Выбор редакции
31 октября, 00:00

The Ominous Absurdity of Trump's Tax Cuts

Jeffrey Sachs, CNNThe Republicans' proposed corporate tax cuts pose an ominous threat to the common good, says Jeffrey Sachs. The GOP needs to get out from under the thumb of plutocrats.

21 октября, 14:05

Михаил Делягин: Саакашвили станет премьером и опять нападет на Россию

Экс-президент Грузии вызван, чтобы разжечь большую войну

13 октября, 21:45

Phrases Ever So Fine Are Too Often Masks for Mischief

(Don Boudreaux) TweetBelow is a letter to a reader of Marginal Revolution who e-mailed me this morning after reading this Marginal Revolution post. Mr. Andrew Corrigan Mr. Corrigan: Thanks for your e-mail.  I did indeed see that Jeffrey Sachs supports a movement that has, among its goals, government creation of a “livable” wage for all jobs, as […]

13 октября, 18:12

“Sachs looks to turn conservative tide in US state governments”

Economist Jeffrey Sachs is joining with a scion of the wealthy Pritzker family and a former New York state legislator to fund candidates for local offices in the hope of reversing a conservative tide that has put Republicans in control of most US state governments. Their group, called Future Now, was scheduled to announce its […] The post “Sachs looks to turn conservative tide in US state governments” appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

18 сентября, 00:00

Big Oil Will Have to Pay Up, like Big Tobacco

Jeffrey Sachs, CNNHere is a message to investors in the oil industry, whether pension and insurance funds, university endowments, hedge funds or other asset managers: Your investments are going to sour. The growing devastation caused by climate change, as seen this month in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean, are going to blow a hole in your fossil-fuel portfolio.

Выбор редакции
20 июня, 19:51

Американский экономист назвал размещение баз США по всему миру устаревшим

Политика по размещению баз США по всему миру устарела. Об этом заявил RT американский экономист и директор Института Земли Колумбийского университета Джеффри Сакс. Читать далее

07 июня, 09:10

Джеффри Сакс. Сломанная демократия Америки

Этот тот самый Сакс, который Гайдара учил. И из тех самых Саксов, который Goldman Sachs. Со всеми вытекающими Безумные нападки президента США Дональда Трамп на Парижское климатическое соглашение 2015 года отчасти являются продуктом его невежества и нарциссизма. Но не только. Это ещё и результат глубокой коррупции американской политической системы, которая, согласно последним оценкам, перестала быть «полноценной демократией». Американская политика превратилась в игрушку в руках могущественных корпораций: снижение налогов для богатых, отмена регулирования самых главных загрязнителей окружающей среды, а для всего остального мира – войны и глобальное потепление.

Выбор редакции
03 июня, 00:00

Trump's Paris Pullout Leaves U.S. Leadership in Flames

Jeffrey Sachs, NY Daily NewsToday is the day that America's global leadership ends. Congratulations, Washington, you have become worse than useless.

21 мая, 21:14

Wages are the key to the business cycle, by Scott Sumner

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I did some research with Steve Silver on sticky wages and the business cycle. Using postwar data, it's very difficult to draw any conclusion, as the economy was hit by both supply and demand shocks, which have very different impacts on real wages. During the interwar period, however, demand shocks are much easier to identify and the role of wages really stands out. In the following graph we inverted the real wage series (top line), and compared it to industrial production (bottom line), to make it easier to see the strong countercyclicality of real wages: We found that there were two factors that reduced output during the interwar years. First, falling prices in the face of sticky wages---which occurred on and off throughout the entire interwar period. Second, an autonomous rise in nominal wages (caused by government labor market policies)---which mostly occurred during the period after 1933. While cleaning out my office I came across a 1996 QJE paper by Ben Bernanke and Kevin Carey. Here's a portion of their conclusion: First, like Eichengreen and Sachs [1985], we verified that during much of this period there existed a strong inverse relationship (across countries as well as over time) between output and real wages, and also that countries which adhered to the gold standard typically had low output and high real wages, while countries that left gold early experienced high output and low real wages. It does not appear that any purely real theory can give a plausible explanation of this relationship. Among theories emphasizing some type of monetary non-neutrality (i.e., a non-vertical aggregate supply curve), there are basically only two types: theories in which the price level affects output supply because of nominal-wage stickiness, and theories in which the price level affects output supply for some other reason. We find that, once we have controlled for lagged output and banking panics, the effects on output of shocks to nominal wages and shocks to prices are roughly equal and opposite. If price effects operating through nonwage channels were important, we would expect to find the effect on output of a change in prices (given wages) to be greater than the effect of a change in nominal wages (given prices). As we find roughly equal effects, our evidence favors the view that sticky wages were the dominant source of non-neutrality. That's why Bernanke was my first choice for Fed chair back in 2006. PS. Is the 1985 paper that Bernanke and Carey cite co-authored by the Jeffrey Sachs who defended Bernie Sanders and a higher minimum wage? I believe it is. I think it's fair to say that the policy views of economists are not based on the outcome of their empirical research. PPS. Steve Silver and I had a paper on real wage cyclicality published in the 1989 JPE. We did a follow-up paper focusing on wages and prices during the interwar years, which was published in 1995 in the Southern Economic Journal. (6 COMMENTS)

21 мая, 21:14

Wages are the key to the business cycle, by Scott Sumner

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, I did some research with Steve Silver on sticky wages and the business cycle. Using postwar data, it's very difficult to draw any conclusion, as the economy was hit by both supply and demand shocks, which have very different impacts on real wages. During the interwar period, however, demand shocks are much easier to identify and the role of wages really stands out. In the following graph we inverted the real wage series (top line), and compared it to industrial production (bottom line), to make it easier to see the strong countercyclicality of real wages: We found that there were two factors that reduced output during the interwar years. First, falling prices in the face of sticky wages---which occurred on and off throughout the entire interwar period. Second, an autonomous rise in nominal wages (caused by government labor market policies)---which mostly occurred during the period after 1933. While cleaning out my office I came across a 1996 QJE paper by Ben Bernanke and Kevin Carey. Here's a portion of their conclusion: First, like Eichengreen and Sachs [1985], we verified that during much of this period there existed a strong inverse relationship (across countries as well as over time) between output and real wages, and also that countries which adhered to the gold standard typically had low output and high real wages, while countries that left gold early experienced high output and low real wages. It does not appear that any purely real theory can give a plausible explanation of this relationship. Among theories emphasizing some type of monetary non-neutrality (i.e., a non-vertical aggregate supply curve), there are basically only two types: theories in which the price level affects output supply because of nominal-wage stickiness, and theories in which the price level affects output supply for some other reason. We find that, once we have controlled for lagged output and banking panics, the effects on output of shocks to nominal wages and shocks to prices are roughly equal and opposite. If price effects operating through nonwage channels were important, we would expect to find the effect on output of a change in prices (given wages) to be greater than the effect of a change in nominal wages (given prices). As we find roughly equal effects, our evidence favors the view that sticky wages were the dominant source of non-neutrality. That's why Bernanke was my first choice for Fed chair back in 2006. PS. Is the 1985 paper that Bernanke and Carey cite co-authored by the Jeffrey Sachs who defended Bernie Sanders and a higher minimum wage? I believe it is. I think it's fair to say that the policy views of economists are not based on the outcome of their empirical research. PPS. Steve Silver and I had a paper on real wage cyclicality published in the 1989 JPE. We did a follow-up paper focusing on wages and prices during the interwar years, which was published in 1995 in the Southern Economic Journal. (6 COMMENTS)

15 мая, 20:39

Geography Is Policy, by Bryan Caplan

For the last twenty years or so, Jeffrey Sachs and co-authors have been arguing that institutions and policy matter less than most economists think.  The harsh reality is that geography has a huge effect on countries' economic success.  From what I've seen, the Geography Matters camp is on to something: Even after correcting for national ancestry, high absolute latitude and coastal access continue to have huge economic payoffs.  In fact, geographic effects are much more robust than the effects of national ancestry.  Social scientists who accept the power of geography tend to get pretty pessimistic about development.  If poor countries adopted the institutions and policies of rich countries, they still wouldn't do very well.  Few go full fatalist.  But they do lose hope that economic reforms can quickly transform the world.And that's where the geo-centric economists are completely wrong.  Contrary to their own self-image, their view is radically optimistic.  Consider the extreme scenario where geography is the sole determinant of national prosperity.  Is there anything mankind could do to swiftly raise per-capita GDP?  Absolutely: Move people from poor countries to rich countries.  Is that the kind of thing that policy can change?  Again, absolutely: Legalize movement from poor countries to rich countries.  How much would that accomplish?  Given the draconian regulations now on the books, such deregulation would swiftly transform the world.In the real world, of course, geography isn't the sole global problem, so deregulating migration isn't a full-blown panacea for global ills.  But if Sachs is remotely right, this deregulation is the closest thing to a panacea we've got.  Bad geography only retards human progress insofar as humans remain in locations with bad geography.   And once it's legal, humans will vacate the bad areas on a massive scale.  To be fair, Jeff Sachs has written in favor of freer migration:When high-income, high-productivity countries close their national borders to migration, they are denying the rights of individual migrants to seek improvement in their own conditions, and are also blocking a vital channel for improved global productivity. A global migration regime should favor migration both on account of the global efficiency gains and on account of the human right of individuals to seek their preferred residences (see Carens 2013, for a cogent ethical analysis from a human-rights perspective).The global regime should pay special attention to emigration from the world's most impoverished regions, with special attention to those suffering from intrinsic barriers to development due to geographical, ecological, climatological, or other intrinsic factors. Migrants from such regions face the greatest need to emigrate but also the greatest obstacles. They tend to be poor, less educated, and with few familial or business contacts in high-income countries to facilitate their migration. These are the boat people drowning in the Mediterranean.But to the best of my knowledge, Sachs never quite makes the fundamental point: Migration policy is the co-factor that makes geography important.  "Geography matters a lot" does not imply "Policy doesn't matter so much."  Instead, it implies that "Migration policy matters a lot."  Geography is not destiny, but opportunity. (10 COMMENTS)

15 мая, 20:39

Geography Is Policy, by Bryan Caplan

For the last twenty years or so, Jeffrey Sachs and co-authors have been arguing that institutions and policy matter less than most economists think.  The harsh reality is that geography has a huge effect on countries' economic success.  From what I've seen, the Geography Matters camp is on to something: Even after correcting for national ancestry, high absolute latitude and coastal access continue to have huge economic payoffs.  In fact, geographic effects are much more robust than the effects of national ancestry.  Social scientists who accept the power of geography tend to get pretty pessimistic about development.  If poor countries adopted the institutions and policies of rich countries, they still wouldn't do very well.  Few go full fatalist.  But they do lose hope that economic reforms can quickly transform the world.And that's where the geo-centric economists are completely wrong.  Contrary to their own self-image, their view is radically optimistic.  Consider the extreme scenario where geography is the sole determinant of national prosperity.  Is there anything mankind could do to swiftly raise per-capita GDP?  Absolutely: Move people from poor countries to rich countries.  Is that the kind of thing that policy can change?  Again, absolutely: Legalize movement from poor countries to rich countries.  How much would that accomplish?  Given the draconian regulations now on the books, such deregulation would swiftly transform the world.In the real world, of course, geography isn't the sole global problem, so deregulating migration isn't a full-blown panacea for global ills.  But if Sachs is remotely right, this deregulation is the closest thing to a panacea we've got.  Bad geography only retards human progress insofar as humans remain in locations with bad geography.   And once it's legal, humans will vacate the bad areas on a massive scale.  To be fair, Jeff Sachs has written in favor of freer migration:When high-income, high-productivity countries close their national borders to migration, they are denying the rights of individual migrants to seek improvement in their own conditions, and are also blocking a vital channel for improved global productivity. A global migration regime should favor migration both on account of the global efficiency gains and on account of the human right of individuals to seek their preferred residences (see Carens 2013, for a cogent ethical analysis from a human-rights perspective).The global regime should pay special attention to emigration from the world's most impoverished regions, with special attention to those suffering from intrinsic barriers to development due to geographical, ecological, climatological, or other intrinsic factors. Migrants from such regions face the greatest need to emigrate but also the greatest obstacles. They tend to be poor, less educated, and with few familial or business contacts in high-income countries to facilitate their migration. These are the boat people drowning in the Mediterranean.But to the best of my knowledge, Sachs never quite makes the fundamental point: Migration policy is the co-factor that makes geography important.  "Geography matters a lot" does not imply "Policy doesn't matter so much."  Instead, it implies that "Migration policy matters a lot."  Geography is not destiny, but opportunity. (10 COMMENTS)

06 мая, 02:27

Syria's White Helmets Court Bernie Sanders And Other New Friends

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Representatives of the White Helmets, the Syrian humanitarian organization that’s estimated to have saved tens of thousands of lives, are used to visiting Washington. The group receives U.S. government assistance, and it’s been featured in an Oscar-winning Netflix documentary. Its chief, Raed Saleh, has received scores of awards, most recently a spot on the Time 100 list. But their latest trip brought something new: meetings with American power players who have never engaged with the volunteer rescue group before, including individuals highly skeptical of U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Last Tuesday, two representatives of the group, officially known as Syria Civil Defense, met with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Through the course of the trip, White Helmets members had their first encounters with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a progressive favorite, and a raft of other lawmakers who have not previously engaged with them, like moderate GOP Rep. Susan Brooks of Indiana. “As we try to come up with a plan to end the devastating war in Syria, it’s very important to hear from those who are experiencing it firsthand,” Sanders told HuffPost. “The death and destruction taking place in Syria, and the brutality of the Assad regime is almost beyond belief. I was honored to meet with these incredibly brave volunteers, ordinary men and women, who risk their lives to help their fellow citizens.” Khanna praised the group of first responders, too, noting that it serves civilians targeted by both sides of the six-year conflict. But Khanna’s interactions with the group also highlighted the way conspiracy theories, misrepresentations and general wariness of the war have made serious talk about it in the U.S. increasingly difficult. The congressman faced a social media backlash after tweeting and posting on Facebook about his meeting, with commenters accusing him of cheering American intervention and of supporting a group that Syrian President Bashar Assad, Russia and others falsely portray as a terrorist front. Khanna deleted the tweet and changed his language on Facebook. After HuffPost reported on the kerfuffle, he said he regretted that decision and slammed conspiracy theory talk about the White Helmets.  Volunteers ― people who were previously accountants, firefighters and bakers ― founded the group in 2012 as civilian casualties began to increase in Syria. As the first responders began attracting international attention and support, from the U.S. and allied governments like the Netherlands and Japan, they told the world about the brutality of the war, particularly by Assad’s forces. The regime’s supporters soon launched an ongoing propaganda campaign to discredit them, highlighting their appeals for Western help. The more leftist Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, which increasingly appears to be ascendant, is closely associated with activists who oppose Western involvement abroad. The senator spent much of his time on the campaign trail arguing for a reconsideration of U.S. foreign policy, following years of international instability, and attacking his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, as too hawkish.  These arguments are not in themselves problematic. But some elements in this galaxy have courted controversy by adopting the kind of rhetoric Assad and his backers use, particularly in spreading misinformation about the White Helmets and others the U.S. supports in Syria. Former Ohio Gov. Dennis Kucinich has loudly echoed the Assad government’s narrative of the conflict, as has former Sanders adviser Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University. This year, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a favorite of the Sanders movement, has both traveled to Damascus to meet with Assad and suggested that the dictator may be correct in saying he was not responsible for a chemical weapon attack in April that the international community has held him responsible for. With the rise of President Donald Trump, a critic of traditional U.S. foreign policy, some on the right have boosted these views, too. Assad is beloved by figures like white nationalist Richard Spencer and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Meeting with the White Helmets and acknowledging their description of what the regime has done to civilians is important for progressives who claim to be non-interventionist, Khanna argued. It matters for the humanitarian workers too. “It was important for us to meet Sen. Sanders and other American politicians so we could explain what is happening to civilians who are under attack from all sides inside Syria,” Mounir Mustafa, the group’s deputy head, told HuffPost. “Twenty-four hospitals have been bombed in the last month alone, and many areas are subject to daily airstrikes. In the last week, 12 White Helmets have been targeted and killed while rescuing others. We hope that Sen. Sanders stands with us in our humanitarian mission to save lives and uses his voice to call for an end to all attacks on civilians.” Watchers of the war say constant claims that the group’s members are regime-change agents rather than rescue workers only adds to Syrian suffering.  The smear campaign against the White Helmets is among the cruelest I can imagine. https://t.co/MaH772qYIv via @WIRED— Ben Taub (@bentaub91) May 1, 2017 And that view might be becoming more widespread. Last week, Gabbard’s office confirmed to HuffPost that the congresswoman would be willing to meet with the group, too. -- 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.

03 мая, 02:17

Antiwar Dem Lawmaker Flip-Flops On Syria Humanitarian Group, Deletes Tweet

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a rising star in Congress and ally of former President Barack Obama, deleted a tweet and edited a Facebook post about a meeting with the noted Syrian humanitarian group the White Helmets last week after online comments accused him of cheering interventionism, a spokeswoman confirmed to HuffPost on Tuesday. “Congressman Khanna opposes U.S. military intervention in Syria,” Liz Bartolomeo wrote in an email. “He met with representatives from the White Helmets to support their humanitarian efforts in Syria. The congressman updated his social media posts about the meeting to clarify his position.” Some Western commenters on the far left and the far right falsely claim that the White Helmets organization is aligned with al Qaeda in Syria, and echo the Russian argument that the group is a sham to justify Western involvement in the country. After meeting with the widely praised group on April 26, Khanna issued a tweet and a Facebook post. It’s not clear exactly what the original posts said ― the tweet is not available on the tracking site Politwoops or the Wayback Machine, and Khanna’s office refused to describe the specific language ― but he soon backtracked by deleting the tweet and editing the Facebook message. At least one of Khanna’s responses to critics of the original tweet could still be seen on Twitter as of Tuesday evening. @mcnorman57 @jimmy_dore I am opposed to the Syria strikes and any intervention. I met these folks on seeking humanitarian relief. Do not support any military agenda— Ro Khanna (@RoKhannaUSA) April 29, 2017 Bartolemeo declined to confirm whether Khanna altered the social media content because of the online pushback. “He wanted to make his policy position clear. I cannot say what initiated it,” she wrote. The episode reflects the tensions on the left in discussions about the bloody six-year civil war in Syria ― and the way congressional Democrats are sometimes struggling to deal with their newly galvanized, occasionally conspiracist base. Khanna, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, drew huge progressive applause last month after he loudly condemned President Donald Trump’s strike against a Syrian airfield tied to a deadly chemical weapons attack by the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Have we still not learned from the disasters in Iraq and Libya? Now Syria? Every time we have attacked since 2001, terrorism has spread.— Ro Khanna (@RoKhannaUSA) April 7, 2017 An April 7 Vox article gave Khanna credit for breaking with the Democratic establishment on the Hill, which supported the strike by citing Assad’s brutality and international norms against chemical weapons use. Most Democratic criticism of Trump’s actions focused on process: Why hadn’t the president asked Congress for permission first? By criticizing the substance of the act rather than the way it was carried out, Khanna was more in tune with party activists, the Vox story suggested. The congressman soon made back-to-back appearances on MSNBC, on April 9 and 10, to share his view that the U.S. needs to realize the follies of intervention abroad. Two weeks later, he got the star treatment on the popular left-wing site The Young Turks. “I think we can be strong and principled without being militaristic,” Khanna said. “And frankly I wish more Democrats would speak to the substance of a progressive foreign policy instead of... this fear that, oh, we’ll be projected as weak on national security.” Khanna supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination last year and is a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That makes him well-positioned to win national recognition at a time when Sanders is the biggest name in left-wing politics and many in the base believe that Trump’s victory could have been avoided had the Democrats embraced his message. But Khanna’s alignment also puts him in proximity to elements of the left who have spent years pushing controversial, often factually inaccurate comments on Syria that advocates say whitewash Assad’s vicious rule. During his April 10 MSNBC appearance, for instance, Khanna mentioned a piece from Jeffrey Sachs, a prominent economist and Sanders booster, as a reasonable view on Syria. But Sachs, whose writing has appeared on HuffPost, is best known among Syria watchers for repeatedly pushing the idea that the Syrian conflict is the result of a U.S. plot rather than organic opposition to Assad, whose family has repressed the country for over 40 years. And one of the voices on Twitter who rallied the opposition that prompted Khanna to change his mind about his tweet is activist Vanessa Beeley, who frequently lies about Assad’s opponents making up news of regime violence, and who claims NATO is waging an information war against the Syrian government. The Al Qaeda fan club is growing https://t.co/UbVGiG3n4X— vanessa beeley (@VanessaBeeley) April 29, 2017 Supporters of this narrative have turned the White Helmets into a particular target. This serves an important function for them. In a conflict involving massive bloodshed, the voices of first responders carry a great deal of weight. And as the White Helmets have attracted international acclaim, being featured in an Oscar-winning documentary, Nobel Peace Prize gossip and the TIME 100 list, they’ve used high-profile platforms to call for an end to the fighting ― and to state repeatedly that the Assad regime is responsible for most of the deaths, not Western-backed rebels battling the regime or the militant group that calls itself the Islamic State. The group is not explicitly opposed to Assad’s rule, but its message threatens Damascus. Attacks by Assad and his allies have killed White Helmets rescuers on multiple occasions, most recently this weekend. Khanna argues that he does not share this view of the organization. “I was pleased to offer them a meeting,” he told HuffPost. “Most of the conversation focused on their humanitarian efforts... They had said that they help remove people from rubble and the war-torn areas, whether they’re supportive of Assad or not supportive of Assad.” The congressman says he recognizes Assad’s excesses, particularly his systematic discrimination against the majority community in Syria, Sunni Arabs, but does not support an American military role in dealing with them. He recommends that the U.S. strongly push for international prosecution against the regime. “Of course, it’s not going to be swift justice,” Khanna said. “Over years, if America makes those arguments, I think it will advance our credibility in the region.” He’s trying to walk a fine line. The same day he met with White Helmets representative Jehad Mahameed, one of the original founders of the civil defense organization, Khanna became a co-sponsor of a controversial bill from fellow lawmaker Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) that implies the Syrian actors the U.S. is supporting as part of a covert effort to weaken Assad are in fact partners with al Qaeda and the Islamic State. (The White Helmets openly receive U.S. funding as part of the publicly acknowledged American aid package for Syria; the volunteer rescue service also relies on individual donations and help from other governments, like those of Denmark and Japan.) The far left loves Gabbard for her apparent pacifist instincts on Syria and her willingness to support Assad’s version of events.  At the same time, Khanna said he does not support Gabbard’s January trip to meet with the Syrian dictator. “I respect Congresswoman Gabbard’s desire for us not to militarily intervene, but I don’t think that we should be legitimizing Assad in any way, because he has committed, in my judgment, war crimes,” the congressman told HuffPost. But with his actions last week, Khanna appears to have done some legitimizing himself. -- 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.

24 апреля, 15:08

Экономическая безграмотность Трампа приведёт к торговой войне?

Прошло почти 100 дней с момента вступления в должность президента США Дональда Трампа, а он и его министр торговли Уилбур Росс продолжают совершать экономическую ошибку, которую не допускают даже экономисты-первокурсники. Они заявляют, что дефицит счёта […]

22 апреля, 08:36

Сакс: ошибки Трампа приведут к торговой войне

Москва, 22 апреля - "Вести.Экономика". Прошло почти 100 дней с момента вступления в должность президента США Дональда Трампа, а он и его министр торговли Уилбур Росс продолжают совершать экономическую ошибку, которую не допускают даже экономисты-первокурсники, уверен нобелевский лауреат Джеффри Сакс.

21 апреля, 10:06

Links for 04-21-17

Prudential regulation, capital controls, and second-best - Dani Rodrik Regulators Accuse Subprime Mortgage Servicer of Years of Abuses - NYTimes Evidence-Based Policy in Antitrust - ProMarket America is Regressing into a Developing Nation for Most People - INET Want to...

20 апреля, 06:00

Earth 2.0: Is Income Inequality Inevitable?

In pursuit of a more perfect economy, we discuss the future of work; the toxic remnants of colonization; and whether giving everyone a basic income would be genius — or maybe the worst idea ever. The post Earth 2.0: Is Income Inequality Inevitable? appeared first on Freakonomics.

Выбор редакции
17 апреля, 00:00

Our Misguided 'Wars of Choice'

Jeffrey Sachs, Boston GlobeThere is one foreign policy goal that matters above all the others, and that is to keep the United States out of a new war.

13 апреля, 22:48

Видео: Солженицын призывает Конгресс США к ядерной бомбардировке СССР

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwAri8kyzTA На открытии недавно памятника князю Владимиру у стен Кремля в числе нескольких приглашенных избранных ближайших приближенных к Путину лиц по правую сторону от него стоял Мединский-Маннергейский, а по левую вдова Солженицына. Так велика в глазах ельцинско-путинской власти святость Солженицына, что даже на вдову передалась. А всех школьников страны принудительно солженицизируют – заставляют зубрить творения этого мерзавца (чтоб так его называть – достаточно помещенного здесь видео).13 Апреля 2017 Москва. Комиссия по монументальному искусству при Мосгордуме приняла решение об установке памятника писателю, нобелевскому лауреату Александру Солженицыну в Таганском районе Москвы. Как сообщает ФАН, монумент предполагается открыть в 2018 году — в честь 100-летия со дня рождения писателя.Источник https://russian.rt.com/nopolitics/news/378544-pamyatnik-solzhenicyn-moskva А может лучше "атомной бомбой шарахнуть" стоило по русофобской антисоветской сволочи, которая разграбила СССР, а теперь делает мразь вроде Солженицына национальным героем, именем которого называют улицы, ставят памятники и заставляют зубрить в школе?А почему эти так ненавидят СССР? Очень просто. Заметают следы происхождения своих богатств, полученных разграблением созданного трудом миллионов советских людей.Приближенные Ельцина нажились на борьбе с коммунистической угрозойОригинал взят у varjag2007su в Приближенные Ельцина нажились на борьбе с коммунистической угрозойПриближенные Ельцина нажились на борьбе с коммунистической угрозой"Не Западу судить! Мало что понимает в этом Запад. Мы занимались не сбором денег, а уничтожением коммунизма. Это разные задачи, с разной ценой. Мало кто на Западе понимает, что такое коммунизм на самом деле и какую цену заплатила наша страна за это. Мало кто это понимает на Западе. Что такое приватизация для нормального западного профессора, для какого-нибудь Джеффри Сакса? Который пять раз уже менял позицию по этому поводу, и докатился до того, что надо отменить приватизацию и начать все заново. Для него, в соответствии с западными учебниками, это классический экономический процесс, в ходе которого оптимизируется затраты на то, чтобы в максимальной степени эффективно разместить активы переданные государством в частные руки.А мы знали, что каждый проданный завод — это гвоздь в крышку гроба коммунизма. Дорого ли, дешево, бесплатно, с приплатой — двадцатый вопрос, двадцатый. А первый вопрос один: каждый появившийся частный собственник в России — это необратимость. Это необратимость. Точно также как 1 сентября 92 года первым выданным ваучером мы выхватили буквально из рук у красных решение об остановке приватизации в России, точно также каждым следующим шагом мы двигались ровно в том же самом направлении. Приватизация в России до 97 года вообще не была экономическим процессом. Она решала совершенно другого масштаба задачи, что мало кто понимал тогда, а уж тем более на Западе. Она решала главную задачу — остановить коммунизм. Эту задачу мы решили. Мы решили ее полностью" Видео: Чубайс рассказал правду о приватизацииhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odk0GgLKPcYВ возможном военном конфликте с НАТО народ России пойдет умирать за власть вот этих? Честные и сознательные не пойдут воевать за олигархов, а воспитанные на Солженицыне – только о своей шкуре будут заботиться. Дубля героизма Великой Отечественной войны не выйдет. Там народ воевал за свою Родину и за народную власть. Верхам нужно или Красного знамени Победы не касаться не осквернять его и георгиевскую ленточку снять, или трусы одеть, а Солженицына и Ельцин-центр на свалку отправить.Перейти к оглавлению блога

21 июля 2016, 20:59

Цепная реакция: началась эпоха глобальных трансформаций

Россия снова вернулась "на линию атаки", снова провозглашена "империей зла", снова подвергается ударам со стороны "коллективного Запада" во главе с США. Однако кризис такого масштаба не может быть полностью "экспортирован" из стран "первого мира", "золотого миллиарда" в остальное человечество. Мы видели, как попытки такого "экспорта" бумерангом возвращаются в государства "коллективного Запада", переживающие — за показательным исключением Японии — "миграционный кризис", удары террористов, а также — без всяких исключений — невиданную экономическую рецессию и долговой шок. Можно ли нам надеяться на то, что элиты "коллективного Запада" — в каком-то обозримом будущем — поймут, что они натворили, в какой тупик завели человечество и самих себя, перейдут от политики агрессии и конфронтации к политике сотрудничества перед лицом глобального системного кризиса?Подробнее...