NOTE: Please read the About page for important information about this web site.
From the NY Times, Israelis and Palestinians start a web company.
The Palestinian office in Ramallah, with about 35 software developers, is responsible for most of the research and programming. A smaller Israeli team works about 13 miles away in the central Israeli town of Modiin.
Business, and not politics, will (gradually) merge two disparate civilizations… unless politics screws things up. of course.
Some hopeful signs for Cuba…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7343883.stm
Raul Castro has introduced a series of reforms since taking over as president from his brother Fidel in February.
These include the removal of some restrictions on the purchase of electrical goods such as mobile phones, microwave ovens and DVD players.
The state has also lifted a ban on its people staying in hotels previously reserved for foreigners – a measure which has only now been officially acknowledged in the latest edition of Granma.
Oh, and our “visionaries” in the White House have responded.
US President George W Bush has said Americans will soon be allowed to send mobile phones to relatives in Cuba.
The change in US policy follows the Cuban government’s easing last month of restrictions on mobile phone ownership.
As you’ve probably noticed, US policy with Cuba hasn’t exactly been a stunning success. Change from within is a good first sign. Next step: the US can take a strategic role in shaping Cuba’s future by strengthening diplomatic relations (helpful) and phasing out the embargo (very helpful).
So who can I blame for high gas prices? Oil execs? The government? The president?
It seems obvious that the answer is…
Other reasons include the OPEC cartel, of course, though their power lies much more in raising prices (easy) than in reducing them (raising output assumes they are capable of doing so in the first place, which is increasingly difficult during this renewed interest in re-nationalization of oil fields). Refining capacity is not substantially high here in the States (thanks to the “not in my backyard” mentality).
Yeah yeah, I know. I’ve heard the stories of people spending all their disposable incomes filling up their SUVs (geesh! do they use jet fuel?!). But rather than whine, maybe they should seriously consider switching to a Toyota Corolla. I drive a Corolla and, indeed, it doesn’t have much horse power. But even though it’s not even a hybrid, the mileage is amazing and the reliability is superb. The free market and good judgment led to this outcome, not the government.
—
Related commentary by Thomas Friedman of the NY Times can be found here. Excerpt:
The failure of Mr. Bush to fully mobilize the most powerful innovation engine in the world — the U.S. economy — to produce a scalable alternative to oil has helped to fuel the rise of a collection of petro-authoritarian states — from Russia to Venezuela to Iran — that are reshaping global politics in their own image.
This is basically Friedman’s positive correlation idea with oil prices and “petro-authoritarianism.” He ends with this:
“Call it the triple deficit,” said Mr. Rothkopf. “A fiscal deficit that will soon have us choosing between rationed health care, sufficient education, adequate infrastructure and traditional levels of defense spending, a trade deficit that has us borrowing from our rivals to the point of real vulnerability, and a geopolitical deficit that is a legacy of Iraq, which may result in hesitancy to take strong stands where we must.”
The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.
Given the presumptive candidates–Obama and McCain–the best choice for president is…
Obama, on foreign affairs. And…
John McCain, on domestic affairs.
Let’s start with John. McCain seems like the kind of guy who will genuinely try to be fiscally responsible. We have plenty of crappy socialist constructs like Social Security that need reform, lest they go bankrupt. Absent of abolition, why not privatize them? Oh… right… Congress, including Republicans, defeated that effort. But McCain is still the best choice when it comes to fiscal responsibility, pork reduction, government contraction (as opposed to expansion), and so forth. Unlike Obama, I don’t see McCain embracing centralized planning, union bosses, and gay marriage. Instead, I see him embracing competitive market forces, business-friendly legislation, and traditionalism. I.e., I like his domestic outlook.
But let’s face it, Obama is probably a much better choice on foreign affairs. We’ve screwed up in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. I supported both wars, and both wars succeeded. But the war’s aftermath–”winning the peace,” so to speak–hasn’t gone very well. We went into a nation-building effort with the war-fighting capacity but without a peace-building capacity (what Thomas Barnett wryly calls a “Department of Everything Else”). Obama may or may not create such an agency, but I suspect he’d be a far better negotiator and Diplomat-in-Chief. And America needs that right now, big time.
Given the choices, there’s one choice that’s conspicuously absent: choosing both, one for domestic affairs, the other for foreign affairs. For most Americans, I suspect choosing neither–not voting at all–will be the option they choose.
Article is here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0520mccainmay20,0,7518430.story
Good article, and I agree with him. The farm bill is absolutely absurd and economically hurtful. I’m glad McCain voted against it, and disappointed that Obama voted for it.
Trade is the thing that politicians love to hate. They don’t really hate it, mind you. They hate it for political convenience. Kiplinger’s sums things up well…
Blaming trade agreements for lost jobs misses the mark. Closing routes for trade expansion won’t solve the problem. Opening routes to training and education will.
In fact, closing trade routes exacerbates the problem in the long run–assuming our economy is “problematic” right now (which it is, but not from a jobs perspective).
When you hear politicians rail against trade, remember this: they’re either stupid (unlikely), or they’re being disingenuous to get your vote (likely).
That was the title of Foreign Policy magazine about a year or so ago (from memory, I don’t recall the precise date). Now, an update. Apparently the US imprisons way too many people for drug-related crimes. Here’s Dr Thomas Barnett’s take on this in a pithy blog entry entitled “Hear ye, hear ye: U.S. is number one in prisons!” Check out the first para and a 1/2:
We are five percent of global population but house almost one-quarter of prisoners, but that fits our share of garbage, pollution, energy use, GDP production, etc., so hardly a shocker.
Bigger problem is that we produce more ex-cons that anybody on planet, and that’s bad for business.
I’m no “pro-drug radical,” but the “what about the children?” argument in favor of draconian drug policy is bogus (unless you’re OK with your children spending time behind bars and having a permanent record due to one night’s bad judgment). And pragmatically, it’s hurtful as well; prison over-crowding often means that prisoners are let out early, even those who are more prone to recidivism. Then, there’s Barnett’s argument against the economics of it.
Lastly, and importantly, is the libertarian argument: does the government–esp the central gov’t–really have the right to tell us what we can or cannot put in our bodies?
Here’s what social conservatives should be thinking about immigration. The concluding paras are actually quite amusing:
If American culture is under assault today, it’s not from immigrants who aren’t assimilating but from liberal elites who reject the concept of assimilation. For multiculturalists, and particularly those in the academy, assimilation is a dirty word. A values-neutral belief system is embraced by some to avoid having to judge one culture as superior or inferior to another. Others reject the assimilationist paradigm outright on the grounds that the U.S. hasn’t always lived up to its ideals. America slaughtered Indians and enslaved blacks, goes the argument, and this wicked history means we have no right to impose a value system on others.
But social conservatives who want to seal the border in response to these left-wing elites are directing their wrath at the wrong people. The problem isn’t the immigrants. The problem is the militant multiculturalists who want to turn America into some loose federation of ethnic and racial groups. The political right should continue to push back against bilingual education advocates, anti-American Chicano Studies professors, Spanish-language ballots, ethnically gerrymandered voting districts, La Raza’s big-government agenda and all the rest. But these problems weren’t created by the women burping our babies and changing linen at our hotels, or by the men picking lettuce in Yuma and building homes in Iowa City.
Editorialist points out earlier in the commentary that immigrants–illegal or otherwise–are assimilating, notwithstanding the rhetoric to the contrary.
Not saying I “support illegals,” but I personally don’t like the hard-line stance that not only says “deport ‘em all,” but also says “not welcome.” It’s bad policy, bad economics, and bad moral judgment.
The closing para sums up the advice by Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics:
And if you’re still worrying about how to vote, I have two pieces of advice. First, spend your time studying foreign policy, where the president has more direct power, and the choice of a candidate makes a much bigger difference. Second, stop worrying and get back to work.
So, vote based mainly on foreign policy, since the prez has little control over the economy (and economic meddling is likely to be bad, anyway). Oh, and lower your expectations. Presidents don’t have magic wands.
You may not know it, dear reader, but Congress is playing you for a sap. During the housing mania, you didn’t lend money at teaser rates to borrowers who couldn’t pay, or buy a bigger house than you could afford. You paid your bills on time. As a reward for that good judgment and restraint, Barney Frank is now going to let you bail out the least responsible bankers and borrowers.
That’s from the WSJ. Fair assessment? For the most part, I think so. That’s not to say that there aren’t truly predatory lenders that have engaged in unethical–and possible illegal–practices. But a Big Gov bail-out sounds like a non-solution to me.
I suspect that economics, and not politics, will solve this problem. For a while, banks (that have suffered big time as well) will shy away from risky loans to avoid further losses. People who purchased stupid loans that they have no hope of paying will default and learn a pretty valuable (and painful) lesson. That’s the reality of the market, and for its flaws, it’s a heckuva lot better than the alternate reality of Big Gov intervention.
I have a lot of respect for Thomas Barnett. More respect than I have for his choice of candidates (out of Clinton, Obama, and McCain). Then again, he hesitates as well, admitting that this is a “lesser of evils” contest.
He gives his reasons (from his strategic mindset) for his tentative choice. His stand point is strategic rather than partisan or ideological. I wish more people thought from that angle.
Having said that, I find it difficult to imagine voting for Hillary, and based on Barnett’s editorial, I suspect he does too.
Political satirist and humorist PJ O’Rouke has a funny commentary on the LA Times. One point in particular stuck out.
All politics stink. Even democracy stinks. Imagine if our clothes were selected by the majority of shoppers, which would be teenage girls. I’d be standing here with my bellybutton exposed. Imagine deciding the dinner menu by family secret ballot. I’ve got three kids and three dogs in my family. We’d be eating Froot Loops and rotten meat.
Funny quote, but good point on the “tyranny by the majority” that is a contradiction of democracy, not the essence of it. A system where people vote and the majority decide doesn’t mean “democracy” in practice.