Posts
CrazyAuntPurl: That's so funky: "according to the USDA, the term 'beef' can be only be used on products containing at least 40% beef.
Now that gave me pause. Shouldn't something called 'beef' be required to contain at least 50% of its namesake?"
"That is like saying I am 'tall' because I am at least 40% of the height of a supermodel."
Monday, February 14, 2011
What Should U.S. Do about Egypt? Very Little | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary
What Should U.S. Do about Egypt? Very Little | Ted Galen Carpenter | Cato Institute: Commentary: "To most people residing in the Kremlin's empire, the Soviet Union was a meddling, imperialist oppressor. America's moral support was welcomed because they saw the U.S. as the USSR's principal adversary. Even if America had not been a beacon of freedom and democracy, there would have been positive feelings toward the avowed enemy of their imperial overlord.
The situation in the Middle East is vastly — and depressingly — different. Populations in that part of the world generally view the U.S. with great suspicion. Indeed, all too many Middle Easterners regard Washington as the meddling, imperialist power that is responsible for their unsatisfactory lot in life. A succession of U.S administrations has reinforced that negative image by backing corrupt, authoritarian regimes that looted and brutalized their people.
The result is a deep reservoir of hostility toward Washington. A June 2010 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 82% of respondents in Egypt had an unfavorable view of the United States, and 79% in Jordan did so. That negative assessment is not confined to the Arab portion of the Muslim world. In Pakistan, the unfavorable rating was 68%, and in Turkey 74%.
Such pervasive animosity makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for Washington to play a major constructive role in the political transition that we're now beginning to witness in the Middle East. Put bluntly, even if U.S. officials profess to support the goals of democracy and liberty, those statements have very little credibility with populations in that part of the world."
"embracing secular factions could easily backfire. Anti-American factions would almost certainly cite such support as evidence that Washington is continuing to meddle in their country's internal affairs, and they would use it to discredit their secular opponents."
The situation in the Middle East is vastly — and depressingly — different. Populations in that part of the world generally view the U.S. with great suspicion. Indeed, all too many Middle Easterners regard Washington as the meddling, imperialist power that is responsible for their unsatisfactory lot in life. A succession of U.S administrations has reinforced that negative image by backing corrupt, authoritarian regimes that looted and brutalized their people.
The result is a deep reservoir of hostility toward Washington. A June 2010 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 82% of respondents in Egypt had an unfavorable view of the United States, and 79% in Jordan did so. That negative assessment is not confined to the Arab portion of the Muslim world. In Pakistan, the unfavorable rating was 68%, and in Turkey 74%.
Such pervasive animosity makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for Washington to play a major constructive role in the political transition that we're now beginning to witness in the Middle East. Put bluntly, even if U.S. officials profess to support the goals of democracy and liberty, those statements have very little credibility with populations in that part of the world."
"embracing secular factions could easily backfire. Anti-American factions would almost certainly cite such support as evidence that Washington is continuing to meddle in their country's internal affairs, and they would use it to discredit their secular opponents."
What Can the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility Teach Us? - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Daily
What Can the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility Teach Us? - Thorsten Polleit - Mises Daily: "A monetary policy of increasing the money supply is therefore never 'neutral': It necessarily lowers the exchange value of the money unit, and it necessarily benefits some people (namely the first receivers of the new money) at the expense of others (namely the late receivers of the new money)."
"If government intervenes in the time market — by, for instance, increasing the supply of bank circulation credit and fiat money — it necessarily causes a deviation of the market interest rate from the pure interest rate (namely pushing the market interest rate below the pure market interest rate), which subsequently must lead to malinvestment and boom-and-bust."
"Violations of individual property rights (for instance through government taxation, regulations, etc.)" "thus raise peoples' time preference, increasing consumption at the expense of savings and investment, thereby reducing (or even reverting) the pace of capital accumulation. An interventionist-socialist societal order will therefore necessarily lead to impoverishment relative to a free market societal order, in which there are no systematic violations of individuals' property rights."
"If government intervenes in the time market — by, for instance, increasing the supply of bank circulation credit and fiat money — it necessarily causes a deviation of the market interest rate from the pure interest rate (namely pushing the market interest rate below the pure market interest rate), which subsequently must lead to malinvestment and boom-and-bust."
"Violations of individual property rights (for instance through government taxation, regulations, etc.)" "thus raise peoples' time preference, increasing consumption at the expense of savings and investment, thereby reducing (or even reverting) the pace of capital accumulation. An interventionist-socialist societal order will therefore necessarily lead to impoverishment relative to a free market societal order, in which there are no systematic violations of individuals' property rights."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)