• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди493
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы254
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации38
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Александр Гамильтон
20 октября, 23:56

Alexander Hamilton In His Time And Ours

"Hamilton" is more than a fabulous Broadway musical based on Ron Chernow's extraordinary biography of Alexander Hamilton. The book and the play are the heroic story of a man who by dint of shear brilliance, an unbelievable capacity for work, and George Washington's fulsome support became the principal architect of American government and it's free enterprise economy. It is also the story of pathological vindictiveness that ended in Hamilton's death. What is so relevant for today is that the vindictiveness and the kind of baseless conspiracy theories that dogged Hamilton's life are the very essence of Donald Trump and Trumpism's appeal to those who perceive slights and seek revenge for them. Hamilton, an immigrant born on the island of Nevis in the West Indies, was called "the bastard brat of a Scotch peddler" among many other things. Yet only 5 or 6 years after coming to New York in his mid-teens he had become George Washington's right hand man on nearly all things, and would remain so for 25 years. He was Washington's aide and alter ego for 7 years during the Revolutionary War, for most of his two terms as President, and then afterwards until the first President's death in 1799. Washington's impregnable reputation and cool judgement allowed Hamilton to be his brilliant self. The wise older man guided him, helped him control his temper, and protected him from his vindictive enemies, who also were Washington's sneaky detractors as the biography makes clear. Hamilton had a jaundiced view of human nature, yet risked his life to create free representative government in his adopted land. Despite his pessimistic view of mankind, he believed that people could govern themselves if the system was engineered to assure that the country had educated leaders checked by others with their own bases of power. He also believed that America had a great future if she behaved wisely. To protect that vision he led a wild and victorious charge at Yorktown. His undoubted heroism, however, did not stop his enemies from accusing him of conspiring with the British during the war and being a tool of the British Crown afterward. Hamilton also battled the radicals of his day, who claimed to speak against the elites and for the people, but whose leaders were owners of slave plantations who owed money to British creditors. The radicals of the French Revolution, Hamilton knew, had turned on moderates like Lafayette and Rochambeau, American allies who had fought bravely for us during the our Revolution. They guillotined thousands of other moderates like the Girondin who had helped bring down the French monarchy but who favored limited government as did Hamilton, not a dictatorship of the Paris mob. He feared that the radical American apologists for French excesses would turn our politics into a vindictive search for traitors, endangering families like his own and destroying the more conservative and moderate American experiment in representative government that he and Washington championed. "Hamilton," the book and the musical are about today as well as yesterday. Every American young and old should read Chernow's engrossing biography and play Lin-Manuel Miranda's moving music and lyrics. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

19 октября, 17:43

Inside The History Documentary Every 'Hamilton' Fan Will Want To See

Just over three years ago, filmmaker Alex Horwitz decided to make a documentary. He didn’t know exactly what he was documenting ― at that point, it could have been a concept album or maybe a show. But Horwitz did know that whatever his college pal Lin-Manuel Miranda was cooking up in 2013, he wanted to be the one behind the camera capturing it all. Fast forward to today, and Horwitz’s “Hamilton’s America” film, produced by Radical Media, is the behind-the-scenes passport musical fans have been waiting for. It does indeed follow Miranda as he perfects the songs and performances that make up “Hamilton,” the theater phenomenon that’s arguably become the center of gravity for pop culture in 2016. It moves from backstage on Broadway to the research actors embarked upon to craft their characters. But it’s hardly, as Horwitz was quick to point out in an interview with The Huffington Post, a typical making-of. ”That movie has been made, several times. It’s been made about Lin,” Horwitz noted, citing “In the Heights: Chasing Broadway Dreams,” a documentary about Miranda’s first Tony-winning production, a story of a company of young, unknown performers putting on a make-it or break-it show. Instead, “Hamilton’s America” would be about history ― “How Hamilton the man comes to life through whatever it is you’re doing,” Horwitz pitched Miranda.  To tell that story, Horwitz recruited not only a gang of “Hamilton” insiders from the cast and creative crew, but also a brigade of politicians and historians capable of drawing parallels between the very real theatrics of two centuries ago and the political maelstrom of today. From Elizabeth Warren to President Barack Obama to a famed historian who refers to Alexander Hamilton as an “asshole,” the resulting film centers on creative writing’s ability to bring the past back to life. The day after the first presidential debate of this year, we spoke with Horwitz over the phone. Ahead of the last presidential debate of the season ― and the PBS premiere of “Hamilton’s America” on Oct. 21 ― here’s what the filmmaker had to say about rap battles, George Washington, and Miranda’s unchanging personality. I want to talk a little bit about the politicians you speak with in the documentary. How did you choose who you would interview? I’ll answer with a negative first: I knew I wanted to interview politicians, but I knew I wanted to stay away from the current political season; I wanted to stay away from current presidential candidates. I was very deliberate in getting politicians from both sides of the aisle evenly. There’s a treasury secretary from each side of the aisle. There’s a prominent member of Congress from each side of the aisle. And we were very fortunate to get a president from each side of the aisle. So that was important, because I do think it’s a film about politics, but it’s not a political film itself. I wanted all of these interviewers to reflect on history and political philosophy a bit, but not to talk about contemporary issues, other than by way of mentioning how connected the conversation of today is to the political conversation of 200 years ago or more. As to the specific names ― it might be obvious to anyone who sees the movie, but I just kind of shot for the moon. If you were to ask someone to name two very prominent members of Congress, it’s very likely you’re going to get Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren on that list. So I just kind of went for people I thought would speak well, were informed on history, and were in the public eye. Because, usually in historical documentaries, when you cut to an expert, it is someone you don’t instantly recognize. The cliche was, when we were watching those documentaries in high school, was that it was time to be bored by a person I don’t care about. But if I can ride the wave of goodwill from the musical “Hamilton” toward the offices of some very prominent people like Elizabeth Warren and Paul Ryan, I’ll take it. I think they just do a lot to immediately grab your attention. True. There’s also a noticeable difference between the way Paul Ryan and Elizabeth Warren handle Hamilton’s legacy. Ryan seems to admire Hamilton’s tenacity, while Warren is a bit more measured ― acknowledging that he’s kind of an elitist. Did you anticipate that there would be a partisan divide amongst Alexander Hamilton fans? I had my suspicions as to how sympathetic or critical of Hamilton these various politicians would be. And I think, for the most part, I was right there. But you’ll note that even Warren, whom you very astutely point out is a little critical of him and has a complicated opinion of him, she also lavishes him with praise for his foresight and for how ingenious he was. I knew that all of them would speak with some reverence and respect, as most politicians do about most of the Founding Fathers. I suspected that if anyone would give me that sort of measured criticism of Hamilton’s financial legacy it would be Elizabeth Warren. So, yes, I certainly did want to talk to someone who was so on the record as being very critical of today’s financial markets and the current banking system. But I also know that she knows her history and has worked within that system for many years. Obama is somewhat of a significant “character” in the documentary. At one point, you have this beautiful camera work that moves from a portrait of George Washington down to Obama watching a [“Hamilton”] performance at the White House. Were you yourself trying to draw parallels between Obama’s presidency and some of the narratives told in “Hamilton”? I’m so glad you took note of that shot. And I think that shot is the answer to your question. We don’t have to do much work to illustrate the parallels between the life of “Hamilton: The Musical” and the Obama administration. Lin premiered the first song at the first art event that the Obamas held during their administration at the White house. We follow that through to an event they held in their final year, when they invited the full cast back in March. That shows the journey that Lin took, from a song that he had written and was performing alone, to the phenomenal success of the show with a full company. I think a lot of journalists and critics have read plenty into the connection between the Obama administration and the casting of the show and the chronological life of the show. I don’t have anything to add other than what is in the documentary that you saw. You know, that shot tracking down from a portrait of George Washington to President Obama ― with Chris Jackson, an African-American man, playing George Washington and singing the words of George Washington ― says it all. My impression is that Lin was never consciously trying to… well, I don’t want to put words into his mouth. But I look at it as a beautiful accident of timing. You can’t really write better synchronicity than that. Throughout the documentary, you got the sense that the actors were very attached to their characters. From Leslie Odom Jr. to Christopher Jackson to Phillipa Soo, they are all, of course, very knowledgeable of their historical counterparts, but also a little bit defensive of them, as well. What was it like for you to witness these kinds of connections behind the scenes ― the kinds of connections you don’t see onstage? I don’t think I was surprised to find that the actors had immersed themselves in the personal histories of the characters they played. As is evident to anyone who sees the musical or listens to the album, they are consummate professionals and incredibly talented actors. And when you are playing characters that rich, of course you would rely on the source material. Most of them used Ron Chernow’s Hamilton biography as a starting point for that. I think that the field trips to those locations you saw [in the documentary] were trips that the cast were so eager to take ― some of them for the actor’s work of it, and some of them for their own personal edification. I think they would all have a different answer about those field trips. But it was nice to see, as you said, Leslie Odom so beautifully articulate the humanity of Aaron Burr, a character whom history has vilified. Leslie, in order to play him well, has to develop a sympathetic angle on him, and that results in a better theater experience for all of us. Hamilton is not just a hero; Lin has written a very flawed character because he was a very flawed character. These were real people. And I think the actors just embraced that, not only in their performances but also in those field trips and just in their study of history. A lot of the coverage of “Hamilton” has focused on the fact that the show has cast actors of color as white figures from history. But I think this documentary was one of the first moments we really heard from the cast, talking about how they themselves attempted to reconcile the fact that these white figures they are playing owned slaves. Was that deliberately important for you to cover in the documentary, or did it come up more organically in conversation with the cast? Well, first of all, at the risk of sounding like I am correcting you, you’ll notice that Christopher Jackson says that it’s something that cannot be reconciled ― nor does he try to. Yes, he does. I was very happy to have that said by the man who’s actually crafting the portrayal, because as you said, a lot has been written about this and a lot has been said about this. The cast and the creative team of the show, to their credit, I think, have usually opted to let the casting decisions speak for themselves. And I do think that very little needs to be said on the matter. But I did know that if I was making this documentary I wouldn’t want it to be the elephant in the room. The best example being Christopher Jackson going to Mount Vernon. Christopher Jackson is an African-American man playing a white slave owner. I don’t think it’s worth making that the focus of the documentary, but it was certainly worth exploring when we happened to be down in Mount Vernon. So that’s sort of the launching point for that discussion in the documentary. There are other moments in the documentary, for example, when Daveed Diggs says, yeah, Thomas Jefferson wrote this beautiful document … he also kind of sucked. Yes, that is easily one of my two or three favorite lines in the doc. OK, you were obviously friends with Lin beforehand, then you spent three years filming him. Did he change throughout the course of “Hamilton,” as you were documenting him? Lin has always been the same player, it’s just that the stage around him has gotten bigger and bigger. He is remarkably unchanged personally from the guy I met in college. Although I think his eyes have gotten wider as he himself has been shocked by the lengths to which “Hamilton” has changed American culture, he’s the same guy. That’s just a testament to him as a person. He is grounded and is as good a friend as he is a collaborator. I’m sorry to disappoint you and say that he hasn’t changed much. [Laughs] Did you, personally, have any idea that “Hamilton” would be as popular and culturally prescient as it has become? Um. You’ve asked me that in a different way than most people do. Most people are like, “You knew it was going to be a hit, right?” And, you know, no one’s ever going to know that! I knew that it was going to be good work. I knew from the beginning that it was going to be compelling. And that anyone’s doubts about whether the history of our founding fathers would work as a hip-hop musical ― I knew that those fears were unfounded because the work was just so good. It was successful from the beginning in that sense. From that level, it always worked. Anyone who heard it, anyone who saw something, just got it right away.  As for how prescient? I didn’t know Lin was going to tap into the zeitgeist the way that he did. No one could have. Lin has certainly expressed publicly many times how the thing just got bigger and bigger than he ever could have hoped for. I think Lin was excited to do something he hadn’t seen in musical theater. But here we are, several years later, and Lin hasn’t just changed musical theater ― although, obviously he has. He’s also changed popular music in America, because all of a sudden a Broadway album is on the charts in a way that hasn’t happened in many, many decades. He has changed educational curriculum in America, because every middle and high school has absorbed “Hamilton” into what it does in its social studies and history classes. He’s changed political discourse in America, because a major party candidate was quoting his show on the convention floor. And it could also be argued that he’s also changed hip-hop music. So this has permeated so many aspects of American culture, not just pop culture, and I don’t think anybody could have foreseen that. What was your favorite moment from the documentary? Joanne Freeman ― who, along with Ron Chernow, is one of the world’s leading Hamilton’s scholars ― refers to Hamilton in our documentary as an asshole. Which just makes me grin every time I see it, because when else do we hear a reputable scholar using such plain and coarse English to describe one of our Founding Fathers? I think we need more of that frankness, because they were just guys at the end of the day: flawed, funny ― sometimes not funny enough. And we should by all means take them and their work seriously, but if we can’t look at them as humans in all of the many senses that that word implies, then we’re deifying them. And that does us no good. So I love a moment like that, where Joanne calls him an asshole, because we don’t often see that in historical documentaries. Was there an interesting scene or moment that was cut from the documentary that you could talk about? Oh, there are so many. I mean, look, we shot over the course of three years just about 100 hours of content. Which is a lot for a movie that runs less than an hour-and-a-half. We have extended interviews not just with the cast of the show but with all of those politicians you saw ― there were just excerpts of them in the documentary. I would love to think that one day we’ll be able to share those with the world because they’re educational and informative. If you can answer this in two or three sentences ― what do you think is the most important part of Hamilton’s legacy that you wanted to capture in the documentary? A lot has been made of the specific legacies that Hamilton left us ― like the banking structure, or the Coast Guard; specific examples. But in general, I wanted to convey a sense that Hamilton was a futurist, more so than any of the other Founding Fathers. That he foresaw everything we mean when we say “modern society.” He foresaw a very complex, often convoluted system of governance and finance and culture and human strengths and weaknesses to create what we call society. That his vision for America was more prescient and more clairvoyant than any of the other Founders. My last question: “Hamilton’s America” airs shortly before the upcoming presidential election. Do you find yourself thinking about the debates ― or even discourse online ― and comparing them to the rap battles in “Hamilton”? Do you see any connection at all? I don’t think one can help but do so. Yeah, I mean, the first debate was last night and you can’t help but think, well, if they’d just do this as a freestyle battle, we could settle the undecided vote much more quickly. Something that I always knew, but really got to dig into in this film, was that it was always thus. Politics was always dirty. The mudslinging and name-calling that John Adams and Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson dished out at each other publicly would be rated NC-17 by today’s standards. You can dig up these letters. They just happened to also get work done very well together. That may be the part that’s missing from today’s politics. But, as Joanne Freeman told me in a bit of interview that didn’t make it into the film, in the election of 1880, there was a group of Federalists that started to publish the false news of Thomas Jefferson’s death in newspapers to try and get people to not vote for him. I mean, really brazen, ugly stuff happens that we can laugh off now, but in light of that, the current political discourse doesn’t seem so far-fetched perhaps. Alright. That’s a bit hopeful, I think. Yes, I think we should find hope in the fact that we’ve always been this messed up. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. “Hamilton’s America” will air on PBS on Friday, Oct. 21, 2016, from 9:00 to 10:30 p.m. ET. Check your local listings here. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

19 октября, 03:51

America's History of Protectionism

Robert W. Merry Economics, Protectionism has been a frequent feature of the republic since its founding. IN LATE August 1985, while President Ronald Reagan vacationed at his ranch above Santa Barbara, California, his political director, Ed Rollins, had dinner one Saturday night with reporters for the New York Times and Washington Post. The mischievous politico leaked a story that received front-page treatment Monday morning. President Reagan had decided, the newspapers reported, to reject the pleas of U.S. shoe manufacturers for import tariffs designed to protect them from foreign competition. No big surprise there. Reagan was known as a fervent free trader, hostile to tariffs and other barriers to global commerce. But discerning Washington hands detected a curious disparity in how the two influential newspapers handled the story. The Post focused on the shoe decision, noting only in passing, that Reagan also was weighing actions to counter unfair practices used by U.S. trade partners. The Post headline read, “Reagan Set to Reject Shoe Curbs.” But the Times turned that around with a top headline that stated, “Reagan Weighing Trade Sanctions, Officials Report.” The paper’s lead paragraph emphasized the president’s decision to weigh “punitive actions” against errant nations abusing America’s free-trade principles. This led to confusion about Reagan’s true stance on trade at a time when that issue was roiling the country’s politics and when some White House clarity was needed. The president had his press secretary inform White House reporters that Reagan would deliver a major trade address in about a month. A trade-policy struggle within the administration ensued that was so intense that the president’s speechwriters were barred from creating the final draft of the speech. This episode exemplifies the contention that has surrounded the trade issue throughout American history, starting with Alexander Hamilton, the country’s first treasury secretary and also its first significant protectionist. Today, protectionism is back. The main drivers of this new surge are Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and the Democratic insurgent Bernie Sanders. Even Hillary Clinton is playing a role. Far from being an aberration, opposition to free trade has been a constituent part of America’s history.   Read full article

04 октября, 22:55

You Think the Campaign Is Bad? Just Wait Until It's Over

A reader in the tech business offers an uncomfortably plausible scenario on what might happen beginning November 9: …

02 октября, 19:43

The Room Where George W. Bush Goes on Trial Every Night

Theater has traditionally helped societies understand periods of political and social upheaval. Today, why is this task being left to just a few small off-Broadway productions?

29 сентября, 23:02

U.S. Manufacturing, Alexander Hamilton, and the Presidential Election

In addition to giving rise to a great Broadway hip-hop play, Alexander Hamilton was the founding father of the U.S. pro-manufacturing movement. In 1791, he wrote a report to the Congress extolling the virtues of U.S. manufacturing: "Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of a national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense." Report on Manufactures, 1791, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. Much of this remains true today, and both Presidential candidates seem to agree on that at least, but they have not come up with the formulas to solve the problem. To that end, the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs (IU SPEA) has created a Manufacturing Policy Initiative, the first and only program at a United States University dedicated to developing the best public policy solutions for U.S. manufacturing. On Wednesday, September 14th, the IU SPEA Initiative held a major public policy conference at the National Press Club in Washington, entitled "What the Next President Should Do About U.S. Manufacturing, An Agenda for the First 100 Days." One hundred and eighty-five people gathered for the event and panels were held on the key public policy issues we need to solve to revitalize U.S. manufacturing: Education and the Skills Gap, International Trade, Manufacturing and National Security, Tax Policy, Regulatory Policy, and Innovation. Representatives from business, labor, academia, and the public policy community made presentations, as did two Senators, the Co-Chair of the Manufacturing Caucus from the House of Representatives, and senior policy advisors from both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Why do we need a strong manufacturing base? There are at least six reasons: o First, the jobs. Manufacturing jobs are important for the job base of the United States. Depending on when you start and stop, the United States has lost over six million manufacturing jobs, bringing us down to about 12 million. And it isn't that things aren't being made any more. There are over a hundred million people employed in manufacturing in China. o Secondly, technology. The United States will not have a robust technology and R & D base without manufacturing. People say we can keep the research here and manufacture somewhere way off-shore. Over time, that will not work. The United States is already seeing research migrate off-shore as high technology industries are migrating off-shore. According to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, manufacturers pay for and perform approximately 70 percent of U.S. industrial research and development, and they are about three times more likely to create innovations than other firms. Manufacturing firms receive 90% of the issued patents. If we don't have manufacturing here, we'll lose that. o Third, the overall health of the U.S. economy. The impact of the manufacturing sector on the U.S. economy is very large--and disproportionately large in terms of its multiplier effect. According to the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, the manufactured goods value chain accounts for one-third of U.S. GDP. It's a real driver of the whole U.S. economy. o Fourth, national security. As was discussed at the conference, the United States will not be able to maintain our national security without a strong manufacturing base. You cannot build aircraft carriers, advanced weapons filled with sophisticated semiconductors, and fighter jets that are protecting us from ISIS without a very robust United States manufacturing base. o Fifth, manufacturing jobs have traditionally been high paying jobs with benefits, and a way out of poverty and into the middle class. Our economy is not in a state where we can say we don't need more high paying jobs and we don't need jobs that pave the way out of poverty. The United States needs both of these things. o And sixth, manufacturing creates enabling technology which changes the world. For example, the microprocessor, the desk top computer, and the software related to that enabled the IT revolution and later the internet. If we had not had major manufacturing technology companies in the United States these breakthroughs might never have happened, and they certainly would not have happened in the U.S. The next economic revolution won't happen here if we don't have manufacturing here. So what are the solutions? At the IU SPEA Conference six recommendation papers were prepared by the panel moderators on the topics mentioned above, Education, International Trade, National Security, Tax, Regulatory Reform, and Innovation. They are available on the IU SPEA website: https://spea.indiana.edu/mpp/2016-conference.html To summarize, some of the key ideas proposed at the conference include pausing all international trade negotiations for one year, while the United States undertakes a top-to-bottom review of the effect of international trade agreements on U.S. manufacturing. If they are not beneficial, in what way should we change our trade policy? On education, we should promote apprenticeships and skills training, with the same vigor we emphasize a four year college degree. On national security, we need to make more of what we need for defense on-shore and revitalize our defense supply chains. U.S. business tax rates have to be lowered to competitive levels so manufacturing is less likely to move off-shore. We have to assure that government regulations on manufacturing do more good than harm, and the permitting process needs to be streamlined. Finally we have to fund innovation at high levels in the United States, equal to or more than our manufacturing country competitors. If we do all these six things right, it will make a real difference. The recommendation papers were provided to each Presidential campaign, as well as to the moderators of the upcoming televised Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates. We hope this will be an active area of discussion in the rest of the campaign and in the first 100 days of the new administration. As to Alexander Hamilton, we have one final recommendation, not yet part of the official papers of the conference, directed to Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator of the hit musical. Could you add a new act to the play? Just one short act, having it focus on U.S. manufacturing public policy and Alexander Hamilton's devotion to that cause? We think that could really help us move this forward. (Even just one song--if that's all you can do--would be very helpful.) Thanks! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 сентября, 02:10

If Trump Disputes the Election, We Have No Good Way Out

History suggests we’ve been lucky to avoid a full-blown crisis after contested elections. Whose fault is it? Start with the Founders.

28 сентября, 15:39

The Threat of Fascism in America Today

**James Fallows**: _[Trump Time Capsule #108: Bush, Fahrenthold, Kagan][]_: >A four-month-old article... by Robert Kagan... [with whom] I disagree... on just about everything... >But in the months since he originally published his essay, called “This Is How Fascism Comes to America,” I think his arguments have come to seem more...

25 сентября, 05:35

Клинтоны и Уолл-стрит

Начало серьёзного романа четы Клинтонов с банками Уолл-стрит датируется 1985 годом, когда Голдман Сакс заприметил молодого губернатора штата Арканзас. В 1991 году в Нью-Йорке произошла встреча Билла Клинтона с сопредседателем Голдман Сакс Робертом Рубином. Тогда банкир и принял окончательное решение сделать ставку на Клинтона в кампании по избранию президента. Решение было подкреплено хорошими финансовыми вливаниями – как официальными, так и теми, которые находились в противоречии с американским законодательством. Влиятельный Рубин направил на поддержку Билла не только деньги Голдман Сакс, он также организовал финансовую поддержку других банков Уолл-стрит – Леман Бразерс и Ситибанк. Став президентом, Билл быстро вернул своему благодетелю долг, выполнив все пожелания, которые Рубин высказал во время памятной встречи в 1991 году. Билл отблагодарил Рубина даже с лихвой, назначив его министром финансов США и назвав «величайшим министром финансов со времён Александра Гамильтона». Говорят, Рубин на этом посту сумел заработать громадные деньги для себя лично, для Голдман Сакс, а также для банка Сити, куда Рубин перекочевал с поста министра финансов.

24 сентября, 01:05

Procrastinating on September 23, 2016

**Over at [Equitable Growth](http://EquitableGrowth.org): Must-Reads:** * **Marc Dordal i Carreras, Olivier Coibion, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, and Johannes Wieland**: _[Rethinking Inflation Targets for Long ZLB Episodes][]_: The estimated frequencies and durations are quite sensitive to individual country experiences... * **Robert Novy-Marx**: _[Is Momentum Really Momentum?][]_: Momentum is primarily driven by firms’ performance...

22 сентября, 15:52

Liveblogging the American Revolution: September 21, 1778: James McHenry to Alexander Hamilton

**James McHenry**: _[To Alexander Hamilton]][]_: >Fredericksburg, New York, September 21, 1778 >Sir, >In order to get rid of your present accumulations you will be pleased to take the pills agreeable to the directions; and to prevent future accumulations observe the following table of diet. >This will have a tendency also...

20 сентября, 05:54

Millennials Go Mild for Hillary

As Clinton tries to galvanize the Sanders vote, a handpicked rally crowd finds the candidate “capable.”

19 сентября, 04:36

Remarks by the President at HVF Fundraising Event

Private Residence New York, New York 7:25 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it is good to see all of you.  Thank you so much.  Danny, Audrey, thank you for your amazing hospitality.  I appreciate your wonderful kids being here as well, and I know that since one of mine just left -- (laughter) -- that any time they come back is a good day.  (Laughter.)  So I'm glad I could come up with an excuse. Irving Harris, for those of you who don't know, was an amazing businessman and helped to change the landscape of philanthropy in Chicago.  His incredible wife and dear friend, Joan, is here with us.  And it is absolutely true that Irving I won't say discovered me but was willing to I think put a bet on me very early on in my career at a time when I was just getting started in politics.  And he was somebody who nobody said a bad word about, because he was an example of somebody who did well and did good, and cared deeply about making sure that he was giving back.  And one of the main areas that he focused on was early childhood education, and how meaningful it could be if we were able to give every child, early in life, the kind of support that they needed -- that it would pay dividends for years to come.  And not only did he give money, but he gave time and he understood the subject matter and he was passionate about it.  And that passion was transferred to me and to a lot of other people in public service and in philanthropy.  And so what a thrill it is to be able to be with his family all these years later and remember him.  He was a great, great man.  So we're really proud of him. Now, to the matter at hand, there's an election coming up.  (Laughter.)  And because this is an intimate group, I want to spend most of our time in conversation, but let me just say a few things at the top. It is a cliché that every election is the most important election of our lifetime.  This time it's true.  (Laughter.)  They're all important, and I'm a big believer that the project of America, the project of democracy, is never finished; that it is a constant process of us together, reimagining what might be, figuring out how we can work together to make this country a little more just, a little more fair, a little more prosperous, a little more secure.  I've described myself as a relay runner in that process; that even when you achieve the highest office of the land that no one person is going to bring about all the change that is necessary.  You take the baton and you run, and you hopefully advance the causes that we all care deeply about a little bit, and then you pass it on to the next person.  And what gives me great pride is, is that I can say, unequivocally, that we've run a good race and that we are much better off now than we were when I took office.  (Applause.) And that's true by almost every measure.  When I came into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month.  The financial system was frozen.  We were looking at a global depression.  And not only have we created 15 million new jobs, not only have we cut the unemployment by more -- the unemployment rate by more than half, not only do we have 20 million people who have health insurance who didn't have it before -- (applause) -- but just last week, the Census Report came out that showed that last year we saw the largest increases in income since they've been measuring increases; the biggest drop in poverty since 1968.  And what was most satisfying is that those increases in income were across the board and particularly among low-income and middle-income folks. And so we are now in the process of reversing what had been a 20-, 30-year trend where the gains typically accrued to the top, and incomes and wages were stagnant for people in the middle and at the bottom. Add to that, then, our doubling of clean energy; our historic efforts to stop the process of a warming planet; marriage equality is now the law of the land in all 50 states.  (Applause.)  The reopening of Cuba; the disarming of nuclear weapons in Iran; taking Osama bin Laden off the battlefield.  (Applause.)  It's very hard to find an area where we're not better off than we were.  And that's a consequence of hard work, the incredible resilience of the American people, but also because of good policy -- policy that's based on facts; policy that's based on evidence; a willingness to look squarely at what's not working and try something different and learn from mistakes.  And we now have one candidate in this race who is prepared to carry on that same type of governance.  I have had the opportunity to work with Hillary Clinton.  I've had the opportunity to run against Hillary Clinton.  And I can tell you that this is somebody who is smart, who is tough, and most importantly, who cares deeply about making sure that this country works for everybody and not just a few.  And she's displayed it again and again and again.  And when I said that I think she is somebody who is as qualified as any individual who has ever run for this office, I meant it.  Audrey mentioned "Hamilton" and being in the room where it happens -- well, she's been in the room where it happens, repeatedly.  And her judgment has been unerring, and she has been disciplined, and she has been extraordinarily effective in every job that she's had. And then there's the other guy.  (Laughter.)  Now, you all know him because he's from New York.  Some of you may have done business with him -- I don't know.  If you have, it doesn't sound like it's been a pleasant experience.  (Laughter.)  But when I ran against John McCain, we had deep differences, but I couldn't say that he was not qualified to be President of the United States.  When I ran against Mitt Romney, I had profound differences with him, but I couldn't say that electing Mitt Romney would be an unmitigated disaster.  This guy is not qualified to be President.  And he shows no interest in even gaining the rudimentary knowledge required to make really hard decisions on a day-to-day basis.  There's no curiosity, there's no desire to get up to speed.  It's an infomercial.  It's a reality show.  And more disturbingly, it's tapping into some of our worst impulses as a country -- ones that divide us rather than bring us together; ones that seek to put down people who have been historically vulnerable as opposed to lifting them up. So this should not be a close election, but it will be.  And the reason it will be is not because of Hillary's flaws, but rather because, structurally, we've become a very polarized society.  And if all you're doing is watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and reading some of the blogs that are churning out a lot of misinformation on a regular basis, then it's very hard for you to think that you're going to vote for somebody who you've been told is taking the country in the wrong direction.  And so, structurally, we already have these divisions and it's going to be hard to overcome those.  I will also say that there's a reason why we haven't had a woman President; that we as a society still grapple with what it means to see powerful women.  And it still troubles us in a lot of ways, unfairly, and that expresses itself in all sorts of ways. So the good news is, despite all that, I have confidence in the American people that they're going to make a good decision and we're going to win this thing.  But it's not going to happen if we just take it for granted.  It's not going to happen if we just step back and assume that we're going to be successful -- we've got to work for it, as we've always had to work for it. And that brings me back to where I started.  Every step of the way, every piece of progress that we've made in this country has been because ordinary people decided we can imagine something better, and then were willing to make extraordinary sacrifices and fight for it.  That was true for the Civil Rights Movement, that was true for the Women's Movement, that was true for the Labor Movement.  And it will be true today.  So if we do our jobs, if we don't get distracted and certainly if we don't get discouraged, if we are focused and disciplined and provide the resources and the time and the effort and the energy to get this thing done, then we're going to be successful.  And I am absolutely confident that Hillary Clinton will be a great President.  (Applause.)  But it's going to require us to put her there.  So let's get busy.  As I was coming over here -- I may embarrass her, but I've got one of my staff, I won't mention her name, her dad -- she just was telling this story.  She hadn't flown on Marine One before, and we were flying in together, and she started talking about her dad, who grew up in an orphanage.  And it was an orphanage actually started by Alexander Hamilton's widow.  And it's an amazing institution, apparently, and he benefited from this loving environment for an orphan, and then had the opportunity, which is part of what set America apart -- to go to city colleges in New York at a time when this was a gateway, a pathway for working people to get a world-class education.  And he ended up becoming a biochemist.  And he had a successful career, and his daughter now works in the White House and is one of my closest advisors. Just think about that.  That's what America is at its best.  That story, that trajectory.  And probably somewhere for everybody in this room, there's a story like that.  And the question is, does that story continue?  And when you're making a decision about who should be President, and when you decide what's worth investing your time and your effort and your energy in -- the way Irving Harris did -- that's what we should be chasing.  That's what we should be pursuing.  That's what we should be trying to continue.  That's what I've tried to do these last eight years.  I know that's what Hillary is going to be doing for the next eight years.  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.) END 7:39 P.M EDT

17 сентября, 12:12

Weekly Republican Address: The Constitution Is What Makes America Exceptional

WASHINGTON—In this week’s Republican address, Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA) celebrates Constitution Day by discussing how a #BetterWay will restore accountable government and the separation of powers. “Our Better Way plan seeks to restore the separation of powers in at least a few important ways,” said Rep. Rothfus. He continued, “These Better Way reforms are a good start, but the work of defending the Constitution is the work of every generation. It is how we live up to the legacy of our founders. It is how we keep America exceptional.” NOTE: The audio of the weekly address is available here, and the video will be available on speaker.gov. Remarks of Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania Weekly Republican Address Washington, DC September 17, 2016 By listening to the American people, Republicans have developed a positive agenda to get our country back on track. We’re calling it A Better Way. A Better Way would not only restore American leadership in the world, it would generate a healthy expansion of our economy that would increase job opportunities, lift wages, and help us keep the commitments we've made to our seniors and veterans. You can learn more about these ideas by going to better.gop. Our plan addresses the need to reform government itself, and that’s what I would like to focus on here. Because today is Constitution Day. Two-hundred twenty-nine years ago today, a group of visionaries—including Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and George Washington—emerged from Independence Hall having signed the final draft of the blueprint for our federal government. Theirs was a vision for a new kind of government, one based on freedom not force. Our Founders recognized that in our country, the government would operate by the consent of the governed. And so to guard against arbitrary power, there would instead be a separation of powers among three branches of government. This all sounds so simple, but in recent years, we’ve seen an erosion of these principles. A regulatory superstate has replaced the sovereignty of the people. So-called experts in Washington churn out all kinds of rules and red tape without accountability, hurting millions of Americans. For example, the misguided regulation of community banks under Dodd-Frank, Washington's financial control law, is harming consumers and families. Prior to Dodd Frank, 75 percent of community banks offered free checking; today it’s down to 39 percent. Ten dollars a month may not seem like much to Washington bureaucrats with six figure salaries, but it is to the 75 percent of American people living paycheck to paycheck.   Similar harm has been done in healthcare, where millions have been harmed by skyrocketing premiums and deductibles, and in the energy industry, where tens of thousands have lost jobs since President Obama’s 2008 promise to bankrupt the coal industry. That is why Americans want the people from their area—their representative—making the laws, not the unaccountable bureaucrats who live in a far off capital.  We also need to get back to basics regarding the fundamental freedoms our Constitution protects. We have seen threats, for example, to First and Second Amendment rights in recent years. Indeed, my own Diocese of Pittsburgh, as well as the Little Sisters of the Poor, had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to protect the right to exercise their religion against an overbearing regulatory agency. Our Better Way plan seeks to restore the separation of powers in at least a few important ways: We propose that Congress actually write laws in clear language that provides clear lines of authority—no gray areas that allow unelected bureaucrats to run amok; we propose new limits on spending, so that Congress and the people have the ultimate say over how your tax dollars are being spent; and we want to increase transparency across the board. Make government publish more information about what it’s doing, and especially, what it’s regulating. After all, this is the people’s business. These Better Way reforms are a good start, but the work of defending the Constitution is the work of every generation. It is how we live up to the legacy of our founders. It is how we keep America exceptional. 

12 сентября, 19:01

Fighting Terrorism With a Credit Card

Interest payments on America’s war debt could one day exceed the direct costs of combat itself.

08 сентября, 22:19

Remarks by the First Lady Honoring the 2016 Class of the National Student Poets Program

East Room 1:48 P.M. EDT MRS. OBAMA:  Well, good afternoon, and welcome to the White House.  Yay!  We're here in the White House.  And we are beyond thrilled to have you all here today. I want to start by thanking a few people who helped make this day possible.  Of course, I want to start with Megan Beyer and the President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.  Yay!  (Applause.)  The Alliance for Young Artists & Writers, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, Urban Word, Youth Speaks.  (Audience snaps fingers.)  Yeah, I forgot we snap here, too.  (Laughter.)   And I want to give a very special shout-out and thank you to Olivia Morgan, who has just done all the great work to make this possible.  (Applause.)  This is not on the teleprompter -- but, Olivia, we couldn’t have done this without you.  Your passion, your energy, your focus, your vision has just been tremendous.  Barack and I think the world of you -- and your whole family.  And we love you and are so grateful for everything you've -- okay, we're not crying.  (Laughter.)  We're not going to cry.  But, Olivia, thank you so much.   And I also want to thank our distinguished guest, an Abstract Poet himself, the one, the only -- Q-Tip.  (Applause.)  Looking good!  So good to have you.  Now, when my kids look up and go, "Q-Tip is coming?" -- I know we're into something.  (Laughter.)  They usually don’t care what I do here.  (Laughter.)  But they were excited that you were going to be here.  They're at school.  I also want to give a huge thank you to our wonderful jurors who helped to do the hard work.  (Applause.)  All of you who are here today, thank you.  Thank you. And last but not least, I want to recognize the young people who are up on not the stage, but in front of this fireplace with me:  our fifth class of National Student Poets.  Let's give them another round of applause.  (Applause.)   I know we're proud of these guys.  And I got a chance to take some photos with their families, proud families.  I know you all are excited to be here and watch your young people soar.  Thank you for creating these young people.  (Laughter.)  To all the families, way to go.   Well, I have to say that this event -- I've said this too many times, because we're celebrating a lot of "last" here this year -- but this is the last time that we're going to have the pleasure of welcoming a class of National Student Poets to the White House, at least under this administration.  So I'm feeling a little melancholy here, because this has truly been an honor and a privilege and a joy. So before we get into the readings from these amazing poets, I just want to take a moment to reflect on how we got started and why we're so committed to lifting up young people through the arts.   Back when Barack and I first got to the White House, we knew that we wanted to use this incredible platform of the White House to inspire our young people to dream really big for themselves, to think about what their lives could look like beyond what their everyday existence is like.  We wanted to ignite their ambition and also celebrate their talent, because there are so many talented young people all over this country.  It just blows my mind. We also knew that schools across the country, and so many of them art and music classes, were being cut back or eliminated completely.  And what we knew is that loss was pretty devastating, because we all know what the evidence shows is that when kids are involved in arts, they do better in school and in life.  They have higher grades.  They have fewer behavioral problems.  We talk about this at almost every event.  They're more likely to go to college, to graduate, and go on and do wonderful things.  So we know that the arts are critical. Barack and I also happen to be pretty huge poetry fans ourselves.  My husband considers himself kind of a poet -- (laughter) -- but we'll see.  We'll see.  Maybe when he's done he'll write one for me.  (Laughter.)  You hear that, honey?  (Laughter.)  So that's kind of where the idea of the National Student Poet program came from.  And, of course, having Olivia on our team, also a passionate person, has helped to make this happen. So we decided that we wanted to honor five outstanding poets each year and then give them the mic here in the White House so that they could inspire countless other young people to follow in their footsteps.  And since we started the program, we've received over 70,000 submissions from applicants -- 70,000.  Just so you know, the competition is fierce.  (Laughter.)  It's not like you just happened up here.  A lot of people have applied over the years.  And we've named 20 national poets.  And these talented young people have done so much over these years.  They've traveled the country, many of them the world, and they've been sharing the magic of poetry with others.   And this year, we were proud to double the size of this program by naming the first class of five National Youth Spoken Word Ambassadors, who are here with us today.  (Applause.)  You guys, stand up.  Together, these talented students are what we call living, breathing proof of the power of poetry to transform young people's lives. We all know that being a kid today can be a little hard.  It can be tough, especially when you're a teenager and you're dealing with emotions and experiences that can be overwhelming, so say the least.  It's tempting at this age to just close down and shut out the rest of the world, especially when the world can feel so ugly at times.  But for so many people, writing poetry helps them open up, even in the face of all kinds of challenges and obstacles in their lives.   And as Q-Tip once put it, he said, "The world is kinda cold and the rhythm is my blanket."  And you don't have to be a renowned artist like Q-Tip to try your hand at poetry.  You don't need any special equipment -- that's the beauty of it.  You don’t have to have any advanced qualifications.  All you need to be is willing to work hard and have a whole lot of courage -- because it is never easy to expose your inner thoughts and rawest emotions, let alone in front of a lot of cameras at the White House.  (Laughter.)  They're like -- it's going to be okay!  It's going to be fun.  (Laughter.)  It's going to be fun.    Maya -- where's Maya?  You put it best.  These are your words, I'm told:  "On the stage, there is no way to leave unnoticed."  Did you say that? MAYA EASHWARAN:  Yes.  (Laughter.)  MRS. OBAMA:  Thank God.  I was going to check with my speechwriter.  (Laughter.)  But if you can summon that courage and go through draft after draft of writing -- which is painful, I know -- and then finally stand up on this stage and speak your truth -- well, here is what we know:  After all of that, you are ready for anything.  That's the beauty of it.  You're ready to graduate from high school and go to college, and chase after whatever dream you have.  If you can be here, you can do anything, right?  Small steps.  And I believe that every young person in this country deserves those kinds of opportunities.   So I have one request that I make of all of our student poets, and I'm going to make that of you all here today.  I want you to go out there and share your gifts with others.  That's your job now, all right?  After all the fun -- there was a reception, right?  We fed you a little bit.  Maybe there will be cookies.  In exchange -- (laughter) -- I want you to show other young people the power of taking risks and opening themselves up to the world.  Talk to your teachers about bringing poetry into the classroom if they're not doing it.  Make sure that folks in your communities understand why it's so vitally important to have the arts in our schools.    And that might be asking a lot, because you guys are going to have busy years ahead.  This year is going to be busy.  You're going to be juggling your schoolwork and your writing with the speaking engagements that I know you're going to have all across the country.  So it's going to be a busy time.  But we chose you because we know you can handle this.  And if you don't believe me, just listen to the stories of some of the alums of this program, many of whom are here with us today.  Where are our alums?  Yay!  (Applause.)  You guys.  We've got alums representing all four prior years of the National Student Poets initiative.   One of these young people used poetry -- which she refers to as "power-tree" -- to help heal her community in the aftermath of a devastating school shooting.  Another National Student Poet conducted poetry workshops at veterans' centers, and he helped one veteran fulfill her dream of putting her poetry to music.  He even accompanied her on piano while she sang.  Other student poets designed classes for military kids, taught workshops to incarcerated women, and brought poetry to senior citizens with Alzheimer's disease.  So, big shoes to fill.  But if you follow their lead and keep on following your passion for poetry wherever it may take you -- well, you never know where you might end up.   And that was certainly true for a spoken word poet that I know -- someone who's not that much older than many of these guys.  I'm older than him.  But this young man performed at the first-ever White House poetry jam that my husband and I hosted back here in 2009 in the East Room.  And this kid got up on stage and started rapping about Alexander Hamilton.  And he blew us away.  That guy's name is Lin-Manuel Miranda.  And he expanded that song into one of the most extraordinary pieces of art that I -- and probably so many others -- have ever seen.  (Applause.)   So that just goes to show you that if you can make it to the White House, you make it anywhere.  (Laughter.)  And I'm excited to see where you all end up and what you achieve in the years ahead.  I want you all to have fun today.  This is your day.  Being in the White House at this moment, doing what you're about to do, is something you should treasure.  So I want you all to breathe deep and just enjoy it.  We all love you.  We support you.  You all are winners.  This is your stage, your house. So, I am proud of you, okay?  All right.  (Applause.)  So with that, we're going to get going.  Thank you all so much.  Thank you for your hard work.  Olivia, thank you so much.  You all, God bless.  Take it away.   END  2:02 P.M. EDT

08 сентября, 19:41

Some Links

(Don Boudreaux) TweetJust how dangerous is pharmaceutical regulation in the United States?  David Henderson applauds Scott Alexander’s economically informed effort to answer this question. George Selgin asks if the Fed violates the law. Also over at Alt-M, my colleague Larry White accurately exposes the myth that Alexander Hamilton was a profound economic policy analyst. The Cato Institute’s […]

02 сентября, 21:54

Some Links

(Don Boudreaux) TweetMy Mercatus Center colleague Dan Griswold reacts to Donald Trump’s latest diatribe against immigrants.  A slice: As much as I disagree with Mr. Trump on the substance of his immigration plans, his uncompromising speech has the virtue of presenting Americans with a clear choice on the issue. The anti-immigration wing of the Republican Party has […]

01 сентября, 22:30

Federal Election Commission Questions Existence Of 'God'

This story was originally published by The Center for Public Integrity, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. Anyone criticizing the Federal Election Commission as toothless must now reckon with this: Today, the agency took on God and Satan — plus nearly 250 other officially registered presidential candidates it believes are bogus. “Dear Candidate,” began the letter the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division sent to God for President, H. Majesty Satan Lord of Underworld Prince of Darkness!, Captain Crunch, Rocky Balboa and a cast of other characters seeking to challenge Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.   “It has come to the attention of the Federal Election Commission that you may have failed to include an accurate name of the candidate and an accurate principal campaign committee … when you filed FEC Form 2.” The FEC didn’t say exactly how the potential inaccuracies came to its attention. But it asked the recipients to submit additional paperwork confirming their candidacies or to withdraw the filings. Credit the FEC’s awareness of these fictional presidential candidates in large part to “Deez Nuts,” the fake candidate created by a 15-year-old boy from Iowa who made national headlines when his support crested in an online poll. He immediately sparked a rash of imitators — yet another crazy sideshow during what, by most any measure, is a bonkers 2016 election cycle. Perhaps FEC analysts also lifted their eyebrows when they saw “God” was operating His presidential campaign from a Staten Island shopping center that shares an address with Beach Bum Tanning and the Divine Furniture & Mattress Outlet. Or maybe they were tipped off by the Everdeen 2016 Committee (Effie Trinket, treasurer), which put forth Katniss Everdeen for president with the address “101 E Avenue of Tributes The Capitol, CO.” Any fan of “The Hunger Games” know Katniss Everdeen hails not from the Capitol, but from District 12. Possibly it’s because Darth Vader so rarely files paperwork. Either way, the FEC announced a week ago that it was sick of the flood of fake filings and was planning to take action, beginning with the sternly worded letters, which note there are penalties for false filings. The agency’s letters to presumably fake candidates note that if the recipients don’t respond by confirming the truthfulness of their filings, the agency will withdraw them from the database. The rush of prank filings left the agency between an Alexander Hamilton and a Butt Stuff. “The agency has no authority over and makes no judgement on an individual’s qualifications or eligibility to run for office or obtain ballot access,” FEC spokeswoman Judith Ingram wrote last year in astatement to the Center for Public Integrity. Once a presidential candidate filing is submitted, the FEC is required to make it public. Asked for a comment on the letters sent by the FEC yesterday, Ingram referred a reporter to the agency’s policy, announced last week. Of course, those filing “false, erroneous, or incomplete information” open themselves up to FEC fines and, in theory, criminal penalties, though the government would have to devote resources to going after them. The FEC’s letters specifically note that removing the filings doesn’t mean it’s waiving its right to seek penalties. So Donald Drumpf, Pepe Le Frog, Obi Wan Kenobi andReagan’s Ghost: you’ve been warned. // (function() {document.getElementById('cpi_widget').innerHTML = ''})(); //]]> -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

01 сентября, 13:00

Лица на банкнотах, которых там могло не быть

Исландские жены, чехословацкая девочка и даже один из отцов-основателей США смотрят на нас с купюр всего лишь по воле случая. В материале, вышедшем на портале Banks.eu, Артем Ейсков рассказал о странных «денежных» решениях, которые принимались на самом высоком уровне.