Wikileaks and the misuse of Power ... past, present and future

There are currently few stories exposing more Poweromics (i.e. the misuse of 'Power') than the saga surrounding Wikileaks ... from the leaked content itself ... through to the response of those in 'Power' ...

The hidden 'hands on power' have pressurised Governments to put in place international arrest/extradition warrants for its leader (Julian Assange) for an alleged and unrelated rape charge (nb not for releasing information), and subjected Wikileaks web sites/facilities to concerted cyber-attacks in an attempt to shut them down ... 

Assange has stated that website deserves protection and has not cost a single life despite the claims of critics.  Writing for The Australian newspaper, Mr Assange quoted its founder, Rupert Murdoch, as once saying the truth will inevitably win over secrecy.

He said: "Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public."  Mr Assange said WikiLeaks has coined "scientific journalism" that allows readers to study the original evidence for themselves.

He added: "Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest.  "WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption."

The campaigner denied he is anti-war, but said Governments must tell the truth about their reasons for fighting.  He claimed the United States, supported by its "acolytes", has attacked WikiLeaks instead of other media groups because it is "young and small".

Branding the website "underdogs", he accused Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard of "disgraceful pandering" to the Americans.  He said: "The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings."

Mr Assange highlighted some of the most high-profile revelations made by his website over the last week.  He added: "The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."

Wikileaks has been operational for some time ... so why is it only now that it is fighting for survival ... ?

Well the some leaks have exposed the misuse of Power, to the embarrassment of those who wield 'Power' (e.g. politicians, corrupt 'leaders', bankers, landowners) but a number of people have been quick to point towards a different event ... when, at the tail-end of last month, Assange indicated to a journalist that he had information about a major US bank that would cause a scandal to rival Enron ... now every financial institution is severing the ability to finance Wikileaks in an attempt to stop it doing this (nb such relevations could indeed start to expose the real 'hands of power', as well as all the corrupt/unethical banking practices still operating in banks today).

For all the mirrors around the internet replicating Wikileaks's content, the organisation is going to find it difficult to continue without the financial resources necessary to sift through its vast repository of documents.  Corporate America has swung into action against Wikileaks, acting swiftly and brutally. PayPal and MasterCard have now withdrawn their services and Assange's Swiss bank account has been frozen. The cost to Wikileaks in lost donations is already significant, and while this isn't the first time Wikileaks has had its income threatened (nb Moneybookers, a British payments company, shut down its account back in October), this time the financial services companies are acting as one, which makes survival more difficult for a site that operates on donations from the public.

... the small minority in Power (and who misuse Power) want this to continue, and don't want anyone to see (or interfere with) what they are doing ... however the vast majority of people would like to see more openness, honesty, transparency and facts, to make sure that those in 'Power' act honorably and responsibly, and in their collective best interests (and not simply their own).

... which is what "Scientific Journalism" should be about ... 

Indeed given this definition, the world arguably needs much more "Scientific Journalism" and far less ignorance, apathy and "Popularist Journalism" (which is what prevails right now)! 

... and thanks to the internet this will continue to be the case - the Genie's out the Bottle and it will not be put back ... i.e. the internet will change everything - including the balance/nature of Power ...

'We want more Power' ... but do they deserve it?

The Bank of England wants more 'Power' ... but does it deserve it? They have failed to 'lead' and act on our behalf, so why should we give their current 'leaders' more 'authority' and 'power'?

The Government are responsible for setting the wrong targets / goals, removing asset prices (e.g. housing) from the inflation target, and allowing lax regulation of financial services to prevail ... the FSA are responsible for failing to regulate in a proper & responsible manner ... and the Bank of England are responsible for being ignorant to the economic risks and/or choosing to do nothing about them ... 

They are all quite predictably being very careful not to start a blame game - and why? ... because they are ALL to blame ! The Government and the treasury are ultimately responsible, yet there has been no change there, nor in the FSA ... or the Bank of England ...  

Personally I find it hard to believe these groups suffer completely from Ignoromics (and if true they should be fired for this anyway). I do however believe they apply a huge amount of Poweromics and operate with a great deal of collusion. David Blanchflower, arguably one of the better and more challenging members of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), is leaving and being replaced by Dr Adam Posen, an American Stephanie Flanders (BBC's Economics Editor) recalls from her days whilst studying economics at Havard (can you see even more of the cosy 'club' here?) ... I think the idea was for us to be re-assured by this, but given the comments made on her blogs it's turned out to be very different ...

... and the solutions proposed are not around changing a member of the crew ... but changing the 'leaders' and the 'system'. Take a look at one of the early comments, and my comments below as well (nb there are many more on her blog too):

–––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 5 (John_from_Hendon)

MMG - Mervyn and his minions MUST Go.

The whole idea of the MPC and the Governor have some from of understanding and will do the right thing in setting interest rates is proven to be wrong and what is worse it is a dangerous falsehood.

We need a new system - not new bodies!

The fact that the Bank 'knew' (and I have it in writing, under both Eddie George and Mervyn King) that their interest rate policy was designed to create a credit bubble as it deliberately and wantonly ignored asset price inflation means that the system must be changed.

They got interest rate policy catastrophically wrong for at least the whole of the last decade. The also knew that they had done so at the time. They are lilly livered cowards who take the Governments shilling and pretend that they are some from of independent experts and are setting interest rates to the best of their ability and skill. (OK, they may be doing their best - but it is totally inadequate!)

Fire the lot and start again. This time the Bank MUST take into account asset price inflation and imported deflation when setting rates - if they do not - the recession will last decades from one bubble to the bust in shorter and more violent cycles and more of the country destroyed each time. Critical to avoiding this - they must restore SOUND MONEY.

Interest rates must value money at some reasonable positive level sufficient to restrain asset price inflation. Asset price inflation is the cause of the banking difficulties along with too low interest rates that created it. So rates up to 4 - 6 percent PDQ.

–––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 7 (leanomist)

Did Adam Posen predict the problem well before it happened? I believe David Blanchflower almost did (or was at least the closest in the MPC).

Let's ask a few more simple questions:

1. Traditional 'economics' is dead. Does he realise this? 

2. Does he know that real 'leaders' predicted this situation over 20 years ago, and predicted a "New Economics" being born "Out of a Crisis"... 

3. Does he know who predicted this (nb- he was a 'creative outsider' and not a eminent lecturer in economics at Havard), why he said this, and what the new form of 'economics' will look like*?

Business schools are 1-2 generations out of date (cf 21st century practices) and it appears this is similar in Economics too. What we need to do is to ask basic questions, bring more realism to bear and adopt some effective & sustainable solutions for once (not just ones that benefit the speculators, money lenders and gentlemen's clubs). 

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

* NB It won't be Poweromics! NB Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed. More info available at http://poweromics.blogspot.com

–––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 8 (leanomist)

Post 5 John_from_Hendon

"The fact that the Bank 'knew' (and I have it in writing, under both Eddie George and Mervyn King) that their interest rate policy was designed to create a credit bubble as it deliberately and wantonly ignored asset price inflation means that the system must be changed"

===========================

... My conversation with an MPC member re the need to include house asset prices inflation properly would support this assertion too ... and hence I agree with John_from_Hendon's conclusion.

Changing one of the 'crew' will do little to stop the ship from sinking, when the whole system was at fault and focused on the wrong targets/goals ... 

... and if the 'leaders' knew this, but chose to do nothing about it, then removing them is arguably the least that should happen (eg. how about taking the losses out of their lucrative pension 'pots' - they would probably have acted then)!

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

–––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 19 (John_from_Hendon)

One of the many tragedies of the western World's regulatory systems is that its interrelatedness is not well understood and frankly I can't think why?

This new chap may be young and dynamic but if he was educated into the same fundamentally flawed ideas of economics taught at Harvard (or Balliol) over the last two decades.

Their teaching MUST have substantially contributed to the Credit Crunch. (Leaving aside Milton Friedman's silly ideas that underpinned and gave intellectual support for Thatcherism and Reganomics.)

We are still doing the wrong things! These are after all the people who gave intellectual respectability to ignoring house price inflation and zero interest rates and the dafter quantitative easing! They seem to be surprised that ever lower interest rates gave rise to ever more exotic and dafter and exotic ways for the financial community to fiddle the books to show that they were still making money.

None of the economists in the current cadre of those educated in the unscientific and 'fake science' of economics in the last quarter of a century are fit and proper persons for any responsibility even over a whelk stall let alone the Bank of England's interest rates policy - they have shown by creating the conditions for the recent credit boom and bust that they have failed and their education is a failure. 

(In this I agree with the opinions expressed by the majority of the posters to this blog.)

(MMG - Mervyn Must Go)!

–––––––––––––––––––––

Traditional 'leaders' hope people have short memories

Robert Peston has again highlighted and challenged 'executive' pay in traditional corporations ... they are clearly still trying to feed from the 'trough' ... and hope hard-working peoples' memories will be short. Robert clearly reads the comments added to his blog (and takes some of them on board) too ... take a look at my previous postings on this subject ...  I have re-iterated the point again ... but also making it clear that hard-working people will not forget, nor will they let them get away with it ...

Traditional 'leaders' need to realise times have really changed, and they need to change, start to 'lead', or get out !

––––––––––––––––––––

Comment 24 (leanomist)

Rewarding Failure (and Poweromics) are starting to be challenged in Business but it's till going on ... ! 

... I think they are hoping people's memory spans will be short (which I can assure you on this occasion they will not). As you quite rightly point out, most corporate leaders are neither "owner-managers" nor "entrepreneurs" ... and take very little risk .. with their corporate careers, personal bank balances & pay/rewards that is ...

1. True entrepreneurs are innovative leaders who create long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. James Dyson) ... people we should nurture, support and reward ... (rather than hinder!)

2. Traditional executives, normally from the finance community, are rarely innovative and tend to systematically destroy long-term value, prosperity and growth (e.g. by failing to innovative and applying simple cost cutting exercises) to obtain a large bonus for achieving short-term financial targets and goals*... people we should challenge, stop and/or retrain in 'value management' ... (not reward with massive salaries, pensions, bonuses, and pay-offs for failure!) ...

Rewarding failure has had it's day ... and clear self interest, poor moral values and greed have also had their day too ... the application of Poweromics** is being challenged in Government and it's going to be challenged in business too ... 

More people can see it now and it's not going to go away ... for instance I'm writing a Poweromics** blog with more examples to make sure it doesn't ... and to make sure its addressed once and for all ... and anyone who is doing the same will be linked from it too ...

Poor management and Poweromics** have had their day - and with the help of the internet they will soon change forever, and for the better ... because hard-working people will keep the pressure on until it does.

David Clift, a Future 500 Leader

* 21st century leadership and management are completely different to traditional leadership and management, and focus on continuously improving the long-term value of an enterprise and the lives of people ... not creating fear and sacking them.

** Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed ... take a look at my previous comments and at http://poweromics.blogspot.com for instance.

––––––––––––––––––––

Dependence, Independence or Interdependence?

The UK government, with the strategy/steer of Gordon Brown in his time as Chancellor and as Prime Minister, has quietly but stealthily increased taxes ... and at the same time consumed massive amounts of public money and driven huge amounts of waste into public services as well ... through the use of out-of-dated practices (e.g. command & control management approaches) and the indiscriminate use of 'targets' ...

If this wasn't enough ... he has also orchestrated a strategy of deliberately increasing the amount of dependency people have on his party's policies too ... through a plethora of new allowances which are complex & expense to administrate (e.g. working tax credit, child credit, council tax relief, mortgage support etc) ... why is this?

Is this really because Labour want to 'help' hard-working people ... or is it because by doing so they can have much greater 'influence on people' ... those who like to apply Poweromics* see creating a culture of dependency as a simple way of having more influence over people, as 'fear' can easily be instilled in all those who are dependent ... (e.g. because of the 'fear' that they may lose them if someone else comes into power).

The cost of such approaches, and the increase in civil service overheads that result, create further cost burdens at both a local and a national level ... and they are at a cost of other things too ... e.g. they reduce responsibility, take money away from front line services, reduce the nations competitiveness (as there are even less people available to create wealth), create further pressure on borrowing and impact negatively on the nations trade deficit ... it also takes away time/resources away from others areas such as skills, enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship, which are the kind of things that allow a nation to naturally prosper in a sustainable way ... 

There is a key question we have to ask ... Do we help people "to learn to fish", or just "keep giving them food"? 

Despite the rhetoric, the UK Government has over the last 10 years primarily focussed on the latter - the Conservatives are starting to point this out, and talking about a new era of responsibility and independence ... and the Labour party are already starting to bring their 'investment' to bear by starting to induce fear in any alternative ... 

But in a world (ie a 'system') where there is much 'interdependence' ... e.g. individuals, communities, enterprises and the environment are inextricably linked together and affect one  another... does anyone in Government really understand what's needed to create a prosperous and successful future ...?

Personally I'm not convinced, and the fact that 21st century leadership and management practices are completely opposite to what they currently apply themselves, suggests they're unlikely to 'see it' ... or 'vote for it' ...

... when 'leaders' do "see it", they're tending to 'duck' rather than 'do' ... Poweromics will continue to destroy communities, nations, corporations and economies, ... until Ignoromics reduces further and more 'leaders' take responsibility and/or new 'leaders' emerge to replace them !  

Let's see which one occurs the most ... David Cameron is now describing "Poweromics" openly ... but does he really have the answers? ...  

Understanding "Interdependence" as well as "Independence" is also crucial ....

* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.