To unite Britain, Brexiters and Remainers must negotiate a compromise. Sadly, its polarization profiteers object to that.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes: “Brexit, has weaponised identity, turning those differences into accusations of treason. … Once the idea of “treachery” becomes part of political debate, only total victory or total defeat are possible… The country is so evenly divided, and emotions are so intense, that resolution is at present impossible” “Britain is once again the sick man of Europe”, April 18.

Indeed, as I wrote to Martin Wolf on April 13th, when walking on Fleet Street I heard a 7-8 years old girl ask: "Mommy, what's worse murder or Brexit?” Thank God, in this case, the mother was clear about the answer. 

But that question must have popped up in this girl’s mind, as a consequence of a growing worldwide radicalization. Children elsewhere could also be thought asking similar questions, like: murder or Trump, murder or climate change, murder or filthy rich, murder or whatever.

Much of it is the direct result of that creating division, especially in these days when messages of hate, envy or fake news, can be sent out to millions at zero marginal cost, is a much better business proposition than uniting… or reporting real news.

Sir, honestly, how many efforts have been invested by Britain’s elite in requesting changes to EU that could make sense to Brexiters, or to design a Brexit that could be acceptable for Remainers? I believe way too little!

Now when Wolf’s asserts that Britain’s most important crisis is economicand that “Britain is once again the sick man of Europe”I am absolutely not sure about that. Wherever you look in Europe you find way too many symptoms of economic and social ailments. 

For instance, just the fact that Eurozone’s sovereign were assigned a 0% risk weight, even though they take on debt in a currency that de facto is not their domestic (printable) one, presents more dangers to EU, than a Brexit would present to a Britain with a Pound based economy.

Sir, has FT played a responsible role as a unifier? Since we all have to live with our own consciences, which is not for me but for you to respond.

Let me though here say that as much as the little girl’s question shocked me, more did your ample coverage/publicity given to a minuscule “Extinction Rebellion” “Inside the new climate change resistance” April 11. That group predicates and “plans mass civil disobedience”, and is one that has wet dreams such as: “After two previous attempts to get herself arrested, Farhana Yamin …hopes she will soon see the inside of a police cell”.

Finally, and back to Brexit, if as Wolf says: “only total victory or total defeat are possible”,what do you believe Sir poses the greatest opportunities for Britain to ever become united again, Brexit or Remain? (I have an inkling that each day that passes, makes me feel closer to have to give a somewhat reluctant Brexit response to that)

PS. London’s West End needs an Oklahoma revival adapted to Britain. “The Brexiters and the Remainers should be friends”

 @PerKurowski

“Mommy, what’s worse, murder or Brexit?”

Sir, Bronwen Maddox writes: “Britain’s Parliament Square has returned to a kind of peace. MPs are off on their Easter break, thanks to the latest Brexit deadline extension. Most of the protesters are taking an Easter break too, it seems, and have suspended their pageantry of 12-foot banners and elaborate costumes, competing for the world’s attention. “Brexit has broken the political parties, not the constitution” April 16.

But Maddox predicts the peace is just temporary, because “the deadlock of Brexit is a political failure”.

Sir, I absolutely do not know enough about Britain’s constitution or political systems to opine on the article, but what I do know for sure is that in the Brexit vs. Remain type of deep divisions you are not alone. These odious divisions are happening everywhere, with all type of issues, as a result of polarization and redistribution profiteer being able, often anonymously, to send out their messages of hate, envy or fake news, on the web, at a marginal zero cost.

On April 13, briefly visiting London, while walking on Fleet Street, I heard a 7-8 years old girl ask: "Mommy, what's worse murder or Brexit?” “Thank God, in this case, the mother was at least very clear about the answer, but how could that question have popped in this girl’s mind? 

And I know that many children around the world might ask similar questions about for example: murder or Trump, murder or climate change, murder or filthy rich, murder or etc.

Sir, I do believe we should declare a worldwide emergency, before we lose all possibilities of a civilized social cohesion.

What to do? I don’t have a complete answer, but I would suggest the setting up parallel social media, in which no one that has not been completely identified can participate, so as that we can at least shame anyone producing excessive divisions.

To instate also a very small payment for each web contact produced by anyone that might be looking for some type of political funding, could be helpful.

PS. Yesterday I went to Speakers' Corner. There was no one speaking there.

@PerKurowski

The “having just enough” opens the door for a discussion on relevant and irrelevant inequalities

Sir, I refer to Janan Ganesh’s “The holy grail of having just enough” April 6.

It is a great article, though because of its honest shadings, those who want to see all in black or white will criticize it. But its real importance could be in helping to put the finger on the need to redefine all discussions and measuring of inequality, by allowing these to focus much more on the relevant existing inequalities, and much less on the irrelevant inequalities.

That some “filthy rich” has decided to use his purchase power to buy a yacht, something which makes yacht builders happy, or to contract a yacht crew, something that gives those crew members a job, or freeze $450m of it in a painting, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi, which should make the one who sold him that painting very happy, does not make me feel one iota unequal to him. But, I can perfectly understand that the fact I own a house, a car and a reasonable amount of money, can make many owning much less feel unequal to me, and many who have nothing feel unequal to all.

And clearly those without a job must feel unequal to those with a job… and in that case unequal to the yacht crew, not unequal to the yacht owner.

In these days when redistribution and polarization profiteers seeding so much hate and envy, at zero marginal costs, create so much odious societal divisions, it behooves us to, as a minimum minimorum, make sure those divisions are in reference to something real and relevant, and not just fake divisions that can lead to absolutely nothing good.

PS. My generous feelings towards what the “filthy rich” own, are of course based on that they have obtained all that wealth in legal and decent ways.

Instead of looking out for fake news, which is a mission impossible, go after what motivates and facilitates it.

Pilita Clark writes that “Britain’s health secretary, Matt Hancock, later warned social media companies could be banned if they failed to remove harmful content [and] ministers were looking at new laws to force social media companies to take down false information about vaccines spread by ‘anti-vaxxers’”. “Facebook is not our friend, no matter what their adverts say” March 29.

Ok, they identified one fake-news. Congratulations! 

But let me assure you that for each one of these you are able to track down, at least one hundred new ones will be spreading like wildfire.

To stop fake news, as well as to stop that odious messaging of hate and envy by polarization and redistribution profiteers, you have to be able to identify who is making money on it, and make it harder for them to make money on it.

Two things are needed for that. First to set up a parallel social media in which only duly identified individuals can participate, so that they could be individually shamed; and then place a minimum minimorum access fee on each social media message, so that they can not operate with a zero marginal cost.

Where should that access fee go? Clearly to us citizens whose data is being exploited and not to some other redistribution profiteers, and much less to some on the web-ambulance-chasers.

Pilita Clark also refers to George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Rightly so, we need to read and reread it so as to fully understand that the worst that could happen to us citizens, would be these mega social media enterprises teaming up with Big Brothers here and there.

@PerKurowski

If universities and professors had in payment to take a stake in their student’s future, you can bet students’ merits would mean more than parents’ wallets.

Sarah O’Connor writes: “Those in the top 1 per cent of the income distribution complain that the growing wealth of the “0.1 per cent” has priced their children out of the sort of private education and housing that they themselves enjoyed.”“We must stop fighting over scarce educational spoils” March 27.

They are wrong! All the income of the growing wealthy “0.1 per cent”, is immediately returned to the real economy, when they buy a lot of assets, like yachts, and services, like yacht crews, which are all really not of much real interest, or use, to the 99.9 per cent rest of the economy.

And if there is anything that really has helped price out private education and housing, that’s the excessive availability of financing. For instance if the risk weights for the bank capital requirements when financing residential mortgages, 35%, were the same as when financing an unrated entrepreneurs, 100%, houses would be more homes than investment assets, and people would have more jobs with which service mortgages or pay utilities.

But that truth does not stop polarization and redistribution profiteers from stoking the envy levels in the society, especially when it can often be done on social media in an anonymous way, and at zero marginal costs.

Now if you really want less discrimination against those who poor might use education better, align the incentives better, and don’t let universities and professors collect all upfront.

@PerKurowski

My tweet on why the world is becoming a much angrier place than what’s warranted by the usual factors.

Sir, Chris Giles writes “Britain is an angry place: furious about its politics, unsure of its place in the world and increasingly resigned to a grinding stagnation of living standards” “Anger and inequality make for a heady mix” March 1.

Giles analyzes the increasing discontent as a function of the economy, in terms of economic growth, inflation, income inequality, weak productivity and employment rates, whether existing or expected.

That is certainly valid but, sadly and worrisome, there is much more to the much higher levels of anger brewing than could seem be warranted by that. That goes also for the rest of the world. 

Sir, what is happening? Here is my own tweet-sized explanation of that.

“Shameless polarization and redistribution profiteers, sending out their messages of hate and envy through social media, at zero marginal cost, are exploiting our confirmation bias, namely the want or need to believe what we hear, up to the tilt. It will all end very badly.”

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2010/05/speakers-corner-speakers-have-moved-to.html

@PerKurowski

To understand how the west might be lost it is important to remember how it was won.

Sir, Martin Wolf when reviewing Paul Collier’s “The Future of Capitalism” titles it as “An important analysis of how the west was lost” December 3.

I have not read it yet, but I will be attentive to if Collier gave the film “How the West was won” or John Kenneth Galbraith’s “Money; whence it came, where it went”, or something similar, any consideration when writing this book. That because risk-taking is the oxygen of any development and current regulators, having imposed on banks loony and dangerous risk adverse risk weighted capital requirements, have helped set the west on a downward path.

Wolf does tell us that Collier is for some “updated Henry George type taxation of rent on land, [arguing] we need to tax more forms of rent, including that from agglomeration, which now goes to lucky individuals and businesses.”

I assume “agglomeration” refers here to land and other assets? Of course, if that agglomeration produces higher cash-rents then those rents should be, and already are, mostly taxed, but, if land and assets are taxed on their value, if taxed, land and assets would have be sold, at ever lower and lower prices. How would that asset value deflation solve any problems?

Wolf writes that Collier’s starting point is one on which surely everybody agrees: “Deep rifts are tearing apart the fabric of our societies.” 

Indeed, but as I feel it, much of it is the result of polarization and redistribution profiteers having been so empowered by social media to merchandize their products of hate and envy.

Sir, I’ll stop here until I have read the book.

@PerKurowski

The people in the poorest part of the US have no reason whatsoever to blame Trump for their desperation… yet.

Sir, Rana Foroohar writes,“It never ceases to amaze me that a man I consider the most venal and rapacious president in history has managed to sell desperate people in the poorest parts of the US on the idea that he is their saviour”, “America’s vote marks a culture shift” November 5.

Why would that be surprising? The people in the poorest part of the US have no reason whatsoever to blame Trump for their desperation… yet.

Foroohar writes,“Most Americans, liberal and conservative, are united in their definition of what constitutes “just” business behaviour — they believe it is about spreading the wealth, and improving worker pay and treatment.”

Really? Would most Americans, liberal and conservative, not believe that what constitutes “just” business behaviour — is first and foremost to create that economic growth that could generate opportunities for them?

Foroohar concludes, “It would be wise for both politicians and business to focus on those ideas that bring people together, rather than those that drive them apart”. 

What does she mean by “And business”? Except for some truly minuscule exceptions we have not seen any ordinary business dedicating itself to driving people apart. That is normally very bad for business. What we sure have seen is way too many politicians, activists and journalists, being in the business of polarization… many of them even very happy of being able to exploit Trump in order to improve the profitability of their franchise.

What would they all be doing, and writing about, was there no Trump? They better thank their lucky star.

@PerKurowski

Polarization profiteering trumps all efforts to bridge the divides.

Sir, Simon Kuper discussing the possibilities that “British and US liberals” (whatever that nowadays really means) could become “politically sidelined”, informs us of “Liberal NGOs raise fortunes” “Have we hit peak liberal resistance?” September 30.

To get a donation one used to have to place an ad, invest in a phone call or a stamp, or make a personal visit. Now on the web, one can make a million donation requests, at zero marginal costs. 

That has empowered polarization profiteers potential profits so much that they are taking over the debates and thereby, hopefully unwittingly, taking down our society.

The more they sell themselves, or the champion they support, as the greatest champion to oppose the evilest devil they can find, the higher their donation profits… just like the most outrageous fake news attracts the largest number of ad-clicks.

As a consequence, liberals are now being politically sideline by those who, supposedly supporting them, are more interested in the short-term profits than in any other aspect of liberalism.

True liberals working for a better world, should not play along.

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2010/05/speakers-corner-speakers-have-moved-to.html

@PerKurowski

For better transparency should newspapers have a section of “Journalism” and one of “Political Activism”?

Sir, Rana Foroohar discussing the issue of ever growing student debt, ends her review of Devin Fergus’s book “Land of the Fee”, with: “Perhaps the new generation of millennial socialists rising in the US should make this the issue they tackle first”, "Slow bleed" August 18.’

What’s wrong with plain millennials? Do they have to be socialists? Or is Foroohar more than a journalist an activist?

Sir, since many years I have been arguing that higher education should be much more of a joint venture between the students and their Alma Maters; and that financing preferentially educational costs would just leave over-indebted students and enriched professors. Just as financing preferentially house purchases benefits those who have invested in houses, much more than those who want a house just to be their home.

Here below are two of my tweets that I think cut over political lines, but that therefore might not be of too much interest to redistribution or polarization profiteers.

1. “Instead of taking on debt, perhaps students should go for crowdfunding their study costs, offering to pay a percentage of their incomes during their first 15 after graduation years. If so would not investors want their professors to have some skin in the game too?”

2. “Would insurance companies be willing to invest in the future by financing students against a percentage of their first 15 after graduations years of income? Would IRS be willing to certificate the incomes of these students for the investors?”

I have now ordered, “Land of the Fee” and so I will keep my comments till after I read it. That said I am sure I will again have to ask: Where was FT when regulators risk weighted sovereigns 0% and citizens 100%? Where was FT when regulators allowed banks to leverage 62.5 times only because an AAA rating issued by human fallible rating agencies was present? Where is FT on that all the real benefits of securitization do not accrue those securitized, much the contrary securitization profits are maximized when hurting the most? 

@PerKurowski

How much of billionaires’ wealth might have de facto already been redistributed?

Sir, John Gapper writes interestingly, from the perspective of how these are designed, about “public art museums funded by billionaires”. He concludes in that, as so many follow the same principles; it is beginning to have similitudes to a franchise. “Billionaires are franchising the art museum” August 9.

Currently in the political market, way too often we hear offers phrased in the simplistic terms of: “Let’s take it from the filthy-rich and give it to the poor and, Puff! all odious inequality will have disappeared.”

In order to stop the creation of those false expectations, which at the end only leads to frustrations and the enrichment of the of the redistribution and/or polarization profiteers, by increasing the value of their franchises, there is a real societal need for much more information. 

Like, what wealth to be redistributed are we talking about? How much might billionaires have already de facto redistributed their Main-street purchasing capacity wealth, by demanding and buying assets that no one else but them would be demanding, at least not at those ridiculously high prices?

Not long ago, someone really wealthy, by means of a sort of voluntary tax, froze US$ 450 million of real purchasing power on a wall, by acquiring Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi. Sir, I ask, how do you redistribute that painting without perhaps serious unexpected consequences? Cutting it in thousands of small-certified pieces, and selling these in the market for much more than US$ 450 million? 

@PerKurowski

Give us a “Family and Friends' Facebook” and a “No Man’s Land Facebook”

Sir, John Thornhill “Several proposals for “fixing” Facebook are flying around; none looks wholly convincing. Maybe Financial Times readers have some smarter ideas.” “How to fix Facebook” August 6. Here follows a response to that challenge:

If I use Facebook strictly with my friends and families, fake news, or obscene behavior would not be a major issue, since I have quite a clear idea who in my circle would want to engage with that, and I have therefore my own powers to contain it.

The problem is when suddenly a third unknown, or by me uninvited party gets access to my circle, in order to peddle us a news or an opinion, in which he has an interest and quite likely we don’t.

So one alternative would be to have a family and friend Facebook, in which the only thing third parties could do was to advertise products and services, not post opinions, nor of course try to sell us political pamphlets. Would I be happy with such a Facebook? If the number of those ads, in consideration to my limited attention span, were limited to two or three per hour why wouldn’t I? 

Then there could be an open access Facebook to which any person, not a family and friends circle, can subscribe to and that would resemble the current Facebook. A sort of “Throw anything you want at us” Facebook.When on it, we would all be quite clear with that we will be fed fake news, and odiously polarizing opinions, and that in all essence we are on our own, running under fire, in no mans land. 

Would such split hurt Facebook’s profits? Not necessarily but, if so, it would also reduce the general risks for Facebook (and alike) to be subject to fines, since it would be much harder to hold it responsible for any misbehaviors occurring in the No-Mans Land’s Facebook. 

That said, to also diminish the amount of “odiously polarizing opinions”, something that behooves us all, Facebook should try developing algorithms that, using the whole web, tries to establish and then keep out, those who are looking mostly for some monetary enrichment. That could get about half of the polarization profiteers, the other half being of course much harder to identify, since they are mostly looking for political enrichment.

Talking with a knowledgeable friend he expressed curiosity about how much Facebook used linguistic experts when trying to identify fake-news or other bad behavior. He’s got a good point, though my first reaction was, in this world with constant changes in how we express ourselves, how on earth do we identify a qualified linguistic expert? And if Facebook is able to identify a qualified and diversified linguistic expert team, with perhaps Oxford professors, hip-hoppers and young street wise kids, how do you get them to work together and keep them united? 

And how do you in general avoid fake-news experts being gamed? Perhaps randomly picking fake news identifiers out of a large universe of volunteers, and changing these every couple of minutes, paying them well for their few moments of dedication could be an alternative. An Uber for Fake-News hunting? Sir, it’s a hard knock web!

PS: Sir, what do you think Facebook’s experts would say about the Basel Committee’s news: “That which is perceived risky, is more dangerous to our banks than that which is perceived safe”? True or Fake? 

@PerKurowski