by Warren Coats, This is Warren’s placeMay 22, 2024.
Quote:
The recent attacks and invasions have been a continuation of 70 years of unresolved relations between the territories [sic] Palestinian citizens and Jews. Netanyahu remains opposed to reviewing the future of the Two State Solution (Oslo Accord) and Saudi Arabia is equally insisting on it. Ireland, Norway, and Spain will officially recognize Palestine as a state starting next week and other countries are expected to follow.
The challenge that has not been resolved so far has not been the result of the gathering of Jews in what is now Israel, but the determination to make it a democratic Jewish State. Religious regions, like Iran, always have problems. Israel can only become a democratic Jewish state by eliminating one way or another the majority of Palestinians. America’s founding fathers had the wisdom to forbid that by including separation of church and state in our constitution.
If Israel ceased to be a Jewish state it could remain a democracy and absorb all the land from the river to the sea. And every citizen would receive the same protection of the law and equal rights. It should consider a form of government in which small regions with local administration may be majority Muslim or Jewish.
Written by David J. Bier, Cato at LibertyMay 24, 2024.
Quote:
The third milestone occurred on May 24, 1924, when President Calvin Coolidge signed the National Quota Act, which put the first complete end to immigration. Before the 1924 Act, all prospective immigrants were presumed eligible for immigration unless the government had evidence that they were ineligible. A 1924 law replaced this system with the Soviet standard of guilty—until proven innocent, which we have today.
No law has more dramatically changed the demographics, economy, politics, and liberties of the United States and the world. It has greatly reduced the growth of the American population of immigrants and their descendants by hundreds of millions, slowing economic growth and limiting the power and influence of this country. After 1924 Americans are not free to associate, contract, and trade with people born around the world as they were before.
Legal restrictions have made the interaction between Americans and their relatives, spouses, children, employees, friends, business associates, customers, employers, religious leaders, artists, and other peaceful people who may play a role in our lives, impossible. It has made the world a much poorer and less comfortable place for Americans and people around the world, necessitating the creation of massive law enforcement tools to enforce these restrictions.
My additional thought:
We often hear that if we get more immigrants, they will vote to end our program. Really, that was my only big fear- before I looked at the evidence. But notice the evidence right here. The US cut off most immigration in 1924. It reopened in 1965. And when did we get our biggest increase in the federal government? For those 40 years or so.
by Dave DeCamp, antiwar.com, May 23, 2024.
Quote:
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Thursday that would allow the seizure of any US assets in Russia to compensate for any Russian assets seized by the US.
The law can be applied to any American people or companies with assets in Russia, and it came after President Biden signed a bill that gave him the power to seize Russian assets and use them to pay for aid to Ukraine.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, the US and its allies froze approximately $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets. In accordance with The Associated Press, there is about $5 billion in Russian state assets that the US could seize to send to Ukraine.
Putin’s announcement will allow the central bank of Russia and any companies that have lost assets in the US to file a claim in Russian courts “with a claim to establish the fact of the unjust deprivation of his property rights due to a decision of the US government or a judicial authority and to obtain compensation for the said damages.”
In short, said Putin, I will see your case together and raise you.
by Lee Ohanian, California on Your MindMay 21, 2024.
Quote:
California’s budget went from a projected $98 billion surplus, when there was so much money in the state coffers that Gov. Gavin Newsom was giving away $50,000 to randomly selected people to receive a vaccine against COVID-19, for an estimated total of $73 million. two years.
Much of this could have been avoided if, in 2022, California had not made clear, highly improbable revenue projections for the coming years that falsely painted too much optimism for the state’s fiscal picture. In a nutshell, here’s what happened: in the 2021‒22 fiscal year, federal tax revenue increased nearly 55 percent—about $70 billion—over the previous fiscal year. This decrease in income reflected mostly the taxpayers who realized the big benefits, especially the highest income taxpayers who faced a minimum tax rate of 13.3 percent at the time.
by David D. Friedman, daviddfriedman.substack.com, May 23, 2024.
Quote:
The attitude towards his children, treating them as people with the same attitude as his own, was used in general. He could argue with anyone. I remember one argument with the owner of a garage in New Hampshire where we had our car repaired, who argued that a large company, by spending enough money on advertising, could consistently sell what it produced. The example he gave us was a new car that Ford had just released called the Edsel.
One of my father’s jobs was an economic education experiment that involved arguing with cab drivers in New York City. New York had, and still has, a taxi reward system. It issues a fixed number of medals, each of which entitles the owner to use one taxi; Every cab company should have as many awards as they use taxis. Awards are handed out; if you are the owner, you can sell it to someone else, after that you still have the right to legally use the cab. The price of the medal now, maybe then was over a hundred thousand dollars.
I had a similar experience when I was 19. My friend Don Redekop and I were hiking in the summer of 1970. We were returning from a Sunday morning trip to one of my favorite lakes, near the Manitoba/Ontario border. We were picked up by a friendly guy who was a typewriter salesman. We had 100 kilometers ahead of us and somehow we started talking about imports. He argued that the Canadian government should restrict the importation of foreign typewriters. I said, naturally, that it shouldn’t. He was not hostile but curious: he asked me why. So I put the benefit of comparison without using numbers. He would resist; I was going to explain. Stand up; explain. Towards the end of 100 kilometers, he admitted that I was right but wanted to limit imports to save his job. We walked in a friendly way. (I don’t remember if I used the argument that if we didn’t have restrictions on imports, there would be more, not less, demand for typewriters. Based on my understanding of economics at the time, I probably didn’t.)
Source link