Thoughts on the Air Strikes

In wake of the recent UK Parliamentary decision to extend the airstrikes against Daesh/IS to the region of Syria; I think it is important to share some thoughts regarding the situation. Firstly, I’d like to state that I do not have the time nor the effort to deal with the level of unnecessary abuse towards David Cameroon. Speaking from a fundamentally left position on both economics and social issues; I find it extremely disturbing and ultimately believe it to be detrimental to blame Cameroon. People who want to discuss the issue, on a serious level, should not be shoving their political preferences down the throat of the masses, this is not what the debate is about. I do not care who you vote for; this is a question of morals and pragmatism. Further, its borderline ironic that Corbynites are engaging in hate speech, when during the newly appointed Labour leader’s first Conference speech; he preached honest politics, with particular emphasis on an anti personal attack approach.

The House of Commons voted to extend airstrikes to Syria

On the issue, more fundamentally, there are several key facts that need to be appreciated. For example, the nature of the debate is, objectively, both entirely complex and yet fundamentally simple. Wherever one lies on the political spectrum in the UK; whether it be left, centre or right, we all wish the same end; the defeat of Daesh. Now, the complexity lies in the fact that there are multiple different means in which this can occur; each with varying degrees of effectiveness. When debating this issue recently, I found myself to be on the ‘anti airstrike’ team. However, the multi dimensional nature of the ‘means’ debate, coupled with its deeply emotional roots, results in myself, and I'm sure plenty of others, remaining undecided.

The recent attacks in Paris are the latest in a long list of deadly IS operations

I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to several criticisms of the airstrike operation which I deem to be both unfair and borderline absurd. Make no mistake, Daesh/IS, are a cult of death. Every single member and soldier wishes nothing less than to murder, in enormous numbers, as many western civilians as possible. Further, this organisation, terrorist network, is entirely unpredictable. We can not second guess where the next target, attack or massacre will take place; as we learnt so devastatingly through the brutality of the attacks in Paris only several weeks ago. The very nature of the operation itself; a central concentration of power dispersed around the region of Iraq/Syria, and most probably other states, communicating with individuals and groups of empathisers across the entire world is extremely complex to handle. However, for this very reason, action must be taken to contain the situation. You cannot bomb an ideology to death; but you can weaken its means of inspiring. ISIS are a threat to the way in which we live, the ideals we aspire to and the people we love and care for. This is a monster which will not show mercy. Military technological advancements mean that precise and target based operations can function in such a way that as little collateral damage as possible is caused. Although it is foolish to believe that innocent lives are not at risk; certainly, when bombs are dropped from 10s of thousands of feet. Further, it is worth pointing out that the largest thereat ISIS posses to any particular groups of people is the religion it claims to represent; Islam. 

Jihadi John epitomises the 'Cult of Death' which is Daesh

The functioning of ISIS is built around, in my opinion, two fundamental goals; to polarise and mobilise. Both of these objectives are, of course, inherently linked. The extent to which ISIS can polarise members of the Islamic community, so that they result to following extremism, will of course affect the ability of the organisation to mobilise potential followers. The Charlie Hebdo killings failed on both these grounds; the attacks caused the western world to unite, and the Paris assaults furthered this, as shown by the fact that there is unanimous agreement on the United Nations Security council, that action must be taken against ISIS. The risk, however, lies in whether or not the Islamic world, who are against ISIS, will support the airstrike policy of the West. Even if the airstrikes are a success; and we defeat Daesh, we risk antagonising and creating a vacuum whereby another organisation, perhaps an even more brutal equivalent, can rise and seize power. 

My biggest fear, about the entire situation, is the potential alienating of large groups of innocent peoples; i.e. followers of Islam across the world. ISIS is an extremist group, proclaiming to operate under the guidance of Islam. But, they couldn't be less similar. In the same way that the Klu Klux Klan ought not be associated with any values held by regular followers of Christianity; we must understand the enormous disparity between the values that IS hold and general practicers of the Islamic faith. Fear politics is in danger of corrupting the minds and conscience of all in the West. The people fleeing from Syria, including many children, are innocent; they do not need to be made victims in this situation, it’s bad enough that they have had to flee the comfort of their own home. Aside from there being powerful economic arguments for encouraging refugees to live in Britain, we are obliged, morally, to welcome as many of these peoples as we can possibly handle.. Myself, and the majority of others, are fortunate enough to live our daily lives with little or no concern about our security and well being. The average ‘man’ on the street is not hostile; we appear to live in a largely hospitable country. The values we proclaim to live by; liberte, egalite, fraternite, ought to guide us into welcoming our arms. Further, by embracing many of these refugees we are, perhaps, instilling a policy which is likely to be more effective in countering IS. We need not polarise and alienate these people so that they turn to desperate extremes; we must offer a helping hand. 

The attacks in Paris have united the Western front

Ultimately, as demonstrated by the above rhetoric, I am entirely undecided. On the one hand, I want the complete destruction of ISIS, but the risks of potentially doing ISIS’ job for them, alienating large sectors of the Islamic community terrifies me. This debate appears to split people, in many ways. But one noticeable cleavage it creates is the so called Idealists v. practitioners of pragmatic politics. On the one side, the idealist believes that we can handle the situation created by IS through entirely peaceful means; working with the people on the ground, understanding the demands of the innocent, who are most at risk, in all Syria, Iraq and the entire region. The practical political points towards several different facts however. The West, including Britain, prior to the Commons vote on Wednesday, were already bombing IS strongholds in Iraq. In this sense, the real politic perspective might ask; why not increase the bombing? Further, the fact that we are dealing with an inherently facist group, which wishes to disposes us of everything we cherish so dearly, forces us to be aggressive. Over all, this is a debate which will not go away, and will continue to be at the forefront of not just British politics, but the international political arena, for many a time to come. 

Thoughts on the General Election - April 9th, 2015

Thoughts on the UK General Election - April 9th, 2015

The race is hotting and the contest is getting tighter. At this stage; we’ve had a televised interview/debate between Labour leader Ed Miliband and Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party. Last week, 7 of the major leaders came together to debate and discuss topics ranging from the future of the National Health Service, the British economy and potential changes in British immigration policy. The aim of this piece is not to attempt to second guess the outcome of the election, but more to offer a personal perspective on the issues at hand. In that sense, it is not written with the aim to try to imagine or estimate potential effects of certain parties and their policies. It is more a collection of thoughts and feelings on the current situation. 

For reasons varying from my current physical position, writing this in Buenos Aires, and also my fortunate economic and social position of belonging to the most fortunate 10% of the economy; the heart of this election feels very distant. Discussions of University fees, Immigration reform, the future of the National Health Service and employment don't necessarily affect my wellbeing in the same way that they have a major impact on the wellbeing of others. For this reason I feel a very non personal connection to the topics at the very heart of this election. Take, for example, the current issue of immigration in Britain. Luckily for me, no immigrant arriving in the UK is a threat to the employment of my parent. Being a respected, credited and specialised teacher, it is highly unlikely that the wage competitiveness of an immigrant offers enough incentive for students of my parent to switch their demand. Furthermore, the wage competitiveness of most working immigrants who arrive in the UK results in cheaper labour when our family requires it. In this sense, immigration is not only not a threat, but actually an advantage. However, I am conflicted. This election has torn me, in one sense, creating a paradox between my personal feelings and my academic beliefs. As a student of politics and economics it is extremely difficult to create a synthesise between my personal beliefs and my political ideas. The issue of Mansion Tax offers an interesting example of this. Politically and economically I am inclined to believe that progressive taxation and the subsequent redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is a good thing. Social inequality poses one of the greatest threats to our current socio-economic harmony; it can tear us apart and divide us. In an economics essay I am more than likely to argue heavily in favour of Mansion Tax. However, the realisation that a vote for Labour might  cause a percentage of my friends having to relocate and experience drastic changes to their lives creates a personal dilemma. It is not as easy, perhaps, as merely voting for who your head tells you. 

What I actually find most interesting about the General Election this year is how contested it is. It is a credit to the pluralist nature of the British political system that seven parties; the UK Independence Party, the Green Party, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrat Party, the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru all stand a reasonable chance of featuring heavily in the leadership of the next British parliament. It is becoming almost certain that the result in May will be that of a Hung Parliament; no outright winner. The hotly contested nature of the race has encouraged the British people to become further involved in the issues. Personally, I don’t resent UKIP, to nearly the same degree as others for the sole reason being that their controversial policies have not only tested the strength of the other parties on their policies and leadership but it has also brought lots of attention to the General Election. Of course, I have academic issues with UKIP, notably the potential alienation and scapegoating of economically and socially beneficial members of our society; immigrants. This causes social unrest and divisions which are not healthy for economic progression and also for the security of the British people. However, there is no denial that UKIP have offered a threat to the potential domination of Labour and the Conservatives following the poor support for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Surely it is an inevitable result of a truly pluralist democracy for their to be multiple and varying beliefs and ideas on policies? In that sense, blind criticism of some parties’ beliefs is hypocritical; assuming that those objecting also do not wish a more elitist democracy. In the United States; a voter chooses between the lesser of two evils, at least in the UK there is more choice of evils. 

The Scottish Referendum of 2014 was a crucial turning point in the sense that it proved that the British people do indeed care about politics. The criticism that people were apathetic, uninvolved and disinterested was dramatically refuted. Voter turnout for the Scottish Referendum was around 84.5%, a new record, and a total of 80% of young people voted. I hope that this positive trend continues and that the UK General Election will boast a high voter turnout. The coverage of the election, not just by news outlets and analysts, but also on social media imply that British politics is not necessarily as dead and buried as previously thought. The British people want to take matters into their own hands, which is only a positive thing. 

QE to the rescue?

With the economy of the European Union becoming more and more stagnant, Mario Draghi, the Head of the European Central Bank, has announced intentions to introduce Quantitative Easing. The plan includes injections worth up to €1.1 trillion, with € 60bn per month until the end of 2016. Before attempting to understand whether or not this policy will be effective, it is necessary to define QE. The theory is as follows: the Central Bank, in this case the European Central Bank, creates money in order to buy bonds from financial institutions. As a result of this, long term interest rates are reduced which therefore leads to a decrease in the cost of borrowing for businesses and individuals. This increase in borrowing allows more money to be spent and also more investment to occur which results in economic growth. Furthermore, there are two distinct types of economic growth which need to be considered; firstly, short term aggregate demand growth which is any change in the following - Consumption, Investment, Government Expenditure, or the extent to which export revenues exceed import costs. Secondly, growth can occur following an improvement in aggregate supply, a term which is harder to define. Aggregate supply can be described as; the total supply of goods and services produced within an economy at a given price level. However, it is perhaps more easily understood as the combination of human, physical and social capital. Human capital measures the skill level and health of all individuals and their ability to reach their productive maximum; physical capital is the totality of factories, transportation systems and machinery which produces more consumer products and, lastly, social capital is the consideration of the ability of institutions to counter corruption and lead to the productive potential of the economy. 

Head of the ECB - Mario Draghi

Now that terms are understood, let us consider some effects of heightened QE in the EU. Quantitive Easing was first used by the Bank of Japan in the early 2000s and resulted in extreme depreciation of the currency. This is when when the value of one currency falls relative to the value of other international currencies. In other words, a currency becomes cheaper and therefore export volumes tend to augment because foreign buyers now have higher purchasing power. Following currency depreciation, an economy’s balance of trade tends to improve and therefore economic growth occurs. Following the financial crisis in 2007/8, the United States and the UK began to adopt QE policies. It is important to note that Quantitive Easing is a form of monetary policy. QE tends to be considered a last resort to stimulate spending if interest rates are so low that they can not be brought down any further. Economist, John Maynard Keynes described this process as ‘pushing on a piece of string’. By late November 2008, the US Federal Reserve began to purchase $600 billion in mortgage backed securities and by March 2009 the Reserve held $1.75 trillion of bank debt. It was not until the 19th June 2013 that Ben Bernanke, the head of the US Federal Reserve, decided to begin the process of tapering QE. It is difficult to evaluate whether or not QE has been successful in the US. Firstly, there is no debate that the American economy is performing very well. 2014 closed with unemployment figures down to 5.6% compared to a high 9.6% in 2010. However, the extent to which high levels of QE has caused this recent strong economic performance is questionable, as there are many other factors to be considered that may have contributed. Furthermore, the extent to which the success of QE is to replicated in Europe offers further thought and debate. 

Former Head of the US Federal Reserve - Ben Bernanke

In the context of the European Union QE could potentially cause several economic problems. Firstly, and perhaps most obvious, is the issue of inflationary pressures. When the money supply increases in any economy, so do inflation pressures. Inflation creates its own problems, notably that it causes both negative expectations and low confidence from both internal and external economic agents. For example, if inflationary pressures occur in the EU, in countries such as Greece, this is likely to cause foreign investors to withdraw their money. Politically, the introduction of QE and the resulting inflation is a very sensitive issue in Germany. Hyperinflation in Germany during the years of the 1920s has resulted in an entrenched fear of the economic phenomena. Given Germany’s strong influence on all political and economic matters in the EU, the introduction of QE might be an indication of a shift in power. Furthermore, poor economic performance in Germany over the last year has perhaps resulted in a political willingness from Merkel to work together with the EU members. There appears no doubt that most member countries of the EU desperately need a ‘kick start’ to their economy which QE might offer. 

The relationship between economic inequality and QE must be analysed. The theory states that lower interest rates will result in higher borrowing and therefore an increase in consumption and investment. However, there are several assumptions. Firstly, individuals and businesses lack confidence due to the shock of the economic recession in 2007/8 and the resulting austerity. Workers are more fearful for their job security and therefore any increase in their borrowing will be towards keeping a healthy savings level rather than merely purchasing. More importantly, businesses also lack confidence to take risks with their investments. Further, there is currently a lack of investment opportunities for large corporations. As a result of this, they may not spend the money they receive as a result of QE. This refusal to spend and instead merely ‘hoard’ the additional money results in a further rise in inequality. Inequality causes several problems; social, political and economical. 

Lastly, the difference between QE in the US and the EU is as follows; in America people are willing to help each other out and there is both factor and labour mobility. Factor and labour mobility means that resources can be easily moved to where needed. For instance, if there was a shortage of jobs in Kentucky, people could easily move to a state where there were job opportunities. Whilst Californians are more likely to agree to help their fellow Americans in the state of New York, members of different EU nations are not. Deep political boundaries exist; due to the recent history of the continent, for instance Germany and Poland do not see eye to eye on most political values. This fact becomes more significant when one appreciates the lack of convergence and similarity in economic progress between different nations in the EU. For instance, policies which will help the current problem in Greece, a debt ridden nation, will not necessarily enhance economic performance in France or Germany. Whilst there is also dissimilarity in economies between states in the US, the willingness of the people to help each other and be mobile counter acts this. Until the EU is united on more than merely monetary policy; and agrees on fundamental political, social and economic principles than any policy will find it difficult to improve the current poor economic performance.

Additional Reading: 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2015/01/ecb-and-qe?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/osborne-audit-what-have-we-learned

The Case For Morality

‘The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living’ Socrates

Philosophy, as a study, teaches its fair share of valuable life skills. Above all, however, is the way the subject demands one to constantly question pre-established beliefs, views and intuitions. So often we brand individual acts as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ without proper understanding whether these ‘values’ even exist. We watched, blamed and accused everyone in Al Qaeda as ‘terrorists’ and ‘evil people’ without fully contemplating whether or not anyone or anything can truly ever be ‘evil’ or indeed ‘wrong’. For, presumably, punishment for wrong acts and awards for ‘right’ behaviour is only logical if these values exist in the first place. The purposes of this piece, is to discuss, debate and evaluate the extent to which moral realism, the view that moral values exist, is logically coherent. 

To be a moral cognitivist is to believe that moral values exist and are knowable. On the other hand, to be a moral non-cognitivist is to believe the opposite; that moral values do not in fact exist and subsequently they cant be known. Here, we will discuss the metaphysical debate at hand; that is whether moral values exist, as oppose to whether these moral values are knowable. There are three cognitivist positions which we will discuss in turn; firstly moral values as transcendental, moral values existing as natural properties and lastly, moral values existing as non natural properties. 

Greek philosopher Plato first argued that moral values are real in the sense that they are transcendental. By transcendental, I mean existing in a spiritual form. Plato's philosophical argument for this is greatest understood following a consideration of his theory of the Forms. Plato argued that there existed; in a spiritual sense, a realm of Forms where everything existed. Plato had several justifications for this. Firstly, he argued, that it was perplex how one recognised a circle to be non-perfect without ever seeing a perfect circle, for it is often argued by many that a perfect circle is merely an ideal and something which isn't often experienced through ones senses. However, for Plato, this recognising of imperfection without ever having experienced perfection showed that there existed a ‘perfect circle’ in some spiritual sense, which Plato branded ‘the Form of the Circle’. Plato further argued that humans recognise things in so far that they correlate with the Form that they belong to. For instance, how do we know that Golden Retrievers, Labradors and Poodles are all different modifications of dogs? Plato would argue that they all possess characteristics that, are, in some way, part of the Form of the Dog. Continuing from this reasoning, Plato believed moral values to exist in the same way. For an act to be considered wrong it must participate in the Form of Evil. 

Plato - 'All Philosophy is fontnotes to Plato'

However, the metaphysics of Plato’s theory has several holes. Firstly, Plato is a rationalist; he believes that knowledge is gainable through pure reasoning and no sense experience. Rene Descartes, in Meditations, another Rationalist, argued that the senses ‘deceive’ and that they cant be trusted as a result. For instance, how can one be sure that they are not dreaming? Or how can one know that they are not being deceived by a malicious demon? Scientists, however, and empiricists argue that all knowledge is gainable purely through sense experience; that is through the use of ones ears, mouths, touch, vision etc. Therefore, for scientists such as J.L.Mackie, nothing can exist if it is not preliminarily explained via sense experience. Therefore, Plato’s metaphysics fails, because the Forms are not able to be experienced through ones senses; as they are non physical and exist in an entirely separate, distinct, spiritual realm. Along with Mackies criticism, we can use also use arguments offered by Aristotle, Plato’s student. Aristotle argued that Plato’s reasoning is logically incoherent because presumably there must be a Form of the Form of the Circle and a Form of the Form of the Form of the Circle and so on. In this sense it is simply illogical and utter philosophically wrong. Based on these counter arguments I’m not going to consider moral values existing as transcendental beings. 

Next, however, is the belief that moral values are identical with natural properties. A natural property is one which is explainable through science and therefore sense experience. On these grounds it bypasses the criticism given by both Mackie and Aristotle. Utilitarianism is the belief that the morally ‘good’ thing to do is the one which brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. For example, if one has the opportunity to bring happiness to 2 people at the expense of the other; than they must choose the two. Therefore, on the this basis moral values exist in the sense that they are identical with natural properties. Presumably, no one denies that these natural properties exist and therefore moral values do exist in so far that natural properties exist.

However, G.E. Moore offers a hammer blow counter argument to this belief. Moore argues that if one was to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number and therefore did the ‘good’ thing, it would still make sense logically to ask whether or not this outcome was ‘good’. Consider, Hitler and the Nazis, hypothetically of course, were victorious in the Second World War. Through their pursuit of World domination they destroy all in their path who argue against their beliefs. Now, once this purge is over, everyone left in the World will belong to the Nazi party and therefore will be happy as they have received the outcome they wanted. Therefore the greatest happiness for the greatest number has been achieved and as a result moral goodness has also been achieved because Goodness = greatest happiness for the greatest number according to the moral cognitivist. However, G.E.Moore argues that in this circumstance it still makes sense to question whether there is any goodness in what has happened and as a result of this making logical sense it cant possibly be the case that goodness=happiness for the greatest number. Furthermore, Moore argues on logical grounds that goodness = happiness is incoherent because the two words don't mean the same thing. In philosophy if the truth value of a sentence is contained within the words of the sentence than it is tautological truth. However, Moore argues that the sentence goodness = happiness is not a tautology and therefore the two words don't mean the same thing. Therefore, moral values as natural properties fails on these two accounts. 

Frege

Although, there is a counter argument to the above point. Philosopher, Frege, argues that philosophical debates over pure semantics, that is language, is foolish to some extent. Frege uses the example of Plato’s two moons; hesporus and phosophorus. Plato’s morning moon has a different name to its evening moon. However, the sentence hesporus = phosophorus is not tautological and therefore on Moore’s argument don't refer to the same thing. However, clearly they do refer to the same thing but merely have different words for the morning moon is the same moon that appears in the evening. Therefore, this counter argument might still protect the metaphysical argument of moral values existing as natural properties. Although, Moore’s Open Question argument; that is that it still remains sense to question whether there is any good even after the greatest happiness for the greatest number is achieved. 

G.E.Moore further offers his own metaphysical justification for moral cognitivism; which he states is that moral values exist as non-natural properties. A non natural property is different to a transcendental property in the sense that it belongs to the fragment of this universe but is not merely explainable in terms of sense experience. The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that a proposition is true if so far that it corresponds with a state of affairs in the World. For example, the proposition that the sky is blue is true merely because there exists a state of affairs where the sky is indeed blue. Therefore, for a moral judgement to make sense, e.g. the proposition that setting fire to cats is cruel, their must exist a state of affairs where setting fire to cats is indeed cruel. Furthermore, the statement that the ‘snow is white’ is true because there exists a property of ‘whiteness’ that the snow indeed possesses. Moore argues that moral values exist but they are irreducible and therefore can't be understood empirically, through sense experience. For Moore, goodness=goodness and nothing more because it goodness is irreducible; it is simply goodness. 

British Philosopher A.J. Ayer

However, can something truly exist if it cant be verified through either sense experience or reasoning? A.J. Ayer, and the logical positivists, argue that sentence is only meaningful if it can be either empirically verified or analytically verified. For example, the sentence 2+2 = 4 is correct because it can be verified using mental reasoning; mathematics. Furthermore, the sentence ‘the sky is blue’ can be verified through pure sense experience; that is actually seeing that the sky is blue. Ayer, however, concludes that statements about moral judgements aren't able to be verified either empirically or rationally. For instance, the statement ‘it was wrong of you to steal that money’ is not an example of an analytic truth because the truth value is not contained within the words used. In the way that 2+2=4 is analytic because it can be deduced through pure reasoning. In the same way, Ayer argues that there is no way to empirically verify whether the statement ‘it was wrong of you to steal that money’ is meaningful. For instance, imagine one freeze-framed the exact moment that an elderly woman was robbed of her purse by a gang of young people; Ayer would argue that you still cant ‘see’ the ‘wrongness’. If you analyse the situation empirically there appears no moment or exact spot where the ‘wrongness’ exists. On these grounds; the statement is not empirically verifiable and therefore has no meaning according to the logical positivists. 

Perhaps controversially, Ayer then puts forward his own non-cognitivst position. Ayer argues that given statements about morality have no means to be verified; they are utterly meaningless. Due to this, Ayer likens statements about moral judgements to pure expressions of emotion. In Ayers opinion the statement ‘it was wrong of you to steal that money’ is the same as ‘it was wrong of you to steal that money :( (cry face)’. Ayer describes this position as Emotivism. For Ayer statements about morality are purely descriptive and only describe how one is feeling. They do not however correspond to a state of affairs that do in fact exist. However, Ayer’s emotivism appears incorrect. For when one states their moral judgement they state it using the same language techniques that they would use to state logical truths; such as 2+2=4. For presumably to state a proposition is to, in most cases, believe the proposition itself to be true; otherwise why would one bother stating it in the same manner that they stated a logical truth? 

Show Me The 'Wrongness'

Before concluding, it is important, I believe to discuss the strongest argument of non-cognitivists. Now, a relativist would argue that given different people in different times and places have held different moral beliefs shows that absolute moral values do not exist in the sense that an action is ‘good’ because it relates to some ultimate goodness. Instead, a relativist would continue to argue that due to this lack of convergence; it appears moral values do not exist; and morality is merely a local phenomena. For example, the Romans weren’t wrong for using Gladiators as sport, nor was Hitler ‘wrong’ for pursuing global domination (I hate to be deliberately provocative, I just cant help it) and, lately, the actions of Islamic State are not ‘wrong’ in so far that the cultures these three separate examples have developed within believe these actions not to be wrong. For a cognitivist, such as myself, moral values are absolute; actions can be entirely wrong and entirely right. But for relativists, actions are wrong and right in so far that they are deemed wrong or right by their local culture of community.

On purely philosophical grounds, relativism has several argumentative flaws. Firstly it assumes that a lack of convergence implies a lack of truth value. Consider, there was a time not so long ago where the majority of people believed that the Earth was entirely flat. Now, using the logic of the relativist, this convergence of belief; that is the idea that everyone believed the earth to be flat, implies that this belief was true. However, clearly we now ‘know’ that the Earth is not flat. On these grounds, just because people disagree over what is right and wrong doesn't show that there exists no absolute moral values; for people can be incorrect when debating whether an action is right or wrong. Secondly, in my opinion, moral relativism is wrong in so far that it assumes a divergence of opinion when discussing moral judgements. For if there was no convergence over what is right and wrong; social order would cease to exist. As David Hume argued, if people didn't agree on what is right and wrong they wouldn't oblige to social laws, presumably people would simply go around causing havoc. However this doesn't happen, instead humans live amongst each other relatively pleasantly. Furthermore, as Dennet argued, differences only shine based on a wall of similarity, for otherwise they wouldn't be different. Specs of green show up on white because of the solid background. Although a rather boring analogy to make; perhaps differences in moral judgements are only apparent because there is general convergence over what is right and wrong. It appears that most people do believe the actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust to be ‘wrong’ in an absolute manner, not just a purely relativist way. 

David Hume

In conclusion, I believe moral values exist in the following way. John Locke discussed primary and secondary qualities of objects. Primary qualities include; mass, size, weight, shape etc. However, secondary qualities include; colour, smell, texture etc. Locke believed, however, that secondary qualities had the power of causation. That is they could cause you to believe things. For example, a red London bus under a street lamp appears green, or a straight stick in water appears bent, or melted wax smells different to solid wax. However, clearly, the secondary properties in each of these objects still cause us to believe, or remember, that the objects remain the same. For me, moral values exist as secondary properties of actions. Consider the previous freeze-frame we discussed of the elderly woman being robbed. Although the freezeframed picture shows no ‘wrongness’ the mere fact it causes me to be upset, distressed and ultimately believe it is ‘wrong’ shows that there exists some value of wrongness here. In this sense, moral values do not exist ‘physically’ but they do exist causally and I believe this is enough to hold a moral cognitivist position. 

Blip or Bust?

The slowing down of the German economy could provide the fast route to another global recession. 

Once thought of as the rock or glue holding the ever loose foundations of the European Union together; Germany’s economy is beginning to falter. Merkel and her economy defied trends in 2010 and 2011; recording growth rates of 4% and 3.3% in respective years. In comparison, the EU recorded growth rates of 2% and 1.6%. Of course, these EU rates also take into consideration German GDP growth; which is an outlier in this case. The point remains valid though, Germany almost single-handedly held the European Union together. Now, however, after narrowly recording growth rates to avoid a double dip recession; the German economy is shaking and due to this, the future of the EU and perhaps even the World looks bleak. 

Chancellor of Germany - Angela Merkel

In order to truly understand the importance of the German economy we must analyse the very nature of it. Firstly, Germany is considered an exporter. Essentially, exports are products which leave a country and generate revenue whilst imports are products which enter a country and are paid for. Germany’s current account; the difference between revenue gained through exports and revenue spent on imports, remains one of the World biggest at +7% of GDP. A positive current account is normally regarded as a sign of economic stability; Britain have a current account deficit of 4.4% of GDP, whilst the US’ deficit equals 2.3% of its GDP. In August 2014, however, Germany’s exports fell by 6%, a sign of things to come. It is interesting to analyse why this drop occurred. In 2013, 68% of German exports were delivered to European countries; whilst 57% of all goods were sent to EU members. Furthermore, the United States spent 89 billion euros on German products and China, 67 billion euros. Now, one explanation of why German exports have decreased is that their trading partners have slowing economies. In 2010 China’s GDP growth was recorded at 10%. However, this year, growth is expected to be around the 7% mark. Several members of the EU also have weakening economies; although France managed to narrowly avoid a recession, recording 0.3% growth. However, it is important to note that this was, in part, down to the increase in the public sector in France due to government expenditure increasing by 0.8%. It is therefore debatable how sustainable this growth is; as it is aggregate demand driven and not aggregate supply based. On the other hand, Italy, the third biggest economy in the EU slipped into its third recession since the beginning of the Financial Crisis. The EU, in general, performed marginally better than analysts expected, although the small growth of 0.2% during the months of July - September is hardly a figure worth getting excited about. Furthermore, the total EU GDP remains 2% smaller than it was in 2008, 6 years ago. This decline in the economic power of its trading partners is one major factor as to why the German economy has shrunk, and in particular why export revenue decreased dramatically in August. 

Wheelbarrows of Money - The hyperinflation of the 1920s

Crucially, however, there is more to Germany’s period of economic stagnation than merely poor GDP rates in trading partners. There is also a change of preference and political stability. The Crimean Crisis, firstly, drastically affected political stability in the region. Russia takes around 3% of German exports, but due to its recent political issues, the Russian economy has slowed. Following the issues in Crimea, the Russian currency, Ruble, depreciated dramatically. Essentially a depreciation can be defined as demand for a currency going down, normally investors seek currency in order to buy bonds or invest in that particular economy. However, clearly, investors seek political stability and therefore their confidence in Russia has declined in the last year. Russian GDP growth slowed, again, for the third quarter in a row. Basic economic theory suggests that as an economies GDP slows, and its people becoming relatively poorer, import expenditure tends to go down. In fact, Russia is on track to record its weakest economic growth rates since 2000 excluding 2009, when its economy contracted. Along with Russia’s slowing economy, the Chinese economy has also began to record slower growth rates. However, more importantly, the Chinese economy is beginning to enter a period of transition. Previously a capital purchasing economy due to its desires to boost production and productivity; China is shifting towards that off a consumption driven economy because its citizens are beginning to demand consumer based products. In 2011, total e-commerce revenue in China was 4.8 trillion Yuan, and on average its e-commerce market is growing by 20-25% each year. Clearly these statistics suggest a transition from Chinese economies purchasing machinery to Chinese consumers buying iPhones and televisions. This transition, however, is bad news for Germany because China purchases around 6% of German exports. Lastly, the United States is shifting their consumption patterns. Barack Obama’s policy of domestic energy sources has resulted in the US economy importing less capital products and instead focussing on sourcing energy from shale oil. 

Chinese e-Commerce booms

All this means one thing; Germany must adapt its domestic policies in order to kick start its economy once more. Economic policy in Germany during the last decade has included a vast amount of cut backs and ‘belt tightening’. This, to some degree, is due to the fear of inflation that has haunted the German conscious since the early 1920s where hyperinflation resulted in economic crisis. As a result of this, to some extent justified, paranoia, German policy makers aren't keen on pumping large amounts of money into the economic flow. Indeed, as a result of this, the German economy has been starved of much needed domestic investment. In fact German productivity has taken a hit; as public services such as transportation systems have deteriorated over the years. Merkel must either embrace a heavier fiscal stimulus package or loosen monetary policy. Quite simply, fiscal policy is any economic policy to do with government expenditure and tax revenue whilst monetary policy is the controlling of the money supply and interest rates. The recent decision of the European Central Bank to embrace a quantitative easing policy has resulted in German opposition. A perfect example of where politics and economics do not get along. Germanys fear of inflation means that they are leading the anti Q.E. band in the EU, fearful that inflation rates will increase if the money supply rises. However, it is clear that for the German economy to restart, a loosening of monetary policy and an embrace of QE is necessary. 

The Future of Power

Before considering the significance of power, and its future affects on International Relations one must understand a crucial premise. Power is multi dimensional; a 3D chess board, as American historian Joseph Nye describes it. The top board; or dimension, can be defined as power in relation to coercion; or military force. The ability to beat one into doing something you want them to do. Oxford historian A.J.P. Taylor defined power as the ‘ability to prevail in War’. In a sense this dimension can be defined as ‘sticks’. The ability to pay, or tempt, using money, is the next dimension. In a sense this is the capacity to pay another agent, or state, to do something you want them to do. Lastly, and most importantly when analysing power in relation to future international relations, there is the notion of Soft power. Essentially soft power can be defined as; the faculty to convince another agent to want to do something you need them to do. Soft Power, in a sense is a direct argument against the premise of A.J.P. Taylor; it is not whose army who wins that becomes powerful it is more whose story wins that becomes powerful. 

A.J.P. Taylor

In my opinion, there are two key transitions in power that need to be understood. Firstly, and far less importantly, power is travelling to the wings of the planet. Consider, the end of the Second World War; the collapse of Nazi Germany and the desolation of most of Central and Eastern Europe brought about a power vacuum. An arena for conflict and struggle to seize power; authority and, above all, influence. At the time, the World was, certainly in terms of the top chess board; coercion, a bipolar World. The USSR, a Communist regime, and the United States, the pioneer of Liberal Democracy, were at War for political domination. A conflict based on economic systems; free market v. centrally planned systems and political ideologies; pluralism v. elitism. Pluralism, the belief that a multi party system based on freedom of speech is more democratic, efficient and more fair. Elitism, as Plato believed, can be defined as a system where a single leader; or group-of-leaders, make all economic and political decisions; freedom of speech is not encouraged and a single party system is adopted. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in the rise of a monopoly World. Historian Francis Fukuyama, wrote the End of History in 1992 with the sole premise being that the 20th century had ended in exactly the same way that the 20th century had commenced; a hegemony. Essentially, the defeat of two major ideological opponents to Western democracy; Hitlers rightwing Nazism and Stalin’s Left Wing Communism. Fukuyama believed that the World was now in for a prolonged period of one system; essentially the evolution of ideologies was over and the universalisation of liberal democracy had begun. However, this brings us onto the beginning of the first transition of power. The power vacuum in Europe and the defeat of the USSR saw power travel to the peripheries of the World. The United States would soon have to share its power with China. It is important to not overestimate the role of China in todays political order. Going back to the 3D chess board; illustrated earlier, the only board in which China perhaps contends with America is in relation to its economy. It is estimated that China’s gross domestic product; GDP will prevail that of the United States in around 2030. Nevertheless, it is clear that GDP is no satisfactory measure when analysing economic power. Indeed, GDP per capita, although certainly not without its limitations, gives a far more accurate picture. GDP per capita is total economic product divided by total population in order to give an aggregate level of income. On this measure; China, according to the World Bank in 2013 has a GDP per capita of $11,868 compared to the US’ $53,001. Of course, China’s economic trajectory is positive, growing at an average 10% since Deng’s Charimanship began in 1978. Indeed Chairman Deng brought 700 million Chinese out of poverty, over the $1.25 a day line, between 1978 and 2000. A remarkable feat for any politician. However, given these statistics there is a long way to go before China is on a level playing field with the economic might of the United States of America. 

Joseph Nye

The second shift in power we are witnessing is of far more significance and is, in some manner, more complex to understand. The argument is that power is leaving the hands of states such as the US, Britain, Japan, Germany, France, China etc. and arriving in the hands of transnational corporations and non state actors. Imagine international relations or international diplomacy as a stage where actors perform. This shift in power vertically is resulting one crucial thing; the stage is becoming crowded. This is for several reasons; but most importantly that barriers to entry are becoming lower and cheaper. In economics barriers to entry are defined as the restrictions for a firm to join a market. For instance, if an electricity firm wanted to begin to supply electricity to citizens in Britain they would have to pay a large sunk cost in order to even begin supplying, then would also need to handle legalities. These are barriers to entry. Another example is argued in the Mystery of Capital that it takes 15 years to create a business in Mexico due to the level of petty corruption. However, these barriers to entry are beginning to diminish. Notably, the price of computing and communication has decreased by 1000x since 1970. Put in perspective, if the cost of cars had decreased at the same rate than one could purchase a car for $5. As a result of communication and computing becoming cheaper more players; state and non state actors can join the stage. It was the privileged few who could communicate with Australia from Britain 100 years ago; now it is available to everyone who owns an iPhone; Skype and Viber or anyone who possesses a Facebook account; thats 1.23 billion people. This crowded stage has positives and negatives though. Consider, more people were killed by a non state attack, Al Qaeda, 9/11, than were killed by a state v state attack, Pearl Harbour 1941.This is due to a single issue; as power transfers upwards; towards the cloud, for instance and technology becomes cheaper, there is more opportunity for abuse in the systems. However, it is also harder to regulate. For example, the recent war on cyber crime; hacking for instance, is such a difficult issue due to the inexplicable fact that regulation of the internet is virtually impossible. Barriers to entry, not merely in terms of their economic cost, but also in terms of their availability have become significantly more accessible. However, there are positives for the stage becoming crowded. The United States, now the hegemony in World order, can harness this power transfer to gain further influence and this is where the notion of Soft Power becomes so crucial. Soft Power, defined previously as the ability to convince an agent to do something you want them to because they think they want to, is becoming more significant. The United States dominate in every aspect of soft power. When the Twin Towers fell on September 11th 2001, affiliates of Al Qaeda celebrated wearing GAP Jumpers and t-Shirts. In my travels to India and Nepal; countries with extreme examples of absolute poverty, there are users of iPhones, supporters of the New York Knicks and Bob Dylan fans. The American way of life is considered the pivotal, the ideal that everyone must aspire to achieve. In China, according to the Economist magazine last year, the emergence of e-commerce and the desire to own the latest smartphone released by Apple proves once again that it is the attraction of Silicon Valley not Shanghai or Beijing which dominates the conscious of the average Chinese citizen. Once again power is achieved by those whose story wins, not those who have successful armies in this day and age. 

Why is all this important? Why is all this worth reading? For one simple reason; one needs to recognise these power shifts in order to understand where next to go. Psychology must change if we, as a group of state, and non state actors, are going to tackle some of the deep-rooted issues of our time. Climate Change, the crisis in the Middle East, absolute poverty, to name a few, are only able to be dealt with if psychology is changed from zero sum to positive sum. The notion of zero sum is my gain is your loss; this is out of date. The level of interconnectivity in this new world order is such that my gain is now your gain and your loss is also my own. Until we embrace this; we are stuck. 

The Big Dilemma

On Thursday evening, Eastern Time, President Barack Obama announced his executive orders surrounding the issue of Immigration reform. According to Robert Longley, writing at usgovinfo.com, an executive order can be defined “as a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers”. Essentially, these orders are extremely important for two reasons; firstly, for a bill to pass through Congess it must achieve a majority in both chambers; the House of Representatives and the Senate. However, realistically, given the culture of Filibustering which has emerged due to the partizan nature of American Politics currently, a bill must achieve a 2/3rd majority in both chambers to achieve the ‘stop filibustering’ threshold. This emergence of filibustering, which is essentially when a Congressman, from either party, stands up and debates endlessly in order to stop a bill being voted on has resulted in both parties becoming very difficult to work with. The Hill, D.C, and America overall has become increasingly partizan over the last few decades, but especially since the Presidential Election in 2008 and then again in 2012. 

President Barack Obama 

Now that the context is understood, it is important to examine the importance and the potential impact of the executive orders President Obama announced. In my opinion, the most significant impact that the executive orders will have on the US political chess board is not actually to do with the level of immigrants, or indeed the process these immigrants must take to acquire work permits. Indeed, the importance lies with the reaction of the Republican Party. The midterm elections in 2014 proved several things. Firstly, that the stagnant economy, especially notable in the middle regions of America has caused a ‘bitterness’ towards President Obama and the Democrats. Low interest rates have caused the US stock exchange to pull upwards and more importantly high levels of quantitative easing (a process where the government buys corporate bonds in order to stimulate money supply for aggregate demand economic growth) has caused asset prices to increase. The latter of these two impacts is far more damaging for the Democrats. The middle class population that President Obama pledged to fight for - are becoming relatively poorer as a result of his economic policies. It is worth noting however that it is not a unique policy. Japan, an economy which experimented extensively with quantitative easing and low interest rates recently slipped into recession. In fact, it could very much be argued that an introduction of quantitative easing is needed in Germany, but given their psychological issues with inflation (rightly) Q.E for the time being is off the table. Therefore, it is not the fault of Barack Obama that the economy in America has stagnated. Indeed, although not technically in a recession, 80% of Americans still ‘feel’ as if they are living in a recession. Secondly, the midterm elections rubber stamped the premise that demographics are becoming increasingly important. Statistics surrounding the 2014 election are fascinating and also explain how crucial the Republican Party’s reaction to immigration orders will be. The GOP (Republicans), typically, attract a large proportion of the ‘anglo’ vote in the US. Indeed the ‘anglo’ vote in Iowa constitutes 89% of the voting population, in West Virginia the anglo vote is 93%, in Colorado, 80% of voters are white and in Kentucky a mere 11% are non white voters. The Republican party were successful in all of these states in the mid term elections. This is not either a new trend or a surprising fact. As I said, the traditional values of the Republican Party, pro free markets, anti-choice, pro-guns etc. sit well with the anglo voters. Likewise, the Hisapnic, or Latino voters tend to vote Democrat. In the 2012 election, it could be argued that Florida, the most significant of the swing states, purely in terms of its 29 electoral college votes, swung Democrat because of its large hispanic population. Indeed in 2012 President Obama won 93% of the African American vote and 71% of the hispanic vote, compared to Mitt Romneys’s 59% White vote. 

House Speaker Boehner (R)

The above statistics are crucial in understanding the importance of immigration reform. Now, the Republicans are stuck. The 2016 Presidential Election and the door to the White House is not far away, and the Republicans must appease the ethnic vote in the US in order to boost their chances of a win. The puzzle for the Republicans is this though. By embracing President Obama’s Immigration orders; they are abandoning their traditional values. It is worth noting that a Democrat led Senate passed Obama’s immigration bill last year, but a Republican House of Representatives, led by speaker John Boehner (not a joke) refused to debate the bill. For anyone who doesn't know how bills are passed; the debate process comes first. The chances of the Republicans embracing Obamas orders are slim; Boehner announced today that he believed Obama acted like a ‘king or emperor’. Whilst, Mitt Romney warned that Obama was ‘poking the eyes of Republican leaders’. However, the consequences of not supporting immigration reform are devastating. The latin vote is not going away and if anything is becoming even more important. In 2006 the hispanic vote constituted for 8.6% of the eligible voting population, in 2010 it was worth 10.1% and in 2014 it contributed to 11% of the electorate. With the Republican Party as fragmented as ever, the Tea Party continuing to assert influence and the population of moderate Republicans dying out - the need to attract hispanic voters is as important as ever, and possibly the difference between a successful 2016 campaign and a defeat. The early signs do suggest a change in Republican attitudes since 2012. In Texas, 44% of the Hispanic vote went with Republican congressmen, and in Florida a Republican governor was elected, Rick Scott. It will be fascinating to see how the Republicans respond to Obamas orders and whether or not they choose to back the President or risk losing the hispanic population, and as a result, the Presidential Election in 2016.

Capitol Hill