Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Former head of NSA doing very well in the private sector

FormerheadofNSAdoingverywellin

Former head of NSA doing very well in the private sector

posted at 2:01 pm on June 22, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

General Keith Alexander may not be the top dog at the NSA anymore, but that doesn’t mean that he’s not keeping busy. As Bloomberg reports, he’s out there preaching cyber-security to the nation’s biggest banks and charging a hefty price to do so.

As the four-star general in charge of U.S. digital defenses, Keith Alexander warned repeatedly that the financial industry was among the likely targets of a major attack. Now he’s selling the message directly to the banks.

Joining a crowded field of cyber-consultants, the former National Security Agency chief is pitching his services for as much as $1 million a month. The audience is receptive: Under pressure from regulators, lawmakers and their customers, financial firms are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into barriers against digital assaults.

Alexander, who retired in March from his dual role as head of the NSA and the U.S. Cyber Command, has since met with the largest banking trade groups, stressing the threat from state-sponsored attacks bent on data destruction as well as hackers interested in stealing information or money.

Frankly, I have no problem with Alexander using his background and experience to make a buck in the private sector. That’s what America is all about. (Even if that buck comes in the form of a million a month… nice work if you can get it.) But his specific knowledge and history do give him some advantages – which can be passed on to clients – which might give pause to some observers.

Dr. James Joyner:

Alexander is hardly the first powerful public official to peddle his services in the private sector at a hefty markup after leaving government. And I have no reason to think that Alexander’s dealings are anything but above board. Still, I find this troubling for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on.

Partly, it’s because of the vast amount of classified information he had access to as head of the NSA. Aside from the vast troves gleaned from the NSA’s traditional methods, there’s the insights into American businesses that came from the various datamining operations during Alexander’s tenure. So, not only does he have unique expertise about the cyber threat but he also has a lot of knowledge about the vulnerabilities—and who knows what else—of competing banks. Again, I don’t question Alexander’s integrity. But, for even his discounted rate of three times his former annual salary a month, one presumes the people paying for his services have all that at the back of their minds.

This is a ticklish sort of question. Generally speaking, having specific and rare expertise in a critical area is precisely what qualifies one for a lucrative, top level job. But if that expertise came in the form of having access to tons of information which might include the vulnerabilities and tightly held details of the competitors to your prospective clients… you can see the issue. The same caution might apply to highly placed military specialists and intelligence operatives when they enter the private sector.

I think we have to assume by default that Alexander is an honorable man looking to earn a living who would not violate the law and compromise others in doing so. Absent any proof to the contrary, it’s really the only assumption available. But the banks must be thinking that he may be bringing something extra special to the table if they’re willing to shell out that sort of money. Alexander will need to be keenly aware of that moving forward.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Video: “The Kronies,” the epic return

Video:“TheKronies,”theepicreturn posted

Video: “The Kronies,” the epic return

posted at 4:01 pm on June 17, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Too much of what goes on in our supposedly capitalist system — or, as I vastly prefer to call it, our free-enterprise system — is actually crony capitalism in which well-connected Big Businesses relentlessly seek rents in order to crush the competition through means other than providing a superior good or service, to the detriment of the wider economy. And heck, why shouldn’t they? Big Government enables the rent-seeking by making all of these extracurricular avenues available, and if one business declines to take advantage of them, another one will. There are too many perverse incentives at work to count, and with that in mind, The Kronies are back with their next video to reveal the real state of American “capitalism,” this time by drawing attention to that inglorious bastion of corporate welfare that is the Export-Import Bank.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, May 23, 2014

Financial Times: We’ve found some, ahem, “serious inconsistencies” in Thomas Piketty’s numbers

FinancialTimes:We’vefoundsome,ahem,“seriousinconsistencies”

Financial Times: We’ve found some, ahem, “serious inconsistencies” in Thomas Piketty’s numbers

posted at 4:41 pm on May 23, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

As Ed already noted during the advent of Thomas Piketty’s not-so-revolutionary “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” there are some serious fundamental flaws in the Piketty narrative in which modern economic growth has somehow ravaged the lower and middle classes while the upper echelons of society enjoyed the lion’s share of the benefits, and we are now supposedly in the midst of an income-inequality crisis. Piketty got very obviously picky and choosey with a whole lot of the data points he used to construct his arguments, and the Financial Times just did their own investigation into the exact math he employed. The results?

But, according to a Financial Times investigation, the rock-star French economist appears to have got his sums wrong.

The data underpinning Professor Piketty’s 577-page tome, which has dominated best-seller lists in recent weeks, contain a series of errors that skew his findings. The FT found mistakes and unexplained entries in his spreadsheets, similar to those which last year undermined the work on public debt and growth of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. …

Prof Piketty, 43, provides detailed sourcing for his estimates of wealth inequality in Europe and the US over the past 200 years. In his spreadsheets, however, there are transcription errors from the original sources and incorrect formulas. It also appears that some of the data are cherry-picked or constructed without an original source.

For example, once the FT cleaned up and simplified the data, the European numbers do not show any tendency towards rising wealth inequality after 1970.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Yes, by all means, let’s talk about income inequality

Yes,byallmeans,let’stalkaboutincome

Yes, by all means, let’s talk about income inequality

posted at 10:01 am on December 8, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I’m not sure exactly when the phrase “income inequality” crept into the US political lexicon, but it’s clearly here to stay… at least for a while. You’ve been hearing it a lot these days, from Bill de Blasio and Hillary Clinton to Elizabeth Warren and even the Pope. Never being one to miss a chance to talk about anything except Obamacare, even the President has promised to make the issue his next in a long series of pivots.

Weakened by problems with his health-care initiative, President Obama turned back to the economy last week to rebalance his presidency with a speech about income inequality. He said he would devote much of his remaining time in office to the issue, calling it the “defining challenge of our time.” The bigger issue is how much he can or will do about it…

Obama has talked about the issue before. His advisers can draw a direct line from his speech in Osawatomie, Kan., in December 2011 through the 2012 campaign, when he made middle-class concerns the centerpiece of his message against Mitt Romney. Jon Favreau, one of his former speechwriters, said in an e-mail that those same themes were part of his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. But he has rarely been as direct or as pointed about the problem as he was at a community center in Southeast Washington last week.

Yes, Barack Obama is jumping on the income inequality bandwagon. He’s even gone so far as to recently say that it threatens the American dream. So is this a problem? Of course it is. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum it’s impossible to deny that there are far too many people among the working class who aren’t earning enough to enjoy the dream of prosperity which America has typically embodied. The real question – and one of the defining schisms between the two major political parties – is what to do about it. But to really wrap our heads around the question it’s important to understand the widely differing approaches supported by liberals and conservatives and the core cause of the problem.

You don’t have to look far to see the “solutions” being pushed by the progressive arm of American politics, and they are plans which tie directly into their definition of what’s wrong with the system in the first place. The problem, to hear them describe it, is that there are a relative handful of greedy rich people who are keeping everyone else down. Their plans to address this situation fall essentially into two basic categories, each involving the guiding hand of a giant, benevolent government. The first prong of this two tine fork is to have the government force employers give everyone a huge pay raise.

But since that won’t do enough to directly punish those sneering, snarling Fat Cats at the top of the ladder, they also want to do more – a lot more – to take away as much money from the highly successful as possible. If we could only manage that, they say, the gulf between High and Low would be significantly closed. This need to punish those who have risen high is demonstrated in the Washington Post article referenced above in a quote from Democrat pollster Geoff Garin.

“There is certainly a very deep feeling of resentment about the privileges that the people at the very top enjoy and that we have a system that is geared to gilding the lily to people at the top, as opposed to rewarding hard work and effort by middle-class and working-class Americans,” he said. “I think there is a deep desire in the country to unstack the deck economically.”

And how do progressives plan to “fix” this portion of the problem? The answer is as old as politics. We’ll simply keep raising taxes on those who have more until equality is achieved.

Conservatives, however, see the situation in different terms, starting with what’s causing the income level disparity in the fist place. There are less people earning enough money to advance and live the American dream to be sure. But it’s because the economy is staggering under poor management. This is not advanced mathematics, folks. We keep producing more people every generation (the US population hasn’t seen an actual decline since the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic), but there are not enough job openings requiring workers to keep up with the supply. Since employers have long lines of people waiting to fill any vacancy, there is no incentive to crank up wages and benefits. It’s simple supply and demand.

If you implement policies which stimulate growth and allow the economy to flourish, demand for workers rises and employers have to compete for the best employees. But if you seek to adjust society yet again by putting the government’s thumb on the scale, you’ll get pretty much more of what we’re seeing today. And that’s because the government is just so darned good at tinkering with the private sector. (See: health care and energy among others.) There is a solution to income inequality, but it’s not in the proposals coming from Obama and company.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat9:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 9:41 pm on November 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as “a new tyranny” and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church…

In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the “idolatry of money”, and urged politicians to “attack the structural causes of inequality” and strive to provide work, healthcare and education to all citizens.

He also called on rich people to share their wealth. “Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills,” Francis wrote in the document issued on Tuesday.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?”

***

Francis said trickle down policies have not been proven to work and they reflect a “naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Pope Francis wrote.

“This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system,” the 76-year-old pontiff added.

***

All this would warm the heart of even the most fervent atheist, except Francis has gone much further. It seems he wants to do more than simply stroke the brow of the weak. He is taking on the system that has made them weak and keeps them that way.

“My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost,” he tweeted in May. A day earlier he denounced as “slave labour” the conditions endured by Bangladeshi workers killed in a building collapse. In September he said that God wanted men and women to be at the heart of the world and yet we live in a global economic order that worships “an idol called money”.

There is no denying the radicalism of this message, a frontal and sustained attack on what he calls “unbridled capitalism”, with its “throwaway” attitude to everything from unwanted food to unwanted old people. His enemies have certainly not missed it. If a man is to be judged by his opponents, note that this week Sarah Palin denounced him as “kind of liberal” while the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs has lamented that this pope lacks the “sophisticated” approach to such matters of his predecessors. Meanwhile, an Italian prosecutor has warned that Francis’s campaign against corruption could put him in the crosshairs of that country’s second most powerful institution: the mafia.

***

For the second time this year, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is aligning with Pope Francis on global economic views

Sanders says he continues to welcome Francis’ criticism of the global financial system, which both the senator and the pope say has plunged more of the world into poverty while benefiting the wealthy few.

“At a time when the gap between rich and everyone else is growing wider, at a time when Wall Street and large financial institutions are exerting extraordinary power over the American and world economy, I applaud the pope for continuing to speak out on these enormously important issues,” Sanders said. “Pope Francis is reminding people of all walks of life, and all religious backgrounds, that we can and must do better.”

***

Albeit in somewhat passive terms, the Church had made its political and economic position clear: It rejected communism, and specifically its suppression of religion, in favor of the West and democracy—which were tied tightly to free-market economic principles. Many years later, the Polish Pope John Paul II was given credit for helping to undermine communist rule in his country, where Catholic churches provided a space for anti-communist artists and thinkers to hold discussions and distribute anti-regime writings.

In light of this long-standing tension between the Church and communism, Pope Francis’s aggressively anti-capitalist posture seems all the more remarkable. The bishop of Rome hasn’t just condemned what he sees as a failed free-market—he’a condemned the ethic and ideology that underlie free-market economies. “The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase,” Francis writes. “In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.”

This is more than just a lecture about ethics; it’s a statement about who should control financial markets. At least right now, Francis says, the global economy needs more government control—an argument that would have been unthinkable for the pope just 50 years ago.

***

It’s interesting to think of Pope Francis’ assessment in light of Pope John Paul II’s past condemnation of communism and the “social assistance state.” In 1991, he observed…

“In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called ‘Welfare State.’ This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoke very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the ‘Social Assistance State.’ Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending, In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them who act as neighbors to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.”

***

[W]hat I think is curious about this document is a longstanding peeve of mine. Ever since the Galileo incident, the Catholic Church has generally tried to be careful to get its science right before it opines on ethical matters related to science. It takes seriously questions of bioethics and has developed internal expertise on those issues. Yet when it comes to economics, the Church seems to have no qualms about opining on issues of economics without even the slightest idea of what it is talking about.

I mean, seriously?

“204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.”

Well darn that John Paul II for helping to bring freedom to Poland and getting rid of all those “decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes” that were so beneficial to the Poles under Communism.

***

Capitalism does not breed poverty; it alleviates it. Compare the life expectancy of a medieval serf–rarely 30 years–to someone living in Western Europe today: Pope Francis, for example, who has reached the ripe old age of 76 thanks to modern medicine. He lived through the Cold War and its showcase of the obvious disparity between the United States, a land of economic “survival of the fittest,” according to Francis, and the Soviet Union. It was “a country with some of the most fertile land on the continent of Europe,” writes economist and TAS contributor Thomas Sowell, where the market principles that Pope Francis rergards suspiciously were abandoned, and as a result “at least 6 million people starved to death in the 1930s[.]”…

The pope, who recognizes in his exhortation the importance of economics, should keep in mind that the limited resources of the world could not possibly be allocated or “distributed” without some sort of system that allocates them efficiently, taking into account supply and demand, as well as scarcity and the difficulty of production and extraction: that is, prices. For someone who writes of others’ displaying “crude and naïve trust”, the pope sometimes betrays a rather naïve understanding of economics.

***

I don’t wish to stand in the way of people enjoying other people’s prejudices, but Francis’s hyperbolic rants about the role and allegedly dictatorial power of free markets are embarrassing in their wrongness. Cheering them on is like donating money to a Creationist Museum, only with more potential impact…

More people have escaped poverty the past 25 years than were alive on the planet in 1800. Their “means of escape” was largely the introduction of at least some “laws of competition” in endeavors that had long been the exclusive domain of authoritarian, monopolistic governments…

To look upon the miracles of this world and lament the lack of “means of escape” is to advertise your own ignorance. To call it a “tyranny” is to do violence to any meaningful sense of that important word (much like Francis’s predecessor did with his silly “dictatorship of relativism” crack). And to make such absolutist statements as “everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest” is to admit up front that you are not primarily interested in spreading truth, but rather in exciting popular passions. Which I suppose makes sense.

***

Troubling? Yes, and that’s probably too gentle a word. If this was just a discussion within the Roman Catholic church aimed solely at how its members should behave that, for the most part, would be up to them. But the pope’s words are rather more than that. In Francis, we see a charming and charismatic advocate (complete with large megaphone and the attention of a sizeable slice of the world) for economic policies of a type that have failed and failed and failed again, not least in the Argentina of his youth, the Argentina of Perón, the Argentina that he evidently still sees as some sort of model.

That’s not good news, nor is it likely to be the source of much joy.

***


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Dem congressman to Megyn Kelly on people getting dropped from insurance plans: It’s capitalism

DemcongressmantoMegynKellyonpeoplegetting

Dem congressman to Megyn Kelly on people getting dropped from insurance plans: It’s capitalism

posted at 3:21 pm on October 31, 2013 by Allahpundit

Fun fact: If not for Cory Booker, this guy would almost certainly have spent this morning being sworn in as New Jersey’s new senator.

There are two ways Democrats can spin the “if you like your plan” debacle. One is Jon Gruber’s way: Be brutally honest that, when you’re foisting a new redistribution scheme on America, there are bound to be some losers. If everything works according to plan, which gets less likely by the day, then the number of losers will be relatively small. Emphasis on “relatively.”

The other half, however, also three per cent of the population, will have to buy a new product that complies with the A.C.A.’s more stringent requirements for individual plans. A significant portion of these roughly nine million Americans will be forced to buy a new insurance policy with higher premiums than they currently pay. The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require a people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year. In other words, this was a deliberate policy decision that the White House and Congress made to raise the quality—and thus the premiums—of insurance policies at the bottom end of the individual market.

“We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses,” Gruber said. Obama obviously should have known that his blanket statement about “keeping what you have” could not apply to this class of policyholders.

Gruber summarized his stats: ninety-seven per cent of Americans are either left alone or are clear winners, while three per cent are arguably losers. “We have to as a society be able to accept that,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong, that’s a shame, but no law in the history of America makes everyone better off.”

Imagine a president trying to pass the highest-priority item on the Democratic policy wishlist by telling Americans “only” nine million of them will be sure losers, with some as yet undetermined number of further losers to come once the law’s unintended consequences start flowing. Gruber can get away with the omelettes-and-broken-eggs approach because he doesn’t have to face the voters like Obama and Frank Pallone do. Which brings us to the second form of spin: Lie, lie, lie your ass off and claim that the insurance plans that have been canceled to comply with ObamaCare’s new regulations were uniformly lousy, crappy “scams.” To watch Pallone in this clip, you would think that nine million people were essentially being loan-sharked by their insurance companies and now, thanks to a benevolent Democratic administration, the thieves and fraudsters have all been put out of business. Back in reality, many of the plans that have now been non-grandfathered out of existence under the regs were being offered by the same insurers whom the White House has partnered with all along in implementing ObamaCare. That is to say, the very people who conspired with him to pass this gigantic boondoggle are now being demagogued by the White House as “bad apples” because it’s a convenient way for O to pass the buck on who’s really to blame for all the cancellations.

Here’s health-care consultant Bob Laszewski, whose own “Cadillac plan” was recently canceled due to the new O-Care rules, blowing the whistle on the “bad apples” nonsense. Does the White House actually understand how the insurance industry works?

[I]ndividual health insurance policies have been regulated for decades by the states. Every policy sold in a state has to be approved by that state’s insurance commissioner. Have you heard about the longstanding debate about over whether or not states over regulate this market with too many state health insurance coverage mandates and policy requirements?

This whole issue over whether the states regulate these policies too much has been at the heart of Republican calls for insurers to be able sell individual health insurance plans across state lines––to be able to buy individual health plans from states with fewer regulations.

In this context, it is kind of hard to argue that this is a “substandard” insurance market…

Here are some charts from a 2011 report issued by the Council For Affordable Health Insurance––an advocacy group formed in large part in opposition to the large number of state health insurance mandates that already exist. This market is so regulated there is actually an advocacy group to fight it!

Follow the last link for a table showing how many state-imposed requirements insurance plans already need to comply with or else you won’t appreciate just how Orwellian Pallone’s talking-point hard sell is. And the punchline is, this really is the best spin available to Democrats on this subject — essentially calling people who’ve just received cancellation notices and who say they want their old plans back liars. Nine million people.

As a Halloween treat, read this op-ed by a 34-year-old who’s just been pink-slipped by his insurance company as it’s surely scaring the shinola out of some Democratic press shops today. He earns slightly too much to be eligible for subsidies and his new ObamaCare-approved plan will cost him more each year out of pocket and in co-pays for individual visits — which, ironically, means he’s less inclined to seek treatment now except in emergencies. He understands the point of the new scheme — a wealth transfer from the middle class’s young and healthy to the old, sick, and poor — and he’s not happy about being placed once again on the hook for another demographic. Three percent of the population isn’t much, relatively, but it’s enough to swing close elections. Good luck, red-state Democrats.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair