The Decline of the West?

[Túrin Turambar]

And on that note, there has been another general strike in Greece, accompanied by massive protests:

Thousands protest in Greek strike

From correspondents in Athens From: AFP May 21, 2010

TENS of thousands of Greeks demonstrated in Athens and other cities today in the second general strike this month against a debt-dictated pension reform and government spending cuts.

About 17,000 people demonstrated in the capital and about 5000 more marched in second city Thessaloniki, according to police estimates, calling on the Socialist government to drop pay cuts and a controversial pension reform.

The demonstrations called by Greece's main unions and the communist workers' syndicate shut down the centre of Athens for the second time this month in a movement against tough fiscal measures imposed to clinch a vital EU-IMF loan.

"These measures take us 150 years back," read a banner borne by protesters.

"We want the government to take back these measures which freeze our pay rises and force us to stay longer in the workforce," said Maria Grigoropoulou, a cosmetics store employee.

"We will continue our struggle and we will not back down," she said.

More than 1700 extra police were ordered into central Athens as authorities sought to avoid a repeat of troubles that have erupted during the last strikes, including a May 5 petrol bomb attack on a bank that killed three employees.

Police today preventively detained nearly 100 people on the sidelines of the Athens protest, which brought all public transport to a halt.


"We are here to send a strong message to the government, the Brussels directorate, the IMF and all those pencil pushers who are targeting the social, labour, pension and economic rights of employees," Stathis Anestis, a leading member of the General Confederation of Workers (GSEE), said in a speech to protesters.

The strike is the fourth called by unions since February and the second this month against wage and pension cuts and higher indirect taxes ordered by the government.

Business lobby groups have appealed to labour organisations to hold back on workforce disruptions to let the recession-hit economy get back on its feet.

Greek stocks today closed with a 3.32-per cent loss with the Athens stock exchange general index dropping to 1582.22 points, its lowest since March 2009, tracking heavy losses elsewhere in Europe.

The main labour federations, the GSEE with one million members, and ADEDY with 370,000, called the strike against the shock measures ordered by the government which needed a 110 billion euro rescue from the European Union and International Monetary Fund to avoid a debt default.

The biggest Greek lender, National Bank of Greece, said the country could rake nine billion euros ($13.2 billion) more into the state coffers simply by slapping tighter tax rules on undeclared personal income estimated at 50 billion euros ($73.3 billion) a year.

Ditching tax breaks and clamping down on chronic tax evasion would generate enough revenue to make up for a third of the huge reduction Athens is trying to make in its budget shortfall, the bank said in a study.

The Athens subway, bus and trolleybus system all came to a halt today, producing giant traffic jams in the city. In the main port of Piraeus, ferries and other boats were all tied up in the harbour.

International flights were not affected as air traffic controllers decided not to strike, so as not to worsen the impact on the key tourism industry.

But Olympic Air cancelled at least 15 internal flights because civil aviation workers joined the stoppage at smaller local airports.

And three cruise ships carrying a combined 7280 passengers were shut out of Piraeus and forced to use other harbours because of the strike, the semi-state Athens News Agency reported.

Some schools were open and the education ministry maintained national examinations for high school students. Some private banks in Athens opened as well despite a call by the main bank workers' union, OTOE, to join the strike.

The minimum retirement age is to be increased and pensions reduced under the proposals which need a final vote in parliament later this month.

link

[yovargas]

"These measures take us 150 years back," read a banner borne by protesters.

Is that how long it's been since they were fiscally responsible?

[Túrin Turambar]

Now the Greeks have been joined by the Spaniards (at least those working in the public sector):

Spanish civil servants in mass protest over goverment cuts

From correspondents in Madrid From: AFP May 21, 2010

THOUSANDS of public sector workers have taken to the streets of Spain to protest a tough government austerity plan aimed at reining in the public deficit and easing fears of a Greek-style debt crisis.

Unions called the demonstrations to coincide with a cabinet meeting overnight to approve the belt-tightening measures, which include pay cuts.

Waving flags of the country's major unions, thousands of workers demonstrated outside the finance ministry in Madrid, blocking one of the main roads in the centre of the capital.

Similar protests took place in front of public buildings in other parts of the country.

"It's totally unfair'' to cut salaries. ``There are other types of measures possible,'' said Diego, a teacher.
Carlo, a finance ministry employee, said ``the public servants didn't create the crisis.''

Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced the austerity measures last week, worth 15 billion euros ($A22.0 billion) over two years.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
They include a five-per cent pay cut for public sector workers from June, a freeze on state pensions and a wage freeze from 2011.

The plan comes on top of a 50 billion euro ($A73.32 billion) austerity package announced in January designed to slash the public deficit to the eurozone limit of three per cent of gross domestic product by 2013 from 11.2 per cent last year.

The government is under pressure to take action from both its EU partners and from the markets, which fear Spain could follow in the footsteps of Greece, which received an unprecedented 110 billion euro ($A161.31 billion) bailout by the EU and the IMF earlier this month to save it from bankruptcy.

"Spain is in a very difficult situation because it is potentially concerned'' by the debt relief package, Germany's Interior Minister Thomas de Maziere said on Wednesday, referring to a 750 billion euro ($A1.1 trillion) fund agreed by eurozone members last week to help debt-ridden countries.

But the CCOO union has charged the government had ``yielded to pressure from financial markets'' and ``is leading the country to disaster.''

It and the country's other main union, the UGT, have also called a general strike of public service workers on June 8 to protest the austerity cuts.

Zapatero said Sunday his ``responsibility ... is to think of the future of my country, rather than any political or personal future.''

A new opinion poll on Sunday showed the cuts have triggered a nine-point plunge in support for his Socialist Party compared to the conservative opposition Popular Party.

The poll found that Spaniards approve of the pay cut for public workers, but two-thirds opposed the pension freeze, and three-quarters thought the measures will be insufficient to get Spain out of its crisis.

In an apparent bid to shore up public support, the prime minister on Wednesday said he plans new tax hikes for the rich.

"I believe most citizens consider this effort (to reduce the deficit) must be hardest for those who have the most,'' he said.

Spain entered recession in the second quarter of 2008 as the global financial meltdown compounded a crisis in the property market, which had been a major driver for growth in the preceding years.

Official data on Wednesday showed the economy scraped out of recession in the first quarter, boosted by a rise in exports and household spending, but analysts have warned that any pick-up could be short lived.

link

The Greek bailout was serious, but Greece only composed about 2% of the E.U.’s economy. The Spanish economy is over four times larger. That said, Spain doesn’t have issues quite as serious as Greece does, and Spain’s public debt is only about 38% of GDP to Greece’s 90%. Still, the trend is worrying, as the Prime Minister notes. In particular, unemployment in Spain is at Great Depression-levels (over 20%) and shows little sign of abating.

The major unspoken concern so far is Italy, one of the three major European economies, with public debt now over 100% of GDP, hopeless government, and rising unemployment. If Italy runs into serious trouble, then the E.U. is in serious trouble.

[River]

The major unspoken concern so far is Italy, one of the three major European economies, with public debt now over 100% of GDP, hopeless government, and rising unemployment.

My youngest sister went to Italy for study abroad. She went through the foreign student orientation, during which she was informed that not even the Italians understand how Italy functions. It just does.

[Túrin Turambar]

And in response to the latest rounds of instability, global markets have tanked again. The Dow has fallen over 10% from April 26. What this means I don't know - it could be another temporary slide, or the start of the feared 'double dip' or W-shaped recession. We'll have to wait and see.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

I recently read Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Global Economy and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism, which is an attempt by two Keynesian economists to explain the global financial crisis and other economic phenoma which have taken mainstream economists by surprise.

In my opinion, Keynesianism makes a halfway decent philosophy, but terrible economics. But then my opinion on Keynes is so well known even those who've never had a conversation with me know I oppose it. It's also interesting to find out why those who are not mainstream were not taken by surprise.

In particular, their central thesis is that most economists simply assume that people are rational utility-maximisers, and therefore the economy consists of rational actors maximising their utility. However, people collectively can be subject to emotional responses to the issues they face, which can make the economy act in unpredictable ways. These are what Keynes called ‘animal spirits’, although he gave them only a passing mention in his work.

The problem starts at the beginning, with "rational utility-maximisers" as a founding premise. Slipped in is that the "rational utility-maximiser" has complete information, which is a premise I dispute. I have been told by none other than Jnyusa that I believe that point, even though I don't. Someone can make entirely the wrong decision and still be a "rational utility-maximiser" due to incomplete information. Although according to Dr. Strangelove that proves the person isn't rational because although he did make the best decision according to what he knows, had he known more he would have made a different decision. Dr. Strangelove denied that he was arguing that someone must be omniscient to be rational, although that is the logical conclusion of that argument.

Given that the theory he is arguing against has the unstated premise of perfect knowledge, a different way to explain bad decisions must be found, which is why Keynesians rely so heavily on 'animal spirits'.

Like every other Keynesians I’ve encountered, Akerlof and Shiller are more interested in macroeconomics than microeconomics. So they are not dealing so much with individual irrational actors as the entire economy running for a time under a false hope, delusion or collective malaise that distorts market outcomes.

Which is sad, because the aggregation of decisions is just that - an aggregation of individual decisions. They must deal with individual irrational actors if they want to deal with the aggregated irrational decisions. You cannot actually divorce macro from micro, because without the individual actors there is no macro to aggregate from.

The average person in the modern west saves very little. Rates of savings in the U.S. have fallen from 10% in 1980 to around 0% today, and in some cases have even gone negative. Without the (frequently unsustainable) pension programs of the U.S. and Europe, most retirees in those countries would starve. This is in spite of the fact that, over the long term, sound investments can yield very significant returns, and economically rational actors would be expected to take advantage of that. In addition, they draw on the results of surveys that show that the amount of any given sum that people receive will often depend on how they get it. Akerlof and Shiller argue that the low savings rates in the west today are in a large part the fault of the money illusion.

I'd say that they're actually right, but only in part. Yes, due to a lack of economic education many people do fall for the money illusion - but that doesn't make them irrational, only under-informed. But even then, people do the best they can with what they know. The term "money illuson" attacks the symptom (that the illusion exists) rather than the source (why the illusion exists) and by doing so veers off the course of why people have such a low savings rate.

But people do notice inflation, even if they don't always make the full connection, which is why the savings rate is low in the first place. Those who save at a rate lower than inflation are effectively losing money. While the wikipedia article shows the basic similarity of a 2% pay cut and a 2% pay hike with 4% inflation, and how those afflicted by the illusion will consider the former unfair and the latter fair, on some level it is recognized that holding money is a bad investment.

When there is a disincentive to save, people respond to that disincentive because they do make decisions above and beyond whatever direction the herd is about to stampede.

Akerlof and Shiller point out (courtesy of Milton Friedman), that the Philips Curve is distorted by money illusion. Employees are far more concerned about inflation than economists, and they tend to respond to expected rather than actual rates of inflation. So unemployment below the natural rate (ie. the rate set by wage controls and industrial awards), can lead to accelerating inflation that will not be reversed simply by rising unemployment. Employers are reluctant to cut workers’ wages, making wages sticky – they tend to go up with inflation, but not down with deflation. The authors suggest that this is because workers naturally view wage rises and cuts as rewards and punishments, not simply as responses to economic conditions.

They grow farther off-course, and that makes it harder to deal with what they wrote. But one thing stands out - they are dealing with theory and nothing else. There has not been a period of sustained deflation in the past century, so we cannot know about the downward stickiness of wages. This is entirely a work of theory. The last time deflation was seriously experienced anywhere in the modern industrialized nations was in the 19th century.

Moreover, what is their definition of inflation and deflation? The definition of one of course determines the definition of the other, so answering either one would be sufficient. Is it "prices are going up" or is it "an increase in the money supply"? Both definitions are used at various times because one is more symptomatic and one is more causal. Did their book define from where inflation comes?

Akerlof and Shiller argue that the real estate market is particularly vulnerable to ‘stories’. For example, the idea that property is always a failsafe investment can cause prices to inflate artificially, and as such they will sooner or later decline. They suggest that the American real estate boom of the 1990s was caused by this story. Or the boom and then crash of the mortgage-back securities industry in 2008, based on a similar assumption.

They focus on real estate, but I can see other examples. The infamous Dutch tulip bubble of the 18th century, where tulip bulbs reached absurd prices because people became convinced that they were good investments. Or the South Sea Island bubble. Or the overheating of the stock market in the 1880s and again in the 1920s, when people traded shares with abandon, convinced that they would always keep going up. Akerlof and Shiller suggest that proper regulation of financial markets is required to prevent the animal spirits from going beserk, as in those cases.

Yes, they have identified the symptom of a bubble. People trade with abandon, convinced that everything will keep going up. The sad thing is, even trained economists fall for this, which is why when a bubble starts to grow you will get headlines in the economic press about a "new economy". But the key to the argument proves to be its own undoing - the authors talk about people, individuals, who are convinced that the items traded will keep going up, about individuals with misinformation. That plays right back into accepting that people can do the wrong thing and remain rational actors, which is the premise this whole tome appears to be denying and trying to find an alternate explanation for.

From that point on it is simply the repeated fallacies of Keynesianism, such as the Fallacy of the Broken window, and Plato's desire for philosopher kings (in this case economist kings). Allegedly the problem isn't that the implemented solution was wrong in the first place, only that it didn't go far enough and if the unenlightened masses would just shut up they philosopher kings could solve every problem. It's the basic division between Plato and Aristotle played out through the ages, whether we trust to reason or trust to the wisdom of others, be they clergy, kings, or economists. According to the authors at Rebirth of Reason, the decline comes whenever the pendulum swings back towards Plato and away from Aristotle, with Keynesianism as the latest incarnation of the philosopher-king.

[yovargas]

...such as the Fallacy of the Broken window...

As I read that I was half-wondering if that was a joke or if that was genuine economic theory.

[Túrin Turambar]

...such as the Fallacy of the Broken window...

As I read that I was half-wondering if that was a joke or if that was genuine economic theory.

It's real, at least in Keynesian economics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

...such as the Fallacy of the Broken window...

As I read that I was half-wondering if that was a joke or if that was genuine economic theory.

No, it's actually part of economic theory, as coined by Bastiat. I should have called it "the Parable of the Broken Window", as it is Keynesians who call it a fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

It heavily involves the problem of the unseen. The baker's window is broken. Well, to most people that is regarded as a bad thing, because he must now spend money to repair the window.

Keynesians say that ultimately it is good because the money spent will then be spent in turn by the glass maker, and whomever receives the money will spend it on something else instead.

Austrians say that ultimately it is bad because even though there is a flurry of activity as money changes hands, ultimately the town is still poorer by a window, and moreover we do not know what the baker would have spent the money on. We don't know what he would have spent the money on otherwise. Suppose he was going to buy new clothes? Does not the tailor deserve business as much as the glass maker? Suppose he was going to buy a newer and better oven? Then he could have afforded both a new suit and a new window, had he purchased the oven first, but now he has to buy the window first.

Breaking things in order stimulate the economy makes, in my opinion, a very poor economic practice. Prosperity is created by the creation of wealth, not the destruction of wealth.

[JewelSong]

When the baker's window is broken, the delicious smells from the bakery can more easily get out onto the street, luring in the passersby and giving the baker more business for his wares. His business increases and he is then able to buy a new window, new clothes and upgrade his ovens. Soon he is able to buy a second store and take a vacation in the Bahamas.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Or the baker was sitting on the money and the money was inactive. If the baker and the glazier both sat on their money they wouldn't be creating any consequent economic activity by others.
If the glazier made a little extra money by repairing the window perhaps he could afford a fancy cake rather than yesterdays loaf.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Or the baker was sitting on the money and the money was inactive. If the baker and the glazier both sat on their money they wouldn't be creating any consequent economic activity by others.
If the glazier made a little extra money by repairing the window perhaps he could afford a fancy cake rather than yesterdays loaf.

Even saving is a use. It is through saving that you fund future consumption. There is no paradox of thrift, no money is actually doing nothing.

But the point of the parable of the broken window is that we can't know what the baker would have done, only that he can no longer do that - and that he is now poorer. It's a great illustration of the problem of the unseen and of how creative destruction doesn't actually make anyone wealthier.

[Lidless]

When the baker's window is broken, the delicious smells from the bakery can more easily get out onto the street, luring in the passersby and giving the baker more business for his wares. His business increases and he is then able to buy a new window, new clothes and upgrade his ovens. Soon he is able to buy a second store and take a vacation in the Bahamas.

More dough for more dough. A win-dough. D'oh. No pane *is* a gain.







That hurt even my eyes.

[yovargas]

Or the baker was sitting on the money and the money was inactive. If the baker and the glazier both sat on their money they wouldn't be creating any consequent economic activity by others.
If the glazier made a little extra money by repairing the window perhaps he could afford a fancy cake rather than yesterdays loaf.

Even saving is a use. It is through saving that you fund future consumption.

Not to mention the whole benefit to banks and investment LM mentioned elsewhere.

It occurs to me how much of the pro-environmental/anti-capitalist leftists have been preaching a lot against "consumer culture" these days. An economic theory discussing why saving is good should be very valuable and exciting to that crowd. Finding other ways to improve the economy besides the oft repeated "buy more stuff' should be a priority.

[Túrin Turambar]

Or the baker was sitting on the money and the money was inactive. If the baker and the glazier both sat on their money they wouldn't be creating any consequent economic activity by others.
If the glazier made a little extra money by repairing the window perhaps he could afford a fancy cake rather than yesterdays loaf.

Even saving is a use. It is through saving that you fund future consumption.

Not to mention the whole benefit to banks and investment LM mentioned elsewhere.

True, but where I’ve seen the argument used by Keynesians, they’re talking about stimulus (often deficit) spending by a government in recession. The basic premise of Keynesian macroeconomics is countercyclical fiscal policy. That is, the government should save money and run surpluses in times of economic growth, and then spend money and run deficits to boost the economy in times of recession. They argue that, due to the fiscal multiplier, the net benefit to the economy of that spending is greater than its original dollar value suggests.

I can see their point. During the financial crisis, the Australian government went into debt to fund stimulus spending, including sending everyone a checque for a few hundred dollars. I was working in retail at the time, and our sales were boosted over the Christmas season and into March. That kept me and other casuals in a job, and more directly, put some extra commission in my pocket. I saved some of the money I made and spent some of it – on food and clothes, on a rock-climbing course, and on a plane ticket and travel insurance. Presumably the people in those industries had the same experience.

Of course, my original issue with the system still stands – the Australian government was an exception to the rule in that it had actually been running budget surpluses leading up to the crisis (partly out of skill, partly out of luck over the mining boom). Generally, governments are reluctant to cut spending and raise taxes in boom times, which is necessary for the entire system to work as the Keynesians intend it. And simple retail spending is no real foundation for long-term economic growth, although there’s no reason the fiscal multiplier shouldn’t apply no matter what the money is actually spent on.

For example, in addition to high rates of savings and investment, Malaysia and Singapore also benefitted enormously from government investment in education. Malaysians and Singaporeans in the 1950s were working for low wages in foreign-owned factories; by the 1980s they were running the factories themselves.

In particular, their central thesis is that most economists simply assume that people are rational utility-maximisers, and therefore the economy consists of rational actors maximising their utility. However, people collectively can be subject to emotional responses to the issues they face, which can make the economy act in unpredictable ways. These are what Keynes called ‘animal spirits’, although he gave them only a passing mention in his work.

The problem starts at the beginning, with "rational utility-maximisers" as a founding premise. Slipped in is that the "rational utility-maximiser" has complete information, which is a premise I dispute. I have been told by none other than Jnyusa that I believe that point, even though I don't. Someone can make entirely the wrong decision and still be a "rational utility-maximiser" due to incomplete information. Although according to Dr. Strangelove that proves the person isn't rational because although he did make the best decision according to what he knows, had he known more he would have made a different decision. Dr. Strangelove denied that he was arguing that someone must be omniscient to be rational, although that is the logical conclusion of that argument.

Given that the theory he is arguing against has the unstated premise of perfect knowledge, a different way to explain bad decisions must be found, which is why Keynesians rely so heavily on 'animal spirits'.

Hmmm. I’m not sure exactly how well I’ve captured their argument. It’s not so much that they fail to consider imperfect information, but they argue that there are forces at work in the economy besides unemployment and inflation and the like which cannot be quantified. To quote one of the reviews of the book from its website:

Akerlof and Shiller succeed, too, in demonstrating that conventional macroeconomic analyses often fail because they omit not just readily observable facts like unemployment and institutions such as credit markets but also harder-to-document behavioral patterns that fall within the authors' notion of 'animal spirits.' Confidence plainly matters, and so does the absence of it. When the public mood swings from exuberance to anxiety, or even fear, the effect on asset prices as well as on economic activity outside the financial sector can be large

This perhaps goes some way to explain the macroeconomics vs microeconomics point.

Moreover, what is their definition of inflation and deflation? The definition of one of course determines the definition of the other, so answering either one would be sufficient. Is it "prices are going up" or is it "an increase in the money supply"? Both definitions are used at various times because one is more symptomatic and one is more causal. Did their book define from where inflation comes?

No – it seems to be beyond the scope of their work. Regardless, changes to the money supply and changes to prices are linked, so it doesn’t matter too much as far as their actual argument goes.

[Túrin Turambar]

Now for some developments on the national security front:

1. President Obama has ordered an additional 1,200 troops to the U.S.-Mexican border in recognition of the fact that the situation has deteriorated. John McCain has suggested that the numbers aren’t enough – he called for 6,000. I suspect that this is, in part, a response to the sentiment behind the Arizona immigration law and the suggestion that Washington isn’t doing enough.

2. This hasn’t made the front-page headlines yet, but tensions on the Korean peninsula have been steadily increasing this year. In March, a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, was torpedoed and sank near the border between North and South Korean territorial waters with the loss of 46 lives. An international committee has just returned the finding that the torpedo was fired from a North Korean submarine.

Given how dysfunctional the DPRK is it wouldn’t surprise me if its submarines were going around randomly sinking ships, but nevertheless North Korea has taken umbrage at the finding, has cut all ties with South Korea and has announced it will take a newly aggressive line. In response, the South Korean and American navies have begun aggressive exercises of their own close to the border. North Korea has, in turn, threatened war.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

As the theme of this thread is the decline of the West may I draw attention to the action 70 years ago that more than any other saved the entire West and the Enlightenment - the rescue of a third of a million British and French troops from captivity.
Had they been lost the only result could have been either an armistice that would have left the UK as a Nazi puppet state or an invasion that would have seen us occupied.
The US would have been blockaded from its world markets by Caribbean submarine bases. The Depression would have returned with a vengeance, How long could constitutional democracy have survived in that environment?
Now democracy is a governmental system that every society aspires to and is entrenched across the world. 70 years ago it was a very fragile flower.

Spare a moment to pay respect to the civilian sailors, yachtsmen and skippers who sailed across the sea to face Stuka bombers to rescue the troops. Some even stole boats to set out and feared arrest on their return.
Churchill hoped that 30 thousand men could be rescued. 340 thousand were taken off the beaches.

[Elentári]

Well said, Tosh...

We will remember them.

[vison]

Dunkirk. A poem by Robert Nathan.

Will came back from school that day,
And he had little to say.
But he stood a long time looking down
To where the gray-green Channel water
Slapped at the foot of the little town,
And to where his boat, the Sarah P,
Bobbed at the tide on an even keel,
With her one old sail, patched at the leech,
Furled like a slattern down at heel.


He stood for a while above the beach,
He saw how the wind and current caught her;
He looked a long time out to sea.
There was steady wind, and the sky was pale,
And a daze in the east that looked like smoke.

Will went back to the house to dress.
He was half way through, when his sister Bess
Who was near fourteen, and younger than he
By just two years, came home from play.
She asked him, "Where are you going, Will?"
He said, "For a good long sail."
"Can I come along?"
"No, Bess," he spoke.
"I may be gone for a night and a day."
Bess looked at him. She kept very still.
She had heard the news of the Flanders rout,
How the English were trapped above Dunkirk,
And the fleet had gone to get them out
But everyone thought that it wouldn't work.
There was too much fear, there was too much doubt.


She looked at him, and he looked at her.
They were English children, born and bred.
He frowned her down, but she wouldn't stir.
She shook her proud young head.
"You'll need a crew," she said.


They raised the sail on the Sarah p,
Like a penoncel on a young knight's lance,
And headed the Sarah out to sea,
To bring their soldiers home from France.


There was no command, there was no set plan,
But six hundred boats went out with them
On the gray-green waters, sailing fast,
River excursion and fisherman,
Tug and schooner and racing M,
And the little boats came following last.
From every harbor and town they went
Who had sailed their craft in the sun and rain,
From the South Downs, from the cliffs of Kent,
From the village street, from the country lane.


There are twenty miles of rolling sea
From coast to coast, by the seagull's flight,
But the tides were fair and the wind was free,
And they raised Dunkirk by fall of night.


They raised Dunkirk with its harbor torn
By the blasted stern and the sunken prow;
They had reached for fun on an English tide,
They were English children bred and born,
And whether they lived, or whether they died,
They raced for England now.


Bess was as white as the Sarah's sail,
She set her teeth and smiled at Will.
He held his course for the smoky veil
Where the harbor narrowed thin and long.
The British ships were firing strong.


He took the Sarah into his hands,
He drove her in through fire and death
To the wet men waiting on the sands.
He got his load and he got his breath,
And she came about, and the wind fought her.


He shut his eyes and he tried to pray.
He saw his England were she lay,
The wind�s green home, the sea's proud daughter,
Still in the moonlight, dreaming deep,
The English cliffs and the English loam
He had fourteen men to get away,
And the moon was clear, and the night like day
For planes to see where the white sails creep
Over the black water.


He closed his eyes and prayed for her;
He prayed to the men who had made her great,
Who had built her land of forest and park,
Who had made the seas an English lake;
He prayed for a fog to bring the dark;
He prayed to get home for England's sake.
And the fog came down on the rolling sea,
And covered the ships with English mist.
The diving planes were baffled and blind.


For Nelson was there in the Victory,
With his one good eye, and his sullen twist,
And guns were out on The Golden Hind,
Their shot flashed over the Sarah P.
He could hear them cheer as he came about.


By burning wharves, by battered slips,
Galleon, frigate, and brigantine,
The old dead Captains fought their ships,
And the great dead Admirals led the line.
it was England's night, it was England's sea.


The fog rolled over the harbor key.
Bess held to the stays, and conned him out.


And all through the dark, while the Sarah's wake
Hissed behind him, and vanished in foam,
There at his side sat Francis Drake,
And held him true, and steered him home.

[Primula Baggins]

<isn't choked up at all, no no>

Stupid, um, allergies.