Poland has objected to Obama's reference to a "Polish death camp" while honoring a Pole who helped make the world aware of the Holocaust taking place in Nazi death camps in Poland. The Polish objection shows their sensitivity on this issue, but certainly what Obama meant was that this was a death camp in Poland, not a death camp run by the Polish government.
Nevertheless, when I lived in Poland I was struck by the fact that they almost always referred to atrocities of the the World War II era as having been carried out by the Nazis, not by the Germans. The Germans are still here and still next door neighbors of Poland, but the Nazi government is long gone. So, the Poles live up to the standard that they are demanding from Obama.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Memorial Day Rembrance
Just for the record on Memorial Day, I want to remember the two men in my unit, A Battery 2/94th Artillery, who were killed at Firebase Barbara and whose names are on the Vietnam Memorial wall:
Paul Kosanke, and
Willie Austin, Jr.
Paul Kosanke, and
Willie Austin, Jr.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Congressional Letter re Finance
I sent the following to my two Colorado Senators:
Please support Sen. Sherrod Brown's SAFE Banking Act of 2012 to rein in "too big to fail" banks. JP Morgan's $2 billion loss announced yesterday shows how seriously out of control our banking industry is, only a few years after the 2008 Lehman debacle. Although JP Morgan claims that its "hedging" was not in violation of the Volker rule, I think that it likely was. JP Morgan was just gambling with its depositors' money, trying to make a quick buck, which was almost riskless, because the US taxpayers are still guaranteeing the assets of the "too big to fail" banks.
Simon Johnson of MIT and the IMF has called for Jamie Dimon to resign.
You are just throwing away America's money guaranteeing the foolish bets of fat cats on Wall Street. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that President Obama threw Elizabeth Warren under the bus after all she did to establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She was the only one in Washington speaking out for the middle class, and now she is gone.
I don't have much hope. The US Congress is largely dysfunctional. We have no fiscal policy. Ben Bernanke has so far saved us from disaster with monetary policy, but he can't singlehandedly save the world. You could give him a little help.
Two of the most important additional things the Congress could do are
-- Put the Bowles-Simpson proposals back on the table to address our financial crisis. They were reasonable; they addressed the most important issue facing the US, and they have been ignored by the Congress.
-- Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, led in Congress by Republican Phil Gramm and signed by President Bill Clinton, was responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and the current rogue activities of the big banks. Banks should be banks, not gambling casinos.
War Didn't Help
In today's NYT, Paul Krugman talks about how World War II pulled the US out of the Depression, although people back then also said that stimulus would not work.
It reminded me of the difference between World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. First Roosevelt in WW II called on all of America to pay for the war, although it still ran up enormous deficits. Bush said, "Go shopping," to support the Iraq war; you don't need to pay taxes. If Bush had attempted to pay for the Iraq war, we probably would have had fairer, more equitable taxes, which would have done something to mitigate the perception that the current US tax system is seriously unjust. We grew up hearing about the merits of the American progressive tax system that taxed the rich more than the poor, and now we find that we have a regressive tax system that taxes the poor more than the rich. The Republicans argue that the rich still pay the bulk of the taxes, which is true, but only because they earn the bulk of the income. Also, defenders of the current system seldom bring payroll taxes into the discussion, because if they did, the disparity would be even worse. It's true that many very poor people don't pay income tax, but many more of them pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
The other disparity between the rich and the poor that the war widened is between those who defend America and those who stay home and make money while the soldiers fight. In the old days, especially when there was a draft, the stay-at-homes were shamed as "war profiteers," but today they are hailed as "entrepreneurs." In WW II almost everybody who was healthy fought; today almost all soldiers come from the lower classes, and disproportionately from small towns and rural areas, where there is still some feeling of patriotism. Ironically, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was directed at America's richest 1%, but the 1% by and large didn't fight back, it hired the 99% to fight and die for them. Now when those soldiers come home seeking jobs, the 1% that owns everything usually turns its back on them.
The US has regressed so far back toward the old feudal system that we don't need new laws or an updated Constitution, we need a new Magna Carta. Welcome to the 13th century!
It reminded me of the difference between World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. First Roosevelt in WW II called on all of America to pay for the war, although it still ran up enormous deficits. Bush said, "Go shopping," to support the Iraq war; you don't need to pay taxes. If Bush had attempted to pay for the Iraq war, we probably would have had fairer, more equitable taxes, which would have done something to mitigate the perception that the current US tax system is seriously unjust. We grew up hearing about the merits of the American progressive tax system that taxed the rich more than the poor, and now we find that we have a regressive tax system that taxes the poor more than the rich. The Republicans argue that the rich still pay the bulk of the taxes, which is true, but only because they earn the bulk of the income. Also, defenders of the current system seldom bring payroll taxes into the discussion, because if they did, the disparity would be even worse. It's true that many very poor people don't pay income tax, but many more of them pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.
The other disparity between the rich and the poor that the war widened is between those who defend America and those who stay home and make money while the soldiers fight. In the old days, especially when there was a draft, the stay-at-homes were shamed as "war profiteers," but today they are hailed as "entrepreneurs." In WW II almost everybody who was healthy fought; today almost all soldiers come from the lower classes, and disproportionately from small towns and rural areas, where there is still some feeling of patriotism. Ironically, the 9/11 attack on the twin towers was directed at America's richest 1%, but the 1% by and large didn't fight back, it hired the 99% to fight and die for them. Now when those soldiers come home seeking jobs, the 1% that owns everything usually turns its back on them.
The US has regressed so far back toward the old feudal system that we don't need new laws or an updated Constitution, we need a new Magna Carta. Welcome to the 13th century!
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Guantanamo Trials Are Legal Failure
The "trial" of the 9/11 terrorists in Guantanamo signals a significant failure of the American legal system. The victims of 9/11 deserve better, because no one will believe that justice will have been done. The prisoners may be guilty, but many victims of lynchings and other mob violence over the years have also been guilty. The sign of civilization would be a fair trial, but Congress and the Obama administration have balked at allowing a fair rial. The military lawyers in Guantanamo will do their best, but they have been put in an impossible situation.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
25th Anniversary of MTCR
The following is a press release from the US Department of State:
Formed by the (then) G-7 industrialized countries in 1987, the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is an informal political understanding among
states that seek to limit the proliferation of missiles and related technology;
it is not a treaty. Since its creation, 27 additional countries have joined the
MTCR, and many other countries have adhered unilaterally to the MTCR Guidelines
or otherwise control exports of MTCR Annex items.
Originally focused on restricting exports of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technology, the Regime expanded its scope in 1993 to cover unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the MTCR Partners (members) made terrorism an explicit focus of the Regime. Both of those steps were in direct support of the WMD nonproliferation objectives of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of WMD by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. More broadly, the MTCR Guidelines (export control policies) and Annex (list of export-controlled items) have become the international standard for responsible missile-related export behavior. The MTCR and its Annex were implicitly endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004, which affirms that the proliferation of WMD delivery means constitutes a threat to international peace and security and requires all UN Member States to establish domestic controls against such proliferation. The MTCR Annex also forms the basis of the list of missile-related items prohibited from being transferred to Iran under UNSCRs 1737 and 1929, and to North Korea under UNSCR 1718.
Over the course of the Regime’s 25-year history, the efforts of MTCR member countries have reduced the number of countries possessing missiles capable of delivering WMD, the global inventory of such missiles, and the number of countries interested in acquiring such missiles. The establishment by MTCR member and adherent countries of missile-related export controls has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from the countries possessing the most and best technology. The export controls, information-sharing, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the MTCR also have resulted in the interdiction of numerous shipments of equipment intended for missile programs of concern. All of these measures have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD capable missiles.
As it has done since 1987, the United States will continue to work through the MTCR to reduce the global missile proliferation threat by restraining the missile-related exports of an expanding number of countries and by increasing the pressure on proliferators to abandon their missile programs. The United States continues to encourage all non-member countries to support the MTCR’s efforts and to unilaterally abide by MTCR standards in the interest of international peace and security.
The MTCR currently has 34 members: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Originally focused on restricting exports of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles and related technology, the Regime expanded its scope in 1993 to cover unmanned delivery systems capable of carrying all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- chemical, biological, and nuclear. In 2002, the MTCR Partners (members) made terrorism an explicit focus of the Regime. Both of those steps were in direct support of the WMD nonproliferation objectives of the Biological Weapons Convention, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The MTCR seeks to limit the risks of proliferation of WMD by controlling transfers that could make a contribution to delivery systems (other than manned aircraft) for such weapons. More broadly, the MTCR Guidelines (export control policies) and Annex (list of export-controlled items) have become the international standard for responsible missile-related export behavior. The MTCR and its Annex were implicitly endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004, which affirms that the proliferation of WMD delivery means constitutes a threat to international peace and security and requires all UN Member States to establish domestic controls against such proliferation. The MTCR Annex also forms the basis of the list of missile-related items prohibited from being transferred to Iran under UNSCRs 1737 and 1929, and to North Korea under UNSCR 1718.
Over the course of the Regime’s 25-year history, the efforts of MTCR member countries have reduced the number of countries possessing missiles capable of delivering WMD, the global inventory of such missiles, and the number of countries interested in acquiring such missiles. The establishment by MTCR member and adherent countries of missile-related export controls has significantly reduced the availability to proliferators of support from the countries possessing the most and best technology. The export controls, information-sharing, and patterns of cooperation fostered by the MTCR also have resulted in the interdiction of numerous shipments of equipment intended for missile programs of concern. All of these measures have made it more difficult, time-consuming, and costly for proliferators to produce or acquire WMD capable missiles.
As it has done since 1987, the United States will continue to work through the MTCR to reduce the global missile proliferation threat by restraining the missile-related exports of an expanding number of countries and by increasing the pressure on proliferators to abandon their missile programs. The United States continues to encourage all non-member countries to support the MTCR’s efforts and to unilaterally abide by MTCR standards in the interest of international peace and security.
The MTCR currently has 34 members: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Liberal Education Still Important
With all the talk today about education, no one talks about the importance of a liberal education. Despite the Conservative hatred of the word liberal, it means "free." It is the education that free men should have in order to be able to govern themselves. In the old days, when voting was limited to white men who owned land, they were the only ones who needed a liberal education. Now that everybody can vote, everybody needs a liberal education. We were close to that goal in the 1960's with the rise of cheap state universities and community colleges, but as governments have gone bankrupt, that ideal has disappeared.
Instead of seeing education as a resource that should be widely available, it is a commercial enterprise that is expensive, even for no-name colleges and universities. Thus it has become all about money, not about learning. All the students and the professors care about are salable skills. Universities have become trade schools rather than centers of learning.
The Denver Post ran a front page article on higher education Sunday, but it was all about money -- funding for education. Doing a search of the page, I did not find a single reference to the liberal arts, which was the most important role of a university a few decades ago, and certainly a hundred years ago. Higher education has changed, and not for the better. The "bottom line" was that it's looking more and more like the State of Colorado will soon quit funding higher education entirely.
Instead of seeing education as a resource that should be widely available, it is a commercial enterprise that is expensive, even for no-name colleges and universities. Thus it has become all about money, not about learning. All the students and the professors care about are salable skills. Universities have become trade schools rather than centers of learning.
The Denver Post ran a front page article on higher education Sunday, but it was all about money -- funding for education. Doing a search of the page, I did not find a single reference to the liberal arts, which was the most important role of a university a few decades ago, and certainly a hundred years ago. Higher education has changed, and not for the better. The "bottom line" was that it's looking more and more like the State of Colorado will soon quit funding higher education entirely.
Romney VP Hopefuls Are Fiscal Failures
Two frequently discussed vice presidential hopefuls for presidential candidate Mitt Romney are Rob Portman and Mitch Daniels. Both were the principle budget strategists for George W. Bush as heads of his Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was head of OMB from 2001 to 2003; Ohio Senator Portman was OMB director from 2006 to 2007.
Daniels oversaw the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without raising taxes. He publicly estimated the cost of the Iraq war at $50 to $60 billion. A recent Brown University study has estimated the direct cost of the Iraq war at around $750 billion. Wikipedia says that on Daniels' watch, the US went from a budget surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $400 billion. Wikipedia says that on Portman's watch the US public debt increased by $469 billion.
Both of these Republican budget directors follow in the footsteps of David Stockman, Reagan's OMB chief from 1981 to 1985. Stockman successfully led the fight for Reagan's huge tax cuts, but after cutting revenues, he was unsuccessful in cutting federal expenditures, thus beginning the series of huge budget deficits that persist to this day. Stockman doubled the national debt from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during his tenure. The current national debt is about $15.5 trillion.
Daniels oversaw the post-9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without raising taxes. He publicly estimated the cost of the Iraq war at $50 to $60 billion. A recent Brown University study has estimated the direct cost of the Iraq war at around $750 billion. Wikipedia says that on Daniels' watch, the US went from a budget surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $400 billion. Wikipedia says that on Portman's watch the US public debt increased by $469 billion.
Both of these Republican budget directors follow in the footsteps of David Stockman, Reagan's OMB chief from 1981 to 1985. Stockman successfully led the fight for Reagan's huge tax cuts, but after cutting revenues, he was unsuccessful in cutting federal expenditures, thus beginning the series of huge budget deficits that persist to this day. Stockman doubled the national debt from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during his tenure. The current national debt is about $15.5 trillion.
Jobs Bill and Facebook
I am worried that there is some connection between the recently passed Jobs bill and the Facebook IPO. Facebook has been the poster child for huge IPOs that give preference to insiders. Facebook was limited by the old restrictions of privately held companies. It's not clear whether the new Jobs bill will change its situation. It may be too big, maybe not. It's already in the situation where the number of shareholders of record is limited, but the actual number of shareholders is much higher. Goldman Sachs counts as one shareholder, but it can hold shares for its preferred clients, raising the total well beyond 500 or whatever the limit was. Even if this law does not directly affect Facebook, it will affect new IPOs, and while it may marginally aid new businesses, it will enormously aid rich Wall Street insiders. At the same time, as the NYT article points out, it may increase the risks of bad investments in questionable companies by small, unsophisticated investors. I would like to know what Elizabeth Warren thinks about the bill. Is it good for America? Is it good for the middle class (or what's left of it)? Or is it just good for the super rich, especially those who live in Silicon Valley? Unfortunately I do not trust Obama to do what is best for the middle class (and the country). He has sold out to the super rich.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Sen. Bill Frist and Denver Hospitals
I have been upset for some time about HCA's takeover of a number of Colorado hospitals. HCA is owned by the Frist family, whom Sen. Bill Frist represented in the Senate. Health care is a mess; hospitals are making fortunes, and Bill Frist's is one of them. Rather than using his expertise on health care to improve it while he was in the Senate, he used it mainly to enrich himself and his family. Although he was Senate leader, he is remembered mainly for his provide-medical-care-at-any-cost argument to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Frist is an example of what is wrong with the American health care system, and he was a leader in the Senate. What is good for his wallet is not necessarily good for the country.
Now, Frist's for-profit HCA plans to take over many of Colorado's not-for-profit hospitals, creating concerns that the hospitals will no longer be run for the public benefit.
On the other hand, a Catholic-conected hospital systsem, SCL, plans to expand in Colorado, raising questions about whether the hospitals taken over will provide for the full range of women's health services that they provide now, since the Catholic church opposes contraception, abortion, etc.
Now, Frist's for-profit HCA plans to take over many of Colorado's not-for-profit hospitals, creating concerns that the hospitals will no longer be run for the public benefit.
On the other hand, a Catholic-conected hospital systsem, SCL, plans to expand in Colorado, raising questions about whether the hospitals taken over will provide for the full range of women's health services that they provide now, since the Catholic church opposes contraception, abortion, etc.
Bernanke Lectures Aimed at Ron Paul
Fed Chairman Bernanke's lectures at George Washington University are aimed at Republican candidate Ron Paul, who represents a significant strain of thought about the Federal Reserve. Paul believes that the Fed is evil because it interferes with the free functioning the American economy and most often encourages inflation. Paul would like to see the US return to the gold standard. Bernanke's first lecture dealt extensively with the issue, in particular recalling William Jennings Bryan's speech about "the cross of gold" on which the rich were crucifying average workers and farmers.
Bernanke correctly asked why the world economies should be restricted by the amount of gold that is mined around the world. It's clearly better to have a money supply that can be managed to correspond the amount of goods and services being produced that the amount of gold being mined. On the other hand, Paul is right that an irresponsible Fed can allow or encourage detrimental policies which might well increase inflation (or create deflation). In an ideal world, however, the US would have a competent Fed which would maintain a proper money supply to facilitate growth and full employment.
One problem these days is that the US has no fiscal policy. Congress is dysfunctional. Republicans refuse to raise taxes; Democrats, to cut expenditures. So, the full burden of trying to manage the American economy falls on the Fed, with some help from the Executive Branch, depending on what it can do by executive order, by the Treasury selling bonds, etc.
But Paul's gold bugs don't trust bureaucrats. They would rather have the economy controlled by external forces, rather than the government.
I prefer to have Bernanke try to manage the economy rather than leave it hostage to South African gold miners.
Bernanke correctly asked why the world economies should be restricted by the amount of gold that is mined around the world. It's clearly better to have a money supply that can be managed to correspond the amount of goods and services being produced that the amount of gold being mined. On the other hand, Paul is right that an irresponsible Fed can allow or encourage detrimental policies which might well increase inflation (or create deflation). In an ideal world, however, the US would have a competent Fed which would maintain a proper money supply to facilitate growth and full employment.
One problem these days is that the US has no fiscal policy. Congress is dysfunctional. Republicans refuse to raise taxes; Democrats, to cut expenditures. So, the full burden of trying to manage the American economy falls on the Fed, with some help from the Executive Branch, depending on what it can do by executive order, by the Treasury selling bonds, etc.
But Paul's gold bugs don't trust bureaucrats. They would rather have the economy controlled by external forces, rather than the government.
I prefer to have Bernanke try to manage the economy rather than leave it hostage to South African gold miners.
Republicans Not Saving Money
In a legitimate debate about health care, Democrats would want single payer system assuring coverage for everybody. Republicans would want a system that reduced costs. What actually happened with Obama Care, however, was that the Republican insistence on using private heath insurance companies actually increased costs by increasing the power and profits of insurance companies without reducing doctors' or hospitals' costs. A single payer system would have given the government leverage to bring down costs; whether it would have actually done so will never be known. Congress was quick to restore doctors' Medicare fees to the old, higher level when they were in danger of being reduced by some of the automatic budget reductions.
Some doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients because Medicare pays less than private insurance. If Congress had passed "Medicare for everybody," however, doctors would have had less opportunity to earn the high rates they currently do, although for the doctors who treat the richest "one-percent" price is irrelevant.
In a New York Times report on the richest one percent,they found that after a general category called "managers," physicians made up the next largest portion of the one percent, with those working out of their own offices earning the most. Almost none of these rich doctors work in a world where fees are set by a free market; they are either paid by insurance companies or the government, in both cases with fees set in advance. A patient who walks in the door of a doctor's office has no bargaining rights. The doctors make sure up front that they are will paid.
The Republicans did nothing to insert free market principles in the health care law. If anything, they strengthened the hands of the doctors in negotiating with the insurance companies and the government, assuring that the most expensive health care in the world will become even more expensive.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Bankers Pay Obama for Dumping Warren
Bloomberg reports that JP Morgan and other banks are among the top donors to Obama's campaign. Obama has sold out to the bankers. For me Obama's most egregious act was throwing Elizabeth Warren under the bus. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan led the campaign against her, and now he is paying Obama for dumping her. It's good for Morgan, good for Obama, bad for America, and bad for the middle class. Jamie Dimon has said that his bank does not want to do business with anyone who has less than $100,000 in his account. Obama has sold out the majority of his supporters for Wall Street money, figuring that the middle class has nowhere else to go. Right now the only thing that would get me to vote for Obama is for the Republicans to nominate Rick Santorum. America is becoming the Roman Empire. Nero start fiddling! Caligula start partying! Let's run a budget deficit of $5 trillion; who cares? America ranks 34th in infant mortality according to Wikipedia. The Republicans are against birth control and abortion because they love to kill babies after they are born. This is NOT a great country.
Bloomberg has recently posted a story about how many payday lenders are supporting Romney, because he has pledged to overturn Dodd-Frank, which under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren, cracked down on payday lenders and other unscrupulous loan businesses through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren created.
It's interesting that the big banks, like JP Morgan, have responded to the new regulations by supporting Obama for getting rid of Warren, while the little guys, like the payday lenders, have responded by supporting Romney, hoping to get rid of the regulation entirely.
Bloomberg has recently posted a story about how many payday lenders are supporting Romney, because he has pledged to overturn Dodd-Frank, which under the leadership of Elizabeth Warren, cracked down on payday lenders and other unscrupulous loan businesses through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Warren created.
It's interesting that the big banks, like JP Morgan, have responded to the new regulations by supporting Obama for getting rid of Warren, while the little guys, like the payday lenders, have responded by supporting Romney, hoping to get rid of the regulation entirely.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Sad That Sen. Snowe Is Leaving
It's sad that Sen. Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate. She has been a moderate, responsible voice there. It's worse that she cited the worsening political stalemate as a reason for her leaving. It's a sign of America's decline as a great nation. She's leaving uneducated, hateful, unwashed rabble behind in the Senate, which once used to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. Now it's a cesspool. Poor America!
Monday, February 27, 2012
Obama Tax Cuts
Obama's proposal to cut the corporate income tax rate to 28% is just another present for the richest 1%. It will help more than the 1%, but most of the beneficiaries will be relatively rich, and will probably benefit more than the regular people will from their payroll tax cut. It's arguable that that the corporate rate cut will provide needed stimulus, but the rich are already pretty well stimulated.
One reason interest rates are so low is that rich have plenty of money are are not investing. Thus relatively few people are borrowing to start businesses, etc. The current wisdom is that banks are not lending, but mainly that means not lending to regular people. The rich can get loans; they just don't need or want them.
Obama's going to help them out anyway, because they will give him money if he does. Of course, they will end up making a lot more money than they contribute to his campaign, but he'll get his cut.
One reason interest rates are so low is that rich have plenty of money are are not investing. Thus relatively few people are borrowing to start businesses, etc. The current wisdom is that banks are not lending, but mainly that means not lending to regular people. The rich can get loans; they just don't need or want them.
Obama's going to help them out anyway, because they will give him money if he does. Of course, they will end up making a lot more money than they contribute to his campaign, but he'll get his cut.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Syria Is Another Religious War
The article in today's New York Times and Tom Friedman's column of several days ago make it clear that Syria is yet another religious war between the Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects. Syrian President Assad's Alawite sect is Shiite, a minority in Syria; most of the protesters are Sunni, who are the (oppressed) majority. So the Shiite Iranians are going to help Assad, and the neighboring Sunnis are going to help the protesting rebels. The NYT says that the Iraqi Sunnis, who used to rule Iraq, until they were overthrown by the US invasion, now support their rebelling colleagues in Syria.
In the Iraq war, the US overthrew the Sunni government and set up a Shiite government that is best friends with Iran. Now, the Republicans, who defeated Iran's worst enemy, Saddam Hussein, want to send in American troops to die overthrowing the Iranian government that was strengthened by the US invasion of Iraq. I guess the important thing is that the American government wants to foment sectarian warfare in the Middle East. It may well be coming next in Egypt.
In the Iraq war, the US overthrew the Sunni government and set up a Shiite government that is best friends with Iran. Now, the Republicans, who defeated Iran's worst enemy, Saddam Hussein, want to send in American troops to die overthrowing the Iranian government that was strengthened by the US invasion of Iraq. I guess the important thing is that the American government wants to foment sectarian warfare in the Middle East. It may well be coming next in Egypt.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Jews for America
While I've been critical of American Jews who love Israel more than America, there are many who have done great things for America. First comes to mind the owners of the New York Times, the Sulzbergers, where most of my information comes from. Then there is the guy, David Rubenstein, who is contributing half of the cost of repairing the Washington Monument. I thought that I would find that he also gave tons of money to Israel, but if he did, it's not immediately obvious on the Internet. For some reason, it seems to be the Republican Jews, who you would think are the most patriotic, who actually seem more devoted to Israel.
For example, The New York Times Magazine highlighted the issue of Israel's invading Iran, which I don't think is entirely favorable to Israel.
For example, The New York Times Magazine highlighted the issue of Israel's invading Iran, which I don't think is entirely favorable to Israel.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Israel Lovers Buy Newt
Yesterday's New York Times article on Sheldon Adelson's campaign contributions to Newt Gingrich illustrated my concerns in the previous post about American Jews whose first love is Israel. It appears that Adelson's main reason for supporting Gingrich is that Newt is a 100% supporter of Israel. Earlier articles said that the main bond between Adelson and Gingrich was Newt's anti-union stance, but that hardly seemed worth $10 million or more. Newt's support for Israel is a better justification for the campaign contributions.
The article says that Adelson, who was born in America, did not get the Israel bug until middle age, but once he got it, he really got it. It's not surprising that Adelson supports Israel, per my earlier post, but I don't know why Newt is such a fervent supporter of Israel. Why should America base its entire foreign policy on a relatively small country? I doubt that he subscribes to the evangelical Christian ideas about the importance of Israel for the endtime. Newt is not Jewish, but I'm guessing that he likes all the financial and political support that the gets from Jews for espousing pro-Israel policies. Jews have wealth and political influence far exceeding their proportional representation in the American population.
It sounds as if Newt is willing to send thousands of young American gentiles for fight and die in Iran, because Israel feels threatened by Iran. This from a man who was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War. Ironically, Newt's father was apparently in the Army infantry, but Newt had no intention of following in his father's footsteps. Although there were many reasons for the US invasion of Iraq -- 9/11, Bush II's love/hate relationship with his father, massive intelligence failures -- one was certainly the Israeli/Jewish desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who in the first Gulf War had fired Scud missiles into Israel. There was enormous Jewish pressure to attack Iraq, led by prominent Jews such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Israelis were not willing to invade. In fact, few American Jews enlisted to fight Iraq, but rich Jews paid to have poor, gentile rednecks fight there.
Of course, now that it has come out how unjust the American income tax system is, it looks like rich Jews did not really pay that much to the rednecks. They just got Congress to support the war, and the gentile middle class fought and financed Israel's war on Iraq. Thank you Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin and your many Jewish political colleagues. Of course, ironically for both Israel and the US, the Iraq War may have ended up strengthening Iran, thus further endangering Israel, rather than protecting it. Iraq never really posed a threat to the US.
I'm not sure, but Jews may perceive Mormons as less obsessed with Israel than other Christians, perhaps even as somewhat anti-Semitic. Therefore there could be a Jewish movement for anybody but Romney, with Newt currently the most feasible not-Romney.
The article says that Adelson, who was born in America, did not get the Israel bug until middle age, but once he got it, he really got it. It's not surprising that Adelson supports Israel, per my earlier post, but I don't know why Newt is such a fervent supporter of Israel. Why should America base its entire foreign policy on a relatively small country? I doubt that he subscribes to the evangelical Christian ideas about the importance of Israel for the endtime. Newt is not Jewish, but I'm guessing that he likes all the financial and political support that the gets from Jews for espousing pro-Israel policies. Jews have wealth and political influence far exceeding their proportional representation in the American population.
It sounds as if Newt is willing to send thousands of young American gentiles for fight and die in Iran, because Israel feels threatened by Iran. This from a man who was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War. Ironically, Newt's father was apparently in the Army infantry, but Newt had no intention of following in his father's footsteps. Although there were many reasons for the US invasion of Iraq -- 9/11, Bush II's love/hate relationship with his father, massive intelligence failures -- one was certainly the Israeli/Jewish desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein, who in the first Gulf War had fired Scud missiles into Israel. There was enormous Jewish pressure to attack Iraq, led by prominent Jews such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Israelis were not willing to invade. In fact, few American Jews enlisted to fight Iraq, but rich Jews paid to have poor, gentile rednecks fight there.
Of course, now that it has come out how unjust the American income tax system is, it looks like rich Jews did not really pay that much to the rednecks. They just got Congress to support the war, and the gentile middle class fought and financed Israel's war on Iraq. Thank you Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin and your many Jewish political colleagues. Of course, ironically for both Israel and the US, the Iraq War may have ended up strengthening Iran, thus further endangering Israel, rather than protecting it. Iraq never really posed a threat to the US.
I'm not sure, but Jews may perceive Mormons as less obsessed with Israel than other Christians, perhaps even as somewhat anti-Semitic. Therefore there could be a Jewish movement for anybody but Romney, with Newt currently the most feasible not-Romney.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Jews Support Israel over America
I am concerned that many Jews support Israel over America. I hesitate to say this because Jews are so belligerent and "in-your-face" that they will never admit to it. In addition, it is not true about all Jews. There are no doubt many American Jews whose first love is America, rather than Israel, but because the Israel-lovers are so vocal, it is hard to know whether there is a silent majority of America lovers, and if so, how big it is.
It is understandable that after the Holocaust, the Jews would have special relationship with Israel. Israel is sort of like Jews’ "panic room" if there is ever something else like the Holocaust. However, the world of nation states is not exactly like your own house. It is subject to certain international standards, although you are free to flout those standards if you can withstand the international pressure supporting them, e.g., the United Nations, various international courts, etc. One of the main complaints against Israel, in part because it is intended to be a safe home for Jews, is that it engages in apartheid-like discrimination against non-Jews, particularly Muslim Arabs.
In America, the main support for Israel is funneled through AIPAC, although there are many other pro-Israel organizations and publications in the US. It raises the suspicion in my mind that many Jews see the US primarily as a defender of Israel. They support the US, because the US supports Israel. Hence the huge amount of American government aid to Israel, sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Senators, as well as by many gentile politicians. In addition to government-to-government aid, American Jews give huge private donations to Israel and Israeli charities.
The difference between Israel and the home countries of other immigrants to the US is that most American Jews did not emigrate from Israel. Many older Jews came from Europe before Israel even existed. Other immigrants, who came from other countries – European, Asian, African, Latin American – left countries that they were unhappy with for some reason, political, economic or social. Some will go back, but most will stay if America will let them. They chose to leave their birthplace. Most Jews, however, did not choose to leave Israel for America. They were born in America, or left some third country for America. Israel and America facilitate this arrangement by allowing all sorts of dual nationality possibilities that would be very unusual for other countries.
And so Jews who have become very economically and politically powerful in the US use their power to benefit Israel. They are happy to see the US embroiled in the Middle East, spending American lives and treasure on wars that mainly benefit Israel. Jews are pushing very strongly to get America to stop Iran’s nuclear program by force if necessary. If the Iraq war had gone as planned, Israel would have been the main beneficiary, but because the US mucked it up so badly, Iran has probably been the main beneficiary, to the chagrin of both Israel and the US.
I think more Jews vote Democratic than Republican, but in general Republicans seem to pride themselves on being stronger defenders of Israel than Democrats. In the Republican primaries, the candidates have delighted in saying that Obama is not a good enough friend to Israel.
I worry that because of the existence of Israel, there is a danger on issues that in any way affect Israel, from wars in the Middle East to banking regulation, there are influential American Jews who will put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.
It is understandable that after the Holocaust, the Jews would have special relationship with Israel. Israel is sort of like Jews’ "panic room" if there is ever something else like the Holocaust. However, the world of nation states is not exactly like your own house. It is subject to certain international standards, although you are free to flout those standards if you can withstand the international pressure supporting them, e.g., the United Nations, various international courts, etc. One of the main complaints against Israel, in part because it is intended to be a safe home for Jews, is that it engages in apartheid-like discrimination against non-Jews, particularly Muslim Arabs.
In America, the main support for Israel is funneled through AIPAC, although there are many other pro-Israel organizations and publications in the US. It raises the suspicion in my mind that many Jews see the US primarily as a defender of Israel. They support the US, because the US supports Israel. Hence the huge amount of American government aid to Israel, sponsored by Jewish Congressmen and Senators, as well as by many gentile politicians. In addition to government-to-government aid, American Jews give huge private donations to Israel and Israeli charities.
The difference between Israel and the home countries of other immigrants to the US is that most American Jews did not emigrate from Israel. Many older Jews came from Europe before Israel even existed. Other immigrants, who came from other countries – European, Asian, African, Latin American – left countries that they were unhappy with for some reason, political, economic or social. Some will go back, but most will stay if America will let them. They chose to leave their birthplace. Most Jews, however, did not choose to leave Israel for America. They were born in America, or left some third country for America. Israel and America facilitate this arrangement by allowing all sorts of dual nationality possibilities that would be very unusual for other countries.
And so Jews who have become very economically and politically powerful in the US use their power to benefit Israel. They are happy to see the US embroiled in the Middle East, spending American lives and treasure on wars that mainly benefit Israel. Jews are pushing very strongly to get America to stop Iran’s nuclear program by force if necessary. If the Iraq war had gone as planned, Israel would have been the main beneficiary, but because the US mucked it up so badly, Iran has probably been the main beneficiary, to the chagrin of both Israel and the US.
I think more Jews vote Democratic than Republican, but in general Republicans seem to pride themselves on being stronger defenders of Israel than Democrats. In the Republican primaries, the candidates have delighted in saying that Obama is not a good enough friend to Israel.
I worry that because of the existence of Israel, there is a danger on issues that in any way affect Israel, from wars in the Middle East to banking regulation, there are influential American Jews who will put Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.
Monday, January 23, 2012
New Round of Tariffs
I am coming to believe that we need a new round of tariffs to protect American workers. The article on Apple's manufacturing practices in Sunday's New York Times makes it sound like American workers don't have a chance to compete with Chinese workers. Meanwhile an article in Technology Review points out how damaging to workers are the labor practices used by Apple's Chinese suppliers. The only way American workers could compete is probably to subject themselves to the same miserable conditions that the Chinese workers endure. In essence Apple is using slave labor. It's arguable that US workers could compete in some highly mechanized robotic factory, but there is no sign that such a factory is under consideration by anybody, because it is easier and cheaper just to do it with people in China.
The Technology Review article calls for some kind of Fair Trade standard, like that used for coffee. I think it is unlikely that such a standard would be tough enough to make any meaningful change in the electronics industry. A tariff would have to be carefully constructed to avoid another Harley-Smoot disaster, but it could be based on protecting the health and welfare of the workers in exporting countries. The worse the working conditions, the higher the tariff. There could be verifiable standards, death rates of workers, hours worked per day, etc.
Instead of creating pressure to lower US working conditions to Chinese standards, such tariffs would pressure developing countries to provide better working conditions. It would help level the playing field for developing and developed countries. The current system unfairly benefits developing countries such as China.
The Technology Review article calls for some kind of Fair Trade standard, like that used for coffee. I think it is unlikely that such a standard would be tough enough to make any meaningful change in the electronics industry. A tariff would have to be carefully constructed to avoid another Harley-Smoot disaster, but it could be based on protecting the health and welfare of the workers in exporting countries. The worse the working conditions, the higher the tariff. There could be verifiable standards, death rates of workers, hours worked per day, etc.
Instead of creating pressure to lower US working conditions to Chinese standards, such tariffs would pressure developing countries to provide better working conditions. It would help level the playing field for developing and developed countries. The current system unfairly benefits developing countries such as China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)