Republican Idea of Bi-Partisan HealthCare Reform

Almost anyone old enough to vote probably remembers the Obamacare fight of 2009\10.  It was a debate full of reason, toned-down emotion, and people being civil to each other... HAHAHAHA Yeah right.  The outrageous lies, hysteria, and stubbornness from Republican and conservatives quickly drowned out any reasonable concerns and disagreements.  I've compiled a very small sampling of the cartoons and signs from the time.

Add caption

So after that nonsense 8 years ago, we now have Republican president-elect Trump coming into office.  And Trump has called for Bi-Partisan reform of Obamacare from the Democrats.  If democratic officials go along with it, they are even more feckless than I realized.

Why Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Rejoice

Though Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination(and is now set to endorse Hillary), those who supported him have a lot to celebrate.  It may not look like it now. It is easy to feel despair and disappointment when you've come so close to a dream and then just miss it - And getting a good man like Sanders nominated and then elected President was indeed a good dream. But there is no need to despair.  Once you take an honest account of the number of hurdles that candidate Sanders had to overcome, and take a look at the voter demographics... the future should look bright and shiny to you.

Before getting into the good parts, you must ask yourself: "Why do I support Bernie Sanders?" For most, the answer isn't just "cuz he's a nice guy". It is because he represented your values and views on so many different issues. It's not about Bernie Sanders. Sanders states this often,

I’m the only candidate who says no president, not Bernie Sanders, can do it all. You know what we need? We need a political revolution in this country

If you believe in that revolution, do not despair. It isn't about Bernie Sanders.

But Bernie Lost!

While it is true that Bernie lost, think about how close it was and all the hurdles that had to be overcome to even make it close.

Bernie Sanders was a flawed candidate.  Sanders was not a smooth talker.  He had an odd cadence and a Brooklyn accent that he never lost.  He was from a small state that doesn't have much influence in primary or general elections(like say, Iowa, Hew Hampshire, or Florida).   He was old.  Older than an other successful presidential candidate running for his first term.  I'm not saying that that meant he shouldn't be president, but to a lot of voters that can be detriment.  And of course, he'd spent the last 40 years calling himself a socialist. "Democratic socialist" or not, that is not a great way to get yourself elected in American politics.

And of course, Hillary Clinton.  Hillary and her husband are big names in the democratic party and lined up support for years behind a Hillary run.  That support brought almost the entire democratic establishment behind her.

What is your point already!?

In spite of all that, you almost got him the democratic nomination.  It shouldn't have been close. The establishment and the money was all aligned for Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders made a name for himself by taking on very powerful interests, interests that would want to see him crushed.  And yet, you almost got him nominated.  A flawed candidate, with no powerful friends, against an establishment figure and he damn near won.  That. doesn't. happen.

Now, look at the demographics of who supported Sanders and who supported Clinton.  Sanders had the young crowd.  Clinton had voters over 60, Sanders had voters under 30.  Even among African Americans - where Hillary dominated Sanders - the younger generation was much closer.  What do you think is going to happen in 4, 8, 12 years from now?  That older generation will be smaller and the younger generation will be larger. If this primary contest would play out 8 or even just 4 years from now, it would very likely end up differently.  Based on demographics, it is only going to keep getting better and easier for the next 20 years or so.

Furthermore, imagine a candidate that doesn't have as many disadvantages as the Sanders Campaign. That isn't going up against the entire democratic establishment, is younger, didn't claim to be a socialist, from a larger state, a little smoother, but still took on powerful interests.  Heck, with a candidate like that, (s)he might've beat Hillary in 2016.

I am optimistic about the future.  If you are a Bernie supporter, you should be too.  In 4 or 8 years, another candidate is going to run for president that has all of the same qualities you like about Bernie Sanders. That candidate is going to have better demographics going into the election, and likely have less hurdles than Sanders did in 2016.  And it'll only keep getting easier.  We are looking at a left-wing that can easily get candidates nominated and elected for the next 20 years. That is something to smile about.

The Truth About the Greek Loan Default

The events surrounding Greece's default is the culmination of everything wrong with the world order today:  An incorrect view of how modern currency works; a cultish adherence to debt repayment, a political order that puts the interests of international creditors ahead of ordinary workers, and a complete inability for the international power elite to admit they are wrong.

Of all the things that are wrong, I think the most perverse is the cultish attitude towards debt repayment.  Greece has no ability to pay back its debt.  For the last 5 years, it has agreed to almost every cut in government spending the E.U. and IMF have insisted on.  It has raised its retirement age by over a decade to 67.  It has continually increased taxes.  And yet, when none of these worked, the elite demanded more, more, and more.  Never considering that its time to declare bankruptcy and start over.

Despite 5 years of making things worse, The IMF, E.U. and World Bank continue to hold to their same old prescriptions: Cut government services to the poor, cut health care spending, raise taxes on labor, and cut taxes on capital.  That's right, you read that last part correctly.  As they insist on raising sales taxes - they call it VAT or Value-added-tax(the most regressive tax in modern democracies), they have insisted on Greece cutting corporate taxes.  The elite adhere to the idea of neoliberalism.  That if the country quits taxing capital and investment and moves taxes to a sales tax, at the same time they cut welfare then the country will prosper, tax revenues will go up, and the budget will be balanced.

Of course that idea has almost never worked.  (I can't think of a single instance where it did, but I'll say "almost" just in case there was one).  Despite this low success rate, the global elite keep trying to impose these policies on in-debt nations through the IMF, World Bank, and now... the European Central Bank.  Greece is only the latest causality.  It is shocking because its the first time the global elite have done this to an industrially advanced and well-developed country.  Their usual targets are 3rd world nations in Africa and Latin America.  Despite these neoliberal ideas hardly ever working, and not working in Greece for the last 5 years, they keep trying.  It is like a religion to them and they can't accept that it is failing.

Many people over simplify the problem by suggesting that Greece has "lived beyond its means" - I've seen that attitude in non-partisan business reports on the issue.  Thus trying to frame the whole thing as a morality play and those lazy-ass Greeks are getting what's coming to them.  This is a complete misunderstanding of currency and a reduction of a complex issue into willful ignorance.  They think that well if Greece is in debt, they just need to do what everyone else does: increase revenue and cut spending.

The problem is, if I do that, it affects very few people.  If a national government does that it affects a lot of people, raise unemployment, and put the entire country's economy into a tailspin... which results in lower, not higher revenue.  Also, if a person accumulates too much debt that they can't pay it, they can default.  A country cannot default without causing an entire economic shit-storm.  In addition, the E.U., IMF, and World Bank make it as hard as possible on countries that consider default by trying to cut all future financial ties.

Rather than default, the proper way for a nation to deal with a debt problem is to devalue its currency.  What this means is that their currency is worth less vs other currencies(like U.S. dollars vs Mexican Peso)  Either "naturally" by letting the currency exchanges happen naturally(this is what most countries do) or they do it explicitly if they have a "fixed exchange".  (Few countries have a "fixed exchange" where they declare something like they'll trade 7 lira for 1 American dollar or .01 oz of gold, but if they do and they have a debt\deficit issue, the can just decrease the exchange)

Unfortunately, Greece cannot do that.  Greece doesn't control their own currency the way other nations do.  They use the Euro.  Therefore, bankruptcy or accepting the terms of their new lender masters(IMF, World Bank, and E.U.) are their only options.  And since 5 years of being at their mercy hasn't resolved the issue, you can now understand why they chose default.  With 25% unemployment, a welfare state that has been gutted in 5 years, and taxes higher than ever, what choice did they have?

Well, that isn't completely true. They have another choice.  They can dump the Euro and go back to the Drachma.  All this strife never would've happened if they still used the Drachma.  Sure, they still may have suffered some economic consequences, but not to the degree that we have seen.  Even if one were to concede that Greek budget deficits were too high, the only consequence would've been the Drachma was worth less in the world.  That would've meant that all Greek's were poorer, sure (in other words... ALL citizens would've shared a small dip in wealth instead of just the poor not being able to find a job).  However it wouldn't have caused 25% unemployment for the next 5 years.  It also would've meant that Greece suddenly became an attractive place for a business to make goods for export.  If that had happened, instead of hearing lies about lazy-ass Greeks living beyond their means, we might instead be hearing about the Greek miracle of how Greece came out of the 2009 recession to become an industrial power house of Europe.

This could be the ultimate way out for Greece.  In fact, some insiders have noted that if the Greece government started giving out IOUs for its debts, and accepted them back for payment, the IOUs could become a defacto new currency.

For the sake of the people of Greece I sure hope they choose a route that does something like dumping the Euro.  Unfortunately, many people in Greece and its government don't realize the Euro is causing their trouble and want to keep it.  For those who may be inclined to agree, I have to ask, is 5 years of 25% unemployment worth the convenience of a single European currency?

The Comical History of Capitalism(the word)

This is not about capitalism, the theorized socio-economic system of production.  This is about the word “capitalism” itself.  The term, “capitalism” has been used, abused, reborn, and re-mutilated so many times that if one were to use the term, you have to immediately stop and define what you mean by “capitalism”. Why is that?  There aren’t multiple definitions of mercantilism or feudalism.  So what happened to “capitalism”? To find out, follow me through the comical history of “capitalism”, the word.

In the Beginning...

"Capitalism" came into focus somewhere around the early to mid 18th century.  But nobody called it "capitalism" at the time.   The term "capitalism" didn't appear until about a 100 years later when it was first coined by socialists in the mid 19th century as a pejorative for the current state of the world.  This was when the term capitalism was first used to describe a socio-political-economic system.  (there are a few uses of the term pre-1850.  But they were all used as synonyms for commerce or a capitalist.  And was not widely used, and, therefore I think can be ignored)  So the first comical thing to note about the term, "capitalism" is that the history of the word is tied to socialism and socialist thought, and NOT to the system it describes.

What about Marx?

Here's another funny thing about “capitalism”.  Despite what most people think, Karl Marx, the most infamous socialist, neither coined the term nor popularized it.  The term "capitalism" was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,  A French individualist socialist(more commonly referred to today as an anarchist).   You will not find the term anywhere in The Communist Manifesto.  Later, when Marx and his partner Engels wrote Das Kapital, they would describe the situation as "the capitalist mode of production".  Engels may have used "capitalism" later in life, but neither he nor Marx popularized the term.

It wasn't until the turn of the century that it was made clear that "capitalism" was the word to describe what socialists opposed.  Werner Sombart's "Der Moderne  Kapitalismus" in 1902 exploded the term's popularity both inside and outside of socialist circles.  Or as respected historian Fernand Braudel puts it in his book Civilization and Capitalism:

In fact, it was not until the beginning of this century that it fully burst upon political debate as the natural opposite of socialism.  It was to be launched in academic circles by Werner Sombart's explosive book Der moderne Kapitalismus.  Not unnaturally, this word which Marx never used was incorporated into the Marxist model, so much so that the terms slavery, feudalism and capitalism are commonly used to refer to the three major stages of development defined by the author of Capital.

The term must have stuck because two years later Max Weber published his famous tome, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" which is "the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century".

So, to be clear on why I find this so damn funny... At the beginning of the 20th century, "capitalism" became a "marxist" term that was neither coined nor popularized by Karl Marx!

Capitalism is a good thing now?

Now fast forward 60 years.  It's 1962 and at this point, The terms “capitalism” and “capitalist” had been pejoratives and a negative descriptions used by socialists for 100 years.  Up until this point, intellectuals that were opposed to socialism described themselves as being in favor of liberalism(especially the classical kind) and not "capitalism".  Then, Milton Friedman publishes a book called Capitalism and Freedom in 1962.  And then 4 years later, Ayn Rand comes out with her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  In these books, these (now famous) authors described "capitalism" in glowing terms and came out FOR it.

Wait a minute!  (insert record scratch sound)  What the F*!)K Just Happened???  The 50s and early 60s mark when many intellectuals started openly using the term "capitalism" as the term for their ideal system instead of "liberal", "free market", "Laissez faire", or "free enterprise".  I've checked as many places I can think, but it just didn't happen until that time.

The Foundation for Economic Education was created in 1946 to promote free markets.  And no where in their founding 14 principals was the term capitalism.

The American Enterprise Institute founded in 1943 didn't defend "capitalism", it defended "competitive, free-enterprise".

The Founding article in William Buckley's conservative National Review mentions "capitalism" only in relation to socialism.  Among the magazine's "convictions", it only states "The competitive price system" and no mention of "capitalism".

Who can I blame for this???

Now we come to the person whom I blame for this whole mess:  Ludwig von Mises.  At the time, he was a semi-known Austrian economist who was very much in favor of "liberalism" and very much against socialism.  However, in his writings, he adopted the language of his socialist rivals.  In his 1922 book titled "Socialism", he acknowledged that the term "Capitalism" was a "political word".  He stated:

The terms "Capitalism" and "Capitalistic Production" are political catchwords. They were invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp, to criticize, to condemn. Today, they have only to be uttered to conjure up a picture of the relentless exploitation of wage-slaves by the pitiless rich. They are scarcely ever used save to imply a disease in the body-politic. From a scientific point of view, they are so obscure and ambiguous that they have no value whatever. Their users agree only in this, that they indicate the characteristics of the modern economic system. But wherein these characteristics consist is always a matter of dispute. Their use, therefore, is entirely pernicious, and the proposal to extrude them altogether from economic terminology, and to leave them to the matadors of popular agitation, deserves serious consideration.

Despite that, Mises attempted to "appropriate the word for his own purposes".  After acknowledging this, 2 paragraphs later, he tries to justify the use of the term "capitalism" to describe the liberal system that he favored:

If the term capitalism is used to designate an economic system in which production is governed by capital calculations, it acquires a special significance for defining economic activity. Understood thus, it is by no means misleading to speak of Capitalism and capitalistic methods of production, and expressions such as the capitalistic spirit and the anti-capitalistic disposition acquire a rigidly circumscribed connotation. Capitalism is better suited to be the antithesis of Socialism than Individualism, which is often used in this way.

As far as I can tell, this 1922 book was the beginning of the shift in the meaning of the term Capitalism.

So then, what is the connection between Mises and future "capitalism" supporters?  Ludwig von Mises was Fredrich Hayek's teacher in Austria.  The one that converted him from socialism to "liberalism".  Hayek would later found a social club called the Mont Pelerin society in 1947 for free market economists.  At the founding meeting was Hayek, Mises, and... Milton Friedman, the aforementioned author of "Capitalism and Freedom".  I don't think it is a stretch to say that Mises attempts to redefine capitalism as a positive would've rubbed off on the younger economists.

In fact, before founding the society, Hayek published the book "The Road To Serfdom" where he did pretty much the same thing as his teacher did in "Socialism".  He notes that the term conceals the truth, but then later redefines the term "capitalism" and then speaks approvingly of it.  On page 89 of the book he wrote

Though the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are still generally used to describe the past and the future forms of society, they conceal rather than elucidate the nature of the transition through which we are passing.

And then by page 109 he redefines capitalism and praises it as the only way democracy can thrive:

It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate "capitalism".  If "capitalism" means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible.

Another early and obscure attempt to redefine capitalism - and then come out in favor of it- was by Political Philosopher Frank Chodorov.  In October of 1945 he wrote an article titled "Let's Try Capitalism".  Whether his attempt to redefine capitalism was his own, or influenced by Mises, I cannot say for certain.  But being that he was very much active in the "free market liberalism" movement in New York for years, and that Ludwig von Mises had been teaching at NYU for 5 years while promoting free markets, it's not hard to fathom that they may have run into each other and exchanged ideas by 1945.  In fact, based on the fact that both men knew Murray Rothbard(Another "free market" advocate) and Milton Friedman, it is hard to imagine that they didn't at least know each other.

Backlash, and Backlash to the Backlash

So after the "free market" advocates tried to commandeer the word for their own purposes, you can imagine that there was a backlash.  But the backlash wasn't from state socialists.  It came from anarchists and other "free market" advocates!

In 1972 Murray Rothbard noted the absurdity of trying to commandeer the term "capitalism" as a description of what he advocated for.  By 1972 , Murray Rothbard notes in an essay that there are multiple definitions of "capitalism".  He tries to split the definition in two to describe two very different concepts, "free-market capitalism" and "state capitalism".  Naturally he is in favor of one and against the other.

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined
If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences.

Other, more modern writers have continued the backlash.  Sheldon Richman argues that libertarians should use "capitalism" as the description of what they oppose.

 We are a group of libertarians who understand that historically the word "capitalism" has meant, not the free market, but crony capitalism -- that is, collusion between business and State at the expense of consumers/workers. Thus we refuse to use the word "capitalism" to describe what we favor: individual liberty in all respects and free, competitive markets. We believe that what we have today IS capitalism -- and we oppose it.

Other modern free marketers have noted the same thing.  And now, of course, there is a backlash against this backlash.  The suggestion of letting "capitalism" return to it's original meaning, is rejected because(among other reasons), we shouldn't let the definition of words change.  I shit you not:

As Sheldon admits in his talk, however, changing words is like changing currencies.  If they're already widely accepted, you need a really good reason to abandon them.  Awkward etymology notwithstanding, I think the concepts of capitalism and socialism are good enough to keep using.

Conclusion

So now you know why it is so damn hard to talk about "capitalism".  And now, before one can even debate the merits of "capitalism", one has to define what they mean by "capitalism".  Do they mean the system of exploitation as defined by Proudhon or Marx(who both defined it differently)?  Or do they mean "a competitive system based on free disposal over private property"?  Or something else?  My recommendation is to never use the term.  If one has to define a word every time one uses it, then it's not a useful word.

If you enjoyed this article, let me know.  If there is interest I can attempt a similar article on the terms "socialism", "liberalism", "fascism", and probably even "keynesian".  Also, if you ever an article by an influential person from before 1922 describing "capitalism" as a good thing, please let me know.  I would be interested if there is another or a different person we can blame for this mess.

Just in Case you Thought Patents protected the small from the big.

I strongly object to all forms of software patents. I also believe other patents need to be reformed or even outright abolished.  When I tell people this I usually get a lot of pushback.  One of the arguments I hear is that Patents are there so that big companies can’t “steal our ideas”.  Obviously, I disagree.  And last week’s revelation about Microsoft’s 2 Billion dollar patent profits from Android Phones illustrates my point.

The problem with this argument, I think, is people’s view of how new inventions come about.  I think we all have a collective image of a quirky scientist working away in a tiny lab in almost complete isolation. Another image is some small start-up company spends years of time inventing some revolutionary new gadget or process.  In both cases, you might feel that it would be unfair for a big company to swoop in and “steal” their work and make a bunch of money off it.

It is these images that, I think, drive public support for patents.  But in reality these are exceedingly rare cases.  In reality almost all inventions are either small improvements on existing products, and\or was the result of teams of people working for an already large corporation or public institute.

Instead, what happens more often is that big companies use their patents to file lawsuits or threaten to file a lawsuit to keep would-be competitors from offering better and lower cost products.  That is what is happening with Microsoft.  Just the threat of being sued by Microsoft has scared businesses to collectively pay Microsoft 2 billion dollars in tribute every year.

What effect does this have on competition?  Well, first of all, it’s going to scare companies from getting into the smartphone business.  Less competition is going to drive up cost and drives down quality.  Secondly, any company that wants to get into the smartphone business will have to make sure that they have the money to either pay the patent tribute or hire an army of lawyers to defend itself in court.  Thus raising the start-up costs and further driving away potential competition.

Now think back to that quirky scientist and start-up company with a revolutionary gadget.  Let’s say they come up with a software patch that makes the android phone’s battery last longer.  Now let’s say they try to sell it as a patch for Android.  Uh oh, here comes Microsoft claiming that the software violates a Microsoft patent.  Now the company can’t sell it, even though they may have come up with the idea completely separate from Microsoft.  So now, instead of patents protecting the inventor from big business, it is big business that is protected from the little guy.

You might think that my scenario from above is contrived.  But that is exactly what happened when General Electric sued the small medical imaging company, DR Systems.

The patent in the case, entitled “picture archiving and communication system employing improved data compression,” was issued to Fairfield, Conn.-based GE in October 2003. 

DR Systems and GE compete in the market for Radiology Information Systems (RIS) and Picture Archiving and Communications system (PACS).
RIS is used by radiology departments to store, manipulate and distribute patient radiological data and imagery. The system generally comprises patient tracking and scheduling, result reporting and image tracking capabilities. 

Of course it isn't just small companies.  Large companies waste a lot of time suing each other as well.  Patent trolls are a major problem in the computer and software industry.  There are now entire companies whose sole existence is to file or acquire software patents and then sue everyone in sight.

Of course, big companies aren't immune to all this patent absurdity.  Google and other Android makes are being sued by their smartphone competitors.

Google probably knew this was coming. When it lost out in the Nortel auction, the company's top lawyer, David Drummond, complained that the Microsoft-Apple patent alliance was part of a "hostile, organized campaign against Android." Google's failure to get patents in the Nortel auction was seen as one of the driving factors in its $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola in 2011.
Rockstar, meanwhile, was pretty unapologetic about embracing the "patent troll" business model. Most trolls, of course, aren't holding thousands of patents from gigantic technology companies. When Rockstar was profiled by Wired last year, about 25 of its 32 employees were former Nortel employees.
The suits filed today are against Google and seven companies that make Android smartphones: Asustek, HTC, Huawei, LG Electronics, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, long considered a district friendly to patent plaintiffs.

The problem of these patents gets even more absurd and harmful.  Monsanto has taken to suing small time farmers for "patent infringement" because they planted seeds that they cultivated themselves.

According to the report, Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together hold 53 percent of the global commercial seed market, which the report says has led to price increases for seeds -- between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent. 

[snip] 

In the case of "Bowman v. Monsanto Co.," Bowman allegedly replanted second-generation seeds that had been purchased legally from a licensed Monsanto distributor instead of buying new seeds. Monsanto claims that in doing so, Bowman was essentially stealing its product. Monsanto has won battles in several lower courts.

Can you believe that?  If you purchase corn seeds and save 10% of your crop to replant next year, you're committing a crime!  I don't know if this patent absurdity can get any worse than this.  Whether it is a tech corporation like Microsoft extracting 2 billion from potential competitors, or Monsanto controlling small time farmers, patents are more likely to benefit the powerful at the expense of the small and the greater economy.

Syria - Trying to Understand What's Really Happening

The latest news is that Putin has successfully convinced the Syrian Dictator Al-Assad, to give up his chemical weapons in exchange for a guarantee that "The West" will not conduct air strikes against Syria.  Why would he do that?  Why would Assad agree?  To try and understand those questions, I think we have to know a little more about how other countries and regimes are reacting to the Syrian civil war.

As much as I'd like to believe that the Syrian civil war is about a group of people overthrowing a brutal dictator.  But while that might be what many Syrians are fighting for, that is not the only thing going on here.  I think the best way to think of Syria now, is as a Proxy war between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.

The Brutal Iranian theocracy is allies with Assad's Syrian regime.  It has been supplying the Assad Government with money, supplies, and weapons before and during the current uprising.  This is so well known, you'll forgive me if I don't provide a link backing up the claim.

Here's a lesser known fact.  The Saudi Royal dictatorship(along with Qatar) has been supplying the Syrian rebels with weapons and supplies for a long time.  First reported in June of last year(see here and here), it has been repeatedly confirmed since then over and over again (Qatar link).  So while it's lesser known to the public, it certainly isn't a secret.

Without getting into why the Saudi dictators and Iranian theocracy are enemies, let's explore why these two powers would be so bent on getting a "friendly" government in Syria.  There's the standard reasons:  Just to have another partner in the region, the country has some oil reserves - the lifeblood of economy in the middle east, is that it?  Before we answer that rhetorical question, let's ask the same thing of Russia.  What is their interest in Syria?  Russia has access to the second highest amount of oil and natural gas fields in the world and is a routine exporter of them.  So, therefore, Russia doesn't need Syrian (or for that matter, Iranian oil) like the U.S. and Western Europe does.  Often repeated in the media is the fact that Russia has a naval base in Syria.  This is cited as Russia's interest in the region.  Is one military base the reason to give free food, aid, and weapons to a regime that is about to collapse?  Why not stand back, and just buy off the victor to keep your facility?

These are all possible reasons why the leaders of these countries are spending so much to support "their side".  But the one thing almost never mentioned in all the analysis on TV news or front page papers is oil and gas.  No, it's not about Syria's oil reserves - they're pretty small compared to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.  It's about geography.

Iran wants to build an oil and natural gas pipeline going from Iran, all the way through Syria, and Lebanon, and eventually even into Europe.  The agreement was about to be finalized back in 2011:

The deal of new pipeline to transfer Iran's gas to Iraq, Syria and Europe will be signed on Monday between three countries in Asalouyeh port, south of Iran, Mehr news agency reported on Friday.

The primary agreement on the strategic project was reached in May in Baghdad.

 

Under the new deal, a gas pipeline will be constructed to transfer Iran's gas to Iraq and Syrian territories feeding their power plants and next through southern Lebanon will extend to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe.

But guess what?  Qatar and Saudi Arabia want the same thing - especially Qatar(another Royal dictatorship government).  Since at least 2009 they've been trying to get a natural gas pipeline from their country to Turkey.  Syria was not open to that deal and has been a major sticking point.

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).
"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Furthermore, even if NO pipeline was being built, Qatar probably wouldn't care what happened in Syria.  Qatar ships natural gas to Europe and is a large player(next to Russia) in that market.  But with a cheap pipeline, they would lose their market share and profitability.

Here's where things really start getting murky.  Saudi Arabia, the foremost player in middle east oil and gas, would love nothing more than to block their rivals Iran from building out their infrastructure.  That, combined with the prospect of weakening Iran seems to be fueling their interest in Syria.

The Saudi stance on Syria is motivated by a combination of personal, sectarian, and, above all, political factors. First, the Saudis were never head over heels about Assad and his Ba'athist secular ideology. Second, the continuous crackdown of the mostly Sunni political opposition by the Alawite-dominated regime made Riyadh very uncomfortable. Third, and most significant, Saudi Arabia perceived the decline of the Assad regime as a golden opportunity to weaken Iran, their bigger regional competitor. Moreover, supporting the opposition would also play well within Saudi Arabia while deflating some of the regional criticism regarding the KSA’s policy with respect to the Arab Spring.

So with Saudi Arabia and Qatar backing up the rebels you would think they're allies.  But they're not.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar Royal dictatorships could best be described as "frenemies".  To the point that the two dicators are backing different rebel groups in Syria.

Qatar backs the Muslim Brotherhood and, it appears, would not object to a brokered deal to end the insurrection that allows the MB to get its nose in the political tent, then make its play for winning control of the new government through some combination of foreign pressure, domestic mobilization, and elections.
Saudi Arabia, it appears, has no love for the Muslim Brotherhood and is perfectly happy to crater the Assad regime through a bloody insurrection abetted by foreign jihadis,  in order to deny Iran a regional ally, score another victory for fundamentalist Sunni rollback, and increase the pressure on the Shi’a-led government of Iraq by adding the factor of a hostile, pro-Saudi and overtly Sunni Syrian regime to the increasingly disgruntled and emboldened Sunnis of western Iraq (some of whom are reportedly participating in the Syrian war).

Let's go back to Russia.  What's their interest?  Sure, that naval base is nice, but their interest ALSO involves natural gas lines.  Russia(or should I say, Putin?) wants the Iran\Iraq\Syria natural gas line as well.  Putin wants more control and more influence on the flow of it and his allies' natural gas.  It is the only power that takes gas from Turkmenistan and ships it to Europe.  So a Qatar or Saudi friendly government in Syria would provide competition to Russia.  It's no wonder Putin would continue backing Assad.

But wait, you might say, isn't Iran going to send Natural gas through Syria to Europe?  Well, yes.  But the Iranian theocracy and Putin's Russia are close allies.  Putin, Iran, and Turkenistan control the first, second, and fourth largest natural gas reserves.  And since they can control Turkmenistan, they can better control prices.  Russia has no leverage to control Qatar.  Besides, as stated above, Qatar already manages to ship quite a lot of natural gas to Europe.

So, to recap.  Qatar doesn't want Iranian natural gas competition via a gas pipeline.  Iran and Russia really want it.  And Saudi Arabia just wants to weaken it's rivals.  All three groups are backing different Syrian factions.  What started out as a popular uprising has turned into a proxy war over regional politics and oil\gas exporting economics.  All this before we even get to the possibility of U.S.\Western involvement("involvement"  here is a euphemism for "bombing and killing a bunch of people").

Even if we assume for the moment that the Obama administration is genuinely concerned about the use of chemical weapons, that doesn't explain why the CIA has been supplying rebel factions from the beginning.  Fortunately, when asked about the weapons the U.S. government is sending to Syria, it is surprisingly up front about who and why.  They are trying to fund a fourth, more western friendly rebel group.

“Movement of those items [directly] to Gen. Idriss,” Kerry said, “is going to have an impact, particularly in the south,” where rebel fighters have begun to gain territory. Donor nations meeting here also pledged to funnel all future aid — weapons largely provided by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and nonlethal assistance from the United States, Britain, France and others — through the military council to prevent it from falling into the hands of Islamist extremist groups that have grown in power within the anti-Assad ranks.
Idriss, Kerry said, could not have been more clear about “what he and the opposition are doing to separate themselves from what some of the extreme elements are doing. . . . We are quite confident that he is a strong leader with the capacity to make a difference.”

That report was from April of this year, before the Chemical weapons usage.  The goal of supporting "moderates" is repeated in this more recent Sept 11th. article.

In addition to boosting support for rebels under the command of Idriss, who speaks fluent English and taught at a military academy before defecting from the Syrian army last year, U.S. officials in southern Turkey are using aid to promote emerging moderate leaders in towns and villages in rebel-held areas. Across much of the north, Syrians have begun electing local councils and attempting to rebuild communities devastated by war.
Ward’s team — working primarily out of hotel lobbies — has spent the past few months studying the demographics and dynamics of communities where extremists are making inroads. Targeted U.S. aid, he said, can be used to empower emerging local leaders who are moderate and to jump-start basic services while dimming the appeal of extremists.

Now it becomes clear what the Obama administration is actually trying to do.  If the U.S. government does nothing in Syria, 1 of 2 things will most likely happen.  1.  Assad survives the uprising and Iran becomes stronger than ever.  Also boosting Russian economic influence  2.  Saudi Arabia or Qatar backed Muslim extremists will take over the country that are as hostile to America and the West as Iran.  Neither scenario is a good thing for America.  This is probably why Obama was going to try and act directly against Assad under the guise of responding to his use of chemical weapons.  End the war quickly and better able to coordinate action so support the so-called "moderate" factions.

I don't agree with the reasons.  But I think it's starting to become a lot more coherent than the excuse of "limited strikes" and chemical weapons.

Syria, Obama, and More Violence as the Only Option

When President George W. Bush was gearing up to launch the invasion of Iraq under the guise of the "war on terror", a common critique was that he was using only one tool.  The cliche` "When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" was used to suggest he couldn't see beyond the military for ways of fighting Islamic extremists.  President Obama, a strong critic of the Iraq invasion is making the same mistake.

I can't imagine the amount of suffering of the Syrian people are suffering during their civil war.  Their President for life, Bashar Al-Assad, appears to be ready to hang on to power, or destroy the whole country trying.  On top of targeting civilians, hiring thugs and mercenaries, he is now using chemical weapons to try and kill all the rebels.

Obama and his administration also appears to be moved by the suffering of the Syrian civilians.  So he reached into his Presidential tool bag and pulled out... the U.S. military.

The United States military has provided Barack Obama with a range of options for launching an attack on Syria and is "ready to go" with an offensive, the US defence secretary has said.

There is now a growing belief in Washington that a US strike against Syria, possibly involving cruise missiles or long-range bombers, could take place in the next few days.

I understand people wanting to do something to stop the killing, but is sending in the U.S. military to fire million-dollar-each missiles the only way?  Military action isn't clear cut.  There's no guarentee that it'll do more good than harm.  You can't kill people without expecting blowback.

Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies on Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”

This doesn't mean that U.S. policy shouldn't act based on threats of other dictators, but it's best not to pretend that launching missiles and dropping bombs is consequence free.  Also under consideration should be "collateral damage".  "Collateral damage" is, of course, a nice clinical term for accidentally killing civilians - including children.  It is also something that the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs recognizes.

Conducting limited “stand-off” missile and air strikes against “hundreds” of Syrian military facilities, advanced weapons depots and defense facilities. The operations would involve “hundreds” of aircraft, ships, submarines and other forces. Cost estimates would be “in the billions.” Syrian retaliatory attacks and collateral damage would be a likely byproduct;
(emphasis mine)

Even though they aren't targeted, and attempts will be made to avoid it, the cost of military action must be weighed against the fact that innocent people will die at the hands of American weapons.  So what else could the government do other than military action?

There's diplomatic pressure, helping Syrian refugees, supplying doctors without borders with medicine and supplies.  Those are all things that can save lives without resorting to violence.  There are Syrian refugees crammed into camps that could use additional supplies.  Think of the cost of 1 1.4 million dollar missile.  Now think about how many people could be fed and get medical care for that amount?  One might argue that it won't stop the killing, but in all likelihood, no military action would either, short of all-out invasion or treacherous, long-term airstrikes.

There could be other options that would be less destructive, like working to help seal the Syrian borders to keep the Al-Assad regime from bringing in his own troops and supplies.  In this case Obama might still be using the U.S. military, but at least it's in a way that might be less likely to get civilians killed.

Finally, I'd like to end with asking a few annoying rhetorical questions.  Why is reigning down death from American planes and ships the first and, really, only option being considered?  I read an article called Obama's 3 options in Syria and they were all varying degrees of military action.  Why is that?  Is this a product of our Culture?  A product of American Empire?  A result of 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Why?

Alternatives to blocking American-US Airways merger via Lawsuit

On Tuesday, the U.S. justice department announced that it was filing a lawsuit to prevent American Airlines and US Airways from merging.

The Justice Department and attorneys general from six states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the $11 billion merger of American Airlines and US Airways, saying the combination would lead to higher prices and less service for consumers. The merger, which would create the world's largest airline, would "substantially lessen competition" for commercial air travel, contends the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

<snip>

A top concern is local markets, the Justice Department said. It cited the example of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, where the combined airline would control 69% of takeoff and landing slots, and 63% of the outbound nonstop routes.

All I can think is that the government and business are going to spend a whole lot of money and time fighting this.  Don't get me wrong, I agree with the goal of keeping the airline industry competitive and with smaller, not bigger airlines.  In the article the CEOs of the companies tried to portray the merger as "pro competitive", but that, to me, is an abuse of language.  Any time a market has fewer and bigger players, it is -almost by definition - going to be naturally less competitive.

Instead of using anti-trust law to break the increasingly large airlines, consume them by encouraging more start-ups to compete with them.  Smaller companies tend to be more nimble and better able to out compete niche areas of the market, and consume market share from the massive companies that become large and unwieldy.

The problem is that this hasn't been happening in the airline industry.  According to this site, there's only been about 1 new airline startup in the United State per year.  And just as many failing.  Why are there so few startups?  This article makes some suggestions as to why.

But getting an airline off the ground has become a lot more treacherous. High oil prices these days mean carriers must fly full planes to turn a profit, and smaller airports just do not provide enough passenger traffic. At the same time, the major domestic carriers are more entrenched than ever in their own hub airports, making it harder for a new entrant to wrangle gates there. And investors have become more cautious about lending to just any airline project.

But is that it?  I would add that the number or rules and regulations from the FAA, TSA, and other agencies piles on to the cost of startup airlines.  There are thousands and thousands of regulations on everything from plane specs, to passenger movements, and airports.

One might be tempted to think that those rules are put in place to protect passengers.  That may have been the intent, but the additional costs of compliance help further entrench the big airlines by raising the startup costs of potential competitors.

In some cases the big airlines may have helped write some of those regulations with the mind that it would cost them little to comply, but cost other's greatly.  Here a great article that goes into detail about how this has occurred in other industries.  How Regulations Help Sustain Corporate Monopolies

However, in the world which we inhabit, most in the “business community” (who are actually antithetical to true business), tend to favor the status quo where regulations are concerned. This conglomerate of business interests do their part to actually favor certain regulations, especially those that would save their huge corporate monopoly from the doomed-uncertainty and promise of competition a truly free  market would provide.

<Snip>

The example I shall be drawing from is documented on Bloomberg News, in an article published just yesterday. It is titled Accidental Death Becomes Suicide When Insurers Dodge Payouts by David Evans. Evans analyzes the case of Todd Pierce, a 46 year old cancer survivor killed in a horrific and fiery car accident. Through his employer, Todd took out accidental life insurance that would pay his wife were he to pass away unexpectedly, as did happen. Due to the pursuant contractual obligations mutually agreed upon by both parties, MetLife was expected to pay Todd’s widow an total of $224,000.  Despite the sheriff, the state medical examiner, and the official autopsy report concluding that Todd’s death had been an accident, however, MetLife made their own medical decision. They labeled the death a suicide, noting Todd’s previous battle with cancer and the toxicology reports which indicated he had a prescribed drug in his system. As any breach of contract would be submitted to, the case was brought to Federal court in Montana by Todd’s wife, Jane Pierce. What Jane didn’t know, however, is that she wasn’t just fighting for her husband’s benefits, she was fighting the corruption of the entire American corporate monopoly system.

This is but one existing example.  I'm willing to bet that the same is true with the airline industry.  It would be better, and more cost effective if the government started curtailing as many of these regulations as possible.  If it did, we might see more new competition and it wouldn't have to spend tens of millions of dollars to fighting lawsuits to keep the big guys from getting bigger.  Instead, the little guys could do that for us.