Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Political Hot Potato
It has been known for some time that another major spending bill will be needed in Iraq and that the Bush administration is hoping to wait until after the election to deal with it. The Washington Post is reporting that US forces in Iraq may not be able to wait that long. They quote Republican vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee Curt Weldon: "There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not. The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country... Somebody's got to get serious about this." Three ring political circus certain to ensue...
The Republican National Committee Takes Over the IRS & Treasury
John Marshall, the author of Talking Points Memo blog, cues his readers onto a gross abuse of taxpayer funds by the IRS.
Read the following paragraph that appears at the bottom of a US Treasury and IRS press release (dated April 9, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Now read this one, from a RNC factsheet (dated April 2, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
NYT reports that the tax policy statement was included on four separate press releases that were issued that day. The Times also quotes Rob Nichols, a spokesperson for the Treasury department as saying:
Stating our position is appropriate ... . The administration's views on fiscal policy are that lower taxes have helped strengthen the economy and led to an environment of increased job creation.
Fox News reports that the Treasury Department's Inspector General is investigating the matter, along with the IRS's recent analysis of Kerry's tax proposals (you gotta read this IRS press release--it's unbelievable.)
Read the following paragraph that appears at the bottom of a US Treasury and IRS press release (dated April 9, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
Now read this one, from a RNC factsheet (dated April 2, 2004):
America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation.
NYT reports that the tax policy statement was included on four separate press releases that were issued that day. The Times also quotes Rob Nichols, a spokesperson for the Treasury department as saying:
Stating our position is appropriate ... . The administration's views on fiscal policy are that lower taxes have helped strengthen the economy and led to an environment of increased job creation.
Fox News reports that the Treasury Department's Inspector General is investigating the matter, along with the IRS's recent analysis of Kerry's tax proposals (you gotta read this IRS press release--it's unbelievable.)
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Re: Fair at Work?
There is one point that I want to get out there before getting to the meat of your question: If individuals were afforded special consideration for family life, then it must apply equally to dads as it would to moms. I see no reason to favor women in that regard over men in similar circumstances. Indeed, providing unequal treatment in that regard would most likely be judged to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As to whether the government should afford some special protection to parents in the workplace, I have two problems. First, the free market is generally a good thing and unless there is a demonstrated market failure, if workers provide valuable skills and demand greater flexibility in the workplace so that they can better balance a family, one could argue that the market would provide such opportunities. Second, there is the potential that government regulation along the lines that you propose would end up hurting those people who decide not to have kids and instead focus on work. I do not see any good reason why government should weigh in and favor parents over non-parents in the workplace.
That being said, I do think there is a market failure. Often, "non-traditional" workers are discriminated against in the workplace. And every workplace I have observed firsthand comes in the "one-size-fits-all" variety, although that size does not in fact fit all. Workers who propose nontraditional working arrangements are generally not well received, even though they may offer value to that employer and be tremendously happier as a result. So there is room for the government to step in and encourage innovation (tax incentives might be one way to approach the problem).
One difficulty that exists in encouraging flexibility is that it is really hard to measure the value of any given employee. Because workers cannot easily weed out the lazy workers from the really valuable employees, it is hard to create different working conditions to suit different workers. Another problem is that workers just do not have a lot of market power to demand changes. Realistically, a job applicant cannot sit down with a prospective employer and propose his or her own hours and workplace conditions. If the government were to step in, I suggest they do so in a way that gives workers more power to demand flexibility--but only to the extent that those changes would be a positive for the worker and offer greater profitability for the employer.
As to whether the government should afford some special protection to parents in the workplace, I have two problems. First, the free market is generally a good thing and unless there is a demonstrated market failure, if workers provide valuable skills and demand greater flexibility in the workplace so that they can better balance a family, one could argue that the market would provide such opportunities. Second, there is the potential that government regulation along the lines that you propose would end up hurting those people who decide not to have kids and instead focus on work. I do not see any good reason why government should weigh in and favor parents over non-parents in the workplace.
That being said, I do think there is a market failure. Often, "non-traditional" workers are discriminated against in the workplace. And every workplace I have observed firsthand comes in the "one-size-fits-all" variety, although that size does not in fact fit all. Workers who propose nontraditional working arrangements are generally not well received, even though they may offer value to that employer and be tremendously happier as a result. So there is room for the government to step in and encourage innovation (tax incentives might be one way to approach the problem).
One difficulty that exists in encouraging flexibility is that it is really hard to measure the value of any given employee. Because workers cannot easily weed out the lazy workers from the really valuable employees, it is hard to create different working conditions to suit different workers. Another problem is that workers just do not have a lot of market power to demand changes. Realistically, a job applicant cannot sit down with a prospective employer and propose his or her own hours and workplace conditions. If the government were to step in, I suggest they do so in a way that gives workers more power to demand flexibility--but only to the extent that those changes would be a positive for the worker and offer greater profitability for the employer.
Re: Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens (Part II)
I agree with Joe's contention that turning cops into INS agents will discourage the "invisible" illegal immigrants from seeking police protection, and that is a bad thing. But I place greater emphasis on the point that Joe only glosses over--how we should address illegal immigration in the first place. Enforcing immigration laws would not be so hard if we were serious about doing it. If the Government imposed strict penalties on anyone employing an illegal alien, then those seeking a better life in America simply would not find the better life they were looking for, and go home. But several industries are dependent on the low-wage labor that illegal immigrants provide, so the Government looks the other way.
Joe approaches the question from the perspective that illegal immigrants are here, and argues that we must find a way to deal with them until better immigration enforcement is put in place. From that standpoint, I agree that all individuals within our borders deserve certain rights and police protection is certainly a basic right. But what about education? And health care? I see those as tougher issues because people might cross into our country just to receive the basic entitlements afforded to everyone within our borders, even if they could not secure employment. So long as the grass is greener, people will come. So we would need to monitor our borders in conjunction with imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal immigrants if we are really serious about keeping those people out that we don't want here.
What I find missing in most discussions of illegal immigration is the point that our nation is made up of immigrants (mostly). We have wrongly turned our back on those seeking a better life, instead of trying to find ways to give them that better life. How do we accomplish that goal while maintaining a high quality of life for those of us already here? That to me is the real challenge.
Joe approaches the question from the perspective that illegal immigrants are here, and argues that we must find a way to deal with them until better immigration enforcement is put in place. From that standpoint, I agree that all individuals within our borders deserve certain rights and police protection is certainly a basic right. But what about education? And health care? I see those as tougher issues because people might cross into our country just to receive the basic entitlements afforded to everyone within our borders, even if they could not secure employment. So long as the grass is greener, people will come. So we would need to monitor our borders in conjunction with imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal immigrants if we are really serious about keeping those people out that we don't want here.
What I find missing in most discussions of illegal immigration is the point that our nation is made up of immigrants (mostly). We have wrongly turned our back on those seeking a better life, instead of trying to find ways to give them that better life. How do we accomplish that goal while maintaining a high quality of life for those of us already here? That to me is the real challenge.
Re: Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens
First off I understand the term "the wall" in a far more limited way than discussed in the CSMonitor article to which you refer, as well as your discussion suggests. I want to turn to the issues that you raise about the need to separate immigration and criminal enforcement functions as a policy matter, but that is different than the issue raised by the 9/11 Commission (at least as I understand it). Before getting to your points, then, let me offer a few points on the current debate related to "the wall."
FISA and "The Wall"
As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick used the phrase in her WP commentary, and as Andrew McCarthy did in his criticism of Gorelick [National Review Online], (not to mention several.other.commentators on the same topic), "the wall" addresses the legal barrier that was built specifically in response to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). That Act permits intrusions into the liberty of "foreign powers" and agents of foreign powers under different rules than normally apply to searches and seizures.
A special appeals court (appointed specially for the purpose of evaluating issues arising under FISA) ruled that FISA was constitutional as applied to foreign powers and their agents even if the information obtained was used for criminal prosecution. Up until that ruling, some were concerned that the FISA procedures may suffice for purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence information but not sufficient for criminal prosecutions. Therefore, lawyers for the DOJ thought that the two functions needed to be separate--thus, a wall between the two functions was put in place.
Various groups, including the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), raised constitutional challenges to the lowering of the wall between criminal functions and foreign intelligence-gathering. The thrust of their argument as I understand it was that the Fourth Amendment requires (1) probable cause, (2) reasonableness in relation to the stated purpose of the search or seizure, and (3) particularity of the place or person to be searched, and FISA as applied to criminal prosecutions does not meet those three requirements (see this FAQ from the EFF explaining the issues). The Court rejected that argument, finding that FISA procedures were constitutionally adequate.
My concern with the Court's ruling is that FISA now permits the government to intrude upon a non-citizen's liberty interests far too easily--under the rubric of national security. As long as the DOJ shows that foreign intelligence-gathering is a "significant purpose" of the search or seizure (rather than the "primary purpose"), a warrant will be issued under FISA. The government must meet a far greater burden to obtain a warrant under normal criminal investigations. That "burden" goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protections. Yet some, like Andrew McCarthy, appear to view those protections as nothing more than a nuisance:
It is, of course, a reality that in the law-enforcement realm, because it is hopelessly lawyerized and hyper-vigilant about civil liberties, we actually are forced to worry about such things as the privacy rights of drug dealers. Thus, we do find ourselves litigating ad nauseam such commonsense matters as whether, just because you properly heard something, you should be allowed to use it to protect the public.
Where national security is at stake, McCarthy contends that we can entirely abandon all procedural protections because they are just "theoretical" concerns. I wholeheartedly disagree. The Fourth Amendment extends equally to all persons in the United States and although I recognize that genuine threats to national security deserve a different approach than a garden-variety criminal investigation, the government should not be able to dress up a criminal case in "national security" cloth to escape the procedural protections provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, because our nation is so terrorized by terror, we allow that to happen with little or no scrutiny.
Call me a cynic if you must, but I believe that we all must scrutinize government conduct as closely and as often as possible or we risk losing the rights upon which our great country was founded. The FISA warrants provide an ideal illustration--in the roughly 25 years that the Act has been in place, the DOJ itself has documented 75 material misstatements made to the FISA court to obtain warrants under that Act (see Dahlia Lithwick's commentary [Slate] for more details). Before 2002, of the 10,000 applications for FISA warrants, not one request was turned down.
Surely we should not ignore the threat that terrorism poses to our personal security. But at the same time I hope we do not cease to fear tyranny.
FISA and "The Wall"
As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick used the phrase in her WP commentary, and as Andrew McCarthy did in his criticism of Gorelick [National Review Online], (not to mention several.other.commentators on the same topic), "the wall" addresses the legal barrier that was built specifically in response to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). That Act permits intrusions into the liberty of "foreign powers" and agents of foreign powers under different rules than normally apply to searches and seizures.
A special appeals court (appointed specially for the purpose of evaluating issues arising under FISA) ruled that FISA was constitutional as applied to foreign powers and their agents even if the information obtained was used for criminal prosecution. Up until that ruling, some were concerned that the FISA procedures may suffice for purposes of obtaining foreign intelligence information but not sufficient for criminal prosecutions. Therefore, lawyers for the DOJ thought that the two functions needed to be separate--thus, a wall between the two functions was put in place.
Various groups, including the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), raised constitutional challenges to the lowering of the wall between criminal functions and foreign intelligence-gathering. The thrust of their argument as I understand it was that the Fourth Amendment requires (1) probable cause, (2) reasonableness in relation to the stated purpose of the search or seizure, and (3) particularity of the place or person to be searched, and FISA as applied to criminal prosecutions does not meet those three requirements (see this FAQ from the EFF explaining the issues). The Court rejected that argument, finding that FISA procedures were constitutionally adequate.
My concern with the Court's ruling is that FISA now permits the government to intrude upon a non-citizen's liberty interests far too easily--under the rubric of national security. As long as the DOJ shows that foreign intelligence-gathering is a "significant purpose" of the search or seizure (rather than the "primary purpose"), a warrant will be issued under FISA. The government must meet a far greater burden to obtain a warrant under normal criminal investigations. That "burden" goes to the heart of the Fourth Amendment's protections. Yet some, like Andrew McCarthy, appear to view those protections as nothing more than a nuisance:
It is, of course, a reality that in the law-enforcement realm, because it is hopelessly lawyerized and hyper-vigilant about civil liberties, we actually are forced to worry about such things as the privacy rights of drug dealers. Thus, we do find ourselves litigating ad nauseam such commonsense matters as whether, just because you properly heard something, you should be allowed to use it to protect the public.
Where national security is at stake, McCarthy contends that we can entirely abandon all procedural protections because they are just "theoretical" concerns. I wholeheartedly disagree. The Fourth Amendment extends equally to all persons in the United States and although I recognize that genuine threats to national security deserve a different approach than a garden-variety criminal investigation, the government should not be able to dress up a criminal case in "national security" cloth to escape the procedural protections provided by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, because our nation is so terrorized by terror, we allow that to happen with little or no scrutiny.
Call me a cynic if you must, but I believe that we all must scrutinize government conduct as closely and as often as possible or we risk losing the rights upon which our great country was founded. The FISA warrants provide an ideal illustration--in the roughly 25 years that the Act has been in place, the DOJ itself has documented 75 material misstatements made to the FISA court to obtain warrants under that Act (see Dahlia Lithwick's commentary [Slate] for more details). Before 2002, of the 10,000 applications for FISA warrants, not one request was turned down.
Surely we should not ignore the threat that terrorism poses to our personal security. But at the same time I hope we do not cease to fear tyranny.
Oral Arguments in Gitmo Case Available at C-SPAN
In a rather unusual move, the Supreme Court has released audio from today's oral arguments and may be accessed here [CSPAN]. The Court also plans to release the oral arguments on the case involving Cheney's refusal to hand over documents related to the task force to develop an energy policy (the case that gave rise to the ever-entertaining imbroglio of duck hunting) and the Hamdi-Padilla arguments (the US citizens detained as enemy combatants). Both cases go in front of the Supreme Court next week.
FAIR AT WORK?
I Would like to hear your input on if working moms should get "special treatment" on scheduling, time off, and other family "excuses". Do you think other employees should get ahead on promotions since they put more hours or as some people put it "put all their heart" into work?
Law Enforcement and Illegal Aliens
A CSM editorial today praises work done to eliminate the wall, which they refer to as "old and needless", between law enforcement and immigration control. I can't say that I entirely agree with their sentiment. There is a reason for the wall, and not as CSM suggests, in order to prevent racial profiling. There are millions of illegal immigrants in the US, many of them living in relatively concentrated areas. Whether they should be here and how we should deal with them from an immigration standpoint is a good question, the answer to which we haven't quite figured out yet. But the point is they are here. Bringing local police into the immigration enforcement business means that none of these illegal immigrants will go to the police for help. And it's not secret that crime and exploitation flourish in situations where there no legal means to address them. This move will create communities rife with lawlessness, havens for criminals, sweatshops, drug traffickers, and possibly even terrorists. In my opinion local law enforcement should have an open door for illegal immigrants, no questions asked, so that they don't get shut out from these communities. Let the feds deal with immigration. If at some later date we are able to substantially reduce the number of illegals in the US, the wall may not need to exist, but while illegal aliens number somewhere over 10 million, for our own sake and theirs, we can't afford to cut them all off from the protection of law enforcement.
Pottery Barn Takes Issue With Powell's Statement--Considers Starting PB Anti-Defamation League
See this article, entitled "Powell's Potterygate Slip" [NY Daily News]. Pottery Barn spokesperson Leigh Oshirak clarifies that they really do not have a "you break it, you buy it" rule:
A good percentage of Pottery Barn's inventory is beds and other furniture, and we do sell ceramics, glassware, kitchenware and other things that are breakable. But if something breaks, that's the cost of doing business. We always put our customers first - that's part of our corporate values. If someone breaks a wine glass, for instance, our managers just mark it down as 'out of stock.' The customer isn't asked to pay for it.
In response to the State Department's statement that no aspersions toward Pottery Barn were intended, Oshirark stated: "Well, it's out there."
For some reason this story reminds me of an event a few months back where a lady got trampled at Wal-Mart trying to snatch a $29 DVD player. A Wal-Mart spokesperson later said they were disappointed that the stampede happened and hoped the woman returned to Wal-Mart as a shopper. They even offered to put a DVD player on hold for her while she recovered [see this BBC account]. Kinda makes you feel for these corporations, doesn't it?
A good percentage of Pottery Barn's inventory is beds and other furniture, and we do sell ceramics, glassware, kitchenware and other things that are breakable. But if something breaks, that's the cost of doing business. We always put our customers first - that's part of our corporate values. If someone breaks a wine glass, for instance, our managers just mark it down as 'out of stock.' The customer isn't asked to pay for it.
In response to the State Department's statement that no aspersions toward Pottery Barn were intended, Oshirark stated: "Well, it's out there."
For some reason this story reminds me of an event a few months back where a lady got trampled at Wal-Mart trying to snatch a $29 DVD player. A Wal-Mart spokesperson later said they were disappointed that the stampede happened and hoped the woman returned to Wal-Mart as a shopper. They even offered to put a DVD player on hold for her while she recovered [see this BBC account]. Kinda makes you feel for these corporations, doesn't it?
Monday, April 19, 2004
Hurrah For TV-Turnoff Week
This week is the 10th annual National TV-Turnoff Week. CSM has a supportive editorial. Slashdot also discussed this event, and the response of slashdrones was overwhelmingly positive. Obviously much more needs to be done to combat the corrosive influence of TV-culture (as per our Bowling Alone discussions), but it's good to see the idea seems to be gaining momentum.
Iran and Sadr
CSM has a great writeup of Iran's intervention with Sadr. It's clear that the CPA was none too enthusiastic about Iran getting involved. That may have tied Iran's hands as far as working out a deal...
Gorelick's Defense, in Her Own Words
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick has been taking some heat lately for her role in the Clinton administration, and she has this to say in her own response [WP].
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Woodward's book
There has been lots of talk over the weekend about Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack. Several of the charges are sure to raise some concern over the coming week, but the one I find most troubling is the claim that President Bush diverted some funds that were allocated for the Afghanistan military efforts to start the build-up for an Iraq invasion in July 2002, unbeknownst to Congress.
I have been trying to research this point, but I have been unable to locate the specific appropriation that Woodward refers to. The Bush administration's early response is that the money was not tied down to specific activity (see this article discussing the Bush team's response to many of the charges) [USAT]. Also, see the transcript of Condi Rice's appearance on Face the Nation Sunday where she discusses the charges (thanks, Joe).
This is a most serious charge. Article II, Sec. 8 sub.7 provides:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
I imagine that members of Congress (particularly those with a "D" next to their name) will be screaming bloody murder about this over the course of the week. And as well they should. President Bush will have to provide a better answer than he has come up with so far.
I have been trying to research this point, but I have been unable to locate the specific appropriation that Woodward refers to. The Bush administration's early response is that the money was not tied down to specific activity (see this article discussing the Bush team's response to many of the charges) [USAT]. Also, see the transcript of Condi Rice's appearance on Face the Nation Sunday where she discusses the charges (thanks, Joe).
This is a most serious charge. Article II, Sec. 8 sub.7 provides:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
I imagine that members of Congress (particularly those with a "D" next to their name) will be screaming bloody murder about this over the course of the week. And as well they should. President Bush will have to provide a better answer than he has come up with so far.
The Wonders of Internet Culture
I have discovered (thanks to one of my forums) Japan's answer to badger badger badger. I can imagine no appropriate commentary to accompany that, aside maybe from WTF!?! I love the internet.
Friday, April 16, 2004
How to Discuss Iraq
This is my last one for today (probably).. The Washington Post today features a couple of columns about how Iraq is, or should be, discussed in the presidential campaign. In his column, Campaigning on Defeat, former Senator Fred Thompson, criticizes criticism of the war. He says that the president's opponents cheer for failures and celebrate setbacks. He claims that they feel that there is a "constituency to be won from failure abroad." He states that we're there now, so instead of repeating claims that the war was a mistake, critics have an obligation to explain how they will secure victory. At the end he over-extends his wrong, but not entirely outrageous argument, to say that not only is such criticism politically dishonest, but that it materially helps the terrorists to even suggest that management of Iraq should be led by the UN or international allies. Woah, Nelly.
So, there is a part of his criticism that is interesting. That is the idea that war critics celebrate defeat, and also that since the choice is long over with, we shouldn't waste time discussing whether the war was a good idea, but rather should focus on how to win it now. The first charge is a good one. It's a zinger, in many ways it rings true, and it certainly appeals to the picture that Bush-supporters like to paint of their opposition. But I, obviously, don't think it's true. What I do think is true is that critics, like myself, opposed the war because we thought it would be a disastrous policy; costly, complicated, difficult, and possibly doomed to ultimate failure. When things go wrong, there may be a small element of "I told you so", but there's a much larger element of "don't you get it yet!?" When I see some new catastrophe in Iraq, I often think, maybe this will finally be it, maybe we'll get a clue, change tack, and really try to fix this thing. So far, no luck. It's not about being glad things go wrong, it's about feeling a certainty that things will go very wrong and hoping that there will be enough early warning signs that we will change course in time to avert disaster. As to whether or not it is important to talk, so long after the fact, about the initial decision on the war, of course it is. In his approach to the war on Iraq, George W. Bush made the greatest US foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. How can that not be a relevant topic to discuss as we assess the President's performance during his reelection campaign?
The one point on which Thompson is tangentially correct is that it is important to discuss what should be our course of action now that we're stuck in Iraq. I don't think that this topic should be separated from the topic of whether the war should have been fought in the first place. The manner in which we launched this war is precisely what created the rather untenable situation in Iraq we now face. Because we went in under false pretenses, without a UN mandate, without a significant coalition, without Arab and Muslim support, we have a huge legitimacy crisis and carry the entire burden of Iraq on our unilateral shoulders. Now there are no good choices, only choices between bad and worse. That needs to be noted when discussing what to do now.
On the topic of what should be done now, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake have a Post column detailing their recommendations. Those are essentially as follows: Delay the handover of sovereignty until elections can be held. A turnover of power before that will be a sham and the Iraqis will see right through it. Increase the number of US troops in Iraq and use our renewed commitment to security in Iraq to convince our allies to also increase their forces in Iraq. And in the interim while we wait for elections and a new Iraqi government, form a true coalition governing authority that involves allied nations and puts a non-American at the helm. Great recommendations, all.
So, there is a part of his criticism that is interesting. That is the idea that war critics celebrate defeat, and also that since the choice is long over with, we shouldn't waste time discussing whether the war was a good idea, but rather should focus on how to win it now. The first charge is a good one. It's a zinger, in many ways it rings true, and it certainly appeals to the picture that Bush-supporters like to paint of their opposition. But I, obviously, don't think it's true. What I do think is true is that critics, like myself, opposed the war because we thought it would be a disastrous policy; costly, complicated, difficult, and possibly doomed to ultimate failure. When things go wrong, there may be a small element of "I told you so", but there's a much larger element of "don't you get it yet!?" When I see some new catastrophe in Iraq, I often think, maybe this will finally be it, maybe we'll get a clue, change tack, and really try to fix this thing. So far, no luck. It's not about being glad things go wrong, it's about feeling a certainty that things will go very wrong and hoping that there will be enough early warning signs that we will change course in time to avert disaster. As to whether or not it is important to talk, so long after the fact, about the initial decision on the war, of course it is. In his approach to the war on Iraq, George W. Bush made the greatest US foreign policy blunder in my lifetime. How can that not be a relevant topic to discuss as we assess the President's performance during his reelection campaign?
The one point on which Thompson is tangentially correct is that it is important to discuss what should be our course of action now that we're stuck in Iraq. I don't think that this topic should be separated from the topic of whether the war should have been fought in the first place. The manner in which we launched this war is precisely what created the rather untenable situation in Iraq we now face. Because we went in under false pretenses, without a UN mandate, without a significant coalition, without Arab and Muslim support, we have a huge legitimacy crisis and carry the entire burden of Iraq on our unilateral shoulders. Now there are no good choices, only choices between bad and worse. That needs to be noted when discussing what to do now.
On the topic of what should be done now, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and Clinton national security adviser Anthony Lake have a Post column detailing their recommendations. Those are essentially as follows: Delay the handover of sovereignty until elections can be held. A turnover of power before that will be a sham and the Iraqis will see right through it. Increase the number of US troops in Iraq and use our renewed commitment to security in Iraq to convince our allies to also increase their forces in Iraq. And in the interim while we wait for elections and a new Iraqi government, form a true coalition governing authority that involves allied nations and puts a non-American at the helm. Great recommendations, all.
I like this Juan Cole Fellow
For the second time this week, I would like to refer y'all to Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment. For a history professor, he sure has a good handle on current events. His most recent posts address the current derailing of the al-Sadr deal (in part due to the assassination of one of the Iranian diplomats), the duality of the Bush foreign policy, and the US abandoning all hope of being an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It is also worth reading Cole's comparison of Fallujah to Palestine that was published by Salon.com (even though Salon makes you sit through a commercial to access the whole article. But I suppose I prefer that to Wall Street Journal's subscriber-only access). He argues that in a very strange way, Israel's conduct in Palestine has brought Shiite and Sunni forces in Iraq together like no one else has been able to accomplish. He contends that the recent uprisings in Fallujah and those of Sadr's forces were both in response to Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and that Arab television is portraying the seige on Fallujah in much the same light as Israel's seige on the West Bank and Gaza.
Although I am not sure how far I would extend the comparison, I certainly think that neither Israel nor America can claim the moral highground in its recent military operations. The missile strike on the mosque in Fallujah last week has not gone over well in the Middle East (and I suspect that today's mosque-shelling [Melbourne Herald Sun] won't win over anyone either). And then of course there's America's Psych-Ops, like blaring insults over loudspeakers such as "you shoot like a goat-herder" [AP].
It is a big mistake to approach the security of Fallujah as Israel deals with Palestine, and we are both feeling the repurcutions of treating an occupied group as though they were less-than-human. Most importantly, however, I hope that comparison does not extend to mean that we should anticipate a long, drawn out battle that may determine the very survival of our nation.
It is also worth reading Cole's comparison of Fallujah to Palestine that was published by Salon.com (even though Salon makes you sit through a commercial to access the whole article. But I suppose I prefer that to Wall Street Journal's subscriber-only access). He argues that in a very strange way, Israel's conduct in Palestine has brought Shiite and Sunni forces in Iraq together like no one else has been able to accomplish. He contends that the recent uprisings in Fallujah and those of Sadr's forces were both in response to Israel's assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, and that Arab television is portraying the seige on Fallujah in much the same light as Israel's seige on the West Bank and Gaza.
Although I am not sure how far I would extend the comparison, I certainly think that neither Israel nor America can claim the moral highground in its recent military operations. The missile strike on the mosque in Fallujah last week has not gone over well in the Middle East (and I suspect that today's mosque-shelling [Melbourne Herald Sun] won't win over anyone either). And then of course there's America's Psych-Ops, like blaring insults over loudspeakers such as "you shoot like a goat-herder" [AP].
It is a big mistake to approach the security of Fallujah as Israel deals with Palestine, and we are both feeling the repurcutions of treating an occupied group as though they were less-than-human. Most importantly, however, I hope that comparison does not extend to mean that we should anticipate a long, drawn out battle that may determine the very survival of our nation.
No Longer An Honest Broker
There's plenty of coverage today of Bush's endorsement for Sharon's unilateral plans. While I personally have some serious questions as to whether the US has ever been an honest broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the consensus among commentators is that if we were an honest broker, we aren't any more. It's really somewhat amazing that the Bush administration would do this now, deliberately provoking arab and muslim outrage immediately after their overreach in attempting to simultaneously tackle Muqtada Al-Sadr and Fallujah. It has never been more clear that ideology trumps reality with this administration. How much gasoline do they want to pour on this fire?
Meanwhile Washington Post columnist David Ignatius begs the public to see past the attractive simplicity of Bush's policies to the nuanced reality on the ground. Good luck with that, Dave. You're gonna need it.
Speaking of "on the ground", Pakistan's Daily Times makes a good observation on the use of that phrase by George Bush (this was also excerpted by CSM). Bush claimed that he was agreeing to the permanent annexation of Israeli settlements, because of the "realities on the ground". The Times points out that if that is the basis for such decisions, if the Palestinians don't want to have to accept the permanent presence of these settlements, their only choice is to change the reality on the ground, ie, attack and destroy the settlements. Writes the editorial: "If there are indeed ‘realities on the ground’, which Israel has created through use of force, and if they are to be worked into an uneven agreement, then the Palestinians can argue that the only way to an honourable peace is for them to try and change the ground realities. And that can only happen on the ground. Corollary: more violence."
Meanwhile Washington Post columnist David Ignatius begs the public to see past the attractive simplicity of Bush's policies to the nuanced reality on the ground. Good luck with that, Dave. You're gonna need it.
Speaking of "on the ground", Pakistan's Daily Times makes a good observation on the use of that phrase by George Bush (this was also excerpted by CSM). Bush claimed that he was agreeing to the permanent annexation of Israeli settlements, because of the "realities on the ground". The Times points out that if that is the basis for such decisions, if the Palestinians don't want to have to accept the permanent presence of these settlements, their only choice is to change the reality on the ground, ie, attack and destroy the settlements. Writes the editorial: "If there are indeed ‘realities on the ground’, which Israel has created through use of force, and if they are to be worked into an uneven agreement, then the Palestinians can argue that the only way to an honourable peace is for them to try and change the ground realities. And that can only happen on the ground. Corollary: more violence."
The Impact of Fallujah
While the fighting in Fallujah is not likely over, the effects of the battle are already being assessed. One of the goals for the US in Iraq was to create a sense of national unity between Sunnis and Shias. Well, mission accomplished. The two factions are now united in their desire to shed American blood. Moreover, CSM reports, that the strong US response in Fallujah has changed Iraqi perceptions of the US occupation, and not for the better. There is an eye-witness account of the fighting in Fallujah running on alternet.org, and while I'm not sure how far to trust its veracity (the writer tends to have a strongly leftist perspective), it presents a powerful explanation for the Iraqi reaction against US actions there. But then, even if this account is exaggerated against the US forces, is it likely to be any different than the manner in which these events will be reported on Al-Jazeera? As of now, the US effort to pacify Fallujah is the defining event of the occupation of Iraq, and I suspect it will be some months before we fully realize the impact that it has had. If the coalition does not come up with some effective damage control for this situation it will be to our everlasting regret.
For A Better, More Honest Negative Ad Campaign
Here's some brilliant campaign season satire from The Onion. Instead of insulting and demeaning the voters by launching shallow attacks against one another, why not get right to the point and attack the voters themselves. A suggested Kerry ad says: "In the past four years, America's national debt has reached an all-time high. And who's responsible? You are. You're sitting there eating a big bowl of Fritos, watching TV, and getting fatter as the country goes to hell. You ought to be ashamed of yourself." Awesome. And how much would I give for copies of the pictured posters:
Thursday, April 15, 2004
G'bye, IGC. And Good Riddance!
UN Advisor Lakhdar Brahimi lays out his proposals (in a somewhat vague way) in this press release by the UN. The transcript of the news conference makes for better reading, as it lays down point by point the advisor's "preliminary observations." The most exciting point that I see is that Brahimi says let's be done with the Chalabi-led Iraqi Governing Council once and for all, and offer in its place a "caretaker government."
The most upsetting point as I see it is the dismissive way that the concept of "sovereignty" is being addressed. It is not, as Brahimi--and Bush, for that matter--suggest. If the transition is to have any merit, then real and not just symbolic power must be given back to Iraq. But that is unlikely, says Professor Joseph Nye--the soft-power guy. He was interviewed for this article in the LA Times last week, where he said that the June 30 transition "is mostly symbolic" and amounts to little more than changing the "Coalition Provisional Authority" headed by Bremer to "the United States Embassy" in Iraq, headed up by someone else (I heard talk it might be Wolfowitz. That would be real smart.).
The most upsetting point as I see it is the dismissive way that the concept of "sovereignty" is being addressed. It is not, as Brahimi--and Bush, for that matter--suggest. If the transition is to have any merit, then real and not just symbolic power must be given back to Iraq. But that is unlikely, says Professor Joseph Nye--the soft-power guy. He was interviewed for this article in the LA Times last week, where he said that the June 30 transition "is mostly symbolic" and amounts to little more than changing the "Coalition Provisional Authority" headed by Bremer to "the United States Embassy" in Iraq, headed up by someone else (I heard talk it might be Wolfowitz. That would be real smart.).
Crap--Spoke Too Soon
I don't know whether this bit of news will necessarily unravel everything about the peace deal, but it may very well cause the Iranian delegation to withdraw. Just when things start looking up...
Can We Now Sigh In Relief?
I have to admit that I was worried there for a little while that we were going down a rabbit hole from which we could not crawl out. But it appears that the situation in Iraq is starting to stabilize, according to this post by Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan. He reports that al-Zaman, an arabic newspaper, claims that al-Sadr and Coalition forces have struck a deal with the help of the moderate (but nationalist) Shiite group, Da'wa. The deal gives Sadr exile in Iran, at least until his trial is to begin in Najaf for the assassination charges. I will be interested to see how the US media portrays the deal.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Bringing Peace to the Middle-East
In a meeting with Israeli PM Ariel Sharon today, George Bush heartily endorsed Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, put on hold (according to Sharon) any possibility of a Palestinian state "for many years", ok'ed the permanent annexation of settlements by Israel and rejected outright the Palestinian right of return. All in a good day's work, I guess. Bush said these actions would lead to a "peaceful, democratic, viable Palestinian state." Obviously.
And the Palestinians? Ahmed Qurei remarked of the concessions, it "kills the rights of the Palestinian people" and "we cannot accept this under any circumstances". Yasser Arafat stated that the moves were "clearly the complete end of the peace process" and predicted new violence.
Here's the bonus prize as regards a peaceful resolution of the conflict: Ariel Sharon, who has proven a walking disaster where the peace process is concerned, has been in the political dumps lately, having largely failed to pacify the Palestinians, having presided over one of the worst economic downturns in Israeli history, and having recently been embroiled in a corruption scandal. However, this plan, which most critics believed needed Bush's support in order to go forward, may save his political bacon. Not only does this move completely derail the peace process, but it keeps Sharon in power to make sure it doesn't get back on track again.
And the Palestinians? Ahmed Qurei remarked of the concessions, it "kills the rights of the Palestinian people" and "we cannot accept this under any circumstances". Yasser Arafat stated that the moves were "clearly the complete end of the peace process" and predicted new violence.
Here's the bonus prize as regards a peaceful resolution of the conflict: Ariel Sharon, who has proven a walking disaster where the peace process is concerned, has been in the political dumps lately, having largely failed to pacify the Palestinians, having presided over one of the worst economic downturns in Israeli history, and having recently been embroiled in a corruption scandal. However, this plan, which most critics believed needed Bush's support in order to go forward, may save his political bacon. Not only does this move completely derail the peace process, but it keeps Sharon in power to make sure it doesn't get back on track again.
Happy Birthday BWJ
Happy birthday to us! Boys Weekend Journal is one year old. We may not be ready for a Krugman-esque compilation book, but I think our experiment has proved a success. It has certainly been an entertaining diversion and a stimulating source of information and ideas for me. Here's to many years to follow.
And speaking of birthdays, I just put up a few pics from my birthday in Chicago last week. It's about 1.5mb in pics, so it may take a minute to load.
And speaking of birthdays, I just put up a few pics from my birthday in Chicago last week. It's about 1.5mb in pics, so it may take a minute to load.
Monday, April 12, 2004
In Afghanistan
CSM is running a phenomenal column by Ryung Suh, a US Army surgeon serving in Afghanistan. The column discusses the thoughts and feelings of Mr. Suh and his companions on Afghanistan, their conflict, US tactics and motivations. Eloquent and insightful, this is the best bit of writing I have so far seen on the intervention in Afghanistan.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Elevating Trade Discussions
There's a very nice article in Foreign Policy Mag about How to Be a Free Trade Democrat. The author, former Clinton advisor Gene Sperling, critcizes the pandering vilification of trade by Democratic politcians and proposes some new approaches. I think he's pretty much on the money. The discussion should not be pro-trade vs anti-trade, but more a recognition of the impacts and ramifications of trade on the economy, and how to better deal with it. There is little to be gained by abandoning free trade, but we clearly could be doing a better job of reshaping our economy to take advantage of the opportunities of trade while not inflicting harsh penalties on those who bear the impact of the changing economy. Sperling's suggestions follow three main directives: 1) demonstrate the values of trade and how the US can use them to our advantage, 2) identify at-risk workers and industries, make efforts to shore them up against global competition, and where necessary provide a safety net to aid in the transition of workers to new jobs in new industries, and 3) recognize and promote the potential of trade to improve the economies of third world nations and reduce global poverty. These are all very good suggestions.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Paying the Price for the Dollar
CSM is running a column that dismisses the frequently cited causes for rising oil prices (conflict in the Middle East, swelling demand, etc), and pins the blame on the falling dollar values. The authors point out that while the price of oil in dollars has risen 51% in the past two years, the price has only risen 4% in euros. They further tie the fall in the dollar to ruinous government budget deficits. While the popular political ploy is to blame rising prices on the greed of OPEC nations, it clearly would be worthwhile to consider the impact of our own budget decisions.
Going To Hell In A Handbasket
It's been a tough couple weeks for the coalition in Iraq. Today saw protests, riots, and gun battles across Baghdad, Ramadi, Falluja, Najaf, al-Shuala, Nasiriya, and Basra. Most of the recent trouble is coming from Shia groups who previously had not given the coalition much difficulty. Now Al-Qaeda has released a tape in which they threaten to assassinate US leaders in Iraq. Meanwhile Donald (the other "the Donald") Rumsfeld says that things are under control and we don't need more troops in Iraq. Maybe he's not reading the same news I'm reading...
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
So You're Saying There's a Chance...
Boston Globe's analysis on a McCain nomination can be found here.
Corporate Tax Evaders
CNN has this article reporting that more than 60% of U.S. Corporations did not pay any federal taxes from 1996 through 2000, according to a GAO report released April 2 (the report may be accessed here). The report studied the tax liabilities of both foreign and domestic corporations presumably to determine whether foreign corporations were evading their tax liabilities. The two most interesting factoids from the report: (1) fully 94% of all corporations reported tax liabilities of less than 5% of their total income, even though the federal tax rate is 35%; (2) there is nothing new about these numbers--corporations have long taken advantage of tax loopholes to escape paying.
In doing some quick research on the topic, I came across Warren Buffett's annual letter to his shareholders. In it, he has this to say on the topic:
Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934.
Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning. Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%.
In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61 billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future – it will mean we are prospering – but we also hope that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us.
In doing some quick research on the topic, I came across Warren Buffett's annual letter to his shareholders. In it, he has this to say on the topic:
Corporate income taxes in fiscal 2003 accounted for 7.4% of all federal tax receipts, down from a post-war peak of 32% in 1952. With one exception (1983), last year’s percentage is the lowest recorded since data was first published in 1934.
Even so, tax breaks for corporations (and their investors, particularly large ones) were a major part of the Administration’s 2002 and 2003 initiatives. If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning. Today, many large corporations – run by CEOs whose fiddle-playing talents make your Chairman look like he is all thumbs – pay nothing close to the stated federal tax rate of 35%.
In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61 billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future – it will mean we are prospering – but we also hope that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Who is this Muqtada al-Sadr fella?
It seems the Bush administration is asking itself that very question right now. On Monday, the Bush administration declared that Sadr is an "outlaw" and announced that it now plans to arrest Sadr [WP] on a warrant it has been sitting on since last fall for allegedly conspiring to assassinate a rival Shiite cleric in April 2003. On Saturday, Coalition forces arrested one of Sadr's top aides, Mustafa Yaqoubi, in connection with the same crime. That arrest--in conjunction with the Coalition's decision to shut down Sadr's newspaper [BBC]--precipitated this weekend's violence, which some say is the worst Iraq has seen after Saddam's fall.
Asia Times reported over two weeks ago that Sadr had been warning armed resistence would soon begin. CBS News interviewed Sadr in October (here's the transcript), and they reported back then that Sadr was suspected of being a chief instigator in much of the violent resistence.
The BBC reports that Sadr has a relatively small following among Shiite Muslims in Iraq (ABC News agrees), but that of course may change depending on the Coalition response to the recent uprising. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has apparently been trying to broker peace [Reuters], but Sadr has apparently rejected Sistani's plea, and has chosen instead to continue his campaign of armed resistance. He is currently holed up in one of Iraq's holiest shrines.
The Council on Foreign Relations provides an excellent background on Sadr (his dad, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq until Saddam executed him in the late 90's) and describes the events leading up to the recent Shiite unrest. Keep in mind that these events must be viewed as distinct from the goings-on in Sunni-controlled Fallujah, although one can imagine both groups are seeking to take advantage of the overall instability in Iraq.
We now find ourselves in the most delicate position we have been in since invading Iraq, and I fear that the Bush administration is not capable of handling the situation properly. Pulling out now would only create an ideal environment to cultivate terrorists and the ideology that drives them (although the support for keeping the troops in Iraq is definitely waning [Pew]). The best game plan I can think of is to throw support behind Sistani, who seems genuinely interested in promoting the peace (although that is highly unlikely, because Sistani has been very critical of the Coalition's plans for transitioning out of Iraq [FT]) and encourage a more active involvement by the UN. Moreover, it seems utterly ridiculous that Bush insists on sticking with the original June 30 transition date [Reuters], particularly when Senators in the President's own party are calling for more troops to stabilize the situation.
Asia Times reported over two weeks ago that Sadr had been warning armed resistence would soon begin. CBS News interviewed Sadr in October (here's the transcript), and they reported back then that Sadr was suspected of being a chief instigator in much of the violent resistence.
The BBC reports that Sadr has a relatively small following among Shiite Muslims in Iraq (ABC News agrees), but that of course may change depending on the Coalition response to the recent uprising. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has apparently been trying to broker peace [Reuters], but Sadr has apparently rejected Sistani's plea, and has chosen instead to continue his campaign of armed resistance. He is currently holed up in one of Iraq's holiest shrines.
The Council on Foreign Relations provides an excellent background on Sadr (his dad, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, was the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq until Saddam executed him in the late 90's) and describes the events leading up to the recent Shiite unrest. Keep in mind that these events must be viewed as distinct from the goings-on in Sunni-controlled Fallujah, although one can imagine both groups are seeking to take advantage of the overall instability in Iraq.
We now find ourselves in the most delicate position we have been in since invading Iraq, and I fear that the Bush administration is not capable of handling the situation properly. Pulling out now would only create an ideal environment to cultivate terrorists and the ideology that drives them (although the support for keeping the troops in Iraq is definitely waning [Pew]). The best game plan I can think of is to throw support behind Sistani, who seems genuinely interested in promoting the peace (although that is highly unlikely, because Sistani has been very critical of the Coalition's plans for transitioning out of Iraq [FT]) and encourage a more active involvement by the UN. Moreover, it seems utterly ridiculous that Bush insists on sticking with the original June 30 transition date [Reuters], particularly when Senators in the President's own party are calling for more troops to stabilize the situation.
Spain Battles Terrorism
In a bizarre twist of events, the Spanish authorities are aggressively pursuing a group of terrorists to whom, according to most of the US press, Spain surrendered only a few weeks ago. It is believed that the ring-leaders of the 3/11 attack blew themselves up when their appartment was raided by Spanish police. Spain has already apprehended and charged 15 conspirators in the attack, and continue to pursue others. Meanwhile, the dirty French surrender-monkeys have put down their white flag long enough to arrest 13 suspects for a May 2003 bombing in Casablanca. What, you mean there's more to fighting terrorism than invading 3rd world countries?
Sharon: No More Mister Nice Guy
After apparently deciding that he has been entirely too kindly and generous with the Palestinians in previous years, Ariel Sharon said in an interview that under his unilateral plan "there is no Palestinian state", adding that he is well within his rights to kill Yassir Arafat whenever he damned well pleased. He calls his plan "tough on the Palestinians. A mortal blow." Uhh, yeah...
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Brazil--The Next Member of the "Axis of Evil"?
The Washington Post breaks this story discussing Brazil's refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into uranium enrichment facilities in that country. As the WP reporter observes, Brazil's conduct "poses a conundrum for President Bush, who has called for tighter restrictions on the enrichment of uranium, even for nuclear power, as part of a new strategy to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons." The story also hints that Brazil might have some connection with A.Q. Khan's black market.
I wonder how the Bush administration will respond. If Bush and the UN treat Brazil differently than Iran and North Korea, those "rogue nations" will have good reason to argue that a double-standard exists. If Bush responds with threats, Brazil may very well brush them off, knowing that the United States is already spread too thin to do anything (and who among Americans would support a war against Brazil anyway?) and everyone knows that the U.N. has no teeth of its own.
Of course, one must not forget where Brazil stands on the war in Iraq--it is not among the coalition partners (see relatively current list here), and that factor alone puts them in the "against us" camp. There are several interesting dynamics at work and I for one am interested to see what unfolds.
Update: Apparently covert operations against Brazil have already begun--see this CNN report for more details.
I wonder how the Bush administration will respond. If Bush and the UN treat Brazil differently than Iran and North Korea, those "rogue nations" will have good reason to argue that a double-standard exists. If Bush responds with threats, Brazil may very well brush them off, knowing that the United States is already spread too thin to do anything (and who among Americans would support a war against Brazil anyway?) and everyone knows that the U.N. has no teeth of its own.
Of course, one must not forget where Brazil stands on the war in Iraq--it is not among the coalition partners (see relatively current list here), and that factor alone puts them in the "against us" camp. There are several interesting dynamics at work and I for one am interested to see what unfolds.
Update: Apparently covert operations against Brazil have already begun--see this CNN report for more details.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Combatting Insurgencies
At least some of our military people are ready to take a long look at the unconventional tactics used by our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. From day one of the terror conflict, the administration and their political allies have heavily promoted a sentiment that making an effort to understand the motives and tactics of our opponents is somehow akin to admitting defeat or appeasing the enemy. I see it as an absolute necessity if any positive results are to come of our efforts.
The Return of Beatallica
You guys may or may not remember, back in the pre-BWJournal days, I sent an email about Beatallica, Beatles-Metallica cover band extraordinaire. Well, they're back!! Beatallica has a new self-titled release! As always, available in whole as a free download. The new release features such hit tracks as "Blackened the USSR", "Hey Dude", and, my favorite, "I Want to Choke Your Band". Kick ass.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Hard Power, Soft Power
Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Joseph Nye, discusses the concept of soft power in the Washington Post today. It's an idea that doesn't get nearly the circulation that it should. We're still trying to fight a non-conventional war with conventional means. It's a losing proposition and a very costly one.
For Your Netflix Queue
I recently came across a movie I want to give my highest recommendation. The film, made last year by British director Michael Winterbottom, is called "In This World". We watched it last night, and I had to watch it again today. You can find a trailer here, the Rotten Tomatoes review page (95% positive), and an NPR interview with Michael Winterbottom about the film. The story is of two Afghan refugees attempting to emigrate, illegally, overland, to London. It is a docu-drama that blurs the lines between reality and fiction. The plot events that happen to the main characters are fiction, but taken from the accounts of real refugees. There are almost no professional actors in the movie, most people you see are playing themselves. The dialogue is mostly unscripted. The lead actors are actual refugees from the Peshawar refugee camp, one of whom smuggled his way back into England after the film and claimed asylum. All of the scenes are shot on location, guerrilla style, usually with a film crew of just three people. It reminded me a lot of Baraka. In this case there are characters and dialogue and a (mostly) coherent plot. But the dialogue is sparse, and like Baraka most of the story is told through pictures and music. Also like Baraka the photography and the score are absolutely brilliant and provide a window into a world that most Westerners never experience. And like Baraka, the film has a powerful humanist theme. I'd kill for the soundtrack, but it doesn't appear it was ever released as a CD. Put it at the top of your queue. And don't miss the behind the scenes feature on the disc.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Aznar's Take on the Attacks on Spain
The Wall Street Journal has published this editorial on the March 11 terrorist attacks. He defends the government's conduct following the attacks and claims that the public was not mislead, and he also argues it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq--"It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won."
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Grow A Pair
TomPaine.com is featuring some words of advice to John Kerry from Walter Cronkite. Cronkite instructs Kerry to stop dodging the title of liberal and to instead embrace it and defend his values.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Building On Quicksand
Business Week, a magazine I'm becoming more and more impressed with recently, has a column by London Business School Dean Laura D'Andrea Tyson questioning the staying power of the current recovery. She cites the Bush tax cuts as having infused a significant amount of money into the economy which has temporarily inflated economic growth numbers without producing the sort of employment and compensation gains that should be typical at this stage of a recovery and which are critical to building a strong economic cycle. She also mentions the increasing dependency of the US economy on foreign investors to suck up the massive debt load, and questions how long this can be sustained in the face of increasing US fiscal weakness.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Foiled By the Internet
There has been a rush of politicians and pundits trying put their own stamp on the recent Spanish elections. Most of them find themselves unable to resist one last opportunity to use their tired (and ridiculous) analogy of Saddam Hussein as Hitler and "old Europe" (and now Spain) as Neville Chamberlain. But like most conservative sloganeering, these claims were catchy and spread quickly. However, in my online discussions, while I found these "appeasment" claims widespread initially, they rapidly collapsed under the unstoppable destructive power of actual Spanish people, who, it seems, also use the internet. Imagine, manufactured spin having, for once, to compete with actual reality. It was really quite enjoyable to see. So I thought, for fun, I would have a side-by-side comparison of some of the things said by American politicians and pundits versus comments made by a number of actual Spanish people on a couple of forums I visit.
"There is no neutral ground -- no neutral ground -- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.
"No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands."
--Pres. George W. Bush
"Thanks, but the fact that we had a tragedy hasn't clouded my judgement, thanks anyway. What I think about Aznar I've been thinking it for the last 6 years. This has done nothing but re-afirm me in my beliefs."
--Actual Spanish Person
"[Spaniards] chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."
--Rep. Dennis Haster, Speaker of the House of Representatives
"The votes against them were mainly because they lied about who made the bombings, it appears that they knew a few hours after the bombings that it hadn't been done by ETA and they hide that fact for political reasons only."
--Actual Spanish Person
"As you look back through history, and you look at situations that required people to stand up for principle, to stand up and lead and be counted against various threats, appeasement just hasn't worked.."
--Gen. Richard Myers
"The Elections' results would vary a lot depending on the terrorists involved. Many people in Spain was against going to war with Iraq; joining the alliance with USA and UK was a government's decission, it wasn't shared by most of the democratic parties. On the other hand, if ETA is behind this, spanish would vote Aznar's succesor."
--Actual Spanish Person (before the election)
"People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife ... And this is what seems to have happened in Spain."
--David Frum
"We have been fighting against terrorism for more than 20 years, inside the national and international laws. US for 2 years. We have lost more than 250 in "your" war against islamic terrorism. The american citizens lost against against ETA is zero. We have jailed a lot of islamic terrorist, while none of the groups that support ETA in some states like Iowa is in jail... . Maybe you have to read more about history to understand it. For other side, the french has helped us invaluable last 10 years against ETA"
--Actual Spanish Person
"I call on Prime Minister Zapatero to reconsider his decision and to send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror,"
--Sen. John Kerry
"If we started to talk about USA not helping us, [it] is because some guys started to call us cowards because we retire from IRAK, but all you must have in mind that 80% of Spanish ppl didn't want the war as we don't see the ties betwen IRAK and muslims terrorist and we saw that war more like an economy fact and the attempt to control the petrol production. Also all the lies about massive attack weapons don't help a lot to believe on Bush, Blair or Aznar (and i have [voted for] Aznar twice, but not last time)."
--Actual Spanish Person
"This is beyond appeasement. This is decadence: Terror rages and we tend our garden."
--Charles Krauthammer
"I understand the upset in some of you, fellows, but the main reasons of these elections are internals, and not by the fear of the bombs (we were receiving attacks of the terrorist long before you thought it was a problem)."
--Actual Spanish Person
"In other words, will Madrid be remembered as Pearl Harbor or as Munich? For now the response of too many Spanish voters looks more like Munich."
--Sen. Joe Lieberman
"We have been fighting against terrorism since 1978. We have used the force, we have negociated. We tried to solve the problem without surrending, even when the rest of the world called them 'freedom fighters'. The US has only help us when they saw the problem at home."
--Actual Spanish Person
"The voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe."
--Rep. Henry Hyde
"The main reason. The [disinformation]. In Spain the public tv channels (and radio) are very important, and their actuation has been horrible. The popular members forced all the situation (media, institutional speeches, embassadors) to blame ETA, even the proofs that point AlQuaida. When the people knows it (internet and cellulars), there was a lot of Anger. We felt like the government was cheating us. And doing this the day before the elections is not a very smart move, when more than 25% of people haven't decide to vote until these day. Personally. I had decided to vote PP, but the way they tried to cheat me, I voted in blank. I change my vote not the thursday, but the sunday morning."
--Actual Spanish Person
"Nonetheless, it was still the cowardly alternative. And today Spain has chosen it -- having suffered not Europe's 20 million dead of World War I but 200 dead in the Madrid bombings."
--Charles Krauthammer
"Trust me, guys, it's not Al Qaeda who's made the Socialist Party win the elections, but Aznar's own arrogance, stupidity and Franco-like usage of public television."
--Actual Spanish Person
"the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it."
--Andrew Sullivan
"As far as I am concerned...of course I'd like to see legal actions being taken against [Al-Qaeda]. But I don't think that us being [in Iraq] does any damage to [Al-Qaeda], and for once -which hasn't happened for the last 8 years- I'd like to see the government do what the entire population demanded from them, same population that put them up there."
--Actual Spanish Person
And the final word:
Today, in a local newspaper, there was an article where the author said: "To those that are coming: Remember, without our votes, you?re nobody".
This is what Aznar and his party forgot. This is why they lost the elections.
--Actual Spanish Person
"There is no neutral ground -- no neutral ground -- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.
"No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands."
--Pres. George W. Bush
"Thanks, but the fact that we had a tragedy hasn't clouded my judgement, thanks anyway. What I think about Aznar I've been thinking it for the last 6 years. This has done nothing but re-afirm me in my beliefs."
--Actual Spanish Person
"[Spaniards] chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists."
--Rep. Dennis Haster, Speaker of the House of Representatives
"The votes against them were mainly because they lied about who made the bombings, it appears that they knew a few hours after the bombings that it hadn't been done by ETA and they hide that fact for political reasons only."
--Actual Spanish Person
"As you look back through history, and you look at situations that required people to stand up for principle, to stand up and lead and be counted against various threats, appeasement just hasn't worked.."
--Gen. Richard Myers
"The Elections' results would vary a lot depending on the terrorists involved. Many people in Spain was against going to war with Iraq; joining the alliance with USA and UK was a government's decission, it wasn't shared by most of the democratic parties. On the other hand, if ETA is behind this, spanish would vote Aznar's succesor."
--Actual Spanish Person (before the election)
"People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife ... And this is what seems to have happened in Spain."
--David Frum
"We have been fighting against terrorism for more than 20 years, inside the national and international laws. US for 2 years. We have lost more than 250 in "your" war against islamic terrorism. The american citizens lost against against ETA is zero. We have jailed a lot of islamic terrorist, while none of the groups that support ETA in some states like Iowa is in jail... . Maybe you have to read more about history to understand it. For other side, the french has helped us invaluable last 10 years against ETA"
--Actual Spanish Person
"I call on Prime Minister Zapatero to reconsider his decision and to send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror,"
--Sen. John Kerry
"If we started to talk about USA not helping us, [it] is because some guys started to call us cowards because we retire from IRAK, but all you must have in mind that 80% of Spanish ppl didn't want the war as we don't see the ties betwen IRAK and muslims terrorist and we saw that war more like an economy fact and the attempt to control the petrol production. Also all the lies about massive attack weapons don't help a lot to believe on Bush, Blair or Aznar (and i have [voted for] Aznar twice, but not last time)."
--Actual Spanish Person
"This is beyond appeasement. This is decadence: Terror rages and we tend our garden."
--Charles Krauthammer
"I understand the upset in some of you, fellows, but the main reasons of these elections are internals, and not by the fear of the bombs (we were receiving attacks of the terrorist long before you thought it was a problem)."
--Actual Spanish Person
"In other words, will Madrid be remembered as Pearl Harbor or as Munich? For now the response of too many Spanish voters looks more like Munich."
--Sen. Joe Lieberman
"We have been fighting against terrorism since 1978. We have used the force, we have negociated. We tried to solve the problem without surrending, even when the rest of the world called them 'freedom fighters'. The US has only help us when they saw the problem at home."
--Actual Spanish Person
"The voices of appeasement are being heard in Europe."
--Rep. Henry Hyde
"The main reason. The [disinformation]. In Spain the public tv channels (and radio) are very important, and their actuation has been horrible. The popular members forced all the situation (media, institutional speeches, embassadors) to blame ETA, even the proofs that point AlQuaida. When the people knows it (internet and cellulars), there was a lot of Anger. We felt like the government was cheating us. And doing this the day before the elections is not a very smart move, when more than 25% of people haven't decide to vote until these day. Personally. I had decided to vote PP, but the way they tried to cheat me, I voted in blank. I change my vote not the thursday, but the sunday morning."
--Actual Spanish Person
"Nonetheless, it was still the cowardly alternative. And today Spain has chosen it -- having suffered not Europe's 20 million dead of World War I but 200 dead in the Madrid bombings."
--Charles Krauthammer
"Trust me, guys, it's not Al Qaeda who's made the Socialist Party win the elections, but Aznar's own arrogance, stupidity and Franco-like usage of public television."
--Actual Spanish Person
"the trend in Europe is now either appeasement of terror or active alliance with it."
--Andrew Sullivan
"As far as I am concerned...of course I'd like to see legal actions being taken against [Al-Qaeda]. But I don't think that us being [in Iraq] does any damage to [Al-Qaeda], and for once -which hasn't happened for the last 8 years- I'd like to see the government do what the entire population demanded from them, same population that put them up there."
--Actual Spanish Person
And the final word:
Today, in a local newspaper, there was an article where the author said: "To those that are coming: Remember, without our votes, you?re nobody".
This is what Aznar and his party forgot. This is why they lost the elections.
--Actual Spanish Person
For the Record
Henry Waxman, congressman from California, has had congress's Special Investigations Division compile a report studying and cataloguing each false or misleading statement about Iraq made by the President, Vice-President, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, or Security Advisor Rice. The report is 36 pages long and covers 237 statements made by these officials.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Problems With Media Diversity
This Christian Science Monitor column by Dante Chinni reads like a page out of Sunstein's Republic.com. I have to say, I'm not real excited about the idea of Air America. Perhaps it's necessary to have a bunch of rabid, misinformed liberals running around to counter all of the rabid, misinformed conservatives... but it's a far from ideal solution.
Monday, March 15, 2004
The Obi-Wan Kenobi Maneuver
" If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
--Obi-Wan Kenobi
Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, elected by a tide of anti-American sentiment after the death of two Korean girls hit by a US military vehicle, has been impeached and removed from office for a minor election violation. A Christian Science Monitor editorial contends that this will make Roh and his movement more powerful in the long run. CSM expects the public reaction to the unfair impeachment to carry them to victory in South Korea's April 15th elections (not dissimilar to the impact of Clinton's impeachment on the '98 mid-term elections). They contend that the empowerment of Roh's populist agenda will drive this quasi-democratic nation towards a true and healthy democracy. In a region filled with semi-democratic governments this would be welcome progress.
--Obi-Wan Kenobi
Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, elected by a tide of anti-American sentiment after the death of two Korean girls hit by a US military vehicle, has been impeached and removed from office for a minor election violation. A Christian Science Monitor editorial contends that this will make Roh and his movement more powerful in the long run. CSM expects the public reaction to the unfair impeachment to carry them to victory in South Korea's April 15th elections (not dissimilar to the impact of Clinton's impeachment on the '98 mid-term elections). They contend that the empowerment of Roh's populist agenda will drive this quasi-democratic nation towards a true and healthy democracy. In a region filled with semi-democratic governments this would be welcome progress.
The EU, Still A Powerful Promise
There is a story on CSM about steps being taken on Cypress to resolve the long-standing conflict between the Greek and Turkish residents. The promise of the economic and political benefits of integration into the EU has been the key for both sides. With all of the internal conflicts and complications it is easy to lose sight of the immense benefits that the EU has brought to Europe. Hopefully this can be a reminder.
BBC: Spain to re-join 'Old Europe'
Spanish voters apparently decided to hold Jose Maria Aznar responsible for flouting overwhelming poll numbers (over 90% against the war with Iraq if I recall correctly) now that their involvement has apparently entagled them in the broader conflict with Al-Qaeda. With Aznar to be replaced Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the BBC says Spain will realign itself with France and Germany and attempt to extricate itself from the conflict in Iraq.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Money Still Fleeing US
It's been what, a month or two since I last posted a record trade deficit story? Well, it's still getting worse. Even the plumetting dollar has done little to curb the trade imbalance...
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
The Cozy Relationship of Money and Power
The Christian Science Monitor has a story about a study done by "researchers from four universities" (no other details are provided) on the stock market performance of investments by US Senators. Would it be shocking to find out that they did well? Because they did, beating the pants off market indexes and even corporate insiders. The article comes short of accusing senators of out-and-out insider trading, but it contained a number of quotes to that effect ("Senators may be just smarter, but it seems really unrealistic"). Money and power, power and money...
Beware Passing Hawks
Somehow I found this story funny. Also notice that the scientific name for the American Robin is Turdus Migratorius. I wonder which part of that means American?
Sunday, March 07, 2004
That Old Double-Standard Thing
Human Rights Watch has released a 59-page report detailing human rights abuses carried out by US troops in Afghanistan. The BBC is covering the story. They charge that prisoners are held without any legal basis or process, and that torture techniques have been commonly used in interrogations. I'm inclined to give the military some latitude as they're dealing with para-military sorts of organizations where prisoners are somewhere between criminals and prisoners of war. But the constant and steady stream of human rights criticism of US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay clearly undermine the strong moral and ideological overtones of the administration's policy positions, if not with US audiences, certainly to the rest of the world.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Checking Out Creative Commons
I've noticed a number of times that Larry Lessig is always pimping for Creative Commons on his blog, and have always thought 'hmm, that must be a good thing.' Only recently did I have the brilliant idea to actually check it out and see what was there. So I poked around a bit and found one of their content aggregators, Magnatune. Magnatune (slogan: We Are Not Evil) has music from a good number groups/individuals which can be streamed in mp3 form for free and can be purchased for download at a cost of $5-$18 (your choice). So far I've managed to get completely hooked on music by a guy named Wade Williamson. Cool stuff.
Re: First Gay Marriage, Then Polygamy
There is another Reason.com article that discusses some of the thorny technical issues raised by the state allowing polygamous relationships.
"It would be financially ruinous to make a boss insure the seven husbands of one of his employees. The Internet is already brimming with offers of Asian brides in search of green-card husbands; how many sham marriages would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service have to sift through once an American man could marry thirty Filipinas? What tax benefits will apply to a plural marriage? How can the authorities turn informants among a criminal gang whose members are all married to each other and thus have immunity from testifying in court?"
I think there are enough different issues here to show definite differences between two-person marriages and polygamous marriages where the law is concerned.
"It would be financially ruinous to make a boss insure the seven husbands of one of his employees. The Internet is already brimming with offers of Asian brides in search of green-card husbands; how many sham marriages would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service have to sift through once an American man could marry thirty Filipinas? What tax benefits will apply to a plural marriage? How can the authorities turn informants among a criminal gang whose members are all married to each other and thus have immunity from testifying in court?"
I think there are enough different issues here to show definite differences between two-person marriages and polygamous marriages where the law is concerned.
Ninjas: The Real Ultimate Power
I had seen this before, but I happened across it again recently.. Behold The Official Ninja Webpage. It's a classic. The picture at the bottom of the page is the best.
First Gay Marriage, Then Polygamy--A Slippery Slope?
Reason Online has this article, which articulates many of the same points Ceci raises about why polygamy might be going too far.
Patrick Fitzgerald on the Prowl
Newsday reports here that Patrick Fitzgerald, the Chicago US Attorney who was appointed as special counsel to investigate the Valerie Plume affair, has issued a subpoena to the Bush administration seeking phone records from Air Force One for the week preceding the leak (Valerie Plume is former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. Joseph Wilson, you may recall, challenged Bush's assertion in the State of the Union that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. Robert Novak revealed that Valerie Plume was an undercover CIA operative sometime after Wilson spoke out against the administration).
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Nader Comes Out of the Gates Strong
I have to say I'm a bit surprised by AP's most recent poll. Despite having done no significant campaigning, and after the beating he's taken in the press, Nader is polling at 6%, twice the percentage of votes he drew in 2000. A single poll this early in the process means approximately nothing, but it was a surprising number and bears watching.
Spitzer's back up to his old tricks...
and I love it. He is high quality. We definitely need more independent thinkers like him running things.
Crain's New York Business has this coverage.
And if you're interested in reading Eliot Spitzer's well-reasoned opinion--the one where he says New York statute does not permit gays to marry in the state, but gays can marry elsewhere and New York must recognize the marriage--here it is (it takes the form of responding to two attorneys from small cities (towns) in New York who requested that the AG clearly state its position on the topic).
I particularly like the way he deals with the Equal Protection issue--by punting:
"The Attorney General's Office traditionally does not issue opinions on the constitutionality of state laws, and we do not today opine on whether the federal or state constitutions require the State to permit same-sex marriage. New York courts have not yet ruled on this issue, and they are the proper forum for resolution of this matter. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent."
I hear Spitzer saying: 'somebody please, please please sue us! And if you wanna sue us, here's how to do it.' I don't know how he would weigh in on the Equal Protection argument if somebody did sue, but I think it's a safe to bet that he would share the same position as those people who believe that equality is something worth protecting.
Crain's New York Business has this coverage.
And if you're interested in reading Eliot Spitzer's well-reasoned opinion--the one where he says New York statute does not permit gays to marry in the state, but gays can marry elsewhere and New York must recognize the marriage--here it is (it takes the form of responding to two attorneys from small cities (towns) in New York who requested that the AG clearly state its position on the topic).
I particularly like the way he deals with the Equal Protection issue--by punting:
"The Attorney General's Office traditionally does not issue opinions on the constitutionality of state laws, and we do not today opine on whether the federal or state constitutions require the State to permit same-sex marriage. New York courts have not yet ruled on this issue, and they are the proper forum for resolution of this matter. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent. However, because these constitutional concerns are integral to the questions you raise, we outline them here to assist you in advising the local officials you represent."
I hear Spitzer saying: 'somebody please, please please sue us! And if you wanna sue us, here's how to do it.' I don't know how he would weigh in on the Equal Protection argument if somebody did sue, but I think it's a safe to bet that he would share the same position as those people who believe that equality is something worth protecting.
Haliburton Must Love This..
The BBC has a story covering a number of recent violent incidents in Iraq. The most interesting part of the story is a line that appears only in a caption of one of the pictures: "Overall damage to infrastructure in the war is put at $55bn". I'm not sure where that came from or how accurate it is, but if true, that's a staggering number. So far we've spent a total of $20-30bn on the rebuilding project, and I believe much of that has been spent trying to reconstitute Iraq's security forces. Apparently we've got a long ways to go (and I'm sure many more special funding bills as well). Awfully convenient that this spending is all kept off the official budget books.
The Real Beverly Hillbillies
I don't know what to say about this story. Kinda sad, kinda funny, definitely a sign of the times...
Monday, March 01, 2004
Country Rankings on Educational Policy
This site purports to summarize data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on a variety of topics, including education.
The stats I found most interesting were that US does not rank in top ten for reading literacy or scientific and mathematic literacy, but we have the greatest percentage of the population that has attained a secondary education (over 86%!). Most importantly, the US spends 5.2% of its GDP on educational institutions--12th overall.
The stats I found most interesting were that US does not rank in top ten for reading literacy or scientific and mathematic literacy, but we have the greatest percentage of the population that has attained a secondary education (over 86%!). Most importantly, the US spends 5.2% of its GDP on educational institutions--12th overall.
Friday, February 27, 2004
Re: Oh, the outrage
The Post has a great editorial on the issue. They disagree with Greenspan's assertion that the tax cuts should be made permanent, but commend his efforts to bring the issue of social security's long-term solvency into the national discussion. They also scold the President and his opponents for blowing off Greenspan's concerns. The Post concludes: "But at least Mr. Greenspan -- unlike the president and his allies -- acknowledges the need for trade-offs. Mr. Bush won't admit that something's got to give; his Democratic rivals seem determined to compete in fiscal dishonesty. And they all pretend to offer leadership."
As to the prospects of Kerry and his Clintonistas fixing the deficit, I'm considerably less than optimistic. There were three basic reasons why Clinton was able to balance the budget. 1) A substantial tax hike (which Kerry won't do), 2) a substantial reduction in military spending (which Kerry won't do), 3) the dot-com boom (which won't happen again). I fail to see any way that Kerry can either cut spending or increase revenue enough to even dent the deficit.
As to the prospects of Kerry and his Clintonistas fixing the deficit, I'm considerably less than optimistic. There were three basic reasons why Clinton was able to balance the budget. 1) A substantial tax hike (which Kerry won't do), 2) a substantial reduction in military spending (which Kerry won't do), 3) the dot-com boom (which won't happen again). I fail to see any way that Kerry can either cut spending or increase revenue enough to even dent the deficit.
Oh, the outrage...
Alan Greenspan testified on Wednesday before the Committee on the Budget of the House. He addressed the fiscal health of the nation, pointing out what seems to be obvious, but what most of our politicians do not want to address. Greenspan expressed concern over the rising budget deficits, particularly in the face of the looming crises in social security (SS) and medicare when the baby boomers begin to retire (only 4 years away, incidentally). As possible solutions, he proposed extending the current tax cuts to continue economic growth, also noting that it is easy to start government programs and nearly impossible to shrink or end them. He then goes on to say that corrective measures will be needed in social programs. Whereas much of the press seemed to immediately quote Greenspan as advocating a reduction in SS benefits, they might have done a better read of the transcript. Greenspan is actually proposing to stabilize the ratio of retirement-to-working. Because people continue to live (but not work) longer, the expenses of SS continually rise relative to revenue of working years. This is in addition to the problem of a rather large generation coming through the ranks.
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Unless we are going to restructure the SS system (for instance creating personal accounts), this seems like a reasonable idea. Yet Greenspan was immediately rebuked across the board, most notably by Bush, Kerry, and Edwards (it reminds me of when Dean mentioned raising the retirement age - a similar result). Edwards stated that "it is an outrage for him to suggest that we should extend George Bush's tax cuts on unearned wealth while cutting Social Security benefits that working people earn." I would counter that it is an outrage that none of our representatives seems to have the will or the foresight to begin addressing problems that may devastate this country economically. They all rebuke Greenspan's ideas, and yet none of them has offered a plan to fix the budget deficit and these looming fiscal disasters.
The only disappointment I had in Greenspan's testimony was the scant mention of defense spending. This is an enormous chunk of our GDP. The fact that it is so much greater than any other nation suggests to me that our priorities are not well placed. Instead of talking about limiting retirement benefits or other social programs, why is there rarely mention of limiting the bloated Pentagon budget?
Clearly, difficult choices need to be made. Is anybody out there willing to make them?
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Deceit On the Campaign Trail
Two recent Washington Post columns Robert J. Samuelson addressed points I raised in my presidential candidates tirade regarding the complete lack of honesty in campaign discussions of budget policy and the economy.
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Neither Bush nor Kerry intend to balance the budget by 2009, and both of their plans for not balancing the budget lack any grounding in reality. Take Kerry's plan as an example. He plans to undo the part of Bush's tax cut that applies to the highest tax bracket. As Samuelson points out, the CBO believes the tax cutting only accounts for about 30% of our current deficit. Ok, so let's say he's fixed 20% of the deficit, how about the other 80%? Kerry proposes massive increases in spending for college education, homeland security, $50b to provide economic assistance to states, a bank-breaking health care policy, all topped off by additional middle class tax cuts. This is supposed to reduce the deficit by 50%? Bullshit. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Bush's plan is no better. I believe this is one of the most critical issues in the election, and not only does neither candidate plan to fix it, neither of them can even be bothered to tell the truth about it.
Meanwhile I continue to believe that the state of the economy will be one of the most critical deciding factors in the November election, despite the fact that, as Samuelson rightly notes, there's really not much connection between the president and the economy. So here is a non-issue that due to the amount of bogus posturing and proclaiming coming from each camp (and the press) becomes a critical deciding issue.
I commend Samuelson for at least attempting to hold these guys to account. Too bad the rest of his colleagues are too busy worrying about the horse-race to bother worrying about the issues. If they did, who knows, we might even have a serious discussion of substantive issues during a presidential election. Imagine that..
Earning His "Vile Henchman" Boy Scout Badge
Wired News interviewed Georgetown law professor, assistant US attorney general, and co-author of the USA Patriot Act, Viet Dinh. The interview is a disappointingly softball affair. The questions consist of "some people think maybe this isn't the best" type critiques which Dinh happily glosses over. Maybe the author should have spent a few minutes at the ACLU's Patriot Act page to learn the relevant issues. Fortunately there is a slashdot discussion of the interview that provides some balance (in the form of about 600 posts ruthlessly bashing Dinh and his law).
Monday, February 23, 2004
Sunday, February 22, 2004
Saturday, February 21, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
Ryan is correct--I misread the Reuters article (maybe I was influenced in part by this Fox News story). The New York Times today in this article quoted a spokesperson for Nader as saying that "this is pure speculation." I guess we all must and see.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
As for Ryan's means-ends argument, I agree that it is far better for deliberative democracy to have more issues on the table and that is the reason I would encourage Nader to jump in. When it comes to voting time, where there are more than two choices the decision comes down to whether you want to vote for the best candidate or ensure that the worst candidate doesn't win. We should never have to make that choice, and so long as voters make the latter choice things will never change. But this time around I care more about getting President Bush out than promoting institutional change. In my humble opinion, another Bush term would do more long-term damage than would propping up the horribly botched electoral system for another four years. But all the same I believe Nader's presence in the next several months will be for the good. Someone must push the debate forward or Edwards and Kerry will drift more and more toward the middle. And while that may make good strategic sense, it does not bode well for progress.
Re: Here Comes Nader
First, a brief correction on a statement by Veritas. According to the Reuters article, Nader plans to announce his decision tomorrow on whether or not to run as opposed to announcing his candidacy. Our discussion will be a moot point if he chooses not to run.
Second, I believe that, in general, a greater selection of candidates will promote deliberative democracy in our election and perhaps even generate increased voter interest. Although most of us would not prefer the Bush administration for another 4 years, the enhancement of democracy should not be so quickly discounted. Dave would quickly counter here that 4 more years of Bush would destroy any gains in deliberative democracy generated by the election process, and he might have a point. This essentially comes down to an argument of whether the end justifies the means. Do we promote the restriction of candidates running for office in the hopes of getting the exact outcome we want? This is questionable in my mind. I would far prefer a process with greater options and deliberation that might enhance our democracy as a whole. A third candidate is likely to force issues the other two might otherwise neglect. If the two "major" candidates fail to address these issues and lose votes, so be it. That is how democracy should work.
Second, I believe that, in general, a greater selection of candidates will promote deliberative democracy in our election and perhaps even generate increased voter interest. Although most of us would not prefer the Bush administration for another 4 years, the enhancement of democracy should not be so quickly discounted. Dave would quickly counter here that 4 more years of Bush would destroy any gains in deliberative democracy generated by the election process, and he might have a point. This essentially comes down to an argument of whether the end justifies the means. Do we promote the restriction of candidates running for office in the hopes of getting the exact outcome we want? This is questionable in my mind. I would far prefer a process with greater options and deliberation that might enhance our democracy as a whole. A third candidate is likely to force issues the other two might otherwise neglect. If the two "major" candidates fail to address these issues and lose votes, so be it. That is how democracy should work.
Friday, February 20, 2004
Re: Here Comes Nader
I won't belabor this point, but the Nader thing has always been on the table. It was discussed as far back as last fall that Dean was keeping Nader out of the race and his supporters in the Democratic party. And he did it without having any ruinously radical policy positions. As Andrew Sullivan wrote a few weeks back: "In 2000 Al Gore lost in part because of the far-left Ralph Nader challenge. Dean has managed to bring these voters back into the fold — without making any drastic policy commitments that could come back to haunt him. Kerry in comparison? Gore redux." This was always on the table and was part of the choice voters made when they picked Kerry. Dean represented a compromise: the moderate, centrist policies of a mainline Dem, with the character and grassroots populist credentials to satisfy the Naderites. The mainline Dems rejected the compromise, and now lay in the bed they made themselves.
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
In any case I still have the feeling that current events regarding Iraq and the economy over the course of the summer and fall will likely trump all of this maneuvering, the results of the primary and Nader's presence. If things are rosy, Bush wins, if they're ugly he loses. Oh, and of course there is always the Osama trump card..
DNC Resorts to WTO-style Crowd Control
Well it seems the concept of "free speech zones" has crossed the aisle to the Democratic party. They plan to keep protestors out of sight and out of mind during the party convention. More fuel for Nader's fire?
Re: Here Comes Nader
Reuters claims here that Nader will announce his candidacy on Sunday's Meet the Press--so be sure to tune in.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
I for one am glad he's running. The two viable Democrats (the media seems to have "misplaced" Kucinich and Sharpton, although it's hard to blame them as neither has accumulated a single delegate so far) are desparately looking for any disparity they can claim. For example, Edwards is making a big hub-bub over his opposition to free trade agreements with sub-Saharan Africa and the Carribbean (while at the same time hoping people will ignore his votes on China and South America). At least from the policies that each candidate is promoting from the pulpit, there is no meaningful difference. Except that each one boasts HE is the electable one and not the other.
Nader, on the other hand, promises to bring a host of issues into the fray that neither candidate is talking about. Rather than hoping that Nader sit this one out, I hope that Nader continues the push Dean started toward the issues that really matter. If the candidates incorporate some real issues in amongst the fluff, then maybe Nader won't pose a real threat. If they don't, well they deserve to reap whatever the result. But don't blame Nader for the Democratic Party losing its spine.
Here Comes Nader
Fox News says that Nader's advisors are hinting that at his scheduled sunday press conference Ralph Nader will join the race for president as an independent. Coincidence that this comes the same week that Dean drops out?
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Thanking OPEC
This is a pretty random topic, but I was browsing through a Newsweek and thought this was an interesting take on a global trade topic rarely dealt with. Washington Post regular, RJ Samuelson (who I've been coming to like more and more) wrote a short piece on the stabilizing influence of OPEC on the oil trade.
Re: And Then There Were Two..
I rarely see NewsHour these days, but somebody at Dean For America pointed out these online segments about Wisconsin and Dean's concession. The last two in particular were pretty good, and, I think, offered some of the more cogent analysis of the whole situation that I've seen.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
And Then There Were Two..
Howard Dean announces through his blog (of course) that he is ending his candidacy today. Based on his comments I suspect he doesn't intend to drop out of the political scene..
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
10th Circuit Holds that Do-Not-Call Registry is Constitutional
A while back, Joe and I discussed a ruling from the District Court of Colorado that found the National Do-Not-Call Registry unconstitutional. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the registry to go forward, and has now issued its full opinion.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
In brief, the 10th Circuit found that the regulation survives First Amendment scrutiny because it promotes a substantial interest (privacy and preventing fraud) in a way that is reasonably tailored to the goal. The court found that there was a legitimate basis in distinguishing commercial and noncommercial speech because commercial speech presents a bigger nuisance than non-commercial calls. And while the court recognized that non-commercial calls may also be a nuisance, "the First Amendment does not require that the government regulate all aspects of a problem before it can make progress on any front." (P. 22).
The 10th Circuit seemed motivated in part by the fact that the registry restricts "only calls that are targeted at unwilling recipients," and "speech restrictions based on private choice (i.e., an opt-in feature) are less restrictive than laws that prohibit speech directly." (P. 30). The court cited Rowan favorably, a case that Joe relied on in his arguments, and noted that "Congress has erected a well (or more accurately permits a citizen to erect a wall) that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence. ... The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain." (P. 31). The court observed that "like the do-not-mail regulation approved in Rowan, the national do-not-call registry does not itself prohibit any speech. Instead, it merely permits a citizen to erect a wall ... that no advertiser may penetrate without his acquiescence." (P. 33).
While I entirely agree with the result, I think that by bringing in Rowan the 10th Circuit's holding obscures the point I was trying to make earlier (although the Court did not rely on Rowan to reach its result). While a citizen has a right to determine whose messages it allows into his or her domain, if the government provides selective restrictions it must explain why it chose to select some speech for restriction but not others. In this case, the registry does not simply empower citizens to erect a wall to prevent all calls from coming into his or her home as the opinion suggests. Rather, Congress permitted citizens to erect a wall that is impenetrable only to some (commercial speakers) but does not prevent others (non-commercial speakers) from breaching the wall--and that feature is what raises First Amendment concerns. That is content restriction, plain and simple.
I certainly agree with the 10th Circuit that people are kings of their own domain, but when government decides to empower citizens to be left alone in some ways but not others, there must be a strong reason for the distinction. In this case, the court found that the FTC and FCC amply explained how commercial speech is more harmful than non-commercial speech in this context, and recognized that a 40-60% reduction in overall unwanted calls demonstrates a substantial relationship between the stated goals and the government action. That's all that is necessary to survive First Amendment review under these circumstances.
Trippi Moves On
I just noticed that Joe Trippi has started a blog. So far he has, not surprisingly, mostly written about the campaign and the things he tried to accomplish and lessons learned and such. It's interesting reading. It will be interesting to see where he goes from here..
Outsourcing Surgeons
Even some of the supposedly secure industries may not be as secure as we thought they were. Slashdot has a discussion of this topic. As for anecdotal evidence, Ceci has been relying on our trips to China to have her dental work done due to the cost savings (our insurance claims they are pre-existing conditions and won't pay for it)...
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Re: Comparative Advantage
Barry, I agree with you assessments. Using the proper definition of comparative advantage does rather shoot down Roberts's particular contentions. However, I think there is still some hay to be made here. First off, as Barry noted, excess labor supply is not well handled in Ricardo's model. And there are a number of additional factors that exacerbate this problem.
Ricardo's theory seems to me to be simply a matter of showing that a country has differing degrees of efficiency in production, and will naturally focus on those industries where their efficiencies are highest, which means that in the areas where they are not specializing they may rely on trade with other countries to fill their needs even though those other countries may not be as efficient. The labor problem is obvious and serious. Looking at the classic (wine and wheat) example, if Portugal was able to produce enough wine to satisfy the demands of all both England and the domestic market and still had labor capacity left over, Portugal would then also produce its own wheat as well. England would be frozen out of the market and would simply bleed money and jobs. So, for one, labor surpluses break the model.
An amplifying effect is lent to this problem by the developing nature of the market. In Ricardo's day, while the factors of production may have been mobile, I don't believe that the factors of efficiency (if there is a such thing) were terribly mobile. This is sort of what Roberts is getting at, I think. In the classic example, the efficiency of Portugal is probably, at least in part, determined by climate and soil type and other agricultural factors. These could not pick up stakes and move. Historically, much of the value in goods was strongly related to natural resources that were either used to produce the goods, or were refined into the goods themselves. This has changed. Natural resources have largely been commoditized and are traded on very low margins. Profit margin is generated in the processing of the resources. Increasingly, with services and intellectual property there are no natural resources involved to speak of. This eliminates one of the major factors of efficiency. Education and skill levels of the labor pool have also traditionally been a factor of efficiency. This, as Barry mentioned, is also becoming increasingly commoditized. Essentially the market is progressively eliminating all factors of efficiency but one: the cost of labor.
What follows from that is that if a) you have excess labor supply and b) a market where the factors of production can flow quickly and easily, and c) the sole factor of efficiency is labor cost, the result is going to be a rapid flow of work from the locations with the highest labor costs to those with the lowest. Which is exactly what we're seeing.
Furthermore, if we assume that labor costs are relative to a general labor cost index (ie if a doctor in the US makes 5x the US mean income, then a doctor in China probably makes 5x the Chinese mean income), it would be the case that the higher the income level of a job, the greater the savings of moving it to a country with a lower cost index. That would imply that the greatest efficiency advantages for countries with a low cost index would be those industries with the highest wages. So even if we eliminated the labor surplus and had an exact balance of labor supply to labor demand, it would be the case that all of the highest paying jobs would move from wealthy countries to poor ones, leaving menial jobs for the wealthy countries. I would assume that the existence of a labor surplus only serves to accelerate this process.
Let me add one more aggravating factor to the mix. One cap on the impact of trade is that (obviously) it only affects those industries whose products can be traded. This set of industries, however, is also rapidly expanding due to ubiquitous high speed data networks, and an ever greater portion of the economy is becoming subject to these pressures. This particularly impacts service industries, on which our economy has become increasingly dependent.
In the end, I guess I don't have any great insightful revelation here. But I feel like we're further refining our discussion and our understanding of the relevant terms and theories. It again comes back to deep structural problems that will confound any of the efforts I have thus far heard proposed to stop the bleeding of jobs out of the US.
Ricardo's theory seems to me to be simply a matter of showing that a country has differing degrees of efficiency in production, and will naturally focus on those industries where their efficiencies are highest, which means that in the areas where they are not specializing they may rely on trade with other countries to fill their needs even though those other countries may not be as efficient. The labor problem is obvious and serious. Looking at the classic (wine and wheat) example, if Portugal was able to produce enough wine to satisfy the demands of all both England and the domestic market and still had labor capacity left over, Portugal would then also produce its own wheat as well. England would be frozen out of the market and would simply bleed money and jobs. So, for one, labor surpluses break the model.
An amplifying effect is lent to this problem by the developing nature of the market. In Ricardo's day, while the factors of production may have been mobile, I don't believe that the factors of efficiency (if there is a such thing) were terribly mobile. This is sort of what Roberts is getting at, I think. In the classic example, the efficiency of Portugal is probably, at least in part, determined by climate and soil type and other agricultural factors. These could not pick up stakes and move. Historically, much of the value in goods was strongly related to natural resources that were either used to produce the goods, or were refined into the goods themselves. This has changed. Natural resources have largely been commoditized and are traded on very low margins. Profit margin is generated in the processing of the resources. Increasingly, with services and intellectual property there are no natural resources involved to speak of. This eliminates one of the major factors of efficiency. Education and skill levels of the labor pool have also traditionally been a factor of efficiency. This, as Barry mentioned, is also becoming increasingly commoditized. Essentially the market is progressively eliminating all factors of efficiency but one: the cost of labor.
What follows from that is that if a) you have excess labor supply and b) a market where the factors of production can flow quickly and easily, and c) the sole factor of efficiency is labor cost, the result is going to be a rapid flow of work from the locations with the highest labor costs to those with the lowest. Which is exactly what we're seeing.
Furthermore, if we assume that labor costs are relative to a general labor cost index (ie if a doctor in the US makes 5x the US mean income, then a doctor in China probably makes 5x the Chinese mean income), it would be the case that the higher the income level of a job, the greater the savings of moving it to a country with a lower cost index. That would imply that the greatest efficiency advantages for countries with a low cost index would be those industries with the highest wages. So even if we eliminated the labor surplus and had an exact balance of labor supply to labor demand, it would be the case that all of the highest paying jobs would move from wealthy countries to poor ones, leaving menial jobs for the wealthy countries. I would assume that the existence of a labor surplus only serves to accelerate this process.
Let me add one more aggravating factor to the mix. One cap on the impact of trade is that (obviously) it only affects those industries whose products can be traded. This set of industries, however, is also rapidly expanding due to ubiquitous high speed data networks, and an ever greater portion of the economy is becoming subject to these pressures. This particularly impacts service industries, on which our economy has become increasingly dependent.
In the end, I guess I don't have any great insightful revelation here. But I feel like we're further refining our discussion and our understanding of the relevant terms and theories. It again comes back to deep structural problems that will confound any of the efforts I have thus far heard proposed to stop the bleeding of jobs out of the US.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Another One Bites the Dust
Wes Clark is out of the race. I'm sad to see him go, although it does enhance the chances of somebody beating Kerry. Clark is a hella smart guy, and I hope that if the Dems win the presidency they can put him to work.
Re: Comparative Advantage
As an illustration to my previous post, the Christian Science Monitor has this story on the falling wages of the middle class, and the widening gap of wealth.
What's more, Slashdot has this provocative discussion about many of the same issues raised in our posts--and a whole lot more. I have not had time to wade through it all, but from what I've seen excellent points are made.
Update: As it turns out, that Slashdot discussion is the one Joe cites from that prompted this recent discussion. The big circle of life, I guess.
What's more, Slashdot has this provocative discussion about many of the same issues raised in our posts--and a whole lot more. I have not had time to wade through it all, but from what I've seen excellent points are made.
Update: As it turns out, that Slashdot discussion is the one Joe cites from that prompted this recent discussion. The big circle of life, I guess.
Re: Comparative Advantage
Here is a traditional example to Ricardo's comparative advantage theory, although I think the example Joe offers gets the gist of it.
The Roberts-Schumer discussion focused on mobility of factors of production as the changed circumstance in today's economy. I don't think that accurately describes the problem. Rather, it is that there is a seemingly endless labor pool available in the global market. Larger countries can create armies of engineers and lab technicians and more quickly adapt to any developments in the market, making our labor pool way over-priced. The problem is not permanent--eventually our labor pool will be equally priced with everyone else, although it may take many decades to achieve an equilibrium between our labor market and developing nations. But I don't think that's a comforting prediction for most Americans.
Undoubtedly the job drain will not happen overnight, as it will take time for developing nations to accumulate the skills necessary to provide sufficient labor forces in highly specialized fields. And of course because a lot of the investment capital originates in the US that investment capital will reap huge gains. The problem as I see it is that the investment gains comes at the expense of the middle class. Unless the investment class is willing to share some of their profits with the rest of Americans, the disparity of wealth will only continue to advance--and I predict at an accelerating rate.
Using Joe's example is a little tough because surgeons will probably not lose their jobs to overseas workers--but typists are already feeling the pinch. A quick Google search on "outsource + india + typists" comes up with this link, one of many that advertise such services. If "lab technician" were substituted for surgeon, then what you might expect to see in the coming years is that both lab technicians and typists in America having to take jobs at Walmart or Best Buy as customer service representatives at far less pay than they could have made in their native professions because there are more typists and lab techs in India than there are jobs to fill worldwide.
The Roberts-Schumer discussion focused on mobility of factors of production as the changed circumstance in today's economy. I don't think that accurately describes the problem. Rather, it is that there is a seemingly endless labor pool available in the global market. Larger countries can create armies of engineers and lab technicians and more quickly adapt to any developments in the market, making our labor pool way over-priced. The problem is not permanent--eventually our labor pool will be equally priced with everyone else, although it may take many decades to achieve an equilibrium between our labor market and developing nations. But I don't think that's a comforting prediction for most Americans.
Undoubtedly the job drain will not happen overnight, as it will take time for developing nations to accumulate the skills necessary to provide sufficient labor forces in highly specialized fields. And of course because a lot of the investment capital originates in the US that investment capital will reap huge gains. The problem as I see it is that the investment gains comes at the expense of the middle class. Unless the investment class is willing to share some of their profits with the rest of Americans, the disparity of wealth will only continue to advance--and I predict at an accelerating rate.
Using Joe's example is a little tough because surgeons will probably not lose their jobs to overseas workers--but typists are already feeling the pinch. A quick Google search on "outsource + india + typists" comes up with this link, one of many that advertise such services. If "lab technician" were substituted for surgeon, then what you might expect to see in the coming years is that both lab technicians and typists in America having to take jobs at Walmart or Best Buy as customer service representatives at far less pay than they could have made in their native professions because there are more typists and lab techs in India than there are jobs to fill worldwide.
Comparative Advantage
I just wanted to paste a little blip in here from a slashdot discussion. Barry and I had struggled a little with exactly what (definitionally) constitutes comparative advantage with regards to the Roberts - Schumer discussion. This snippet is a very concise and meaningful way to put it (well, it helped me a lot anyhow):
it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery. Posted by Frymaster.
it's basically just a rehash of david ricardo's "comparative advantage" argument. it goes like this: there is a surgeon and a typist. the surgeon types 60 wpm, the typist only 40. however, despite the fact that the surgeon is faster on the keyboard, it is better overall for the typist to do the typing and leave the surgeon to surgery. Posted by Frymaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
