Working in a Neo-Feudal Corpocracy

Reports about the Work 'Culture' at Amazon puts the spotlight on one aspect that the current version of a Free Market Economy (dubbed 'Capitalism') seems to carry to its logical conclusion: in a world devoid of any moral yardstick the ego of the few controlling the profit maximising at all cost company people are just disposable inputs.
This form of Capitalism has worked surprisingly well for a long time (but so has slavery and feudalism) as the people at the helm (owners or their agents) had some sense of noblesse oblige and were also restrained by some inner moral or societal compass.
Capitalism will always have an image problem as its success seems to be reliant on a Darwinian model of markets: One side wins when the other side loses, i.e. if you want ever-rising profits you have to squeeze the people working for you. But the invisible hand does not work as Adam Smith thought. His model of the economy might work for the neighbourhood bakery. It assumes perfect competition and free entry to the market. When you and your employer clash you just walk down the street and open your own bakery.
And while this model works to some degree - nearly all businesses have competition - it only works to a degree.
As long as the 'Capitalist', the owner of a firm, calls the shots when dealing with an atomised workforce there will not be a proper balance in the business world. In the case of Amazon only a united representation of the workforce will be able to deal with actual or perceived abuses.

Currency Union CAN work without Fiscal Union

Academics, assorted Analysts and Media Commentators regurgitate ad nauseam that Currency Union without Fiscal Union cannot work. Sorry but repeating this does not make it a truth. Admittedly a Fiscal Union would make things easier but the Euro-zone could function quite well without establishing a (technocratic) Super-Government far removed from any democratic control.
The Gold Standard - and the post-Bretton Wood system of fixed exchange rates - worked quite well without Fiscal Union. All it took was discipline on the part of the participating governments. This is what is missing - in most aspects of policy making - these days. The Currency Union is doomed if the member states do not adjust their internal economic and fiscal policies and disregard market signals.
Excessive speculation - magnified by leverage and uncontrolled capital flows - pose a risk as they turbo-charge price signals (falling sovereign bond prices in particular). This is akin to some panicky bodies in a small rowing boat. But decisive changes to policy measures should be able bring markets under control - fiscal adjustment, penal interest rates should quickly give the markets the right signal.
Do not blame lack of Fiscal Union for the problems of the Euro-zone. These have been left to accumulate in a reckless fashion over many years if not decades. Introducing Fiscal Union may douse the smoldering fire - for a while. But if there is no proper fundamental adjustment - remember the Mezzogiorno - patience in some member states that are paying high transfers will run out. In addition even bigger waves of speculation will set in when Fiscal Union looks frayed, funds will pour into the stronger member states until the pressure point is reached and the Currency Union can no longer be maintained. George Soros would relish this Mega-Tsunami if he would still be around at that time.

Childcare Subsidy no panacea for Job Creation

We may not have the intellectual firepower of Christopher Pissarides (being neither a 'enobled', a Nobel Laureate or professor on the LSE) but that may be an advantage. He argues that paying subsidies for childcare would create jobs - one for the mother (usually) who can now enter the job market and one for the childcare worker. What this simplistic argument forgets is that another solution to the employment problem (if you accept there is one) is that the childcare worker could just take another job while the mother stays at home. Net result is the same, unless you assume that more than one child would be looked after by the childcare 'industry'. It is up to you to decide which child is better looked after. That - and the question who pays the subsidies, and at what level - is another question.

'Sanctions': a shot in the arm for Russian Economy?

UPDATE
Since I posted the comment the Rouble has taken a beating but this only supports my argument that Russia will be forced to produce more of the goods that its citizens desire. In addition countries like Turkey, India and China are more than capable to supply imports that the Sanctions bloc refuses to supply. Shooting oneself in the foot is the appropriate word for what the 'Elites' in Nato, EU etc are pursuing.

Comment 25 July 2014
Contrary to ill-informed media speculation the proposed 'Western' sanctions (imposed in an undemocratic knee-jerk reaction, like a toddler throwing his toys out of a pram) may well do a lot of good for the Russian economy.
Trade is always based on exchange. So the Daimlers, Apples, Burberrys of the West will lose a customer as it would not make sense for Russia to accept sanctions that hit their industries while selected and favored Western exporters are supposed to carry on as if nothing had happened.
But a reduced level of the Rouble and imports of Western capital and consumer goods may be a spur to develop domestic substitutes. No one can deny that Russia has a lot of qualified and highly educated engineers and with the targeted hiring of Western experts any number of industries could be made highly competitive. Levels of income tax are attractive and engineers in the West that live in the shadow of overrated financial experts would jump at the opportunity to double their after-tax pay, especially if they are young or have already grown-up children.

What comes first - Supply or Demand?

Interesting controversy - is there a demand deficiency in Europe, and if so what can or should be done to boost demand? I tend to support Frank Shostak's argument that supply comes first. Demand is never 'sufficient' and we all have 'demands' that are larger than our incomes can support. Microeconomic arguments (The Baker producing bread in this case) are severely neglected by the economics and policy tribes - including the media commentators. Maybe Shostak's example is a bit simplistic and needs refining but I think he is on the right track. Just pumping money out of thin air (Martin Wolf, FT, The curse of weak demand) just papers over the cracks in the economy.

100 Billionaires control half the World's Wealth?

Depending on who you believe this statement may or may not reflect the truth. But it is beyond doubt that a tiny number of Super Rich control a vastly disproportionate share of global wealth. It does not matter whether they number 100, 400 or 1000. The sad story is that beyond the establishment Economists focus so little on the issue of inequality in incomes and wealth. Maybe this is due to the fact that most of them are just little cogs in the system that seems to be designed to create these disparities. They work in safe jobs in Universities - usually taxpayer-funded jobs for life - or in 'independent' think tanks or research institutes that are either taxpayer-funded or funded by rich individual that act as 'sponsors' or 'trustees'. Employer organisations and Financial Institutions also keep a stable of Economist but these can also hardly be expected to bit the hand that feeds them.

The European Central Bank’s House of Cards

"Europe is a runaway train with a certain crash in its future." (Frank Hollenbeck, Mises Daily)