HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jefferson23 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Connecticut
Home country: USA
Current location: nice place
Member since: Thu May 15, 2008, 04:37 PM
Number of posts: 26,340

Journal Archives

Pistachios, iPhones and flights: How will Iranians benefit from nuclear deal?

Talk is focusing on energy reform and big business investment, but initial change in Iran likely to be much more day-to-day

Simona Sikimic
Tuesday 14 July 2015 19:13 UTC
Last update:
Tuesday 14 July 2015 23:23 UTC

An Iranian grocer displays pistachios to a customer at his shop in Tehran (AFP)

After years of negotiations and much speculation, the Iranian nuclear deal has finally been penned.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a “new chapter of hope” had been opened while US President Barack Obama said that the deal offered “an opportunity to move in a new direction”.

If all goes according to plan, Iran will scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief, with the current agreement dictating nuclear development for the next 25 years.

Rosamund de Sybel, a director at the investigative and integrity consulting firm, K2 Intelligence , told MEE that she expects the lifting of “sanctions on oil exports and the banking sector to probably double Iran’s economic growth over the next few years”.

Economic growth estimates vary vastly from a 2 percent increase to a stellar 8 percent boost in the next few years although de Sybel says that a middle ground scenario - where growth would likely climb from around 3 percent today to 6 percent by 2017 - is most likely.

- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/pistachios-iphones-and-flights-how-ordinary-iranians-will-benefit-deal-1788282382#sthash.wI4SxJoY.dpuf

Readers React Bernie Sanders: So you're saying there's a chance?

In his column on Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders this week, The Times’ Doyle McManus asked, “How far can Sanders go?”

Although he answered his own question (“A Sanders presidency? Sorry liberals. It’s not going to happen”), a dozen Times readers cheerfully, pointedly and specifically begged to differ.

Steve Binder in Oxnard, with an almost audible sigh, wrote:

I guess McManus stopped believing in Santa Claus at too early an age. I’m sure he doesn’t remember the “miracle on ice,” when a group of young American amateur hockey players defeated the Russians and win the gold medal in the 1980 Olympics. I’m sure he thought that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a slam dunk when a relatively unknown black man entered the 2008 presidential race. I think McManus doesn’t realize how angry the American public is with both parties, and that people are looking for someone who tells it like it is and has a track record to prove it. Someone like Bernie Sanders.

Domenico Maceri in San Luis Obispo says the question is outdated:

Sanders has already gone far. He may not make it to the White House, but he has already made valuable contributions in shifting the campaign toward serious ideas. The media should pay serious attention to what he is saying instead of focusing their attention on the racist comments we hear from Donald Trump.

June Stephenson Bailey in Palm Desert pointedly observed:

I am a 95-year-old Democrat, feminist, author — and previous supporter of Hillary Clinton. I am today switching support to Sanders because he is more effectively telling what Republicans have done to our country, changing it from a democracy — government run by the people — to a plutocracy — government run by the people with the most money.

While I feel the discomfort of disloyalty to Clinton, I have weighed what I believe to be in the better interest of our country. Clinton has the support of the establishment, but Sanders is awakening the previously disenchanted nonvoters, and the first-time hopeful young voters, to the destructive force of inequality that holds 99% of us in wage stagnation.


LIBOR: History’s Largest Financial Crime that the WSJ and NYT Would Like You to Forget

By William K. Black
Quito: July 8, 2015

I read a BBC story about the LIBOR criminal trial in the UK and was going to write to criticize its woeful analytics. In preparation I checked the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal to see how they reported the devastating testimony in the trial. I could not, however, find any coverage in my electronic searches and viewing their web pages.

To review the bidding, the LIBOR bid rigging cartel was the largest cartel in history, manipulating the prices of an estimated $300+ trillion in assets. That is a figure considerably larger than the world’s combined GDP. Here are typical statements by the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the LIBOR cartel.

“For years, employees at Deutsche Bank illegally manipulated interest rates around the globe – including LIBORs for U.S. Dollar, Yen, Swiss Franc and Pound Sterling, as well as EURIBOR – in the hopes of fraudulently moving the market to generate profits for their traders at the expense of the bank’s counterparties,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “Deutsche Bank is the sixth major financial institution that has admitted its misconduct in this wide-ranging criminal investigation, and today’s criminal resolution represents the largest penalty to date in the LIBOR investigation.”

snip* Until recently, I called the LIBOR cartels the largest in history by at least three orders of magnitude. The rigging of foreign exchange (FX) “markets,” however, is so large that that I now have to say that they represent the two largest cartels in history by roughly three orders of magnitude. Both cartels consisted of most of the world’s largest and most elite banks. Indeed, UBS has admitted that after it signed its anti-prosecution agreement with DOJ for its massive LIBOR frauds it violated that deal by continuing to rig the FX “markets” as a member of a group that called itself “the Cartel.” Contrary to theoclassical ideology, both cartels persisted for many years and were ended only by (desultory) government action.

remainder in full: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/07/libor-historys-largest-financial-crime-that-the-wsj-and-nyt-would-like-you-to-forget.html

Joseph Stiglitz calls for US to intervene over Greece

By Damien Sharkov 7/9/15 at 6:57 PM

Nobel prize-winning economist and former chief economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz has predicted "depression without end" if the austerity programme in Greece continues and called on the US to be "generous with our friends in Greece" as it once was generous with Germany after the Second World War.

Writing in Time magazine Stiglitz calls on Germany and the US to remember the past and claims that Germany has engaged in "propaganda" by portraying Greece not sympathetically but as "a long-failed state that refuses to go along with the minimal conditions demanded in return for generous aid."

snip* "Greece needs unconditional humanitarian aid; it needs Americans to buy its products, take its vacations, and show a solidarity with Greece and a humanity that its European partners were not able to display," Stiglitz writes.

Stiglitz claims that should Greece lose the euro it "may not be easy" but it would not be "the end of the world" for Greece, citing the example of Argentina's decision to unpeg their peso from the US dollar's hard currency instead of introducing more cuts to pay off debt.


The New York Times Urges the Troika to “Make an Example of Greece”

By William K. Black
Quito: July 7, 2015

It is often the moral and economic blindness of New York Times articles about the EU crisis that is most striking. The newest entry in this field is entitled “Now Europe Must Decide Whether to Make an Example of Greece.” That is a chilling phrase most associated in our popular culture with a Consigliere and his Don deciding whether to order a mob “hit.” It is, therefore, fitting (albeit over the top) as a criticism of the troika’s economic, political, and propaganda war against the Greek people. Except that the article is actually another salvo in that war.

Let’s start with the obvious – except to the NYT. “Europe” isn’t “decid” anything. The troika is making the decisions. More precisely, it is the CEOs of the elite German corporations and banks that direct the troika’s policies that are making the decisions. The troika simply implements those decisions. The troika consists of the ECB, the IMF, and the European Commission. None of these three entities represents “Europe.” None of them will hold a democratic referendum of the peoples of “Europe” to determine policies. Indeed, they are apoplectic that the Greek government dared to ask the people of Greece through a democratic process whether to give in to the troika’s latest efforts to extort the Greek government to inflict ever more destructive and economically illiterate malpractice on the Greek people.

Second, the troika has been “mak an example of Greece” for at least five years. It extorted Greece to inflict the economic malpractice of austerity in response to a Great Recession. The result was just what economists warned – Greece was forced, gratuitously, into worse-than-Great Depression levels of unemployment that persist today seven years after Lehman’s collapse. In this process, the troika blocked a prior referendum proposed by Greece’s Socialist Prime Minister George Papandreou in late 2011 and forced him to resign for daring to propose democratic decision-making. Read the Guardian’s risible account of the 2010 coup that the troika engineered in Greece for an unintended insight as to how the UK’s “New Labour” Party has become an anti-labor party of austerity and “aspirational” hostility to efforts to contain the City of London’s criminal culture.

Third, the troika and a host of heads of state that have caused grave harm to workers in their nations responded immediately to the election of the anti-austerity Syriza party in Greece in January 2015 by shouting their increased eagerness to “make an example of Greece” for daring to elect Syriza. The government of Spain, for example, is desperate for the troika to double-down and “make an example of Greece” by crushing its economy in order to stave off the newly created and surging Podemos anti-austerity party that won key municipal elections in Spain. Prominent German elected officials have made explicit their desire to force Syriza (and Greece) to fail because they oppose its politics.

in full: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/07/the-new-york-times-urges-the-troika-to-make-an-example-of-greece.html

UN report is a reminder: Over 1.5 million people live in the Gaza Strip. It is not a battlefield

June 29, 2015

Brief humanitarian ceasefire in Beit Hanoun, 26 July 2014. Photo: Muhamad Sabah, B'Tselem.

Last summer’s Gaza conflict, known as Operation Protective Edge, began on 8 July 2014 and ended about fifty days later, on 26 August 2014. The devastation it would leave in its wake was known even when the fighting was still underway. The massive scale of it became clear once it was over. According to UN figures, more than 2,200 people were killed in Gaza, nearly 70% of them civilians who did not take part in the hostilities, including hundreds of women and children. Thousands of houses were destroyed and tens of thousands of people were displaced from their homes. According to B’Tselem figures, six civilians – including a young boy – were killed in Israel and 66 members of the Israeli security forces were killed in the fighting. There are no figures to convey the terror and fear experienced by millions of people during and after the war.

Even during the fighting, Israeli officials, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down to the officers serving in the Gaza Strip, all claimed that the military was doing everything in its power to avoid harm to civilians, above and beyond its legal obligations, and far more than any other army does. They claimed that any harm caused to civilians during the fighting in Gaza was Hamas’ fault, as Hamas had carried out its activities from within the civilian population, using it as a human shield, and made the conscious choice to place this population and its property in harm’s way.

This was the official position adopted by the Israeli government. Statements to this effect were also made in response to the report published on 22 June 2015 by the commission of inquiry (COI) appointed by the UN Human Rights Council. The report examined the lawfulness of the conduct by both Israel and Palestinian armed groups during the fighting in Gaza.

In its report, the COI rejects Israel’s position, holding that Israel is responsible for the massive harm it inflicted on the civilian population in the Gaza Strip over the summer. The COI goes on to find that the Israeli military did not do enough to prevent harm to civilians and that in some cases, persisted in a policy that had already been proven to cause massive harm to civilians. These findings do not address any specific action taken by the military during the fighting. Rather, the COI rejects the prevailing view among Israeli government and military officials regarding what is permitted and what is not during fighting in a densely populated area such as the Gaza Strip. According to the COI’s report, the massive harm to the civilian population during the fighting cannot be justified in any way, and international humanitarian law (IHL) cannot be interpreted in such a way that would make this harm lawful.

in full: http://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20150630_un_report_on_gaza

BBC Propaganda War v. Greece Reaches New Low After “No” Vote

By William K. Black
Quito: July 6, 2015

If you want to know why economic policy has gone insane in the UK you simply have to read the work of the BBC’s “Economics editor,” Robert Peston. I showed one example of his failed effort to terrify the Greeks into voting “Yes” in favor of continuing the self-destructive policies that have forced Greece into worse-than-Great Depression levels of unemployment in my most recent column. Peston argued that the Greeks had to submit to the troika’s demands that it make these policies even more economically illiterate and self-destructive because the troika would otherwise ensure that Greece’s economy was “utterly crippled.” As you know, the EU stands for “ever closer union.”

But Peston has been moved to new depths of propaganda and rage by the Greek “No” vote. In his July 6, 2015 column entitled “Huge costs of Greece staying in or quitting the euro” he lies by commission and omission. I’ll begin with his deceptive description of the ECB, which provides a “target rich environment.”

As for the ECB, it does not wish to be seen as Greece’s Judge Dredd. It will take its lead from any statement by eurozone government heads on whether there is a realistic chance of a new deal to rescue the finances of the ailing Greek state.

This would be an excellent opportunity for the “Economics editor” of one of the world’s top publications to bring economic facts to bear. The ECB is the EU’s central bank. A key role of a central bank is to provide liquidity to its banks – which include the Greek banks. The ECB, in response to the Greeks daring to vote democratically on whether to succumb to the ECB’s blackmail, pulled the provision of liquidity to Greek banks. So, the principal starting point of any analysis of the ECB’s role is to know that they deliberately refused to meet their responsibility to provide liquidity to the banks in order to extort the Greeks to exacerbate policies that ensure that the troika will increase the harm to the Greek people and economy rather than “rescue the finances of the ailing Greek state.”

in full: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/07/bbc-propaganda-war-v-greece-reaches-new-low-after-no-vote.html

The Untold History of Independence Day


Peter Linebaugh is an American Marxist historian who specializes in British history, Irish history, labor history, and the history of the colonial Atlantic. He recently retired after fifty years as a professor of history. Peter is the author of many books, including The London Hanged: Crime And Civil Society In The Eighteenth Century, The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All, The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic, and most recently, Stop, Thief!: The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance.

The Untold History of Independence DayJAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore.

July 4 is celebrated here in the U.S. as Independence Day to mark the adoption of the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.

Now joining us to discuss the radical, little-known history of Independence Day is Peter Linebaugh. Peter is a historian and author. He just retired from the University of Toledo, where he taught for 20 years. He's the author of many books, including The Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. He's also the author of the The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All, as well as, most recently, Stop, Thief! The Commons, Enclosures, and Resistance.

Thank you so much for joining us, Peter.


LINEBAUGH: So, Peter, you know, in popular memory, this day, Independence Day, we remember the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it was a long process that got the colonists to that point. Talk a little bit about the different political forces, social forces that helped get the US--and this was just within the first year or two of the Revolutionary War, but it had been a decade or longer that this conflict had been ongoing between the colonies and Great Britain. Talk about how we got to this point.

LINEBAUGH: Okay, Jaisal, I will talk about that, but it's hard. And even your question, you referred to how the U.S. got to this point, but, of course, it wasn't the U.S. at the time. The United States of America is an expression that Tom Payne invented and used to apply to what had been 13 colonies in revolt against Great Britain. So we're talking about an era before the U.S. has been formed. We're talking about a period of historical creation.

And it's complex. There are several sides to it. One side, it's the struggle of freedom against monarchy, a struggle of the notion of a republic against monarchy. And that is probably the principal theme of the Declaration of Independence.

I would suggest, you know, that people reread the Declaration of Independence, because they'll find 28 reasons for declaring independence from Great Britain. And these reasons reflect "a long train of abuses and usurpations" (or takeovers), to use Thomas Jefferson's language in the Declaration of Independence.

in full: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12076

SCOTUS Case Could Bring "Right to Work" to All 50 States

Labor Notes' Samantha Winslow explains how the Supreme Court could weaken public sector worker unions

- July 1, 2015


Samantha Winslow joined Labor Notes as a Staff Writer in November 2012. She was an organizer for SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West in California and later for the breakaway National Union of Healthcare Workers. She covers teachers, public sector workers, and USW.


SCOTUS Case Could Bring JESSICA DESVARIEUX, PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.

The Supreme Court has decided to take up a case that could have major repercussions for public sector unions. In the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the plaintiffs are arguing for the overturning of a current law that requires workers to pay fees for union representation even if they are not members. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the public sector jobs sector nationwide could become, quote-unquote, a right to work.

Now joining us to discuss all of this is Samantha Winslow. Samantha is joining us from New York. She is a staff writer for Labor Notes. And before that she was an organizer for SEIU United Healthcare Workers, west in California.

Thank you for joining us, Samantha.


DESVARIEUX: So we should note that the court will begin hearing the case in its next session, so that's not until the fall. But this is a very important case because the court has even decided to take it on. Supporters of right to work legislation say that public sector workers should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights to not pay if they don't want to be in a union.

So for you, Samantha, considering that argument, shouldn't we sort of take a listen to what they have to say? That if in order for them, that they shouldn't be paying these union dues if they're not a part of the union.

WINSLOW: Well, they have the right to not be in a union right now. And so what the compromise is is that they have to pay a fair share of the dues that full members pay. And the thinking behind that is that they enjoy the benefits of the union contract. They enjoy the wage increases that the union negotiates, and they enjoy the job security. And they can even be represented if they face discipline or some kind of attack from their employer.

So that was what the Supreme Court decided three years ago to compromise, to say that yes, you have the right to be a member or not be a member. But you do have to pay a fair share of dues to cover the representation that is required by law.

DESVARIEUX: Okay. And current labor law also says that these dues and fees used for union representation cannot be used for political or ideological activities other than representation in bargaining and administering contracts. But isn't the union activity like bargaining inherently political in some ways?

WINSLOW: Well, it is political in that members are engaging in an activity with their employer, but the specific money that goes to politics would be that extra chunk of the dues that the fair share members don't have to pay.

So what it really is is a contract between the employees, the workplace and the employer. And just like any other contract where the agreement is that everybody covered has to pay dues. And just to clarify, the case is actually going to decide whether public sector unions can negotiate a closed shop or not. So it's up to their employer, whether it's county or state or an agency to decide whether it's an open or closed shop.

DESVARIEUX: What does that mean, exactly?

WINSLOW: What it means is that there are some open shops where membership is voluntary. Even in the public sector there was, San Diego County for example, public employees were in an open shop up until recently.

So all this, all the Supreme Court ruling in '77 said was that you, once you negotiate that closed shop, you're required to pay that fair share. So it's giving unions the right to make these contracts with employers in the public sector.

DESVARIEUX Okay. Let's sort of play hypotheticals here. Let's say the Supreme Court rules in favor of overturning the law and then workers voluntarily decide not to pay for representation. Wouldn't this be more of a reflection of how public workers feel unions and the current labor movement is really addressing their concerns. So it's not necessarily the Supreme Court, but these labor unions haven't been doing their best job at being a adequate representation for these laborers.

WINSLOW: Well, I think that that's a fair question, and I would start by saying that the right to work movement and the business end conservative interests that are going after dues, they're not really interested in what's best for workers. They're not thinking about what's the best way to improve standards for workers. They're--on the contrary, they're thinking of undermining it. But this absolutely poses a challenge for unions, where they now have to think about how to remain relevant to all their members, that they can't just take for granted that the ten percent or 20 percent or 30 percent who don't want to be members are going to be paying that fair share fee that they've been counting on all these years.

in full: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14140

The BBC’s Inept but Revealing Attempt at a Game Theoretic View of Greek Crisis

Posted on June 26, 2015 by William Black

The BBC came up with a good “hook” for a story on the troika’s assault on the Greek economy and people. “Yanis Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister, spent his academic career … studying game theory.” Professor Marcus Miller, a UK economist (U. Warwick) wrote an article for the BBC premised on how Varoufakis would apply game theory to Greece’s negotiations with the troika (the IMF, ECB, and the European Commission). Miller is a colleague of the great Robert Skidelsky and has co-authored with him an article explaining the economic illiteracy and self-destructive nature of the troika’s (and UK’s) infliction of austerity in response to the Great Recession.

The BBC, however, is such a great fan of austerity that one rarely reads why the vast majority of economists think that using austerity to respond to a Great Recession is akin to the quackery of bleeding a patient to make him healthier. Miller’s article in the BBC about game theory has the wrong title (recall that the author often does not get to choose the title), the wrong game, the wrong concept, and the wrong payoffs. The title of the article is: “Can game theory explain the Greek debt crisis?” The article does address that issue. It is limited to the issue of the new Greek government’s negotiations with the troika concerning a crisis that they inherited.

The game that Miller uses is the “prisoner’s dilemma.” That is the wrong concept and the wrong game and should actually be called the “prisoners’ dilemma” because it requires at least two prisoners. The “prisoners’ dilemma” game is used to explain (1) why cooperative behavior – by criminals – would be their optimal strategy, (2) why prosecutors and the police should prevent that cooperation, and (3) how prosecutors and the police can shape the prisoners’ incentives to encourage them to confess. As conventionally pictured, and Miller falls into this trap, the game does a poor job of explaining the third point. Real life prosecutors, police, and criminologists in the U.S. do a far better job of optimizing the incentives than do economists – and did so long before game theory was developed.

Here is Miller’s explanation.

The most famous game of all is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Imagine two prisoners have to choose between confessing and staying silent. If they both stay silent, they both go to jail for one year. If one confesses and the other stays silent, the first goes free and the second gets 20 years. If both confess, they both get five years.

in full: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2015/06/the-bbcs-inept-but-revealing-attempt-at-a-game-theoretic-view-of-greek-crisis.html#more-9555
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35 Next »