Frum: 'Emotional' war on ISIS is a 'policy of aid-Iran-but-don’t-admit-it'

There's plenty of criticism of Obama in conservative Republican Frum's opinion piece, but this graph sums it up best for me [emphasis mine]:

Debates over foreign policy have a bad tendency to vaporize into abstract discussions of first principles: intervention or non-intervention? Responsibility to protect or mind our own business? Iraq and Syria today present a case that makes nonsense of abstractions. Intervene? The United States and its allies should intervene when intervention will advance U.S. and allied interests, consistent with U.S. and allied values. But where do we find the U.S. and allied interest in a war between al-Qaeda’s even nastier younger brother, on one side, and the mullahs of Iran on the other? If Iran were saying, “Please help us, and we’ll reorient our policy in a friendlier direction,” that would be one thing. They are not saying that. They are not doing that. They are doing the opposite.

And then here's Frum's body slam to finish:

It’s not crass, not narrow, not unethical for the president of the United States to test any proposed foreign policy—and most especially the use of armed force—against the criterion: “How will this benefit my nation?” That test is not a narrow one. The protection of allies is an important U.S. interest. The honoring of international commitments is an important U.S. interest. And it could even be argued that humanitarian action can be justified when it will save many lives, at low cost in American blood and treasure, without creating even worse consequences inadvertently. This new campaign against ISIS does not even pretend to meet that test. It’s a reaction: an emotional reaction, without purpose, without strategy, and without any plausible—or even articulated—definition of success.

'Nuf said. But it's spoken too late.

Don't Go Back to Iraq, Mr. President

By David Frum

September 10, 2014 | The Atlantic

URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/obama-speech-iraq-syria-isis-war/379979/

Peter Thiel: 'Capitalism and competition are antonyms'

I'm not a fan of Peter Thiel, but in his rich guy's hubris he doesn't mind shattering a few conservative, pro-business myths when warmed up by an interviewer. Such as this one [emphasis mine]:

One-of-a-kind companies are monopolies. Every successful zero to one company that achieves a breakthrough is by definition going to be a monopoly. Monopolies are great companies. Super competitive ones are not.

In my view, capitalism and competition, which are said to be synonyms, are really antonyms. In a world of perfect competition, all the capital is competed away. Capitalism is really about the accumulation of capital.

Google is a very capitalist company. They have had no competition since 2002 when they definitively distanced themselves from Microsoft or any other competitor.

On the other hand, if you were to open a restaurant in San Francisco, it would be a very competitive business, but not a very capitalist one.

For this reason, some more thoughtful conservatives such as Pat Buchanan prefer to use the distinguishing term "free enterprise" instead of capitalism, because capitalism is not really something that most people on Earth will ever really participate in as free agents. (HT: Karl Marx). 

Moreover, capitalism requires constant growth (return on capital) or it will die, whereas free enterprise does not necessarily, hence capitalism's endless hunger for technological innovation, new markets, tax gimmicks or anything to give a return on capital to investors. 

In contrast, by opening the 10th lemonade stand (or Starbucks) on the block, somebody could be said to be participating in the system of competitive free enterprise, even if their chances of success are slim to none. The lemonade stand's owner could hardly be considered a "capitalist."

'Monopolies Are Great Companies. Super Competitive Ones Are Not,' Says PayPal Co-Founder Peter Thiel

By Nathan Gardels

September 8, 2014 | The WorldPost

URL: http://huff.to/1CKmUPc

Scottish independence would affect the world

And as others have noted, (see: "Why the world should care about Scottish independence"), the UK without Scotland would tip away from Labour toward the Conservative Party; and the UK without Scotland would make Britain more of a Euro-skeptic and less likely to vote "Aye" on a proposed referendum for EU membership.

Scottish Independence Would Shake Up the Global System

September 9, 2014 | Stratfor

Polls released today showed for the first time that a majority -- an extremely small majority, but a majority nonetheless -- of Scots favor independence, although other polls suggest the no camp remains in the lead. A poll is not the election, which will be held Sept. 18, but it is still a warning that something extraordinary might happen very soon. The political union between Scotland and England might be abolished after 300 years. The implications of this are enormous and generally ignored.

Obviously, this raises a host of question about how such a divorce might take place, whether the expected time frame -- divorce by 2016 -- will be adhered to, and how state property might be divided. It also raises the question of Scottish foreign policy. Will Scotland remain in NATO? Will it have membership in the European Union? Will it continue to use the pound sterling, and if not, how will it roll out its own currency?

These are important questions, but far more important issues will follow. One of the principles of the postwar world was the inviolability of Europe's borders. Border disputes were the origin of centuries of war, and so Europe's borders were frozen after World War II to avoid discussion. This may have left some people of one nationality on the wrong side of a border, but this was accepted since the risk of opening the door to border redefinition was considered far greater than any discomforts stemming from the borders that were locked in place.

This principle has been weakened since the end of the Cold War. Still, though the disintegration of the Soviet Union created fully independent states, these were recognized republics within the context of the Soviet Union. One could argue that this did not in fact represent border change. Later, the "Velvet Divorce" of Czechoslovakia into Czech and Slovak successor countries represented another shift, but in a country that had only existed since the end of World War I. The separation of Kosovo from Serbia was a more radical shift but was justified by claims of Serbian oppression. Though each shift weakened the principle of inviolable borders, each came with an asterisk -- that is, each had an aspect that stopped it from being the definitive case.

Scotland separating from England, by contrast, can't be minimized. If that centuries-old union can be revised, then anything can be revised. Scottish separatists' reason for splitting is that they are a separate nation, that each nation has the right to its own state and the right to determine its own destiny, and that they no longer choose to be in union. But if they have the right to determine this, why shouldn't others in Europe enjoy the same right?

For example, modern Spain is an amalgam of regions. One, the Catalan region -- which contains Barcelona -- has a strong separatist movement. If Scotland can leave the United Kingdom, then why shouldn't Catalonia be allowed to leave Spain? Farther east, the Treaty of Trianon gave Romania and then-Czechoslovakia large portions of Hungary along with the Hungarians living there. Why shouldn't Hungarians living in those territories have the right to rejoin Hungary? Meanwhile, if French-speaking Belgians and Dutch-speaking Belgians wish to part ways and return their two regions to their respective countries of origin, why should they not be allowed to? And why shouldn't the eastern part of Ukraine be allowed to secede and join Russia?

Raising the stakes, this is an issue that goes far beyond Europe. There are seemingly innumerable separatist movements in India, China, Africa and so forth. If Scotland has the right to leave the nation-state it is part of and form a new one based on ethnic identity, why can't anyone follow suit? And if anyone can do it, but they are blocked by the state they wish to leave, is resorting to violence in pursuit of independence legitimate?

The Scottish issue -- the claim that the Scots are a separate nation and that all nations have a right to self-determination -- simply cannot be asterisked. Having this happen in the heart of Western Europe would set a clear precedent that would expand geographically and conceptually. It would legitimize similar movements globally and force a reconsideration of what a nation is. Ultimately, a nation would be whatever the majority says it is.

It is doubtful that the Scottish precedent could be contained in Europe. And it is hard to imagine how this precedent might not lead to conflict somewhere, not in the British Isles but somewhere where the existing state would be less inclined to grant the right of self-determination to a separatist movement.

Of course, the separatists in Scotland may well lose, sentiment might change in the post-election negotiations, and so on. But if England and Scotland divorce, the right to separate will become an integral part of international custom -- and it will arouse other movements.

DC Johnston: End insurance co-payments

Here's another one from David Cay Johnston, this time on the outrageous inefficiency of U.S. hospitals:

American hospitals spend a huge and growing share of their revenue on overhead, a study published today in Health Affairs shows. Getting those costs down should be a national priority.

U.S. hospitals on average spend 25.3 cents out of each dollar of revenue on overhead, with for-profit hospitals spending 27 percent and nonprofits a bit below the average.

By contrast, the Netherlands and England, which have the next highest overhead costs, spend 19.8 percent and 15.5 percent, respectively. Both are moving toward market-based financial models, so, as with the U.S., overhead costs are likely to rise.

[...] The new study helps explain why for every $1 the 33 other countries with advanced economies spend per person on universal health care, the United States spends $2.64 — and yet more than one-fifth of Americans have no or poor health insurance.  A significant reason the U.S. health care system is so expensive and inefficient turns out to be those annoying co-pays. 

Here's one suggestion: eliminate co-pays. Here's why:

In economics “rational” is a term of art. It means groups of people consistently making choices that maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. 

By this definition, the promotion of co-pays by employers and insurers fails the rationality test. Why? Because co-pays discourage people, especially those with meager incomes, from seeing doctors and obtaining medications. That reduces immediate spending on doctor visits and drugs but not total costs over the longer term. Instead, when people who are squeezed financially do not pick up their medications, thus avoiding the co-pay, they later will need more intensive and costly care, which drives up total costs for health care as well as increasing human misery and shortening lives.

When co-pays discourage getting drugs and visiting doctors, which results in more costly medical problems later, the system is irrational. When those payments eat up as much as or even more than they bring in, the system is more so.

Here is a suggestion: Get rid of co-pays. Instead let’s just add a prominent line on paycheck stubs that reads, “Your health care is paid separately, and it cost X dollars this pay period.” That would help make the American economy more efficient and more humane.

Time to end co-pays

By David Cay Johnston

September 8, 2014 | Aljazeera

URL: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/health-care-costscopaysoverhead.html

DC Johnston: How U.S. companies get rich off taxes

My main bearded tax expert David Cay Johnston is back with more perfectly legal scams that big business use to get rich at our expense. Here it is in layman's terms:

Imagine how your bank statement would look if, instead of having taxes taken out of your weekly paycheck, Congress let you keep that dough in return for your promise to pay your taxes years or decades from now—and sometimes, never.

That’s the extraordinary deal Congress gives many big American companies now sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars of what are, essentially, interest-free loans. Apple and GE owe at least $36 billion in taxes on profits being held tax-free offshore, Microsoft nearly $27 billion and Pfizer $24 billion, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit organization respected for the integrity of its numbers even by groups that dislike its progressive perspective.

'Twas not always thus, Johnston reminds us, and as usual, it's Reagan's fault [emphasis mine]:

The use of offshore tax havens to convert profits into expenses stems from a 1986 change to Section 531 of the tax code. Starting in 1909, Congress imposed a 15 percent penalty on corporate cash-hoarding. That was supposed to encourage companies to reinvest and pay salaries and dividends, rather than weaken the economy by stuffing profits into the corporate equivalent of the proverbial mattress.

The 1986 amendment said companies could hold unlimited amounts of cash, provided it was in offshore accounts. Today at least 362 of the Fortune 500 companies have more than 7,800 tax haven subsidiaries, many stuffed with cash, according to a tiny nonprofit research organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 

Johnston also reminds us of the IRS's double standard, one for all of us Joe Schmoes and another for corporations: "For the vast majority of people with regular W-2 jobs, income taxes are taken out before you get your check. Congress does not trust you, so it demands its cut up front and requires your employer, bank and stockbroker to verify what they paid you."

However, [emphasis mine]:

[I]f you are a multinational, the government takes your word on how much you owe, subject only to the increasingly rare audits by the IRS. Top IRS auditors, paid about $150,000, each find on average $19 million of corporate taxes due each year, according to data the IRS discloses to Syracuse University researchers each month. Even though each auditor finds $126 in taxes owed for each dollar he or she earns in pay (a great return on investment), Congress has been steadily shrinking their ranks for more than two decades. It also hobbles auditors by allowing them to look only at issues the companies have been warned about, a practice similar to food, hospital and pet shop inspectors tipping businesses off that they are coming so they can clean up first.

Let me highlight that: the IRS is the only government agency that makes money -- it enhances our government's fiscal position, making our government less likely to go bankrupt -- and yet Republicans in Congress consistently underfund the IRS as it tries to enforce the tax laws already on the books. 

(So next time Republicans say they won't pass immigration reform because President Obama won't enforce existing laws, you'll know they're hypocrites.)

Perhaps the most perverse thing that happens is this:

Many companies, though, take a much simpler and safer approach when investing their untaxed profits. They buy U.S. Treasuries, those bonds the government sells because it spends more than it collects in taxes. In that way, the federal government pays companies to delay paying their taxes.

This is a classic heads-you-win-tails-I-lose economic plan: The government loans money to big companies interest-free, then borrows it back with interest.

Pretty sweet deal, if you can get it!

Corporate Deadbeats: How Companies Get Rich Off Of Taxes

By David Cay Johnston

September 4, 2014 | Newsweek

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/corporate-deadbeats-how-companies-get-rich-taxes-268303