The Gleichschaltung of Global Taxes
From the desk of George Handlery on Sat, 2010-02-06 11:15
1.World Economic Forum in Davos. Fortunately, the gathering that was rich in atmospherics and short on measurable results – at least for outsiders – is over. That means no more nostalgic fist waving demonstrators for peace and justice beyond the gates demanding the implementation of their favored dead systems. Equally nice is to be rid of TV reporters that have nothing to report and so resort to snow-flock counting. Sweetening the fare are cameras panning on mountains whose peak is hidden in a cloud. Presumably, the fog comes from the whipped up common places generated in luxury hotels. (These images the writer can beat without trying from his kitchen window.)
The discussion raging in Davos, regarding the wisdom of the bail out of undertakings that are “too big to fail” lacked a matching insight. This time firms tagged as “too big to fail” were saved from the consequences of their folly. In the next crisis, to which the rescue could contribute, we might encounter tottering businesses that are “too big to save”.
2. Davos intensified the noises made by the regulators in charge of the finances, fiscal policies and the tax take of states. The existing abuses call for an improvement of the framework within which the world economy is to operate. The solution of “more state”, however, is not one of the responses that the problems warrant. A result of the get together and its consensus is that certain projects have become fit to be discussed in the polite society of the sane. Essentially the “what if” talk now involves internationally coordinated taxes on fortunes, interests and dividends. It is coupled to making banking transparent (nastily put: no privacy) and to facilitate thereby the grab by the globalized IRS’s of the world. An unmentioned motive is to finance tax-and-spend policies. Do not count on deficit reduction emerging a consequence of unsound sovereign debtors. After a pause while skimming the milk, taxes are likely to grow. That will come about because the international competition for capital and the capable that are also high earners, will weaken.. The reaction to abolished alternatives will be higher taxes levied by states. Once we can look back at the past, we might be made to conclude that one of the main casualties of the crisis of 2008-10 has been the free movement of talent and capital to where their input would have led to the highest returns. Besides the reduced benefits derived from these factors of production, the corresponding reduction of venture capital backing pioneering projects might stand out. As a result, we will all get a bit less rich and innovating. But at least all will share the stagnation. No government run economy will be shamed for its incompetence through its comparison with better systems. The negatives of the sketched process will mainly hit the EU economies. The countries enjoying the greatest immunity from the over-response aimed at the wrong targets will be located in Asia. The USA will start out on the path and then a political turn around will stop the process.
More solutions. Attempts are made to respond to the existing exaggerations found in the incomes of leading bankers. Admittedly, millions in the elevated two-digit weight class might be a bit too much for anyone’s services. Even in cases when they operate(d) with state funding, banks defend the practice. Their claim: unless going wages are paid, the mobile talents will leave. The Left responds by wanting to limit incomes everywhere to the lowest employee wage multiplied by twelve. Anything as drastic as that, even if implemented, will drive talents out of banking. (Will they become public servants?) Here again, we might gain equality and lose the contributions of the gifted. Giving more power to stockholders over management might be better medicine. However, regardless of its virtues, the measure – and other sensible regulations that do not intend to shackle Gulliver to raise the stature of midgets – would not create the hot air, which some colorful political balloons need to soar.
3. Our present experience can confer upon past events a new significance, which we had missed when the occurrence and we were contemporaries. One such incident is that of the Korean War. Witnessing it as a sub-teen has been, in itself, an education. It seemed that with the war our liberation from Soviet servitude is approaching. It was therefore at first scary to see that Communist aggression was about to bring the entire peninsula under its sway as the front approached Pusan. Accordingly, at school we were ordered to display a big map of Korea. With red flags born by needles, we had to mark the daily progress of the “liberation” that kept us locally in slavery. Then came the Inchon landing and the red tide was reversed. Suddenly the maps disappeared and there were no more pushpins with little red flags for us to move. We delighted in this and had fun asking intentionally stupid questions of our embarrassed teachers who were under orders to explain the undesired reality away. This seems from today’s vantage point as cruel: we guessed that the instructors shared our wish to have those red flags recede from our place, to. Preferably from the Yalu to the suburbs of Moscow. Understandably, when Truman stopped McArthur I hit the set on which I got the news from an illegal station.
Long before I got to America, I had a strong sense that the management of the Korean conflict represents an unacknowledged seminal event. In the case of the earlier Berlin Blockade and the Airlift, America marked her territory and drew the limits of her patience. The credibility created prevented much trouble and blocked challenges while these were still in the thinking-about-it phase. In the conduct of the Korean War, the seeds were planted that undermined the full credibility of the USA during the Cold War. Even today, albeit coupled to “Viet Nam”, American reputation, credibility and deterrence continue to suffer. Naturally, soon this could prove to be an understatement in case one of unpleasant scenarios involving Little Kim when his Big Bomb materializes. America might see itself as defined by its record at Corregidor, Iwo Jima or the Bulge. Her foes recall official withdrawals registered as defeats due to her failing will. It is a long list and includes items such as the Korean “armistice” or the Vietnamization that turned over the country to an invasion by Hanoi. The prize still being paid in installments for the impression of fickleness created by dropping of Korea and rewarding an aggressor for his stubbornness. Korea again comes to mind as it is made relevant through another association. The record the “Alliance” is forging now in Iraq and Afghanistan is the issue that makes the observer to think of Korea. In the Korean War, the US acted practically alone as even from Nato countries only nominal support has trickled. The same is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. The threat from the radicals whose base is challenged in these countries might be directed against all members of the US-led alliance. The military participation, even the political support given, tells another story. Keeping politely silent regarding the discrepancy between implied promises and actual performance aggravates the perennial problem. It would seem that the US’ system of alliances might need some re-thinking and its terms would benefit from adjustments.
4. Mr. Kellenberger who heads the Red Cross argues that the “by far stronger party” is to be nudged not to deploy weapons that effect civilians. The problem that the demand ignores is that terrorist today, as did states at war in earlier times, likes to hide behind the principle of the protection of civilians. Here “hide” is meant literally. The attempt to avoid civilian casualties converts pure civilian targets into ideal protected hiding places that are out of bounds. This applies both to the making and storing of war related material as well as the use of weapons. This use of civilians to protect fighting capacities favors not only the underdog with whom we are to sympathize. The principle can be applied to become the best defense of terrorists enjoying guaranteed immunity. The norm of the inviolability of civilians is applied fairly only if we insist that all parties, even the Jihadists, must respect it. This implies that in the event of the consequent non-observance, consequences need to be implemented. Those using civilians to enhance their ability to wage war must be declared war criminals. The same principle should be applied to movements that murder civilians to paralyze their humanist-minded foes. Lastly, the responsibility for civilian casualties should be assigned to the party that exploits civilians as a cover. Once non-combatants lose their utility as shields, their misuse by fanatics will also abate.
RE: The Gleichschaltung of Global Taxes 4
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2010-02-09 19:43.
Firstly, Mr Handlery has yet to answer as to what his current judgment of MacArthur’s conduct during the war is. Secondly, I disagree that the Korean War was a “seminal event” for the reasons that Mr Handlery posits or that it ended in failure. Thirdly, Obama’s objective is to remain in office. Although his wife has deep-seated convictions, he does not appear to. Some of his opponents over-estimate his abilities and mistakenly believe that he harbors a secret and grandiose design to impose tyranny on the American people. I am uncertain if this is the gist of Mr Fincioen’s article; however, I have already commented on Mr Fincioen’s credentials and views here, and I have no intention of taking him seriously now.
Gleichschaltung # 3
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2010-02-09 04:09.
While Handlery told little stories from his youth, it should be obvious that he was presenting his CONTEMPORARY judgments of the Korean war. Particularly, in his long second paragraph on the subject he makes the link to subsequent wars and the impact on American credibility.
I certainly did not make any comparison between Bush and Obama, but addressed the Kapitein's question about current US strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama is not interested in "leaving victoriously". His goals are entirely domestic in nature - socialist societal transformation - and a weakening of the US footprint in the world. It is too bad the Kapitein cannot read the Dutch language section of this website, which presently contains an excellent article by Mr Fincioen explaining the Obama 'agenda'.
RE: The Gleichschaltung of Global Taxes 3
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2010-02-09 01:37.
The point is clearly that Mr Handlery was not in possession of all the facts when he became upset over MacArthur’s dismissal, nor as a pre-teen did he have the same intelligence and analytical capacity as he does as an adult. Therefore, it would be reasonable that his opinion of MacArthur’s dismissal could have changed. At present, Mr Handlery has only spoken to his pre-teen opinion on the matter. I can assure you, that I once subscribed to the notion that both the Soviet Union and China should have been attacked before they could build up credible nuclear deterrents.
I referenced Sino-Soviet responsibility only as part of an argument against Mr Handlery’s claim that North Korea’s existence is an American failure. Finally, total victory over the DPRK and Chinese “volunteer” forces would have necessitated efforts contrary to American national security and grand strategy.
The Bush administration did not have a clearly defined exit strategy for either Afghanistan or Iraq, and Bush, not Obama, initiated the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The Obama administration has experienced successive reverses in various policy initiatives, and has taken few actions independent of or divergent from those of its predecessor. It is naïve for Obama to believe that the US military can depart victoriously from either country, and that security can be provided without US support or intervention. Yet again (i.e. healthcare reform), Obama has set out a simplistic and unrealistic objective, passed the responsibility to others and is hoping for a victory attributable to his own efforts.
Gleichschaltung # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2010-02-08 23:48.
@ Kapitein
3) If you are suggesting that "illegal" radio stations tend to be less "in possession of all the facts" than legal ones, then you are obviously suffering from an excess of teutonic legalism and/or formalism. Yes the law matters, but the nature of the law matters even more. Whatever the environment was of Mr Handlery's pre-teen years, it seems obvious to me that he has more experience of what living in 'unfreedom' really means, than either you or me. And, in any case, he has since then had ample opportunity to acquaint himself with the relevant facts concerning the Korean war. His judgement TODAY about the McArthur dismissal is different from yours, and it has nothing to do with his constrained access to facts in his preteen years.
It is very easy to say that "Beijing and Moscow must take responsibility for the conditions in North Korea". But grownups and realists know that they will not. "Taking responsibility" is not congruent with autocratic systems of government.
I am surprised that you seem to have difficulty in 'reading' current US strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. That strategy of the Obama Administration is clearly to leave Iraq and Afghanistan over the next 2 years, and in the meantime to strengthen 'friendly' forces there as much as is still possible. The "soul searching" is over, and both sides in Washington have (belatedly) learned that Paris and Berlin cannot be relied upon to 'take their responsibilities', just like Moscow and Beijing.
4) I think you are not reading Mr Handlery correctly. He certainly did not advocate a concept of "total war". He merely criticised Mr Kellenberger's (Red Cross) one-sided view. However, Handlery, you, and I, probably do agree on the naivety of "so-called humanitarians and peace activists".
RE: The Gleichschaltung of Global Taxes
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2010-02-08 22:27.
RE:
3. As a “sub-teen” and reliant on an illegal radio station for information, it is to be understood that you were not in possession of all the facts at the time. However, I trust that you now would have concurred with MacArthur’s dismissal. MacArthur ignored the strategic importance Beijing placed on the Yalu River, as well as the crossing of PLA “volunteers” into North Korea, thereby allowing his victory over North Korean forces to be reversed and the Armistice Line to be set at the 38th parallel. Also, he challenged Truman’s presidential authority, violating the US constitution.
The Berlin Airlift was clearly a non-aggressive alternative to breaking the blockade through military force and supplying West Berlin by land. Airstrikes against Soviet bases were as prohibited then as were airstrikes against Chinese bases after November 1950. Moreover, the United States was comparatively stronger vis-à-vis the Soviet Union during 1948-1949 than during 1950-1953.
I disagree that a divided Korea is an American failure. On the contrary, South Korea is an American and South Korean success. Beyond Pyongyang’s dynasty and generals, Beijing and Moscow must take responsibility for the conditions in North Korea and for Pyongyang’s destabilizing postwar aggression.
The US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has been a disaster and failed to convince either the American people or Muslims of US benevolence. Airstrikes are one thing; occupations something else altogether. If Washington needed more allied support, it should have paused before investing Iraq. It remains unclear what exactly US strategy is in Afghanistan or Iraq, whether this strategy will benefit national security and whether the resources deployed and tactics used can meet these strategic objectives. Washington has a great deal of “soul searching” to do before demanding that Berlin or Paris deploy more forces.
4. I fully agree. I don’t want to argue semantics, but I would consider the war against Islam a total war. Although so-called humanitarians and peace activists regularly critique the limited wars undertaken by Western democracies, they forget their vehement opposition to confronting the Axis Powers during the 1930s, and forget that the “greatest generation” deliberately killed civilians. Yet the IDF, which endeavored beyond any other armed forces before or since to protect Lebanese and Palestinian civilians during complicated and difficult urban operations against irregular forces is denounced and held up for war crimes.
It would seem that the US’
Submitted by mpresley on Sat, 2010-02-06 19:57.
It would seem that the US’ system of alliances might need some re-thinking and its terms would benefit from adjustments.
Iraq and Afghanistan are borrowed money spent on bad. The idea (apparently believed by George Bush--who knows what Obama believes, if anything at all?) that these people are little Jeffersons just waiting for an opportunity to become liberals is so wrongheaded that it makes one wonder whether anyone, anywhere in government has any good grasp on reality. Anent Korea: it's been 57 years since the armistice. Good to know progress is being made.