Monthly Archives: May 2014



photo 1

The fourth chapter of my book, The Killer Idea, originally published in French in 2009, is titled « From Idea to Ideology ». In it, I dedicate a chapter to the European Idea, a grand idea if there ever was one, explaining why – in terms of the theories developed in my book – it was not working, for lack of an incarnation through a spokesperson and a project. Here is the excerpt verbatim:

“An ideology loses steam if it has poor communications. The European idea was born under the best auspices: a favorable context (the wish for European harmony after two World Wars), an incontestably subversive force (« What if we created a meta-nation? »), remarkable founders/spokesmen (Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman), a successful launch (the European Coal and Steal Committee), and a powerful symbol (the blue flag with 12 stars). Yet, the communication has no uncontested truth, it has no manifesto since the Treaty of Rome, Europeans have not recently had any reasons to believe (they’ve only seen poorly planned territorial extensions and a rise in prices with the conversion to the Euro) and most important, there is no charismatic spokesperson for 21st century Europe.”

Five years later, my analysis remains the same. In every election, either citizens vote FOR (a candidate or a project), or they vote AGAINST. Without positive arguments, Europe only gave reasons to vote against it. If Europe doesn’t communicate and doesn’t embody a project, it will end up in the cemetery of utopias. My conclusion to this paragraph was ‘the more an idea wears, the more difficult and dangerous it becomes to relaunch it.” Let’s not wait until the next European elections to attempt to awaken the communication a week before elections that are lost before they even begin. Of course communication is nothing without action, and Europe must without a doubt make reforms in order to re-form its project; (I am one of those people who believe that a President of Europe elected by universal suffrage is indispensable). But it is useless to attack the media for not treating any European subjects positively if Europe does not give them any positive subjects to discuss! It is urgent, if not vital, for Europe to learn to communicate by giving people new reasons to love and adopt it.  By giving European citizens a desire for Europe. And by reigniting the ideological flame. In the hope that it isn’t too late.

photo 2


What if money can’t buy everything?


I recently discovered a book thanks to this month’s Books, an excellent French review, which dedicated its cover and several articles to the question, “can money buy everything?” The review places at the forefront the work of Michael J. Sandel published in 2012, entitled What Money Can’t Buy: The moral limits of markets. Author Michael J. Sandel, who is also a philosophy professor at Harvard, has published several books on justice, ethics and democracy including Liberalism and the limits of justice. His class on justice is extremely popular and was one of the first Harvard courses to be offered on the Internet and public television. In his book filled with rich examples and arguments, Sandel demonstrates how acquired goods can become corrupt or degraded by money, and supports the idea that we must defend the integrity of common goods against the monetization of the world. This ethical and political issue first requires that we become conscious of the limits of commodification.


“Money doesn’t stink. All it does is open up the way to making exchanges; it’s a liberating medium for connecting one set of preferences to another. But doesn’t money taint the goods it is exchanged for, when those goods have not normally been distributed in the marketplace?” This is the central theme Michael J. Sander explores in his book, which covers a multitude of examples in all different spheres of life, from selling our bodies to selling autographs, to paying people to queue for you at a free event, or selling prison-cell upgrades for nicer accommodation… What is challenged in this book is the moral judgment that we place on transactions. Selling sexual services, for example, is tied to the fact that “we think that the selling of sex degrades the meaning of ordinary unmonetized intimacy between two people as the consummation of their love.” Another example that comes from the historical practice of “the traffic of indulgences” is: if I pay someone else to apologize for me, does the monetary transaction not burden the sincerity of the apology? Does an autograph I bought from a seller on E-bay have the same value as if I had obtained it myself? Is it okay that a company like pays people to queue for you in order to have priority access to free congressional hearings? Can we accept that “Project Prevention” pays drug-addicted prostitutes 300 dollars to be sterilized, in order to not have children who will be at risk? Sandel’s sentiment is that in recent years money has meddled into domains where it has no place. But not everyone is against this phenomenon. Numerous economists believe that financial incentives are useful in order to increase the number of options available to us. How can we decide? The video below shows a very interesting analysis to the following case: is it good or bad to give children money to encourage them to read?

The involvement of money in all domains, according to Sandel, leads us to question three issues: the first is constraint (“Are we really free when facing an ‘indecent’ financial proposition?”), the second is injustice (“In a society where everything is for sale, life is even more difficult for the poor”), and the last is a change of nature, or at least a change in the pleasure we get from experiences. This last argument is very clear when looking at prostitution. Other examples are perhaps less obvious. If we use the example from the video above, we understand that it is a good thing for a child to read. But if he is a paid 2 dollars by an organization for every book he reads, it is still a good thing, only it is slightly different. So even if a child is still reading, is it the same kind of experience if he reads purely out of pleasure? The answer is subjective, inevitably linked to each person’s conception of morality. In the 1990’s, the swiss government selected a small mountain village, Wolfenchiessen, as a possible site to stock nuclear waste. The inhabitants of the small town were to be consulted by referendum, but before that, economists conducted an experiment. They asked the population the following question: “Would you accept the waste if the Swiss government decided it would be stocked here?” A small majority responded yes. Afterward, the economists asked, “Would you accept the waste if the Parliament offered each resident in exchange a high indemnity, around 1 month’s salary per year?” From 51%, the “yes” responses dropped to 25%. The inhabitants did not want to be corrupted on this kind of subject. Proof then, that in terms of commodifying the world, the only limit is ethics, individual and shared!