What People Really Value in Leaders or Vote For

 

Recently I watched yet another misleading video about power that claimed that people prefer villains to good guys. While there were some accurate statements, most of it was misleading and downright wrong. Here I will explain why.

I will begin with the biggest lie. The video claimed that Nietzschean slave morality is somehow connected with modern liberal democracy. That is incorrect. Slave morality is creation of Christianity. Christianity preaches sacrifice and selflessness. It's in Christianity Jesus "died for our sins". There are also many saints and martyrs who died or suffered for their faith. 

The only reason these Christian slave moral values are connected to democracy is that most liberal democracies are Christian countries. That puts these values in high regard in many democratic societies. Fundamentally however Christian values are not democratic values. 

In many ways Christian values are opposite of democratic ones. Christianity values suffering and preaches acceptance of one's circumstances, while democracy instead allows you to change these circumstances by voting out government that caused you suffering. Democratic values is rejection of sheepishness of Christianity and taking control into one's own hands.

Now the second lie. Video claimed that people liked autocrats. They cited Napoleon and Mussolini as examples. They however blissfully overlooked the fact that for every Napoleon there are several dozens of Lukashenkas, Amins, Mubaraks and Pinochets whom people cannot wait to get rid of. 

Every Lukashenka out there possibly sees himself as next Napoleon but often ends up just another Mubarak. They have to hide from "love" their people behind bodyguards and army of riot policemen, or people will "lovingly" strangle all life out of them with their bare hands.

Because of that it's more appropriate to see people like Napoleon or Hitler as exceptions rather than rule. In fact, of all traits of master morality, its competence and vision that get each of these leaders to their stardom. Lack of competence was reason for eventual downfall of Mussolini.

However, what exactly makes these few successes stories stand out from the crowd of jokes such as Idi Amin. How to make name for oneself and enter the history books and someone great.

In Napoleon's case it was clearly competence. Put it simply Napoleon knew how to win wars, and he won them a lot. He was competent in administration too, Napoleonic code, created in his time is still basis for most Statute books in Civil Law jurisdictions. Other reforms that were made during his time also stood test of time. It was during Napoleon's time that out of chaos of Frech Revolution finally emerged new better France. 

Compare that to incompetence of Louis XVI who could do nothing when his people starved, chaos and fear during Robespierre's Commitee of Public Safety, corruption scandals and personal enrichment during Directory and then cynical power grab for purely personal benefit during Charles X and it's not too hard to see why Napoleon looks very good next to any of the alternatives.

Yes, Napoleon also dismantled democracy, abolished elections and declared himself emperor. However, these things are not what people love him for, they love him for many other good things he has done.

Nowadays Hitler and Nazis are associated with pure unabashed evil. That is because history is written by winners and US together with USSR repainted Hitler into insane homicidal racist devil incarnate. 

That was not the case in 1933 in Germany when he came to power. Back then Hitler was seen as alternative to politicians who failed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. When in power Hitler actually managed to pull Germany out of Great Depression. Under Hitler quality of life improved, roads were built, well-paying jobs became available for all who needed them. Economy wise Hitler was German FDR and Germans loved him for that. Compare that to constant cuts to wages and mass firings under Hitler's predecessors and it's no surprise why adoring crowds welcomed him anywhere he went.

Here again people love Hitler not because he did Holocaust or started war, but because he made their lives better. Here again competence wins the day.

Some more moral people might want to say it's no excuse for genocide, but people are ultimately selfish and vote and support for what benefits them personally. Hitler did benefited Germans of the 30s even if modern Germans has to apologise for his actions.

Hitler's distorted memory is not the only example. For example, Yeltsin back in early 90s was very energetic and decisive. He looked very strong and competent next to often helpless and inept Gorbachev. Yet history remembers Yeltsin as incompetent drunkard because Russian patriots hate him a lot and distort the facts about him. On the other hand, American fans of Gorbachev like to portray him as modern Prometheus and father of Russian democracy. A guy with a staff from LoD intro has more confidence and ability than Gorbi.

It's the same with the one, whom some call modern Hitler, Trump. Sure, Trump has many flaws, but he has good points too. At the same time lot of bad things about him is simply not true and made up by people who hate him. It's hard to find anything good about Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, he won against. Arguing that Trump is unacceptable is pointless, you have to offer a better alternative or walk.

So, what do people vote for. It's not a matter of master or slave morality. In fact, only heavily moralistic people base their vote on morals. Most vote for self-interest. Rich vote to reduce tax, poor to tax the rich. Employers for more power over employees, employees for more protection from power of employers. Landlords for more control over tenants and their properties, tenants for protection from landlords. Car owners for cheaper petrol, people without cars for more public transport, bicycle owners for more bicycle paths and so on. 

Left was popular when their programs were giving money to the majority. Everyone who qualified for a handout was supporting it, no matter if some die hard rightists were saying there is no free sandwich. When left became woke and decided to limit help to black, elderly and women, they lost those who do not fall into either of these groups.

It's the same in dictatorial countries. Ability to extort bribes and misuse public funds via procurement tenders may be good for bureaucrats, but bad for ordinary citizens. Autocrats like Yanukovych and Shevardnadze fall not because of Soros, but simply because citizens see that quality of life is better with EU style democracy and want to bring it into their lives as well. The EU promise them this quality of life and more if they join the EU. Bureaucrats and police on the other hand cling to the autocrats like Lukashenka and Putin in order to keep their Mercedes Maybach and Maldives vacays, paid by misused public funds. 

When people protest in post-Soviet states that it's not because they think stealing is wrong in principle, its only because money stolen was meant to pay for the new lifts and full Euro renovation in their apartments and they want bureaucrats to pay this back in full and finally fix the lifts like in Europe. However, paying for all these lifts will mean less money for Maldives vacays so bureaucrats opt for riot police instead. 

This dynamic of struggle between citizens and bureaucracy will continue for as long as these demographic groups continue to exist and live in the same country. That is why I said in my other article that Russia should just divest Moscow and other western areas into separate countries and move capital to somewhere in Yekaterinburg. That way they will no longer have to deal with all these citizens who need their lifts and renovations paid for.

People vote and support people and policies that benefit them personally. They will ditch moral if there is something in it for them but will not support villains because they are villains.

Government Should Limit Super Withdrawals for Retirees

Australia has an interesting system of retirement savings system, called superannuation or super for short. The idea is that while person works, the company they work for pays part of their salary into a super fund. Super fund is managed by a professional investment company that earns interest on these money and pays some of it back into the super account of the recipient as interest. A beneficiary of the account could always check how much money their account has accumulated but could not withdraw any until their retirement age.

In the past constant salary contribution to the super account together with interest easily allowed an average worker to save up millions for their retirement. Current boomer generation is the first generation that majorly benefited from that scheme. Many of them now have millions to spend on various stuff. Luxurious retirement home is proof of how lucky boomers were with this scheme that ensured such high class living for no particular effort or merit of their own.

Benefits of superannuation are not limited to retirees alone, however. Until the beneficiary retires, the money is in the hands of the professional investment company to use as their see fit. In the past these companies used these money to finance various development projects that made Australia bigger and better. Money in super was the fuel, that propelled the economy into stratosphere and made life better for everyone.

However, the superannuation system Australia uses had and still has a major flaw. This flaw is the reason why the country struggles with money ever since the Financial Crisis of the 2008 and have not recovered from it.

The problem is that beneficiary of super fund can withdraw the entire amount of their super, the moment their reach their retirement age.

Until first generation of beneficiaries retired, total amount of money in super funds only grew more and more. That meant that investment companies had more and more money to invest into the economy.

However, after first generation has retired, the investment funds suddenly shrank by a very large amount. Since boomers are more numerous than younger generations, it meant that contributions from people still in workforce did not cover the shortfall. 

Suddenly investment companies had less money to work with. Since that that got worse and worse as more and more people have retired, shrinking investment pool further and further.

Almost two decades later government still have not found a solution to this problem. Government tried to raise retirement age several times, but all it did was only postpone the inevitable payment, giving investment funds only temporary relief.

Meanwhile due to shortage of money, everything gets more and more dilapidated. New businesses that require significant investment could not get capital to start, preventing new jobs from being created. Real salaries shrink more and more as non-retirees struggle to afford even food and rent. All while retirees' dwell in their luxurious retirement homes.

In short, it's a disaster that made Australia from a lucky country into a misery land.

It does not have to be this way however, A solution to a problem not only exist, its already practiced by pretty much every other country with a similar superannuation program.

All government needs to do is to limit how much money retirees can withdraw from a fund even after they retire. 

In most other countries, similar systems do not allow beneficiaries to withdraw the whole amount at once in a single day. In most of such systems government just pays retirees an extra supplement to the regular minimum pension. The supplement amount depends on the level or number of contributions; the person made to the fund.

Australia does not have to make any complicated changes to existing system. All we need is to limit the withdrawals from super to something like 1% or principle per month or a certain fixed amount like $3000 per month or $1500 per fortnight.

This will keep most of the money in the hands of the super funds and will allow them to use these money to invest in Australian economy. That will benefit everyone in the country. 

Such change will benefit retirees as well. When the entire amount is immediately available to them, they become a lucrative target for all forms of fraud. Crooks know that fleecing just one of them can net them a jackpot that will set them for live. In the news we keep hearing more and more stories about retirees losing all their money, as banks and other institutions struggle to inform the public about basic fraud vigilance.

In contrast if super withdrawals will be limited, then retirees will stop being such a lucrative target for fraudsters. Even if they end up being conned by someone, it will not be as much of a problem as most of their super will still be safe and sound in the super fund and will be available to them next fortnight.

Limiting super withdrawals to $1500 per fortnight will not only save Australian economy and make everyone's lives better, but it will also protect retirees from fraud and save their money. The sooner government adopts this policy the better.

Europe Should Explain Value of Ukraine to Putin

 

I recently found a new interesting angle to the war in Ukraine. An angle that can allow EU and Russia to reach peace and even mutual cooperation. 

In my article about Baltic States, I did mention how Russia and the West generally value them differently. For Russia Latvia is most important of three, followed by Estonia and Lithuania. For EU and the west, it's generally the other way around, Lithuania first, Estonia next and Latvia last.

When it comes to Ukraine and other post-Soviet states, there is similar picture. Russia and Russians generally do not value Ukraine that much. Russians generally see Ukrainians as greedy, selfish and parochial people without shred of honor. In contrast they value Belarussians much more, believing them to be loyal, respectful and good team players. In fact, whole Kremlin propaganda narrative that backs war in Ukraine revolves around the idea that Ukrainians were "too weak and stupid" to "prevent Nazis from taking over" and now Russia has to "save" them.

For EU it's clearly the other way around. Ukrainians are potential EU accession success story on the level of Poland. In contrast Belarus and its leader Lukashenka is all they detest and despise in a single country and person. Only threat of Russian retaliation prevents Poland and Lithuania from simply invading Belarus to overthrow Lukashenka by force.

Kremlin is not necessarily aware of value, EU places in Ukraine. EU response to an invasion make Kremlin think that response will be the same no matter what they invade. Thus, Kremlin choose to invade the country it personally values lest and holds grunges against, Ukraine.

In reality EU would be a lot less concerned if Kremlin instead invaded Belarus or Kazakhstan. EU has no real stakes or interests in Kazakhstan; thus, they likely limit response to verbal condemnation and possibly small token sanctions. While EU wants Belarus to embrace EU integration path, that option is simply impossible for as long as Lukashenka remains in power. In fact, Lukashenka is so detestable to Europeans, they might even welcome Russian invasion of Belarus if it will remove him from power.

Sure, from geo-political perspective it will make no sense for Russia to invade broadly pro-Russian and anti-western regimes. However, that would be most crucial factor only if geo-politics are the real reason for Russian war. 

Actual relationships between Russia and post-Soviet states are more nuanced. EU and West often think that it is Russia who forces its will onto Belarus and other weaker countries of post-Soviet space. The reality however that its local bureaucrats and police, who fear European level scrutiny of their actions and seek Russian protection from it. Lukashenka and average Belarussian bureaucrat and policeman needs Russia a lot more than Russia needs them.

Sure, Russian bureaucrats and police are sympathetic to "plight" of their colleagues in Belarus and Ukraine, but their own interests come first. They need some sort of war to keep domestic population distracted and at least apathetic for Putin's continued rule and bureaucrats continued plunder. However, that does not have to be a war in Ukraine. However, they also want continued access to their mansions on French riviera and such. Europe can get much in exchange for giving them these things back.

However, it is not that important who Kremlin actually fights. Back in early 2000s it were Chechens, then Georgians, finally they settled on Ukrainians. Putin's propaganda machine can come up with some reasons to fight Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan if EU can give them good enough reason to switch their focus there. EU has just that kind of reason, it just has to explain these reasons to Putin.

While that does sound cynical, but EU should make it clear that while they care what happens to Ukraine and they want no further fighting there, they do not care if Putin instead invades Kazakhstan and "saves Russians" there. Something like this likely have to be agreed behind closed doors. 

Yes, it's a betrayal of principles of rule of law world order. It brings back the spheres of influence concept Putin always wanted to implement. However Central Asian dictatorships do not practice any rule of law, so not much will be lost if Putin invades there. In contrast Ukraine is actually developing democracy that gravitates towards this rule of law and EU values. Thus, saving Ukraine from Putin at expense of Central Asians can be considered a prudent call. A realistic solution to complex problem.

Europe can strike a deal with Kremlin where it gets Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia for EU integration, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan for future integration. In return Moscow gets free reign in Central Asia with wars without sanctions. 

That only leaves issue of Belarus, but possibly Kremlin will be willing to either, trade it away or partition it between democratic and autocratic side. In fact, Kremlin might be willing to actually see Poland and Lithuania invade Belarus to change the regime as it can use it in domestic propaganda. Of course, such agreements will have to be made behind closed doors.

This rather cynical pact can finally end Russian war in Ukraine and solve so called fundamental issues between the EU and Russia.

Why Australia Have Changed So?

I have been living in Australia for almost 20 years now and could not fail to notice that country have changed a lot since I first arrived. 

Back in mid 2000s Australia was chill, calm and relaxed place. Everyone was relaxed and friendly. No one worried about anything. It was very refreshing compared to pretentious, stressful and often downright mean Moscow, where I lived before. Australia was a country of people who knew how to enjoy themselves and enjoyed life to the fullest, a paradise on earth. I too was happy back then.

That however changed with advent of Financial Crisis. A stressful time that was meant to be temporary upset but crept on and on ended up becoming a new norm. All sort of stress and crisis have followed. Employment crisis, rental shortages, Medicare, COVID, cost of living. It goes on and on for more than a decade.

All this stress made country and us miserable. Noise and mess and crowds everywhere. Crazy people roam the streets. Crime is on the rise. Almost everyone gave up on everything fun and now only jog or lift in never-ending gyms. That is near opposite of what paradise is.

Now, after a decade of that mess under Libs, they actually pitch to us with a slogan "to get country back on track". On track to what, to keep this Toon's mess going even longer. Track is a lie; it's only a road to hell and completely un-Australian.

We do not need to get back on track. We are not circus ponies to run truck in circles every day like hamster in a wheel.

Instead, we should get back to pools, barbeques, surfboards, boats, fishing rods, videogames, vacays, palms, beaches, thongs, eskys, pubs and of course beer - all thing that make life fun and worth living. Now that is an Australian idea.