canary in a coal mine

It is not as if we have all collectively woken up in some bizarro-universe that’s suddenly, jarringly ruled by the friction, influence and speed of money, not the viscosity or ingenuity of wealth.

It was a gradual process, of course, and financial collapses have happened for eons, speculating on war, religion, tea, whale oil, opium and even tulips (Tulpen), and the systemic development has transformed money from a store of wealth into an instrument, a fishing-lure or a decoy that’s tossed into the wilds with hopes to bait more. Maybe one day in the future the indebtedness of petty kingdoms, petroleum, gold, and industry stability will seem just as anodyne and antiquated, insofar as economic indicators go. This newly established energia has not only created a casino atmosphere with high-stakes and lighting fast reversals of fortune, it has also invited unthinkable mingling of tools and vessels and self-regulation, where the office of the banker and bursar are one and the same.

A sufficiently sophisticated economy will certainly grow to incorporate a service and servicing sector, but the enforcement of a regulatory framework should not be totally outstripped either: mingling and forced fraternization ought not be tolerated—building and loans should not be trying to ensnare savers with investment opportunities (not tempted to cover losses and reduce risks by mixing funds), likewise, perhaps automobile manufacturers should not be boasting a banking and loan division that justifies its own sales, nor should the central banks that set monetary policy be governed and influenced by executives (of their familiars) of the private financial institutions they are trying to buoy up (with public funds). There is no threshold beyond which an institution is too big to fail, but rather it is measured, I think, to the extent that it estranges people and resources from their purpose, and the insistence of maintaining such a status ensures corporate welfare, reduces liability for loss over (encouraged) precarious behavior, placates clients and limits scrutiny and regulation.

six degrees, sechs grad

Researchers at the University of Heidelberg extrapolating from the native nosiness of plug-ins and sharing short-cuts have mapped out a shadow network of a-social students, predicting connections with a fair degree of accuracy. A match rate of forty percent, as the New Scientist article reports, may not sound so revealing but I am sure it can be a little disconcertingly prying and people are shunted as terrorists and put on no-fly lists for more tenuous and specious reasons, never mind the targeted advertising.

This experiment is not reproducing the tactics of the prominent social networks, but is rather a rhetorical exercise to demonstrate how it can be done. Having recently tried to be forgotten (though I only managed to deactivate my moribund account, not delete it), I find the persistence of memory to be the most disturbing. I still get barrages of emails, and if I am viewing a site with an invitation to endorse or ingratiate myself over said networking site, I am invited, by name, to re-animate my account. One should tread carefully, and perhaps the lesson is that one should maintain a healthy and vibrant fake social life, in order to ensure that the internet is not making the wrong assumptions about what one likes or dislikes or who one is friends with.

clair-obscur

A few days ago, we visited a castle ruin positioned high on a promontory. It was really interesting besides, I thought, how the intact and the missing architectural elements channeled light and shadow over this sightseeing playground with a commanding view of the surrounding Rhön region below.

The portals in the galleries and arcades were fitted out with these sleek red wooden shutters and doors (looking especially modern scaling the high, heavy wall of windows), and it seemed that this setting would make a very nice and authentic venue for banquet or for a party.

ozymandias or call for submissions

I suppose that the nature of public art and installations has changed significantly, given the volume lent to the voice of praise and criticism and that the failure or success of icons—landmarks, anchors, can be instantly and broadly adjudicated.

While looking at some of the new monuments being readied for London and reading about the generally negative reception regarding this legacy of eye-sores, I was thinking how public artwork has changed as well through corporate sponsorship: stadia, libraries, towers and parks still can bear the marks of megalomaniacal egos for something colossal and enduring but unlike the pyramids, temples and theatres (or even military parades), the public is estranged from the selection and even the building process. Sometimes, it seems too, that there’s not enough space, patience or time to contain these grand aspirations (though the lasting inheritance becomes the accompanying security presence in many cases) and to impress with equally indulgent sums of money, so volunteering or competing to host high-profile events can placate the collective need for awe and something akin to respect. The hosts and underwriters do well with these elite and exclusive congresses, grabbing the public’s attention without regard for their lack of involvement, displaced and without the option to protest or participate. London’s becoming a fine example of this shilling and pandering, but so are other places too, in grand and imperial style, like the US eagerly agreeing to entertain the world’s leadership in a succession of conferences, the G8 and NATO summits, closely followed by the Bilderberg Group’s (DE/EN) meeting.

jubilee or augean stables

Setting a bad example is sometimes just a pedantic argument. Negative encouragement, I think, is probably not worse than market-contagion.

Wouldn’t it have been easier, foregoing a lot of pantomime and drama, and less costly in terms of make-believe wealth and real livelihoods to have simply forgiven Greek sovereign-debt plus given the country some seed-money to start over and written the expense off as sunk-costs? To force out any member of the Euro Zone against their will is counter to the spirit of integration that the EU represents, but also is the insistence on inclusion, when it comes with too high a tribute, with a list of impossible sacrifices and challenges that read in short-form like the Twelve Labours of Hercules. Just as Greece (and now the outgoing French government, who are sure to be in good company) have been accused of underestimating their financial standing and potential severity of the problems, rankling turmoil could have been staunched and discounted by now, instead of dragging out the whole affair. Integration also means the acceptance of common-losses, and though the solution, after the can has been kicked down the road for quite a piece and the problems have swelled, will be universally disliked, they can still be absorbed by the economy of the union. Lenders and debtors conspired to exacerbate these conditions until they came undeniably into our range of vision. Off-putting the developing urgency of some markets makes for an unflattering reflection of our own delay-tactics and the messy regrets over not quashing a trend while it was still emergent and manageable.