Nad życie – czego uczą nas umierający - book review

I cannot recall how I have come across a mention of the book, but once I learnt of its existence, I immediately signed up for it with my infallible provider of readings – the district library of Ursynów.

The paperback, which is a structured jumble of interviews, came up to me as a loose follow-up to Tomasz Stawiszyński’s work (a new book of the philosopher to premiere in October), in which the author repeatedly underlined death had been unduly erased from the contemporary culture.

The set of interviews is literally titled “More than life – what the dying can teach us”. The first part of the title brings out several thoughts. Nothing is precious more than life. Nothing can be cherished more than life. Then a penny drops – will I read about people holding on to life tightly? Will a dying human always hold on to life? Would they take every effort to extend their stay in this universe, or would they prefer to depart before the suffering gets unbearable? Do not expect the book to provide you with any answer. The death in a moral, ethical, philosophical and psychological perspective is an abstruse and complex issue.

The decease and all its aspects – medical, legal, religious are brought closer to a reader in a series of conversations with people who, by dint of their professions, deal with dying people on a daily basis. The common denominators of all interlocutors is their reserve towards the very phenomenon of departure (inevitable, if they want to keep their sanity) that they do not pass judgements nor can indicate any universal rules.

The book explores in an approachable manner the topic of euthanasia, futile therapies, pain alleviation, terminal care and other issues whose ethical and medical dimensions are controversial. More sensitive readers might find it difficult to go through chapters on suicides (but oddly enough committed on the spur of the moment, not in an episode of depression) or departing terminally ill children, but I do believe for the sake of knowing the world we live in, they, along with the entire book, are a recommendable read.

Enraged

July 1997. Prime minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz visits sites damaged by the flood of millennium and concludes: this is yet another incidence which bears out one should be prudent and take out insurance, alas this truth is still not common. Nothing hurts like the truth. Mr Cimoszewicz’s utterance has become a nail to the coffin of his party in the coming parliamentary elections and has gone down in history as a symbol of insensitiveness to other people’s misery.

In fact only extreme liberals have the courage to admit Mr Cimoszewicz’s statement was hitting nail in the head when speaking about lack of foresight among humans. Those words might have been out of place, if spoken out among people who had lost all their belongings in the flood, but look at it from a different perspective. One person pays insurance premiums for years and when their house is destroyed by a flood, they collect a compensation. Another person, if they have luck be one of many victims of a natural disaster, gets aid from the government = taxpayers. What is your sense of justice telling you now? Should there by any differentiation between forward-looking citizens who take out insurance and those who reckon when it comes to the crunch the government will step in and help? There are several ways out. First one – the government does not help anyone, the insured get money, those who failed to insure against flood are left out in the cold. Second one – the government gives money, but only to those who have not bought insurance policies. Those who paid insurance premiums learn they are suckers sinking money into insurance policies for years and their reckless neighbours are free-riders whose lack of prudence is rewarded. Third option – the government gives money to anyone aggrieved, no matter insured, or not. Those without insurance get relief, while when comes to the insured ones, there are two options – either they get a compensation from their insurance company and in effect are better off (counting out the hassle to rebuild their houses and arrange them) after the flood, or insurance companies refuse to pay out compensations, as benefits from the government have the same character. In both cases somebody grows richer at taxpayers’ expense – the insured flooded or insurers…

The considerations above arise from the widespread belief government is omnipotent and is capable of influencing events at its discretion. This conviction is abjectly dangerous as it implies firstly citizens are infantile creatures not capable of taking care of themselves and should be incapacitated, secondly the government can be blamed for virtually everything, since it can control everything.

When politicians of PiS blame government for everything, it is not just an element of their political strategy which assumes no matter what the PO-led government do, good or bad, must be slated right away, but also an exemplification of their view of the world. Mr Kaczyński’s advocates deeply believe if Kaczynski was in power, all the problems would disappear. They deeply believe people in power are capable of turning things around whenever they wish. And this is dreadful. This also engender claimant’s stance – a way of thinking “I deserve”, “the state is duty bound to provide for…”. “Mnie się należy”, “państwo ma dać”, “państwo ma obowiązek, dbać, zapewnić, etc.”, „co państwo zrobiło”... Rigns a bell? Makes me want to puke…

In fact how a society functions, all social plagues, shortcomings, criminality, etc. is mainly a sum of millions of individuals’ behaviours, attitudes, moral spines. Other factors shaping workings of society are formal and informal sets of rules which tell us what is acceptable and what not. There is legal system, including penal code, which deters individuals from engaging in unacceptable practices, but what really can discourage people from wrongdoing are enforceable social norms. It is not a potential punishment of let’s say ten years of imprisonment for drunk driving that should prevent us from sitting behind the wheel when intoxicated, but the strong conviction this is dangerous and will be condemned by any upright citizen.

You cannot blame government for everything. Can we blame the government for Amber Gold scandal? Partly yes, as it did not amend regulations which did not oblige prosecutors to instigate proceedings against the fraudulent company immediately upon receiving request from Financial Supervision Authority. The state should ensure all scams are detected early and their masterminds imprisoned, but the state will not prevent you from entrusting your money voluntarily to a crook.

Can we blame the government for bankruptcies in the construction sector? Terms of contracts, including payment terms, as proposed by Road Construction Agency were often unfavourable for contractors but they all in concert bid the lowest prices. They all agreed for conditions set by Gdaka, but when everyone cries about bankrupt subcontractors (doing business means taking risks), why does nobody mention millions or zlotys saved from the public purse? Intense competition among road builders has finally brought costs of road construction to a level comparable with European ones. Why does nobody mention relief to taxpayers and lower public debt?

Your fate lies in your hands. Many times people’s misery is not their fault, but many times they work hard for their predicament. As someone aptly summarised recent summer’s woes of clients of Amber Gold, OLT Express, or bankrupt travel agencies, this can be all put down to Polish greed, tight-fistedness, low level of wealth or simply dziadostwo. We chase bargains by seeking out promises of high yield, low-lost travels, without minding credentials of our counterparties. And when it falls down, we blame regulators, government, bad people, but never ourselves, our naivety, greed, lack of foresight and judgement.

If so, no wonder we posit the government should take responsibility for us, but consequently we deprive ourselves of freedom. But let’s ask whether freedom is actually desirable. Freedom is not the right to prance about in tight clothes on a gay parade (I have nothing against homosexuals, but I am not fond of flaunting sexual preferences), but freedom entails responsibility, means you are wise enough to take decisions regarding your life and suffer consequences of your deeds and this may be inconvenient for many.

My observations indicate people prefer to renounce responsibility and admit their infantilism by offloading responsibility to others. No matter if these were bankers who begged for bailout four years ago, or unemployed Poles blaming Mr Tusk for their joblessness, the trend towards giving up freedom in return from protection is disturbingly apparent…

PS. Bought a new camera today :)

The guilt

Student SGH? Me? I chose that nickname as I was setting up this blog in February 2009, because being a student was one of main social roles I would perform then and the easiest to put clearly into words. As someone rightly noticed, some time ago I graduated and no longer can call myself a student. Unlike many of my peers I have not struggled to find a job after I finished the studies, I do not work on "junk contract" (umowa śmieciowa), I have a permanent job. Someone said I am a banker. I think this sound misleading. I do not deal in high amounts of money, I just analyse credit risk, my job is to assure a company should be able to pay back the money it wants to borrow. I have worked too short to get it wrong at least once. I earn relatively well, though I was recently told my salary accounts for only 60% of average salary on my position in the whole industry. Unlike most of my compatriots, I have savings, given my age they are quite ample. I try to make even more money by speculating on stock exchange; sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Plus the only asset I have is a car - a gift from my parents on occasion of graduating from SGH. And last Sunday I voted for Platforma Obywatelska because I was convinced, as almost 40% of voters, that things were quite alright.

Should I have remorse?

I something amiss in the short confession above? Let's dissect it.

Unlike many of my peers I have not struggled to find a job after I finished the studies - The whole debate can boil down to one question - is it true that a man's key to success lies in his own hands. Who are those young people who cannot get a job? Can anyone put together a profile of an unemployed graduate? What did they study? When choosing what to study, did they assess job prospects for graduates? During their studies did they engage in any student organizations? Did they do internships during summer holidays? What did they do to raise their qualifications? What earnings do they expect when entering the labour market?

It was a twist of fate that I work where I work. I partly owe it to luck. On Easter Monday last year I put in my application to Grasz o Staż contest. I cracked a three-page long case study and sent it, not holding out much hopes to be qualified to the next stage. Then out of the blue came a horribly tough interview at a bank. I was given ten minutes to prepare financial analysis of a company on a verge of bankruptcy. There was no space for luck, I had to prove my knowledge. I got in, what I later achieved was thanks to sheer hard work. And I never complained about my salary, employer's requirements, etc.

I do not work under a "junk contract" (umowa śmieciowa) - I cannot see the point in the fuss about junk contracts. For young people who still study they are excellent - no need to pay social security contributions, effective tax rate for such contracts for students is below 15%. Plus they offer more flexibility to both parties to such contracts...

I have a permanent job - now a different story. Despite having some job security (not only in contractual terms, but also at work, where I feel no one is going to lay me off), I am not creditworthy for banks. I do not plan to take out a mortgage, but if I wanted I would not get more than 140,000 PLN. This is... great news. The fewer people deserve, in banks' view, to be granted a loan, the more property prices fall and the sooner I can buy something for cash.

Someone said I am a banker. I think this sound misleading. I do not deal in high amounts of money, I just analyse credit risk, my job is to assure a company should be able to pay back the money it wants to borrow - maybe the case is that English does not distinguish between bankier and bankowiec (not to mention examples of rencista and rentier). I am a bankowiec - someone who works at a bank, but not someone who earns zillions and not, as many people tend to think, foist loans upon helpless clients. My job is to foster the bank's interests. In very simple words, my role is to check and analyse, which company will have capacity to repay a loan, which not, and to justify why. I do not rip anyone off and if a company does not get financing, it is not because I have it in for it. My employer pays me for taking care of quality of its portfolio, so I simply do my bit as good as I can.

I have worked too short to get it wrong at least once. But the economic slowdown is nearing and we are taking steps to prepare for it. One day I'll make a mistake, and I think this will be a valuable experience. One best learns from one's own mistakes...

I earn relatively well, though I was recently told my salary accounts for only 60% of average salary on my position in the whole industry. Many of my peers have inflated expectations regarding their starting salary. This one of main reasons why young people have problems on the labour market. My take on this is that they should, as I did, accept low salary at the beginning, and with time, through aforementioned sheer hard work, prove they deserve more. During the internship I had in summer last year I got paid peanuts, in February I started a three-month probation period over which I was paid more, than I got another pay raise and now I have no reasons to complain. I believe with time, provided the crisis does not spark off for good, my salary should go up again.

Unlike most of my compatriots, I have savings, given my age they are quite ample. - I do not understand why in this country people who are thrifty are at best scowled at. Being good at managing one's own finances is a virtue. Being able to amass some wealth, instead of squandering money does reflect well upon a man. Why those who save are punished, while those who borrow and live beyond their means are taken care of, helped out, etc.?

I try to make even more money by speculating on stock exchange; sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. - and those who buy and sell risk are now assaulted as well. Speculators are to blame for potential sovereign defaults? I know market participants are often insane, their decisions are driven by emotions, herd instinct, irrational, but after all many speculations are based on fundamentals (betting if Greece, Italy or Spain go bust is not unfounded) and on every speculation someone loses. Every speculator is sooner or later beaten in their own game. The only rule in that game that has to be obeyed is that no one should be bailed out. Once you take a risk, you should lose all hopes that anyone will give you helpind hand if things go wrong.

Plus the only assets I have is a car - a gift from my parents on occasion of graduating from SGH.. Yes, I do have remorse, when I pass by people tinned like sardines in a bus. Now I feel like shutting up.

And last Sunday I voted for Platforma Obywatelska because I was convinced, as almost 40% of voters, that things were quite alright. - and I voted for 'evildoers', 'traitors', I opted for the 'further downfall of Poland'. But for over a year I many times glanced at political decisions taken in Hungary and I am grateful to Jarosław Kaczyński for reminding me why I did not vote for his party...

Waiting for some waspich comments to crop up. Feel free to bash me!

Maybe next week about Wall Street occupiers...

Benevolence

This year, the time has come. In the past years, before Christmas I promised myself to share some of my wealth with the ones in need. I know, it is a but hypocritical, it is done only around Christmas, because everyone else does it and later people forget for the rest of the year. In the past years my low income was a lame excuse to confine to a few zlotys, this year I decided it was high time to endow some foundations and charities. I began to earn some “real” money, next year my earnings will be really decent, so apart from paying taxes which are aimed at redistributing wealth, I should help my fellow men off my own bat.

In the past days, when I had some free time (scarce commodity) I have pondered upon this issue. The topic triggers a lot of questions, concerning legitimacy, percentage of income that should be shared with others, discretion, moral duty and many more.

Virtually everyone agrees the disadvantaged should be given aid. Opinions how to do it wisely vary. In socialists’ view, the state should be solely responsible for redistributing wealth. The richer should under constraint pay not only higher taxes, but should also give to the state apparatus a higher percent of their income. Liberals, in turn, claim it should be the civil society that takes over function of helping the poor. People, as they say, can set up foundations and charity organisations and endowing them should be a moral duty.

Both approaches have substantial downsides. The statist one assumes the state is omnipotent and will allocate the collected resources effectively. This is impossible – the whole bureaucratic apparatus costs too much and will never be effective – once we had such system in which the state oversaw everything and it failed. The liberal one carries a naïve assumption people will be ready to share their wealth with the worse-off, which is overtly false. Most people are greedy and even if they do it, they will give out only a tiny percent of their earnings. Here there is a fix for it. In many Anglo-Saxon societies donating large sum to charities is a benchmark of one’s social status. There is some bit of pressure from society. But if it was not about boasting about the endowment on a party, would they be ready to give their money away that eagerly? I realise it is better that giving no money at all; no matter if the well-off outbid one another who donates more, the disadvantaged benefit from this. My take on the issue is similar to my view of CSR – most companies do it to maintain a good image, not because they care about those parentless children. Mechanics of the endowment is identical – people do it because they care about their prestige, benevolence is just a side effect.

And I have also realised that even if I was most open-handed I could afford, my contributions would still be hypocritical. I could not sympathise with beneficiaries of my help, just because I have never experienced homelessness, famine, shortage of money, severe illness or any other kind of misery. No big tragedy has affected me yet, my family have, thank God, never been destitute. But on the other hand, as I have also never experienced luxuries, I feel I am in between. Much above me are those whose opulence would dazzle me, much below are those whose poverty is beyond my comprehension. Probably the bigger the gap is, the harder it is to take in a fellow man’s woe.

In addition, giving money is taking the path of least resistance. I may have fewer banknotes in my wallet, by bank account may be credited and the strain is over. Good deed is done, conscience is clear. It is not that simple, as long as I still avert experiencing misery.

Also a man’s wealth determines his problems. For people who struggle to make ends meet, the problem might be if they will not run out of cash to buy bread for children. For those a bit better off, who surely can afford to stock up on bread and smoked hams, the problem might be paying for a child’s school trip abroad. The richer you are, the further from scraping along your problems are. A reason to complain for my colleagues might be that they can afford only a suit for 1,000 PLN rather than five times more expensive one. Or, as this year, that the Christmas bonus was not an equivalent of new compact car’s value, as it was in the years of prosperity (2006 or 2007).

Yesterday I had a Christmas party in my office. It was thrown in an empty unfinished sizeable room in our office building in the very centre of Warsaw. Looking outside the windows could you see Palace of Culture, hotels, busy streets full of well-off people running pre-Christmas errands in haste. Food and drink was in abundance, everyone was pleased to get together… I wonder if I was the only one who thought about families who cannot make ends meet during the party. Once again the Band Aid’s song reverberated in my head…

It's Christmas time

There's no need to be afraid

At Christmas time, we let in light and we banish shade

And in our world of plenty we can spread a smile of joy

Throw your arms around the world at Christmas time

But say a prayer

Pray for the other ones

At Christmas time it's hard, but when you're having fun

There's a world outside your window

And it's a world of dread and fear

Where the only water flowing is the bitter sting of tears

And the Christmas bells that ring there

Are the clanging chimes of doom

Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you

And there won't be snow in Africa this Christmas time

The greatest gift they'll get this year is life

Where nothing ever grows

No rain nor rivers flow

Do they know it's Christmas time at all

Here's to you raise a glass for everyone

Spare a thought this Yuletide for the deprived

If the table was turned would you survive

Here's to them underneath that burning sun

You ain't gotta feel guilt, just selfless

Give a little help to the helpless

Do they know it's Christmas time at all

Feed the world, feed the world, feed the world

Feed the world, feed the world

Let them know it's Christmas time again

Does anyone hear “the clanging chimes of doom”?
Is anyone thankful “tonight thank God it's them instead of you”?

But Polish bankers are not as spoilt as their counterparts from the City or Wall Street. Here the banking system is totally different (in Poland investment banking is just fledging and will never develop for good after Mr Crisis spelled the death of it) – there is no such depravity, earnings and bonuses are not sky-high and expectations are different. More about one depiction of London’s bankers circle in the New Year’s Day post!

Investments and morality

The concept of moral spine, when taking investment decisions, usually neglected, is strongly emphasised in principles of Islamic banking. It seems it is one of sparse significant examples when ethics affects financial system on a level of banks, brokerage firms and other entities that are involved in large-scale banking operations. Their codes of practices forbid earning (excessive) interest, investments in shares of companies whose core business is deemed to be unethical, or trading in derivatives which are said not to be a real money. As you drill down in the superficial description from wikipedia, you will see the system is full of loopholes that enable to get round the rules.

And in our non-Islamic world, are there any rules? I worked out a short (and subjective) list of investments I would refrain from. I wouldn’t list there derivatives as Muslims do. Those financial instruments have been conjured up for three purposes: to hedge risks, take risks and speculate. As long as you don’t beg anyone for help because you have lost your capital this investment is ethical, but if try to socialise the losses or shift the costs of your flawed decision to someone else, who is not guilty, you are a typical product of modern “distorted capitalism”, “remnant of what used to be capitalism”, or whatever we have witnessed during the last financial crisis is. This stance can be described shortly: as long as your business goes well you tell the state and regulators to mind their own business, when your house of cards collapses, you seek their protection. A fine example of hypocrisy…

The first type of what I find unethical is not even an investment, because what I disapprove of is a pure speculation on real estate. If you buy a house or a flat to live in it, everything is alright, even if its price soars. If you buy a flat to pass it on to your child who is now in a nursery school, you do not do anything wrong, even if you will be subletting it for twenty years. But if you buy it only to sell it in a few years and take profits, I denounce your investment. By taking such a decision you contribute to rising real estate prices and make flats less affordable for other people, who will become slaves of mortgages for next thirty years. Dwelling is after all one of basis needs of a human being. Speculation deprives many individuals of their chance to have their own one.

Your own flat or house is your biggest financial asset, so it is an investment, but I wonder what would happen if mortgage became almost totally unavailable. How much would flats in Warsaw cost? The scenario doesn’t bring a picture in bright colours – flats would be bought be rich people who would let and the rest would have no choice but to rent it, rents would go up then. Not a good future prospect anyway.

The second type is a pure investment, unfortunately very common and used as a benchmark of risk-free rate of return. The government bonds. You keep your money in a bank, bank pays you interest from what it has earned from other clients – customers whose folly made them take out consumer loans or enterprises which had taken out loans to develop their businesses and have a higher rate of return than interest paid on the credit. This system of brokerage works well, mostly as the bank is the institution which takes a risk. Meanwhile you pay taxes and your neighbour buys government bonds. Interest he earns is financed from taxes you pay on what you earn as a worker as well as from your capital gains tax.

If you want to invest your money, do it on the market, let it work for a private business, don’t sponge on fellow taxpayers. State is not a saving bank, it’s role is to maintain law and order, provide public goods, depending on you economic views its role should be limited to minimum or cover a spectre of spheres like education, health care, social security. But it should not be a participant of financial markets. Another story is that it also should not spend more that it can afford to and consequently issue bonds. But as a balanced budget idea enthusiast I can talk my head off and I bet the day I die some of my neighbours will have their money invested in gilts. Damn it!

If I have touched upon taxation, I cannot leave out the new popular method of tax avoidance – antybelki – bank deposit which are constructed in a way that you don’t have to pay capital gains tax – either it is an insurance policy or the interest is paid daily and if it doesn’t exceed 2.50 PLN, calculated tax is rounded down to 0 PLN. It is absolutely legal, but if moral? You will save some money, but state budget will lose its revenue. Who will lose? A monster called “State” who lives in a cave and gobbles poor taxpayers? No, your neighbours will lose, your friends will lose, your family will lose, you will lose and the next generations will lose. They will have to pay higher taxes, because current lower revenues means higher budget deficit in the future. I realise the workings of Polish state are far cry from perfect, costs of maintaining bureaucratic apparatus are tremendous, but many public goods are finance from public purse, if you want to consume them, you shouldn’t evade paying taxes. (though the rational decision is not to pay taxes, because you’ll get them anyway).

My apologies to my readers. In the second year of blogging posting frequency will not be as high it used to be. But I pledge to try to focus on quality and publish at least two concise posts each week. I’m simply more busy this term and have less time for writing (what doesn’t mean less time for musing about politics, economy and society).

Sense of justice

This week residents of Warsaw witnessed the events which should have prompted them to reconsider what just is and what is not. And it’s not as black or white as it may seem to look.

On Monday (the day before yesterday) two burglars broke into an antiquarian shop in the centre. One of them ran away quickly, frightened, as the shop assistant didn’t give up easily and got into a scrimmage with his companion. During the fight the shop assistant took away a knife from a thief and stabbed him. Both men were taken to hospital where the intruder died.

Soon the readers of TVN Warszawa portal hailed the antiquarian who had put up resistance to burglars as a hero. At this point we begin to draw on our moral principles. Has a man a right to take away his fellow man’s life? According to the Catholic Church teachings (and as the statistics show, over ninety per cent of Poles declare themselves catholic, so they should follow some principles), never. According to the law, he could have killed a robber unintentionally, in self-defence, this has to be investigated.

What caused such a reaction of readers? Firstly they looked up to him for his bravery, secondly, in their sense of justice the burglar was no one else but a pest, which posed a threat to society. The shop assistant has eliminated a human being whose existence was perceived harmful for the rest of society. In this respect, his deed was considered beneficial, for two reasons. Firstly this man will not break into any other shop, will not steal anything, will not do his time in prison, financed by taxpayers, and secondly other thieves will be scared and this accident may put them off trying to steal something.

Since the burglars attempted to break into my house in September I have been thinking about how I would have behaved if my neighbour had not scarred them away. For sure killing anyone, including the worst scoundrel would be out of question, my conscience would not be clear until the end of my days, but I would have to remorse to break his arm or leg? For someone who uses a crowbar to enter someone else’s property it is a well-earned injury.

What happened today casts once again a light on Polish insensitiveness. A lot is spoken that Poles, whenever they see something wrong, turn their heads away, pass by pretending not to see anything. A policeman in civilian clothes who rode a tram in Warsaw this morning had the courage to reproach a hooligan who had thrown a rubbish bin into a tram. A young (18-year-old, inebriated) criminal pulled a knife out of his pocket and stabbed the policeman, who later died in a hospital.

I pay homage to this brave man and like many people wonder what to do with the murderer. Many commentators driven by pristine emotions suggested that he should be executed. Tit-for-tat, the easiest way out. In practise he will appear before court and will be imprisoned for many years. Neither variant solves anything.

I’m not in favour of capital punishment, but it gets my goat whenever I think thousands of prisoners do their time at taxpayers’ cost. Hence, I have two modest, I suppose, proposals.

Criminals who commit petty crimes and those who made illegal or thoughtless things that harmed other people should be FINED severely. The financial disincentive should work very well, after all humans are driven by greed, aren’t they?

But sometimes the convicts have to be isolated from the rest of society. I think privatisation of penitentiary industry would not be a bad idea. The guys who fell foul with law should earn for themselves. The business would be viable, we would have a plenty of cheap labour force utilised for building motorways to move this country forward.

Who’s to blame for the crisis / Cherish the bearish!

Ask an economist a question and they’ll answer: “It depends”. The question for today concerns Barack Obama’s plans to impose precautionary regulations on banking industry. Many opponents and commentators say this is the revenge for bankers’ to the latest financial crisis. The others say we have to prevent societies from the disasters reckless bankers may trigger.

Bankers became a scapegoat of the crisis, but the question who is to blame is multi-faceted, but can be boiled down to a simple dilemma: the market or the people? This single problem could be a great topic for a separate post – maybe one day…

If the people, you’ll probably blame the bankers and the factor that has always driven them – the greed. But please note dear reader that the bankers acted within a certain system, which created incentives to what you call immoral behaviours. The main pillars of the system were too loose monetary policy, lax regulations and certainly flawed remuneration schemes, under which bankers got paid generously for profits made on taking excessive risk and the burden of losses was carried by shareholders. When the banks were bailed out by the states, the governments stepped in as owners. A lot of free market advocates pulled the governments up for their disagreement for big bankers’ bonuses. Didn’t they notice the governments many times acted not as the states but as owners and exercised owner’s right to influence executives’ pays?

I would sooner incline towards a notion that the institutional framework is to blame. Bankers behaved rationally, if they could profit from the situation, they just did it. Many times I heard it was the greed that brought about the crisis. “Greed is bad” – the leftist organisations chanted on Canary Wharf on Halloween 2008. Greed itself, as an axe is not bad. Axe itself is evil when you use it to kill your mother-in-law. Greed is what propels development, boosts effectiveness, makes people strive for perfection, moves the world along.

But now add to this reasoning that markets are driven by two factors: greed and fear. Fear was taken away from global financial markets for a few years prior to the crisis. The moment market participants forgot about the links between expected profits and risk and believed prices could rise endlessly, they hammered a nail to their coffin. Financial markets should always be in the shadow of fear. They should always reckon with the worst scenario and must not expect that anyone, particularly the governments will come in aid. Conclusion. The crisis was caused by LACK OF FEAR, not by greed.

When the markets function without fear, the disaster in inexorable. That is why I welcomed the proposal of American president. Mr Obama brought back fear to the markets and restored the balance, I received it with a sigh of relief, the current correction proves markets stay sound.

What will happen in the coming weeks? There is one reason why the stock prices could go up – low interest rates, but I see several reasons, why this can be a long awaited correction:
- stock markets had been rising rapidly for eleven months and they simply deserve a decent correction,
- stocks are overvalued, but it’s not an argument, stock markets do not rely on rational arguments, but on power of demand and supply,
- big speculators will take profits and buy back the same securities in a few weeks at the lower price,
- those who’ll lose on this shrewd move will be small investors who believed in the bull market just before the trend reversed – history repeats itself, but few are sadder but wiser,
- stock exchanges have already discounted the scenario of V-shape recovery, now everything indicates we revival will be rather slower, the big vulnerability of economies to stimulus packages and too loose monetary policy has been recognised, now the valuations should reflect this scenario.

Dear readers, see you in a few weeks (in early March 2010) somewhere below 2000 points on WIG20, 32000 points on WIG, 900 points on S&P500, 8500 points on Dow Jones or somewhere else, if time proves me wrong. Today I estimate the chances my forecast is flawed are 35 per cent. Yesterday they were around 50 per cent, but after the markets rallied after the publication of USA GDP data and totally ran out of steam within just four hours, I’m quite convinced we’re heading south.

Elections, elections...

The parliamentary ones would be held this October, if the previous term of the Polish parliament hadn’t been shortened. I still dread to think what would have happened if the Law and Justice party had remained in power for next two years. They’d probably kept on spoiling the country and its institutions, in the worst (though not really likely) scenario, the next elections in 2009 could have been rigged. Why unlikely? People of my country wouldn’t let them do this, we would take into the streets, picket, show our disagreement, or EU would step in.

The review of the last two years – it could have been better and could have been worse. Currently there’s no alternative for Civic Platform in Poland. Turning Tusk and his entourage away would mean bringing Kaczyński back to power. The last scandals didn’t outrage me much – in every party there will be individuals aiming to set themselves up, make a few profitable deals, arrange a swindle and so on – so no surprise. Those who claim Tusk’s move was a PR stunt are partly right – however I couldn’t see any better way of resolving a problem of suspected ministers than firing them – for sake of transparency. The thought of early elections makes me feel apprehensive. If Poles turn their backs on PO it will mean PiS may earn more votes in the elections. Hopefully our memory is not short as on financial markets and the mistake of 2005 is still being borne in mind.

This weeks the elections are being held in my school. The students vote for their representatives in the senate and other bodies which I won’t mention cause I have too little time to think or check how to translate them. I went to the makeshift polling station put up on the courtyard of my school on Monday. I picked up the ballot papers and dashed off a bit to put my crosses on them. After a moment a group of fellow students, for sure including one who was running for a seat in senate came up to me and offered to help me choose the right candidates. Once again I could kick myself for being not enough assertive – I just kindly turned down their proposal. Should I’ve reported it as irregularity? I only wish I hadn’t hurried with marking the names – had I taken a moment for consideration I could have shown my disapproval and contempt for that cesspit by casting invalid votes…

Where you stand depends on where you sit

So why should they check if the third time is really lucky, if the second was twice as enough? The Irish voters chose on Friday to adopt the Lisbon Treaty, which they rejected in the previous referendum, held on 12th June 2008. Their decision, this time totally predictable doesn’t necessarily prove their support for the further integration within the European Union (though the framework of the process was vastly abridged in comparison to the draft of European Constitution), but it’s an excellent evidence for the old, but still up-to-date Polish saying: “Punkt widzenia zależy od punktu siedzenia”. In the last months before the outbreak of the financial crisis Irish citizens were definitely reluctant to embrace the document. Now, after their country has been hit be the crisis (the rapid rise in unemployment may serve as the best indicator) and its financial sector has been bailed out by the government they simply seek more security, which in their view can be given by the EU.

People’s views quite often depend on their situation. The disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed usually tend to support socialists, whereas entrepreneurs and the well-off back liberals. My generation more and more often gives lie to that tendency. Some of my friends from university come from poverty-stricken families but their favour liberal solutions. The group of the ones from wealthy families eager to share their income with the poorer is still rather sparse, but the society is drifting in a good direction. That road will be long and rough unless the public figures realise they should serve as an example in this respect. How can an ordinary citizen stick to his views if the politicians change their minds according to the PR needs or if many biggest figures of financial sector claim less regulation when the business goes well (like in 2006 or 2007 in banks) and when they face serious troubles, they submissively queue up and beg for help from the public purse?

I could write more about those partly moral choices. Unfortunately, I’m short of time this weekend. My school, after the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection levied the fine of 270 thousand złoty on it, has launched a new austerity programme under which students are obliged to give lectures instead of lecturers and I have to prepare for the first one I’m delivering on Thursday. Well, to be precise it’s not a new internal regulation, but more and more lecturers shift the unpleasant duty of giving a lecture onto the students. It takes on a form of blackmailing – if you don’t do it, you won’t get a credit… I think it’s the third time within my course of studies when the teacher just sits and watches the presentations of students without making a substantial contribution. Is this the way the “leading” Polish school of economics” wants to catch up with the western universities. It’s a downfall…

What winds me up...

A tinge of absurdity makes our lives more interesting, a dose of absurdity lets us mock at the imperfect reality, but when they make up an ample chunk of our daily routine they paralyse our lives. From time to time I do have such bouts of being overwhelmed by absurdity. That happens usually when I tackle a series of events which go according to the same simple scenario: an activity which should run smoothly causes extortionate problems. To illustrate it with an example: I want to buy a loaf of bread. I go to the first shop – it is closed, in the second they ran out of bread, in the third they didn’t get it from the bakery, in the fourth one the till has broken down and the shop assistant can sell it to me, in the fifth one they have only stale loaves, in the seventh… I could make up such problems endlessly…

I have to order a transfers to my school’s accounts and bring them the proof of payment. How will I know if such hidebound institution like my school accepts printouts from online-banking system. I don’t feel like going to the bank’s outlet and paying ten zlotys for ordering transfers, the proofs will look almost the same, there won’t be those red slips with funny blanks, they’re no longer in use. Hopefully they won’t pick on what I’m going to deliver. You may argue that I think up problems which do not exist. Mates, I know my school, I’ve been studying there for three years and saw much more ridiculous situations… BTW: enrolment fee – 85 zlotys, diploma fee – 100 zlotys, student card fee – 17 zlotys, credit book fee – 4 zlotys. Altogether over 200 zlotys, times over 1000 students and Warsaw School of Economics made over two hundred zlotys on dividing course of studies into first and second degree.

On Friday evening there was an attempt of break-in to my house. Probably the thieves have been observing the empty house for a while and planned the action for the day before owners should have come. The neighbours dog was vigilant started to bark as it saw the strangers in our garden. Neighbours alarmed by barking of usually quiet dog popped out to check what was going on, stared at the burglars and scared them away. They didn’t get in what if they did? I’ve been asking myself if I had a right to overpower them, hit them without warning, break a limb? Should they attack me earlier? Is encroaching upon someone else’s property already an attack? I’m not keen to praise US system where the owner can kill any intruder, I wouldn’t kill anybody. But a burglar is a scoundrel, a dreg of a society, for trespassing my property he deserves punishment, but am I the right person to mete it out? Should I be afraid of defending myself at home because of the possibility of being sentenced for beating up a thief?

Yesterday I wanted to print the photos from holiday trip. Together with my parents we chose 64 pictures to be printed, I decided they would be done on 4x6 inch format and put onto the new album. I have the ink, have my photo paper, I turn on the printer. It hasn’t been used for two weeks so I do a nozzle check (in plain English I check if the device prints in all four colours), the result is not satisfying to I load up head cleaning program, as it ends the gauges on the printer flash interchangeably. “An unknown error has occurred” is the first window which pops up, the next one communicates planned obsolescence of some parts of the printer has just expired… The device has jammed, I copy the content of pop-up window and paste it into Google. To my surprise I don’t need to contact the service facility. I download a service application and unlock the printer. What was the cause? Malicious or rather greedy designer. It turned out that Epson Stylus C62 after printing 14.370 pages – fourteen thousand three hundred seventy pages – if you think it is a round number just let me know – is set to display such hilarious piece of information and block itself.

Dear user, come to us and pay us for unlocking it, if you’re sharp witted do it on your own (like I did), there’s another alternative – don’t bother to wrangle with it – just buy a new printer and let us earn. Who the hell came up with such ridiculous idea that this specific model can print such number of pages and not even one more? Because of tussling with the infuriating device I missed out on a final volleyball game and haven’t seen Polish team winning a gold medal. You’d ask why wouldn’t I just replace it with a new one. I’ve cared for this printer for six and a half years and I’m somehow attached to it. Until now it served me well, but it couldn’t repay me with a good performance cause an accursed engineer set the limit of its capacity…

Unfortunately I wasn’t too proficient with operating service application so I used too much ink for intensive head cleaning (they had jammed themselves, according to the designer’s lousy but carefully contrived plan) and had to go to town to buy new cartridges. I drop in the first one where I stock up regularly (Papiernik, ul. Nugat 7, Ursynów). I buy two black ones, but they don’t have a colour one. Alright, I’ll go to the other shop I patronised earlier – Belgradzka 22, they also don’t have the colour one but the shop assistant tries to foist on me the black one and doesn’t seem to understand that I’ve just bought two and don’t need any more. I head for another shop, I don’t remember the exact address, somewhere on north Ursynów. For no apparent reason they also have only the black cartridges but this time the saleswoman suggests I should buy another colour cartridge which they have on the stock, it takes a minute to drum it down to her head that a different one doesn’t fit my printer… I got back home by newly opened 739 bus line. I got out on the new bus stop, next to Auchan so I decided to pop in there and check if they have the cartridge I’m yearning for. I already hold a foil bag with cartridges I bought so I ask if there’s a storage box to leave for the duration of my shopping. There isn’t any, but three security guards together seal my bag and with such closed bag I can enter the shop. I find only the black ones so I get out of the supermarket. Security guards control my sealed bag and reluctantly let me go…

I’d better have these photos developed before I blow a fuse…