Political struggles for a new global governance

Professor Carlo Pelanda (a geopolitical scholar), always enlightening and comprehensible notwithstanding the high density of his documents, concludes a recent paper on an Italian political magazine (‘scenaria’) with an ‘open’ analysis of the possible outcomes and follow-ups resulting from the recent monetary policy decisions assumed in totally unilateral way by Obama (and Bernanke) in the USA and by Hu (and the CCP) in continental China; the two characters playing an hegemonic role in their struggle to bend the ongoing globalization to their reciprocal (and highly ‘individual’) political interests..

His article fits in an occasional but excellent way with a ‘brutal’ (therefore clear to anyone) comment by professor Antonio Martino (an economist scholar) against the tentative advanced by professor Guido Rossi (a juridical scholar) to revive the (always failed in history since the famed FDR New Deal), adoption of political Keynesian, state-centered strategies (highly popular in any Country; even in the USA independently by the color of the administration – republican or democratic - in that Country).

The emerging comments of professor Pelanda sound ‘depressive’ for anyone philosophically convinced of the natural right of any individual to freely express his choices (within the most limited penal law); this is just apparently a ‘depressing’ analysis.

Nobody can namely place confidence in the Carlo Pelanda’s suggestion of a ‘compact reaction’ that the Eurozone should oppose to the unilateral - highly and immediately effective - initiatives that Obama and Hu exchange as true ‘mafia messages’ in the ongoing negotiation aimed to consolidate the fundamental benchmarks of the new global order. The poor Angela Merkel - notwithstanding her proven ‘attributes’ – is namely in a minority if not isolated position within the ‘decisional protagonists’ (a literary exaggeration replacing the more exact ‘impotent observers’ one) in the Eurozona. In addition the sluggish implementation of the political decisions in the EU is exhausting (check the troubled patterns followed for introducing the few, though modest, institutional ‘reforms’ – the prerequisite to decisional effectiveness). All this while USA and China’s decisions result hard-hitting, immediate and effective as the tools of reciprocal blackmail capable of overwhelming any pathetical demand by other characters, certainly more marginal and ineffective, to participate to those decisions with adequate role of co-stars.

Even if the Congress emerging from the future electoral mid-term election on November 2nd (traditionally an ill-omened date for any good Neapolitan standard of superstition) would have the outcome wished by any good Maverick, Obama (and Bernanke) would still have all the legislative tools to ‘purchase consensus’ upon initiatives that could facilitate him reaching a second mandate. A confirm that he could only obtain if the USA industrial growth (even an ill one and one billed to the Eurozone – as clearly feared by professor Pelanda) could inject new faith in the USA electors that ‘New Deal’ solutions do reach their goals and that Obama’s Keynesian ‘Yes we can’ could triumph against the wildest ‘speculation’ of the global free market. Namely, by adding ‘Earmarks’ to laws proposed for the personal interests of the president and by duly mobilizing masses of parasitic – both legal and illegal – actors living on the account of ‘food stamps’, by a due mobilizing in his benefit the most ‘liberal-radical’ candidates and activists (leftists-socialists), Obama would obtain a safe ri-election. We shall take in account too that the determination of the ‘liberal-radical’ USA constituency in 2013 would be the more committed to support Obama’s ri-election the more that constituency will have been terrorized, next 2 of November 2010, by the size of the democrat’s ‘mid term’ defeat. This is the very reason why Obama at present is not supporting with any particular care the electoral campaign of the least ‘controllable’ among the traditional - and moderate - democratic candidates. He needs to inject massive amounts of more pliable (persuadable) new elects by supporting - in the 2013 electoral round – an adequate manifold of ‘new enrolled’ Chicago Boys o ‘Goodfella’ likely to free him of the more gray headed - and ‘moderate’ – ones who succeed still maintaining individual autonomy levels in their office as congressmen.

In sum Carlo Pelanda fears a negative, unstoppable scenario? A truly forecasted tragedy?

I personally neither believe in Eurozone’s capacity to effectively interfere upon the feared evolution since, being inspired by both fundamental faith in individual freedom and by layman-religiosity, I believe that Satan builds constantly his pots in Chicago tanks to ‘goodfella’ but always forgetting to by properly plug them with lids that generally are the goal of the many individual Maverick-like Berlusconi crowding at different levels of ingenuity and effectiveness the normal world and especially the USA – Land of the Free, Land of the Brave.

A symptom can be observed in today’s Tea Parties (as those dated 1773) and the similar initiatives that are arising even within Countries like Red China. I firmly believe that ‘governance’ will result from uncontrollable interests produced by financial decisions free of any hateful, inadequate constraint that in addition is applied with high ineffectiveness by the state institutes driven by the central powers inevitably more oriented to a ‘top down’ spirit of governance (failed central planning of economy) upon tamed subjects that are believed easy to be purchased thanks to offerings of ‘food stamps’.

Our future will wildly prove a liberals’ one tank both the ineffectiveness of the ‘authoritarians’ and the never predictable global exchanges that the ‘authoritarians’ too are aware can at best be kept be channeled within Exchange channels authentically ‘free’ rather than risking losing view of them within the most creative types of coverage (smuggling, black markets, evasion, elusion, recycle of booties, types of usury, etc. along the best expression of human ingenuity and creativeness widely described in the international literature).

The ‘free market’ expresses in an extra-institutional way its contribute to innovation and to value added.

The central government control is instead compelled to declare its willingness according to most rigorous constraints stating the ‘institutional orthodoxy’ of any regime.

For these reasons two scholars like Pelanda and Martino result less constrained in their wishful thinking by the ties incumbent instead upon the analyses of juridical specialists like Rossi. Economy and geopolitics need adequate ‘free spaces’ in order to define creatively a future order capable of hosting any innovation.

Jurisprudence lacks instead of spirit of innovation since its role is being the ‘consigliore’ (advisor) of a Prince and shall therefore try to ‘conserve’ equilibrium and stability notwithstanding the exogenous attempts of innovation to destabilize the existing institutions and procedures disregarding how inadequate they may prove.

The mentioned synthesis by Carlo Pelanda hits as always the deepest convictions inspiring a wide range of specialists and professional experience matured in highly different environments all polluted by the arrogant presumption of drones and ‘irresponsible’ Obamas (professional politicians) who, having failed in different disciplines, devote to politics where, disregarding their ignorance, they can affect any domain. By either corrupting from their upper role of power fellow politicians the less influential ‘congressmen’ in a game of sale-purchase of Members of Parliament or by bamboozling, thanks to the most ingenuous pork-barrell-hooding, their electoral constituency (sailor’s promises). All this worsened by media ‘organic’ to their decisions since manned by professionals who, having failed in any other profession, have immersed into a ‘career’ reporter.

As Indro Montanelli (a well known journalist) stated ‘the journalist’s day is uncomfortable, lack any rule and has no time frame …. it’s anyway always ….. better than working!’