| |
Welcome to the Taking The Gloves Off
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Foreign Policy, Military and War
|
|
Written by Fergus Hodgson
|
|
Sunday, 04 September 2011 |
|
The Next Quagmire: Sanctions and Syria
by Fergus Hodgson If trade promotes peace, and it does, then trade sanctions stifle it. That may be simple logic, but it continues to go unnoticed with Washington officials. The latest nation on the receiving end of economic provocation is Syria. On August 18, Barack Obama froze all Syrian government assets within U.S. jurisdiction and banned American investment in, service trade with, and petroleum imports from Syria. Echoed by officials from other nations, both Obama and Hillary Clinton have called on Bashar al-Assad, president of Syria, to step aside — although they still gave lip service to national sovereignty, saying that “no outside power should impose on [Syria’s] transition.” To justify that move, Clinton denounced Syrian leaders as contemptuous towards their own people, and she asserted an array of atrocities against peaceful demonstrators, including the murder of thousands of unarmed civilians. The story is not that simple, however. Verification of the number of deaths is scant, and the “peaceful demonstrations” could better be described as an armed insurrection. In fact, alongside the insurrection, Damascus has witnessed mass pro-government rallies. Syria also happens to be the leading destination for refugees from Iraq, and as recently as 2009 Obama had sought to ease sanctions, on the basis of “mutual interest and mutual respect” according to his press spokesman). Regardless, al-Assad has dismissed calls for him to step down as meaningless, and trade sanctions will pave the way for military confrontation, not prevent it. Obama’s latest sanctions are an amplification of George W. Bush’s under the 2003 Syria Accountability Act. Congress introduced that legislation against Syria for, you guessed it, support for terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and, among other things, failure to support American activities in Iraq. Obviously, Syria is a “threat to U.S. national security interests.” Paranoia aside, the track record of trade sanctions does not support their existence. Just take a look at the list of embargoed nations, including Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. If anything, sanctions have offered a scapegoat for national officials and galvanized loyalists, who could better demonize the disengaged populations. Most important, sanctions have not led the officials of targeted nations to back down. Worse, sanctions worsen the plight of the poor, scarcely different from open war. 1990s Iraq provides just one compelling example. Impact estimates for deaths for that period, due to sanctions-induced contaminated living conditions and a lack of access to medicines, go as high as 500,000, as John Pilger has documented. Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time, even acknowledged that impact, when she said, “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.” Worth it for what? A decade of sanctions only led into the second Gulf War.
U.S. politicians also appear to forget that trade is mutually beneficial, so sanctions are mutually harmful. Blocking Syrian petroleum and business ventures is going to hurt both Syrian and American economic prospects. Moreover, the application of freezes on foreign-owned assets is so vague that it will dissuade further investment here. The selectivity of sanctions is another riddle that further undermines their credibility. Syria mustn’t be lending the United States enough money, because the Chinese government has a record of violent tactics that dwarfs that of Syria. They own $1.2 trillion of the U.S. debt and face no sanctions. They even just received a lecture from Joe Biden on the need for open trade: "I believe history has shown ... that in the long run, greater openness is a source of stability and a sign of strength, that prosperity peaks when governments foster both free enterprise and free exchange of ideas, that liberty unlocks a people’s full potential. And in its absence, unrest festers."
That’s right, Mr. Biden; the absence of trade does allow unrest to fester, just as it will in Syria. There may not be easy answers to the regrettable political conflicts in Syria, but isolation from the rest of the world is not going to help. Even if unintentionally, U.S. officials are setting the stage for military engagement, as they did with Iraq and recently with Libya.
Fergus Hodgson is director of fiscal policy studies with the John Locke Foundation and a policy advisor with The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).  Be first to comment this article |  Add as favourites (23) |  Quote this article on your site | Views: 395
|
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Economics and Financial Services
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Monday, 29 August 2011 |
|
Federal Reserve Grabs New Powers
by Sheldon Richman While inflation hawks understandably keep a close watch on the Federal Reserve’s money-creation activities, an equally worrisome Fed activity is taking place right under their noses. Under cover of addressing the financial crisis and recession, the Fed has become the central allocator of credit. As San Jose State University economics professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel points out in The Independent Review (Spring 2011), Fed chairman Ben Bernanke “has so expanded the Fed’s discretionary actions beyond merely controlling the money stock that it has become a gigantic, financial central planner.... [T]he Fed that emerged from the crisis is no longer the same as the Fed before the crisis.” It is standard operating procedure (though of course illegitimate by free-market standards) for a Fed chairman to inflate the money supply supposedly to provide increased liquidity during an economic crisis. It is then left to the market (distorted, to be sure) to “allocate” the money. What’s new is that under the Bernanke Fed’s self-expanded powers, the central bank is allocating credit to chosen financial institutions, including insolvent rather than merely illiquid ones. That is apparently unprecedented in the United States. Just as central planning of the economy in general, besides violating individual freedom, can’t serve the general interest because the planner necessarily lacks the required information, so it is with the central planning of the allocation of credit. Bernanke cannot know better than the collective intelligence of the market which firms should get capital and which shouldn’t. Creating credit out of thin air in order to allocate it according to a central plan is an assault on the market. But it is also an assault if Bernanke “merely” moves existing capital from one part of the market to another. The first direct allocation of credit came when the New York Federal Reserve Bank set up a company called Maiden Lane, which directly bailed out Bear Stearns in March 2008. Additional similar subsidiaries were established to perform other bailouts, such as that for AIG. Bernanke also helped the Treasury carry out TARP, the multibillion-dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program. “The Fed ... provided the bulk (if not all) of the money to these subsidiaries, whose other sources of funds never amounted to more than a few billion dollars,” Hummel writes. Hummel quotes economic historian Michael Bordo, who warned that such powers “exposed the Fed to the temptation to politicize its selection of recipients of its credit.” Who got the money? Hummel says it primarily went to depository institutions, the U.S. Treasury, federal agencies such as the mortgage guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and finally, holders of mortgage-backed securities, the instruments that contributed so much to the housing and financial bust. It was the first time the Fed bought that kind of securities. As late as last year, the Fed was devising new ways to borrow and allocate credit by setting up various “term deposit” facilities. Bernanke has been dubbed “Helicopter Ben” because of his so-called quantitative easing, which people assume distributes fiat money evenly across the economy, as if from a helicopter. But for Hummel, “A better moniker would therefore be ‘Bailout Ben.’” He adds, “Helicopter Ben talks a good line about being ready to unleash quantitative easing, but this talk only imparts an aura of justification for the Fed’s incredibly expanded role in allocating the country’s scarce supply of savings.” One can hardly overstate the extent to which Bernanke’s new powers move the U.S. economy further down the road to corporate statism. In his 1936 General Theory, John Maynard Keynes called for “a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment” as the “only means” of driving the interest rate on capital to zero and to secure full employment. I doubt that’s Bernanke’s precise intention, but in a society that calls itself free, no one should have such power. A free economy leaves savings and investment to the uncoerced choices of individuals, just as it leaves money and banking to the market. Bernanke, an admirer of Franklin Roosevelt and his experimental response to the Great Depression, promises to give up his new extraordinary powers once the economy is well. But those words are small comfort to anyone familiar with the dynamics of government. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (25) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 404 |
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Politics
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Friday, 19 August 2011 |
|
Conservatives Don't Hate Government
by Sheldon Richman Sometimes I wonder whether the mainstream pundits listen to themselves. It’s hard to believe they would say the silly things they say if they did. For example, the talking heads on MSNBC, which works 24/7 for President Obama’s reelection, like to say that conservative Republicans “hate government.” “If you hate government,” Chris Matthews, host of Hardball, asks, “why would you want to be the government?” Matthews’s evidence for this hatred is the conservatives’ harping on the large national debt, which is about equal to the GDP, and deficit spending, which is close to half of total federal spending, and their opposition to higher taxes to shrink the deficit. To Matthews, expressing concern about those numbers and opposing further spending, borrowing, and taxing is proof of hatred for government. A devastating piece of evidence was Republican votes against raising the debt ceiling even though the package contained future spending cuts. (Of course, they were not real cuts, but merely small decreases in the rate of spending growth.) The symbol of conservative hatred for government, Matthews said, came during the last Republican presidential debate, when all the candidates raised their hands to indicate they would oppose a deficit-reduction package that contained $10 in spending “cuts” for every $1 in increased revenues. Leaving aside the question of how sincere most Republican conservatives are when they rail against deficit spending, I would like Matthews and his ilk to answer a simple question: How can a group of politicians and political activists be said to hate government, or “Washington,” when they enthusiastically support: the U.S. government’s global bullying; invasions, occupations, and endless wars; secret CIA prisons; torture as an interrogation technique; extraordinary rendition in which suspects are sent to foreign countries for torture by brutal dictatorships; support for “friendly” foreign autocrats and other oppressive regimes; the USA PATRIOT Act, including warrantless surveillance; national-security letters; the military-industrial complex; the war on drug users/sellers/makers; energy independence; intellectual-property enforcement; restrictions on immigrants and employer sanctions; consumption taxes; federal marriage regulation; and corporate welfare? I’m sure I’ve left some things out. No one who embraces these liberty-killing actions can claim to be for small government, much less against government altogether. Most conservatives are as much for overpowering government as so-called liberals are. They just want the government to be overpowering in different matters, although that is less true than it once was. Conservatives have a cultural animosity to a welfare state that seems to cater to low-income people; apparently for them nothing is worse than an immigrant’s going on the dole. On the other hand, they have little problem with middle-class welfare, such as Social Security and Medicare. One of their arguments against Obamacare was that it includes a half-trillion-dollar cut in Medicare. True, they sometimes talk about giving a role in these programs to private companies, but that’s driven more by a pro-business orientation and a desire for efficiency than by any desire to end the programs. So-called liberals, on the other hand, would expand all welfare- state programs while keeping the power “in-house” rather than farming it out to business — they prefer government bureaucrats to corporate bureaucrats. There might have been a time when “liberals” could be said to oppose the global military establishment, but those days are long gone. When did you last hear a member of President Obama’s party criticize his war program, which is virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush’s? So the two dominant forces in American politics favor domineering government and, necessarily, a smaller sphere for individual freedom and free markets. Why, then, do Matthews & Co. insist that conservatives hate government? A reasonable explanation is that this strategy is intended to scare people into thinking there is no enlightened alternative to big-government pro-empire Progressivism. They can’t hit conservatives on foreign policy and civil liberties — because they hold the same views! So they have to convince Americans that conservatives would tear down everything they know and love. It’s false, but it may be effective. What’s lacking is a true pro-liberty, anti-power alternative. Actually, it’s not lacking. There are plenty of people promoting the libertarian vision. But the conservative and “liberal” intelligentsia have little interest in letting the American people in on it. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (27) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 354 |
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Economics and Financial Services
|
|
Written by Sheldon Richman
|
|
Monday, 15 August 2011 |
|
Politicians in a Panic
by Sheldon Richman You can almost see the panic on their faces. The politicians, central bankers, and court economists seem to be thrashing around like bad swimmers caught in a riptide. Despite all attempts — stimulus spending, increased borrowing, the Fed Reserve’s low-interest-rate policy, presidential jaw-boning — the economy refuses to recover. Unemployment remains over 9 percent, investment is stagnant, and even the previous paltry growth is fading. People increasingly see the government as impotent. If it weren’t for the innocent victims, this would be satisfyingly entertaining. After all, these are the reputed best and brightest, who assured us they know how to fix and run an economy. Now they are at wits’ end, and they’re running out of time. The election is next year. Had they heeded those who said no government can run an economy but it can run one into the ground if it tries, neither they nor we would be in this mess. Of course the policy elite try to maintain a façade of confidence. If government stimulus spending hasn’t worked, the “experts” say, it’s only because government hasn’t spent enough. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. The government already owes about as much as the economy can produce in a year. Political-economic faith resists evidence. There’s always a reason — other than government itself — for its policy failures. Those of us who believe that markets (when allowed to work) are morally and economically superior to bureaucracies are called “market fundamentalists.” It is true that when markets seem to fail, we point to the government intervention responsible. If that is market fundamentalism, what should we call those who believe government never fails and prescribe more government whenever it appears to do so? President Obama’s most ardent government-fundamentalist supporters say that focusing on the deficit and debt is a mistake. The only thing the president should be thinking about, they say, is jobs. That means more government spending, along with a few tweaks of the tax code. Debt and deficit be damned. But haven’t our overlords already done that, with nothing good to show for it? The ruling elite don’t appreciate such skepticism. Leave them alone. They’ll get it right next time. They promise. Despite what Obama, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and the rest of the ruling elite say, their policies are the poison not the antidote. Monetary, financial, and housing policies created an unsustainable boom and set the stage for the bust we continue to suffer. Since the bust, the Bush-Obama policies have worked against the emergence of a vibrant economy. Instead of getting out of the way and permitting the liquidation of policy-induced bad investments, government has piled intervention on intervention in a foolhardy attempt to recreate the pre-bust world. That is idiocy: The boom was a politically generated series of economic distortions. Restoring that situation makes no sense. Rather, the mistakes must be revealed through market revaluation of assets, insolvent firms must be allowed to fail, and we all must adjust to reality. Then the economy will grow. To date, the government’s policies have been aimed at denying reality. No wonder they have failed. “What should be done?” is the wrong question The right question is: What should be undone? The answer is: Lots of things. A good start would be for the government to stop sucking scarce resources out of the private economy. Every penny government spends — whether taxed or borrowed — is a penny taken from potential private investment. Government spending — particularly welfare and warfare — must be zeroed out and its borrowing must stop. That should be accompanied by an end to all subsidies, privileges, and barriers to competitive entry. The tax code, which aims to manipulate our economic activities as well as raise money, must be repealed. But, the policy elite say, if no one is investing their money now, why would they invest if they could keep more? Investors are afraid to move because of uncertainty about what government will do next. The policy unknowns — sources of which include rules yet to be written for Obamacare and Dodd-Frank — make waiting on the sidelines the smart bet. Credibly ending the threat of government intervention would do wonders for the economy. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine. Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (29) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 358 |
|
|
Blog, Commentary and Articles -
Civil Liberties and Advocacy Efforts
|
|
Written by James Landrith
|
|
Friday, 05 August 2011 |
The always awesome Vas Littlecrow on Feminism 101: Helpful Hints for Feminists Who Refer To Men as Dudes:
Finally, just as “babe” and “chick” are semi-derogatory terms that potentially minimize women, so are “dude” and “boy.” While these terms are fun for casual use, they aren’t always appropriate. When you try to explain feminist ideology to a man, address him with the same respect that you’d expect to be treated with as a woman. Don’t minimize him. Don’t grant him privileges or power that you don’t want him to have. Treat him as your equal and honor what feminism is supposed to be all about — a path towards egalitarianism.
I find this "dude" business extremely annoying. I'm not talking about people who call EVERYONE dude. I'm specifically referring to feminists who refer to any man they are speaking with as "dude". It exposes both a maturity problem and general lack of respect for men on the part of those feminists who use it regularly. When a feminist calls me "dude", I know immediately that they do not see me as an equal, an adult or even a human being worthy of respect. They are not interested in talking with me, but rather in talking at or down to me. At that point, I lose all respect for said feminist and I could care less about what she has to say going forward. Where she may have been able to foster another ally, she has instead slammed a door shut in her own face.
I have plenty of respectful, mature and worthwhile feminists in the ranks of my friends. I have no need for condescending, bigoted feminists who cannot even muster enough maturity to talk to men like they are human beings.
Is it really so hard? Or are we just plain unworthy of being treated with the same respect they righfully demand for themselves?
Someone really needs to get a fucking clue already. Just. Stop. It. Relevant Links: http://vaslittlecrow.com/blog/2011/08/03/feminism-101-helpful-hints-for-feminists-who-refer-to-men-as-dudes/ Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (139) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1201 |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 05 August 2011 )
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| | Results 46 - 50 of 3125 |
|
|
