Russia and the W.T.O., etc. ...

On Popular Criticism of Russia And The Russians

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

 

 

Media Photo

With the expulsion of Mr. Gennady Gudkov from the Russian legislature, indicating a new repression in Russia against dissent, among other things, including the call for a removal of a policy of linkage (by the U.S. government) with things like trade, emigration and human rights, the accession of Russia to new economic and political heights, including the status of Russia in the W.T.O. at this time begs the question about the acceptance of economies into that organisation actually based upon their commitment to free trade or indeed some acceptable hybrid thereof.  That the Russian administration could slap U.S. businesses due to the provisions of the Jackson - Vanik amendment of 1974 and its current applications does scare people interested in issues like human rights, adherence to a western democratic rule of law, civic rights, anti - terrorism, and better terms of trade between countries like the U.S. and Russia, and for reasons that interest the business people in both territories.    Accession to the W.T.O. has called for Russia to emphasize its finances and potential to carry more weight in the world of free trade, strictly and specifically a utilitarian economics approach, and this while Jackson - Vanik is an administrative bill that is used to mirror international Russian policies and the human side of international business with Eastern Europe.  This makes for very little convergence of strict ideas in the meeting of business people and economists who would like to see it kicked out of the way, and humanists who see the value of protecting human and civil rights and practices as primary to a healthy society and healthy business and commerce. 

 

That the current Russian administration might just be  seen abroad, at least among many in the West, as one of provincial officialdom that little understands the importance of the more refined ideas around human rights and domestic dissent and their related effects upon commerce and world opinion, does not disparage the current Russian regime from asserting itself into various associations given its self - interested qualities and new - found economic weight in the world.  Part of this positioning apparently has been to diffuse the stark memories everyone has of communism and its effect on the country and the consciousness of the people today that remains mostly centrist and one as well that leaves the debate about administration and economies, public and foreign relations, to the elites, much as during Tsarist and later soviet times.  The current Russian leadership as obscure in its origins does call for intriguing and introspective interpretations as to the motives of the government there in promoting such people, especially with respect to the current president who apparently really started in the old K.G.B. in East Germany during a time in which many believed, and not just inside Russia itself, that the U.S.S.R. could win the Cold War - and thus the many communist sympathisers of the day and not just in Eastern Europe.  One should note people have popped up in places everywhere who have owned property in Russia for many years, and who knew and know the Putins and Medvedevs, again starting from the old days.  One liberal rationale from utilitarians everywhere is East Germany and Poland, at the time of Mr. Putin's work there, probably could have used help from anyone, though many do believe despite this that communism was no help in any way whatsoever with its promise to organise and move society forward, even from the beginning.  Mr. Putin appears to represent the crowd as inspired by soviet times who voluntarily ran places like DRG and Poland, North Korea, and even Cambodia and Viet Nam, in an oppressive and strict fashion to reinforce the doctrines of communism against the free world.  The legacy of this, given the junking of communism and its apparatus, has been for silent machinations with respect to free trade (cf. conduct of Warsaw Treaty countries and their overall influences and world connections,) and demands upon the international community for legitimacy along official lines.  This is the international house the Russian leaders are building at this point, while using their connections and political weight among non - aligned nations and NGO's that emphasise and promote issues at this time more or less as they always have done, under the indirect sponsorship of Eastern European regimes, and with socialistic / communistic tendencies. 

 

On one level of analysis, it is not difficult to see how and why the Russian administration is throwing its weight around on the international stage lately with respect to trade and other issues, including repression and human rights:  The country, no longer communist, has always had a strong central government as located in Saint - Petersburg and then Moscow, and again, society as greatly influenced by the church has allowed the political elites to rule.  This makes for a different kind of management of social and political, business and legal issues, etc., and as such the byzantine heritage encompassed in Moscow is easily and evidently upheld.  This should be looked into by more journalists and interested parties who are curious themselves enough to try to determine the continued role of the emphasis of Moscow in the identity of Russia, versus the major cities and areas of the provinces where vestiges of the old regime apparently remain, and as well where the church is more powerful.  The current Russian regime has made attempts, despite slapping people on issues, in its image in some respects to detract from the authoritarianism of the communist regime as centered in Moscow.  This is no reason to be persuaded the polity in Russia should be authenticated more in the West, especially due to continued abuses, though it does appear Russia's leadership is taking its own, practical approach to additionally modernising and bringing up the country from within and creating better ties with the outside.  It will be curious to see if this can continue without additional power - shuffling and grabbing there that is age - old and that could more sully the impressions people have in learning about it from the exterior, or visiting there at this time. 

 

… more.

 

Review - New Book by Bruce Bartlett - "The Benfit And The Burden."

Review - New Book by Bruce Bartlett

Friday, September 07, 2012

Media Photo

This austere book is one that I would like to have published about tax reform myself apart from the Hall / Rabushka literature on the flat tax that has appeared every so often. The book begins with a brief illustration of what federal and state taxes are about in the U.S., and the tradition of taxes in this country as started in the old world, what progressive taxes are and how citizens are taxed in other countries in comparison to ours. The tables throughout the text are extremely helpful in understanding the journalistic illustrations in this book that can be quite involved and detailed, even burdensome without the tables.



Most of the book itself is a primer on how to analyze tax policy, be it
within the U.S. or Europe or other countries with different systems of
taxation. Even the character of income issue in our own tax code, an issue
of some sophistication and ongoing debate, is illustrated for the reader.
This text, primarily written for the concerned citizen who believes not only
in federal spending reforms, but in reforms in the system of federal revenue
collection, provides a slate of the different aspects of tax reform, both
historied and recent, and the different types of taxes our leaders have
considered over time with the idea of reforming the U.S. tax collection
system. Content runs the gamut from court cases and "what is income," to
systemic / historical changes, to the various radical reform proposals that
have been publicly and privately presented by politicians over time. The
appendices are worth reading through as well, and the overriding purpose of
the book to make our tax system and the prospect of tax reform more
understandable and transparent to the ordinary taxpayer (in view of
editorials, opinions, legislation, court cases and the like) is accomplished
while delivering content as well for those technically educated about taxes,
related policies, government resource allocation, the decision - making
process in the capitol and so on. Everyone interested in social reform, the
social sciences, law and regulation, decision - making and the polity should
read this book. In short, a great text if you file a tax return and are
interested in modernizing the collections process through the U.S. Treasury
and your state treasury.



The book in part seems to have been inspired, as shown in chapter 5 and
chapter 9, among others, by the impact of the Bush era tax cuts and cites
Bush officials on the effect of the cuts that in their identities have to do
with the current twin deficits and their magnitude and impact upon current
and future revenue collection / tax policies. While the Bush administration
encouraged policies to increase home - ownership and investment gains, and
these goals were substantively and wholly accomplished to the extent
possible, and with the help of tax relief and tax reform, the current polity
complains these were too expensive for anyone's taste and have weakened
government finances for the time being. When one examines the scope and
purpose of the Bush tax cuts and reforms, it is important to note that
during those years choices were given to people about what to do with their
capital and wages, and given the human condition some, in fact a good part

of the gains people experienced in property and other assets in addition to their increased wages, options and pension and other plans, were the result of a good amount individual speculation and utilitarian waste, even to the extent of investors and homeowners cutting and running when asset prices dipped in the late 2000's. This in all evidence was a choice of many asset - holders who were making leaps and bounds financially, at least at first, but who took risks and denigrated particular types of assets and / or the taxes on their gains when they were not as expected individually. This is an implication in this text of the new search for tax reform and other, popular trends that commentators and voters, citizens and wage - earners alike are talking about. Thus, the publication of such a provocative text in an election year will enhance the overall reform discussion should any candidate read it and choose to speak about his related views. Since the funding of federal programs like MediCare and Social Security now depend to a great extent on future improvements to the tax system and the time is again now for the parties to play their hands on the subject, such literature is propitious and timely, and deserves at least leadership among academics and federal officials in this discussion.

 

With the Obama Speech - 6 September 2012

 The 2012 Political Contest -- Opinion.

 

It is perhaps entirely true the speakers from the U.S.'s major liberal party have a smoother and more easy going style in their public appearances and talks, save for one or two extremely strident leftists who appeared at the Democratic party convention podium within the last few days.  The U.S. Democratic party at this point, as many liberal parties do, has portrayed itself as the pragmatic and businesslike political voice at this point.  This is no different from the message as given by any liberal party in any fair election in the free world; there's nothing wrong with it, it's just the same old line, I might respectfully propose here, that liberal parties in the Western world have been talking since time immemorial.  With respect to this, and with respect to the current economic / commercial / business climate in the U.S. and its international position with respect to same, there are many within our shores who do believe the federal government should remain as it stands, with its current role in many of the lives of the U.S. populace as guide and guarantor.  There is nothing wrong with this thinking, especially given the overflow of issues the Democrats are covering in this election - maybe to guide the voting attitude and attention of the populace, but more probably just to promote the agenda of their party that makes the federal administration in many cases everyone's biggest customer - from taxes, to services, and even to the goods we buy at the local store or online.  There is an argument somewhere in the literature that if your populace is bored and apathetic, and if there are seemingly unbearable social and other problems afoot, that liberal governments are indeed a way of muddling through these issues.  In other words, if you are battered and have little faith in yourself as an American at this point, and you are relinquishing your strengths for the most part to make a life for yourself and your family, sometimes in some countries right now an evident and obvious political trend, then vote Democratic in the November general election. 

 

There is a contrarian and again, controversial attitude for the voter as presented in a challenging way by the Republicans at this point, and this has to do with an overall avoidance involved with the paternalism (in fact, very tightly knit and even abusive paternalism on the part of a federal or even state administration) as briefly illustrated in the preceding paragraph:  The major campaign difference at this point depends upon the Republican contrasting the Democrats as those soliciting the business of big government, with more revenues to the public sector through taxes and debt proceeds, primarily; to the basic Republican ideas of getting going on solving the problems of the day through debate and consensus, and without the totem of public enterprise that is worshipped by many liberals.  The conservative party in America does as an entirety probably believe such attribution to the federal administration, that of social and societal benefits and guarantees in increasingly risky public finance schemes (as things have to be paid for,) is unnecessary insofar as private and regional interests can more narrowly define and solve the issues and problems of the day instead of the kind of centrist fortification the Democrats believe in themselves.  The speakers of the day at the latest party convention in North Carolina extoll the virtues of big government and encourage everyone listening and watching to value big government projects and financing, and why not?

 

The fact remains that history is full of examples in which funding for public projects was made by nation states and their process of approval through bicameral legislature and checks and balances, and this even though the projects were extremely costly and later bankrupted the governments completely.  The 'pragmatic' liberals at this point in America might nod to themselves that we are already in an unrecoverable situation with respect to finances and compare and contrast other regions, for example, that are supposed to be worse, and that their "liberal" governments have seen them through.  This is really untrue, as America still has a very high standard of living far above most of its international neighbors, and for the time being, and the U.S. can withstand currently its big government expenses:  Right now, but maybe not much longer given the somewhat gloomy international recipe many economies have going forward into the future at this point.  Even the greatly dependable economic producers of late, China and the 'Four Tigers' (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, …) and many other world regional economies predictably face the doldrums in the new media and other current business and commercial forecasts.  This might in part be due to internal uncertainties in different regions, uncertainties about state and regional leadership and the like, but it has put a damper on the U.S. future in its role as international economic / political, etc., leader and powerhouse.  This limitation is worrisome and especially given the tone of the speakers at the Democratic convention, promises an eventual selling of the proverbial seed corn that has our federal government watching over us and providing a safety net and other offices for people to turn to. 

 

Even for the most dour and pessimistic of voters, probably among whom I do count myself, who will cast their votes in November, it becomes clear after a quick study of the promises made within the last few days, that our federal administration can only do so much to guarantee the quality of our lives, and this no matter how many tax and other dollars are spent on the subject.  This is an ordinary case of diminishing returns to the kind of federal policies we have had in the last few years or so, not including the wars, and while only the general election will prove whether or not people need it stopped, the treatment of the federal and state treasuries as a policy in the collection and expenditures process in which they have been treated of late is extremely dangerous to the political process in the capitol, and even more dangerous in the burdens it presents to the ordinary U.S. citizen, no matter the imputed or promised benefits.  The great idealist and thinker Max Weber, in his writings, did cite a principle in which political representatives and administrators, especially the leading ones, had a main obligation to digest and solve issues and problems in ways understandable to the common people and the voting public.  This is perhaps one of the strong points of our democracy as our leadership, with its checks and balances, has almost always obliged itself to do.  The way public finances have been ignored by the current administration and its related policies in its doings have never been altogether clear and in this way present a prospective danger to the relationship between the voter / taxpayer and the federal administration in the U.S.  No one seems to have pointed this glaring issue in and of itself to the public and this is because the identities of the problem are everyone's purview. 

 

The tree of public finances appears to have been shaken too much at this point by the current leadership and this has proven dangerous - a.  To the young and able people in this country who want to pursue high - quality education; b.  The ability of wage earners to provide for their families financially, primarily due to federal tax and other burdens; c.  The lack of perceived benefits in pursuing administrative careers does alienate and turn away capable people; d.  At a time of heavy spending among what appear to be cliquish and closely - knit federal departments and programs, the voter / citizen / wage earner is being asked and compelled to sacrifice things financially and even morally at the hands of people who are feeble as administrators, who have their pet projects, and who solely engage in self - interested rhetoric; the list goes on.  In some ways, the social commentators and thinkers of long ago, and the modern economists with their various models that are admired alike, in their various analyses and conclusions about our status as a nation in choosing a new leader, albeit still formidable and influential in the world overall, would propose serious remedial and needed renewed and fresh efforts to approach the loose ends created by rhetoric and profuse and what some term irresponsible federal spending and its pauperizing effects.  We can continue the current policies of revenue collection and allocated program spending as they are apparent to most voters, and foreseeably face the economics and political situation of governments like Spain or Georgia, for example.  Thus, the call for change and the like among Republican and Democratic candidates is highly appropriate right now:  There will be much thoughtful and rhetorical currency spent on this and related issues as well during the debates and even after election day as these same, basic issues carry much hidden weight and are gravely in need of attention, and have been so since some time in the past. 

 

 

 

Created with Microsoft OneNote 2010
One place for all your notes and information