January 12, 2013

Posted by orrinj at 11:05 PM

IT'S A SIMPLE REDISTRIBUTION QUESTION:

Our Economic Pickle (STEVEN GREENHOUSE, 1/14/13, NY Times)

[O]verall employee compensation -- including health and retirement benefits -- has also slipped badly, falling to its lowest share of national income in more than 50 years while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share over that time.

Conservative and liberal economists agree on many of the forces that have driven the wage share down. Corporate America's push to outsource jobs -- whether call-center jobs to India or factory jobs to China -- has fattened corporate earnings, while holding down wages at home. New technologies have raised productivity and profits, while enabling companies to shed workers and slice payroll. Computers have replaced workers who tabulated numbers; robots have pushed aside many factory workers.

"Some people think it's a law that when productivity goes up, everybody benefits," says Erik Brynjolfsson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "There is no economic law that says technological progress has to benefit everybody or even most people. It's possible that productivity can go up and the economic pie gets bigger, but the majority of people don't share in that gain."

From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group. And since 2000, productivity has risen 23 percent while real hourly pay has essentially stagnated.

Meanwhile, it's been a lost economic decade for many households. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, median income for working-age households (headed by someone under age 65) slid 12.4 percent from 2000 to 2011, to $55,640. During that time the American economy grew more than 18 percent.

Jobs just aren't an efficient way to distribute the wealth our thriving economy is creating.

Posted by orrinj at 6:15 PM

Wynton Marsalis and Vince Giordano In Concert (PATRICK JARENWATTANANON, 1/02/13, NPR)

The New Year's Eve party at Dizzy's Club Coca-Cola featured two institutions of New York jazz: the Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra, led by trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, and the Nighthawks, led by multi-instrumentalist Vince Giordano. Both big bands share an affinity for early swing, so it made sense for them to tackle the monumental Hot Fives recordings of Louis Armstrong together.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted by orrinj at 6:12 PM

INDEED, IT'S SO EASY....:

Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare (Michael Walzer, January 11, 2013, Dissent)

There are radical limits on political assassinations. In democracies, they can never be justified; it is only the blood of tyrants that waters the tree of liberty. And even with tyrants, a trial is preferable to an assassination whenever it is possible to bring down the tyrannical regime without killing its leader. In wartime, international law bars the killing of political leaders on the grounds that they are the ones who will in the end negotiate the peace treaty. But some political leaders, with whom one can't imagine negotiating, are legitimate targets--Hitler the obvious example. Killing Hitler would have been "extra-judicial" but entirely justified. Tyrants do have to be targeted, however; blowing up the neighborhood in which they live is not a moral option.

Military leaders are obviously legitimate targets in wartime. A sniper sent to a forward position to try to kill a visiting colonel or general is engaged in targeted killing, but no one will accuse him of acting extra-judicially and therefore wrongly. It is probably best to think of insurgent organizations in roughly the same way that we think about states. If they have separated their political and military leaders, it is only the second group who should be targeted since we may eventually negotiate with the first group. I don't believe that the same distinction is morally required in the case of terrorist organizations, though it may be prudent to make it. Individuals who plan, or organize, or recruit for, or participate in a terrorist attack are all of them legitimate targets. It would be better to capture them and bring them to trial, but that is often not a reasonable option--the risks are too high; innocent bystanders would be killed in the attempt; the planning would take time, and the terrorist attacks are imminent or actual. In cases like this, the phrase "war on terror" makes sense. More often, I think, the "war" is police work, and targeted killing is not permissible for the police. If the terrorist campaign has ended, only the police can deal with the men and women who organized it--and lawyers and judges after the police.

The targeted killing of insurgents and terrorists in wartime is subject to the same constraints as any other act of war. It will have to meet very strict standards of proportionality; given that the target is a single person, it will be difficult to justify any injury to innocent bystanders. So the targeting must be undertaken with great care; collecting information about the targeted individuals, their schedules, their whereabouts, their families and neighbors, is critically important, and if it involves risk for agents in the field, the risks must be accepted before the killing can be justified.

Now, does it make any difference if the actual killing is the work of a drone, operated by a technician sitting in an office 3,000 miles away? Surely the same criteria apply to the drone as to any more closely manned machine. Why should we think it different from the sniper's rifle? The difference is that killing-by-drone is so much easier than other forms of targeted killing. The easiness should make us uneasy. This is a dangerously tempting technology. It makes our enemies more vulnerable than ever before, and we can get at them without any risk to our own soldiers.


...that it is impossible to justify allowing any tyrants to survive.

Posted by orrinj at 6:09 PM

OR BOERISM:

Netanyahu bringing about 'the demise of the Jewish state' (ELIE LESHEM, January 11, 2013, Times of Israel)


Tzipi Livni, the leader of the center-left Hatnua party, on Friday issued a scathing excoriation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing Likud-Beytenu list, saying the PM's policies posed a mortal threat to the Zionist endeavor.

"Netanyahu will be the demise of the Jewish state," Livni told an assembly at the Peres Academic Center in Rehovot. "The choice faced by Israeli citizens [in the upcoming elections] is between Zionism and extremism."

Livni was referring to Netanyahu's purported efforts to sabotage the prospects of a two-state solution with the Palestinians (publicly, he has endorsed it), the absence of which, many warn, will precipitate a single state where Jews will be in the minority.