• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1582
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы429
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации60
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
25 октября, 22:42

FACT SHEET: The Obama Administration Announces New Steps to Spur Competition in the Labor Market and Accelerate Wage Growth

Today’s actions to address wage collusion, unnecessary non-compete agreements, and other anticompetitive practices respond to the President’s Executive Order issued on April 15, directing agencies to increase competition for consumers and workers. Today, we’re in the midst of the longest streak of job growth in U.S. history. The U.S. Census Bureau recently reported that in 2015, the typical household saw its income grow by 5.2 percent (about $2,800), the largest one-year increase on record. At the same time, the President has made clear that there is still more work to do to reverse longer-run patterns of stagnant wage growth and rising income inequality. Over the past several decades, only the highest earners have seen steady wage gains; for most workers, wage growth has been sluggish and has failed to keep pace with gains in productivity. Over the same period, the share of national income going to labor has also fallen, and labor income itself has become divided increasingly unevenly. To ensure that workers share more fully in the gains they help create, the White House is announcing today new steps in response to the President’s April 2016 Executive Order calling for actions that enhance competition to benefit consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs. Issue Brief on How Monopsony Power Impacts Wages and Employment. The Council of Economic Advisers is releasing a new issue brief that reviews evidence that firms may have wage-setting power in a broad range of areas, explains how anticompetitive forces can lead to a redistribution of revenues from workers to companies, and reviews the policy implications of this analysis. Non-Compete Agreements: Call-to-Action to States, Largest-Ever Data Collection, and State-by-State Policy Report. Non-compete agreements narrow the employment options for an estimated one in five workers in the United States. As the White House and Treasury reported earlier this year, there is substantial evidence of overuse and misuse of these clauses. Today, the Administration put out a call to action and set of best practices for state policymakers to enact reforms to reduce the prevalence of non-compete agreements that are hurting workers and regional economies. To contextualize these best practices, the White House is releasing a state-by-state report on key dimensions of current state non-compete policy. Finally, we are announcing commitments to undertake the largest data collection of its kind to better measure non-compete usage by firms and individuals, alike. Antitrust Guidance and Reporting Hotline for Human Resource Professionals. On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released guidance for HR professionals for how to spot and report collusion among competing employers that may violate the antitrust laws.  In the guidance, DOJ announced that going forward it will criminally investigate allegations that employers have agreed amongst themselves on employee compensation or not to solicit or hire one another’s employees. These new actions complement the many other steps the Administration has advanced and supported to level the playing field for workers in the job market, including raising the minimum wage, advancing paid leave, supporting collective bargaining, and pushing to reform occupational licensing and land use restrictions. THE CASE FOR ACTION Increasingly, researchers are reporting signs of declining U.S. labor market competition. Economists have begun exploring how these trends connect to rising income inequality. While recent discussions on television set-top boxes and airline tickets have focused on the ability of a small number of firms to set high prices, reduced competition in the labor market results in lower wages and greater earnings inequality, and can also result in lower employment. There are many forces that can limit competition between firms and give employers some power to set wages below the market rate. In some cases, wage-setting power can result from employer actions—like collusion or the use of non-compete agreements—that artificially restrict competition. More generally, any factor that limits workers’ choices, restricts their mobility, or creates barriers to changing jobs can weaken workers’ bargaining position—which may force them to accept lower compensation or inferior working conditions. The data show that workers today are in many ways less mobile and less likely to switch jobs than they were 20 or 30 years ago. One factor that contributes to trends in labor mobility is the amount of market power that employers can exercise in the labor market. When a small number of employers—or even one employer—wields a large share of market power, they can exercise so-called “monopsony power.” Monoposonies are the other side of the coin to monopolies. Both reflect a company’s ability to affect markets in ways that would be impossible in competitive markets. Monopolies occur when companies have outsized market power, so they can set the price of a good or service at a level higher than if there was fair competition. Monopsonies occur when companies with power in labor markets can set the wages they pay at lower levels and hire fewer workers than if there was strong competition. These lower wages have real consequences for families and the economy more broadly. Greater labor market competition can help promote efficiency and employment and ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all. In particular, increased labor market competition means: Higher wages and more hiring. When businesses must compete for workers, they recruit workers and offer higher wages as long as the value of output they produce can support the going wage. Competition thus encourages employers to seek out all productive and efficient hiring opportunities and establishes a close link between wages and productivity. When there is strong competition, firms have no incentive to set wages below the market rate, because if they do, they will lose their workers to competing firms. Greater economic opportunity and fairness for workers.  In a competitive labor market, wages are determined by the market, and are not subject to companies’ abuse of outsized bargaining power. But when firms have wage-setting power, they have an incentive to pay the lowest wage that workers are willing to accept. As a result, market power not only shifts revenues away from labor, toward managers and inflated profits; it also means that individuals who start out facing greater obstacles and fewer opportunities often end up being paid the least. Competition can help equalize wages across workers with similar skills and ensure a level playing field for all workers. ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON NEW STEPS BEING ANNOUNCED TODAY Addressing Gross Overuse of Non-Compete Agreements Earlier this year, the White House and Department of Treasury’s Office of Economic Policy released reports highlighting the negative impacts of unnecessary non-compete agreements and the actions states are taking to address them. According to survey data, one in five U.S. workers is bound by a non-compete agreement, including 14 percent of workers making less than $40,000 per year. A considerable proportion of non-compete agreements signed by both low- and high-wage workers come at the expense of wage growth, entrepreneurship, and broader economic growth. Researchers have found that states that strictly enforce non-compete agreements have 10 percent lower average wages for middle-aged workers than states that do not. Today, the White House is announcing several new steps to reduce the misuse of non-compete agreements. In addition to encouraging states to take action, the Administration also calls on Congress to pass federal legislation to eliminate non-competes for workers under a certain salary threshold, as in the Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees Act (MOVE Act), originally sponsored by Senators Al Franken and Chris Murphy, and in the Limiting the Ability to Demand Detrimental Employment Restrictions Act (LADDER Act). We call on Congress to consider this critical issue and the potential economic consequences of inaction. Best Practices and Call to Action for States on Non-Compete Agreements. Today, elected officials in Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and Utah have signed on to support a call-to-action for state non-compete reform, below: White House Best Practices for State Non-Compete Reform                   In order to reduce the misuse of non-compete agreements in states that choose to enforce them, the White House is calling on state policymakers to join in pursuing best-practice policy objectives, including one or more of the following: Ban non-compete clauses for categories of workers, such as workers under a certain wage threshold; workers in certain occupations that promote public health and safety; workers who are unlikely to possess trade secrets; or those who may suffer undue adverse impacts from non-competes, such as workers laid-off or terminated without cause. Improve transparency and fairness of non-compete agreements by, for example, disallowing non-competes unless they are proposed before a job offer or significant promotion has been accepted (because an applicant who has accepted an offer and declined other positions may have less bargaining power); providing consideration over and above continued employment for workers who sign non-compete agreements; or encouraging employers to better inform workers about the law in their state and the existence of non-competes in contracts and how they work. Incentivize employers to write enforceable contracts, and encourage the elimination of unenforceable provisions by, for example, promoting the use of the “red pencil doctrine,” which renders contracts with unenforceable provisions void in their entirety. State-by-State Explainer of Non-Compete Laws. To educate workers, employers, policymakers and advocates, the White House is issuing a report about existing state laws and some of the key issues related to non-compete agreement reform. Employer Support to Eliminate Non-Competes for Most or All Employees. Across the country, businesses are eliminating non-compete agreements in favor of more targeted options. They are supporting a shift in non-compete policy because they recognize that fewer, more targeted non-compete agreements will likely increase their pool of available talent and improve innovation. New Surveys to Examine Prevalence and Impact of Non-Competes, including: Largest data collection effort ever undertaken on non-compete agreements. PayScale, a company that provides compensation data and software to employers and employees, has committed to collect new data to support the effort to better measure and understand the use of non-compete agreements. This commitment will include anonymously surveying thousands of firms on non-compete practices and asking millions of employees about their non-compete status. In-depth survey on non-compete use. This upcoming year, researchers Evan Starr, Natarajan Balasubramanian, and Martin Ganco, with the support of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, plan to field an in-depth survey about non-compete usage and its impact on firm growth, employee mobility, and entrepreneurship. Curbing Collusion among Firms to Suppress Wages and Limit Worker Mobility Increased market concentration of firms can also facilitate collusive agreements that allow a small number of employers, who compete over the same workforce, to artificially suppress wages below market rates or agree not to hire one another’s employees. Like price fixing in product markets, collusion among employers to reduce wages is illegal in the U.S. and subject to anti-trust laws. These types of agreements eliminate competition in the same irredeemable way as agreements to fix the prices of goods or allocate customers, which have traditionally been criminally investigated and prosecuted as cartel conduct. As FTC Chairwoman, Edith Ramirez puts it, “Competition is essential to well-functioning markets, and job markets are no exception.” In 2014, eight Silicon Valley employers settled a civil class action suit for $415 million for allegedly colluding to suppress the wages of programmers and engineers.  Specifically, the suit pointed to evidence of "no-poaching" arrangements in which the firms agreed not to engage in competitive recruiting of each other's workforces.  Other suits, filed in five metropolitan areas across the country, have alleged collusive behavior among hospitals to suppress the wages of nurses. For example, in Detroit, eight hospitals reached settlements that amounted to roughly $90 million in total for alleged collusion to lower wages below market rates. This past week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced new guidance aimed at combatting collusive behavior in the employment arena. Additionally, in a recent speech, Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse highlighted existing DOJ policy that “a merger that gives a company the power to depress wages or salaries to reduce the prices it pays for inputs is illegal whether or not it also gives that company the power to increase prices downstream.” Antitrust Guidance and Hotline for Human Resources Professionals to Identify and Report Wage Collusion. Human Resources (HR) professionals are often in the best position to ensure that their companies’ hiring practices comply with the law. Last week, the DOJ and the FTC released guidance for HR professionals for how to spot and report collusion among competing employers that may violate the antitrust laws. In the guidance, DOJ announced that going forward it will criminally investigate allegations that employers have agreed among themselves on employee compensation or not to solicit or hire one another’s employees. In the press release announcing the guidance, Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse stated: “HR professionals need to understand that these violations can lead to severe consequences, including criminal prosecution. The newly released joint guidance provides HR professionals with information to prevent violations and report potentially unlawful activity, furthering the Justice Department’s commitment to protect workers from harmful conduct that stifles competition.” Building on Progress Today’s actions build on a series of steps the Administration has taken to reduce barriers to fair wages and labor practices, including: Raising the minimum wage. It has been nearly a decade since Congress last took action to raise the minimum wage, which remains at $7.25 per hour. Since the President started calling for a higher minimum wage in 2013, 18 states and DC have taken action to raise wages, which CEA estimates will benefit over 7 million people by 2017. Over 60 cities and counties have also taken action on their own. These increases help push back against downward pressure on wages. Expanding paid sick leave. Policies that support minimum benefits are an important complement to minimum wage laws, especially when employers have enhanced power in the labor market. That is why President Obama expanded paid sick leave to federal employees with new children and to federal contract workers to care for themselves, a family member, or another loved one. He continues to call on Congress to pass legislation that guarantees most Americans the chance to earn up to seven days of paid sick leave each year—and urges states, cities and businesses to act where Congress has not. Supporting worker voice. When workers have a say in their wages and working conditions, they can help ensure that they see a fair share of the economic returns to their labor. In October 2015, the Administration underscored the importance of worker voice by bringing together workers, employers, unions, worker advocates, and others to the White House Summit on Worker Voice. Reforming occupational licensing requirements and improve portability across states. In 2015, the White House, Treasury Office of Economic Policy, and Department of Labor issued a report on evidence that occupational licensing requirements raise the price of goods and services, restrict employment opportunities, and make it more difficult for workers to take their skills across state lines.  Following this report, the Administration has worked with Congress, state legislators, and experts to draft and present a series of best practices to help state and local governments better tailor their occupational licensing laws. To date, legislators in at least 11 states have proposed no fewer than 15 reforms in line with these recommendations, and four state bills have passed so far. Reforming land use regulations. Over-burdensome land use regulations have made it hard for housing markets to respond to growing demand, jeopardizing housing affordability for working families and limiting GDP growth by stifling labor mobility to the most productive regions. Earlier this year, the White House released a Housing Development Toolkit that highlights the steps communities have taken to modernize their housing strategies and expand options and opportunities for hardworking families.

25 октября, 14:55

Oil Stocks to Watch for Earnings on Oct 26: SU, MUR & More

Let's see what's in store for five oil stocks SU, MUR, QEP, HES and AR that are reporting tomorrow.

25 октября, 12:02

Warren wing wants Clinton to crack down on Apple, Google and Amazon

The tech industry could come under new scrutiny.

21 октября, 16:09

Hess Corp (HES): What's in Store this Earnings Season?

Hess Corporation (HES) is expected to report third-quarter 2016 earnings on Oct 26, before the market opens.

21 октября, 13:16

Инвесторы-активисты: кто станет новой жертвой?

Активисты-инвесторы за последние годы оправдывали свое название, запуская кампании против самых разных компаний.

21 октября, 13:16

Инвесторы-активисты: кто станет новой жертвой?

Активисты-инвесторы за последние году оправдывали свое название, запуская кампании против самых разных компаний.

19 октября, 21:33

The Shocking Way Hitler Became Hitler

David Axe History, Europe Hitler wasted no time leading his country into a genocidal war. An entirely accommodating prison term had prepared him. On April 1, 1924, 34-year-old Adolf Hitler — a socially awkward painter and former soldier from Austria — arrived at Landsberg prison in Bavaria to serve a five-year sentence for organizing a failed coup that got 18 men killed, including four policemen. Hitler stepped into Landsberg as the occasionally self-doubting head of a tiny, impoverished and amateurish anti-semitic political movement — the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He would walk out nine months later a more self-assured figure steadily gaining prominence and power. And arguably more importantly, Hitler left prison as the author of Mein Kampf, a two-volume memoir and political screed that, in the words of biographer Volker Ullrich, “connected [Hitler’s] biography and his political program.” In doing so, Mein Kampf — published between July and December 1925 — did the initial work of creating a cult of personality around its author and subject. Hitler was the Nazi Party. And Landsberg was his, and Nazism’s, laboratory. There is no shortage of books about Hitler. But Ullrich’s new biography Hitler: Ascent, 1889–1939, recently translated from German to English, stands out for its thorough research and aversion to myth-making. “The global entertainment industry has long since appropriated and transformed Hitler into a sensationalist, pop-cultural icon of horror,” Ullrich writes. Equally troubling, studies of Hitler tend to skew toward one of two extremes — structuralism and intentionalism. That is, did larger political and cultural forces create Hitler the leader? Or did Hitler create himself? Ullrich’s mission, he writes, is “bringing it all together and synthesizing it.” This balance is evident as Ullrich explores Hitler’s time in Landsberg. “Imprisonment only encouraged Hitler’s belief in himself and his historic mission.” Helpfully for the budding dictator, Bavarian authorities had imprisoned Hitler and his fellow coup plotters — most notably, Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s future deputy — together. Hitler’s “fellow inmates, first and foremost Hess, did everything they could to strengthen his conviction.” Read full article

02 октября, 15:30

Liveblogging Postwar: October 1, 1946: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings

_[Nuremberg Trial Proceedings][]_: >**THE PRESIDENT:** The Tribunal will now state those reasons in declaring its Judgment on such guilt or innocence. >GOERING: Goering is indicted on all four Counts. The evidence shows that after Hitler he was the most prominent man in the Nazi regime. He was Commander-in-Chief of the...

02 октября, 10:44

Зачем фальсифицировали расследование в Шпандау?

17 августа 1987 г. в Межсоюзной тюрьме Шпандау в Западном Берлине единственный из остававшихся там заключенных, бывший заместитель Гитлера по партии Рудольф Гесс, он же заключенный №7, покончил жизнь самоубийством. Расследованием обстоятельств смерти занималось Бюро специальных расследований британской Королевской военной полиции. В 2013 году результаты расследования были рассекречены и опубликованы в Интернете на сайте правительства Великобритании.

01 октября, 06:50

Зачем фальсифицировали расследование в Шпандау? Часть 1

17 августа 1987 г. в Межсоюзной тюрьме Шпандау в Западном Берлине единственный из остававшихся там заключенных, бывший заместитель Гитлера по партии Рудольф Гесс, он же заключенный №7, покончил жизнь самоубийством. Расследованием обстоятельств смерти занималось Бюро специальных расследований британской Королевской военной полиции. В 2013 году результаты расследования были рассекречены и опубликованы в Интернете на сайте правительства Великобритании.

30 сентября, 22:59

Liveblogging Postwar: September 30, 1946: Nuremburg

_[Nuremberg Trial][]_: THE PRESIDENT: The Judgment of the international Military Tribunal will now be read. I shall not read the title and the formal parts.... [Nuremberg Trial]: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp >This Indictment charges the defendants with Crimes against Peace by the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were...

27 сентября, 00:33

Russian-Born Oil Magnate Gives Big To Trump Victory

Vladimir Putin (r) shakes hands with Simon Grigorievich Kukes in 2000 at the signing of an agreement between Tyumen Oil, which Kukes then headed, and the U.S. ExIm Bank. (Photo: Kremlin.ru) By Ashley Balcerzak Donald Trump has an interesting relationship with Russia, to say the least. He's praised Vladimir Putin. His former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, had business dealings with pro-Russia leaders in Ukraine. U.S. intelligence officials are investigating whether one of Trump's foreign policy advisers met with senior Russia officials to discuss lifting economic sanctions in the event of a Trump presidency. Here's another tie: Simon Grigorievich Kukes, former chief executive of a now-defunct Russian state-owned oil company, who contributed more than $150,000 to Trump's campaign and joint fundraising committee, Trump Victory. This is the first election cycle he has contributed, according to FEC documents. Kukes gave $2,700 directly to Trump's campaign in March, and then a total of $149,000 to Trump Victory in June and July; another $2,700 of that went to Trump directly, while the remainder was divided between the Republican National Committee's main account, its convention account and its headquarters account. Kukes headed Yukos Corp. for a year starting in June 2003, replacing Putin foe Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the wealthiest man in Russia at the time. In what was widely seen as a political prosecution, Khodorkovsky was charged with fraud and sent to prison for 10 years. An international court ruled in 2014 that Putin's government would have to pay $50 billion for using tax claims to take control of and bankrupt Yukos. The court said the government was trying to silence Khodorkovsky, who was using his riches to fund opposition parties to Putin. Born in the then-U.S.S.R., Kukes immigrated to the U.S. in his twenties and became an American citizen, but has gone back and forth between Russia and the U.S. since then. Kukes served as president and CEO of Russia's Tyumen Oil Company from 1998 to 2003. Kukes is a partner at Hess Corporation, a New York-based oil and gas company. He was previously general director of ZAO Samara-Nafta, a Russia-based oil producing company and subsidiary of Lukoil, one of Russia's largest oil companies. Kukes at a news conference after he was appointed CEO of oil giant Yukos in 2003. (AP Photo/Mikhail Metzel) Although he listed his occupation as "retired" in FEC documents, Kukes appears to be busy: He's CEO of NAFTA Consulting, a firm that advises American and Russian oil and gas companies on how to do business together. And he's also on the board of Leverate, an on-demand software company for foreign exchange brokers.  Kukes has another link with Trump: He bought a five-room condominium at Trump Parc in Midtown West for $1.7 million in 2000, according to the Observer, (which is published by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law.) Trump isn't the only beneficiary of Kukes' funds: He also contributed the max to Elizabeth Cheney's campaign for Wyoming's congressional seat in June. Cheney is the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney. Neither Kukes nor the Trump campaign had responded to requests for comment at the time of publication. Research director Sarah Bryner contributed to this post. -- 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.

22 сентября, 16:30

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: EOG Resources, Hess, Marathon Oil, SM Energy and Carrizo Oil & Gas

The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: EOG Resources, Hess, Marathon Oil, SM Energy and Carrizo Oil & Gas

22 сентября, 15:00

He Pretended to Be a Muslim and Joined the SS: An Amazing Story of Survival (2000)

Philosophy by Jews in Modern era was expressed by philosophers, mainly in Europe, such as Baruch Spinoza founder of Spinozism, whose work included modern Rationalism and Biblical criticism and laying the groundwork for the 18th-century Enlightenment. His work has earned him recognition as one of Western philosophy's most important thinkers; Others are Isaac Orobio de Castro, Tzvi Ashkenazi, David Nieto, Isaac Cardoso, Jacob Abendana, Uriel da Costa, Francisco Sanches and Moses Almosnino. A new era began in the 18th century with the thought of Moses Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn has been described as the "'third Moses,' with whom begins a new era in Judaism," just as new eras began with Moses the prophet and with Moses Maimonides.[17] Mendelssohn was a German Jewish philosopher to whose ideas the renaissance of European Jews, Haskalah (the Jewish Enlightenment) is indebted. He has been referred to as the father of Reform Judaism, though Reform spokesmen have been "resistant to claim him as their spiritual father".[18] Mendelssohn came to be regarded as a leading cultural figure of his time by both Germans and Jews. The Jewish Enlightenment philosophy included Menachem Mendel Lefin, Salomon Maimon and Isaac Satanow. The next 19th century comprised both secular and religious philosophy and included philosophers such as Elijah Benamozegh, Hermann Cohen, Moses Hess, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Samuel Hirsch, Nachman Krochmal, Samuel David Luzzatto, Nachman of Breslov founder of Breslov and Karl Marx founder of Marxist worldview. The 20th century included the notable philosophers Jacques Derrida, Karl Popper, Hilary Putnam, Alfred Tarski, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A. J. Ayer, Isaiah Berlin and Henri Bergson. More remarkable contributors include Heinrich Hertz and Steven Weinberg in Electromagnetism; Carl Sagan, his contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of Venus and known for his contributions to the scientific research of extraterrestrial life; Edward Witten (M-theory); Vitaly Ginzburg and Lev Landau (Ginzburg–Landau theory); Yakir Aharonov (Aharonov–Bohm effect); Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR paradox);Moshe Carmeli (Gauge theory). Rudolf Lipschitz (Lipschitz continuity); Paul Cohen (Continuum hypothesis, Axiom of choice); Laurent Schwartz (theory of distribution); Grigory Margulis (Lie group); Richard M. Karp (Theory of computation); Adi Shamir (RSA, cryptography); Judea Pearl (Artificial intelligence, Bayesian network); Max Newman (Colossus computer); Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi (Jacobi elliptic functions, Jacobian matrix and determinant, Jacobi symbol). Sidney Altman (Molecular biology, RNA); Melvin Calvin (Calvin Cycle); Otto Wallach (Alicyclic compound); Paul Berg (biochemistry of nucleic acids); Ada Yonath (Crystallography, structure of the ribosome); Dan Shechtman (Quasicrystal); Julius Axelrod and Bernard Katz (Neurotransmitter); Elie Metchnikoff (discovery of Macrophage); Selman Waksman (discovery of Streptomycin); Rosalind Franklin (DNA); Carl Djerassi (the pill); Stephen Jay Gould (Evolutionary biology); Baruch Samuel Blumberg (Hepatitis B virus); Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin (developers of the Polio vaccines); Paul Ehrlich (discovery of the Blood–brain barrier); In fields such as psychology and neurology: Otto Rank, Viktor Frankl, Stanley Milgram and Solomon Asch; linguistics: Noam Chomsky, Franz Boas, Roman Jakobson, Edward Sapir, Joseph Greenberg; and sociology: Karl Marx, Theodor Adorno, Nathan Glazer, Erving Goffman, Georg Simmel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_culture Image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1990-044-13 / CC-BY-SA 3.0 [CC BY-SA 3.0 de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

21 сентября, 22:21

Low Oil Prices 'Slams Brakes' on North Dakota Production

North Dakota oil production was up slightly in Jul, though operators aren't predicting an industry resurgence anytime soon.

20 сентября, 17:16

Hess (HES) Offers Senior Unsecured Notes Worth $1.5 Billion

Leading Exploration & Production (E&P) company, Hess Corporation (HES), recently announced plans to issue senior unsecured notes for an aggregate amount of $1.5 billion.

13 сентября, 07:30

Repsol, Caixa Sell Gas Natural Stakes, End Pact

Repsol and Spanish investment fund Criteria Caixa have reached an agreement September 12 with a subsidiary of New York-based private equity fund Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) to sell it a combined 20% stake in Spanish utility Gas Natural for €3.8bn.  GIP holds investments in international energy...

13 сентября, 07:30

Repsol, Caixa Sell Gas Natural Stakes, End Pact

Repsol and Spanish investment fund Criteria Caixa have reached an agreement September 12 with a subsidiary of New York-based private equity fund Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) to sell it a combined 20% stake in Spanish utility Gas Natural for €3.8bn.  GIP holds investments in international energy...

Выбор редакции
09 сентября, 23:42

These E&P’s Might Have Rallied To Fast Too Soon

In investing, there’s a patience factor that can’t be overstressed. We showed that kind of patience in the Spring of this year, as we loaded up on solid US independent E+P players like EOG Resources (EOG), Cimarex (XEC), Anadarko (APC), Hess (HES) and Continental (CLR) – all of which have paid fantastic dividends. But there is a moment, even as we’re counting winners, where we have to find the right moments to add to winning positions and even cut back on them, waiting for another value moment. I believe we’ve reached…

08 сентября, 18:07

Western Critics of China Need to Avoid a Colonial Mindset

BEIJING -- Kate Merkel-Hess and Jeffrey Wasserstrom's thoughtful response to an essay on Chinese politics by WorldPost editor-in-chief Nathan Gardels reminds us of the need to take into account the rich and multifaceted political traditions in China. From the Spring and Autumn period until the collapse of imperial rule, Chinese thinkers defended a diverse array of Confucian, Legalist, Daoist and Buddhist values, and since then they have also debated political traditions imported from the West, including Marxism, liberalism, anarchism and feminism. It's a mistake to say that there is only one political tradition in Chinese history and to draw implications for contemporary China based on that assumption. I don't think Gardels makes this mistake -- he refers to a "mainstream view" and allows for the possibility of counter-currents. The problem, rather, is that Wasserstrom and Merkel-Hess go to the other extreme, identifying with those counter-currents and urging Western critics of China to criticize the Chinese government for failing to live up to the "best parts" of the Chinese tradition. And those parts just happen to coincide with "liberal democratic ideals and concepts of human rights" developed in Western societies. In other words, Western critics of China should use their own inherited political framework for evaluating political progress and regress in China and they should support "indigenous" Chinese critics who share their views. It's a mistake to say that there is only one political tradition in Chinese history. What's missing in the response by Merkel-Hess and Wasserstrom is any acknowledgment that there may be morally legitimate and politically realistic alternatives to liberal democracy when thinking about how to evaluate political developments in China. In this sense, their mindset is no different than Western colonialists who sought to promote their political beliefs in China throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, with mostly disastrous effects in China itself. Still, their essay raises two important issues. First, which political traditions or values matter for the purpose of explaining contemporary Chinese politics? And second, which political traditions or values matter for the purpose of evaluating contemporary Chinese politics? Let me address each of these questions in turn. If the aim is to explain political institutions and policy outcomes, the effects of economic and political factors often seem more immediate and less controversial. But culture can also play an important role: it provides an intellectual framework for sociopolitical alternatives and the motivational resources for policy implementation, and certain paths thus become more likely. A visitor walks on the Luanling section of the Great Wall about 50 miles from Beijing on May 7, 2011. (REUTERS/Jason Lee) Consider the value of political unity discussed by Gardels. As historian Yuri Pines shows in his excellent book, "The Everlasting Empire," political thinkers of the Warring States period, whatever their differences, agreed on the principle of unification under a single monarch, and this principle became the basis of Chinese political thought. The principle of political unity helps to explain the origin of institutional arrangements: the development of imperial China and the source of imperial authority. It also helps to explain the stability of policies and institutional arrangements: Pines argues that the Chinese empire, despite periods of disorder and disintegration, was regularly restored with fundamental institutional, sociopolitical and cultural features similar to that of the pre-turmoil period. And the principle of political unity helps to explain the failure of ideas and policies to take root: 20th-century Chinese supporters of provincial independence never got very far because their ideas were so fundamentally at odds with leading political values. In short, deeply held mainstream political values provide the motivational resources to influence certain outcomes, both in the minds of legislators and in the minds of people who must follow (or defy) their decisions. The Chinese Communist Party, as Pines notes, can be seen as the latest manifestation of the unitary state and imperial authority, but with trained and experienced leaders bound by term limits rather than a hereditary leader at the top. In the same vein, Gardels suggests that the deeply held idea of the unitary state influences the policies of current leaders and helps to explain why those policies are generally well received by the people. Of course, it is theoretically possible that counter-currents such as American-style ideas of adversarial politics and strict divisions of power can became popular and eventually displace mainstream ideas. In the absence of strong evidence, however, such proposals seem like wishful thinking. The idea of political meritocracy may be just as deeply rooted in Chinese political culture as the idea of political unity: from Confucius onwards, most Chinese thinkers accepted the premise that the political system should aim to select and promote public officials with superior ability and virtue, and they argued mainly over which abilities and virtues matter and the best ways of assessing those qualities. Starting from the Sui dynasty, imperial China institutionalized political meritocracy by means of the imperial examination system, and successful examination takers were usually promoted based on performance evaluations at lower levels of government. There need to be mechanisms in place to filter out Chinese-style Donald Trumps from getting near the top of the political hierarchy. Like the idea of political unity, the idea and practice of political meritocracy came under fundamental attack in the 20th century. But the country was primed for the revival of political meritocracy following a disastrous experience with radical populism and arbitrary dictatorship during the Cultural Revolution, and China's leaders could reestablish elements of its meritocratic tradition that is almost identical in form (but not content) to the meritocratic system for the selection and promotion of leaders in imperial China. Whatever the political reality and the prospects of political change, however, liberal democrats may still argue against "the supposedly 'meritocratic' governance system of the People's Republic of China," as Merkel-Hess and Wasserstrom put it, and for the benefits of electoral democracy as a method to select political leaders. One would be hard pressed to find defenders of family-based dictatorship outside of North Korea even if the system happens to be stable and rooted in history. So why should we think "autocratic" rule in China belongs in a different moral category? But is political meritocracy really so bad? I've provided a full defense in my book "The China Model," and let me summarize the arguments here. First, the fact that political meritocracy has deep roots in China means it will likely be relatively stable in a Chinese context compared to political alternatives, including electoral democracy. Second, political surveys show consistent support for political meritocracy in China. Third, a large country with responsibilities for future generations and the rest of the world needs to select and promote experienced and informed leaders who should not simply be held accountable to the current generation of citizens. Fourth, rapid technological innovations and sudden financial shocks and natural disasters may require effective responses by relatively unconstrained leaders with a proven record of sound political judgment. And lastly, political meritocracy is compatible with basic human rights and a wide array of democratic values and practices, including electoral democracy at lower levels of government and various mechanisms for improved consultation, transparency, participation and deliberation. Chinese leaders sing the national anthem at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on March 14. (GREG BAKER/AFP/Getty Images) What political meritocracy does rule out is a one-person-one-vote system and multi-party elections to select top leaders: there need to be mechanisms in place to increase the likelihood that top leaders have political experience and a long-term horizon and that filter out Chinese-style Donald Trumps from getting anywhere close to the top of the political hierarchy. Of course, there remains a big gap between the ideal and the practice of political meritocracy in China, just as there remains a big gap between the ideal and practice of democracy in the U.S. But shouldn't Western thinkers support China's effort to continue to build up a political meritocracy with democratic characteristics? It's a pill that may be hard to swallow -- in my case, I only came around to this view following years of living in China and trying to make sense of what my Chinese friends and colleagues think and care about. But what is the alternative? Why should Westerners just support Chinese critics who happen to agree with the political views transmitted by our ancestors in the West? Isn't that a legacy of a colonial mindset? Perhaps I've been unfair to Merkel-Hess and Wasserstrom. I've long admired their erudite yet accessible works on modern Chinese history, and maybe their normative commitments have been changed by encounters with Chinese thinkers. If that's the case, I'd like to learn precisely how the normative standards they use to assess progress and regress in Chinese politics differ from the ones used to assess progress and regress in American politics. Also on WorldPost: -- 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.