The article I'm examining is a 'New York Times' article by Eduardo Porter. Despite what some of you may think, the NYT can put out some quality pieces. This article isn't about headline news, but rather a continuing trend that is occurring within America: the weakening of the middle class and the stratification of the Bourgeoisie. The article can be found here.
Porter, the author, starts the article by comparing our modern times to 1988. He shows that technology has progressed beyond belief, that the average production of Americans has risen, and, disturbingly, the economic prosperity of most Americans has stagnated. The median income in America, adjusted for inflation, has remained at relatively the same levels since the mid eighties, though there was a spike in the data at the end of the nineties. Tangentially, the article fails to mention that these numbers are inflation adjusted, and it also uses the term 'typical' to denote median. Anyway, this is seriously concerning considering that both: the average production has increased, and the price of many items considered integral to the middle class; college expenses, home ownership, healthcare, ect; has risen faster than inflation. Porter points out the reason behind this. He shows the rich have been getting richer while everyone else has become poorer or remained the same. Porter also makes the point that what our nation considers middle class is increasingly becoming a fantasy. It is getting farther and farther out of most peoples reach. To demonstrate the increasing gap between classes, watch this video on Youtube. It is a very interesting piece detailing a study done by a Harvard professor.
I think something serious should be done to combat wealth and income inequality in the United States. Although what I'm about to propose may seem a bit drastic (and will no doubt receive tons of comments about), there has been other countries which have successfully done something like this. What I want to see happen is the salary of the CEO (and other executives) of any given company legally tied to the average amount of money that company pays its workers. So, in effect, the companies owners and executives will receive an incentive to pay their workers more money. They will get more money if they pay more and vice-versa. Perhaps if they cross a certain threshold, say Y x Minimum Wage, they could even get a small tax break on their income. Or, rather than tying it to minimum wage, perhaps we tie it to national median income. Give a tax break to CEOs (never have I ever said that) who pay a certain percentage above median income.
Currently there is no direct incentive for CEOs to pay better wages so most don't. I say direct because they do in fact benefit from paying their employees more money. Henry Ford payed his employees well and as a result he 'purchased' a loyal fan-base to buy his products. Most CEOs don't see eye-to-eye with this philosophy. If they were to receive some incentive, perhaps not even as extreme as what I'm suggesting, they would be more eager to pay their employees a better wage.
Now, some will probably think that this would be incredibly detrimental to our economy because we will lose job creators, and thus jobs. First lets examine the prerequisites required to open and operate a successful business. First, and probably most obvious, the potential business owner needs some form of Capital. The definition of Capital I prefer is: Capital is anything used to generate more Capital. Hence, Capital can be anything from a good idea, to money, to gold. Second, there needs to be demand for your product. This prerequisite is far more important. One cannot simply open a business if there is no niche for that business to occupy. The amount of people in the economy willing to spend their money on product A needs to be quantitatively large enough to support the owner of product A. Thus, the less money people on average have within our economy, the less niches there will be for products A, B, C, and D. Increasing the amount of people willing to spend money, P, within an economy will also increase the number of niches, N, in the economy. The variables P and N are directly proportional. Therefore artificially increasing P will produce a quantitatively larger N.
Because N is the response variable in this situation, it is pretty much impossible to artificially increase N itself. P needs to be increased to increase N. This is one reason why Supply-Side economics is inherently flawed, but that is another article entirely.
The point of that massive paragraph in abstract was to demonstrate that artificially increasing P by giving the proletarians more money (in the form of better wages) will by definition create more businesses. It will create, in abundance, the very thing potential business owners need the most to thrive: a market for their products.
Real quick, here is an article detailing what Switzerland did when they capped CEO's wages. Other countries also have regulated CEO wages but Switzerland's are the most extreme to my knowledge.
Overall, by increasing the pay check of the proletarians (aesthetically that word pleases me) it will do three things: one, it will decrease the income and wealth inequality in the U.S.; two, it will increase the opportunity for new businesses to flourish, and three, it will generate tax revenue and increase the rate our economy grows at. Other than the fact that CEOs are only going to be rich and not filthy stinking rich, there are no downsides that I can foresee with this.
You are more than welcome to comment if you disagree with my idea or need me to disambiguate something.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Monday, September 9, 2013
Syria
I decided to write this article on the the Syrian conflict and the overlapping foreign policy of the U.S. I examined a slew of newspaper articles, opinion papers, and studies to write this article, so I think it would be more appropriate to simply cite an article as I go rather than cite them all here. However, Noah's post was actually far better than most of the articles I read while researching, so I'll put his link at the top.
Just for some historical background, Syria is currently in the midst of a two-and-a-half year civil war. The conflict pits Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and his tightly knit military and secret police apparatus against the loosely organized rebel opposition. The opposition consists of a wide array of factions and organizations. They Range from the Muslim Brotherhood; to the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians; to the Syrian Democratic People's Party (a socialist party); to the Al-Nursa Front (an Al-Qaeda associate); to many other local factions and organizations. The Syrian rebels aren't always as righteous as some in our media proclaim. Nor are they a homogeneous entity with unified goals.
Those who like to condemn Assad like to also forget that some, if not a majority, of the belligerents opposing Assad are just as ruthless as he. One of the major differences - and most likely the cause of Assad's greater casualty infliction count - is the Regime has access to sophisticated weapons and the rebels don't. At least some of the rebels, particularly the ones affiliated with terrorist organizations, would be more than happy to use chemical weapons if they could get their hands on them. This article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages is guilty of only showing one side of the conflict, so is this article from the 'Washington Post'. It is important to evaluate the belligerents of a conflict when contemplating involvement in such conflict.
The article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages also seems to be relying on the idea that there are only two real choices in this matter. Which is not only fallacious but also an egregiously representative statement. There are many different options and even more consequences in this scenario. I will expand on this False Dichotomy in another paragraph.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not throwing in my support for Assad. Given only two choices: one being to aid Assad, the other being to aid the rebels, I would choose to aid the rebels. Luckily we are not forced between those two choices because both of them are horrible. Assad's regime is guilty of near-countless atrocities. Even without the civil war in mind, the Assad regime is one of the worst in the world. Prior to the civil war, The Assad regime was condemned by humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International for its poor human rights record. It often imprisoned those who spoke out against the Assad regime and used the military to back it.
During the Syrian Civil War, the Syrian Government has on multiple occasions used chemical weapons in the form of Sarin gas to further their cause. I say government because there is some dispute as to whether Assad himself approved of the use of chemical weapons. This article questions the assumption that Assad himself was responsible.
The government of Russia outright denies the allegation that Syria even used chemical weapons and instead blames the rebels. Russia may not be totally sincere in its accusation. Russia currently is the only country on the U.N. security council that is allied with Syria. Their veto is keeping some countries from potential military action against the Assad regime. If they deny the allegations condemning Syria of using chemical warfare, then they have a more defensible position to cast their veto power from. As for the reason Russian supports Syria, Russia, along with the U.S., is the largest exporter or arms and munitions in the world. One of Russia's largest clients happens to be Syria, and by extension the Assad regime. A successful war against Syria would be extremely detrimental towards the long term economic position of Russian arms exports.
Despite the conflicted validity as to whether or not Assad personally ordered chemical weapons, he nevertheless is still responsible for mass amounts of loss of life. Two-and-a-half years ago, when this debacle first started, it was Assad who ordered peaceful protesters to be fired upon. Therefore he started the war. He was the original aggressor.
Of the over 110,000 likely deaths that have occurred in this conflict, over 75% have been civilian, oppositions forces, or militia. This shows two things: one being that the overall death toll is incredibly high for a country with a population of 22 million, second being that the Assad Regime is clearly winning the fight. The second point is alarming because this makes the act of using chemical weapons even more nefarious because the government did so willingly and for expedience, not out of necessity.
In addition to the death toll, there is hundreds-of-thousands more who were wounded in the conflict. There is millions of refugees in the surrounding countries who have fled from Syria because of the conflict. Furthermore, there has been thousands of prisoners taken by either the Assad regime or the Rebels who were tortured and inhumanely imprisoned. The overall refugee export of Syria has had a destabilizing effect on the region. Countries such as Jordan or Turkey now have to make accommodations for hundreds-of-thousands of refugees. It's like if the amount of immigrants coming into the U.S. increased, overnight, twentyfold.
Now, on to the matter at hand. As I've stated prior, I think the way the media has narrowed down our options is a False Dichotomy. On the one hand we could do nothing, and on the other we could launch missiles and airstrikes at the Assad regime. To me, it seems as though there are a slew of options in between and a couple at the more proactive end that the media has not even dared touch.
We could (and I'm not advocating this) invade Syria and install a friendly 'democratic' government. The benefit of this idea is we possibly could get an ally in the region and there isn't any instability after Assad's death. However, the power vacuum would have to be filled with U.S. soldiers. The major downsides to this solution is the cost and loss of life. We have learned from experience that this idea doesn't work. In both Iraq and Vietnam we had a similar plan and failed miserably. Based on estimates from the Iraq war, we would need roughly 600,000 soldiers to complete this plan effectively. That would drag this country further into an already substantial debt and would overall not be good.
Another possible route is that we attack Syria in a limited way. We aid the rebels when we can and takeout major military installations with our bombers and missiles. We provide support but don't commit actual ground forces to the conflict. President Obama promotes this policy.
Many, including Noah, have compared this policy to the one used in the Libyan conflict a couple years ago. However the parallel between Libya and Syria, and their respective civil wars, is non-existent. They are two different conflicts, both in quality and quantity. For one, in Libya U.N. approval was achieved quickly and without any real pressure from the U.S. We had many different nations on our side who were willing to act on their own accord. This gave some minor amounts of international legitimacy.
Secondly, the two conflicts entail a vastly different amount of soldiers and causalities. In Libya, the government had an army of about 20,000 regular soldiers plus another 10,000 militia. These soldiers, though well trained, were up against an army of 200,000 volunteers. These 200,000 volunteers were well armed and included a number of Army deserters. The volunteers were also relatively well organized and homogeneous in their goals. However, in Syria, the government has an army of 170,000 soldiers including 80,000 regulars. The Syrian opposition's 60,000 man army is also made up of dozens of different factions. My point being Syria is completely a different kind of conflict than Libya was.
As a third minor point for the differences between the two conflicts, Libya is relatively isolated whereas Syria is not. Meaning Libyan instability doesn't spread as easily as Syrian instability.
If we were to launch airborne forces into Syria there would no doubt be high amounts of civilian causalities as a result. Assad might even lash out against Israel or Saudi Arabia (our allies in the area) and now we've only exacerbated the problem. My point being is there doesn't seem to be a plan for all of these what if situations. It appears the reserved military strike on Syria isn't well thought out. Just judging from what I know of the situation a military strike doesn't seem to solve any problems. It only causes more.
Beyond the strike itself, even if the Syrian government were to capitulate, our problems in Syria would still exist - perhaps even more so. The reason comes from the fact that the opposition in Syria is incredibly diverse. If and when the Assad regime topples there will most likely be a power struggle. Lack of any dominant military presence in the area will create a power vacuum. Within this vacuum there will be a great amount of civilian deaths and destruction. So, by toppling the Assad regime we may only breed more discord.
All-in-all I think the idea to use a limited strike against Syria may at first seem ideal, though upon further rumination it is just as bad as the first idea.
A third possible solution (still not the one I promote) is one involving complete isolation. I think Noah did a more than adequate job refuting this argument in his article. Most people in America are against a strike against Syria, as detailed here. However, I think most of the people have just taken a hefty dosage of international apathy to counteract the Iraq War.
A fourth and final solution is one with no downsides, though it doesn't fix all problems. We should take a non-military active approach to this scenario. Meaning we provide generous humanitarian aid to the refugees outside - and civilians within - Syria. Granted this won't end the conflict, but it also doesn't risk exacerbating the conflict further. We won't risk another Iraq, yet we won't completely ignore the conflict. This will also help curb our governments constant need to be involved in a military expedition. Read this article if you want to read an analysis of the overuse of presidential war making powers, and a critic of the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. All-in-all not many pros in this idea it is just the lack of cons that make me in favor of this.
If you have a better idea, want me to disambiguate something, or wish to dispute something, please feel free to leave comments.
Just for some historical background, Syria is currently in the midst of a two-and-a-half year civil war. The conflict pits Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and his tightly knit military and secret police apparatus against the loosely organized rebel opposition. The opposition consists of a wide array of factions and organizations. They Range from the Muslim Brotherhood; to the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians; to the Syrian Democratic People's Party (a socialist party); to the Al-Nursa Front (an Al-Qaeda associate); to many other local factions and organizations. The Syrian rebels aren't always as righteous as some in our media proclaim. Nor are they a homogeneous entity with unified goals.
Those who like to condemn Assad like to also forget that some, if not a majority, of the belligerents opposing Assad are just as ruthless as he. One of the major differences - and most likely the cause of Assad's greater casualty infliction count - is the Regime has access to sophisticated weapons and the rebels don't. At least some of the rebels, particularly the ones affiliated with terrorist organizations, would be more than happy to use chemical weapons if they could get their hands on them. This article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages is guilty of only showing one side of the conflict, so is this article from the 'Washington Post'. It is important to evaluate the belligerents of a conflict when contemplating involvement in such conflict.
The article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages also seems to be relying on the idea that there are only two real choices in this matter. Which is not only fallacious but also an egregiously representative statement. There are many different options and even more consequences in this scenario. I will expand on this False Dichotomy in another paragraph.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not throwing in my support for Assad. Given only two choices: one being to aid Assad, the other being to aid the rebels, I would choose to aid the rebels. Luckily we are not forced between those two choices because both of them are horrible. Assad's regime is guilty of near-countless atrocities. Even without the civil war in mind, the Assad regime is one of the worst in the world. Prior to the civil war, The Assad regime was condemned by humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International for its poor human rights record. It often imprisoned those who spoke out against the Assad regime and used the military to back it.
During the Syrian Civil War, the Syrian Government has on multiple occasions used chemical weapons in the form of Sarin gas to further their cause. I say government because there is some dispute as to whether Assad himself approved of the use of chemical weapons. This article questions the assumption that Assad himself was responsible.
The government of Russia outright denies the allegation that Syria even used chemical weapons and instead blames the rebels. Russia may not be totally sincere in its accusation. Russia currently is the only country on the U.N. security council that is allied with Syria. Their veto is keeping some countries from potential military action against the Assad regime. If they deny the allegations condemning Syria of using chemical warfare, then they have a more defensible position to cast their veto power from. As for the reason Russian supports Syria, Russia, along with the U.S., is the largest exporter or arms and munitions in the world. One of Russia's largest clients happens to be Syria, and by extension the Assad regime. A successful war against Syria would be extremely detrimental towards the long term economic position of Russian arms exports.
Despite the conflicted validity as to whether or not Assad personally ordered chemical weapons, he nevertheless is still responsible for mass amounts of loss of life. Two-and-a-half years ago, when this debacle first started, it was Assad who ordered peaceful protesters to be fired upon. Therefore he started the war. He was the original aggressor.
Of the over 110,000 likely deaths that have occurred in this conflict, over 75% have been civilian, oppositions forces, or militia. This shows two things: one being that the overall death toll is incredibly high for a country with a population of 22 million, second being that the Assad Regime is clearly winning the fight. The second point is alarming because this makes the act of using chemical weapons even more nefarious because the government did so willingly and for expedience, not out of necessity.
In addition to the death toll, there is hundreds-of-thousands more who were wounded in the conflict. There is millions of refugees in the surrounding countries who have fled from Syria because of the conflict. Furthermore, there has been thousands of prisoners taken by either the Assad regime or the Rebels who were tortured and inhumanely imprisoned. The overall refugee export of Syria has had a destabilizing effect on the region. Countries such as Jordan or Turkey now have to make accommodations for hundreds-of-thousands of refugees. It's like if the amount of immigrants coming into the U.S. increased, overnight, twentyfold.
Now, on to the matter at hand. As I've stated prior, I think the way the media has narrowed down our options is a False Dichotomy. On the one hand we could do nothing, and on the other we could launch missiles and airstrikes at the Assad regime. To me, it seems as though there are a slew of options in between and a couple at the more proactive end that the media has not even dared touch.
We could (and I'm not advocating this) invade Syria and install a friendly 'democratic' government. The benefit of this idea is we possibly could get an ally in the region and there isn't any instability after Assad's death. However, the power vacuum would have to be filled with U.S. soldiers. The major downsides to this solution is the cost and loss of life. We have learned from experience that this idea doesn't work. In both Iraq and Vietnam we had a similar plan and failed miserably. Based on estimates from the Iraq war, we would need roughly 600,000 soldiers to complete this plan effectively. That would drag this country further into an already substantial debt and would overall not be good.
Another possible route is that we attack Syria in a limited way. We aid the rebels when we can and takeout major military installations with our bombers and missiles. We provide support but don't commit actual ground forces to the conflict. President Obama promotes this policy.
Many, including Noah, have compared this policy to the one used in the Libyan conflict a couple years ago. However the parallel between Libya and Syria, and their respective civil wars, is non-existent. They are two different conflicts, both in quality and quantity. For one, in Libya U.N. approval was achieved quickly and without any real pressure from the U.S. We had many different nations on our side who were willing to act on their own accord. This gave some minor amounts of international legitimacy.
Secondly, the two conflicts entail a vastly different amount of soldiers and causalities. In Libya, the government had an army of about 20,000 regular soldiers plus another 10,000 militia. These soldiers, though well trained, were up against an army of 200,000 volunteers. These 200,000 volunteers were well armed and included a number of Army deserters. The volunteers were also relatively well organized and homogeneous in their goals. However, in Syria, the government has an army of 170,000 soldiers including 80,000 regulars. The Syrian opposition's 60,000 man army is also made up of dozens of different factions. My point being Syria is completely a different kind of conflict than Libya was.
As a third minor point for the differences between the two conflicts, Libya is relatively isolated whereas Syria is not. Meaning Libyan instability doesn't spread as easily as Syrian instability.
If we were to launch airborne forces into Syria there would no doubt be high amounts of civilian causalities as a result. Assad might even lash out against Israel or Saudi Arabia (our allies in the area) and now we've only exacerbated the problem. My point being is there doesn't seem to be a plan for all of these what if situations. It appears the reserved military strike on Syria isn't well thought out. Just judging from what I know of the situation a military strike doesn't seem to solve any problems. It only causes more.
Beyond the strike itself, even if the Syrian government were to capitulate, our problems in Syria would still exist - perhaps even more so. The reason comes from the fact that the opposition in Syria is incredibly diverse. If and when the Assad regime topples there will most likely be a power struggle. Lack of any dominant military presence in the area will create a power vacuum. Within this vacuum there will be a great amount of civilian deaths and destruction. So, by toppling the Assad regime we may only breed more discord.
All-in-all I think the idea to use a limited strike against Syria may at first seem ideal, though upon further rumination it is just as bad as the first idea.
A third possible solution (still not the one I promote) is one involving complete isolation. I think Noah did a more than adequate job refuting this argument in his article. Most people in America are against a strike against Syria, as detailed here. However, I think most of the people have just taken a hefty dosage of international apathy to counteract the Iraq War.
A fourth and final solution is one with no downsides, though it doesn't fix all problems. We should take a non-military active approach to this scenario. Meaning we provide generous humanitarian aid to the refugees outside - and civilians within - Syria. Granted this won't end the conflict, but it also doesn't risk exacerbating the conflict further. We won't risk another Iraq, yet we won't completely ignore the conflict. This will also help curb our governments constant need to be involved in a military expedition. Read this article if you want to read an analysis of the overuse of presidential war making powers, and a critic of the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. All-in-all not many pros in this idea it is just the lack of cons that make me in favor of this.
If you have a better idea, want me to disambiguate something, or wish to dispute something, please feel free to leave comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)