[Peace-discuss] FW: Gerald Epstein | What's So Bad About a Banker Brain Drain?

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

For those who do not get Truthout, I thought I would submit the fooling
abstract sent out by that online publication.  I haqve interspersed comments
and questions after each article in order to stimulate discussion.

-----Original Message-----
From: t r u t h o u t [mailto:messenger at truthout.org] 
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:24 PM
To: laurie at advancenet.net
Subject: Gerald Epstein | What's So Bad About a Banker Brain Drain?


Gerald Epstein questions the threatened banking brain drain; Burris now says
Blagojevich asked for fundraising help; GM wants to file bankruptcy and
start a new company; scientists celebrate a new age of reason under an Obama
White House; Rahm Emanuel's brother to advise White House on health care;
and more ... Browse our continually updating front page at
http://www.truthout.org

t r u t h o u t | 02.15

Gerald Epstein | What's So Bad About a Banker Brain Drain?
http://www.truthout.org/021509A
Gerald Epstein, Truthout: "Let's take bankers at their word. Let's say many
of the 'best minds in banking' will go elsewhere if serious pay restrictions
are imposed. The question we have to ask is: so what? The answer is: this
may be a blessing in not that much of a disguise."

(My comments)  I agree that it may be a blessing; I also think that much the
same can be said of all the others who make such threats.  My point is that
it typically is a best minds in almost all fields who frequently create as
many problems and cause as much trouble as they do real benefits for the
ordinary members of the public.  Moreover, we could always pass laws that
create disincentives to prevent the best minds from going elsewhere, such as
taxing the hell out of their earned and unearned revenues that were obtained
as a result of their moving, revoking their passports, taxing foreign
companies that hire them both import taxes and income taxes, or denying the
companies that they work for copyright and patent protections within the
U.S.  What are your thoughts? 


Burris Now Discloses Blagojevich Fundraising Requests
http://www.truthout.org/021509C
Peter Slevin, The Washington Post: "Senator. Roland W. Burris, appointed to
fill President Obama's seat in the US Senate, has informed Illinois
lawmakers that he did not tell them the complete story about his contacts
with close associates of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he got the job."

(My comments) Why the hell would he admit this now?  What does this say for
trusting him and his forthrightness and honesty in the future?  I bet that
when it comes election time, most of the electorate will have forgotten all
about such transgressions and lack of honesty and will joyously re-elect him
to the office that he was appointed to, barring some future unexpected
events or turns in the economy that turn the electorate further to the right
and against the Democrats.

GM Considering Chapter 11 Filing, New Company: Report
http://www.truthout.org/021509D
Reuters: "General Motors Corp., nearing a Tuesday deadline to present a
viability plan to the US government, is considering as one option a Chapter
11 bankruptcy filing that would create a new company, the Wall Street
Journal said in its Saturday edition."

(My comments) I bet that this is a gambit aimed at forcing the government to
extend the deadline or even reduce its conditions and demands.  If it is too
big and important to the economy to let fail, as has been claimed, why not
nationalize it rather than let it abandon its debts and obligations and
start another new private company which the executives can plunder and run
into the ground like they did with the old company, which was in decline
vis-à-vis the other car companies making imports due to a lack of timely
modernization of equipment, thinking, and policies?

Scientists Celebrate Dawn of Barack Obama's Age of Reason
http://www.truthout.org/021509E
Mark Henderson, The Times: "There was indeed a palpable buzz yesterday in
the subterranean conference rooms of the two downtown Chicago hotels where
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is holding
its annual meeting. The real excitement, however, has had much less to do
with Darwin than with the most famous former resident of America's second
city - Barack Obama."

(My comments) Where have we heard similar expressions before?  Of course,
the Bush proponents would argue that their term was an age of reason also;
it just used different rules of evidence and argument, different forms of
logic and reasoning, and different arguments and understandings.  But the
important and undisclosed part of this is that science as a enterprise and
industry is a special interest group whose interests are now being served;
unfortunately, like the financial industry, it is being given stimulus money
and other funding, permissions to engage in research that was not permitted
before and in ways that were not allowed previously, and opportunities to
ear revenues and make profits at public expense for private actors - the
scientists, the universities and companies that they work for, and the
investors who get value for risks that the public takes.  

If the scientists research is pure research and of some short or long range
benefit to society and the public so as to justify their public funding and
right to engage in the research, then why not insist on all copyrights and
patents related to the research and its findings be public and that private
persons or companies who are using said research or findings for profit be
required to pay monthly licensing fees to the government at reasonable and
fair market value based on the profits generated by the products and
services which utilize the research and research findings done with public
money? In addition, if public money is to be spent on scientific research or
on research done in public facilities or by public employees (i.e., faculty
members in public institutions), then that research should be made totally
and completely transparent with respect to the research itself, the
findings, the methodologies employed, the contracts between he involved
parties, and the uses to which the research is being put. 

However, I doubt if the new age of reason will not be very similar to the
older ages of reason where scientists are out for themselves although they
justify their activities under a clock of public good, and the type of
research and the benefits of it are determined by the needs and profit
opportunities of the funding sources (particularly the government whose
public funding is more times than not for secretive national security,
defense and policing purposes with other benefits being mostly spin-offs and
not the main purpose) and those who seek to make financial gain from the
research.  Very little scientific research these days is being done for
purely intellectual or academic reasons.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's Brother, Tapped for White House Health Care
Policy Advisor Spot
http://www.truthout.org/021509F
Lynn Sweet, The Chicago Sun-Times: "While the Obama White House is searching
for a replacement for health czar Tom Daschle, policy work on health care
reform - a priority for the administration - is ongoing with one key advisor
especially well connected. The brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a noted bioethicist, is advising the Obama
administration on health care reform."

(My comments)  What can one say?  Is this an instance of keeping it in the
family?  I thought that most government institutions and rules against
hiring one's relatives (but technically this is not a case of that since he
already was an employee of the government and his brother was an elected
official and now a political appointee). I still have to wonder if there was
no one else in the whole country with similar qualifications and credentials
who could have done the job.  I have to admit that I do not know about this
man, his qualifications, or policy positions so I cannot judge him on the
basis of that; however, that still does not mean that I cannot raise the
question of why  him rather than someone else who is equally qualified.