Paul Krugman, "Oligarchs and Money": A Call for Class Warfare?

"Coincidentally," one day after Thomas Friedman launched into a tirade against Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/04/thomas-friedman-sheldon-irans-best.html), Paul Krugman informs us today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Oligarchs and Money" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/krugman-oligarchs-and-money.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=1), of the advantages of moderate inflation. Krugman suggests, however, that the I.M.F.'s attitude regarding this matter is being influenced by "class bias" and "class interest":

"And behind this attitude, one suspects, lies class bias. Doing what America did after World War II — using low interest rates and inflation to erode the debt burden — is often referred to as 'financial repression,' which sounds bad. But who wouldn’t prefer modest inflation and a bit of asset erosion to mass unemployment? Well, you know who: the 0.1 percent, who receive 'only' 4 percent of wages but account for more than 20 percent of total wealth. Modestly higher inflation, say 4 percent, would be good for the vast majority of people, but it would be bad for the superelite. And guess who gets to define conventional wisdom.

Now, I don’t think that class interest is all-powerful. Good arguments and good policies sometimes prevail even if they hurt the 0.1 percent — otherwise we would never have gotten health reform. But we do need to make clear what’s going on, and realize that in monetary policy as in so much else, what’s good for oligarchs isn’t good for America."

Whoa! I'm confused. If inflation results in higher demand for goods and services, why wouldn't such demand benefit industrialists such as the Koch brothers? Moreover, higher inflation would also bring higher interest rates on funds deposited by "oligarchs."

Nice try, Paul.

But more worrisome is Krugman's references to "class bias" and "class interest," which some might claim are battle cries for class warfare.

Class warfare? We've seen it before. In 1789, many among the French "bourgeois" went headless as a result. During the 20th century, Stalin waged a bloody war against the "kulaks." Someone must always be to blame.

Yes, there are always bugaboos responsible for the economic ills of the masses, and as the 2014 midterm elections approach in the US, there are those who are desperate to explain away the Obama administration's failings.

"Class bias" and "class interest"? There is no need for such silly talk, although there certainly might be a place for higher estate taxes.

As history teaches us, words can prove dangerous.

Thomas Friedman, "Sheldon: Iran’s Best Friend": Tom, Israel's Worst Enemy

As you are no doubt aware, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid recently went on record as decrying the conservative billionaire Koch brothers as being "un-American" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/27/reid-koch-brothers-are-un-american/).

Well, not to be outdone by Reid in his vilification of the ultra-rich, Thomas Friedman, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sheldon: Iran’s Best Friend" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/friedman-sheldon-irans-best-friend.html?smid=tw-TomFriedman&seid=auto), has kindly taken it upon himself to label Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson "foolhardy," "crude," "extremist," and someone who "personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s today." Alleging that both Adelson and Iran are "trying to destroy Israel," Friedman begins his opinion piece by observing that Iran is seeking to annihilate Israel, but not by way of war:

"Iran’s leaders want Israel destroyed but have no desire, in my view, to use a nuclear bomb to do it. That would expose them to retaliation and sure death."

Good to have Tom's expert view, but he first might want to have a glance at the following 2014 Iranian simulation of a nuclear attack against Israel:



Friedman goes on to say:

"Israel’s 47-year-old occupation of the West Bank has led it to build more settlements there and in doing so make itself look like the most active colonial power on the planet today. The 350,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank reinforce that view by claiming their presence in the West Bank is not about security but a divinely inspired project to reunite the Jewish people with their biblical homeland."

Apparently unbeknownst to Friedman, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has acknowledged that Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484). After 47 years, this is the extent of the occupation by the "most active colonial power on the planet today"? But why should Friedman concern himself with facts? They only get in the way of his opinions.

Finally turning to Adelson, Friedman writes:

"And now Iran has an ally: Sheldon Adelson — the foolhardy Las Vegas casino magnate and crude right-wing, pro-Israel extremist. Adelson gave away some $100 million in the last presidential campaign to fund Republican candidates, with several priorities in mind: that they delegitimize the Palestinians and that they avoid any reference to the West Bank as 'occupied territories' and any notion that the U.S. should pressure Israel to trade land for peace there.

. . . .

Adelson personifies everything that is poisoning our democracy and Israel’s today — swaggering oligarchs, using huge sums of money to try to bend each system to their will."

Sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Israel does not need to be pressured to trade land for peace. Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert both offered land swaps for peace with the Palestinian Authority, and Arafat and Abbas both refused their offers.

The ironclad guiding principles of Palestinian Authority President Abbas are to be found in a declaration he made to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas over the past five years, and this logic, premised upon survival, still guides Abbas, who is in the tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

In the West Bank the Palestinians have a "good reality"? How peculiar! That's not what Tom is telling us! But then a swaggering omniscient Tom knows better than Abbas and all the rest of us combined.

Maureen Dowd, "Bring Me My Dragons!": Who Needs "A Game of Thrones" When You Can See the Real Thing in Syria?

“A poet can write about a man slaying a dragon, but not about a man pushing a button that releases a bomb.”

― W.H. Auden

Come down with the flu and spend your convalescence watching television? Maureen Dowd recently got her wish and, while languishing in bed, became hooked on "Game of Thrones." In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bring Me My Dragons!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/opinion/sunday/dowd-bring-me-my-dragons.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Dowd tells us:

"After a marathon of three seasons of 'Game' and the beginning of the fourth, starting this Sunday, I’m ready to forgo reality for fantasy.

Who wants to cover Chris Christie’s petty little revenge schemes in New Jersey once you’ve seen the gory revenge grandeur of the Red Wedding?

Who wants to see W.’s portraits of leaders once you’re used to King Joffrey putting leaders’ heads on stakes?

Who wants to hear Hillary Clinton complain about a media double standard for women once you’ve gotten accustomed to the win-don’t-whine philosophy of Cersei, Daenerys, Melisandre, Margaery, Ygritte, Brienne and Arya? As it turns out, the show not only has its share of strong women, but plenty of lethal ones as well.

It all seems so tame and meaningless in Washington after Westeros."

Well, I read the first four of the Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" books, before getting bogged down in the fifth. What happened? Perhaps my reality is different from that of Maureen.

Have you ever witnessed the aftermath of a suicide bombing? Believe me, it's much worse than anything depicted in the "Red Wedding."

Have you ever visited in the hospital two friends from your reserve combat unit after they had their faces burned away by a Molotov cocktail? In comparison, the scarring of Tyrion Lannister's face is inconsequential.

More recently, have you taken the time to witness on YouTube the ghastly savagery perpetrated by Assad's forces and the rebels in Syria? In terms of cruelty, they put King Joffrey to shame.

Am I ready to forgo reality for fantasy? How about forgoing reality for some well-deserved boredom, allowing me to plant tomatoes and cucumbers (Summer is coming!) without reawakening my PTSD?

John Kerry's "Reality Check": What Happens When a Narcissist in Search of a Legacy Is Appointed Secretary of State

In a New York Times article entitled "U.S. to Reassess Status of Talks on Middle East" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/kerry-says-middle-east-talks-are-at-an-impasse.html?hp&_r=0), Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler begin by observing (my emphasis in red):

"With Israel and the Palestinians falling into a familiar cycle of tit-for-tat retribution, and a peace agreement more elusive than ever, Secretary of State John Kerry conceded on Friday that this week had been a 'reality check' for the peace process.

But more than anything, it may be a reality check for Mr. Kerry himself. After eight months of diplomacy, more than a dozen trips to the region and endless late-night negotiating sessions with both sides, Mr. Kerry was forced to acknowledge that he may have hit a wall too high even for someone with his seemingly endless optimism and energy."

Similarly, in a Commentary contentions article entitled "Reality Check? Kerry's Is Long Overdue" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/04/04/reality-check-kerrys-is-long-overdue-middle-east-peace-process/), Jonathan Tobin writes (my emphasis in red):

"[I]f there is anyone involved with this mess that needs a reality check, it’s Kerry.

The secretary ignored the advice of wiser foreign-policy analysts who cautioned that there was no reason to believe there was a chance of forging a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He then plunged head first into the process convinced that he could succeed where all others had failed, all the while warning the Israelis that they would face violence and boycotts if they didn’t do as he asked. But while both Kerry and President Obama continued to praise PA leader Mahmoud Abbas as a peacemaker, it was he who always had his eye on the exit sign from the talks."

Or in a nutshell, a narcissistic Kerry, in search of a legacy, refused to read the writing on the wall.

The ironclad guiding principles of Palestinian Authority President Abbas are to be found in a declaration he made to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html):

"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"

In fact, nothing has changed for Abbas over the past five years, and this logic, premised upon survival, still guides Abbas, who is in his tenth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.

Kerry believed that he could alter this reality. He was wrong, and now we have passed from would-be negotiations to the "blame game." Of course, America's secretary of state, who monkeyed with a tolerable status quo and made it much worse, cannot possibly share in the blame.

Paul Krugman, "Rube Goldberg Survives": Time to Celebrate Obamacare?

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Krugman's celebration of OWS proved premature to say the least.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Rube Goldberg Survives" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/opinion/krugman-rube-goldberg-survives.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Krugman would have us believe that Obamacare has also reached a "turning point" and that the "7.1 million and counting signups is a huge victory for reform." Krugman concludes:

"So my advice to reform supporters is, go ahead and celebrate. Oh, and feel free to ridicule right-wingers who confidently predicted doom.

Clearly, there’s a lot of work ahead, and we can count on the news media to play up every hitch and glitch as if it were an existential disaster. But Rube Goldberg has survived; health reform has won."

Of course, no mention by Krugman of past Obama administration promises (http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Health_Insurance_Reform_PDF_1.pdf):

"Reform isn’t about putting government in charge of your health insurance; it’s about putting you in charge of your health insurance. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

And no mention by Krugman of the percentage of young people among the 7.1 enrollees, who are necessary to keep pricing down.

Also no mention by Krugman of how many enrollees have paid their premiums.

But perhaps most important, Krugman fails to relate to the fact that the underlying rationale of Obamacare was to provide insurance to between 31 million to 47 million people without insurance (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/03/06/the-obamacare-disaster-is-now-undeniable/). The purpose was not to cancel the insurance of persons already having plans and force them to enroll in the system.

Celebrate Obamacare? Krugman's exuberance is again premature.

Nicholas Kristof, "We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1!": So Why the Demand for Green Cards?

First, I should admit that Nicholas Kristof makes me nauseous (see: http://jsantisemitism.org/essays/GrossmanJSA210(4).pdf).

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "We’re Not No. 1! We’re Not No. 1!" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/were-not-no-1-were-not-no-1.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Kristof tells us of an "index" that ranks the United States below many other countries. Kristof writes:

"We in the United States grow up celebrating ourselves as the world’s most powerful nation, the world’s richest nation, the world’s freest and most blessed nation.

Sure, technically Norwegians may be wealthier per capita, and the Japanese may live longer, but the world watches the N.B.A., melts at Katy Perry, uses iPhones to post on Facebook, trembles at our aircraft carriers, and blames the C.I.A. for everything. We’re No. 1!

In some ways we indisputably are, but a major new ranking of livability in 132 countries puts the United States in a sobering 16th place. We underperform because our economic and military strengths don’t translate into well-being for the average citizen.

In the Social Progress Index, the United States excels in access to advanced education but ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety. Even in access to cellphones and the Internet, the United States ranks a disappointing 23rd, partly because one American in five lacks Internet access."

It's so awful in the US compared with Iceland and Holland? So why are foreigners knocking down the doors for Green Cards?

Sure, I know. If the Social Progress Index (I never heard of it prior to reading Kristof's op-ed) ranks countries in a certain order, it must be absolutely, positively true.

Or maybe to properly understand the Social Progress Index, you need to be a "progressive" . . .

New York Times Editorial, "Bad Move on Jonathan Pollard": Wah-Wah-We-Wah!

Does the United States spy against its allies? Absolutely. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Does the United States engage in electronic spying against Israel? Wah-wah-we-wah! Wah-wah-we-wah? This is Hebrew slang, which can be loosely translated "And how!" Specifics? Sorry. Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.

Today, in an editorial entitled "Bad Move on Jonathan Pollard" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/opinion/bad-move-on-jonathan-pollard.html?ref=opinion&_r=1), The New York Times takes the position that Jonathan Pollard, who spied on behalf of Israel against the US, should not be released in order to keep the fanciful negotiations sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry from entirely unraveling. Declaring that the Obama administration proposal to free Pollard is a "bad idea," the editorial tells us (my emphasis in red):

"After nine months of talks, there is no sign of progress on any of these issues. In addition, Israel has refused to follow through on a promise made in July to free 104 prisoners in four groups in exchange for a Palestinian vow to refrain from pressing the statehood issue in United Nations agencies and the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Netanyahu and other Israelis have long demanded the release Mr. Pollard, who has spent nearly 30 years in prison; the Americans have long resisted. He is up for parole next year and said to be ailing, so it might conceivably be worth releasing him early if it could help Mr. Netanyahu take the leap on a truly big decision, like a final peace agreement. But releasing him as a small-bore tactical step to persuade Israel to do what it had already promised? That is not a price worth paying.

The Americans have proposed that Israel free more prisoners and show restraint in building in the West Bank. But the proposal would not prohibit new construction in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians consider their future capital. The Palestinians were asked extend peace talks into 2015 and refrain from moves at the United Nations."

Free "104 prisoners"? Excuse me, but no small number of these prisoners are convicted murderers. Sure, it's easy enough for the editorial board of the Times from the safety of Manhattan to call for Israel to free these "prisoners," even if the Palestinian Authority has no intention of signing a peace agreement with a Jewish state of Israel.

"[I]f it could help Mr. Netanyahu take the leap on a truly big decision, like a final peace agreement"? And all this while I thought it was Abbas who was refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as provided for by UN resolution 181, and demanding that Palestinian "refugees" be given the right to return to Israel, thereby creating a Palestinian majority. (Remarkable how easy it is to forget that an equal number of Jews emigrated to Israel from the Arab states with only the clothing on their backs, following the establishment of the Jewish state.)

"[N]ew construction in East Jerusalem"? I suppose the editorial board of the Times is referring to the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and also those communities built on the barren hills along the narrow highway leading into Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, which, pursuant to prior negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, would be swapped for Israeli land. The alternative, of course, would be to return the communities to the Palestinian Authority, thereby creating a "sniper alley" preventing Jews from entering or leaving the city.

But let's get back to Pollard. First, let it be known that Jonathan Pollard engaged in unconscionable behavior.

Second, the release of Pollard is not going to save the peace talks. As stated above, Palestinian Authority President Abbas, currently serving his tenth year of his four-year term of office, has no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish State and waiving the Palestinian "right of return."

But is there still a reason why Pollard, currently serving his 29th year of a life sentence, should be released? Why do people serve prison terms? Pollard, who is in frail health, has been sufficiently punished. Moreover, he no longer poses a threat to the US. Finally, a warning, for purposes of deterrence, has been communicated loud and clear: Persons engaging in espionage against the US will be severely punished.

That being the case, why is Pollard, who has been punished far more severely than others incarcerated for spying against the US, still in prison? As we are told by a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Former CIA director accuses US of anti-Semitism on Pollard" (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-CIA-director-accuses-US-of-anti-Semitism-on-Pollard-340881) by Gil Hoffman:

"Pollard has served more than 28 years of a life sentence for spying for Israel. Others convicted of spying for allies of the US have received sentences of no more than eight years.

British spy Samuel Morrison was sentenced to two years, South African Steven Baba was sentenced to two, Filipino spy Jean Baynes to three and a half, and Egyptian Abdelkader Helmy three years and 10 months. None of them served their entire sentence."

In a similar vein, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus observes today in an opinion piece entitled "Free Jonathan Pollard" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-free-jonathan-pollard/2014/04/01/9c8ee61c-b9c9-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z4):

"Aldrich Ames was similarly sentenced to life in prison — but his spying led to the death of at least 10 Soviet intelligence officers. John Walker Lindh, an American who joined Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, received a 20-year sentence. CIA officer William Kampiles, who sold the Soviets the operating manual for a spy satellite, was sentenced to 40 years and released after 18."

Gil Hoffman's Jerusalem Post article goes on to quote Ex-CIA head Admiral James Woolsey as saying with regard to Pollard's time in prison:

"I certainly don’t think that it is universally true, but in the case of some American individuals, I think there is anti-Semitism at work here."

Interesting.

As an aside, has there ever been evidence of anti-Semitism at The New York Times over recent years? Wah-wah-we-wah (see, for starters: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/08/new-york-times-moderators-now-tolerate.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/07/ongoing-tolerance-of-anti-semitism-by.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/anti-semitism-again-in-lede-at-new-york.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/roger-cohen-jew-not-quite-english.html)!