The period of 150 years from the end of the Napoleonic wars can, in retrospect, be seen as a golden age of Catholicism. An unbroken succession of first rate popes, from Pius IX to Pius XII, built on, and consolidated, the work of each and all of his predecessors.
Missionaries spread the faith round the world. Irish immigration brought a wave of Catholicism to America and Great Britain. In Britain, it was boosted by the aftermath of the Oxford Movement, with the conversion of Newman, Manning, Vaughan and many others from the English upper classes. Then came the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy in England in 1850, with the re-establishment of Catholic dioceses. This was followed by a vigorous period of church building, many by notable architects such as A W Pugin and Joseph Aloysius Hansom. Religious orders such as the Benedictines, Sacred Heart Sisters, and Oratorians, set up new communities all over the world. There were six seminaries in England alone, training a steady and ample flow of priests.
A flourishing Catholic intellectual culture developed, with such renowned lay figures as Belloc, Chesterton, Sheed and Ward, the Meynells, J R R Tolkien. Notable Jesuits included Gerald Manley Hopkins, Frederick Copleston, Martin D’Arcy, and Cyril Martindale in Britain. Bishop Fulton Sheen was a famous and popular broadcaster in the USA. Another famous clergyman was Chesterton’s fictitious Fr Brown (modelled on a Roman Catholic friend, Fr John O’Connor, a parish priest). The Catholic church attracted famous converts: in addition to Chesterton, were, amongst many others, Compton Mackenzie, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Christopher Hollis, Alec Guinness - it is a large and diverse list.
The period also saw a renewal of Catholic liturgy, grounded in the painstaking restoration of Gregorian Chant by the Solemnes monks from the 1870s onwards, and the publication of the Vatican edition of the Liber Usualis and other chant books. There was new Catholic music too, by composers such as Bruckner, Elgar, Dupre and the organist Olivier Messaien.
The Catholic church did not attract just famous people. In his autobiography, “Goodbye to all that”, Robert Graves describes how the Catholic chaplains would remain with the men at the front in the trenches so that they could be available to hear the confessions of the dying soldiers. As a consequence, Graves explains, many of the men claimed to be Catholics when they were not, so that they could have a chaplain assigned to them. Naturally, this had its effect and drew converts into the Catholic church.
In the 1950s, the Catholic church seemed to have a bright future ahead. The model priest was, perhaps, someone like the one portrayed by Bing Crosby in “Going my way” and “The Bells of St Mary’s”, which came out in 1944 and 1945.
In retrospect, the end came suddenly. It was soon after the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. The Second Vatican Council ushered in a series of liturgical reforms which left the Catholic church unrecognisable. Religious vocations dwindled to a trickle. Mass attendances slumped. A series of scandals revealed that that there had been ugly things going on beneath the surface.
From 1978 onwards with the election of Pope John Paul II, it looked as if the changes had gone as far as they were going and that we would see the swing of a pendulum. Since 2013, however, the momentum for further change has gathered once more. Although the unexpected can happen, and the Holy Spirit moves in surprising ways, it is unlikely that the decline will be reversed within the lifetime of most people alive today, if ever. The strongest shoots of Christian growth today are to be seen in Moscow, of all places. Who would have predicted such a thing?
One wonders what the orthodox Catholic intellectuals of 100 years ago would have made of what is happening and how they would have responded to this confusing state of affairs?
söndag 31 december 2017
lördag 30 december 2017
St Thomas of Canterbury
Today is the feast of St Thomas of Canterbury. He was a martyr in the cause of the independence of the church from state power. That it is a perennial issue we know from the episode of “render unto Caesar”.
At Brighton, during the 1980s, we had a curate, Fr Mark Elvins, who was a descendant of the Four Knights who murdered the Archbishop in Canterbury Cathedral on 29 December 1170. Fr Mark had acquired a relic of St Thomas whilst on a visit to Rome and brought it back to Brighton. This inspired him to set up a charity in Brighton to provide hostel accommodation for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, under the patronage of St Thomas.
The existence of these relics of St Thomas was against the will of King Henry VIII. All relics of St Thomas were to have been destroyed after the shrine was taken down in 1538, on the King’s orders. Henry demanded that all the bones be ground to dust and shot from a canon. The plan was confounded because long before, relics had been given to the Papal Legate and the King of France when they made a state visit to Canterbury; there was also a relic sent to Hungary.
After leaving Brighton, Fr Mark eventually joined the Franciscans and became head of Greyfriars, Oxford. He died in 2014.
When he was at Brighton Fr Mark used to celebrate a Tridentine Missa Cantata on this day, followed by a pub lunch. It was an event to look forward to in those indeterminate days between Christmas and New Year. I had thought of going to Mass today but it would just have made me unhappy as a reminder of what is, sadly, no more.
At Brighton, during the 1980s, we had a curate, Fr Mark Elvins, who was a descendant of the Four Knights who murdered the Archbishop in Canterbury Cathedral on 29 December 1170. Fr Mark had acquired a relic of St Thomas whilst on a visit to Rome and brought it back to Brighton. This inspired him to set up a charity in Brighton to provide hostel accommodation for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, under the patronage of St Thomas.
The existence of these relics of St Thomas was against the will of King Henry VIII. All relics of St Thomas were to have been destroyed after the shrine was taken down in 1538, on the King’s orders. Henry demanded that all the bones be ground to dust and shot from a canon. The plan was confounded because long before, relics had been given to the Papal Legate and the King of France when they made a state visit to Canterbury; there was also a relic sent to Hungary.
After leaving Brighton, Fr Mark eventually joined the Franciscans and became head of Greyfriars, Oxford. He died in 2014.
When he was at Brighton Fr Mark used to celebrate a Tridentine Missa Cantata on this day, followed by a pub lunch. It was an event to look forward to in those indeterminate days between Christmas and New Year. I had thought of going to Mass today but it would just have made me unhappy as a reminder of what is, sadly, no more.
fredag 22 december 2017
Who will the next pope be?
A group of us were discussing this question the other evening. These are the odds given at the betting website Paddy Power. It is probably as good a guide as any, unless some new Cardinals are named.
It is claimed that the decision is the Holy Spirit’s, so any result is possible. However, would a “Benedict XVII” fare any better than Benedict XVI in the Vatican? And his successor in turn? Athanasius Schneider as “Benedict XVIII”?
Whether the decision really is the Holy Spirit’s is another question. It all hangs ultimately on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Other interpretations are possible. At one time there were three popes. For centuries the papacy was a trophy that was rotated among aristocratic Roman families ie Roman families with large and valuable land holdings. Extreme privilege, and extreme poverty, are not starts in life which preclude holiness — far from it — but the saints seem mostly to have come from somewhere in between, with a loving and intimate family background.
The text of Mt 16:18-19 is, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Whether the infallibly Papal monarchical model of the church is what was really intended by those words has been endlessly debated and will no doubt continue to be for a long time to come.
- Cardinal Tagle (Phillipines) 4-1
- Cardinal Marc Ouellet (Canada) 6-1
- Cardinal Peter Turkson (Ghana) 6-1
- Cardinal Sean O’Malley (United States) 15-2
- Archbishop Angelo Scola (Italy) 15-2
- Cardinal Christoph Schonborn (Austria) 9-1
It is claimed that the decision is the Holy Spirit’s, so any result is possible. However, would a “Benedict XVII” fare any better than Benedict XVI in the Vatican? And his successor in turn? Athanasius Schneider as “Benedict XVIII”?
Whether the decision really is the Holy Spirit’s is another question. It all hangs ultimately on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Other interpretations are possible. At one time there were three popes. For centuries the papacy was a trophy that was rotated among aristocratic Roman families ie Roman families with large and valuable land holdings. Extreme privilege, and extreme poverty, are not starts in life which preclude holiness — far from it — but the saints seem mostly to have come from somewhere in between, with a loving and intimate family background.
The text of Mt 16:18-19 is, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Whether the infallibly Papal monarchical model of the church is what was really intended by those words has been endlessly debated and will no doubt continue to be for a long time to come.
onsdag 20 december 2017
Access to markets
When I was a child, and that was a very long time ago, we used to go to Petticoat Lane market several times a year, usually on a Sunday morning; its real name is Wentworth Street. It was a train ride to the long-vanished terminal at Broad Street. The trains were ancient even then, having come into service during the First World War. The seats where covered in shiny horsehair with deep buttoned-in upholstery and above them were framed sepia photographs of places on the London and North Western Railway, such as the Lake District.
In Petticoat Lane, prices were lower, which covered the cost of the train fare. There were all sorts of things that you could not buy anywhere else: unusual vegetables such as petrushka (parsley root), an essential ingredient of chicken soup; bagels; Cohen’s Smoked Salmon; Barnett’s salt beef; Grozdinski’s bread. You could buy schmaltz herrings (Dutch style, pickled in brine), Edam, Gouda, and white cream cheese, white unsalted butter, and olives, which were a rarity elsewhere. There was a shop which sold freshwater fish such as pike and mirror carp, the latter kept live and swimming in a big glass tank above the counter.
There was lots to see and we came home with shopping bags full of interesting things to eat. This was when bread was white or Hovis, cheese meant mousetrap cheddar, fish was cod or haddock, and vegetables were potatoes, cabbage, cauliflower and basic roots. A trip to Petticoat Lane was the alternative to the usual Sunday morning outing, a walk on Hampstead Heath.
Now, much of the arguments about Brexit is focussed on something called, “Access to markets”. In the normal meaning of the term, free access to markets meant that shoppers are free to go and buy what was on sale; Londoners are free to shop in Petticoat Lane market (though these days it is a very different place from what it was seventy years ago).
In Eurospeak, the meaning of “Access to markets” has been inverted. Free access in Eurospeak means that sellers are free to purvey their wares. The other side of this coin is that the withdrawal of free access, eg after Brexit, means that shoppers are restricted from being able to buy the goods on offer. Almost none of the commentators has made this obvious point, yet it is as if the people who lived in Hampstead and Kentish Town had been told by their local councils that they were not allowed to travel to Petticoat Lane and do their shopping, but must only buy from their local shops. Not only would customers have been deprived of the foods that could only be bought in Petticoat Lane; the local shops would have taken advantage of the lack of competition and jacked up their prices. This is the principle behind the EU’s Single Market.
One could envisage a situation where local shopkeepers might have tried to nobble their local councillors to enforce such a rule, but the elected councillors would have had to be extremely corrupt and they would not have been re-elected. However, this is exactly how the EU trade policy operates from Brussels. This is why the EU trade policy on Brexit will harm people and businesses inside the EU at least as much as it will cause trouble for UK manufacturers and providers of services. Consider financial services, for example. European companies employ British consultants not as an act of charity, but because they provide the service the client wants, at a favourable price. There are specific reasons why London has become a centre for financial service suppliers, and if EU clients are unable to continue to use their British consultants, they will be forced to pay more for a worse service, not to mention the cost and trouble of the disruption, which will extend to a loss of knowledge of the clients’ business, built up over many years.
Despite the obviousness of all these, writers, and expert ones at that, persist in referring to “Access to markets” exclusively from the producers’ perspective.
In Petticoat Lane, prices were lower, which covered the cost of the train fare. There were all sorts of things that you could not buy anywhere else: unusual vegetables such as petrushka (parsley root), an essential ingredient of chicken soup; bagels; Cohen’s Smoked Salmon; Barnett’s salt beef; Grozdinski’s bread. You could buy schmaltz herrings (Dutch style, pickled in brine), Edam, Gouda, and white cream cheese, white unsalted butter, and olives, which were a rarity elsewhere. There was a shop which sold freshwater fish such as pike and mirror carp, the latter kept live and swimming in a big glass tank above the counter.
There was lots to see and we came home with shopping bags full of interesting things to eat. This was when bread was white or Hovis, cheese meant mousetrap cheddar, fish was cod or haddock, and vegetables were potatoes, cabbage, cauliflower and basic roots. A trip to Petticoat Lane was the alternative to the usual Sunday morning outing, a walk on Hampstead Heath.
Now, much of the arguments about Brexit is focussed on something called, “Access to markets”. In the normal meaning of the term, free access to markets meant that shoppers are free to go and buy what was on sale; Londoners are free to shop in Petticoat Lane market (though these days it is a very different place from what it was seventy years ago).
In Eurospeak, the meaning of “Access to markets” has been inverted. Free access in Eurospeak means that sellers are free to purvey their wares. The other side of this coin is that the withdrawal of free access, eg after Brexit, means that shoppers are restricted from being able to buy the goods on offer. Almost none of the commentators has made this obvious point, yet it is as if the people who lived in Hampstead and Kentish Town had been told by their local councils that they were not allowed to travel to Petticoat Lane and do their shopping, but must only buy from their local shops. Not only would customers have been deprived of the foods that could only be bought in Petticoat Lane; the local shops would have taken advantage of the lack of competition and jacked up their prices. This is the principle behind the EU’s Single Market.
One could envisage a situation where local shopkeepers might have tried to nobble their local councillors to enforce such a rule, but the elected councillors would have had to be extremely corrupt and they would not have been re-elected. However, this is exactly how the EU trade policy operates from Brussels. This is why the EU trade policy on Brexit will harm people and businesses inside the EU at least as much as it will cause trouble for UK manufacturers and providers of services. Consider financial services, for example. European companies employ British consultants not as an act of charity, but because they provide the service the client wants, at a favourable price. There are specific reasons why London has become a centre for financial service suppliers, and if EU clients are unable to continue to use their British consultants, they will be forced to pay more for a worse service, not to mention the cost and trouble of the disruption, which will extend to a loss of knowledge of the clients’ business, built up over many years.
Despite the obviousness of all these, writers, and expert ones at that, persist in referring to “Access to markets” exclusively from the producers’ perspective.
fredag 15 december 2017
Non-fake news about the EEC and EU
- Food mountains, wine lakes etc were not fake news.
- VAT (you could not think of a worse tax) was not fake news.
- The sudden disappearance of cheap food from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Argentina and Eastern Europe in 1973 was not fake news.
- The grubbing up of hedgerows in the late 1970s to make the most of CAP was not fake news.
- Farmers being paid to leave fields full of weeds under the 2nd version of CAP was not fake news.
- The grants to country landowners under the 3rd and current incarnation of CAP are not fake news
- The Single Market tariff barrier is not fake news.
Job creation programme from heaven
The unusually early heavy snowfalls have created plenty of work in the past few weeks for people who must get up in the middle of the night to clear it by hand and with snowploughs.
All this extra activity is reflected in the GDP figure and looks like economic growth. You could think of it as a job creation programme from heaven.
torsdag 14 december 2017
Lord's Prayer changed
“The problem is that the Orthodox Churches will continue with what has been given and the un-Churched will continue with what has always been but the cavalier attitude of the Pope to the explicit teaching of Jesus Christ will wound the Catholic Church for generations and set precedents for further rejection and sidelining of Christ.”
So writes Fr Blake in his latest blog. But surely it is not a problem, rather a useful pointer?
So writes Fr Blake in his latest blog. But surely it is not a problem, rather a useful pointer?
The Journey East #8
THE JOY OF ORTHODOXY
I have so far said little about the joy of Orthodoxy. There are small things about the Orthodox I have noticed for a long time, for example, that those visiting a church stop at the threshold and make the sign of the cross before entering the building.
Our local Franciscans have a library with a well-stocked section with books by Anthony Bloom, Meyendorff, Kontzevich and many others, which I have been reading my way through. One of the most inspiring was “The Unknown Homeland”, an autobiography by a priest from St Petersburg who had been arrested and imprisoned for a year before being sent to a remote village in Siberia, where, his health broken, he died after a few months. Reading these books has been a rewarding exploration in itself.
There is a beautiful church, a re-modelling of a unpromising grey concrete protestant church put up in the 1970s. Obviously, there has been the Divine Liturgy. One can only concur with the emissaries sent by Prince Vladimir of Kiev over 1,000 years ago, who found no beauty in the churches of the Germans, when they came to Constantinople and attended the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, reported that, “We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.”
One of the reassuring things about the Liturgy is that it is almost the same every week. One knows pretty much what it will be like. There will be no nasty musical shocks, an important advantage when there is no off-switch in the pews. Then there is the parish priest, Fr. Dragan, who normally celebrates the Divine Liturgy with his son; if there is time, before Liturgy, Fr. Dragan embraces everyone he sees and gives a Holy Kiss.
After Liturgy, there is coffee and a chance to meet. This was difficult at first in the local Serbian/Russian parish because of the language barrier. However, if one is seen a couple of times and recognised, people go out of their way to make one welcome. After a while it turned out that there were quite a few English speakers.
Orthodoxy stands on two legs. There is the beautiful public liturgy. But it is also demanding, since there is a strong emphasis on private actions including fasting and prayer at home.
The spiritual benefits from all of this are quickly perceptible.
I have so far said little about the joy of Orthodoxy. There are small things about the Orthodox I have noticed for a long time, for example, that those visiting a church stop at the threshold and make the sign of the cross before entering the building.
Our local Franciscans have a library with a well-stocked section with books by Anthony Bloom, Meyendorff, Kontzevich and many others, which I have been reading my way through. One of the most inspiring was “The Unknown Homeland”, an autobiography by a priest from St Petersburg who had been arrested and imprisoned for a year before being sent to a remote village in Siberia, where, his health broken, he died after a few months. Reading these books has been a rewarding exploration in itself.
There is a beautiful church, a re-modelling of a unpromising grey concrete protestant church put up in the 1970s. Obviously, there has been the Divine Liturgy. One can only concur with the emissaries sent by Prince Vladimir of Kiev over 1,000 years ago, who found no beauty in the churches of the Germans, when they came to Constantinople and attended the Divine Liturgy in Hagia Sophia, reported that, “We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth, nor such beauty, and we know not how to tell of it.”
One of the reassuring things about the Liturgy is that it is almost the same every week. One knows pretty much what it will be like. There will be no nasty musical shocks, an important advantage when there is no off-switch in the pews. Then there is the parish priest, Fr. Dragan, who normally celebrates the Divine Liturgy with his son; if there is time, before Liturgy, Fr. Dragan embraces everyone he sees and gives a Holy Kiss.
After Liturgy, there is coffee and a chance to meet. This was difficult at first in the local Serbian/Russian parish because of the language barrier. However, if one is seen a couple of times and recognised, people go out of their way to make one welcome. After a while it turned out that there were quite a few English speakers.
Orthodoxy stands on two legs. There is the beautiful public liturgy. But it is also demanding, since there is a strong emphasis on private actions including fasting and prayer at home.
The spiritual benefits from all of this are quickly perceptible.
måndag 11 december 2017
Bit coin futures trading
The BitCoin mania reminds me of tulip mania. I might be mistaken, since a currency has a value as a medium of exchange as long as enough people have confidence in it. The energy now being consumed in computing to “mine” bit coins is immense. A friend one described his computers as fan heaters which did computing as a side-line. There is a data processing centre in Helsinki which uses the waste for heating an office block. Perhaps BitCoin mining could develop in a similar way.
What, though, is one to make of trading in BitCoin futures? Is it the equivalent of trading tulip bulb futures? Luke 12:13-21 comes to mind. What could possibly go wrong?
What, though, is one to make of trading in BitCoin futures? Is it the equivalent of trading tulip bulb futures? Luke 12:13-21 comes to mind. What could possibly go wrong?
lördag 9 december 2017
Balance of payments surplus - good or bad?
A balance of payments deficit indicates that the value of the wealth coming into a country is higher than the value of the wealth going out, which is exactly as it should be. Goods are always worth more to the buyer than to the seller, and worth more in the country to which they are imported than they are in the country where they are exported form. That is why international trade takes place.
A balance of payments surplus means that wealth is leaving the country in exchange for claims on wealth flowing back in return ie foreign exchange balances. A country with a balance of payments surplus is experiencing a loss of wealth.
Sterling balances held abroad are the driving force behind UK exports since they create demand for UK goods and services, and generate foreign investment in the UK. Thus a country must import in order to export. That is why the the EU Single Market is so damaging, since it sets up an obstacle against imports from the rest of the world.
This is pretty much the opposite of what is generally believed these days about international trade. The prevailing view is a revival of the mercantilist idea which dominated until it was refuted by the classical economists, starting with the Physiocrats, and then developed by Smith, Ricardo, J S Mill and Henry George. The last named wrote the most accessible work on the subject, “Protection or Free Trade”, published in 1884 and still in print.
Sterling balances held abroad are the driving force behind UK exports since they create demand for UK goods and services, and generate foreign investment in the UK. Thus a country must import in order to export. That is why the the EU Single Market is so damaging, since it sets up an obstacle against imports from the rest of the world.
This is pretty much the opposite of what is generally believed these days about international trade. The prevailing view is a revival of the mercantilist idea which dominated until it was refuted by the classical economists, starting with the Physiocrats, and then developed by Smith, Ricardo, J S Mill and Henry George. The last named wrote the most accessible work on the subject, “Protection or Free Trade”, published in 1884 and still in print.
The threat to the financial services “industry”
Financial
services have concentrated in London not as a result of a
conscious decision but for particular reasons which make it the optimal
location. By preventing EU businesses from making use of London-based
services, it is forcing them to employ consultants operating
sub-optimally, which will incur not only the cost of the initial
disruption but also ongoing additional costs; such is the foolishness of
the EU's trade policies. How things develop remains to be seen. Some of
the business may eventually return to London for the very reason it has
concentrated there in the first place.
The present over-concentration of financial services in London is unhealthy and leads to a raft of problems. The departure of those businesses leaves premises in London vacant. The owners of the buildings they occupied will want to find tenants and so new opportunities will open up for other commercial users; they could be involved in design or technology-related activities. The important thing is that the owners do not sit on their real estate and leave it vacant for years on end.
From the mid-nineteenth century until the advent of the Nazis, European banking was concentrated in Berlin, Vienna and Paris. That, too, happened for specific reasons which we are not likely to see re-created. You can read the story in "The Hare with the “Amber Eyes” by Edmund de Waal.
The present over-concentration of financial services in London is unhealthy and leads to a raft of problems. The departure of those businesses leaves premises in London vacant. The owners of the buildings they occupied will want to find tenants and so new opportunities will open up for other commercial users; they could be involved in design or technology-related activities. The important thing is that the owners do not sit on their real estate and leave it vacant for years on end.
From the mid-nineteenth century until the advent of the Nazis, European banking was concentrated in Berlin, Vienna and Paris. That, too, happened for specific reasons which we are not likely to see re-created. You can read the story in "The Hare with the “Amber Eyes” by Edmund de Waal.
Dictator Pope - a book not to read
I will not be reading the book “Dictator Pope”, which has come out under a pseudonym. Were I to do so it would make me angry. That would be bad for my eternal soul, and probably for my heart also, which I need to be careful about. An ECG last week showed that it not altogether as it should be; I seem to have inherited something from my father, though he died at the age of 93 from a different cause altogether.
The problems at Rome did not begin in 2013, or with the Second Vatican Council, or with the First Vatican Council, or even with the schism in 1054. They are a product of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and emerged slowly from around the year 700.
Rather than engage with the Roman problems, I am walking away. I would advise others to do the same. Jesus Christ is the head of the church. His clear instruction was, “Follow Me”. That is enough of a task. We do not need to concern ourselves with church politics which are plainly the work of the Devil.
The problems at Rome did not begin in 2013, or with the Second Vatican Council, or with the First Vatican Council, or even with the schism in 1054. They are a product of Roman Catholic ecclesiology and emerged slowly from around the year 700.
Rather than engage with the Roman problems, I am walking away. I would advise others to do the same. Jesus Christ is the head of the church. His clear instruction was, “Follow Me”. That is enough of a task. We do not need to concern ourselves with church politics which are plainly the work of the Devil.
fredag 8 december 2017
Min andliga resa till Ortodoxin
Snart kommer jag att bestämma mig. Det finns olika skäl som driver mig i samma riktningen. Det blir till helgen ingen Traditionell Latinsk mässa som sig bör. Inte på grund av brist på präster, utan för att alla andra präster (det finns åtminstone 10 präster i och omkring Göteborg) vägrar att fira mässan i denna uråldriga form.
Detta är bara en liten knuff som driver mig österåt. Jag kan inte ange exakt när resan började men säkerligen var det för många års sedan. Resan tog fart på allvar år 2013 när Påven Franciskus blev vald. Valet stämde inte i sig då den nya påven var jesuit; medlemmar i jesuit orden är efter löfte underställda att lyda påven. Detta i sig borde ha uteslutet en jesuit att kunna bli påve. Man kan sonika inte lyda under sig själv; det är en paradox i sig.
En annan knuff i aktuell riktning var påvens besök till Sverige i oktober 2016 för firandet av 500 års minnet av Reformationen. Gudstjänsten i Lunds domkyrka var minst sagt märklig, samt mässan dagen efter på Malmös fotbolsplan.
Situationen i min lokala city församling är inte heller som den ska vara; vi har en massa musikalisk talang men valet av liturgisk musik skapar nästan aldrig en känsla av katolicitet.
Liturgin var det som i början lockade mig till Ortodoxin, men liturgin i sig räcker inte som skäl att för lämna den Romersk-Katolska Kyrkan, vilken menar sig vara den enda sanna kyrkan.
Vändpunkten kom efter en noggrant omläsning av “Orthodoxy and Catholicity” av John Meyendorff, utgiven år 1965 strax efter det andra Vatikan concilium. Orsakerna är de vanligaste; De påvliga påståenden var/är överdrivna. Visserligen har vi haft många redbara och heliga påvar, men under de senaste 1000 åren blev tjänst som påve en slags belöning från de romerska adelsfamiljerna. Under 1300-talet flyttade påven till Avignon. Under några år fanns det tre påvar samtidigt. Påven Julius II måste betraktas som den högst ansvariga för Reformationen. Historien är inte någonting att känna stolthet över som Latinare.
Den romerska strukturen förlitar sig på en särskild tolkning av Matteus 16:18. Därifrån utmynnar tolkningen om hur kyrkan ska regeras, med påven som en slags kejsare. Olika tolkningar gäller likväl. Ortodoxins syn på biskopar vs kyrkan är att alla i princip är jämställda, eftersom kyrkans huvud inte är någon annat än Jesus Kristus själv. Patriarker och metropoliter betraktas som viktiga då de har ett andligt ansvar för en stor befolking som i fallet Konstantinopel och Alexandria. Strukturen i sig själv är platt/vågrätt istället för vertikal/pyramidformad och alla biskoper håller koll varandra för att den sanna Tro ska bevaras.
Ej att förglömma är det sk Filioque tillägget i vårt universella Credo. Dvs att den Heliga Ande utgår av Fadern och Sonen. Formuleringen motsägs av evangelisten Johannes i kap 15:26 där det står att "Hjälparen kommer som jag skall sända er från Fadern, sanningens ande, som utgår från Fadern." Filioque blev aldrig godkänt av något ekumenisk koncilium och leder till en obalanserad syn på Den Heliga Treeningheten vilket nedgraderar den Helige Ande på ett förunderligt sätt. (om än oavsiktligt från Rom)
Har även funnit att Ortodoxin har rätt i sin teologi/förkastande av ett antal Romersk-katolska post schism dogmer: synderfall, skärselden (gnistan som tände reformationen), den obefläckade avelsen, bruket av osyrat bröd under eukaristin och om det omdömeslösa i transubstantiationsläran - en spekulering runt Eukaristin i vilken den katolska kyrkan nästan verkar omfamna någon slags tro på en kemisk förvandling i Brödet & Vinet.
Jag kommer inte att hasta iväg österut men det verkar i det långa loppet oundvikligt att konvertera till den Ortodoxa Tron. Den slutliga resan dit kommer både att bli obekväm och krävande.
Detta är bara en liten knuff som driver mig österåt. Jag kan inte ange exakt när resan började men säkerligen var det för många års sedan. Resan tog fart på allvar år 2013 när Påven Franciskus blev vald. Valet stämde inte i sig då den nya påven var jesuit; medlemmar i jesuit orden är efter löfte underställda att lyda påven. Detta i sig borde ha uteslutet en jesuit att kunna bli påve. Man kan sonika inte lyda under sig själv; det är en paradox i sig.
En annan knuff i aktuell riktning var påvens besök till Sverige i oktober 2016 för firandet av 500 års minnet av Reformationen. Gudstjänsten i Lunds domkyrka var minst sagt märklig, samt mässan dagen efter på Malmös fotbolsplan.
Situationen i min lokala city församling är inte heller som den ska vara; vi har en massa musikalisk talang men valet av liturgisk musik skapar nästan aldrig en känsla av katolicitet.
Liturgin var det som i början lockade mig till Ortodoxin, men liturgin i sig räcker inte som skäl att för lämna den Romersk-Katolska Kyrkan, vilken menar sig vara den enda sanna kyrkan.
Vändpunkten kom efter en noggrant omläsning av “Orthodoxy and Catholicity” av John Meyendorff, utgiven år 1965 strax efter det andra Vatikan concilium. Orsakerna är de vanligaste; De påvliga påståenden var/är överdrivna. Visserligen har vi haft många redbara och heliga påvar, men under de senaste 1000 åren blev tjänst som påve en slags belöning från de romerska adelsfamiljerna. Under 1300-talet flyttade påven till Avignon. Under några år fanns det tre påvar samtidigt. Påven Julius II måste betraktas som den högst ansvariga för Reformationen. Historien är inte någonting att känna stolthet över som Latinare.
Den romerska strukturen förlitar sig på en särskild tolkning av Matteus 16:18. Därifrån utmynnar tolkningen om hur kyrkan ska regeras, med påven som en slags kejsare. Olika tolkningar gäller likväl. Ortodoxins syn på biskopar vs kyrkan är att alla i princip är jämställda, eftersom kyrkans huvud inte är någon annat än Jesus Kristus själv. Patriarker och metropoliter betraktas som viktiga då de har ett andligt ansvar för en stor befolking som i fallet Konstantinopel och Alexandria. Strukturen i sig själv är platt/vågrätt istället för vertikal/pyramidformad och alla biskoper håller koll varandra för att den sanna Tro ska bevaras.
Ej att förglömma är det sk Filioque tillägget i vårt universella Credo. Dvs att den Heliga Ande utgår av Fadern och Sonen. Formuleringen motsägs av evangelisten Johannes i kap 15:26 där det står att "Hjälparen kommer som jag skall sända er från Fadern, sanningens ande, som utgår från Fadern." Filioque blev aldrig godkänt av något ekumenisk koncilium och leder till en obalanserad syn på Den Heliga Treeningheten vilket nedgraderar den Helige Ande på ett förunderligt sätt. (om än oavsiktligt från Rom)
Har även funnit att Ortodoxin har rätt i sin teologi/förkastande av ett antal Romersk-katolska post schism dogmer: synderfall, skärselden (gnistan som tände reformationen), den obefläckade avelsen, bruket av osyrat bröd under eukaristin och om det omdömeslösa i transubstantiationsläran - en spekulering runt Eukaristin i vilken den katolska kyrkan nästan verkar omfamna någon slags tro på en kemisk förvandling i Brödet & Vinet.
Jag kommer inte att hasta iväg österut men det verkar i det långa loppet oundvikligt att konvertera till den Ortodoxa Tron. Den slutliga resan dit kommer både att bli obekväm och krävande.
onsdag 6 december 2017
The Journey East #7
I am coming close to making up my mind. There are several factors prompting me in the same direction. This weekend, for example, there will be no Tridentine Mass at my parish, not because of a shortage of priests but because all but one of them (there are at least a dozen in and around the city) refuses to celebrate it. What does that say?
This is, however, only one little push moving me along on a journey which began, imperceptibly, many years ago but gathered momentum following various events in 2013, including the election of Pope Francis, but also the local situation. The election of Pope Francis struck me as odd from the outset. A Jesuit, having made the special Fourth Vow of Obedience to the Pope, should have ruled himself automatically out of the running since obedience to oneself is meaningless or worse.
Another push was the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation which took place in Sweden on 31st October last year with a strange ecumenical liturgy at Lund Cathedral, followed by an equally strange celebration of Mass at the Malmö football stadium the following day. Then again there is the local liturgical situation where a wealth of musical talent is available but is applied to the production of liturgies that usually turn out as pick-and-mix liturgical concerts, with something for everyone but which add up to nothing coherent. Yet another was the negative response by the Bishops in England and Wales, and then by the Pope himself, to Cardinal Sarah’s appeal last year that priests should celebrate Mass ad orientem.
Although liturgy was my point of entry the consistently good quality of the Orthodox liturgy would be a bad reason for joining the Orthodox church if the Roman claims are true.
What tips the balance comes from a careful re-reading of “Orthodoxy and Catholicity” by John Meyendorff, written in 1965 in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The reasons are the usual ones. The Papal claims do not stand up. There have been some fine Popes, but for too much of the past millennium, it has not been an illustrious institution; rather, it has been for long periods a trophy for aristocratic Roman families to pass between each other. At one time there were three contestants for the office. Julius 11 was responsible for precipitating the Reformation.
The whole Roman edifice rests on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18. From this is developed an entire monarchical ecclesiology which is, arguably, the cause of the present troubles in the Catholic church. There are other possible interpretations. Within Orthodoxy, as Meyendorff explains, there is a “flat” episcopal structure whereby they all keep each other in check and so maintain faith and praxis.
The other big issue is the Filioque clause in the Creed. It is an alteration which is unscriptural and has never been endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. It also gives rise to an imbalance in the Holy Trinity, in which, on the Orthodox view, which is derived directly from scripture, the Son is begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The end effect of the “double procession” implicit in Filioque is to downgrade the Holy Spirit.
Further points in which the Orthodox appear to be correct are in not defining as dogmas of Original Sin, Purgatory (the spark which ignited the reformation), and the Immaculate Conception, their use of leavened bread, , their understanding of the Real Presence and avoidance of discussion on the mystery of Transubstantiation, as though it were some kind of mystical chemical process.
I am not making any hasty move but it seems inevitable that I must do so eventually, uncomfortable and demanding though it will be.
This is, however, only one little push moving me along on a journey which began, imperceptibly, many years ago but gathered momentum following various events in 2013, including the election of Pope Francis, but also the local situation. The election of Pope Francis struck me as odd from the outset. A Jesuit, having made the special Fourth Vow of Obedience to the Pope, should have ruled himself automatically out of the running since obedience to oneself is meaningless or worse.
Another push was the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation which took place in Sweden on 31st October last year with a strange ecumenical liturgy at Lund Cathedral, followed by an equally strange celebration of Mass at the Malmö football stadium the following day. Then again there is the local liturgical situation where a wealth of musical talent is available but is applied to the production of liturgies that usually turn out as pick-and-mix liturgical concerts, with something for everyone but which add up to nothing coherent. Yet another was the negative response by the Bishops in England and Wales, and then by the Pope himself, to Cardinal Sarah’s appeal last year that priests should celebrate Mass ad orientem.
Although liturgy was my point of entry the consistently good quality of the Orthodox liturgy would be a bad reason for joining the Orthodox church if the Roman claims are true.
What tips the balance comes from a careful re-reading of “Orthodoxy and Catholicity” by John Meyendorff, written in 1965 in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The reasons are the usual ones. The Papal claims do not stand up. There have been some fine Popes, but for too much of the past millennium, it has not been an illustrious institution; rather, it has been for long periods a trophy for aristocratic Roman families to pass between each other. At one time there were three contestants for the office. Julius 11 was responsible for precipitating the Reformation.
The whole Roman edifice rests on a particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18. From this is developed an entire monarchical ecclesiology which is, arguably, the cause of the present troubles in the Catholic church. There are other possible interpretations. Within Orthodoxy, as Meyendorff explains, there is a “flat” episcopal structure whereby they all keep each other in check and so maintain faith and praxis.
The other big issue is the Filioque clause in the Creed. It is an alteration which is unscriptural and has never been endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. It also gives rise to an imbalance in the Holy Trinity, in which, on the Orthodox view, which is derived directly from scripture, the Son is begotten of the Father before all worlds, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The end effect of the “double procession” implicit in Filioque is to downgrade the Holy Spirit.
Further points in which the Orthodox appear to be correct are in not defining as dogmas of Original Sin, Purgatory (the spark which ignited the reformation), and the Immaculate Conception, their use of leavened bread, , their understanding of the Real Presence and avoidance of discussion on the mystery of Transubstantiation, as though it were some kind of mystical chemical process.
I am not making any hasty move but it seems inevitable that I must do so eventually, uncomfortable and demanding though it will be.
tisdag 5 december 2017
Mercantilismus redivivus
Seen from a non-mercantilist perspective, ie the view which was held by classical economists from the Physiocrats, via Smith and Ricardo, to Henry George, roughly 1750 to 1890, the picture looks very different from the usual anti-Brexit narrative. EEC/EU trade policy would have been castigated by the classical economists as a revival of the mercantilism which they had worked so hard to refute.
The contemporary return of mercantilism was never based on a rebuttal of the classical view. It is just that the power of sectional producer interests has turned the majority of politicians, commentators and professional economists into mouthpieces for policies which work to their advantage; essentially, it is rent-seeking behaviour.
The interesting thing for future generations to ponder will be how it is that these producer lobbyists, acting against the well-being of the public at large, succeeded in getting so many members of the intelligentsia to speak for them.
The contemporary return of mercantilism was never based on a rebuttal of the classical view. It is just that the power of sectional producer interests has turned the majority of politicians, commentators and professional economists into mouthpieces for policies which work to their advantage; essentially, it is rent-seeking behaviour.
The interesting thing for future generations to ponder will be how it is that these producer lobbyists, acting against the well-being of the public at large, succeeded in getting so many members of the intelligentsia to speak for them.
Brexit financial services exodus
An exchange of views in the FT discussion columns got me thinking about the sheer stupidity of the way the EU trade rules have been set up in the first place.
This is really an issue of finding a balance between the interests of producers and consumers - and between different EU member countries.
Producers should be able to look after themselves. They should be aware of what the competition is doing and stay ahead, or step sideways - which is what the UK heavy chemical industry did very successfully.
The policy can be changed as interests evolve. Tough discussions on anti-dumping have been going on for years, and will probably continue (as the United States could tell you). So when the UK leaves the EU, your business may indeed be free to import cheap Chinese steel into the UK. But wait and see whether the EU will allow the UK to export anything made of cheap Chinese steel to the EU.
So the EU will get in the way of consumers and producers wishing to purchase UK products because they contain Chinese steel? That's insane.
There is something called « rules of origin » which the UK will have to renegotiate from scratch, and there will be quid quo pros for each concession. If at the UK national level, the UK has chosen to favour financial services over anything to do with steel, do you really think that in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU the UK will trade access for financial services against your sector’s desire to import cheap Chinese steel? I would be very surprised if it did.
There are reasons why financial services have concentrated in London. I don't know what those reasons are, and it does not matter. The point is that firms located in London are able to offer the best services ie those that customers chose by preference. So what you are saying is that the EU will force firms in the EU to purchase inferior or more expensive services. That's insane. It may be that alternative locations will prove equally good as London in time, but at heavy costs in disruption and reorganisation. That's insane too.
These are the sorts of realities the UK is going to be faced with over the coming months. Unless you are importing purely for use and resale within the UK, your situation is not likely to much different - and certainly not much better - than it is now.
Economics theory assumes rational behaviour on the part of the actors - ie that all participants will attempt to to what is best for them. Selling goods at less than the cost of production is an example of such behaviour. The EU's economic and trade policies (VAT, CAP and the Single Market) are another. That is the principal reason why neither the UK nor anyone else should be in an organisation which insists on this irrational behaviour on the part of its members. Hopefully the country where I live will quickly follow the UK out of the lunatic asylum, then the EU will have to do without SKF ball bearings and high grade iron ore since it will have to impose tariffs to keep imports out.
It is of course very difficult to deal with people who insist on behaving in ways that are irrational and against their own interests, but it they are the losers and the only option is to exploit the situation in the best way possible. An open door to imports, and low taxes on goods, services, corporations and individuals are the way to go, post Brexit. This leaves the government with no alternative but to raise most of its revenue through the taxation of real estate, but that is in line with OECD recommendations and it gets rid of the avoidance problem at a stroke. EU politicians will huff and puff but there would be nothing to stop them from following suit.
This is really an issue of finding a balance between the interests of producers and consumers - and between different EU member countries.
Producers should be able to look after themselves. They should be aware of what the competition is doing and stay ahead, or step sideways - which is what the UK heavy chemical industry did very successfully.
The policy can be changed as interests evolve. Tough discussions on anti-dumping have been going on for years, and will probably continue (as the United States could tell you). So when the UK leaves the EU, your business may indeed be free to import cheap Chinese steel into the UK. But wait and see whether the EU will allow the UK to export anything made of cheap Chinese steel to the EU.
So the EU will get in the way of consumers and producers wishing to purchase UK products because they contain Chinese steel? That's insane.
There is something called « rules of origin » which the UK will have to renegotiate from scratch, and there will be quid quo pros for each concession. If at the UK national level, the UK has chosen to favour financial services over anything to do with steel, do you really think that in the forthcoming negotiations with the EU the UK will trade access for financial services against your sector’s desire to import cheap Chinese steel? I would be very surprised if it did.
There are reasons why financial services have concentrated in London. I don't know what those reasons are, and it does not matter. The point is that firms located in London are able to offer the best services ie those that customers chose by preference. So what you are saying is that the EU will force firms in the EU to purchase inferior or more expensive services. That's insane. It may be that alternative locations will prove equally good as London in time, but at heavy costs in disruption and reorganisation. That's insane too.
These are the sorts of realities the UK is going to be faced with over the coming months. Unless you are importing purely for use and resale within the UK, your situation is not likely to much different - and certainly not much better - than it is now.
Economics theory assumes rational behaviour on the part of the actors - ie that all participants will attempt to to what is best for them. Selling goods at less than the cost of production is an example of such behaviour. The EU's economic and trade policies (VAT, CAP and the Single Market) are another. That is the principal reason why neither the UK nor anyone else should be in an organisation which insists on this irrational behaviour on the part of its members. Hopefully the country where I live will quickly follow the UK out of the lunatic asylum, then the EU will have to do without SKF ball bearings and high grade iron ore since it will have to impose tariffs to keep imports out.
It is of course very difficult to deal with people who insist on behaving in ways that are irrational and against their own interests, but it they are the losers and the only option is to exploit the situation in the best way possible. An open door to imports, and low taxes on goods, services, corporations and individuals are the way to go, post Brexit. This leaves the government with no alternative but to raise most of its revenue through the taxation of real estate, but that is in line with OECD recommendations and it gets rid of the avoidance problem at a stroke. EU politicians will huff and puff but there would be nothing to stop them from following suit.
WTO rules and the Irish border
Remainers refuse to accept that the problem over the Irish border is one created by the way the EU Single Market operates and is in principle an EU problem.
When I posted under this Guardian piece that "The Republic don't want goods coming INTO their country from the post-Brexit UK. It's their problem and people in the Republic are the losers. I don't recall any threats from the UK to penalise Kerrygold butter etc and make it more expensive. What would be the point of putting up prices in UK shops unnecessarily? Getting out from under the tariff wall is one of the most important reasons for Brexit. UK consumers should not be forced to pay through the nose for stuff", responses were mostly offensive, or they referred to WTO rules
There is more. If the exchange rate drops, then British farming gets a boost, as home-produce food replaces imports. Exports become attractive. The threat of "chlorinated chicken" and "hormone beef" is also an opportunity for British farmers to bring to market food which they can guarantee is wholesome and free of suspect chemicals. There are no laws against labelling and creating brands based on their quality.
When I posted under this Guardian piece that "The Republic don't want goods coming INTO their country from the post-Brexit UK. It's their problem and people in the Republic are the losers. I don't recall any threats from the UK to penalise Kerrygold butter etc and make it more expensive. What would be the point of putting up prices in UK shops unnecessarily? Getting out from under the tariff wall is one of the most important reasons for Brexit. UK consumers should not be forced to pay through the nose for stuff", responses were mostly offensive, or they referred to WTO rules
- "Absolute bollocks...... complete and utter."
- "why don't you look up WTO Trade rules to see what tariff free trade will await you when you hard exit from the EU. Way to shoot yourself in the head uk. Clap, Clap ,Clap."
- "Under WTO rules if you let in Kerrygold butter tariff free you have to allow in butter from every country in the world tariff free... goodbye british farmer."
There is more. If the exchange rate drops, then British farming gets a boost, as home-produce food replaces imports. Exports become attractive. The threat of "chlorinated chicken" and "hormone beef" is also an opportunity for British farmers to bring to market food which they can guarantee is wholesome and free of suspect chemicals. There are no laws against labelling and creating brands based on their quality.
måndag 4 december 2017
The dead loss of trade tariffs
Tariffs always result in an overall economic loss because they distort people's purchasing decisions. That in turn leads to the misdirection of resources. You are good st fishing and your neighbour at growing vegetables, so you swap fish for vegetables. A tariff barrier means that you waste time growing vegetables and your neighbour not only wastes time fishing, but also has to spend money on fishing tackle. The same objection applies in principle to any tax on sales, such as VAT. This is the case however governments spend the money raised.
The chain of economic losses caused by tariffs spreads around the world because almost every country's government is at it.
The chain of economic losses caused by tariffs spreads around the world because almost every country's government is at it.
söndag 3 december 2017
Scary A&E failure in Gothenburg
This evening, I accompanied a friend, whose ankle has suddenly swollen up, to the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg. This was around 5.00 pm. He was quickly seen by the reception nurse, who told him, however, that it needed to be drained and that there was no-one who could do it. The nurse wrote a report and advised that he should take the report with him to Mölndal Hospital, where a doctor was on duty who could do it.
We arrived at about 6.00 pm, he was promptly registered, and after an hour's wait, he was seen by a nurse who took a sample, and told that he would be treated within three hours.
At around 9.20 he asked the receptionist how much longer the wait would be. He was told that it would be several hours more owing to the number of people in the queue, and there was only one doctor on duty. At which point my friend concluded that he could not wait until, possibly, three in the morning as he had to go to work next day, and so he insisted on leaving.
He was, justifiably, furious, considering that Sweden is the most heavily taxed country on earth. People are willing to pay high taxes so that the services are there when needed. If they are not, then what are they paying for?
We arrived at about 6.00 pm, he was promptly registered, and after an hour's wait, he was seen by a nurse who took a sample, and told that he would be treated within three hours.
At around 9.20 he asked the receptionist how much longer the wait would be. He was told that it would be several hours more owing to the number of people in the queue, and there was only one doctor on duty. At which point my friend concluded that he could not wait until, possibly, three in the morning as he had to go to work next day, and so he insisted on leaving.
He was, justifiably, furious, considering that Sweden is the most heavily taxed country on earth. People are willing to pay high taxes so that the services are there when needed. If they are not, then what are they paying for?
lördag 2 december 2017
EU self-punishment
People talk as if the post-Brexit lock-out of exports from the UK will do no harm inside the EU. Import substitution, they say, will quickly solve any problems.
Matters are not so simple. There are many firms in EU countries whose major or sole business is as agents or importers from the UK. Many manufacturers produce items which include UK-made components which are not easily substituted, if at all. Simple things like the positions of holes for mounting bolts may not be in the correct positions. Substantial redesign and re-tooling may be necessary. Then there is the matter of spares and consumables; equipment may need to be scrapped prematurely due to non-availability.
At the consumer level this also affects, for example, the availability of matching items, such as replacements or additions to tableware, a popular import from the UK to Scandinavia, or paints, wallpapers.
There are also popular UK foods and confectionery; import substitution does nor work if you like some particular type of English cheese, such as Blue Stilton. Loss of all of these will lead to costs and frustration within the EU.
More importantly, the EU's approach to Brexit is illustrative of a wider issue relating to its entire philosophy of trade. Trade takes place when something is of more value to one of the parties than to another. An exchange takes place which leaves both parties to the transaction better off and results in a net increase in wealth. It is not an act of charity. Anything which gets in the way of the free exchange of goods and services results in a diminution of wealth. The agent of obstruction is in most situations government.
In constructing a single market inside a tariff wall, the EEC/EU has stymied the production of astronomical amounts of wealth which would otherwise have been enjoyed by the half billion people inside it. Any economist of the classical school, from the Physiocrats, via Smith, Ricardo, J S Mill and Henry George, would have been able to set out a long list of reasons why a tariff wall was a bad idea. The reason why their insights have been ignored is not because they were refuted but because politicians have been in thrall to powerful and vociferous sectional producer interests.
The loss of wealth does not stop inside the EU, but has spread all round the world. I can give a personal example. I cannot trade with my cousin in Australia because of the tariffs costs and paperwork involved; we concluded it would be too much trouble to set up a system to deal with it. Both of us have lost out due to the EU barrier to free trade. That is not the end of the loss. My potential customers lose because they cannot obtain a product they might have wanted. My cousin's suppliers, who are poor indigenous people, are deprived of a market for their produce, which would have given them useful cash income to lift them above their subsistence. So the EU trade rules create a chain of losses stretching from the Australian outback to the affluent connoisseurs in Europe. It is not just bad economics. It is stupid, and indeed wicked.
Thus, the uniting of the peoples of Europe, a noble objective in itself, was long ago highjacked by foolish or corrupt politicians at the behest of the aforesaid sectional producer interests. But then it is we who elect these foolish or corrupt politicians every time.
Matters are not so simple. There are many firms in EU countries whose major or sole business is as agents or importers from the UK. Many manufacturers produce items which include UK-made components which are not easily substituted, if at all. Simple things like the positions of holes for mounting bolts may not be in the correct positions. Substantial redesign and re-tooling may be necessary. Then there is the matter of spares and consumables; equipment may need to be scrapped prematurely due to non-availability.
At the consumer level this also affects, for example, the availability of matching items, such as replacements or additions to tableware, a popular import from the UK to Scandinavia, or paints, wallpapers.
There are also popular UK foods and confectionery; import substitution does nor work if you like some particular type of English cheese, such as Blue Stilton. Loss of all of these will lead to costs and frustration within the EU.
More importantly, the EU's approach to Brexit is illustrative of a wider issue relating to its entire philosophy of trade. Trade takes place when something is of more value to one of the parties than to another. An exchange takes place which leaves both parties to the transaction better off and results in a net increase in wealth. It is not an act of charity. Anything which gets in the way of the free exchange of goods and services results in a diminution of wealth. The agent of obstruction is in most situations government.
In constructing a single market inside a tariff wall, the EEC/EU has stymied the production of astronomical amounts of wealth which would otherwise have been enjoyed by the half billion people inside it. Any economist of the classical school, from the Physiocrats, via Smith, Ricardo, J S Mill and Henry George, would have been able to set out a long list of reasons why a tariff wall was a bad idea. The reason why their insights have been ignored is not because they were refuted but because politicians have been in thrall to powerful and vociferous sectional producer interests.
The loss of wealth does not stop inside the EU, but has spread all round the world. I can give a personal example. I cannot trade with my cousin in Australia because of the tariffs costs and paperwork involved; we concluded it would be too much trouble to set up a system to deal with it. Both of us have lost out due to the EU barrier to free trade. That is not the end of the loss. My potential customers lose because they cannot obtain a product they might have wanted. My cousin's suppliers, who are poor indigenous people, are deprived of a market for their produce, which would have given them useful cash income to lift them above their subsistence. So the EU trade rules create a chain of losses stretching from the Australian outback to the affluent connoisseurs in Europe. It is not just bad economics. It is stupid, and indeed wicked.
Thus, the uniting of the peoples of Europe, a noble objective in itself, was long ago highjacked by foolish or corrupt politicians at the behest of the aforesaid sectional producer interests. But then it is we who elect these foolish or corrupt politicians every time.
EU has all the negotiating cards
The EU's trump card is its ability to impose trade sanctions on itself at the cost of those inside the EU. I wonder if the North Koreans realise how lucky they are?
The Irish Border after hard Brexit
If the UK allows Irish produce in without tariffs, it will probably have to do the same for every import from the US, China, Australia, etc. Thus it not quite true to say, as is commonly claimed, that the WTO requires control of inwards movements in all circumstances. I say "probably" because Minford, who advocates free trade, unilaterally if necessary, has had one of his minions at work on the subject and has pointed out that the situation is not precisely as is usually asserted ie that the UK is required to impose border controls if it does not immediately offer unrestricted imports from everywhere.
Minford's advocacy of unilateral free trade is in accord with the conclusions of all the classical economists in the line of evolution from the Physiocrats, through Smith and Ricardo, to J S Mill and Henry George. That conclusion, which was in opposition to the earlier mercantilist theory, has never been refuted. It has just been ignored, together with most of the body of classical economics. But Minford, too, is in error in so far as he appears not to have applied Ricardian theory in his forecasts, which consequently are more pessimistic than would have been the case if he had.
The re-emergence of seventeenth century mercantilist economics has been driven by powerful, sectional producer interests, which cross the conventional political divide. This is a dangerous road; as Bastiat famously did not say, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." Mercantilism eventually led to the ruin of Spain. In its protectionist guise, it retarded the industrial development of the USA. The abandonment of tariffs was an important factor in the spread of prosperity in Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century, following the abolition of the hated Corn Laws in 1846, (reinstated 1973).
One of the fallacies behind mercantilism is that economic activity is supply-driven, and so everything is looked at from the producers' point of view. Even the term "access to markets" has become perverted. In normal parlance, it means that customers have access to enable them to purchase the things they want or need, not that sellers can purvey their wares.
We all know from personal experience that the economy is demand driven, yet to judge from the post-referendum comments, one would come to the conclusion that people inside the EU were purchasing goods from UK suppliers as an act of charity, not because they want or need them.
It goes both ways. After Brexit, people in the UK will still want their Kerrygold butter. People in Sweden, where I live, will still want to buy their favourite British brands. All that a "trade agreement" does is get governments to agree to remove obstacles to trade that most of their own people do not want and did not ask for, but were forced on them by the sectional producer interests. The bluff needs to be called.
In the meantime, unilateral free trade gives one's own people access to markets (in the normal meaning of the term), and prevents resources from being wasted on producing goods which could be imported at the best price. If foreign governments continue to put obstacles in the way, their own people will suffer and complain, and that will lead to political pressure to put an end to the protectionism. There will also be blow-back, as countries need to import if they want to export.
The confusion over Brexit on both sides, and the EU's reaction is a demonstration of the zombie-like resurgence of economic theories which had been comprehensively refuted by 1800. It is willful ignorance on the part of the best educated. One of the worst offenders has been the Financial Times, a very different thing from what it was forty years ago when people such as the renowned Samuel Brittan presented the free trade case with consistency.
Minford's advocacy of unilateral free trade is in accord with the conclusions of all the classical economists in the line of evolution from the Physiocrats, through Smith and Ricardo, to J S Mill and Henry George. That conclusion, which was in opposition to the earlier mercantilist theory, has never been refuted. It has just been ignored, together with most of the body of classical economics. But Minford, too, is in error in so far as he appears not to have applied Ricardian theory in his forecasts, which consequently are more pessimistic than would have been the case if he had.
The re-emergence of seventeenth century mercantilist economics has been driven by powerful, sectional producer interests, which cross the conventional political divide. This is a dangerous road; as Bastiat famously did not say, "When goods don't cross borders, armies will." Mercantilism eventually led to the ruin of Spain. In its protectionist guise, it retarded the industrial development of the USA. The abandonment of tariffs was an important factor in the spread of prosperity in Britain in the second half of the nineteenth century, following the abolition of the hated Corn Laws in 1846, (reinstated 1973).
One of the fallacies behind mercantilism is that economic activity is supply-driven, and so everything is looked at from the producers' point of view. Even the term "access to markets" has become perverted. In normal parlance, it means that customers have access to enable them to purchase the things they want or need, not that sellers can purvey their wares.
We all know from personal experience that the economy is demand driven, yet to judge from the post-referendum comments, one would come to the conclusion that people inside the EU were purchasing goods from UK suppliers as an act of charity, not because they want or need them.
It goes both ways. After Brexit, people in the UK will still want their Kerrygold butter. People in Sweden, where I live, will still want to buy their favourite British brands. All that a "trade agreement" does is get governments to agree to remove obstacles to trade that most of their own people do not want and did not ask for, but were forced on them by the sectional producer interests. The bluff needs to be called.
In the meantime, unilateral free trade gives one's own people access to markets (in the normal meaning of the term), and prevents resources from being wasted on producing goods which could be imported at the best price. If foreign governments continue to put obstacles in the way, their own people will suffer and complain, and that will lead to political pressure to put an end to the protectionism. There will also be blow-back, as countries need to import if they want to export.
The confusion over Brexit on both sides, and the EU's reaction is a demonstration of the zombie-like resurgence of economic theories which had been comprehensively refuted by 1800. It is willful ignorance on the part of the best educated. One of the worst offenders has been the Financial Times, a very different thing from what it was forty years ago when people such as the renowned Samuel Brittan presented the free trade case with consistency.
fredag 1 december 2017
EU-UK incompatibility
I received the following comment in a discussion recently about the troubled relationship between the UK and the EU.
"The EU set-up is quite comparable to most European countries that were pushed in the French administration model under Napoleonic rule or transferred to a similar system later."
In other words it is diametrically opposed to the English system (Scottish law is different). English law is based on Common Law principles as developed the case precedent and modified by statute.
In principle, everything is permitted unless it is specifically stated otherwise, on the basis that "The Law is written on men's hearts", a concept absorbed from Anglo-Saxon times and which is derived from scripture, not Napoleon. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:15, Hebrews 10:18) It is this difference which lies at the root of all the conflict.
Ordinary people understand this, since it has been picked up by osmosis. It is significant that it is precisely the metropolitan intellectuals who have moved away from that position.
"The EU set-up is quite comparable to most European countries that were pushed in the French administration model under Napoleonic rule or transferred to a similar system later."
In other words it is diametrically opposed to the English system (Scottish law is different). English law is based on Common Law principles as developed the case precedent and modified by statute.
In principle, everything is permitted unless it is specifically stated otherwise, on the basis that "The Law is written on men's hearts", a concept absorbed from Anglo-Saxon times and which is derived from scripture, not Napoleon. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:15, Hebrews 10:18) It is this difference which lies at the root of all the conflict.
Ordinary people understand this, since it has been picked up by osmosis. It is significant that it is precisely the metropolitan intellectuals who have moved away from that position.
The "Four Freedoms" useless without a fifth
The Four Freedoms are a recipe for strife unless they are accompanied by a Fifth Freedom. Land needs to be free, free as air. And freedom to trade should mean what it says. We are not even free, in principle to trade with our next door neighbours.
What a pity that was not understood when the EEC was set up.
What a pity that was not understood when the EEC was set up.
Curse of the wicked fairy
Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay, says C of E minister.
Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Anglican minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said. Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’.
In such an event one would not of course wish on the prince the fate of his antecedent King Edward II, (the actual king, not the locomotive, which is one of the three of the type to survive), but being gay is not something to be wished on anyone.
If William is a good father, loves the boy and spends time with him, and his mother is not over-dominant, it is unlikely that such a thing will happen. So the misguided clergyman is praying the the prince should have bad or incompetent parents.
A former chaplain to the Queen, Rev Gavin Ashenden, has described the comments as “unkind” and “profoundly un-Christian”, and said the prayer is the “theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairy tales”. "Curse of the wicked fairy" sums it up concisely.
Christians should pray for Prince George to be gay to force support for same-sex marriage in the Church of England, a senior Anglican minister and LGBTQ campaigner has said. Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth says C of E will be forced to support same-sex marriage if the ‘Lord blesses George with the love of a fine young gentleman’.
In such an event one would not of course wish on the prince the fate of his antecedent King Edward II, (the actual king, not the locomotive, which is one of the three of the type to survive), but being gay is not something to be wished on anyone.
If William is a good father, loves the boy and spends time with him, and his mother is not over-dominant, it is unlikely that such a thing will happen. So the misguided clergyman is praying the the prince should have bad or incompetent parents.
A former chaplain to the Queen, Rev Gavin Ashenden, has described the comments as “unkind” and “profoundly un-Christian”, and said the prayer is the “theological equivalent of the curse of the wicked fairy in one of the fairy tales”. "Curse of the wicked fairy" sums it up concisely.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)