Friday, December 13, 2013
Income Inequality Forever
I am disappointed that the new budget deal did nothing about income taxes. The budget deal a year ago carried over most of the Bush tax cuts. One group said that it carried over 82% of the tax cuts. These low taxes guarantee that income inequality will continue indefinitely. While some rates went up a little a year ago, income taxes are still extremely low by historical standards. That is certainly a major contributor income inequality. There are a lot of other factors, including outsourcing and the displacement of human workers by computers, but the easiest way to rectify income inequality would be by implementing a more progressive tax structure which would tax higher incomes at a higher rate. This would not affect many of the underlying issues favoring capital over labor in the financial market, as described in the book Race Against the Machine, but it would ameliorate the rate of destruction of the middle and lower classes in the US, ideally giving us time to address the more fundamental structural issues.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Bush and the Iranian Nuclear Program
An op-ed today in the NYT on Bush's failure to invade Iran, by Ari Shavit misses the point. Shavit has gotten lots of praise for not hiding Israel's flaws in his recent book, My Promised Land. However, his article just says that Bush should have attacked Iran rather than Iraq. It's an example of Jewish hatred of Iran that I cited in my previous post, despite Shavit's reputation as an enlightened Israeli.
Where Bush erred regarding Iran's nuclear program was in India. India has flouted the nuclear non-proliferation regime, mainly embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for decades. It has had a clandestine nuclear weapons program ever since it started working on nuclear energy. At the end of his administration, Bush basically said, "Never mind about the NPT, India can have its nuclear program, civilian and military." He made India the example for other proliferating countries, like Iran. He said you can break all the rules, and once you become a true nuclear weapons state like the US and Russia, you can keep your nuclear weapons. This is clearly what Iran wants, if it develops nuclear weapons, and India shows that it is a possibility.
I am not convinced that Iran has made the decision to develop nuclear weapons, and there are many examples of countries that have decided not to. Brazil was once in a position similar to Iran's, having a nuclear energy program that could facilitate the development of nuclear weapons, and Brazil abandoned it and joined the NPT. That could still happen with Iran. Of course, one difference is that Brazil's potential nuclear rival was Argentina. Brazil and Argentina mutually agreed to give up their military programs. Iran's rival is Israel, and maybe Saudi Arabia. Israel is not likely to give up its nuclear weapons program. Saudi Arabia does not have one, and this is not a serious rival, although it has the money to buy one. By retaining its nuclear weapons program, Israel is probably the main factor encouraging Iran to pursue an Iranian bomb.
Another example of a nuclear rivalry is India and Pakistan. India has gotten the US seal of approval on its program. Pakistan has not, but it is so far along, that there is not much the US can do about it. It is probably in America's interest to allow the more responsible Indians to vastly overpower the Pakistani nuclear arsenal as a way of decreasing the likelihood that the crazier Pakistanis might use theirs. However, there should be a better way to accomplish the goal of lowering tensions on the subcontinent without undermining the non-proliferation regime for the whole world, including Iran.
Where Bush erred regarding Iran's nuclear program was in India. India has flouted the nuclear non-proliferation regime, mainly embodied in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for decades. It has had a clandestine nuclear weapons program ever since it started working on nuclear energy. At the end of his administration, Bush basically said, "Never mind about the NPT, India can have its nuclear program, civilian and military." He made India the example for other proliferating countries, like Iran. He said you can break all the rules, and once you become a true nuclear weapons state like the US and Russia, you can keep your nuclear weapons. This is clearly what Iran wants, if it develops nuclear weapons, and India shows that it is a possibility.
I am not convinced that Iran has made the decision to develop nuclear weapons, and there are many examples of countries that have decided not to. Brazil was once in a position similar to Iran's, having a nuclear energy program that could facilitate the development of nuclear weapons, and Brazil abandoned it and joined the NPT. That could still happen with Iran. Of course, one difference is that Brazil's potential nuclear rival was Argentina. Brazil and Argentina mutually agreed to give up their military programs. Iran's rival is Israel, and maybe Saudi Arabia. Israel is not likely to give up its nuclear weapons program. Saudi Arabia does not have one, and this is not a serious rival, although it has the money to buy one. By retaining its nuclear weapons program, Israel is probably the main factor encouraging Iran to pursue an Iranian bomb.
Another example of a nuclear rivalry is India and Pakistan. India has gotten the US seal of approval on its program. Pakistan has not, but it is so far along, that there is not much the US can do about it. It is probably in America's interest to allow the more responsible Indians to vastly overpower the Pakistani nuclear arsenal as a way of decreasing the likelihood that the crazier Pakistanis might use theirs. However, there should be a better way to accomplish the goal of lowering tensions on the subcontinent without undermining the non-proliferation regime for the whole world, including Iran.
Why Stay in Afghanistan?
I don't buy that we are planning to leave American troops in Afghanistan for ten more years because we are afraid of terrorist attacks originating there. Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden set up operations there because it was a weak state out of the public spotlight. Today there are many other countries in a similar situation -- Somalia, Mali, Libya, and others. The Taliban pretty much hate Americans, but there are lots of others around the world who feel the same.
On the other hand, Afghanistan would be a useful base of operations for an invasion of Iran next door. The decision to keep troops in Iran probably has more to do with American and Jewish hatred of Iran than it does with the security of Afghanistan. It's not enough to appease Netanyahu for a US-Iranian nuclear agreement, but it's better than nothing.
On the other hand, Afghanistan would be a useful base of operations for an invasion of Iran next door. The decision to keep troops in Iran probably has more to do with American and Jewish hatred of Iran than it does with the security of Afghanistan. It's not enough to appease Netanyahu for a US-Iranian nuclear agreement, but it's better than nothing.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
JP Morgan and Dimon Guilty
During the 2008 financial meltdown, JP Morgan was often portrayed as the best big bank and the one most willing to work with the government to relieve the crisis. That is probably true, although Wells Fargo seems to have been relatively safe, too, if less interested in helping the government.
The recent settlement between JP Morgan and the government indicates that even the best bank was not very good. It was up to its ears in bad transactions for its customers and investors. It was creating the selling the junk that led to the financial crisis and that destroyed the savings of many home buyers. Jamie Dimon, the best of the big bank CEOs, turns out to have been pretty dirty. Something is rotten on Wall Street. During the recent stock market run-up to Dow 16,000 banks have been among those leading the way up, despite the fact that they seem to be corrupt. This and the recent insider trading convictions/settlements, like SAC's, indicate that most of all of Wall Street is dirty, and thus likes their fellow dirty institutions, like the big banks.
This is not unusual; it happens in all countries where greed gets out of control, but it's unfortunate that it is happening to the US now. It's just another sign of decline. In a better country, the government would have reacted and reined in the miscreants. In this huge fraud, the profits from these illegal trades are so big that even a multi-billion dollar settlement is just a slap on the wrist.
The recent settlement between JP Morgan and the government indicates that even the best bank was not very good. It was up to its ears in bad transactions for its customers and investors. It was creating the selling the junk that led to the financial crisis and that destroyed the savings of many home buyers. Jamie Dimon, the best of the big bank CEOs, turns out to have been pretty dirty. Something is rotten on Wall Street. During the recent stock market run-up to Dow 16,000 banks have been among those leading the way up, despite the fact that they seem to be corrupt. This and the recent insider trading convictions/settlements, like SAC's, indicate that most of all of Wall Street is dirty, and thus likes their fellow dirty institutions, like the big banks.
This is not unusual; it happens in all countries where greed gets out of control, but it's unfortunate that it is happening to the US now. It's just another sign of decline. In a better country, the government would have reacted and reined in the miscreants. In this huge fraud, the profits from these illegal trades are so big that even a multi-billion dollar settlement is just a slap on the wrist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)