Category Archives: Web Article Review

in praise of Richard Nixon

This post on History News Network makes a case that Richard Nixon looks great if you compare him to Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon did not set out to destroy our foreign policy, and in fact, improved it dramatically with the promotion of détente with the Soviet Union, the overture to the People’s Republic of China, and the nurturing of close ties with America’s allies in NATO. He had a mastery of foreign policy based on great experience from his Vice Presidential years onward for which he is often remembered aside from Watergate. This does not excuse the lengthening of the Vietnam War, or the terrible decisions on foreign policy regarding Chile, Greece, and the issue of the Indo-Pakistan War (which is associated with the creation of the nation of Bangladesh). But Donald Trump has been totally destructive in foreign affairs, alienating our allies in NATO, antagonizing all nations with his protectionist tariff policies, and consorting with authoritarian dictators including Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the leaders of such other nations, as the Philippines, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Trump has also worsened relations with Iran and Cuba, based upon extremist right wing influences of John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. The Middle East has become much more unstable. The US Foreign Service itself has been badly damaged by the inconsistencies and instability of Donald Trump.

Richard Nixon had many battles and conflicts with the Democratic-controlled Congress during his years in the Presidency, and yet managed to sign into law many signature measures that built upon the accomplishments of the Great Society of his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson. These included the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the enactment of Affirmative Action in employment and education. Donald Trump, in contrast, has been backtracking, destroying environmental protections, undermining consumer agencies, rolling back labor rights, ignoring scientific advancements, and curtailing civil rights. The Republican Party itself has become a willing participant in the destruction of these major domestic accomplishments of Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon also promoted the concept of welfare reform, including the expansion of the Food Stamp Program, and attempted, though he failed, to advance health care reform. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has wished to destroy the health care plan represented by ObamaCare, stranding millions of people without health care, and offering no alternative, in collusion with a Republican Party far to the Right of what it was in Nixon’s time in the Oval Office. Additionally, Richard Nixon expanded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and initiated Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly and disabled, all programs now in danger from Trump and the GOP.

Trump has added to the long-term existential risks to our civilization posed by climate change and nuclear weapons. But so far, we’re incredibly lucky he has not been faced with a major global economic or geopolitical crisis. My apologies to people in Puerto Rico and Yemen, among other places, when I say that. These are horrible crises for limited geographic areas and limited numbers of people (millions, in the case of Yemen) and the U.S. administration has blood on its hands. But think about the world-wide suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2008 or the world at the brink of nuclear war in 1962, and now imagine Trump in charge at those moments. Two years down, two to go.

could Marxism make a comeback?

Maybe, according to this Marxist professor writing on Truthout.org.

Within the broad Marxian tradition, some strands offer both analyses and policies that differ sharply from anything offered by either neoclassical or Keynesian economics. To take perhaps the clearest example, many Marxists focus on the undemocratic position of capitalists within enterprises (individual owners and corporate boards of directors). Their decisions on whether and how to invest net revenues determine the shape of the macroeconomy for all. A minority focused on enterprise profits as “the bottom line” makes decisions impacting the jobs, incomes, debts, etc. of a majority to which it is not democratically accountable. This minority’s expectations, desires and “animal spirits” (as Keynes put it) causes instability, in the Marxian view. The policy suggestion emerging from that view focuses on a program to “democratize the enterprise” as a solution to instability. Replacing hierarchical undemocratic capitalist enterprises with democratically organized worker cooperatives – where each enterprise member has one vote in deciding key matters, such as investment decisions – is a way forward that neither neoclassical nor Keynesian economists have yet allowed to be debated in public and academic forums. We will all be better off when the current narrowness of economics is opened up to include more basic proposals for change adequate to the depth and scope of capitalism’s current problems.

I’m not sure where I “stand”, except I’d like to see more empirical testing of economic theories and less ideology. Even if we figured out which of the major economics religions is actually “the right one”, we still couldn’t expect it to pick solutions for us. It could identify a range of reasonably economically efficient solutions to a problem (and reject a lot of clearly dumb ones), but we would still have to pick one to try moving ahead with that best represented our values. But maybe with all those dumb solutions tossed out and better information at our fingertips about the range of good solutions, our messy political system would have a better chance of making good choices.

more from Peter Singer

In the article I mentioned yesterday, Peter Singer also gives a brief review of some climate change-related legal and political events going on internationally.

In 1992, countries, including the US, China, India, and all European states (and a total of 189 by 2006) accepted responsibility for addressing climate change. Meeting at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, they agreed to stabilize greenhouse gases “at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system…”

Yet, with very few exceptions, governments have failed to take sufficient action to halt climate change, and most exacerbate the danger by continuing to support the use of fossil fuels. Hence activists in Belgium, Colombia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are seeking to use the courts to gain what they cannot obtain through political action.

The first climate litigation to win a positive decision was Urgenda Foundation v. The State of Netherlands, in which a Dutch court ruled, in 2015, that the government must ensure that the country’s emissions are cut by one quarter within five years. In response, the Dutch government did step up its actions to reduce emissions, but it also appealed the judgment.

This article was written in December, and the Dutch court system did apparently uphold the decision in an October ruling.

the trial of the century

Peter Singer is arguing for the importance of the lawsuit brought by children against the United States government for failing to address climate change.

The plaintiffs claim that their government’s active contribution to climate change has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. When the government sought to prevent the case from being heard, the federal district court of Oregon issued a historic ruling that “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”

When Juliana v. United States is appealed to the US Supreme Court, as seems inevitable, the question may no longer be whether the preservation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights requires “a climate system capable of sustaining human life”; it undeniably does. Instead, the Court will have to decide whether it is willing to heed the scientific evidence that the actions of the US government are indeed jeopardizing the survival of human life on our planet. If it is, even the most conservative justices will find it difficult to escape the conclusion that the government is in violation of the US Constitution.

countering misinformation

Back in 2012, Columbia Journalism Review gave some tips for how the media can try to counter misinformation. It’s hard and nothing is foolproof, but there are some best practices. People tend to believe things they hear repeated, things that meet their preconceived notions, and statements from people and organizations they trust. One best practice is to state the truth in a positive way rather than as the negation of a false statement. Another is to not quote partisan or ideological sources when refuting the false statement. Another is using graphics where possible to give context to numbers.

fish wars?

Is it possible that part of the military confrontation over the South China Sea, among other places, is about access to fish? Yes, according to ABC (Australian Broadcast Corporation).

Through his research, Mr Bergenas has identified parallels between oil and fish resources.

“There is a concentrated supply. The Middle East has nearly half the world’s supply of recoverable crude,” says Mr Bergenas.

“Similarly, the central Pacific has 60 per cent of the world’s tuna which is a highly pursued commodity.”

Fishing boats are also sometimes being intentionally used as bait (no pun intended). If a Chinese fishing vessel gets attacked by, say, the Indonesian coast guard (I’m just making this up), China may then send in the navy to respond. In a way, it’s a similar strategy to settlers on the American frontier or the West Bank.

new technology that can screen multiple passengers 25 feet away

Here’s some more information on new airport screening tech (LA Times).

The screening device, which is about the size of an old-fashioned PC computer tower and weighs about 50 pounds, reads the outline of people to reveal firearms and explosives hidden under their clothes.

Unlike the TSA’s existing full-body scanners that bounce millimeter waves off of passengers to spot objects hidden under their clothes, Gramer said, the passive terahertz technology reads the energy emitted by a person, similar to thermal imaging used in night-vision goggles…

As a result, Thruvision boasts that its technology can screen up to 2,000 people an hour and detect a concealed device at a distance of up to 25 feet. Initially, the system can be used in addition to the existing full-body scanners already deployed at airports, but Gramer said the device can eventually replace parts of the TSA’s security screening system.

I think anyone will welcome a more convenient flying experience at this point, but it is somewhat sinister to think of this technology being installed in all sorts of public places, work places, police cars, etc.

robots taking over…Amazon warehouses

According to Quartz, Amazon hired 120,000 seasonal workers in 2016 and 2017 vs. only 100,000 this year. Since consumer spending is up at the moment, this may be a sign of increased automation at their warehouses.

Now, given my own experience with Amazon Fresh, if they can find a way for a robot to inspect a bag of lettuce and make sure it isn’t rotten, it will be a great advance for robot-kind.

the next recession

The next U.S. recession could be a rough one, according to Harvard economist Martin Feldstein. The argument is that the Federal Reserve will continue to raise short term interest but very gradually, not leaving itself a lot of room to lower them when a recession hits. At the same time, due to the pro-cyclical tax cuts, the government will not be able to increase deficit spending by a lot because it will not be able to afford the increased interest payments. And third, low unemployment seems to be causing inflation.

It would not be surprising if the rate on ten-year Treasury bonds rises to 5% or more over the next few years. With an inflation rate of 3%, the real yield will be back to a normal historic level of over 2%.

This normalization of the ten-year interest rate could cause the P/E ratio to return to its historical benchmark. A decline of that magnitude, from its current level of 40% above the historic average, would cause household wealth to shrink by about $8 trillion. The historic relationship between household wealth and consumer spending implies that the annual level of household consumption would decline by about 1.5% of GDP. That fall in household demand, and the induced decline in business investment, would push the US economy into recession.

If you have an enormous nest egg, a 2% real return on bonds doesn’t sound all that terrible. For the rest of us relying on stocks to help us build that nest egg (those of us lucky enough to have a little extra income to save, that is), this doesn’t seem like good news.