A World Without Work

A World Without Work By Jerome Grossman Our society may soon be rich enough that fewer and fewer people will need to work, where leisure becomes universally accessible, where part time jobs replace the regimented work week and where living standards keep rising even though more people have left the work-force altogether. If such a utopia were possible, one would expect that it would be achieved first among the upper classes, then the middle class and finally even high school dropouts would be able to sleep late, take four-day weekends for their adventures. The decline of available work is a basic reality of American life that promises to continue. This decline isn't unemployment in the usual sense where people look for work and can't find it. It's a kind of post-employment in which people drop out of the workforce and find ways to live, more or less permanently without a steady job, so instead of spreading leisure time, wanted or unwanted is expanding from the bottom up. Leisure time, wanted or unwanted is expanding from the bottom up. Long hours are increasingly the province of the rich. The decline in blue-collar work is often portrayed as a failure to supply good- paying jobs as well as a failure of the American work ethic But even disappointing growth rates are likely to leave more American generations much richer then today. Those riches will probably find paths to subsidize blue-collar workers as well as governmental and private assistance. However it is unstable to give up on unemployment, altogether. Remember, the right not to have a boss is actually the hardest won of modern freedoms. The decline of work carries social costs as well as a price tag, providing every day structure for people who live alone and a place for socialization and friendship. In many ways, human flourishing and fulfillment is threatened by the slow decline of work, of workers, and the social institutions that bind us.

Money Will Find a Way

Fifty years ago some investment bonds were less a piece of clever financial engineering than elaborate tax dodges. The increasing movement of money into speculative trading activities by the big banks, and the cost of decreasing traditional business activity that support higher levels of employment are troubling. Some call the trend a gambling device more easily manipulated than investment in production of goods and services. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has introduced legislation that seeks to return the financial industry, particularly the big banks, to a time when there was a strict divide between traditional conservative banking based on industrial needs instead of speculative activities looking for manipulated big hits. Warren’s liberal bill is also sponsored by Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona and other conservatives to protect the vast sums guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), that would minimize the real cost of bank bailouts. For about 70 years, similar legislation, the Glass-Steagall Bill, managed to keep the riskier aspects of Wall Street operations away from the historic traditional form of business financing. Glass-Steagall, passed by the New Deal, operated with good and fair results until it was repealed in 1999 at the urging of President Bill Clinton. The Warren bill would force deposit-taking banks to cease most of their derivative trading and other risky financial activities. The new bill would not stop all questionable financial instruments but it would go a long way in reestablishing diminished public confidence

Protect Our Civilization from Destruction

US intervention in the civil war in Syria has been promoted by a propaganda campaign between the Russians and the USA accusing dictator Assad of using poison gas against the rebels. The accusation has been effective in developing support for the rebels in the US and Europe. Now Russia, Assad’s primary ally has responded with a scientific analysis indicating rebel use of Saran nerve gas. These deaths and casualties have become a focal point in the Civil War. Both sides are using these repellent arms as evidence of their special brutality on the sick and the young. These insidious weapons are beyond the pale of civilized warfare, if such a description actually fits the horrors of contemporary war. Whichever side is proven to use poison gas should lose all political credibility as well as weapons and other material support. Both sides should open their arsenals to complete inspection and whatever side proves guilty of using such weapons should face the full vengeance of society. The United Nations has estimated that at least 93,000 people have been killed and millions dispatched or displaced in Syria. A food and medical crisis exists in Syria and its neighbors. This crisis threatens our civilization and the question of who rules Syria is insufficient to gamble the future of our precious civilization for the prospect of military advantage. Chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated. Who will take the steps to avoid the ultimate catastrophe? A last chance awaits to save ourselves and our grand civilization

The USA and China Maintain World Peace

International security in the post-Cold War era is driven by the deadly mix of nuclear proliferation, rogue states, and international terrorists. The second concern the potentially disruptive impact that China will have if it emerges as a peer competitor to the United States, challenging the international order established during the era of US dominance. While China remains relatively weak, the greatest danger in Chinese American relations is the possibility that the two countries will find themselves in a crisis that could escalate to open military conflict, based on debatable claims about the intentions of the two countries and uncertain forecasts about big shifts in their normal capabilities, the danger of mutual instability in a war threatening crisis and it's escalation to catastrophic consequences. Disputes in the East and South China Sea suggest the danger of a military confrontation in the Western Pacific may be on the rise, involving a serious threat to vital national interests. A short time for resolution would sharply increase the risk of war. Stability is greatest when both sides strongly prefer to continue bargaining, instability is greatest when they are tempted to resort to the use of military force. The dangers of conflict are not likely to be based on the status of Taiwan. That tension has diminished as Chinese relations have improved with commercial and political ties. More important have become American operations in territories claimed by China. The fundamental disagreements are about rights of passage through maritime areas.

US Intervention in Syria

Pressures are increasing on President Barack Obama to intervene militarily in the Civil War in Syria, a war that seeks to topple the dynasty that has ruled Syria for generations with brutal and undemocratic procedures. The risks that are holding back Obama on Syria are similar to those faced by the United States in its failed interventions in other Arab countries, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan where billions of dollars and thousands of lives were wasted in American attempts to conquer and reform nations with values and practices quite different from American values. American interventions in the affairs of such states have generally been failures except for the access to raw materials and the profits accruing to oil businesses. Sectarian violence spreading from Syria and similar countries threaten to swamp the region and spread international horrors like the murders of September 11. Some in Washington are pushing for arming the opposition to reigning dictators. The US has the power to step in to help those revolting overthrow the local dictatorships. It looks easy given US military superiority. However, in strategic planning, administration officials cite three big problems that have given President Obama pause. • As a superpower, in fact the prime superpower, the US can't afford to go into battle small, that is, without a complete commitment. If America exerts force it has to be enough to be decisive for a total and complete victory in the shortest span of time. If this is not possible, the US risks appearing to be an inadequate superpower, incapable of accomplishing its objectives and other conflicts like Iran or North Korea, affecting its ability to win wars and to carry out its threats. • If the US goes in big as it should, it will end up arming some disreputable elements who will involve the US in the formation of the successor government. The US will have the uneasy problem of picking and choosing the next leadership. • When you go in big as a super power, you own the problem indefinitely, if not forever. Other nations who have been part of the attacking coalition will tend to pull back their contributions of men and materials and leave final resolution to Washington. The US will surely learn from its difficult experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan that intervention in the affairs of other countries can be, perhaps always will be a risky affair at home and abroad. The results are usually unpredictable in the intervened countries and in the domestic political effects on the intervenor. Even when it is the all powerful USA.

We May Never Know Why

We may never know why the brothers Tsarnaev performed their murderous actions at the Boston Marathon. These men, we imagine were sick and distant but before the murders they seemed to be one of us. How do small numbers of young men become radicalized? How do they lose their humanity and become killers without conscience, disaffected and apart? Some of these educated young people did evil things. Others did great things. Sometimes they were the same kids. Sometimes a young man will lose his social connections to family or friends. Sometimes they become young warriors for violent jihad to change leaders corrupt or committed to violence. Yes, some Muslim youths were deeply angered and upset with US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, so upset by American actions in a third country they just had to go to Boylston Street and blow up people including Muslims who had nothing to do with it. What kind of madness is this? These young Muhadeen should weigh their ideals against the deaths of innocents. However, only a tiny handful ever expresses regrets. And we may never know why.

North Korea's Nuclear Arsenal

The leader of North Korea, Kim John Un says he will expand his nuclear weapons arsenal sharply, raising the stakes in the standoff with the United States and its allies. He ordered his underlings to prepare for a missile attack on the United States. However, the threats and orders do not have the range to approach American shores. So the prospects are unlikely. And a ground attack would be out of the question. The long line of similar threats might have some credibility as a projected attack on South Korea, now defended by a large army and thousands of American troops. The Chinese military is all-powerful in this area and they have not joined North Korea's campaign of bluster, threats and fakery. Yet, the US media is acting as though the military threat is real and not an amateurish attempt at nuclear blackmail. A realistic assessment of the situation is an attempt to weaken US support for South Korea, to cause trouble between the US and China, to obtain cash or other concessions from Uncle Sam. Experts believe that the differences are negotiable with caution on both sides, but certainly without another war in Korea. Remember, that war was decided by the military intervention of China, which is now unhappy with North Korea's attempt to involve them

Come Home, America

Everyone talks about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about Germany and Japan where our military has been in force since the 1940s? Now, Secretary of State John Kerry is expanding American military roles in Syria and Africa. The sequester-cuts our budget by $85 billion, half of which comes from the Pentagon. Why are we still fighting World War II? Why is the US military budget as large as that of all other nations combined? Meanwhile we invented the practice of foreign aid beginning with the Marshall Plan and continuing by stationing troops, military supplies, and military bases in every country that will allow us. Our sainted forefathers who wrote our admired Constitution warned us against foreign military intervention as diversionary from constructing a fair and prosperous society of Americans with liberty and justice for all. George Washington, first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen warned of foreign entanglements. John Quincy Adams, the much admired Secretary of State told nation not to go abroad “seeking monsters to destroy”, avoiding the temptations of empire. Our natural tendency is to emphasize the political and economic gains, peaceful arbitration of international conflict and transparency in trade and business. Our current wars rely on our large permanent bases, now accepted as the way to keep America safe, wars that now virtually encompass the entire globe, surely every continent as we absorb the cost of policing the world without the allies who ought to be pulling their share of the human and financial cost. Sharing the burden of our common security is the least we can ask. More important by far is the development of a workable system for security based on military disarmament. There is no other way of securing human survival in the wake of the explosion of military invention initiated and led by the US.

Our Tax Crisis

Wealthy investors felt that the 14,000 level of the DOW was worrisome, even dangerous because it might be the result of the money the Federal Reserve has put into the financial system. They worried that it was not supported by corporate fundamentals. These heavy hitters feared that another financial crisis could lead to deflation, destroying stability and stock values of dividend paying investments. In the last quarter of 2012, growth contracted in the developed world. The 34 member countries gave the world a sign of how the global economy had weakened. Growth vanished in the developed economies. This recent weakness has not generated counter cyclical support from governments and many of the countries where the economy weakened. What they did came late in the crisis. The United States economy did better because fixed private capital investment was still rising. Government investment was down but the US gain is caused entirely by the private sector. Historically, it was very unusual for government Investment in the United States to decline. Austerity has become the byword in many countries, with the heaviest burden falling on the working class and those living at or below the poverty level. Despite the significant contraction of government spending, a protracted fight over the cuts in government spending is likely to last for a long period. If one side wins the first proposal, counter proposals will keep the issue alive for a political generation but only to decide how much and where to cut government programs The social needs of the underprivileged classes will receive far less attention from the drive for the broadest budget cuts. For lack of money, most of the proposals in the President's State of the Union Address are likely to be unfulfilled along with the social economic and moral needs of the nation.

The Windfall of Immigration Reform

The Democrats have demographic dreams. Liberals are counting on population and voting trends to doom Republicans to minority status that will last for a long time. This expectation is at the heart of the debates in Congress about immigration. Democrats believe that they will be on the winning side in future elections. The first election of Barack Obama set the trend. His landslide reelection confirms the change in voting patterns. The white Americans who tend to vote Republican are shrinking as a percentage of the population while those who lean Democratic are growing rapidly, especially younger voters, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. By 2050, US population is expected to increase by 117 million and the vast majority will be immigrants or the children of immigrants especially Latinos, Asian Americans, and African-Americans who will rise to nearly a third of all Americans. Hispanic immigration in the Southwest and the historic black population will be the biggest factors meeting the needs of the US economy. Expanded education and economic opportunity will help the Latinos move into the mainstream of American life. Their mutual bonds will lead them to bond with the political party that identifies with their concerns. However, right now, the GOP Tea Party seems less likely to consider comprehensive immigration reform and to promote affirmative action. For the GOP to have a serious chance to win over the Latino population and other voting blocs, it will require serious changes in their political, economic and immigration policies. It may be very difficult to obtain support from Middle Western whites for new policies. Restrictive policies passed by the Republicans and states like Arizona and Alabama are the most obvious negative examples. But a move away from draconian immigration policies and belligerence could make Latinos a contested demographic bloc and give the GOP an outside chance to shatter the Democratic dominance. It might even lead to a one party state dominated by a bureaucracy with sufficient political skills to satisfy the status quo while leaving room for the growth and development of all groups. Open immigration policies could be the first step followed by other economic windfalls: simplification of the current visa system, greater investment in employee training by business, temporary work visas should be minimized in favor of permanent status, scientists and engineers and innovators would be favored as the main drivers of productivity.