Forum Haiti : Des Idées et des Débats sur l'Avenir d'Haiti

Forum Haiti : Des Idées et des Débats sur l'Avenir d'Haiti

FOROM AYITI : Tèt Ansanm Pou'n Chanje Ayiti.
 
AccueilAccueil  GalerieGalerie  PortailPortail  CalendrierCalendrier  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  RechercherRechercher  S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  MembresMembres  GroupesGroupes  Connexion  

Partagez | 
 

 PRIVILEGE,PATHOLOGY AND POWER

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas 
AuteurMessage
Joel
Membre-fondateur
Membre-fondateur


Masculin
Nombre de messages : 15102
Localisation : USA
Loisirs : Histoire
Date d'inscription : 24/08/2006

Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle: Le patriote

MessageSujet: PRIVILEGE,PATHOLOGY AND POWER   Sam 2 Jan 2016 - 6:48

Gen lannou ki konn mande pouki sa de MOUN tankou BOULOS,BIGGIO,ACCRA,BRANDT elt ,pa gen ANPATI ak DEGRE MALSITE ,GWO MAJORITE PEP AYISYEN an ap VIV!

Sa a se yon ATIK ke PRI NOBEL EKONOMI PAUL KRUGMAN pibliye lan NEW YORK TIMES AYE .

Misye ap pale de "super rich" AMERIKEN yo ,men li te ka ap pale de MOUN RICH lakay nou yo tou:




Privilege, Pathology and Power

Paul Krugman JAN. 1, 2016

Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.

So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?

Paul Krugman

Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.

Modern America is a society in which a growing share of income and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, and these people have huge political influence — in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families. The usual concern about this march toward oligarchy is that the interests and policy preferences of the very rich are quite different from those of the population at large, and that is surely the biggest problem.

But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs. Which brings me to the current election cycle.

The most obvious illustration of the point I’ve been making is the man now leading the Republican field. Donald Trump would probably have been a blowhard and a bully whatever his social station. But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies; nobody has ever been in a position to tell him, “You’re fired!” And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV.

But Mr. Trump isn’t the only awesomely self-centered billionaire playing an outsized role in the 2016 campaign.

There have been some interesting news reports lately about Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gambling magnate. Mr. Adelson has been involved in some fairly complex court proceedings, which revolve around claims of misconduct in his operations in Macau, including links to organized crime and prostitution. Given his business, this may not be all that surprising. What was surprising was his behavior in court, where he refused to answer routine questions and argued with the judge, Elizabeth Gonzales. That, as she rightly pointed out, isn’t something witnesses get to do.

Then Mr. Adelson bought Nevada’s largest newspaper. As the sale was being finalized, reporters at the paper were told to drop everything and start monitoring all activity of three judges, including Ms. Gonzales. And while the paper never published any results from that investigation, an attack on Judge Gonzales, with what looks like a fictitious byline, did appear in a small Connecticut newspaper owned by one of Mr. Adelson’s associates.

O.K., but why do we care? Because Mr. Adelson’s political spending has made him a huge player in Republican politics — so much so that reporters routinely talk about the “Adelson primary,” in which candidates trek to Las Vegas to pay obeisance.

Are there other cases? Yes indeed, even if the egomania doesn’t rise to Adelson levels. I find myself thinking, for example, of the hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, another big power in the G.O.P., who published an investor’s letter declaring that inflation was running rampant — he could tell from the prices of Hamptons real estate and high-end art. Economists got some laughs out of the incident, but think of the self-absorption required to write something like that without realizing how it would sound to non-billionaires.

Or think of the various billionaires who, a few years ago, were declaring with straight faces, and no sign of self-awareness, that President Obama was holding back the economy by suggesting that some businesspeople had misbehaved. You see, he was hurting their feelings.

Just to be clear, the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.

But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.


A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 1, 2016, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Privilege, Pathology And Power. Today's Paper|Subscribe



Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
Joel
Membre-fondateur
Membre-fondateur


Masculin
Nombre de messages : 15102
Localisation : USA
Loisirs : Histoire
Date d'inscription : 24/08/2006

Feuille de personnage
Jeu de rôle: Le patriote

MessageSujet: Re: PRIVILEGE,PATHOLOGY AND POWER   Mar 5 Jan 2016 - 18:56

Yon lot ATIK ENTERESAN pa JOSCHKA FISHER.

FISCHER se te MINIS RELASYON EKSTERYE ann ALMAY.
Misye di ke gen yon paket MOUVMAN NEO-FASIS ki ap monte ann EWOP ak ETAZINI.

FISHER di pa gen lot REZON se ke BLAN toupatou we ke ENFLIYANS yo an DEKLEN tankou yon MALADI ENKIRAB.

Se tankou yon CHEN ke yo bare lan KORIDO:
ENTERESAN!!!







The Fascism of the Affluent


BERLIN – There is an alarming political shift to the right occurring on both sides of the Atlantic, linked to the growing force of openly chauvinist political parties and figures: Donald Trump in the United States, Marine Le Pen in France. Other names could be added to the list: Hungary’s prime minister, Victor Orbán, who advocates “illiberal democracy,” or Jarosław Kaczyński and his quasi-authoritarian Law and Justice party, which now rules Poland.


Nationalistic, xenophobic political parties had been on the rise in many European Union member states long before Syrian refugees first arrived in appreciable numbers. There has been Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Vlaams Blok (succeeded by today’s Vlaams Belang) in Belgium, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Sweden Democrats, the Finns Party, and the Danish People’s Party, to name just a few.


Support Project Syndicate’s mission

Project Syndicate needs your help to provide readers everywhere equal access to the ideas and debates shaping their lives.

Learn more


The reasons for such parties’ rise and success vary greatly at the national level. But their basic positions are similar. All of them are raging against the “system,” the “political establishment,” and the EU. Worse, they are not just xenophobic (and, in particular, Islamophobic); they also more or less unashamedly embrace an ethnic definition of the nation. The political community is not a product of its citizens’ commitment to a common constitutional and legal order; instead, as in the 1930s, membership in the nation is derived from common descent and religion.

Like any extreme nationalism, the current one relies heavily on identity politics – the realm of fundamentalism, not reasoned debate. As a result, its discourse takes an obsessive turn – usually sooner rather than later – in the direction of ethno-nationalism, racism, and religious war.

The rise of extreme nationalism and fascism in the 1930s is usually explained in terms of the outcome of World War I, which killed millions of people and filled the heads of millions more with militaristic notions. The war also ruined Europe’s economy, leading to a global economic crisis and mass unemployment. Destitution, poverty, and misery primed publics for toxic politics.

But conditions today in the West, in the US and Europe alike, are rather different, to say the least. Given these countries’ affluence, what accounts for their citizens’ attraction to the politics of frustration?

First and foremost, there is fear – and apparently a great deal of it. It is a fear based on the instinctive realization that the “White Man’s World” – a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course – is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West. And migration is the issue that brings that prognosis home (not just metaphorically) to today’s angst-inspired nationalists.

Until recently, globalization was largely viewed as favoring the West. But now – in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and with the rise of China (now turning into this century’s leading power before our eyes) – it has become increasingly clear that globalization is a two-way street, with the West losing much of its power and wealth to the East. Likewise, the world’s problems can no longer be suppressed and excluded, at least not in Europe, where they are now quite literally knocking on the door.


Meanwhile, at home, the White Man’s World is threatened by immigration, globalization of labor markets, gender parity, and the legal and social emancipation of sexual minorities. In short, these societies are undergoing a fundamental shock to traditional roles and patterns of behavior.

From all these profound changes has arisen a yearning for simple solutions – to build fences and walls, for example, whether in the US South or in southern Hungary – and strong leaders. It is no accident that Europe’s new nationalists view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a beacon of hope.

Of course, Putin has no appeal in the US (the world’s greatest power won’t turn away from itself), or in Poland and the Baltic states (where Russia is regarded as a threat to national independence). Elsewhere in Europe, however, the new nationalists have made common cause with Putin’s anti-Western posturing and pursuit of Great Russia.

With the new nationalism threatening the European integration process, France holds the key. Without France, Europe is neither conceivable nor practicable, and a President Le Pen would certainly sound the death knell for the EU (as well as bringing disaster for her country and the continent as a whole). Europe would then withdraw from twenty-first-century world politics. This would lead inexorably to the end of the West in geopolitical terms: The US would have to reorient itself for good (toward the Pacific), while Europe would become Eurasia’s appendix.

The end of the West is a dim prospect, to be sure, but we aren’t there yet. What is clear is that more depends on the future of Europe than even the most vociferous advocates of European unification had previously believed.
mage: https://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/6d73f71ae0b0c6c76d110f225d97154f.square.png
Photo of Photo of Carmen Reinhart
EconomicsDEC 31, 2015 24


Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/affluent-fascists-western-politics-by-joschka-fischer-2015-12#lKQg4cThgMZk7FJp.99
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
 
PRIVILEGE,PATHOLOGY AND POWER
Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1
 Sujets similaires
-
» Honduras : la victoire du « Smart Power » par Eva Golinger
» Conversion de Power Fist pour gardes impériaux
» [Power Down] La liberté s'allume dans les ténèbres...
» [Photoshop][Difficile]The Power Sign'
» [Nouvelle Règle] Power in Stones (Le Pouvoir des Pierres)

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Forum Haiti : Des Idées et des Débats sur l'Avenir d'Haiti :: Haiti :: Espace Haïti-
Sauter vers: