Cel uświęca środki – a message to my compatriots from the other side of the invisible barricade

I know it, the corporation has made me a sluggish blogger, the heat wave does not serve as an incentive to indulge in writing, so in the coming weeks you will probably find here only one post per week, published over the weekend. But do not worry, I will try to scribble something quaint for Polandian.

Recently I wrote here much about politics. After Mr Komorowski won the final battle I thought about giving up on that topic for a while, but I cannot make that break without having the last word. In the recent weeks I got caught up (yes, adthelad will say I provoked it and he will be actually right) in a discussion with Poland’s Best Political Blogger of 2009, Toyah. The main topic of his posts, published recently only on his own site (administrators of salon24 portal banned some of his posts and eventually he took umbrage and moved writing into an independent location) is not just politics. He is committed and ardent supporter of Jarosław Kaczyński and PiS. Some readers would surely accuse him of a big dose of bias in his blogging, so if you are one of them, glance at the box to the right, at the top of the page. We have democracy and it involves free speech, what means everyone should have a right to air their views, as long as they do it in a civilised way, do not insult nor libel anyone. But the at the heart of free speech lies the right to gainsay what your fellow men say and now I am going to exercise this right.

Toyah is a gifted and prolific writer, moreover he unfortunately is currently jobless, so he can spend much more time blogging than me I do not intend to make this post an endless string of polemics, so I will focus only on the posts published after the run-off of the election.

Over the past week Toyah has been in a funk after The Russian Bour had won the election, or, in other words 53% of manipulated voters had chosen to back the lesser of two evils.

In his post On winter in the middle of the summer he invokes a gross injustice which led up to the bad choice Poles made. Given the support for Mr Komorowski and Mr Kaczyński two months earlier he might claim Mr Komorowski has narrowly escaped failure. He writes about a wasted chance, but his post, as almost any other lacks an in-depth analysis, not of the support Mr Komorowski enjoys, but why so many voters hold something against Mr Kaczyński. Of course Toyah gives several reasons which boil down to manipulations plotted by the System, about a Bad Man, about a plan a deity from above follows out. In the comment thread one of the readers quoted Mr Tusk’s (probably) statement that Mr Kaczynski has a lust for power. Every politician has it, if they had not had, they would not have been into politics, the issue is just what means politicians harness to fight for power. Lemming, another active commentator and a graduate of my university briefly laid out why he voted for Mr Kaczyński. I fully accept his reasoning, the way we differ is how we understand what is good for Poland. We have common goals, the only difference is how we want to achieve them. Lemming would opt for aiming at those goals at all costs, I would prefer more compromise and reconciliation.

On Tuesday it turned out my request for a justification why Mr Kaczyński is the best choice prompted Toyah to change his plans and dedicate the inaugural post (after leaving the salon24), It is time for Jarosław, to me. Toyah is convinced my biggest dream is to exclude Mr Kaczyński from the public discourse for ever, for no specific reason, just because I think he should be denied the basic right to voice his views. In truth my view of Mr Kaczynski’s presence in politics is the same as in Toyah’s example of Mr Napieralski and Mr Kołodko. I simply think it would be better for Poland if he and his party did not wield power and nothing more! And I go along with Toyah who points out why Jarosław Kaczyński is a remarkable politician. If he had not been that unwavering and outstanding he would not have come back to power after being pushed out of politics in the 1990s. Moreover, given all assaults launched at him he keeps holding up well! I really regret Toyah refused to lay it out, step by step, in the simplest words, why Mr Kaczyński would be the best president of Poland. I may only wonder why. If it is so obvious, there is nothing easier than committing it to the blog, maybe he would even convert some other lost Poles. At the end he asks why people hate Mr Kaczyński so much if he is so wonderful. I would not bother to ask about those who hate him, hatred is not a commendable feeling and hardly ever builds anything, it usually destroys. I would ask why so many people are afraid of Mr Kaczyński. An Anonymous commentator speaks about the układ, he still believes it exists. Maybe it exists, maybe not, I am too small to answer that question, but is Mr Kaczyński big enough to crack down on the układ on his own? Or maybe conversely, would not they be more capable of destroying him? Many readers brought up the issue of the disadvantaged, those who did not benefit from the transition and who now are the target of Kaczynski. Yes, I agree, the discrepancy is growing, every week I see both opulence and poverty, they are worlds apart. This inequality is not shocking, it is indispensable in free-market economy, I personally cannot stand how the rich fail to understand the problems of the poor and how the poor refuse to accept the rich could have come into their wealth by playing their cards right.

A day later the blog had its official, belated premiere. In the post titled Right-wing dab hands Toyah brings to account the guilty of Mr Kaczynski’s failure. For Toyah Mr Komorowski’s presidency will be a punishment meted out by God – a good point, maybe this key will unlock the door… How did it happen that we let that woman become a first lady, he asks. Now a bit of malice – who would become a first lady if… you know what. Toyah reproaches journalists of Gazeta Polska for not giving due and sufficient support to Jarosław Kaczyński. The journalists pulled Mr Kaczynski up for what the contender had said about Edward Gierek (a patriot) or about Józef Oleksy (a middle-aged leftist politician). They saw those moves as a betrayal, for Toyah they were logical and justified, actually natural in his pursuit of power. Tactics needs to be changed and concessions have to made in order to reach the end. End justifies the means, Toyah only confirms it. I have to stand up for Mr Sakiewicz and Mr Ziemkiewicz. I have hardly ever agreed with their views, but I could not say about them what other fellows from my side of the barricade would say. They were not the acolytes of PiS. They and many other journalists, such as Mr Terlikowski, have their own views and at least stick to their guns, they are idealistic. Toyah is pragmatic – he thinks if a move can help win the election, there is no doubt it should be made. He highlights Mr Kaczynski’s intention: now it is time to win the election, later we will take back these words about ex-communists. I don’t know how it looks for you, dear reader, for me it is a fine example of duplicity and end-justifies-the-means approach to politics and I will not approve of it. I will not refer to the Wawel spat, but I will quote the last paragraph – he calls Mr Zawisza an enemy just because he pointed at Kaczynski’s inconsistency. Toyah took a leaf out of Mr Kaczynski’s book – the crucial thing is to find an enemy! Now I know why Kaczynski’s vision of Poland took his fancy.

Thursday’s post Men at work did not even need to have its title translated. I don’t know why Toyah wants God to get caught up in this little Polish cesspit. Maybe this is the punishment for "obeying" catholic teachings – is it in line with catholic teachings to accuse someone of murder if you do not have any evidence? Michael D. and I have asked Toyah to give us some details of that alleged murder. To no avail, words of murder are repeated like a mantra and if you repeat something several times, you will finally believe in it. This is how the myth has been created, it has been created from the very beginning. I know and even hold it against the government that circumstances of that tragedy are still unknown. I would love to see all doubts dispelled, but even then for Toyah and the likes it would still be an assassination.

And so we’re alive – Solidarni. The long story recounted. Tell about those people whatever you want, you do not try to deny the tragedy has brought them together. Once pushed around, ridiculed, degraded, they had guts to raise their heads and claim their presence in public debate. Since the tragedy they have shown how strong and united they are, proved their dedication and devotion. But there is a crack on the picture – why do they call themselves Solidarni? As a community they are united, but they are just a part of the nation. I would not like to destroy the new movement, but I am against the way they divided Poles – into the righteous patriots (themselves) and those who had not cried after the tragic death of the late president. This is unfortunately part of the rhetoric Mr Kaczynski has adopted – they and us, bad and good. There was a ceasefire for the period of the campaign but it was just a tactical move, soon it is gone. Actually ardent believers of Mr Kaczynski prefer that divide line – they need to separate themselves from the rest of the society who despise them. PO has supporters, PiS has ardent believers. I hope the new movement will grow in power quickly, quickly enough to mobilise German servants and Russian sidekicks to create the opposition to it. Hey, it is a daydream, PO voters would not give a damn. They will not join any movement, they can only go to the polls and thwart some plans… Maybe Poland is founded on lies and hatred, but the Solidarni are also full of hatred and I suppose it is a kind of revenge for all they suffered before. Anyway, there are people who hate Kaczynski, but there are much more who are afraid of him. I personally confess I am not that afraid, as long as dissenters are not his enemies I feel safe, but there was one moment after 10 April when a spark of hatred went through my head, but after a moment it morphed into anger. It was on 4 July, when Mr Kaczynski said his brother and other fatalities of the plane crash had died martyrs. Can anyone tell me why that tragic accident was a męczeńska śmierć?

Lord, listen to our prayers. The heat is getting unbearable so it is time to draw to a close. Can anyone tell me why Poles fall out and break friendships because of politics? I know many educated people, my peers, who are PiS-followers and guess what – it is not the reason not to be on speaking terms, we are still friends, we just avoid talking about politics! Political views should not tear us apart, but many hard-line supporters of both PO and PiS do that.

End justifies the means, not to a degree the world witnessed in the twentieth century, but small sins are surely acceptable in IV RP. As far as I know Jarosław Kaczynski did not accept his niece’s second husband, a son of one of SLD tycoons. Now Mr Dubieniecki is going to join PiS and soon might be one of the most prominent politicians of the party. Whenever the power is at stake it is surprisingly easy to change views.

Komentarze po polsku mile widziane.

Different interests, different views

There are few things as beneficial for public intercourse as an open and constructive debate, therefore I was glad to read a series of articles on Polish pension system written by more or less eminent experts and published in the latest issues of “Polityka”. The string of polemics has been triggered by the article I have mentioned repeatedly. In response to this, Jeremi Mordasewicz from Polish Employers’ Association wrote and had published another article, presenting an opposing view. In his feature, Mr Mordasewicz did not refute Prof. Oręziak’s arguments against pension funds but laid out his own ones on the advantages of OFE. Finally, last week “Polityka” printed a third article, by dr. Agnieszka Chłoń-Domińczak from my school, in which she debunks myths concerning pension system, allegedly spread by Prof. Oręziak.

Now it is time for me to crack down on those myths once again or maybe gainsay the rebuttals. There’s no time to lose, so let’s set out.

Myth #1: Developed countries have not decided to create pension funds with obligatory participation.
A.C-D.: Pension systems in most developed countries are quite complex and have pension schemes run by employers as their core.
Comment: Indeed, the systems in those countries function in a totally different way. In Anglo-Saxon countries those, whose benefits are not provided under such schemes have to fend for themselves on their own, like freelancers do. Moreover, an employer-run pension scheme has a tremendous edge over a Polish pension fund. It is small and flexible, what means that if it manages 10 million rather than 10 billion dollars, zlotys or any other currency it can easily adjust its portfolio to changing market conditions. Polish pension funds are in this comparisons like a bull in a china shop – whenever it makes a move everything around quakes. Another issue is how the future pensioners can influence the way their money is managed and if they have a variety of institutions where they can save, unlike in Poland, where we have 15 similar funds and the choice is illusory.

Myth #2: The only reason why the Social Insurance Fund is indebted is that it finances pension funds.
A.C-D.: Here Mrs Chłoń-Domińczak enumerates factors and decisions that have contributed to shortfall of money is the state-run fund.
Comment: I reread the article and didn’t find this “myth”. Puzzling…

Myth #3: The OFE-based system results in constantly growing public debt, what poses a threat to economic security of Poland
A.C-D.: As the projection prepared by European Commission says… …Poland will the country where the social costs of ageing will be the lowest.
Comment: Europe is far behind us in terms of social expenditures. In autumn 2008 I saw an advert of an investment fund, which went the following: “Stock indices fell by 50%, other funds lost even 60%, we lost only 30%”. Should an investor who has lost “only” 30% be happy, if he could earn 4% at the same time.
The biggest problem that the goal of the reform was to take the burden of providing pension benefits from the state. Under this lame system the state is still responsible for 80 per cent of the benefit, either in form of contributions to ZUS, or as the issuant of government bonds. The system should not rely on state at all and money should work on the market only. Because this is more risky, obligatory participation has to abandoned and the responsibility transferred to citizens. They know better, believe me. And if they don’t know, as Robert Gwiazdowski wrote, there’s a plenty of food on rubbish dumps. I also see a lot of bread and rolls scattered on the streets, so can we really speak about poverty if people throw away so much food?

Myth #4: State does not have to pay interest on the debt of ZUS, hence these payments will not generate budget outgoings.
A.C-D. The obligations undertaken by ZUS will have to be settled sooner or later.
Comment: It’s true: what is kept on accounts in ZUS are just book records, not real money. This Ponzi Scheme will sooner or later collapse, but issuing more bonds, when there’s no money in the budget is ridiculous and generates additional costs.

Myth #5: The state has to cut spending on health care, education, police, orphanages to finance OFE
A.C-D. (and me): What does one thing has to do with the other?

Myth #6: The current situation of public finances is more important than the stability of pension system.
A.C-D.: These priorities cannot stand at odds. The latter cannot be done at expense of the former.
Comment: The system which generates growing public debt will not increase our financial stability. The lower the debt is, the more stable Poland will be perceived and the lower the costs of debt service will be. Remember that higher public debts results in higher yields on government securities and this exacerbates country’s situation and hits taxpayers’ wallets. Prof. Marek Góra put forward that pension obligation should not be included in public debt. Thus we will not exceed the threshold of 60% (public debt to GDP ratio). This a creative accounting in essence, to make it worse this is allowed by EU regulations which leave the method of public debt calculation at states’ discretion (appallingly). And this creative accounting would allow the Polish state to issue more and more bonds.

Myth #7: Pension funds invest most of its assets in gilts so it is better to leave that money in ZUS.
A.C-D.: Gives a true explanation that bondholders will sooner get their payouts and pensioners who trusted ZUS will pay them their benefits one day.
Comment: But if pension funds can influence the price of bonds, this works badly in both ways round. If the yields are higher, pensioners will get more, but taxpayers will also pay more. If the yields are lower, pensioners will get less, but taxpayers will pay less. Only those who run the system will get their remuneration regardless of investment results.

Myth #8: Pension funds will squander financial assets of future pensioners by investing them abroad if they will be allowed to do so.
A.C-D.: As the past results show, Polish pension funds performed better than in other countries and this year they earned…
Comment: Firstly, the perform as the stock market does, for stock exchanges 2009 was an exceptionally good year, so pension funds could report good returns. Secondly, they cannot hedge the currency risk, since they are not allowed to invest in derivatives!!! Thirdly, since when financial markets guarantee high profits? All experts, not labour economists, like Mr Góra or Mrs Chłoń-Domińczak will tell you fundamentals play a minor role. Stockbrokers and bank dealers and other practitioners (I’m talking about those with academic degrees with at least PhD) will tell you financial markets are a big casino and are hardly ever driven by any rational premises. That is why I don’t want to blame a few managers for losses and be given the freedom to blame myself, not regulators who told me how to waste my money.