The Great Debate UK
from The Great Debate:
The alleged Boston bomber is talking. So far, both what he’s saying and the fact he’s saying it underscore that the government made the right decision in charging him as a criminal in a U.S. federal court, rather than designating him an “enemy combatant” in military custody.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged with using weapons of mass destruction, a charge that could land him the death penalty. He’s reportedly told investigators that he and his brother acted on their own, without any instructions from al Qaeda, and that the attack was motivated by a desire to “defend Islam.”
The strength of the evidence (he was caught on video laying his backpack down at the site of the bombing) and the severity of the potential penalty haven’t stopped critics of the Obama administration from claiming he should have been designated and detained as an enemy combatant, though. That’s because according to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) the United States is engaged in a war that reaches from the highlands of Afghanistan to the streets of downtown Boston. Therefore we ought to be treating our self-proclaimed enemies accordingly.
from The Great Debate:
The Obama administration announced on Monday that suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would “not be treated as an enemy combatant” who would be tried in a special military tribunal. Instead, White House spokesman Jay Carney declared, “we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice.”
But this decision is a grave mistake for legal, political and practical reasons. As we sift through the challenging implications of last week’s events, we must aim to deter future acts of terror on our soil by U.S. citizens and legal residents. Treating and trying domestic terrorists as enemy combatants can provide such a deterrent.
from The Great Debate:
An overarching question is whether the United States can legally treat Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, and if not, whether his rights as a civilian defendant can be altered because he is accused of terrorism. President Barack Obama has taken a measured, but concerning, approach on this.
–Kathleen Brooks is research director at forex.com. The opinions expressed are her own.–
Back in the last quarter of 2012 when Mark Carney was announced as the Governor-elect of the Bank of England, imaginations ran wild about the new arsenal he could bring to the BoE’s toolkit for getting the UK economy moving again. GDP targeting and unlimited QE were not beyond the realms of possibility. Carney in the past had dismissed suggestions that central bankers were out of options when it came to stimulating over-leveraged developed economies. However, as we get closer to his start date the debate has shifted regarding monetary policy.
from John Lloyd:
There’s no time more apt for murmuring the ending of Brutus’s speech in Julius Caesar than the week of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral: “The evil men do lives after them/the good is oft interred with their bones.” No time better, either, to add that the “evil” that, in this case one woman, did is little examined by her detractors, who prefer to stick to a diabolical version of her 12-year rule.
Margaret Thatcher (narrowly) won the 1979 election because the Labour government of the 1970s, under Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, had unsuccessfully tried to make a contract with the trade unions. In such a contract, pay would have been calibrated to productivity, and increases would be low in order to bring down high rates of inflation and to keep up investment in the socialized education, health and welfare institutions that disproportionately benefited the lower classes. It was the kind of social deal that the Germans and the Scandinavians had and still – in part – have: one that produces economies that, not by chance, have escaped the worst of the economic buffeting of the past five years.
from The Great Debate:
The passing of Margaret Thatcher comes at a time when the great theme that shaped her years as Britain’s prime minister – the frontier between government and the private sector – is again the focus of serious public debate. Her historic achievement was to widen the frontiers of the “market” and, as she said, to have “rolled back the frontiers of the state.”
There is, however, a pendulum in this relationship between government and private sector. The role of government in the economy has expanded greatly since the 2008 financial collapse, along with government debt. So we will likely again see a struggle to rebalance the respective realms of state and market. And it will again be a battle.
–Cyrille Brisson is EMEA Vice President of Power Quality at Eaton. The opinions expressed are his own.–
Last month, British wholesale gas prices surged to a record high after one of the UK’s main import pipelines was temporarily shut by a technical fault, and continuing wintry weather led to delays restocking the domestic gas supply.
–Laurence Copeland is a professor of finance at Cardiff University Business School. The opinions expressed are his own.–
Dear Mark Carney,
As you arrive in your new office, you will not be short of free advice, least of all from economists. Nonetheless, like a supporter of the away team valiantly trying to make himself heard above the roar of the home crowd, this is my feeble attempt to compete against the chorus of voices calling for ever more, ever larger doses of QE, ever lower interest rates and even more devaluation of the Pound.
from David Rohde:
It is the world’s most important organization, yet remains one of the most dysfunctional.
This week a former United Nations employee described a pervasive culture of impunity inside the organization – one in which whistle-blowers are punished for exposing wrongdoing. James Wasserstrom, a veteran American diplomat, said he was fired from his job and detained by U.N. police – who searched his apartment and placed his picture on wanted posters – after he reported possible corruption among senior U.N. officials in Kosovo.
from Anatole Kaletsky:
Among all the obituaries and encomiums about Margaret Thatcher, very few have drawn the lesson from her legacy that is most relevant for the world today. Lady Thatcher is remembered as the quintessential conviction politician. But judged by her actions rather than her rhetoric, she was actually much more compromising and pragmatic than the politicians who now dominate Europe. And it was Thatcher’s tactical flexibility, as much as her deep convictions, that accounted for her successes in the economic field.
Governments in Europe and Britain today are obsessed with hitting preordained and unconditional targets: Inflation must be kept below 2 percent; deficits must be reduced to 3 percent of gross domestic product; government debt must be set on a declining path; banks must be recapitalized to arbitrary ratios laid down by some committee in Basel. In sacrificing their citizens’ well-being and their own political careers to these numerical totems, modern leaders often claim inspiration from Thatcher. And when voters turn against them, Europe’s leaders keep repeating Thatcher’s most famous slogans, “There is no alternative” and “No U-turn”. But are these the right lessons to draw from Thatcher’s political life? A closer look at her economic achievements suggests otherwise.