“Magistraal is de omschrijving die Savater geeft van wat ’progressief’ is. Hij zegt dat progressief zijn inhoudt dat je ‘bereid bent de strijd aan te gaan tegen slechte veranderingen en je sterk te maken voor het in standhouden van wat goed is.’”

Uit: Paul Cliteur, “Intolerant voor de intoleranten.”

Hij presenteert zich als groene bankier en is kandidaat van D66 voor de Europese verkiezingen, Gerhard Mulder. Hij werkte ondermeer in Washington, DC, New York en Den Haag, voor politiek en financiële sector. Tegenwoordig werkt hij bij ABN AMRO als klimaathandel expert. Geïntrigeerd door de term groene bankier besloot ik hem drie vragen te stellen. (Bekijk ook eens het youtube filmpje en GerhardMulder.nl)

- Waarom is D66 de groenste partij bij de Europese verkiezingen?
D66 is de groenste partij omdat wij een ambitieuze agenda combineren met slimme en economisch verantwoorde maatregelen. De truc is niet om een wensenlijstje te presenteren, of gewoon te roepen dat alles beter en duurzamer moet, maar om een fundamentele verduurzaming van onze economie na te streven.

- Welke rol zie jij voor de financiële sector in de klimaatcrisis?
De financiële sector moet een centrale rol spelen in de oplossing van de klimaatcrisis. We moeten zo’n 200 miljard USD per jaar mobiliseren; de financiële sector moet geprikkeld worden om te investeren in milieu, duurzame energie, schone technologieën. Zij is dit harte harte bereid om dit te doen, maar de overheid moet zich als een betrouwbare partner opstellen en zekerheid bieden voor investeerders.

- In hoeverre moeten Europeanen gaan consuminderen om een klimaatcrisis te voorkomen?
Ik geloof dat consuminderen, of het bewust minder consumeren om ons milieu te sparen, een lovenswaardig streven is. Maar je zult niet iedereen ervan kunnen overtuigen met morele argumenten. Veel beter is om milieukosten mee te nemen in de prijs van de producten of diensten die men consumeert, zodat je op die manier gedrag kunt sturen.

Are you afraid of the European Union? Many people in the Netherlands seem afraid of it. Hopefully not that many will vote against it in the upcoming elections, june the 4th. Make sure you cast your vote. I will vote for a Pro-European party. I don’t necessarily agree with all the European institutions. (Why move to Strassbourg every month btw?)

Why vote for Europe?

- A European financial authority can restore checks and balances in the financial world. Why should all these small countries come up with their own legislation when most financial institutions operate international anyway?

- Europe can give better protection of individual rights.

- Europe can cooperate to have a sustainable agenda.

- Europe needs one voice in the world, so it can converse on equal footing with the US, India and China.

Last Friday I went to hear Noreen Hertz speak and debate on the current financial crisis. After her introductory talk, Rosi Braidotti interviewed her and Edith Kuiper, a feminist economist, took her on in a debate. Union members and feminists filled the room. This was no surprise, since it was a talk in the Women Speak series. Noreena calls the current crisis, the end of Gucci capitalism. This was an era where business was good, the more the better, and government bad, the less the better. She is saying there is a collective shift towards more guidance by government. Its reputation is rehabilated. For example, over 50% of Americans would like to see more government intervention according to her. She calls this “a seismic shift”.

Also, this Gucci capitalism was male driven. Men filled the board rooms and trading floors. It was testosteron and according to Edith, speed driven. Not velocity, but the drug. Cocaine ruled the workplace, she mentioned coke being cheaper than a cup of coffee at one point. Noreena did mention she liked the G20 declaration, but missed any mention on women. To which Edith replied that the recent Afghanistion conference did include 5 pages on women.

I found there was little talk about solutions and where we are going. Except that we need less men. One man asked what will be the new moral imperitave. But this was not answered. Also, Noreena and Edith championed positive discrimination within board rooms and trading floor. More women will have to enter. They want direct action as waiting for women to rise to the top has been to no avail. The old boys club reigns and women are not even in the talent pools amongst headhunters. This immediately made me think, why don’t you start a headhunting company solely focussed at women? Why demand that government makes this into law? Noreena spoke about Iceland where women are now leading the banks and the country. Another lady proposed to kill income tax and tax resources instead. Noreena and Edith didn’t have an immediate response to this but said it was ideas like this we need.

There was mention of this being a debate. But everyone seemed to agree with each other. So I did not hear many controversial stances. Except from one guy in the room, clad in all white, who asks if women where all that different as leaders referring to Queen Victoria and a Russian Tsarin. He also tried to grab the microphone but a lady was holding it, while there is one golden rule: Never hand out the microphone or else you are not in control of how long someone speaks. Of course, this lead to hilarity among the audience as the lady wouldn’t let go of the microphone and someone from the audience pointed out that this was what the debate was about; Men need to let go.

All in all, I felt it was a challenging evening but did miss practical solutions.

ps While waiting before the talk started, I was chatting with a retired activist. He works on a paper regarding mobility in the region of Utrecht together with other organizations. I’m interested what will come out of that. His reasoning was there have to be alternatives. Not to say people can’t use their car or build more roads, but to give a better alternative.

The European Commission came up with a marvelous idea. They are proposing to put red buttons in video games. This allows young children or parents to push the button so they can stop a video game they are playing when it becomes to scary or violent. It was a Dutch Liberal who proposed this last week.

I was flabbergasted when I heard this on the news. What are they thinking? Is this what a European government needs to occupy itself with? I find it very paternalistic. Don’t parents know there is already a red button on a computer? It’s called the power button. Switch on, swith off.

Are we living in a society where we can’t take the responsibility to take care of which games our kids will play? I thought we were trying to make our government more effective. If so, I do not see how silly rules likes this should become law.

I see the need of parents being advised which games might be too violent for their kids. But a red button, that is just one step too far.

At the end of the year, people in the Netherlands are able to switch from a different private health care insurer. We basically are able to choose from basic, legally determined packages and topping these with additional health care plans (which contain issues uninsured by the basis package). Below, I give you my opinion about this choice.

Two weeks ago when introduced to new collegues, I managed to blurb out that I had trouble with the current Dutch healthcare system. The immediate response was that we choose our cell phone plans, so why not our healthcare plans. I was baffled for a second, but then realized that healthcare and cellphones are separate issues. One, I control the amount of time I spent on my cell phone and so can determine which plan is most suited for me. Two, I don’t control my health to the ultimate degree. I can break a leg, can get into an accident without it being my mistake and I can get a lethal disease. I cannot oversee how much it will cost to fix all this. I can perhaps calculate what the chances are, but from an individual point of view if there is a chance, you would want to make sure you are able to pay for your health care costs when it happens.

The current health care system developed from the idea that markets are efficient. Markets will push hospitals and health care insurers to be cost efficient. The more a consumer has the option to choose, the more competition there will be to complete this.

I basically think that this is a fallacy. When I’m sick, I’m not a consumer. I’m a human being that needs a doctor. Yes, that still places me in the center of attention, like a consumer hopes to be (consumer is king) with a doctor who wishes to cure me. But when I’m a human being I do not want a doctor that wants to get me out of the hospital as quickly as possible or else I will be too costly.

Also, individuals are not able to oversee whether they should insure something. And whether they should insure 6 or 10 visits to a physiotherapist. On a reasonable basis, no individual is able to make a good choice.  This only leads to more stress and most people do not even compare health care plans every year when they are able to switch. They will stick to the same one. Even though, terms and conditions change every year. This choice is not an enrichment.

Thirdly, the larger the population the better an insurer is able to calculate what the chances are of a disease or accident happening. The more split these diseases, the less a population will be predictable. And the less predictable the less realistic the premium is one will have to pay.

I honestly would reconsider national health care. Sure, nations like France and Sweden have problems with their systems. But I think there is a midway between bureaucratic state control and market control. Hospitals could be rewarded for a combination of best quality and cost efficiency. A system where hospitals and doctors compete for quality and not money. I think that would be in the best interest of our health.

Writing a review on a comic book done by friends about a friend is not an easy task. I don’t pretend to be unbiased and also fail to see how reading Kaisa Leka’s new comic book would leave anyone unbiased. Her new comic book is called Audarya Lila: The death of Tuomas Mäkinen and is co-authored by her husband Christoffer Leka. One is said not to judge a book by its cover, but you would do no harm if you made an exception to that for this book. As usual, Kaisa and Christoffer’s eye for design speaks out even if one just holds the book. It’s bound in an old Japanse style. Its contents are tied by a string and covered by two beautiful matte-printed panels. When untying the book, it reveals three separated parts, which are very nicely bound as well. Each of the parts tells a separate story, but with a common theme, the death of Tuomas.

The death of Tuomas is not to be taken literal, rather it is the symbolic death of the Finnish Tuomas into the Hindu monastic Gurunistha. In this book as in real life, he crosses the ocean from Finland to California, from singing in a hardcore band to constructing a Hindu temple. His life story is told from three perspectives, his mom’s, his ex-girlfriend’s and his own. Hence, the three separately bound parts of the book. All three of them recount how they saw Gurunistha evolve and enter monastic life. It is in some ways a biography of his religious life thus far. Though, his mother and ex-girlfriend do not just speak about Gurunistha, but they also display the affection they have for him and the effect his choice had on their lives. The story is told in such a way that one is compelled to sympathize with all perspectives. It’s heartfelt, but comical at the same time.

I would put this on the required reading list for anyone ever considering becoming a monastic and specifically a Hindu monastic. The book communicates that crossing the ocean to pursue one’s ideals can be most difficult for oneself, family and loves ones. However, when approached in a balanced matter, this sacrifice for all is very much feasible.

Leka, Kaisa and Christoffer. Audarya Lila: The death of Tuomas Mäkinen. 1st ed., ATP, 2008.

PS
Gurunistha, Kaisa and Christoffer and I share the same Hindu teacher. Most interestingly for me, Gurunistha’s first encounter with his teacher happened when we first met as well. I remember the talks we had in the car and walking on our way to Swami Tripurari’s lectures. We both felt refreshed seeing how Hinduism had a realistic answer to modernity.  In 2007, I spent four month in his company when I stayed at the monastery, Audary, where he lives. It was great to see how he still carried this sense of enthusiasm and energy that he had when he first met Swami. (Gurunistha blogs overhere)

While driving home, my car radio was tuned into a Business radio station. They were discussing Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment plan. Obama proposed his plans in this online address. His goals sound noble; e.g. investing in better roads, sustainable energy, and giving workers a tax cut. Supposedly, the stock markets reacted positively on this news.

It got me thinking about all these that these countries around the world are building up. They are employing Keynes’s strategy of investing in an economy in a downward cycle, so spending is stimulated and price levels and income remain more or less unaffected.

But Keynes proposed a balanced view. He focused on downward cycles as well as upward, or better on economics. Keynesian is about stabilization policy as much. It’s therefore interesting to note how the world always turns to Keynes in a downward spiral but has trouble tightening the budget on an upward one. When all goes well, we turn to laissez-faire capitalism and when we’re in trouble Keynes needs to bail us out.

I worry how much the US and other countries are going overboard with their stimulus packages.  Paul Kedrosky is warning for this on his blog as well: “A theme I keep harping on is that so many developed countries around being the world being Keynesians at once -– enacting massive  bond-finance stimulus programs -– doesn’t come with inflation as the only possible consequences.”

The last few issues on my blog all dealt with looking beyond your nose. It seems in a world that has become more interconnected, we at the same time developed or held on to shortsightedness, a localism. It seems logical that even in a connected world, the individual interprets everything from within his own context. This is what he or she knows best. The question is, what is his or her context?

When we are bombarded with information through television, internet and advertising how do we cope and define what we are? Are we ourselves determining or is our context determining through these elements? Do we make judgments by mere reasoning or by the sentiments evoked by these information sources? Some economists think that we judge merely by reasoning, but one listening to the radio or television would beg to differ. If we objectified everything then locality would not be an issue. Facts would be facts. Some have argued that sentiments are playing a larger role than before. I would hope not, as it would mean our context, our reference, would be short-termed. The sentiments evoked by news and advertising e.g. do not allow taking distance when we are too caught up in them. And it is distance we need in times of crisis before we can get hands-on.

I wonder if this same localism has penetrated our consumption, because do we realize when we spent our money, we set in motion a whole chain of business? Whatever we spent our money on, that’s what we support. The money represents the energy it took to make it. When we work sixty hours a week, that’s a lot of energy. So when we spent it, it’s not just that we receive a good in exchange, but we keep that chain of business alive by giving it our energy. This chain is not necessary local and the consequences may well reach beyond our understanding. Easily put, when we buy diamonds, they may well be blood diamonds. Someone in Africa may have sweat his or her blood for your jewels and if we continue to buy these diamonds, we keep giving it our energy.

Don’t misinterpret me; my vision is just as much blurred by my locality. I just strive to look beyond my nose, so I won’t end up like Dick Fuld (pictured above). More in 2009.