hand? That magic which keeps the EU together whether its people wants it or not?

In my analysis the current fight in EU is between the people and the elites, or Eurocrats as some people call them. Merkel is more on the people's side than Sarkozy from the enarchic France. I wrote more, because the German people gives her a hard time recently for supporting the wealthy. The elites in Europe are negotiating and Merkel and Sarkozy are involved in some kind of political theater displaying these remarkable photographs of the dear old couple.

It was interesting that Dimitry Medvedev joined the fray on an American note and suggested that the Euro is in danger and that BP Plc might collapse. Estland is joining the club but Island is apparently not so interested anymore now when they recovered somewhat from their recession.

The other fight is between the economic system of the US and that of Germany apparently where the US is afraid of recession and Germany of inflation. President Obama has issued a statement where he warns Europe for risking the world economic recovery by their austerity. From the economic discussions available it seems like Wall Street and The City of London is in the same boat but that Germany and France are each in different vessels. That would give a continued Churchillianism but a partly broken Gaullism.

Europe Day--a day late for obvious reasons

Europhiles lead 'economic governance' calls on Europe Day EurActiv: "'The financial, economic and social crisis presently affecting Europe and the World needs decisive answers and demands urgent action,' warned the European Movement, a pro-EU integration campaign group, at the weekend."

They are not dead yet, apparently, the people hailing Shuman's speech 60 years ago that started all the EU fuss. People are now discussing what actually happened last night. Is it Sarkozy's economic government of his call from the French chairmanship of the EU? Is it an attempt of stabilization but no money down for the "lazy" Greeks? How much is left of the Maastricht Treaty?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, above at the Telegraph, writes that this weekend's deal demands even more belt-tightening from Club Med countries. Is the current crisis leading to more political integration of the EU or less? Most people seem to think that what we just saw was only temporary relief. Anders Borg, the Swedish Finance Minister, said something on the news that I interpreted as meaning Club Med countries have to tax themselves more if they are going to keep their social models. He did not seem to mean that they had lost their sovereignty. But then again what does more belt-tightening then mean. Evans-Pritchard suggests that a new state is forming in front of our eyes.

The timing of all this is interesting. Because this federalistic push takes place right at the British hung parliament where the Brown government does not want to commit themselves to something expensive Continentalish and Euroish. To their dismay they had to furnish £10bn for the "stabilization". The eurosceptic Britons, on the other hand, have their election right on Europe Day.

Angela Merkel, on her side, visited a military parade on the Red Square celebrating the demise of the Nazis on the same day as she lost an important election in North Rhine-Westphalia, the largest German Land with 18m inhabitants. Nicholas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi actually should have joined her but stayed home instead due to the financial crisis according to New York Times. Merkel, in my mind, reverted a little to her East German descent this week-end.

Taken together, all this probably point in an attempt for business as usual. Carl Bildt speak of taking the long term perspective and it does not seem like the French and the Germans have similar projects which cast some doubts over Europe Day.

Great Britain--Club Med--GPR axis?

A Franco-Italian axis in Europe? EurActiv: "An unusual Franco-Italian duo has emerged in recent weeks to influence EU decisions on everything ranging from aid to Athens to climate change, as Germany appears increasingly reluctant to take any new major European initiatives."

Apparently Silvio Berlusconi and Nicolas Sarkozy found each other in the recent debate on how to deal with the predicament of Greece. Together they forced Angela Merkel to accept a 5% interest rate for loans rather than the market level on approximately 7.5%. A subsidy according to the German voters and actually not allowed according to EU rules, thus an inkling of federalism despite the rulings of Germany's Constitutional Court.

New formations are being probed now in the wake of the Greek debt crisis. The English press now also discusses the German-Polish-Russian axis. We are talking about some 240m people, half of EU just counting GPR, with a large chunk of the European GDP. The question is if the appreciation of these new power divisions are already trickling down to the public in Britain since the EU and even Euro friendly Liberal Democrats are doing so well right now? A last minute attempt to catch the train? I would not be so sure myself though, since I don't think Russia has changed much since Georgia. Poland probably is in an unholy alliance where Scylla and Charybdis are preying on each other each with different thoughts in mind for the future? The EU project was much more of a sunshine story. My feeling is that Russia wants to politically control its former Soviet states but want EU to provide FDI. The recently elected Mr Yanukovich of Ukraine made his first trip to EU not the Kremlin despite being a Ukrainian that only speak Russian, not Ukrainian.

The Swedish Election debate should include a discussion on the new GPR reality. Sweden and Finland gave their blessings to the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, but probably not to Russia. Is Sweden reverting to a neutrality politics or are they entering into a new discussion on the earlier suggested security arrangements involving Russia. Dimitry Medvedev, the Russian president, have been wanting to bring these discussions up but have been discouraged by Hilary Clinton, the US State Department head. The uncertainty of the foreign policy of the Red-Green alliance due to 'Vänsterpartiet', the Left Party, might not mind such a development. Anders Fogh Rasmussen have even suggested that NATO should engage Russia in a missile defence against Iran. Where is Sweden on this not being a NATO member? Perhaps Russia and Germany are already so involved with each other on much of the regional development that NATO remains a simple paper tiger? In this case Merkel might soon pop the question if Sweden is in or out.

What about Britain then? Ross Douthat on the New York Times discuss the Tories in his latest column. The Tories are not really in bed with the American GOP, if I understand it correctly. What is important for the above discussion though is the relative euroscepticism of the Tories. David Cameron removed his party from the EPP group in the European parliament seemingly to distance himself from Sarkozy and Merkel. The move is part of the precipitation of the GPR axis. I have been trying to understand Cameronism, his "Big Society". It seems like it is more political philosophy than something practical that would bring Britain back in shape. Why would Big Society need Cameron? Politicians are taking care of the state, be it Small Government. Is he trying to say Popes and Politicians unite?

The 35 hour week?

There is an article by Gudrun Schyman of the party Feministic Initiative and of Carl Schlyter from the Greens that discuss the introduction of a 30 hour workweek without discussing the results of the French introduction of the 35 hour workweek in 2000 by Jospin's government. Martine Aubry, the present leader of the Parti Socialist, pushed the issue in Jospin's government as minister of labour.

It is interesting that France, that experimented with a 10 day week, decadi, 9 working days and one day of rest, during the French Revolution during 12 years was first with lowering the 40 working hours week. Indeed Napoleon changed back to a seven day week one year after becoming emperor due to the fact that it was to heavy on people working 9 days with one day rest. Six days work with one day off worked better, at the time. Must have been a popular decision? We have not seen the same enthusiasm in Europe this time around.

They write articles in Wikipedia on the 35 hour workweek and claim the conservatives don't like it while the left oriented parties favor it. This must be a fundamental dividing line then between the right and the left. I for one believe that man is built to work and that successively lowering working time for people like apparently the Sustainable Development Commission of the British government suggests is kind of depressive. The article claims that they want the Britons to take out productivity increases in lower working time rather than pay increases. It is interesting in this context that the British government acts against the recommendation by SDC-UK on nuclear energy and is building new reactors.

Exactly which workweek that is the optimal for a given population is of course a variable that can be tested and confirmed by research. However, this is quite an undertaking that would have to run over generations to assay medical effects on people and the results from the development of the economy. The 35 hour workweek law of France has been successively weakened so it seem like there might be a force bringing it back to approximately 40 hours. Furthermore, the number of jobs has not increased as a result of the law but people rather work harder while they are at work to compensate.

One argument in favor of maintaining the present 40 hour workweek is that many jobs are so difficult that they require long hours per week and that it is therefore necessary for employees to keep up for solidarity and team spirit. Our welfare depends on these jobs. I don't think we can sneak away from work and taking in cultural aspects very soon become work in the form of studies and would have to be counted as such. What is probably better is to arrange the society in a fashion that is more biological in that people differ in their ability to work and that it should be acceptable to work all kinds of workweeks. That, however, would challenge equality aspects of human enterprise.

The Red-Greens of Europe are coming?

Sarkozy Meets With Leaders of His Party After Defeat in Regional Elections - NYTimes.com: "There also was interest in the good showing of a coalition of green parties, known as Europe Ecology, which ran in third place a week ago and whose active support will be needed by the Socialists if they hope to win the presidency. The anti-immigrant National Front also ran well. The elections were disastrous for François Bayrou’s Democratic Movement party, which tried to position itself as a centrist alternative."

I guess it has finally happened. The awaited surge in social democracy after the financial crisis, that did not materialize as of yet, might be here. Together with anti-immigrant activity and a fright of the center. Perhaps Nya Moderaterna and the Social Democrats in Sweden are approaching a barren center ground? As in Sweden, the Greens are important. Maybe it will even save Labour in the UK in the soon to be elections?

Social liberalism won out in the US as well which I liked very much. President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi managed to secure 219 votes, of 216 needed, for the historic Health Insurance Reform. The tone of the soul of the US has been set in this mode and not in the Tea Party mode. It is a digital choice rather than a gradual spread. Huffington Post said about the win, Congress: Yes we can! There has be so much talk about the need for bi-partisanism that using a majority for a while seemed like pure sin.

It was probably good for the process to not rush the bill through and to have lots of discussion going on. It is apparently possible with democracy where the representatives have the voters wishes in mind rather than just react on the whip lashes like Fredrik Reinfeldt is pronouncing here in Sweden. For the sake of a favorable interest rate as he said in the Saturday Interview on the Radio program One. Democracy ceases to exist the minute we allow the market to direct our vote and mind.

Brazil is also against sactions for Iran

Soured Over Policy, Latin American Leaders Await Sessions With Clinton - NYTimes.com: "Brazil, which holds a rotating seat on the Security Council, has said it opposes further sanctions. It recently moved to expand its ties with the Islamic government in Tehran and has been a vocal advocate for engagement over isolation."

Brazil is doing more business with China than with the US at this point and this is a circumstance than would strenghten China's resolve to not vouch for stronger sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council.

Carl Bildt was visiting Brazil not long ago. He did not talk about it in his blog but one of his errands must have been the potential sale of JAS Gripen. The French seems to be best positioned with their Raphale. I guess it is of some importance where Brazil turns for their military aviation. France might be more independent of the US than Sweden, ponders perhaps Brazil? Personally I think we should fly the same as the Norwegians and enter NATO. However, we live in strange times. Some voices begin to sing the end of NATO.

A Greek Tragedy?

The Greek Tragedy That Changed Europe - WSJ.com: "Modern-day Greece may be just and wise, but it certainly has not had an ordered life. As a result, the great opportunity and wealth bestowed by European integration has been largely squandered. And lower interest rates over the past decade—brought down to German levels through Greece being allowed, rather generously, into the euro zone—led to little more than further deficits and a dangerous buildup of government debt."

Jan Björklund was interviewed by Tomas Ramberg yesterday in the program "Lördagsintervjun" and the first question he got was about the crisis with Greece in the Eurozone. His wavering answer made me wonder about the position (FP) has about the Swedish prospective membership in the EMU.

The article above is indicating that Greece and some other countries not really would have been candidates for the EMU and that we are looking at a situation where countries even might start to leave the Eurozone with for them dire consequences. The membership, they argue, gave Greece a too god credit score and let them borrow too much. The EMU, in other words, was bad for Greece and perhaps also for some other countries like Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Italy.

The article seems to paint a very gloom picture for the future of Europe and a potential break-up of the Union in a well off and a less well off region. If I understand this correctly Sweden and Norway would be in the well off area and thus perhaps benefit from membership mostly based on political integrational reasons. Another question to Jan Björklund would then be whether or not such political arguments still exist? Olle Schmidt says that the crisis in these countries is not the failure of individual states but of the monetary union. Schmidt also says that Sweden looses political influence staying outside something Anders Borg also said recently. Per Altenberg is another EMU-positive blogger.

However, Lars Calmfors (DN 15/1) discussed the matter and concluded that the only reason for joining the Euro would be a greater say in the political integration of the EU which is argued against in Tony Johansson's and Jonas Ljungberg's article. They claim the unified interest caused economical differences in the economy that prevents political integration. In my humble opinion then if other countries in the EU would pitch in, the question of political influence attached would arise.

There are, however, break-up tendencies for Europe as such that would argue for staying out of the EMU and that has fuelled a discussion about a Nordic Union. The Visegrad countries, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Poland tend to join forces now and then. We also have Great Britain that is fairly independent and where strong EU sceptical forces loom. Especially so if the Tories will win this years election which is probable. We have France with its recent discussion about its identity and its almost 50% subscription to the idea that capitalism is dead which makes it unique. It has also flirted with the so called Club Med formation around the Mediterranean. Germany is focused rather to the east and wants to develop Russia.

With recent developments it seems prudent to stay outside the EMU with Norway and Great Britain and await the possible recovery of the ailing states? For the non-economically knowledgeable person the political arguments for joining EMU seem to vanish by the day.

New Economic System in France?

Nicholas Sarkozy was among the first to complain after the financial crisis that there was no return to business as usual. An article in the last The Economist features a very interesting figure where the results of a poll with two questions is displayed.

The questions are: 1. "Government should play a more active role in owning or directly controlling major industries"; and 2. "Capitalism is fatally flawed and a different economic system is needed".

The SAAB and SAS situations in Sweden are partly involving this reasoning but I have so far not seen any discussion in the main media as to whether capitalism should be replaced and in this case to what.

France stands out with 56% on 1. and 42% on 2. Germany which is supposed to be the other half of Europe's engine think quite differently with 30% on 1. and only 8% on 2. Britain and the US have about the same, ie, 20% on each question. The poll was taken between July and September 2009.

Does this mean that France is half way out into something else and how is the discussions actually possible between Sarkozy and Merkel who actually spent some time on their own before meeting with the other chiefs of state today in Brussels? It is interesting in this context that Sarkozy have been influencing Herman van Rompuy to enter into a new debate on an economic government for Europe which was supposed to be discussed today. Britain and Germany are apparently not enthused because it would limit their freedom.

It is apparently enough with 20-30% on question 1. for governments to acquire car companies but what is going on in France with 56%? France is fairly high on environmental interest, 10% think it is very important, they are energy independent with some 75% nuclear energy, are they entering into a serious debate on sustainable non-growth economics?

From recent reading it seem like Germany is entering into a growth economy where they will develop East Europe and Russia. Germany and Russia might become like the US and China. This was the view given by Joschka Fischer a former foreign minister of Germany and a member of the Green Party. He seemed to indicate that France was not into his German-Polish-Russian axis.

With Britain in their economy which is heavily tied to that of the US and their "special relationship", their pending joint attack on Marjah, Afghanistan, and the US on the way to Asia, where does this leave France? I have to repeat that, half of the French think it is time to replace capitalism! Probably mostly the socialists which traditionally have been left-of-Lenin in Europe.

Further Integration of Europe?

Letter From Europe - U.S. Slights a Disunited Europe - NYTimes.com: "Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain is facing an election campaign. Besides, he has little interest in Europe. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany have supported the United States in seeking stronger sanctions against Iran. Apart from that, neither leader has shown great interest in pursuing the further integration of Europe that is crucial for making the bloc more united in defense and security policy."

Judy Dempsey paints a disheartening picture of the idiom "two is company three is a crowd". Joschka Fischer, a former foreign minister of Germany, says that Guido Westerwelle, the present foreign minister, wants to form an axis of Poland, Germany and France, the so called Weimar triangle. He himself thinks there should be an axis Russia, Poland and Germany instead that can keep Ukraine democratic. Fischer seems to mean that the future of Europe, or an Eastern oriented Europe, where France and Great Britain is left for themselves. In the middle of this Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, seems to think that there is only one Europe, but perhaps not, since President Obama does not want to show due to the disunity?

Then all of a sudden Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy pleasantly announce an integration document with 80 points on how they see further integration of central Europe possible. It is a ten year plan called the "2020 Agenda". Among other things it is meant that the number of College and Doctor's degrees is supposed to double at Franco-German universities during this time. Common school-books and simpler rules for Franco-German marriages are also planned. France is also going to support a seat for Germany at the UN Security Council.

Personally I believe in further integration of Europe, and to enter the current Swedish debate on whether or not Sweden should join the EMU, I do not believe Sweden needs further evaluations but should see this as a political decision. A Swedish referendum on the issue would produce a positive outcome according to polls right now.

What about the Dempsey-Fischer scenario? Well, Germany and Russia might very well continue doing business together but involving Russia politically in European affairs might not be such a good idea. I agree with Hillary Clinton's idea that a new security arrangement with Russia would just complicate matters. I guess Russia wants this for being able to shake off any attempts of letting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Both Viktor Yanukovich and Julia Tymoshenko are steps backwards for Ukraine and time will tell whether or not they will become European or Russian. Politically, I don't think Russia ever will become European.

Readers of Le Figaro don't want minarets either

Le Figaro - France : Faut-il interdire la construction de nouveaux minarets en France ?: "Faut-il interdire la construction de nouveaux minarets en France ?

30/11/2009 Mise à jour : 17:31 Commentaires 348 Votants 43293 Ajouter à ma sélection oui.73.76%.non.26.24%"

74% of readers don't want minaretes and there are 43,000 voters. This does not look promising.

Guido Westerwelle--German Foreign Minister

German foreign minister calls for Afghan withdrawal plan .:. newkerala.com Online News -151248: "Speaking on ZDF television
, he said, 'In the life of this parliament, we have to get sufficiently far with the concept of self-sustained security that a perspective for withdrawal comes into view.'"

I read an interview by Der Spiegel with Westerwelle where they claimed he was more into economics than foreign policy. Perhaps this is typical for the foreign ministers of today? The national policy is performed with the Chancellor function as with the US and Obama right now. The interview was 2/3 on economy and 1/6 on his homosexuality. The interviewers expected trouble with for example Iran where they dislike homosexuals intensely.

Westerwelle said he was content with the good relationship with France but wanted to work on the Polish. He said that it was important with good relations with neighbours. He did not mention the UK but quoted Churchill at one point "if two people share opinions on all questions, one of them is unnecessary". I guess he intends to have his own opinion relative the Chancellor.

I'm glad Germany has a finite perspective on Afghanistan. As I read the press currently, however, it might turn out to be very difficult to beef up security sufficiently for a withdrawal soon without complications. It seems it is going to be the least bad alternative of two possible: staying or leaving.

Obama--America's first non-transatlantic president?

'America's first Pacific president' - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com: "Trying to reassure allies and rivals, President Barack Obama billed himself Saturday as 'America’s first Pacific president,' promising the nations of Asia 'a new era of engagement with the world based on mutual interests and mutual respect.'"

So, it is finally said. President Obama, born in Hawaii, is the first President that is going to put focus on Asia. We have seen it already. He did not surface at the 20th anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin wall. While the US makes money in China, Indonesia and India, the EU have to fight in the stone desert narco state they call AfPak. Almost in Asia as well.

It might just be more historic than most EU citizens may think. I can't help remembering the dismal report that was published by the EU Observer the other month about the fate of EU. There was for example the possibility that an occasional eastern state might become ruled by organized crime. Romania is currently looking in the danger zone. That's correct. All the top guys in the US are now on the Asia portfolio. The talk about the special relationship between the UK and the US shrivelled. This is indeed change.

Actually I don't believe in this new romance. I have said it before. Europe and the US belong together. Japan, China and India each are something very different. However, at the same time as America goes Pacific Europe is fragmenting in the parts delineated during the 18th century in philosophy. The Germans just played along until they were unified. Now they are on their own again. So is France. So is the UK.

The question is if Obama is getting the same response from Asia as he got from the Muslim world? I read somewhere that he wanted to lead. He will probably get the same response as he got from Germany on that one. If I have understood this correctly, no one wants to be led by the US.

I saw this coming but I'm still disappointed. I hoped for a transatlantic focus on essentials. We could have taken it to the next level.

Which peoples do Swedes want to talk to?

I was curious about the statement yesterday in the radio about the low interest in German in Swedish schools. In 2006 2484 students took French in 7th grade i "Grundskolan" in so called free schools, according to scb.se. 4980 students took Spanish and 1651 took German. In commune schools the number of students with French, Spanish, and German was 18,386, 41,023, and 25,360, respectively. I guess I should say that it sounds improbable that Germany educates more than 27,000 Swedish students on the university level per year even if Germany has almost ten times as many citizens. And these students spoke clearly understandable Swedish after one year of study.

Adding up these numbers 93,884 should give the total number of students in 7th grade since all students must take a so called B-language. This number is in all probability correct since approximately 100,000 people are born and dies respectively in Sweden per year. Percent wise this gives for French, Spanish, and German 22%, 49%, 29%, respectively.

Maybe Spanish is so popular because there are a lot of Spanish speaking immigrants? The description in the Grundskolan manual states that there is an extensive literature in Spanish. They tried to motivate people to study German because they are not so fond of learning English in German-speaking countries. When I went to school, around 1970, there was no Spanish, only French and German. It is good that Jan Björklund is going to start the English education already in first grade. This will lead to a genuine knowledge of English in the absolute majority of people.

Religious Humanism a branch of sociology?

Aguste Compte (1798-1857) an engineer and former Catholic founded the scientific discipline of sociology as an attempt to heal France after the revolution. He claimed man had descended down the religious, the metaphysical and the scientific pathways. France and the enlightened world was now in the scientific phase.

Sociology was science on mankind and not far from this Compte ended up introducing a new religion as well thus making a breach with his development scheme for mankind. Svante Nordin writes in his book Filosofins Historia, 2003: "This would happen since science would be the new society carrying religion and the new priests would be scientific experts and reformers".

Today we have new developments in social psychology and sociology that makes it possible to stress the likelihood of such a religion forming. In Compte's day the religion actually started up but was in France depending on his persona. It, however, took a firm hold in Brazil where it can be found still today.

My version, with a materialistic God concept, is not in such a rush as Compte's was. It took 300 years for Christendom to be accepted in the Roman Empire. Francis Bacon, the prophet, spoke around 1600. Science would revolutionize the world and liberate mankind. Compte, another prophet, spoke only less than 200 years ago.

Recently science made possible the reading of thoughts. This event will probably be a milestone on the way to Religious Humanism--depending on how the finding is presented to mankind. There is a risk of science backfiring creating an urge to a returning to the land, a fright of civilization, following bad management. I guess this is why the debate on integrity is so important.

The First European Era of Sweden?

Due to the fact that doctorates could not be received in Sweden but rather warranted that the student spent time abroad, an era in science that was internationally competitive was created. Hopefully we have entered a new such phase with the EU. We are talking about the so called "Frihetstiden", or era of freedom, in the Swedish history, i.e., 1718 to 1772, from the death (murder?) of the warrior king Carl XII, and the collapse of the Great Power Status of Sweden, to the coronation of Gustav III.

Tore Frängsmyr claims in his book, Svensk Idéhistoria from 2004, that the first half of the 18th century ushered in a utility culture in science that led to the establishment of the Science academy 1739, "Vetenskapsakademin", modelled after the Royal Society of London from 1660.

Apparently this challenge in utility imported from England back fired somewhat and did not create a significant enough pay off and was replaced gradually during the latter half of the 18th century with French enlightening, although the interest in the radical parts of this movement was not embraced. Rather the Swedes lost themselves in mystical matters of the type Swedenborgianism.

This demonstrates the danger in a too forceful promotion of the practical aspects of science. Frängsmyr does not mention the great Anthony van Leeuwenhoek that for the first time saw microbes and mammalian cells in his microscope and that was a member of the Royal Society. This was of course a real eye opener in science. Sweden did not build up an interest in the microbial world and excelled in the more macroscopically descriptive botany of Carl von Linné. What we today call medicine was standing still for the entire 18th century in Sweden until 1801 when Edward Jenner's 1796 discovery of the cow-pox vaccine was introduced. Carl Wilhelm Scheele should be mentioned as a forerunner in European chemistry in the hunt for the element oxygen.

Still Sweden was better internationally in science than we were in industrialization during the 18th century. Both an attempt of Jonas Alströmer to start a textile factory and Mårten Triewald to start a steam engine failed and Sweden remained in agriculture only except for the iron business.

Sweden was mainly influenced by the German philosopher Christian Wolff, a rationalist inspired by Leibniz. Even the Church took up wolffianism to fight the modern world with its own weapon. Wolffianism meant that one uses mathematical type deduction for all kinds of problems. The empiricist John Locke was also influential but his influence on Swedish culture is not elucidated formally according to Frängsmyr. Immanuel Kant who fused rationalism with empiricism became important during the so called "gustavianska tiden" 1772 to 1809. However, his tacit support for the French revolution made him look suspicious in this paranoically repressive era. Wolffianism is believed to have inspired the thoroughness of Germans which we just might have inherited as well.

The four Estates ruled in Sweden during the so called "Frihetstiden" after the disastrous rule by Carl XII. However, there was no real freedom of religion, the press or speech. A new law for the freedom of the press was enacted 1766 as an expression of the enlightenment. The question is how this period reflects in the absence of a revolutionary mood in Sweden at the time?Frängsmyr does not mention any influence from the American revolution which did have a positive outcome rather than the disastrous French ditto? He did claim however, that the Swedish 1809 constitution is modelled on the separation of powers of Montesquieu.

Happy Columbus Day everyone!

Post German Election--The Continent Starts to Move?

France and Germany unite to push Britain to EU sidelines - Times Online: "Joschka Fischer, a former German Foreign Minister, said the Franco-German axis had to come into its own again whatever the fate of the Lisbon treaty. “The centre of gravity of Europe can only be Paris and Berlin,” he told Le Monde last weekend. “Britain has decided to stay on the edge. Italy is . . . Italy. Poland has a way to come. Spain is buried in deep crisis.”"

In The New York Times Roger Cohen writes:

"This Germany is more nationalistic, more evenly poised between Washington and Moscow, cool to the point of disinterest about the European Union, self-absorbed and self-satisfied, dutiful but unenthused about the NATO alliance."

This is post financial crisis stuff where Sarkozy and Merkel have come together on bonuses and tax-havens. I took a look at Gordon Brown's speech the other day and thought it was good. He made a good case for Labour rather than the Tories. However, he was facing severe criticism from many corners and the overall feeling is that he, and the UK, will be essentially gone for a year pending the election next spring. On top of this the Tories are very EU sceptic and has left the EPP in the EU parliament.

Well, Ireland is voting on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow.

Principal Civilization Change--as the change we need?

Derek Shearer: Obama's America: What Is Economic Growth For?: "There has been too much talk of 'bending the cost curve' and not enough talk about how a decent country should treat all of its citizens."

Shearer, who is a former US Ambassador and now a Professor of Diplomacy at the Occidental College brings up the report from Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi from the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress and hopes that Sarkozy will distribute it at the Pittsburg G20 meeting. It is along the same vein as the GPI measurement that I discussed the other day.

He also regrets that president Obama did not bring on a more reformist group of economists. He chose Larry Summers, Timothy Geitner and Christina Roemer instead of Joseph Stiglitz, James Galbraith, Paul Krugman, and Barry Bluestone.

I have asked earlier for a real development in the Western Civilization that would take us to the next level of existence and set an example to follow for the developing world that perhaps even could make a short cut in their own development in order to save resources on the planet. The above might be worth considering.

Turkey and the EU and US?

Obama Gets High Marks in Europe, but U.S. Foreign Policy Is Less Popular - WSJ.com: "Turkey seems increasingly distanced from both the EU and U.S., despite Mr. Obama's trip to the country in April. Only 3% of Turks say the U.S. should be their country's 'major international partner.'"

Turkey's relationship with Iran is good, however. And the seaways for Russia out of the Black Sea are more secure than ever. Turkey then has to be called the most rebellious NATO country? The Turkish military might still be in NATO but the Turkish public seems to have left it.

41% of Americans think that the joining of Turkey with EU would be "a good thing" but only 12% of French and 16% of Germans do. The Europeans think of the problems of integrating Muslims in Europe which is not a problem for the Americans who mainly think of security.

Well, of Obama personally is popular but the war in Afghanistan is not, this might mean that Europeans still hope the US will retreat from Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai has just faked himself passed the 50% level and won the election to little ovations. There is no legitimacy for him as a leader for Afghans. Obama faced his nation tonight with his speech to the Congress but did not bring up the Afghanistan problem. What a scoop for everyone, and for ObamaCare, if he just decided to leave Afghanistan.