Sunday, December 30, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Dangerous: A Bahraini officer "Ali Aaref" slaps a citizen on his face
Two years ago what has become known as “The Arab Spring” was sparked when a member of the Tunisian police forces slapped a young man in Sidi Bouzid. People thought that the days of police suppression will be over soon, but in Bahrain yet another video has gone viral to remind us that police states are alive and well.
Activist @alaashehabi tweeted:
@alaashehabi: Vid of police slapping man in #Bahrain goes viral-200k views in 24hrs. How many news channels aired it?
Lawrence O’Donnell eviscerates Zimmerman lawyer — MSNBC
MSNBC’s most watched in 2012: Lawrence O’Donnell eviscerates Zimmerman lawyer — MSNBC
Host Lawrence O’Donnell did not let the lawyer for George Zimmerman–who is accused in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin–off the hook just because he ran away from an interview on The Last Word.
After lawyer Craig Sonner sped away from the MSNBC studio in Orlando where he was scheduled to speak with O’Donnell, the host lobbed hard-hitting questions at the empty chair where Sonner was supposed to sit.
“This lawyer is getting away with the craziest stuff any lawyer has attempted in this situation,” O’Donnell said before listing all the questions Sonner had left unanswered.
“Does George Zimmerman have a job? Who is paying you? Who hired you? Did you represent him when he was arrested for assaulting a police officer in 2005? Did you represent him in a domestic violence in 2007?” O’Donnell asked.
Sonner has not taken O’Donnell up on his invitation to return to the show for an interview on the controversial case.
Host Lawrence O’Donnell did not let the lawyer for George Zimmerman–who is accused in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin–off the hook just because he ran away from an interview on The Last Word.
After lawyer Craig Sonner sped away from the MSNBC studio in Orlando where he was scheduled to speak with O’Donnell, the host lobbed hard-hitting questions at the empty chair where Sonner was supposed to sit.
“This lawyer is getting away with the craziest stuff any lawyer has attempted in this situation,” O’Donnell said before listing all the questions Sonner had left unanswered.
“Does George Zimmerman have a job? Who is paying you? Who hired you? Did you represent him when he was arrested for assaulting a police officer in 2005? Did you represent him in a domestic violence in 2007?” O’Donnell asked.
Sonner has not taken O’Donnell up on his invitation to return to the show for an interview on the controversial case.
Rush Limbaugh does not understand how birth control works — TRMS
MSNBC’s most viewed in 2012: Rush Limbaugh does not understand how birth control works — MSNBC
“I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex, so the more times you have sex, the more birth control pills you need…But you don’t like, get, a new IUD every time you’re going to have sex. You don’t have to go buy an individual birth control pill to cover each sexual incident which might result in you becoming pregnant. You just take one pill every day.”
“I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex, so the more times you have sex, the more birth control pills you need…But you don’t like, get, a new IUD every time you’re going to have sex. You don’t have to go buy an individual birth control pill to cover each sexual incident which might result in you becoming pregnant. You just take one pill every day.”
Rev. Graham says Obama seen as ‘son of Islam’ — MSNBC
MSNBC’s most viewed in 2012: Rev. Graham says Obama seen as ‘son of Islam’ — MSNBC
Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, told Morning Joe‘s panel that he couldn’t say whether or not President Obama is a Christian.
“I think you have to ask President Obama,” Reverend Franklin Graham said on February 21, 2012.
Rev. Graham insisted that though the president goes to church on Sundays, he can only take Obama “at his word,” and does not know if Obama is a Christian in his heart.
“The Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a son of Islam,” because Obama’s father was Muslim, Graham added.
The reverend did, however, identify then-Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a Christian, saying that Santorm’s moral and Christian values are “so clear.” When asked about Mitt Romney, Reverend Graham said that most Protestants do not view Mormonism as a Christian faith.
Graham later apologized for questioning the president’s faith.
Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, told Morning Joe‘s panel that he couldn’t say whether or not President Obama is a Christian.
“I think you have to ask President Obama,” Reverend Franklin Graham said on February 21, 2012.
Rev. Graham insisted that though the president goes to church on Sundays, he can only take Obama “at his word,” and does not know if Obama is a Christian in his heart.
“The Muslim world sees Barack Obama as a son of Islam,” because Obama’s father was Muslim, Graham added.
The reverend did, however, identify then-Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum as a Christian, saying that Santorm’s moral and Christian values are “so clear.” When asked about Mitt Romney, Reverend Graham said that most Protestants do not view Mormonism as a Christian faith.
Graham later apologized for questioning the president’s faith.
Obama’s Harvard University protest 1991 — MSNBC
MSNBC’s most watched in 2012: Obama’s Harvard University protest — MSNBC
Barack Obama was president even before he became commander-in-chief when he held the office at the Harvard Law Review as a younger man. Video of Obama speaking as the organization’s president at a university protest calling for more diversity among faculty surfaced during the 2012 campaign and showed the president’s trademark delivery.
Defending his mentor, Professor Derek Bell, Obama joked about his credentials.
“How has he accomplished all this, he hasn’t done it simply by his good looks and easy charm,” he said to laughter. “Although he has both in ample measure.”
Andrea Mitchell, host of Andrea Mitchell Reports pointed out that the speech from 1991 touched on issues of race and gender that Obama continues to confront to this day.
Barack Obama was president even before he became commander-in-chief when he held the office at the Harvard Law Review as a younger man. Video of Obama speaking as the organization’s president at a university protest calling for more diversity among faculty surfaced during the 2012 campaign and showed the president’s trademark delivery.
Defending his mentor, Professor Derek Bell, Obama joked about his credentials.
“How has he accomplished all this, he hasn’t done it simply by his good looks and easy charm,” he said to laughter. “Although he has both in ample measure.”
Andrea Mitchell, host of Andrea Mitchell Reports pointed out that the speech from 1991 touched on issues of race and gender that Obama continues to confront to this day.
Mittt Romney sticks it to the 47% — MSNBC
MSNBC’s most viewed in 2012: Mittt Romney sticks it to the 47% — MSNBC
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
What is Riskier than living poor person in America?-MHP
“What is riskier than living poor person in America? Seriously! What in
the world is riskier than being a poor person in America? I live in a
neighborhood where people are shot on my street corner. I live in a
neighborhood where people have to figure out how to get their kid into
school because maybe it’ll be a good school or maybe it won’t. I am sick
of the idea that being wealthy is risky. No, there is a huge safety net
that, whenever you fail will catch you, and catch you, and catch you.
Being poor is what is risky. We have to create a safety net for poor
people. And when we won’t because they happen to look different from us
it is the pervasive ugliness.”
Chris Mathews calls out Reinse Preibus
Woe unto any Republican who tries to pull a fast one on Chris Matthews.
The Hardball host challenged RNC Chairman Reince Preibus after then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney joked about President Obama’s birth certificate. A charged-up Matthews accused Republicans of sending out dog-whistle racial messages to their base through comments about welfare, food stamps, and the president’s birthplace.
“I have to call you out on this,” Matthews said during the Morning Joe segment. “It is an embarrassment to your party, to play that card. This stuff about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest, everyone has pointed out it’s dishonest. And you are playing that little ethnic card there, and you can play your games and giggle about it but the fact is, your side is playing that card.”
That was just the beginning.
The Hardball host challenged RNC Chairman Reince Preibus after then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney joked about President Obama’s birth certificate. A charged-up Matthews accused Republicans of sending out dog-whistle racial messages to their base through comments about welfare, food stamps, and the president’s birthplace.
“I have to call you out on this,” Matthews said during the Morning Joe segment. “It is an embarrassment to your party, to play that card. This stuff about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest, everyone has pointed out it’s dishonest. And you are playing that little ethnic card there, and you can play your games and giggle about it but the fact is, your side is playing that card.”
That was just the beginning.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
India Debates for Capital Punishment for Rape
|
|||
|
| |||
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
How the U.S. Pivot Towards Asia is Exacerbating Tensions With China
December 14, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
With newly re-elected President Barack Obama having chosen Southeast
Asia as his first foreign destination, where he also attended the
much-anticipated pan-Pacific East Asia Summit, the U.S. has underscored
its commitment to its so-called strategic ‘pivot’ to the Asia-Pacific
region.
Months after the 2011 U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq,
President Obama signaled the formal launch of the pivot in a November
speech to the Australian parliament: “As a Pacific nation, the United
States will play a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and
its future.”The U.S. already has around 320,000 troops stationed in the region, as well as 50 percent of its formidable global naval assets. Under the pivot strategy, the U.S. is set to commit several thousand additional troops and increase its naval strength by another ten percent in the coming few years.
The Obama administration has repeatedly denied that the pivot is a containment strategy aimed at Beijing, arguing it is simply a logical ‘rebalancing’ towards the region in light of Asia’s stunning economic growth and the increasing importance of maintaining U.S. interests there.
However, more than two years into the so-called U.S. pivot, many strategic commentators across the Pacific have raised major questions as to its real intentions, actual impact, and practicability, given the United States’ deep fiscal constraints ahead of scheduled defence-spending cuts.
Reacting to lingering uncertainties over the U.S. strategy, China, which views the pivot as an act of provocation, as well as other countries in the region such as Vietnam, Philippines, and Japan, have stepped up their territorial claims in the Western Pacific – indirectly testing America’s resolve to uphold its strategic commitments.
In this sense, the pivot – purportedly to reinforce the United States’ role as an ‘anchor of stability and prosperity’ in the Pacific – has ironically contributed to greater uncertainty, turbulence, and belligerence vis-Ã -vis the festering maritime disputes.
In a recent op-ed for the Singapore-based daily The Straits Times, Barry Desker, the dean of the Singapore-based S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), called for ‘mutual restraint’ by all disputing littoral states to ‘diffuse’ tensions, while contending that all parties are “guilty of occupying uninhabited islands and land features.”
And a recent report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group says: “With tensions on the rise, Manila is eager to pursue closer military cooperation with the U.S., and Hanoi (as a strategic partner) is keen to carefully bring in and balance U.S. influence in the region.
“If these countries frame any U.S. assistance as being directed against China, it will be harder for the former to persuade the latter that it will not get involved in territorial disputes.”
The pivot can be traced as far back as the 2010 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in Hanoi, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton injected the U.S. into the centre of decades-long territorial disputes in the South China Sea by announcing that her country had a ‘national interest’ in the freedom of navigation across the Western Pacific, including the South China Sea.
As a result, allies such as Japan and the Philippines have repeatedly sought U.S. re-assurance vis-Ã -vis existing bilateral mutual defence treaties, especially in the event of military confrontation with China over disputed maritime features in the Western Pacific.
The Philippines and Vietnam are mired in bitter maritime disputes with China over a whole host of features in the Spratly and Paracel chains of islands in the South China Sea, while Japan is contesting China’s claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu chain of islands in the East China Sea.
Meanwhile, Washington’s allies in Northeast Asia, Japan and South Korea, are locked in a separate territorial dispute over the Takeshima/Dokdo islands in the Sea of Japan.
In last month’s Australia-U.S. Ministerial Meeting, Clinton sought to calm Chinese nerves by stating, “We (the U.S.) welcomed a strong, prosperous and peaceful China, which plays a constructive role in promoting regional security and prosperity… We do not take a position on competing territorial claims in the South China Sea.”
The U.S. Navy also invited China to join the large-scale, U.S.-led ‘Rim of the Pacific Exercise’ by 2014.
Yet an unconvinced China, under its new leadership, has nudged up its claims. Recently, authorities in the southern Chinese Island of Hainan have issued new laws, whereby beginning next year, they will have the authority to intercept and board any foreign vessel seen to violate China’s ‘sovereignty’ over all claimed features in the South China Sea.
In response, Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Surin Pitsuwan warned that such a decision “…has increased a level of concern and a level of great anxiety among all parties, particularly parties that would need the access, the passage and the freedom to go through.” Beijing subsequently insisted that the new authority was not aimed against sea-borne commercial traffic.
China’s new passport design, incorporating disputed territories in the South China Sea under the country’s official map, has also sparked renewed concerns among some of its southern neighbours.
In the face of what it sees as Chinese provocations, however, a deeply divided ASEAN has failed to make any meaningful progress in crafting a legally-binding regional Code of Conduct to resolve disputes, as strongly urged by Washington.
If the pivot is seen in Beijing as a provocation, it has also encouraged greater assertiveness on the part of some of its neighbours.
While the Vietnamese have stepped up their energy exploration projects in disputed territories, and the Japanese government decided to purchase from its private owner one of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea, the Philippines has pushed to upgrade its military ties with the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea to defend its own claims.
“While we are all aware that the U.S. does not take sides in disputes, they do have a strategic stake in the freedom of navigation, unimpeded commerce, and the maintenance of peace and stability in the South China Sea,” Filipino President Benigno Aquino stated at last month’s East Asian Summit, prodding further U.S. involvement in the South China Sea disputes.
How Washington will react to these kinds of pressures, particularly given its own fiscal challenges that have already resulted in nearly 500 billion dollars in cuts to its projected military budgets over the next ten years, adds yet another level of uncertainty to the calculations of the contending parties in the region.
Already, the pivot is being attacked by the U.S. right as insufficient. “This reallocation of military and diplomatic resources was supposed to guarantee stability in a region seeking to balance China’s rise. In reality, this strategic shift is less than it appears,” argued Michael Auslin in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. “In reality…it won’t solve Asia’s problems and may even add to the region’s uncertainty by over-promising and under-delivering.”
Orcs v. Goblins: Crazed Republicans Turn on Each Other in Ugly Fiscal Cliff Battle
December 23, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
And so things appear as Americans watch the fiscal cliff deadline draw near. There’s just a week to go for lawmakers to make a deal to avert automatic tax increases and spending cuts. Last week, negotiations broke down as Speaker Boehner failed to get enough votes to pass a bill that would have required the wealthy to pay a minuscule increase in taxes at a time when income inequality is crippling the nation’s future. With the House gridlocked, attention turns to the Senate, where some Republicans appear to be in favor of Obama’s call for a partial deal that insulates most Americans from the tax increases but defers a resolution on spending. A deal may yet pass, but it’s getting very ugly in the GOP.
Goblins v. Orcs
The Republican Party, particularly in the House of Representatives, is so blinded by greed and stupidity that factions are turning on each other.
One group, let’s call them the goblins, is just plain greedy, but not completely crazy. These are the folks who favored Mitt Romney for president and simply want to continue shovelling money toward the one percent as they have been doing very successfully for the past three decades. They are willing to make a deal because they know that any deal, particularly one that will shred the social safety net with cuts like those Obama has proposed to make to Social Security (the widely condemned chained CPI adjustment), will work out very nicely to their advantage. They are thrilled that instead of focusing on the jobs crisis, the country has been railroaded into premature deficit-reduction deals that serve as a cover for conservative wealth redistribution schemes. They also know that many Americans are catching on to their scam, and so they tend to rely on subterfuge and the appearance of moderation or “centrism” to get what they want, which is, in essence, more of your money.
President Obama is comfortable with goblins, and is often secretly thought to be one of them, as Bruce Barlett recently explained in the Fiscal Times. They like him okay, too.
Then there are the orcs. These are the lunatics who favored your Santorums, Gingrichs, Bachmanns, Herman Cains and so on -- the assorted nuts in the GOP who are willing to fight ideological warfare with the battle cry “no taxes” and the battering rams of bad math and Ayn Rand-style social theory to send the land into total chaos. It's not enough for them to cut Social Security at a time when the retirement of hard-working Americans has not been so vulnerable since before the Great Depression. These monstrous right-wingers would rather see every American’s taxes rise than increase taxes on a single millionaire by a nickel. The orcs have got the upper hand in the House and it is they who have blocked a deal on the fiscal cliff. They were last seen dancing around a bonfire made from Econ 101 textbooks and an effigy of John Boehner.
The Money Wizards
Part of the problem is that the goblins and the orcs are acting on behalf of different money wizards.
The orcs are associated with the Club for Growth, which has a large PAC; Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks; Heritage Action for America; and contributors to ex-Senator DeMint's PAC. These orc-friendly elements want no deal, and their battle philosophy is summed up in Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller’s recent comments: “We are pleased that the Republicans did not vote to raise taxes. We need to get real about our problems and stop playing political games.”
The orcs are for all-out war.
The goblins, on the other hand, dance to the tune of different money wizards. They are painfully aware, as Rep. Steve LaTourette (R., Ohio) explained, that failure to make a deal "weakens the entire Republican Party” and makes it appear to be a "bunch of extremists that can’t even get a majority of our own party to support policies we’re putting forward." The goblins are close to the Business Roundtable, many of America’s largest corporations, and a fair number of Wall Streeters. Haley Barbour and Karl Rove are on the goblins' side. Even Grover Norquist, the anti-tax man himself, seems to fear the price of a take-no-prisoners goblin/orc war; he recently signaled peace with the goblin faction in his endorsement of Boehner’s “Plan B.” It was all to no avail. The orcs are battle-crazed and eager to attack the goblins again.
As political scientist Thomas Ferguson succinctly put it: "Inside the GOP, all the little piggies go to market. Just not the same market. That's the party's problem."
The spectacle of the Republican Party diminishing itself with nasty internal battles is certainly a welcome sight for the little people. But there are still plenty of ways they can get squashed. The goblin-backed theft of their retirement money appears to have the president's support, a great victory for the Dark Side. Coming debt ceiling negotiations will offer goblins and orcs another chance to rob the honest folk and enrich themselves. But maybe, just maybe, the goblins and the orcs will exhaust themselves enough fighting each other that the little people can mount a counter-offensive. Hope springs eternal. At least in the movies.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Rebecca Solnit - It's not just gloom and despair.
The Sky’s the Limit
The Demanding Gifts of 2012
By Rebecca Solnit
As this wild year comes to an end, we return to the season of gifts. Here’s the gift you’re not going to get soon: any conventional version of Paradise. You know, the place where nothing much happens and nothing is demanded of you. The gifts you’ve already been given in 2012 include a struggle over the fate of the Earth. This is probably not exactly what you asked for, and I wish it were otherwise -- but to do good work, to be necessary, to have something to give: these are the true gifts. And at least there’s still a struggle ahead of us, not just doom and despair.
Click here to read more of this dispatch.
'V for Vendetta' (2005) Shocks China
GV Weekly Edition: Censorship Lift for “V for Vendetta” Shocks China |
||
 |
V for Vendetta, a thriller film produced in 2005 about a
near-future dystopian society, previously censored in China, was aired
on China Central Television Station (CCTV) Channel Six on December 14,
2012. Many people are surprised by the screening, in particular the mask
of V, which has been used by activists all over the world as a symbol
of resistance against government oppression.
Read more on Global Voices » |
Saturday, December 22, 2012
GOP Crazies Sink Boehner
John Boehner couldn't get enough votes to pass his fiscal-cliff “Plan B” —which would have protected all but the richest Americans from tax hikes—so he had to pull the measure from the floor. The speaker may bow to his own crazies, but the president shouldn’t, writes The Daily Beast’s Robert Shrum. Plus, John Avlon on how the GOP imperiled Boehner’s speakership, and more coverage of the fiscal-cliff countdown.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Standoff at Scarborough Shoal - 101 East - Al Jazeera English
Standoff at Scarborough Shoal - 101 East - Al Jazeera English
The South China Sea is a strategically important and resource-rich area in Asia. Around half of the world's merchant fleets pass through every year carrying an estimated $5 trillion worth of trade. The area is also believed to contain valuable oil and gas deposits.
And ownership is hotly contested. There are ongoing territorial disputes between Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and China. One of the most well-known is the Spratly Islands' hydrocarbon deposits valued at $26.3 trillion.
The latest tension is at the Scarborough Shoal, a small cluster of uninhabitable islands which lies about 220km off the coast of the Philippines and falls under its exclusive economic zone according to international maritime law. But China also claims ownership despite its nearest coastline being 900km away. The Scarborough Shoal has valuable resources including fishing, shipping routes and potentially enormous oil and gas deposits.
In early April, the Philippines' naval forces intercepted eight Chinese fishing vessels in the Scarborough Shoal. They found large numbers of illegally-fished turtles, baby sharks, clams and corals on board. They tried to arrest the poachers but were stopped by the arrival of two Chinese maritime ships leading to a two-month standoff.
The David and Goliath-style situation has forced the Philippines, along with other smaller Asian countries, to work together on joint security. It has also pushed them to cement military ties with the US and Australia.
After more than two decades of double-digit increases in defence spending, China now has the largest fleet of advanced warships, submarines and long strike aircraft in Asia. The Philippines is working hard to get support from allies such as Japan and the US to help it build up its military capabilities.
But months of simmering tension between both sides over the disputed territory is threatening to exact a heavy toll on Philippines' economy and is damaging vital tourism and agricultural sectors.
Business communities in the Philippines are concerned the ongoing standoff threatens trade relations and investments after China tightened regulations on banana imports from the Philippines and several Chinese tour groups cancelled visits to the Philippines. Energy and infrastructure projects have also been put on hold.
As China flexes its economic and military muscle across the Asia Pacific region, 101 East asks if this escalation is a threat to peace and stability.
The South China Sea is a strategically important and resource-rich area in Asia. Around half of the world's merchant fleets pass through every year carrying an estimated $5 trillion worth of trade. The area is also believed to contain valuable oil and gas deposits.
And ownership is hotly contested. There are ongoing territorial disputes between Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and China. One of the most well-known is the Spratly Islands' hydrocarbon deposits valued at $26.3 trillion.
| Connect with 101 East |
 |
 |
In early April, the Philippines' naval forces intercepted eight Chinese fishing vessels in the Scarborough Shoal. They found large numbers of illegally-fished turtles, baby sharks, clams and corals on board. They tried to arrest the poachers but were stopped by the arrival of two Chinese maritime ships leading to a two-month standoff.
The David and Goliath-style situation has forced the Philippines, along with other smaller Asian countries, to work together on joint security. It has also pushed them to cement military ties with the US and Australia.
After more than two decades of double-digit increases in defence spending, China now has the largest fleet of advanced warships, submarines and long strike aircraft in Asia. The Philippines is working hard to get support from allies such as Japan and the US to help it build up its military capabilities.
But months of simmering tension between both sides over the disputed territory is threatening to exact a heavy toll on Philippines' economy and is damaging vital tourism and agricultural sectors.
Business communities in the Philippines are concerned the ongoing standoff threatens trade relations and investments after China tightened regulations on banana imports from the Philippines and several Chinese tour groups cancelled visits to the Philippines. Energy and infrastructure projects have also been put on hold.
As China flexes its economic and military muscle across the Asia Pacific region, 101 East asks if this escalation is a threat to peace and stability.
Cuba's Ladies in White - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
Cuba's Ladies in White - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
After 53 years of revolution, Cubans are increasingly exasperated by the restrictions imposed on them by the country's change-averse communist regime.
In spite of, or perhaps because of, recent modest economic reforms, activism is growing as the government's opponents overcome their fear of arrest and take to the streets.
But it is not easy. Today, even the church-based Ladies in White - a group of female relatives of imprisoned activists - say they are routinely spied on and arrested.
This year they achieved brief international notoriety when they were prevented from meeting Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to the island, but for the most part their activities are carried out under the ever-present threat of harassment and intimidation by Cuba's internal security police.
Nevertheless, inspired by the Arab Spring, the Ladies are determined to keep up their protests, sensing that the regime's grip on power is fading and that sooner rather than later it will be forced to give way.
But what is it like to live in such a pervasive culture of surveillance and fear? People & Power sent an independent undercover journalist to find out. He has asked us not to reveal his identity because he may wish to visit Cuba again in the future, but in the article below he describes what it was like to make the film and the many difficulties facing the activists he met.
After 53 years of revolution, Cubans are increasingly exasperated by the restrictions imposed on them by the country's change-averse communist regime.
In spite of, or perhaps because of, recent modest economic reforms, activism is growing as the government's opponents overcome their fear of arrest and take to the streets.
But it is not easy. Today, even the church-based Ladies in White - a group of female relatives of imprisoned activists - say they are routinely spied on and arrested.
This year they achieved brief international notoriety when they were prevented from meeting Pope Benedict XVI during his visit to the island, but for the most part their activities are carried out under the ever-present threat of harassment and intimidation by Cuba's internal security police.
Nevertheless, inspired by the Arab Spring, the Ladies are determined to keep up their protests, sensing that the regime's grip on power is fading and that sooner rather than later it will be forced to give way.
But what is it like to live in such a pervasive culture of surveillance and fear? People & Power sent an independent undercover journalist to find out. He has asked us not to reveal his identity because he may wish to visit Cuba again in the future, but in the article below he describes what it was like to make the film and the many difficulties facing the activists he met.
The Fight to Publish - Witness - Kazakhstan - Al Jazeera English
The Fight to Publish - Witness - Al Jazeera English
Zhanara, Oksana and Irina are colleagues at the Kazakh opposition newspaper Respublika - but they live 3,000 miles apart because editor Irina is forced to live in exile in London.
"At Respublika," says deputy editor Oksana, "we fight a daily battle just to get the paper published."
The paper is one of the few dissenting voices in a country that has remained in the iron grip of President Nazarbayev since independence in 1991.
Its offices have been firebombed, its staff beaten, kidnapped, imprisoned and exiled.
This film follows journalist Zhanara as she covers stories from her base in Almaty - and when breaking news of the riots in Zhanaozen takes her to the aftermath of the bloodiest day in Kazakhstan's modern history.
Zhanara, Oksana and Irina are colleagues at the Kazakh opposition newspaper Respublika - but they live 3,000 miles apart because editor Irina is forced to live in exile in London.
"At Respublika," says deputy editor Oksana, "we fight a daily battle just to get the paper published."
The paper is one of the few dissenting voices in a country that has remained in the iron grip of President Nazarbayev since independence in 1991.
Its offices have been firebombed, its staff beaten, kidnapped, imprisoned and exiled.
This film follows journalist Zhanara as she covers stories from her base in Almaty - and when breaking news of the riots in Zhanaozen takes her to the aftermath of the bloodiest day in Kazakhstan's modern history.
The GOP Vilifies; the Crazies Strike Back
A
scathing report finds the State Department failed to protect its
diplomats in Libya, as at least two high-ranking officials depart. The
Daily Beast’s Eli Lake reports.
The crazies in Congress selected Susan Rice as a target and manufactured a case against her. It was politics all the way having nothing to do with the facts surrounding a splendid career of public service.
In war-torn Libya still populated by outside hostiles lusting for power, who could prevent the trashing of a temporary Embassy or the murder of an unarmed diplomatic detail? Certainly not the band of wheelchair warriors who inhabit the Congress.
Their hate-filled campaigns have commanded the public airwaves for many years. More recently, Ronald Reagan targeted Nicaragua [of all places] as the Mother of All Evil. After Reagan failed at an outright invasion of that hapless nation, he enlisted most of his cabinet and much of his national security force in a covert mission to subvert the nation. This blossomed into the Iran-Contra Affair, which criminalized many parts of the US Govt.
In this noxious atmosphere, we elected POTUS GHWB a former CIA director imbued with all manner of New World Order conspiracy and fantasy. After GHWB proved too honest and straightforward for their tastes, they succeeded him with Bill Clinton whose great economic successes provided them with first rate cover for his two terms.
The master stroke began in 1996 with the sale of US nuclear secrets to the Pakistanis through Turkey. In effect that took Russia out of the power game in Asia and left the USA free to wheel and deal [so they thought].
The utter failure and disgrace of the US Asian efforts inspired domestic pretenders to seize power. They had many resources that should have guaranteed success. It could have been a MKULTRA mind control victory. They utilized every aspect of American hatred, racism and bigotry. They had all the financial, media and tactical resources under lock and key. They gave voice to every crackpot scheme and notorious scam that had polluted our body politic.
In their exuberance they had given over to excess.
53% of American voters recognized this and had run from them like the plague.
The crazies in Congress selected Susan Rice as a target and manufactured a case against her. It was politics all the way having nothing to do with the facts surrounding a splendid career of public service.
In war-torn Libya still populated by outside hostiles lusting for power, who could prevent the trashing of a temporary Embassy or the murder of an unarmed diplomatic detail? Certainly not the band of wheelchair warriors who inhabit the Congress.
Their hate-filled campaigns have commanded the public airwaves for many years. More recently, Ronald Reagan targeted Nicaragua [of all places] as the Mother of All Evil. After Reagan failed at an outright invasion of that hapless nation, he enlisted most of his cabinet and much of his national security force in a covert mission to subvert the nation. This blossomed into the Iran-Contra Affair, which criminalized many parts of the US Govt.
In this noxious atmosphere, we elected POTUS GHWB a former CIA director imbued with all manner of New World Order conspiracy and fantasy. After GHWB proved too honest and straightforward for their tastes, they succeeded him with Bill Clinton whose great economic successes provided them with first rate cover for his two terms.
The master stroke began in 1996 with the sale of US nuclear secrets to the Pakistanis through Turkey. In effect that took Russia out of the power game in Asia and left the USA free to wheel and deal [so they thought].
The utter failure and disgrace of the US Asian efforts inspired domestic pretenders to seize power. They had many resources that should have guaranteed success. It could have been a MKULTRA mind control victory. They utilized every aspect of American hatred, racism and bigotry. They had all the financial, media and tactical resources under lock and key. They gave voice to every crackpot scheme and notorious scam that had polluted our body politic.
In their exuberance they had given over to excess.
53% of American voters recognized this and had run from them like the plague.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Obama: GOP Actions ‘Puzzling’
President Obama said on Wednesday that it is “puzzling” that Republicans haven’t accepted his plan to avoid the fiscal cliff, saying he has gone “at least halfway” to meet them. “I’m prepared to get it done, but [Republicans] are going to have to go ahead and make adjustments,” Obama said. But the president insisted that there is “no reason” the country should go over the fiscal cliff, the name given for what will happen on Jan. 1 if no budget compromise is reached, allowing major spending cuts to go into effect and the Bush tax cuts to expire. Obama insisted this is a “self-inflicted crisis” that Republicans are putting the country through, and that House Speaker John Boehner's plan “defies logic.”
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
An armed society is a polite society.
“An armed society,” Nedivi wrote, quoting the
science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein, “is a polite society. Manners
are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” It may
be a bit odd to think of Israeli society as polite, but when it comes to
guns it is, and for just the reason articulated by Heinlein: When
everyone has a gun, guns are no longer seen as talismans by weak,
frightened, and unstable men seeking a sense of self-validation, but as
killing machines that are to be handled with the utmost caution and
care. - Tablet Magazine
An All-American Nightmare
Why Zero Dark Thirty Won’t Settle the Torture Question or Purge Torture From the American System
By Peter Van Buren
If you look backward you see a nightmare. If you look forward you become the nightmare.
There’s one particular nightmare that Americans need to face: in the first decade of the twenty-first century we tortured people as national policy. One day, we’re going to have to confront the reality of what that meant, of what effect it had on its victims and on us, too, we who condoned, supported, or at least allowed it to happen, either passively or with guilty (or guiltless) gusto. If not, torture won’t go away. It can’t be disappeared like the body of a political prisoner, or conveniently deep-sixed simply by wishing it elsewhere or pretending it never happened or closing our bureaucratic eyes. After the fact, torture can only be dealt with by staring directly into the nightmare that changed us -- that, like it or not, helped make us who we now are.- Truthout
Why Zero Dark Thirty Won’t Settle the Torture Question or Purge Torture From the American System
By Peter Van Buren
If you look backward you see a nightmare. If you look forward you become the nightmare.
There’s one particular nightmare that Americans need to face: in the first decade of the twenty-first century we tortured people as national policy. One day, we’re going to have to confront the reality of what that meant, of what effect it had on its victims and on us, too, we who condoned, supported, or at least allowed it to happen, either passively or with guilty (or guiltless) gusto. If not, torture won’t go away. It can’t be disappeared like the body of a political prisoner, or conveniently deep-sixed simply by wishing it elsewhere or pretending it never happened or closing our bureaucratic eyes. After the fact, torture can only be dealt with by staring directly into the nightmare that changed us -- that, like it or not, helped make us who we now are.- Truthout
Monday, December 17, 2012
Peru: Undermining Justice - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
Peru: Undermining Justice - People & Power - Al Jazeera English
With global demand for natural resources increasing year on year, some of the world's poorest communities are having to fight hard to protect their environment and way of life. When protests and direct action do not work, many will try and get redress through the courts.
But when multinational companies decide that the costs of settling such cases are far less than the huge profits on offer, is justice being undermined?
High up in the Andes of northern Peru, among cloud forests, high moors and fertile lands, lies the town of Huancabamba and the nearby farming community of Segunda y Cajas. Untouched by modern industry, the local population lives almost exclusively through farming, tapping into the rich soils and fresh water sources to put food on the table and sell produce to the lowland cities.
In 2002, this community's way of life, more or less unchanged for hundreds of years, was turned upside down by the arrival of British mining company Monterrico Metals. A mining company based in London, Monterrico had obtained concessions from the Peruvian government to start exploration and development work for the huge open cast copper mine called Rio Blanco - a project meant to run for 20 or more years.
In 2005, local communities marched on the mine site in protest against the company's plans.
According to those who were there, the rally had been envisaged as a peaceful affair but a confrontation with the police took place in which a number of people were injured.
Twenty-eight protesters were detained at the site for three days and, according to activists, were humiliated and tortured by the security forces. Unlikely to get any redress in Peru, the victims sued Monterrico in the UK, with the help of British law firm Leigh Day and Co, alleging that the company had been complicit in the affair.
But though their prospects looked good, the case was settled by Monterrico last year just before it came to trial. It meant the victims did get some compensation - but the wider problems they were fighting to reveal were never aired in open court.
The case is an interesting example of a growing trend. Multinational companies are increasingly likely to respond to legal challenges in this way. The settlement costs can be high but usually they are far less than they would be after a negative verdict. And more importantly it gives the companies - and their lawyers - control of the public debate.
But it begs a disturbing question: If corporations will do anything to avoid going near a court - how can indigenous peoples ever assert their rights?
Filmmaker Michael Watts has been to Peru for People & Power to find out.
With global demand for natural resources increasing year on year, some of the world's poorest communities are having to fight hard to protect their environment and way of life. When protests and direct action do not work, many will try and get redress through the courts.
But when multinational companies decide that the costs of settling such cases are far less than the huge profits on offer, is justice being undermined?
High up in the Andes of northern Peru, among cloud forests, high moors and fertile lands, lies the town of Huancabamba and the nearby farming community of Segunda y Cajas. Untouched by modern industry, the local population lives almost exclusively through farming, tapping into the rich soils and fresh water sources to put food on the table and sell produce to the lowland cities.
In 2002, this community's way of life, more or less unchanged for hundreds of years, was turned upside down by the arrival of British mining company Monterrico Metals. A mining company based in London, Monterrico had obtained concessions from the Peruvian government to start exploration and development work for the huge open cast copper mine called Rio Blanco - a project meant to run for 20 or more years.
In 2005, local communities marched on the mine site in protest against the company's plans.
According to those who were there, the rally had been envisaged as a peaceful affair but a confrontation with the police took place in which a number of people were injured.
Twenty-eight protesters were detained at the site for three days and, according to activists, were humiliated and tortured by the security forces. Unlikely to get any redress in Peru, the victims sued Monterrico in the UK, with the help of British law firm Leigh Day and Co, alleging that the company had been complicit in the affair.
But though their prospects looked good, the case was settled by Monterrico last year just before it came to trial. It meant the victims did get some compensation - but the wider problems they were fighting to reveal were never aired in open court.
The case is an interesting example of a growing trend. Multinational companies are increasingly likely to respond to legal challenges in this way. The settlement costs can be high but usually they are far less than they would be after a negative verdict. And more importantly it gives the companies - and their lawyers - control of the public debate.
But it begs a disturbing question: If corporations will do anything to avoid going near a court - how can indigenous peoples ever assert their rights?
Filmmaker Michael Watts has been to Peru for People & Power to find out.
Abandoning Private Manning - Listening Post - Al Jazeera English
Abandoning Private Manning - Listening Post - Al Jazeera English
On the Listening Post this week: Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning versus the US government - but where was the media? Plus, a look at Thailand’s controversial lese majeste law.
It was one of the biggest stories of 2010. Millions of classified US government documents leaked onto the internet through the Wikileaks website. Although it made the name of the site founder Julian Assange, the man accused of actually giving him the material is rather less well known. That man, US soldier Bradley Manning, is currently in a US prison awaiting trial over the case.
Of the 22 charges against Bradley Manning, the most serious include revealing classified information to unauthorised persons, violating orders and aiding the enemy. That last charge could lead to life imprisonment for the 25 year-old.
Two weeks ago, he spoke publicly for the first time in over two years in a pre-trial hearing where he claimed he was treated unlawfully whilst being held in military custody. This should have been an easy story for the media - an American whistleblower allegedly the source of many of the most important stories of the past two years speaking for the first time.
But the coverage, especially in the US, has been surprisingly sparse; it is conspicuous by its absence not least in the New York Times. Despite partnering Wikileaks on the story, they did not send anyone to cover the event preferring to use agency copy. Listening Post examines Manning’s treatment by the media.
On the Listening Post this week: Wikileaks suspect Bradley Manning versus the US government - but where was the media? Plus, a look at Thailand’s controversial lese majeste law.
It was one of the biggest stories of 2010. Millions of classified US government documents leaked onto the internet through the Wikileaks website. Although it made the name of the site founder Julian Assange, the man accused of actually giving him the material is rather less well known. That man, US soldier Bradley Manning, is currently in a US prison awaiting trial over the case.
Of the 22 charges against Bradley Manning, the most serious include revealing classified information to unauthorised persons, violating orders and aiding the enemy. That last charge could lead to life imprisonment for the 25 year-old.
Two weeks ago, he spoke publicly for the first time in over two years in a pre-trial hearing where he claimed he was treated unlawfully whilst being held in military custody. This should have been an easy story for the media - an American whistleblower allegedly the source of many of the most important stories of the past two years speaking for the first time.
But the coverage, especially in the US, has been surprisingly sparse; it is conspicuous by its absence not least in the New York Times. Despite partnering Wikileaks on the story, they did not send anyone to cover the event preferring to use agency copy. Listening Post examines Manning’s treatment by the media.
America's Teachers
All
those teachers who stayed in the school to protect their kids from a
deranged killer were unionized workers -- known as greedy slackers to
the political hacks, says TCBH! journalist Dave Lindorff OEN
Friday, December 14, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The War on Labor
The state's largest district, Detroit Public Schools, will remain open, but Detroit Federation of Teachers President Keith Johnson urged members to attend the protest.
"We're encouraging our members to stand in solidarity as a show of anger, defiance and frustration for this whole Legislature," he said. "It's only designed to break unions and has nothing to do with workers."
Thanks to Anne Savage of Eclectablog for the picture. They're liveblogging the events today. (
Monday, December 10, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Economic Mistakes
|
|
|
A Sign That Obama Will Repeat Economic MistakesBy Robert Scheer (about the author) Permalink (Page 1 of 1 pages)OpEdNews Op Eds |
Become a Fan
(24 fans) |
4
3
1
AP/Mark Lennihan
Please don't tell me that these reports in the business press touting Sallie Krawcheck as a front-runner for chairman of the SEC or even a possible candidate to be the next Treasury secretary are true. Who is she? Oh, just another former Citigroup CFO, and therefore a prime participant in the great banking hustle that has savaged the world's economy. Krawcheck was paid $11 million in 2005 while her bank contributed to the toxic mortgage crisis that would cost millions their jobs and homes.
Not that you would know that sordid history from reading the recent glowing references to Krawcheck in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News that stress her pioneering role as a leading female banker -- a working mother no less -- but manage to avoid her role in a bank that led the way in destroying the lives of so many women, men and their children. Nor did her financial finagling end with Citigroup, as Krawcheck added a troubling stint in the leadership at Merrill Lynch and Bank of America to her resume.
A woman who would be an excellent choice as the most experienced as well as principled candidate to head the SEC or Treasury is Sheila Bair, former head of the FDIC, who labored to protect consumers rather than undermine them. Indeed, her outstanding book "Bull by the Horns," chronicling her fight in the last two administrations to hold the banksters accountable, should be required reading for the president and those who are advising him on selecting his new economic team.
The SEC is supposed to supervise the banks rather than abet them in their chicanery. And although the Treasury Department has been a captive of Wall Street lobbyists for most of the modern era, one would expect something better from the second coming of Barack Obama. Those are key appointments in determining whether the president can turn around the still-moribund economy by channeling the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Or will he continue to plod along on the course set by George W. Bush, bailing out the banks while ignoring beleaguered homeowners and the many other victims of this banking-engineered crisis? - OEN
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
India: Fights the Criminalization of Shared Property
Thursday, November 29, 2012 – by Staff Report
A License to Steal ... India Skirts Patent Laws to Help Companies and Poor ... For years, India has refused to respect the patents of foreign pharmaceutical companies suspected of slightly altering their drugs merely to extend their profitability. In doing so, it helps not only the growing number of domestic generic drug makers, but also the millions who can hardly even afford the copycat drugs. – Der Spiegel
Dominant Social Theme: Contravening copyright is thievery.
Free-Market Analysis: Patent is not copyright but increasingly the two are being treated in much the same way these days. Both terms are expressions for law enforcement efforts to control what we can call "shared property."
The problem, especially in the modern era, is that shared property is replicable property. Drugs and movies come to mind. Today, drugs and movies are easily created and moved from place to place. It is a recipe for endless legal warfare because the state's determination to snuff out the uncompensated use of shared property is in conflict with what used to be called natural law. In other words, it can't be done.
The Myth of Austerity
The Myth of Austerity
by Philipp Bagus on November 30, 2012
Many politicians and commentators such as Paul Krugman claim that Europe's problem is austerity, i.e., there is insufficient government spending. The common argument goes like this: Due to a reduction of government spending, there is insufficient demand in the economy leading to unemployment. The unemployment makes things even worse as aggregate demand falls even more, causing a fall in government revenues and an increase in government deficits. European governments pressured by Germany (which did not learn from the supposedly fateful policies of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning) then reduce government spending even further, lowering demand by laying off public employees and cutting back on government transfers. This reduces demand even more in a never ending downward spiral of misery. What can be done to break out of the spiral? The answer given by commentators is simply to end austerity, boost government spending and aggregate demand. Paul Krugman even argues in favor for a preparation against an alien invasion, which would induce government to spend more. So the story goes. But is it true?
First of all, is there really austerity in the eurozone? One would think that a person is austere when she saves, i.e., if she spends less than she earns. Well, there exists not one country in the eurozone that is austere. They all spend more than they receive in revenues.
In fact, government deficits are extremely high, at unsustainable levels, as can been seen in the following chart that portrays government deficits in percentage of GDP. Note that the figures for 2012 are what governments wish for.
The absolute figures of government deficits in billion euros are even more impressive.
A good picture of "austerity" is also to compare government
expenditures and revenues (relation of public expenditures and revenues
in percentage).
Imagine that a person you know spends 12 percent more in 2008 than
her income, spends 31 percent more than her income the next year, spends
25 percent more than her income in 2010, and 26 percent more than her
income in 2011. Would you regard this person as austere? And would you
regard this behavior as sustainable? This is what the Spanish government
has done. It shows itself incapable of changing this course.
Perversely, this "austerity" is then made responsible for a shrinking
Spanish economy and high unemployment.
Unfortunately, austerity is the necessary condition for recovery in Spain, the eurozone, and elsewhere. The reduction of government spending makes real resources available for the private sector that formerly had been absorbed by the state. Reducing government spending makes profitable new private investment projects and saves old ones from bankruptcy.
Take the following example. Tom wants to open a restaurant. He makes the following calculations. He estimates the restaurant's revenues at $10,000 per month. The expected costs are the following: $4,000 for rent; $1,000 for utilities; $2,000 for food; and $4,000 for wages. With expected revenues of $10,000 and costs of $11,000 Tom will not start his business.
Let's now assume that the government is more austere, i.e., it reduces government spending. Let's assume that the government closes a consumer-protection agency and sells the agency's building on the market. As a consequence, there is a tendency for housing prices and rents to fall. The same is true for wages. The laid-off bureaucrats search for new jobs, exerting downward pressure on wage rates. Further, the agency does not consume utilities anymore, leading toward a tendency of cheaper utilities. Tom may now rent space for his restaurant in the former agency for $3,000 as rents are coming down. His expected utility bill falls to $500, and hiring some of the former bureaucrats as dish washers and waiters reduces his wage expenditures to $3,000. Now with expected revenue at $10,000 and costs at $8,500 the expected profits amounts to $1,500 and Tom can start his business.
As the government has reduced spending it can even reduce tax rates, which may increase Tom's after-tax profits. Thanks to austerity the government could also reduce its deficit. The money formerly used to finance the government deficit can now be lent to Tom for an initial investment to make the former agency's rooms suitable for a restaurant. Indeed, one of the main problems in countries such as Spain these days is that the real savings of the people are soaked up and channeled to the government via the banking system. Loans are practically unavailable for private companies, because banks use their funds to buy government bonds in order to finance the public deficit.
In the end, the question amounts to the following: Who shall determine what is produced and how? The government that uses resources for its own purposes (such as a "consumer-protection" agency, welfare programs, or wars), or entrepreneurs in a competitive process and as agents of consumers, trying to satisfy consumer wants with ever better and cheaper products (like Tom, who uses part of the resources formerly used in the government agency for his restaurant).
If you think the second option is better, austerity is the way to go. More austerity and less government spending mean fewer resources for the public sector (fewer "agencies") and more resources for the private sector, which uses them to satisfy consumer wants (more restaurants). Austerity is the solution to the problems in Europe and in the United States, as it fosters sustainable growth and reduces government deficits.
Unfortunately, GDP is a quite misleading figure. GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given period.
There are two minor reasons why a lower GDP may not always be a bad sign.
The first reason relates to the treatment of government expenditures. Let us imagine a government bureaucrat who licenses businesses. When he denies a license for an investment project that never comes into being, how much wealth is destroyed? Is it the expected revenues of the project or its expected profits? What if the bureaucrat has unknowingly prevented an innovation that could save the economy billions of dollars per year? It is hard to say how much wealth destruction is caused by the bureaucrat. We could just arbitrarily take his salary of $50,000 per year and subtract it from private production. GDP would be lower.
Now hold your breath. In practice, the opposite is done. Government expenditures count positively in GDP. The wealth destroying activity of the bureaucrat raises GDP by $50,000. This implies that if the government licensing agency is closed and the bureaucrat is laid off, then the immediate effect of this austerity is a fall in GDP by $50,000. Yet, this fall in GDP is a good sign for private production and the satisfaction of consumer wants.
Second, if the structure of production is distorted after an artificial boom, the restructuring also entails a temporary fall in GDP. Indeed, one could only maintain GDP if production remained unchanged. If Spain or the United States had continued to use their boom structure of production, they would have continued to build the amount of housing they did in 2007. The restructuring requires a shrinking of the housing sector, i.e., a reduced use of factors of production in this sector. Factors of production must be transferred to those sectors where they are most urgently demanded by consumers. The restructuring is not instantaneous but organized by entrepreneurs in a competitive process that is burdensome and takes time. In this transition period, when jobs are destroyed in the overblown sectors, GDP tends to fall. This fall in GDP is just a sign that the necessary restructuring is underway. The alternative would be to produce the amount of housing of 2007. If GDP did not fall sharply, it would mean that the wealth-destroying boom was continuing as it did in the years 2005–2007.
by Philipp Bagus on November 30, 2012
Many politicians and commentators such as Paul Krugman claim that Europe's problem is austerity, i.e., there is insufficient government spending. The common argument goes like this: Due to a reduction of government spending, there is insufficient demand in the economy leading to unemployment. The unemployment makes things even worse as aggregate demand falls even more, causing a fall in government revenues and an increase in government deficits. European governments pressured by Germany (which did not learn from the supposedly fateful policies of Chancellor Heinrich Brüning) then reduce government spending even further, lowering demand by laying off public employees and cutting back on government transfers. This reduces demand even more in a never ending downward spiral of misery. What can be done to break out of the spiral? The answer given by commentators is simply to end austerity, boost government spending and aggregate demand. Paul Krugman even argues in favor for a preparation against an alien invasion, which would induce government to spend more. So the story goes. But is it true?
First of all, is there really austerity in the eurozone? One would think that a person is austere when she saves, i.e., if she spends less than she earns. Well, there exists not one country in the eurozone that is austere. They all spend more than they receive in revenues.
In fact, government deficits are extremely high, at unsustainable levels, as can been seen in the following chart that portrays government deficits in percentage of GDP. Note that the figures for 2012 are what governments wish for.
Unfortunately, austerity is the necessary condition for recovery in Spain, the eurozone, and elsewhere. The reduction of government spending makes real resources available for the private sector that formerly had been absorbed by the state. Reducing government spending makes profitable new private investment projects and saves old ones from bankruptcy.
Take the following example. Tom wants to open a restaurant. He makes the following calculations. He estimates the restaurant's revenues at $10,000 per month. The expected costs are the following: $4,000 for rent; $1,000 for utilities; $2,000 for food; and $4,000 for wages. With expected revenues of $10,000 and costs of $11,000 Tom will not start his business.
Let's now assume that the government is more austere, i.e., it reduces government spending. Let's assume that the government closes a consumer-protection agency and sells the agency's building on the market. As a consequence, there is a tendency for housing prices and rents to fall. The same is true for wages. The laid-off bureaucrats search for new jobs, exerting downward pressure on wage rates. Further, the agency does not consume utilities anymore, leading toward a tendency of cheaper utilities. Tom may now rent space for his restaurant in the former agency for $3,000 as rents are coming down. His expected utility bill falls to $500, and hiring some of the former bureaucrats as dish washers and waiters reduces his wage expenditures to $3,000. Now with expected revenue at $10,000 and costs at $8,500 the expected profits amounts to $1,500 and Tom can start his business.
As the government has reduced spending it can even reduce tax rates, which may increase Tom's after-tax profits. Thanks to austerity the government could also reduce its deficit. The money formerly used to finance the government deficit can now be lent to Tom for an initial investment to make the former agency's rooms suitable for a restaurant. Indeed, one of the main problems in countries such as Spain these days is that the real savings of the people are soaked up and channeled to the government via the banking system. Loans are practically unavailable for private companies, because banks use their funds to buy government bonds in order to finance the public deficit.
In the end, the question amounts to the following: Who shall determine what is produced and how? The government that uses resources for its own purposes (such as a "consumer-protection" agency, welfare programs, or wars), or entrepreneurs in a competitive process and as agents of consumers, trying to satisfy consumer wants with ever better and cheaper products (like Tom, who uses part of the resources formerly used in the government agency for his restaurant).
If you think the second option is better, austerity is the way to go. More austerity and less government spending mean fewer resources for the public sector (fewer "agencies") and more resources for the private sector, which uses them to satisfy consumer wants (more restaurants). Austerity is the solution to the problems in Europe and in the United States, as it fosters sustainable growth and reduces government deficits.
Lower GDP?
But does austerity not at least temporarily reduce GDP and lead to a downward spiral of economic activity?Unfortunately, GDP is a quite misleading figure. GDP is defined as the market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given period.
There are two minor reasons why a lower GDP may not always be a bad sign.
The first reason relates to the treatment of government expenditures. Let us imagine a government bureaucrat who licenses businesses. When he denies a license for an investment project that never comes into being, how much wealth is destroyed? Is it the expected revenues of the project or its expected profits? What if the bureaucrat has unknowingly prevented an innovation that could save the economy billions of dollars per year? It is hard to say how much wealth destruction is caused by the bureaucrat. We could just arbitrarily take his salary of $50,000 per year and subtract it from private production. GDP would be lower.
Now hold your breath. In practice, the opposite is done. Government expenditures count positively in GDP. The wealth destroying activity of the bureaucrat raises GDP by $50,000. This implies that if the government licensing agency is closed and the bureaucrat is laid off, then the immediate effect of this austerity is a fall in GDP by $50,000. Yet, this fall in GDP is a good sign for private production and the satisfaction of consumer wants.
Second, if the structure of production is distorted after an artificial boom, the restructuring also entails a temporary fall in GDP. Indeed, one could only maintain GDP if production remained unchanged. If Spain or the United States had continued to use their boom structure of production, they would have continued to build the amount of housing they did in 2007. The restructuring requires a shrinking of the housing sector, i.e., a reduced use of factors of production in this sector. Factors of production must be transferred to those sectors where they are most urgently demanded by consumers. The restructuring is not instantaneous but organized by entrepreneurs in a competitive process that is burdensome and takes time. In this transition period, when jobs are destroyed in the overblown sectors, GDP tends to fall. This fall in GDP is just a sign that the necessary restructuring is underway. The alternative would be to produce the amount of housing of 2007. If GDP did not fall sharply, it would mean that the wealth-destroying boom was continuing as it did in the years 2005–2007.
Conclusion
Public austerity is a necessary condition for private flourishing and a rapid recovery. The problem of Europe (and the United States) is not too much but too little austerity — or its complete absence. A fall of GDP can be an indicator that the necessary and healthy restructuring of the economy is underway.Captivated by Japan's ‘Daidougei' - Street Performance Art
|
|||
| |||
Tiferet Israel synagogue to be rebuilt. Muslims seething.
Posted: 29 Nov 2012 09:00 AM PST
From JPost:Here's a model of what the rebuilt synagogue, destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, will look like:The Jerusalem Municipality awarded initial approval to a plan to rebuild the Tiferet Israel synagogue in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter, a magnificent domed synagogue from the 19th century which was destroyed in the 1948 War of Independence.
The project will recreate the three-story-tall synagogue as well as the iconic dome on the top, with only minor changes to the original, such as the introduction of an elevator to make the building more accessible.
On Tuesday, the municipality’s Local Planning and Building Committee approved the plan for the next step of the process, where it must receive the approval of the Interior Ministry.
An anonymous donor who has been active in previous rebuilding projects in the Old City donated nearly NIS 50 million needed for reconstruction, said Shlomi Attias, the Old City project manager for The Company for the Reconstruction and Development of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem Ltd. (JQDC).
The JQDC is a public company under the auspices of the Construction and Housing Ministry.
The synagogue is located just a few hundred meters from the Western Wall Plaza, in the same plaza as the Hurva.
Ashkenazi Hassidim bought the land for Tiferet Israel Synagogue in 1843, though the building wasn’t inaugurated until 1872. The synagogue is also known as the Nissan Bek synagogue, after its founder.
The Al Aqsa Heritage Foundation is freaking out, claiming that the building is being built on the ruins of an Islamic chapel. (Isn't everything?) It also says that this synagogue, along with the Hurva and Ohel Yitzchak, are on areas belonging to the Islamic Waqf. (Isn't everything?)
I once made a video of a "flyover" of Jerusalem in the 1930s, based on high-resolution photographs. Tiferet Israel is prominently featured, right near the Hurva Synagogue.
It is worth mentioning that besides the fact that Muslims object to synagogues in Jerusalem altogether, they are especially peeved that this one - together with Hurva - are so tall, giving the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque competition in the Old City skyline (the Jewish Quarter is situated on a hill.)
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Ayalon: Israel bound less and less by previous pacts
Ayalon: Israel bound less and less to deals made with PA
LAST UPDATED: 11/29/2012 09:42
Deputy
Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Thursday that the Palestinian
Authority's bid for statehood at the United Nations constitutes a
"significant breach" of past agreements with Israel, and warned that
Jerusalem would take measures to respond to the move, according to Army
Radio.
"Israel is bound less and less to deals made with the Palestinians, and we will act in accordance with our own interests," Ayalon said. "This is a blatant, unilateral act, a significant breach of (past) accords."
"Israel is bound less and less to deals made with the Palestinians, and we will act in accordance with our own interests," Ayalon said. "This is a blatant, unilateral act, a significant breach of (past) accords."
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
End of occupation = end of Israel
Robert Serry - UN Envoy to Middle East
" Hamas calls all of Israel '"occupied,"so when he says the end goal is the end of occupation he means it is the end of Israel."
" Hamas calls all of Israel '"occupied,"so when he says the end goal is the end of occupation he means it is the end of Israel."
Monday, November 26, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Raising Min Wage to $12.50 Costs You 15 cents
Protesters rallied against the retailer’s low-wages and working conditions outside of 1,000 Walmart stores across 46 states, according to the union-backed group OUR Walmart —all on one of the biggest sale days of the year.
Despite the disruption, Walmart executives boasted its “best ever Black Friday,” and said that “less than 50 associates participated” in the protests nationwide. “In fact, this year, roughly the same number of associates missed their scheduled shift as last year,” Walmart CEO Bill Simon said in a statement.
The protester’s focus on Walmart’s low wages—which, according to leaked documents, can be a base pay as low as $8.00 an hour—concerned skeptics who worried about the costs to consumers should the retailer’s “always low-prices” suddenly rise in order to accommodate higher worker pay.
“Walmart’s prices aren’t just a little bit lower, they’re substantially lower,” Peter Suderman of Reason said Saturday on Up w/ Chris Hayes. ”This is a huge boon to the lowest fifth of the American consumer—to the people who are the least well off in the country.”
Fellow Up panelist Douglas Rushkoff countered Suderman’s argument, saying that local towns and communities were actually “net-poorer” due to Walmart’s “extractive force.”
“The cost of those prices is that you end up with Walmart workers on welfare rolls,”Rushkoff said.
Suderman followed up the segment with a 17-point “truthbomb” via Twitter with a take-down of anti-Walmart sentiment:
Raise prices to pay for increased wages and you cut into the store’s huge low-price benefits for the poor. It’s regressive.But according to a study by Demos, if retailers, not just Walmart, raised all hourly wages to at least $12.50 an hour, it would be a “private sector, retail-led stimulus.” As the study explains, the cost burden of raising the worker wages would be roughly 15 cents more per shopping trip.
“Is it necessary to have low wages in order to have low prices?” Demos’ Heather McGhee asked rhetorically on Up last week. Her answer: no.
(Storify h/t Lachlan Markay)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)