"Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present."
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present."
The last three lines could serve to explain what "the bird" meant, which is that everything points to "one end, which is always present." and of which the bird says human kind can not bear very much.
So your question becomes, "What is this one thing?" I would say that it is mortality, ones own death, which is always present somewhere in the back of our minds, but which dwelling on - as Hamlet does in his famous soliloquy - "puzzles the will". Some people can't cope with the thought of a world without ourselves in it, and to dwell too much on this reality may become unbearable for them. Notteme, oh no no me, menno.
But you, or someone else, may have a somewhat different take on these lines. As critic William Empson puts it, "Ambiguity is the very heart of poetry."
Calabria, criminal vibes, rune rk hoorde ik vannacht van het strand komen.
“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, waarschuwde die ook niet voor een politiestaat ? De terreur van antiterreur. Supersnelrecht. Het onvermogen van de overheid of de vvd om te begrijpen dat juist de overheid behoorlijk moet besturen, niet discrimineren, zorgvuldig, rechtvaardig en onpartijdig moet zijn bijvoorbeeld. Supersnelrecht staat tegenover al die beginselen.Wie is die overheid dan wel om zo snel mogelijk de hakbijl te laten vallen. Wie zegt dat de grootste schurken, testosteron geladen mannen, niet bij de politie zitten, of achterbakse ambitieuze angstige wijven, tegenwoordig de overheid. Triple A. Niet verongelijkt of slachtofferig, maar sterk, krachtig, waardig, vriendelijk, aardig en gelukkig door het leven, dat is mijn motto !
Ik weet dat ik behoorlijk irritant kan zijn. Een van mijn
ergerlijkste eigenschappen is dat ik schrijf en doceer over hoe je positief
kunt leidinggeven, terwijl ik me naar mijn huisgenoten vaak helemaal niet
optimistisch en vriendelijk gedraag. Hoe kom je daar vanaf? Wat kunnen mijn
vrouw en kinderen doen? Wat moet ik zelf ondernemen? De Canadese filosoof en
psycholoog Stuart Shanker houdt zich al tientallen jaren bezig met vervelend
gedrag. Van kinderen, maar ook van collega’s en mensen zoals ik. Hoe luidt zijn
advies? Allereerst moeten we af van het idee dat mensen zich maar gewoon moeten
leren ‘beheersen’, zegt Shanker. Vergeet zelfbeheersing, het onderdrukken van
ongewenst gedrag, en richt je op ‘zelfregulatie’. Zelfregulatie is een woord
dat in de psychologie op allerlei verschillende manieren wordt gebruikt. Bij
Shanker betekent het dat je leert om stress te herkennen en te managen.
Ergerlijk gedrag (van mij, maar ook van andere mensen die doorgaans vriendelijk
zijn en goede intenties hebben) komt volgens Shanker bijna altijd voort uit
overtollige stress. Door stress worden we – zonder dat we dit willen –
impulsiever, sneller kwaad, zien we de ander als vijandig, luisteren we niet
meer en vertonen allerlei ander ineffectief gedrag. Door hierop te reageren met
verwijten of dreigementen, verhoog je hooguit de stress en vererger je de situatie.
Wat moet je dan wel doen? Een paar tips.
1.Herken wanneer iemand overbelast is: realiseer je dat kinderen
en volwassenen die zich vervelend gedragen dit vaak doen in reactie op stress.
We moeten stoppen met oordelen en gewoon aanvaarden dat de ander zich niet
opzettelijk misdraagt, zegt Shanker. Pas daarna kunnen we zinvolle maatregelen
nemen.
2.Identificeer de stressoren: stress heeft vaak te maken met
teleurstellingen. Iets wat iemand graag wil gaat niet door of mislukt. Of er
moet te veel gebeuren in te weinig tijd. Nog een paar veel voorkomende
stressoren: te veel of juist te weinig informatie, complexiteit, stress van
anderen. Vraag jezelf af wat tot stress leidt bij de ander. Wellicht kun je de
oorzaak meteen wegnemen.
3.Help de ander met zelfregulatie: praat op een rustig moment met
je lastige collega of huisgenoot over de punten hierboven. Over het herkennen
van stress en ook het ontwikkelen van strategieën om hiermee om te gaan. Zoals
het hardop toegeven dat je gespannen bent of het nemen van een korte time-out
op moeilijke momenten. Of het trainen van technieken die leiden tot rust in je
hoofd, zoals het richten van je aandacht op positieve elementen in het hier en
nu. Goed. Ik geef toe dat dit wel heel mooi klinkt. En de kans dat ik dit zelf even
snel implementeer is ook al niet zo groot. Zeker niet als ik gestresst ben.
Maar Shanker heeft wel een punt. Natuurlijk zijn er mensen die willens en
wetens de boel ondermijnen en met plezier het bloed onder je nagels vandaan
halen. Maar de kans dat die toevallig net allemaal bij jou op kantoor werken of
in huis wonen is gelukkig niet zo groot als je soms denkt.
Recently we have seen in Britain how people voted yes to Brexit. What is your opinion?
I voted for us to stay in the European Union but I can understand why people voted for us to leave. At first people were deceived by both the press and by politicians. But the big mistake was to have a referendum. We elect politicians to make those decisions for us; in referendums people vote almost always based on emotions and that's not good. It must be based on facts and so we have a political system that takes care of it. That is the role of parliament. People voted from an emotion and what they wanted was to kick the government in the face. I am not in favor of referendums – it is not the right way to vote. It was the weapon used by [Adolf] Hitler; it was his favorite tool to get what he wanted. He knew that dealing with basic emotions he could get a lot from people. It is based on fear, hatred and suspicion and a referendum is perfect to channel all this. So when I become King, I will avoid it [laughs]. Just kidding.Sting
Jeremy Grantham:
On the other hand, and perhaps more likely, Brexit may cause the failure of a noble experiment that above all has brought peace to Europe. Germany just experienced 70 years of peace for the first time in its entire history. Adding to the long list of EU deficiencies, Brexit may be the straw (or bale of straws) that breaks the camel’s back. The key issues here are risk and unintended consequences. When you are muddling through okay, as was the UK, with no wars or other complete disasters, why rock the boat? The precautionary principle should apply. The unknowable, unintended pain from Brexit for the UK, the EU (especially some of its more vulnerable members), and, perhaps, the world are simply not worth the risk. By far the worst risk, and one that is most underestimated to a weakened or collapsed EU in my opinion, is from immigration or refugees from outside Europe.
The truth about immigration to the EU, in my view, is bitter. As covered in earlier quarterlies, I believe Africa and parts believe Africa and parts of the Near East are beginning to fail as civilized states.
■■They are failing under the pressure of populations that have multiplied by 5 to 10 times since I was born; climate for growing food that is deteriorating at an accelerating rate; degraded soils; insufficient unpolluted water; bad governance; and lack of infrastructure. Country after country is tilting into rolling failure.
■■This is producing in these failing states increasing numbers of desperate people, mainly young men, willing to risk money and their lives to attempt an entry into the EU.
■■For the best example of the non-compute intractability of this problem, consider Nigeria. It had 21 million people when I was born and now has 187 million. In a recent poll, 40% of Nigerians (75 million) said they would like to emigrate, mostly to the UK (population 64 million). Difficult. But the official UN estimate for Nigeria’s population in 2100 is over 800 million! (They still have a fertility rate of six children per woman.) Without discussing the likelihood of ever reaching 800 million, I suspect you will understand the problem at hand. Impossible.
■■I wrote two years ago that this immigration pressure would stress Europe and that the first victim would be Western Europe’s liberal traditions. Well, this is happening in real time as they say, far faster than I expected. It will only get worse as hundreds of thousands of refugees become millions.
■■The EU and Europe may support a few years of increasing numbers of these failing state refugees, but that is all. They will fairly quickly have to refuse to take even legitimately distressed refugees. The alternative – to take all comers – would likely be not just a failed EU, but a failing Europe. The key question now is what social and political problems will be caused by the stress of getting from here to there: from today’s chaos to a time when European borders will have uniform and controlled immigration.
■■Brexit is an early warning of how sensitive this issue will be. A serious country, or at least a formerly serious country, the UK is risking a lot at a small whiff of the immigration problem that is coming. (Immigration problems in the US are trivial in comparison to what Europe faces, yet they have already become a serious political issue.)
The EU (with or without the UK), and indeed the whole of Europe, must get a uniform policy on immigration as soon as possible. Yet, based on what they say, they do not yet appreciate the long-term seriousness of their predicament. They are, though, behaving like headless chickens faced with the problems they already have. Problems that will, when viewed from the future, appear to have been just moderate in scale.
■■By far the biggest downside of Brexit is that it serves to weaken the EU at exactly the wrong time – as external immigration begins to seriously stress governance and political cohesion.
■■In the larger context of immigration, because I believe I have no serious career risk on this issue (touch wood!), I should say that I believe that the UK and many other European countries have not had a net benefit from immigration. In 1945 they were, in most cases, culturally and ethnically homogeneous. This was absolutely not the melting pot situation of North America. Steady immigration was supported by the elite-intellectual, political and economic. It occurred largely against the will of the people in that more were nervous about increased immigration than were enthusiastic. It seems likely that in most cases immigration made social cohesion more difficult.
■■Any offsetting economic advantage for the UK has to be on a productivity basis, for driving GDP forward by population increases alone is no bargain in a small, overcrowded island that feeds barely half its own population (although business support for growth of any kind is often forthcoming). Possible productivity gains from immigration seem at best to be insufficient to offset increased social stresses. There, I said it. ■■This does not mean that a country based on immigration (trained, if you will) cannot integrate not just immigrants, but the whole idea of immigration. If times are good, or good enough, for a sustained period and income inequality is held in some check and social welfare is fine, you could end up like Toronto, everyone’s heroine in this respect. If not, you could even easily end up with a melting pot history and the current conflicted attitudes to immigration that we have in the US.
■■In case you missed it, my sympathies are split between admiration for Toronto and sympathy for the voters of Doncaster, my hometown and a former coal mining center. Its population has made moderate economic progress since 1945 despite the loss of mining and other industrial activities, like most northern towns. But in looking at the more important relative progress, inhabitants cannot avoid seeing how obviously the fortunes of London bankers, the top 10%, and, indeed, the south in general have left them in the coal dust. (Poetic license given Thatcher closed most of the mines and the very last one closed recently.) They voted over two to one for Brexit.
■■On the margin, the Brexit vote was won because some key groups expected to lean Brexit produced unexpectedly high margins: medium and small northern towns (such as Doncaster), the elderly, and the less well-educated.
The lack of serious political intent to narrow growing income inequality. This has caused a growing disgruntlement of the bottom half of the economic order and the usual weakening of social cohesion.
A lack of success in mitigating economic weakness in the formerly industrial north. As globalization took their jobs, an epic effort was required to retrain and re-employ these workers. Little was done. Northerners never much cared for London government and Southerners in general at the best of times. Now feeling mistreated, with justification, they took delight in making a rude gesture to the establishment.
Recently we have seen in Britain how people voted yes to Brexit. What is your opinion?
I voted for us to stay in the European Union but I can understand why people voted for us to leave. At first people were deceived by both the press and by politicians. But the big mistake was to have a referendum. We elect politicians to make those decisions for us; in referendums people vote almost always based on emotions and that's not good. It must be based on facts and so we have a political system that takes care of it. That is the role of parliament. People voted from an emotion and what they wanted was to kick the government in the face. I am not in favor of referendums – it is not the right way to vote. It was the weapon used by [Adolf] Hitler; it was his favorite tool to get what he wanted. He knew that dealing with basic emotions he could get a lot from people. It is based on fear, hatred and suspicion and a referendum is perfect to channel all this. So when I become King, I will avoid it [laughs]. Just kidding.Sting
Jeremy Grantham:
The UK voters’ knowledge of the salient facts
did not look impressive in Brexit. According to the number of Google hits, many
were not too sure what the EU actually is, let alone the precise implications
of leaving it. There was considerable confusion between Syrian refugees and
intra-EU migrants. Above all, there was a strong expectation that free trade
with the EU could be retained without both payments to
the EU and free intra-EU immigration continuing (the conditions Norway agrees
to). There is absolutely no hope of that. If the UK really means to have its
own immigration policy, it will have to negotiate new treaties with the EU and
the rest of the world, and it will need to do so without experienced trade
negotiators, who have not been required in the UK for many years.
■■In that eventuality
– no EU free trade agreement – many firms will slowly or quickly move some of
their business out of the UK and into the EU to avoid tariffs. London’s
financial business will be especially vulnerable.
■■With most voters
substantially ignorant and many deliberately misled, there may be an interesting
consequence: extreme and rather rapid regret. As business and consumer
confidence quickly weakens, economic activity falls, and racist incidents jump
(at least 60% recently), there could be and should be disillusionment at the
many misrepresentations and apparent complete lack of preparedness and
willingness to actually lead by Brexit advocates.
■■The lack of clear
constitutional rules around referenda in the UK and the uniqueness in the EU of
a country’s withdrawal provide waffle room. There can be plenty of time before
an irrevocable decision is made, and much can happen. Both Denmark and Ireland
reconsidered EU votes. My semi-educated guess is that there is a substantial
one in three shot that the UK will also reconsider.
■■If Brexit holds,
pretty clearly Scotland will leave the UK as might Northern Ireland. This will
make a painful irony out of the single most frequently quoted reason for
leaving: “Make Britain British Again.” They will probably have to settle for
“Make England (and Wales) English (and Welsh) Again.”
■■In total, if Brexit
occurs, the UK economy will be hurt for several years. In the longer term,
though, there may be some offset for the UK economy by virtue of having a
smaller financial sector and a more balanced, less London-centric economy.
■■Brexit may even stimulate the EU to reconsider
its many weaknesses. It is a particularly complicated exercise in government
and as such is prone to unfortunate decisions. It is less democratic than it
needs to be, but it appears to be much less democratic than it really is. It
has been overconfident about its acceptability to the general public of its
member states and badly needs better P.R. Brexit may be seen in 20 years as
having woken up and revitalized the EU.
On the other hand, and perhaps more likely, Brexit may cause the failure of a noble experiment that above all has brought peace to Europe. Germany just experienced 70 years of peace for the first time in its entire history. Adding to the long list of EU deficiencies, Brexit may be the straw (or bale of straws) that breaks the camel’s back. The key issues here are risk and unintended consequences. When you are muddling through okay, as was the UK, with no wars or other complete disasters, why rock the boat? The precautionary principle should apply. The unknowable, unintended pain from Brexit for the UK, the EU (especially some of its more vulnerable members), and, perhaps, the world are simply not worth the risk. By far the worst risk, and one that is most underestimated to a weakened or collapsed EU in my opinion, is from immigration or refugees from outside Europe.
The truth about immigration to the EU, in my view, is bitter. As covered in earlier quarterlies, I believe Africa and parts believe Africa and parts of the Near East are beginning to fail as civilized states.
■■They are failing under the pressure of populations that have multiplied by 5 to 10 times since I was born; climate for growing food that is deteriorating at an accelerating rate; degraded soils; insufficient unpolluted water; bad governance; and lack of infrastructure. Country after country is tilting into rolling failure.
■■This is producing in these failing states increasing numbers of desperate people, mainly young men, willing to risk money and their lives to attempt an entry into the EU.
■■For the best example of the non-compute intractability of this problem, consider Nigeria. It had 21 million people when I was born and now has 187 million. In a recent poll, 40% of Nigerians (75 million) said they would like to emigrate, mostly to the UK (population 64 million). Difficult. But the official UN estimate for Nigeria’s population in 2100 is over 800 million! (They still have a fertility rate of six children per woman.) Without discussing the likelihood of ever reaching 800 million, I suspect you will understand the problem at hand. Impossible.
■■I wrote two years ago that this immigration pressure would stress Europe and that the first victim would be Western Europe’s liberal traditions. Well, this is happening in real time as they say, far faster than I expected. It will only get worse as hundreds of thousands of refugees become millions.
■■The EU and Europe may support a few years of increasing numbers of these failing state refugees, but that is all. They will fairly quickly have to refuse to take even legitimately distressed refugees. The alternative – to take all comers – would likely be not just a failed EU, but a failing Europe. The key question now is what social and political problems will be caused by the stress of getting from here to there: from today’s chaos to a time when European borders will have uniform and controlled immigration.
■■Brexit is an early warning of how sensitive this issue will be. A serious country, or at least a formerly serious country, the UK is risking a lot at a small whiff of the immigration problem that is coming. (Immigration problems in the US are trivial in comparison to what Europe faces, yet they have already become a serious political issue.)
The EU (with or without the UK), and indeed the whole of Europe, must get a uniform policy on immigration as soon as possible. Yet, based on what they say, they do not yet appreciate the long-term seriousness of their predicament. They are, though, behaving like headless chickens faced with the problems they already have. Problems that will, when viewed from the future, appear to have been just moderate in scale.
■■By far the biggest downside of Brexit is that it serves to weaken the EU at exactly the wrong time – as external immigration begins to seriously stress governance and political cohesion.
■■In the larger context of immigration, because I believe I have no serious career risk on this issue (touch wood!), I should say that I believe that the UK and many other European countries have not had a net benefit from immigration. In 1945 they were, in most cases, culturally and ethnically homogeneous. This was absolutely not the melting pot situation of North America. Steady immigration was supported by the elite-intellectual, political and economic. It occurred largely against the will of the people in that more were nervous about increased immigration than were enthusiastic. It seems likely that in most cases immigration made social cohesion more difficult.
■■Any offsetting economic advantage for the UK has to be on a productivity basis, for driving GDP forward by population increases alone is no bargain in a small, overcrowded island that feeds barely half its own population (although business support for growth of any kind is often forthcoming). Possible productivity gains from immigration seem at best to be insufficient to offset increased social stresses. There, I said it. ■■This does not mean that a country based on immigration (trained, if you will) cannot integrate not just immigrants, but the whole idea of immigration. If times are good, or good enough, for a sustained period and income inequality is held in some check and social welfare is fine, you could end up like Toronto, everyone’s heroine in this respect. If not, you could even easily end up with a melting pot history and the current conflicted attitudes to immigration that we have in the US.
■■In case you missed it, my sympathies are split between admiration for Toronto and sympathy for the voters of Doncaster, my hometown and a former coal mining center. Its population has made moderate economic progress since 1945 despite the loss of mining and other industrial activities, like most northern towns. But in looking at the more important relative progress, inhabitants cannot avoid seeing how obviously the fortunes of London bankers, the top 10%, and, indeed, the south in general have left them in the coal dust. (Poetic license given Thatcher closed most of the mines and the very last one closed recently.) They voted over two to one for Brexit.
■■On the margin, the Brexit vote was won because some key groups expected to lean Brexit produced unexpectedly high margins: medium and small northern towns (such as Doncaster), the elderly, and the less well-educated.
Codicil: the real blame for Brexit
The lack of serious political intent to narrow growing income inequality. This has caused a growing disgruntlement of the bottom half of the economic order and the usual weakening of social cohesion.
A lack of success in mitigating economic weakness in the formerly industrial north. As globalization took their jobs, an epic effort was required to retrain and re-employ these workers. Little was done. Northerners never much cared for London government and Southerners in general at the best of times. Now feeling mistreated, with justification, they took delight in making a rude gesture to the establishment.
■■Calling
for an utterly unnecessary referendum by the Prime Minister for superficial and
short-term political gain. He could have muddled through anyway. Referenda are
dangerous. They allow for the true will of the people to be voiced, informed or
ill-informed, manipulated or not. Dangerous. As Churchill said (now much
quoted), “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter.” He might also have commented about the willful
laziness of the one-third who never vote.
■■The
UK press, the most egregiously editorialized in the developed world. The broad
circulation papers goaded and badgered their readers toward Brexit.
■■As for the politicians, forget it. Whimsical
theories, back-stabbing disloyalties, a glaring lack of planning and foresight.
Above all, completely ignoring the precautionary principle, playing with fire
like children. Now those Brexiters that haven’t run away can reap what they have
sown, as unfortunately will the whole UK. If you will, the pack of dogs can now
try to work out what to do with that darned car.
ISO bevestigt
mijn eerdere veronderstelling: studeren steeds meer elitezaak
Nog maar kort
geleden schreef ik over de problemen die steeds hogere collegegelden en vooral
steeds meer en hogere studenten-leningen in de toekomst voor werknemers gaan
veroorzaken. Een studieschuld wordt immers geregistreerd en is dus negatief
voor de leencapaciteit van de ex-student; en aangezien de bedragen steeds
harder oplopen daalt de leencapaciteit sterk. Mede daardoor zal ook de
koopkracht van studenten, vooral vanaf 2017, sterk dalen. Het Interstedelijk
Studenten Overleg (ISO) kwam onlangs tot eenzelfde conclusie en waarschuwde dat
dit onevenredig hard gaat. Zij betrokken in hun onderzoeken namelijk ook nog de
gemiddelde inkomsten (die dalen door steeds meer focus op de studie), inflatie
(momenteel geen probleem) en de kamerhuur (die sterk stijgt). Concluderend dat
de drempel om te studeren steeds financiële wordt en steeds hoger komt te
liggen, onderschrijven zij mijn eerdere conclusie dat studeren steeds meer
een elitezaak wordt omdat een heel groot deel van de studenten (55% uit een
eerder onderzoek) niet NOG hogere schulden aan wil gaan. En dus zullen
ouders NOG MEER moeten dokken, moet de student nóg een bijbaan pakken (terwijl
dat helemaal niet kan wegens tijdgebrek), of TOCH meer bijlenen. Zoals u
begrijpt gaan er dus tientallen procenten potentiële goede studenten afvallen
wegens geldgebrek (ongeacht welke reden). Minister Schippers zei vorig jaar nog
dat invoering van het nieuwe systeem ‘amper nadelen toonde’. Toen schreef ik al
dat ze stond te liegen; nu is kristalhelder dat we op deze manier een enorm
potentieel aan extra goed opgeleide werknemers en economische kracht mislopen.
WAT een verspilling !
Overheid MOET
het goede voorbeeld geven maar is geen haar beter !
Daarmee lopen
zij tevens een veel hoger risico om flexwerker te worden; iets dat inmiddels al
1,4 miljoen Nederlanders (vaak met grote tegenzin) zijn. Het CBS onderzocht dat
slechts 1 op de 5 van die groep bewust kiest voor flexwerken en dat dus 4 op de
5, ruim 1 miljoen, dit werk met stevige tegenzin doet. Vooral uit noodzaak
omdat ze geen vaste baan kunnen vinden, al lijkt dat volgens de jongste
berichten inmiddels iets beter te worden. En ondanks dat de overheid onlangs
nog een wet invoerde die de groei van het aantal flexwerkers en oneigenlijke
ZZP’-ers sterk zou moeten beperken, lukt dat niet. Sterker nog, ook de overheid
heeft relatief veel flexwerkers in dienst, maar doen die bij gemeentes en de
rijksoverheid bijna altijd structureel werk ! Enige tijd geleden zei
mevrouw Patijn van de FNV “dat het een schokkende ontdekking is dat het
flexwerken net zo groot is bij de overheid als bij werkgevers”. Ik schreef
geruime tijd geleden al eens dat ik dit vermoedde en dat zoiets niet kan omdat
de overheid het goede voorbeeld moet geven ! En dus voelen veel
flexwerkers zich absoluut geen volwaardige werknemers, vooral omdat hun
contract voortdurend ter discussie ligt en soms zelfs elk moment beëindigd kan
worden. Het ergste is echter dat bijna 1,5 miljoen NL’ers enorme onzekerheid
over hun baan (lees: inkomen) hebben en dus ook geen huis, auto, bankstel of
diensten kopen. Maar DAAR draait het in de economie en nu juist om ! En zo
snijden dit soort maatregelen in EIGEN financieel vlees …
Wessel Aslander
