• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1289
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации63
      • Показать ещё
      Люди452
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы682
      • Показать ещё
      Разное881
      • Показать ещё
      Издания136
      • Показать ещё
      Формат46
      Показатели134
      • Показать ещё
05 декабря, 11:41

Former Israeli business tycoon sentenced to two years in jail

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - Nochi Dankner, once one of Israel's most powerful businessmen who lost his business empire in the global financial crisis, was sentenced on Monday to two years in jail after being found guilty in July of manipulating share prices.

05 декабря, 00:06

The One Best Way We Does the Tell of the History of the Twentieth Century...

I must take exception to something said earlier today by the very sharp Neville Morley: **Neville Morley**: _[When It Changed][]_: "Unless you do assume that one strand of historical development... >...changes in productivity, or technology, or ideology--is determinative of all the others, then there’s no particular reason to assume that...

04 декабря, 15:17

Why Raul Castro Is Happy Fidel Is Gone

Until his older brother died, he couldn’t become the leader he has always wanted to be. I know. I’ve watched them for decades.

Выбор редакции
04 декабря, 14:44

Business Since Birth: Trump’s Children and the Tangle That Awaits

The president-elect’s three eldest children have always interwoven family and business ties. Can their empire ever be separate from the White House?

04 декабря, 02:12

Trump's tax nightmare

The president-elect would have to navigate a staggering tax bill if he eased out of his business empire.

Выбор редакции
03 декабря, 19:00

Weekend Reading: Debating What's Wrong With Macroeconomics

**Mark Buchanan and Noah Smith**: _[Debating What's Wrong With Macroeconomics][]_: "*It wasn't very long ago that macroeconomics was being hailed for answering some of the big, perplexing questions about the workings of the economy... >..."The state of macro is good," one highly respected economist wrote in August 2008, just before...

03 декабря, 18:55

Weekend Reading: Abraham Lincoln: State of the Union Address (December 3, 1861)

**Abraham Lincoln:** [State of the Union Address](http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html): "Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives... >In the midst of unprecedented political troubles we have cause of great gratitude to God for unusual good health and most abundant harvests. [State of the Union Address]: http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/73.html >You will not be surprised to...

Выбор редакции
03 декабря, 15:45

Labour links

Brexit, TrumpKKK, the EU – broadly defined labour markets are key. About this: A. Noah Smith is changing his opinion A job is more than a paycheck. It is a social institution, too Debunking labour economics 101 (very clever but also logical and empirical) B. Frances Coppola is not changing her opinion: ‘Reinventing work for the […]

03 декабря, 09:13

The new school choice debate (a child is more than just a test score)

Since Donald Trump has picked Betsy DeVos to be education secretary, many commentators have been pulling out their anti-school choice arguments from the closet, and for the most part it isn’t a pretty sight.  To insist on a single government-run school and trash school choice, while out of the other side of one’s mouth criticizing […] The post The new school choice debate (a child is more than just a test score) appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

03 декабря, 05:00

How a Russian spy outfoxed the British in 19th century Afghanistan

In the first few decades of the 19th century, the Russian and British Empires were increasingly on a collision course. While the former was expanding southwards into Central Asia, the latter already had a strong presence in India, and it was just Afghanistan that would be a buffer state between the two empires.  Fearful of each other, Russia and Britain were each eager to at least have a friendly regime in Afghanistan. This political and diplomatic confrontation between the two empires is referred to as ‘The Tournament of Shadows’ in Russia and ‘The Great Game’ in the West.  The first major move in the diplomatic chess match was made in 1831 by Alexander Burnes, a 26-year old Scottish explorer who travelled on his own from India to Afghanistan and onwards to Bukhara. How Leo Tolstoy supported anti-imperialist movements in Asia His 1835 book ‘Travels into Bukhara’ is a fascinating account of what was then one of the most dangerous and least-explored places on earth. Burnes, who later became a British political agent in Afghanistan, also managed to initiate a dialogue with Afghan Emir Dost Mohammed Khan. The same year that Burnes published his book, a young Russian army officer who was exiled in Orenburg (near the Kazakhstan border) was also preparing to go to Central Asia. Ivan (Jan) Viktorovich Vitkevich, then a 27-year old sergeant, was already fluent in Russian, English, German, French, and Polish, as well as Persian and Pashto. While travelling to Bukhara via Kazakhstan, he met Hussein Ali, an envoy of Dost Mohammed Khan. This would be the beginning of an illustrious yet brief Afghanistan-related career for Vitkevich. Weary of British designs on his country, the Afghan Emir had sent Ali to meet the Russian Tsar. Vitkevich took the Afghan envoy to Orenburg and then to the imperial capital of St. Petersburg. He served as an interpreter and helped the Russian government get valuable insights into the political situation in Afghanistan. Rival spies in Afghanistan Vitkevich was asked in 1837 to go on a secret diplomatic mission to Kabul. The British managed to get wind of the Russian’s mission when Vitkevich accidentally ran into a British political agent in Persian (Iran). This came with suspicions that Russia was encouraging the Persians to attack western Afghanistan. A portrait of Ivan (Jan) Vitkevich dressed in traditional Central Asian attire. Source: wikipedia.org The two great travellers, Vitkevich and Burnes met in Kabul over Christmas dinner in 1837. “The Russian’s arrival terrified the British,” filmmaker and politician Rory Stewart said in a documentary titled ‘Afghanistan: The Great Game.’ “They became, in turn, very suspicious of Russia’s ambitions in this country. And this mutual paranoia led to more and more foreign intelligence operations around Afghanistan, with rival officers like Vitkevich and Burnes sending back countless reports on each others’ activities.” Over the next few months, in addition to sending comprehensive reports on the British activities in Afghanistan, Vitkevich also managed to befriend Dost Mohammed Khan and blended in with ease in the country. Such was his reputation that the British paranoia towards Russia grew to unparalleled levels. “Whenever the British saw a Russian painter turn up in the city, a Russian hunter turn up on the Frontier, they would immediately assume that this was a double game of espionage,” Stewart said in the documentary. “It was these fears and suspicions of empires that were to turn Afghanistan into a battleground.” Return to Russia It was clear by the end of Vitkevich’s time in Kabul that he managed to win over the Emir’s trust. Historical accounts state that Dost Mohammed Khan was able to extract assurances of Russian support if the British did invade Afghanistan.  Such assurances never came to fruition when the First Anglo-Afghan War took place in 1839, although the British gains in the conflict were short-lived and came at a great human cost. 5 examples of the Soviet love affair with Castro’s Cuba British protests about Vitkevich role in Afghanistan led to St. Petersburg withdrawing the officer.  He reached the Russian capital in May 1839 and was largely satisfied with the success of his mission in Afghanistan. However, a week after his return to St. Petersburg, he was found shot dead in his hotel room. A pistol and burned papers were found by his side. His death was ruled a suicide but many historians believe he was assassinated. “Nothing about Ivan Viktorovich Vitkevich’s notably Dostoyevskian death made much sense, and almost from the moment the body was discovered, the mysterious end of Russia’s first agent of The Great Game became the subject of speculation,” historian William Dalrymple wrote in his book ‘The Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan.’  The British suspected the Russian government of killing Vitkevich, despite the fact that he outmaneuvered Burnes in Afghanistan. Russian historians have placed the blame on the British. “For many Russian observers, however, the mysterious death couple with the disappearance of Vitkevich’s Afghan papers bore all the hallmarks of British foul play,” Dalrymple wrote. “After all, Vitkevich’s papers contained details of the British intelligence and news-writing networks in Central Asia that he had successfully penetrated.” Burnes was murdered by a mob in Kabul in 1841.  Vitkevich’s life was the inspiration for several Russian books such as Yulian Semyonov’s ‘The Diplomatic Agent’ and Mikhail Gus’s ‘Duel at Kabul.’ He is also the prototype of the leading character in the Soviet film ‘Service to the Homeland,’ which was produced in 1981. However, unlike Alexander Burnes, whose legacy is celebrated in Britain, Ivan Vitkevich is largely forgotten in 21st century Russia.  Read more: Badaber uprising: When Russian POWs took on the Pakistani army and the CIA

03 декабря, 00:39

Get Ready For The New York Observer To Become Donald Trump's Garbage Tribune

If you think about the storied history of the New York Observer ― which since 1987 has been one of New York City’s best-read weekly newspapers ― you might wonder what many of its former editors (Peter Kaplan and Elizabeth Spiers come to mind) would have made of a Donald Trump presidency. In all likelihood, their reaction would have been something like mordant concern lit by the flash of crashing rapiers. But with the paper under the control of Trump-kin-by-marriage publisher Jared Kushner and Trump campaign aide-de-camp editor Ken Kurson, it’s rather clear that the Observer is set to become some sort of garbage tribune, serving the president-elect with the devotion of a Kim Jong Un sycophant. At first blush, the Observer would look like an unlikely herald for a Trump World Order. After all, it has historically been a tidy chronicle of Manhattan’s mostly liberal elites and their doings, pitched to an audience of mostly liberal Manhattanites climbing society’s ladders at slightly lower rungs. But changes are afoot. As the New York Times’ Michael Grynbaum reported just days after the election, it was announced that the Observer would cease its print edition and fully shed itself of its “New York” branding. And although Observer Media’s chairman (and Kushner brother-in-law) Joseph Meyer insisted the media organization would retain “coverage of New York City politics and culture,” these changes, coupled with the dismissal of one senior editor and several regular freelancers, suggest that some sort of play beyond Manhattan is in the offing. Just over a week ago, Mediaite contributor Justin Bargona took the lay of the land and figured that the Observer was well on its way to becoming an official “propaganda arm” of the Trump White House. Among the things he noted at the time was the fact that collapsing the distance between Trump’s Oval Office and the Observer’s publisher and editor offered a distinct advantage ― setting up the paper to become the pre-eminent venue for “exclusive interviews and breaking news,” naturally positioning it to become a go-to “primary source for the rest of the media.” The possibilities of synergy between Trump’s administration and the Observer were never more clear than they were this week, with the publication of a daffy Austin Bay editorial calling on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to crack down on expressions of anti-Trump dissent: It’s time for the FBI to conduct a detailed investigation into the violence and political thuggery that continue to mar the presidential election’s aftermath. A thorough probe of the protests—to include possible ties to organizations demanding vote recounts—will give the Bureau’s integrity-challenged director, James Comey, a chance to sandblast his sullied badge. Lord, surely James Comey deserves better from Trump’s son-in-law’s newspaper after his service during the election. That aside, can you even imagine the FBI conducting a “detailed investigation” into this? “Our preliminary investigation has found that there all a bunch of people who think Donald Trump is some kind of asshole,” it would read, before moving on to secondary areas of concern, like that legal right to assembly and free speech. Hopefully this would be wrapped up swiftly, so as not to create the sort of opportunity cost that might preclude the FBI from catching actual criminals. This piece goes on to ask the FBI to look into the possibility that Trump electors are being “intimidated” into not voting for him by “angry, vicious...malcontents,” who Bay surmises are from the Democratic Party. Presumably these Democratic operatives haven’t thought through the fact that if enough Trump electors defect, the election will be determined by the GOP-controlled House and Senate. Those bodies would probably not opt to install someone from the opposition.  That is the height of the editorial’s cogency, by the way. From here it devolves into a scattershot rant alleging George Soros-funded protesters (does he pay a living wage and are there opportunities for advancement?), strange asides about Jill Stein (which for some reason have been pull-quoted by some clearly desperate page layout editor) and a reiteration of anger at Comey for not jailing Clinton. It’s all a little “Aunt Brenda forwarded this email to all the cousins again, God bless her” for any newspaper, let alone the Observer. To be sure, the paper’s subscribers have come to expect a rightward tilt from the editorial page under Kushner, but this dispatch diverges sharply from its traditional tone of aristocratic condescension. As previously mentioned, Mediaite’s Baragona was given occasion to speculate about the Observer’s future after Kurson appeared on CNN’s “Reliable Sources.” There, the paper’s editor offered his opinion on how the media had, in general, cocked up their election coverage to the utmost degree before going on to call for everyone’s immediate job termination and offering some strange asides about “Hamilton” (there’s the Aunt Brenda style of American politics again). Baragona properly acknowledged that there was more than a little truth to some of Kurson’s criticism, but then rightly noted that “to hear a former speechwriter for senior Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani sit there and lecture the media over how it is doing its job while he works for a Trump family member who is trying to find a way to get around nepotism rules to be on the President-elect’s staff while owning a media outlet is rich.” Per Baragona: Let’s just take a step back and look with clear eyes at what Kurson is saying here. One, he’s trying to convince us all that Kushner has no say — none at all — over what the Observer prints or its editorial direction. At the same time, he also says that he doesn’t bemoan Kushner wanting to perhaps push his opinion to the editors, contradicting his statements about Kushner not placing his “finger on the scale.” Meanwhile, he completely brushes aside the question of whether or not Kushner should place his ownership interest of the Observer in a blind trust should he officially join the Trump administration. And, of course, he sits there and commends his paper’s coverage of the election and Trump while slamming the efforts of other papers and networks, calling for mass firings and resignations in the wake of the election. With Kushner angling for a place in the administration, and some amount of speculation as to whether or not Kurson might be heading in that direction as well, you might wonder if, at some point, the two men might properly step down from the paper and leave it in a successor’s hands. To which I’d say: why are you wondering that? With Trump already testing the boundaries of ethics laws concerning conflicts of interests, angling for something short of total divestiture from his business interests, why on earth would Kushner and Kurson volunteer to model journalistic propriety in this instance? In Trump’s world, there’s nothing sacred but whatever you can get away with. It’s really no wonder that Kurson is feeling rather optimistic. Per Grynbaum: “This has been a week of incredible tumult, for our country, and now for this small business,” Mr. Kurson, who is close to Mr. Kushner, wrote in a post. “Who knows what the future holds, for me or for the USA or for Observer.” “But I can tell you this much for sure,” Mr. Kurson added. “Observer’s future is brighter than it’s ever been.” In truth, its not hard to see how a pro-Trump propaganda empire might work. Properly sorted, you’d have Breitbart News aiming its copy right at the heart of Trump’s raging base and the more tony-tongued Observer riding alongside, laundering Trump’s misdeeds for a snootier set. (I’ve previously surmised that MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has an emerging role to play in this; things are about to get very interesting over at CNN as well.) It’s going to be a pretty difficult adjustment for those who’ve long admired the New York Observer’s very particular place in the media firmament. I’d imagine that the energy we could harness from Peter Kaplan spinning in his grave would power the sun. ~~~~~  Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.  -- 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.

02 декабря, 23:03

Why Trump Would Almost Certainly Be Violating The Constitution If He Continues To Own His Businesses

The meaning of the Emoluments Clause is fairly clear. And it all goes back to a diamond-encrusted snuffbox Ben Franklin got from Louis XVI. by Richard Tofel Far from ending with President-elect Trump’s announcement that he will separate himself from the management of his business empire, the constitutional debate about the meaning of the Emoluments Clause — and whether Trump will be violating it — is likely just beginning. That’s because the Emoluments Clause seems to bar Trump’s ownership of his business. It has little to do with his management of it. Trump’s tweets last Wednesday said he would be “completely out of business operations.” But unless Trump sells or gives his business to his children before taking office the Emoluments Clause would almost certainly be violated. Even if he does sell or give it away, any retained residual interest, or any sale payout based on the company’s results, would still give him a stake in its fortunes, again fairly clearly violating the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause bars U.S. officials, including the president, from receiving payments from foreign governments or foreign government entities unless the payments are specifically approved by Congress. As ProPublica and others have detailed, Trump’s business has ties with foreign government entities ranging from loans and leases with the Bank of China to what appear to be tax-supported hotel deals in India and elsewhere. The full extent of such ties remains unknown, and Trump has refused to disclose them, or to make public his tax returns, through which many such deals, if they exist, would be revealed. Foreign government investments in Trump entities would also be covered by the clause, as would foreign government officials paying to stay in Trump hotels, so long as Trump stands to share in the revenues. One misconception about the Emoluments Clause in early press coverage of it in the wake of Trump’s election is being clarified as scholars look more closely at the provision’s history. That was the suggestion that it would not be a violation for the Trump Organization to conduct business with foreign government entities if “fair market value” was received by the governments. This view had been attributed to Professor Richard Painter, a former official of the George W. Bush administration, and privately by some others. But Professor Laurence Tribe, the author of the leading treatise on constitutional law, and others said the Emoluments Clause was more sweeping, and mandated a ban on such dealings without congressional approval. Painter now largely agrees, telling ProPublica that no fair market value test would apply to the sale of services (specifically including hotel rooms), and such a test would apply only to the sale of goods. The Trump Organization mostly sells services, such as hotel stays, golf memberships, branding deals and management services. The Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. It bars any “person holding any office of profit or trust under” the United States from accepting any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Price, or foreign state” “without the consent of the Congress.” The word “emolument” comes from the Latin emolumentum, meaning profit or gain. The language of the clause was lifted in its entirety from the Articles of Confederation which established the structure of the government of the United States from 1781 until the ratification of the Constitution in 1788-89. The clause was derived from a Dutch rule dating to 1751. The clause was added to the draft Constitution at the Constitutional Convention on Aug. 23, 1787 on a motion by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. As Gov. Edmund Randolph of Virginia explained to his state’s ratification convention in 1788, Pinckney’s motion was occasioned by Benjamin Franklin, who had been given a snuffbox, adorned with the royal portrait and encrusted with small diamonds, by Louis XVI while serving as the Continental Congress’s ambassador to France. As Randolph said, “An accident which actually happened, operated in producing the restriction. A box was presented to our ambassador by the king of our allies. It was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any one in office from receiving emoluments from foreign states.” The Continental Congress in 1786 had consented, after a debate, to Franklin keeping the snuffbox, as it had earlier with a similar gift to envoy Arthur Lee. At the same time, consent also was given to diplomat John Jay receiving a horse from the King of Spain. The clause was part of the basis for Alexander Hamilton’s defense of the Constitution, in Federalist 22, as addressing “one of the weak sides of republics”: “that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.” There is no question that the Emoluments Clause applies to the president. President Obama’s counsel sought an opinion in 2009 on whether it barred him from accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. The Justice Department concluded that it did not, in part based on historical precedent (the Prize had also been awarded to Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, Vice President Charles Dawes and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), but primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity. The clause does not seem ever to have been interpreted by a court, but it has been the subject of a number of opinions, over the years, of the attorney general and the comptroller general. Nearly all of these opinions have concluded that the clause is definitive. In 1902, an attorney general’s opinion said it is “directed against every kind of influence by foreign governments upon officers of the United States.” In 1970, a comptroller general opinion declared that the clause’s “drafters intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability.” A 1994 Justice Department opinion said “the language of Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified.” Among the ties deemed to violate the clause was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission employee undertaking consultant work for a firm retained by the government of Mexico. Congress has passed one law giving blanket approval to a set of payments from foreign government entities. Known as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, it is limited to gifts of “minimal value” (set as of 1981 at $100), educational scholarships and medical treatment, travel entirely outside the country “consistent with the interests of the United States,” or “when it appears that to refuse the gift would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States.” The specificity of these few exceptions reinforces the notion that other dealings with foreign government entities is forbidden without congressional approval. One attorney-general opinion from the Reagan administration offers the possibility of a more permissive interpretation of the Emoluments Clause, indicating it could be limited to “payments which have a potential of influencing or corrupting the recipient.” But whatever the meaning of this, it was the same Reagan Justice Department that banned the NRC employee from the Mexican-funded consultancy a year later. Ironically, an “originalist” reading of the clause — usually favored these days by conservatives as exemplified by the late Justice Antonin Scalia and current Justice Clarence Thomas — would seem to bind Trump more stringently, while a “living constitution” approach — exemplified by liberals such as the late Justices Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall — might offer him greater latitude. Clearly, deciding what the Emoluments Clause means in a specific case is a complicated legal question. (The opinion on Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize runs to 13 printed pages.) But just as clearly, the judges of its meaning with respect to President Trump will be politicians rather than the Supreme Court. The controversies that swirled around Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton established a number of key points. Among them are that the sole remedy for a violation of the Constitution by a president in office is impeachment, and that the House of Representatives is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense, while the Senate is the sole judge of whether such an alleged violation warrants removal from office. (Impeachments are very rare: articles of impeachment have been voted against only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Clinton, both of whom were acquitted by the Senate, while Nixon resigned ahead of likely impeachment. Fifteen federal judges have also been impeached, and eight removed, while four resigned.) The arguments of scholars and lawyers on the meaning of the Emoluments Clause may influence the public, and their elected representatives. But if Trump decides not to dispose of his business, it will be up to Congress to decide whether to do anything about his apparent violation of the Constitution. Like this story? Sign up for ProPublica’s daily newsletter to get more of our best work.   -- 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.

02 декабря, 21:05

Russia...

There are three important points about the role of Russia in the international community. In order of importance: 1. First and above all, western Europe and the United States owe a profound debt to the tankers and infantrymen of the Red Army, to the peasants who grew the food to...

02 декабря, 17:40

Economics 101, Economism, and Our New Gilded Age

By James Kwak My new book—Economism: Bad Economics and the Rise of Inequality—is coming out on January 10 (although, of course, you can pre-order it from your local monopoly now). If you’d like more information about the book, the book website … Continue reading →

02 декабря, 17:24

How the Economics of Journalism Explains 2016's Information Bubbles

Jay Hamilton, a Stanford professor who studies media business models, sees similarities between some of today's outlets and the partisan press of the 1850s.

02 декабря, 15:42

Procrastinating on December 2, 2016

**Over at [Equitable Growth](http://EquitableGrowth.org): Must- and Should-Reads:** * **Matthew Yglesias**: _[@mattyglesias][]_: "I've got some bad news for the American people about Donald Trump's policy agenda..." * **Richard Baldwin**: _[@BaldwinRE][]_: "You can’t vote against globalisation by voting against agreements that shape & control it..." _[The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the...

Выбор редакции
02 декабря, 15:25

Без заголовка

**Must-Read:** Back when Card and Krueger first suggested that there was substantial effective monopsony power in the low-wage labor market and thus that there would be no disemployment effect from (modest) increases in the minimum wage to make it binding, I said: "Clever, but nahhh." The reason for their findings,...

Выбор редакции
02 декабря, 14:12

The other side of the global right-wing surge: Nostalgia for empire

In the West, nationalism is cloaked in myths of an imperial past.

02 декабря, 14:02

Risk Premia Forecasts: Major Asset Classes | 2 December 2016

The expected risk premium for the Global Market Index (GMI) continued to rise in November, reaching the highest level in more than two years. GMI, an unmanaged market-value weighted mix of the major asset classes, is currently projected to earn an annualized 4.3% over the long term—modestly above last month’s estimate. Today’s update, which is […]

02 декабря, 09:45

2016 Movies: The 10 Most Disappointing Films of the Year

The selection of 2016 movies has given us a host of disappointing blockbuster films. Which were the most egregious though?

21 ноября 2013, 08:27

Список литературы от Андрея Фурсова [3]

Книги на иностранных языках. В качестве источника использованы статьи и выступления Андрея Ильича Фурсова.  Герберт Уэллс одна из самых зловещих фигур 20-го века, который в конце 30х годов написал две книги, одна называется "Открытый заговор", а другая "О будущем", где откровенно говорилось о том, что будущее это жёсткий контроль верхушки над населением, у власти должны быть учёные и технократы, остальные выполняют их волю. В этом отношении Оруэлл и Хаксли только популяризировали идеи Бертрана Рассела и Герберта Уэллса. Удивительным образом не переведено на русский язык всё, что связано с глобальным управлением, более того эти книжки не переводились даже для служебного пользования. Название: Behold a Pale Horse Автор: William Milton Cooper Год: 1991 Язык: английский Уильям Купер – это человек, который специализировался на таких темах, как убийство Кеннеди, летающие тарелки. Он автор книги «Конь бледный». Так вот в июне Уильям Купер делает заявление, что в Соединенных Штатах, скорее всего в сентябре, самое позднее в октябре, произойдут серьезные теракты, и вину за них возложат на человека по имени Усама бин Ладен. Именно так, потому что у нас часто пишут Осама бен Ладен. Дело в том, что в арабском языке нет буквы «о» и нет буквы «е», так что Усама бин Ладен. В конце 2001-го года Купера застрелили полицейские, обвинив его в том, что он якобы оказал сопротивление полиции, а потом побежал и стал отстреливаться. Бедолаги полицейские и те, кто стоял за ними не знали, что Купер не мог бегать. Он вьетнамский ветеран и у него не было одной ноги, был протез. Однако этого человека застрелили – человека, который в 2001-м году сообщил о готовящемся теракте. Тем не менее, не смотря на все это, все повесили на Усаму бин Ладена Название: Our Times Автор: A. N. Wilson Год: 2008 Язык: английский В книге «Наше время», это по сути дела социальная история Англии, написанная популярно, автор пишет, что в 50-е годы англичане жили довольно бедно после войны, но они знали, что они англичане. А вот при Тэтчер произошло следующее, пишет он – «Англия превратилась в ничейный дом». Название: Rise of Professional Society, Revised Edition: England since 1880 Автор: Harold Perkin Год: 1989 Язык: английский Название: L'empire et les nouveaux barbares Автор: Jean-Christophe Rufin Год: 1991 Язык: французский В 1991 году во Франции вышла во многом пророческая книга очень интересного автора Жана Кристофа Рюфэна «Империя и новые варвары». Он пишет о том, что после 2020 года Европа и Соединенные Штаты, но в первую очередь Европа, столкнутся с очень серьезной проблемой — наплывом мигрантов, новых варваров. И в этой связи у Севера есть только три возможные стратегии в отношениях с новыми варварами. Первую он называет стратегией Клебера. Клебер — это французский генерал, соратник Наполеона, которого тот оставил в Египте, где Клебер насаждал европейские порядки и был убит. Вторая стратегия — стратегия экс-министра стратегического планирования Бразилии Роберто Мангабейра Унгеры: белый человек, европеец поднимает знамя борьбы Востока против Запада и возглавляет афро-азиатские орды. Наконец, третья стратегия — это стратегия Марка Аврелия. Европейцы проводят черту и не пускают варваров на свою территорию. Книга вышла почти 20 лет назад, и сегодня ясно, что стратегия Марка Аврелия, которой симпатизировал Рюфен, не срабатывает — африканцы и арабы уже в Европе. Название: The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life Автор: Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein Год: 1994 Язык: английский Название: Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 Автор: Charles Murray Год: 2012 Язык: английский На основе социологического исследования автор говорит о том, что 1% наверху, он вообще никак не соотносится с 99% Америки и другого человечества. Эти люди, которые живут сами по себе вообще, у них своя замкнутая среда обитания. А остальные 99%, в принципе, им помеха – это лишние едоки и т.д. Не надо мыслящую Землю создавать, есть альтернативная уже форма, для которой остальные 99% не нужны. Название: Доклад "Кризис демокартии" (The Crisis of Democracy) Автор: С.Хантингтон, М.Крозье, Дз.Ватануки (Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki) Год: 1975 Язык: английский Название: How the Scots Invented the Modern World Автор: Arthur Herman Год: 2001 Очень часто национальное государство противопоставляется империям. Началось это еще в XIX веке, когда французская и английская пропаганда твердила о том, какие плохие империи Австро-Венгрия, Германия и Россия, и какие хорошие – национальные государства Франция и Великобритания. Это было лукавством. Дело в том, что и Франция, и Великобритания были империями. Одна – сухопутная колониальная империя, с заморскими владениями, а другая – просто морская империя. Обратите внимание, наиболее успешными были те империи, у которых ядром было то самое национальное государство. Разумеется, эти национальные государства использовали и другие этнические группы. Например, вся история Ост-Индской кампании – это на 20% шотландцы. Есть даже очень забавная книжка «Мир, который создали шотландцы» – об экспансии Великобритании. Но, в любом случае, именно имперскость, империя – хорошее противоядие-антидот национализма. История показывает, что трагическая ирония истории заключается в том, что вне и без империи русские вообще лишаются исторических шансов.  Название: Les Royaumes combattants Автор: Jean-François Susbielle Язык: французский В 2008 году в Париже вышла в свет книга Жан-Франсуа Сюсбьеля «Борющиеся царства. К новой мировой войне». По мнению автора, после 2020-го мир вступит в период, похожий на эпоху Чжаньго («Борющиеся царства») в китайской истории, когда семь примерно равных по силе царств – Ци, Чу, Янь, Хань, Чжао, Вэй и Цинь – в течение почти двух столетий (403–221 до н. э.) вели борьбу за объединение китайского мира. Похоже, глобальный мир тоже вступает в подобную эпоху, и предлагаемая система «автономного управления» – один из индикаторов ее приближения. Название: The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic Автор: Chalmers Ashby Johnson Год: 2004 Язык: английский Как показывает история, контроль над миром или крупным регионом, как правило, оборачивается сворачиванием демократии внутри страны-контролера. Классический пример - Рим. Как только он захватил полный контроль над Средиземноморьем, республика была обречена. Кстати, Чалмерс Джонсон в книге "Печали империи" (2004 г.) прямо пишет о том, что республика в Америке закончилась в 1990-е годы, к власти фактически пришли военные. Они строят мировую империю, которая дорого обойдется американскому народу. У книги показательный подзаголовок: "Милитаризм, секретность и конец республики". "Имперская республика" США ХХ в. превращается в квазиимперию. Впрочем, мощь этой империи - как военную, так и финансовую - переоценивать не стоит. Название: Coningsby, or The New Generation Автор: Benjamin Disraeli Год: 1844 Язык: английский В РФ действительно налицо противостояние между богатыми и бедными, растущий разрыв, поляризация между ними — децильный коэффициент и индекс Джини зашкаливают. Ситуация весьма похожа на накал классового антагонизма в Великобритании 1830-1840-х годов, который Дизраэли, тогда ещё не премьер-министр, а романист, охарактеризовал как наличие "двух наций". Т.е. социальный разрыв был таков, что верхи и низы оказались чуждыми друг другу как две различные нации (то же было в пореформенной России). Какой же выход видел Дизраэли? Простой: сокращение опасного разрыва социальными и экономическими мерами. Название: The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1949 Язык: английский Можно сказать, что заговор был конкретной формой подготовки войн - системой выявления, артикуляции и представления тайным образом определенных интересов преимущественно наднационального уровня. А лучшим средством реализации этого процесса являлись различные закрытые или просто тайные структуры и их агенты. Причем многие структуры подобного рода создавались на самом высоком уровне. Один из лучших примеров - группа Сесила Родса, историю которой великолепно описал американский историк Кэрролл Куигли (1910-1977) в работе «Англо-американский истеблишмент», изданной в 1981 году. Название: Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World Автор: Barrington Moore Jr. Год: 1966 Язык: английский Достаточно взглянуть на 3 разные модернизации в Западной Европе 17 -19 веков, чтобы понять, что они зависели от исхода социальных битв, социальных боев 16 -17 веков, о чем Баррингтон Мур написал еще в 1966 году в своей замечательной работе «Социальные происхождения диктатуры и демократии», в которой анализировал 3 варианта европейской модернизации и все зависит от того, кто кому сломал хребет в социальных сражениях. Франция - корона и крестьяне, грубо говоря, сделали феодалов, феодал превращается в аристократа, переезжает ближе ко двору. Это один вариант модернизации через абсолютистское государство. Второй вариант с точностью до наоборот, где бывшие сеньоры выигрывают сражение у короны и крестьянства, второе издание крепостничества. Почему то есть такое мнение, что модернизация – это такой вариант развития обязательно с демократией, с парламентом и т. д. Модернизация может быть и в другой форме, форме рабства, вторичного издания крепостничества, она вообще может быть в архаичной форме. Это тоже модернизация. Третий вариант – это социальная ничья между крестьянами и землевладельцами, возникновения компромиссного уникального слоя в Англии, собственно из которого и выросла индустриализация. Один автор работ по социальной истории Англии написал однажды, что английская индустриализация могла вырасти только из землевладельческого строя Англии 17 – 18 века. Я думаю, что он прав. Название: The Cold War: A History Автор: Martin Walker Год: 1995 Язык: английский Глобальный, всеохватывающий характер ХВ хорошо подметил Мартин Уокер в замечательной книге «Холодная война». «Южную Америку и Африку к югу от Сахары, - писал он, - континенты, которые раньше оказывались вне борьбы, теперь засосало в ее воронку. Турки сражались в Корее, алжирцы - во Вьетнаме, кубинцы - в Анголе, а американские и русские школьники, чьи уроки в школе прерывались тренировочными сигналами угрозы атомной бомбардировки, росли, чтобы погибнуть в Сайгоне и Кабуле».  Названия: The Mind of the Strategist, The End of the Nation State and, The Borderless World Автор: Kenichi Ohmae Язык: английский Глобальному рынку капиталов адекватны, с одной стороны, наднациональные (структуры типа Евросоюза или НАФТА), которые намного крупнее государства, и они выигрывают за счёт масштаба и размера, с другой — региональные блоки, которые меньше государства, и они выигрывают за счёт динамики. Известный японский бизнесмен и исследователь К. Омаэ назвал такие блоки регион-экономиками — по аналогии с броделевско-валлерстайновской мир-экономикой, которой они, по его мнению, идут на смену. ). Классические регион-экономики — это Северная Италия, район Баден-Вюртемберг на верхнем Рейне, Силиконовая долина, «треугольник роста» Сингапур — Джохор — о-ва Риау, Токийский район, район Кансай (Осака — Кобе — Киото), Сан-Паулу в Бразилии и др. Главная причина эффективности регион-экономик — умение решать региональные проблемы с привлечением ресурсов глобальной экономики и, разумеется, то, что их социальные и политические характеристики жёстко подогнаны под экономические требования финансовой системы глобализации — никакой социальной или политической «лирики», homo economicus на марше. Название: Islamisme et États-Unis, une alliance contre l'Europe Автор: Alexandre del Valle Язык: французский Год: 1997 Горючая смесь исламизма, терроризма и наркоторговли, внедряемая, как показывает в работе «Исламизм и США: союз против Европы» А. дель Валь, в Европу спецслужбами США и связанными с ними частными фирмами, представляет серьезную угрозу для европейской государственности, культуры и идентичности. Борьба с европейским упадком, американизацией и исламизмом, пишет дель Валь, суть три аспекта одной и той же проблемы, поскольку, развивает эту мысль директор французского радио Р. Лабевьер, исламисты объективно выступают как «сторожевые псы глобализации» по-американски. В любом случае, в XXI в. США вступают серьезно уменьшив те выгоды, которые Япония и Западная Европа получили в результате победы «глобального Франкенштейна» в «холодной войне». Америка осуществила передел и это, по-видимому, лишь начало; похоже, нас ждут сюрпризы. Название: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Автор: Carroll Quigley Год: 1966 Язык: английский Название: The Moral Basis of a Backward Society Автор: Edward C. Banfield Год: 1967 Язык: английский Традиционные ценности, формы социальной организации и идентичности в таких районах, как правило, в той или иной степени ослабляются и их место занимает то, что Э.Бэнфилд назвал "аморальным фамильизмом". Однако если такие сельские сообщества смогут организоваться в качестве коллективного грабителя или эксплуататора по отношению к более или менее развитым соседям, то они не только получают экономически-внеэкономическую основу существования, но эта основа становится дополнительным фактором как сохранения или даже усиления коллективного (этнического, социального или территориального) единства, так и ослабления "аморального фамильизма". Хотя последний благодаря "социальному хищничеству", присущему всем формам бандитизма ("вызывающего индивидуализма"), все равно развивается и так или иначе подтачивает кланово-племенную структуру. Еще один фактор ослабления последней и ее иерархии (в банды чаще всего сбиваются бедные и незнатные) - само наличие банд и функционирование бандитского промысла. Иными словами, взаимодействие коллективно-асоциальной и клановоплеменной структур носит противоречивый характер, в него встроен потенциальный конфликт, который и надо в определенных ситуациях (стратегия "святого Амвросия") использовать. Название: Great Degeneration Автор: Niall Ferguson Год: 2012 Язык: английский Америка не может больше доминировать в мире таким образом и в тех формах, в которых это имело место в последнее двадцатилетие – слишком широко шагала, вот и «порвала штаны». Поэтому сегодня американские аналитики в раздумьях: одни, как Чарльз Капчан и Адам Маунт предлагают некое «автономное управление» – передачу Америкой части полицейско-карательных функций, обеспечивающих глобальное накопление капитала, «государствам-преторианцам». Другие, такие как Найл Фергюсон, вообще предупреждают о том, что крушение американской империи может произойти очень быстро – обвально.