1 in 6 People Hungry

It is almost inconceivable that human society can tolerate such a
condition:

UN: World hunger reaches the 1 billion people mark

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
ROME

A UN food agency said a record 1.02 billion people are hungry across
the world, or one-sixth of humanity.

The Food and Agriculture Organization said the historic high is the
result of the financial downturn combined with persistently high food
prices.

The number of hungry people is about 100 million higher than last
year.

The agency's Director-General Jacques Diouf said the hunger crisis
"poses a serious risk for world peace and security."

The Rome-based FAO said in the report released Friday that almost all
the world's undernourished live in developing countries.

Some 642 million are hungry in the Asia and the Pacific region, and
265 million in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Election Day in Israel

It's a national holiday... a major element in the hoopla that sustains the illusion that democracy offers a meaningful choice.

The mood of the Israeli public is decidedly hawkish. So Netanyahu will probably win another term as Prime Minister. The only difference that is likely to make is in the tenor of the rhetoric from Government. Expect more saber-rattling.

As to anything else - ethics, for example - Olmert did not set a high bar, but Netanyahu has shown no ability to surmount the self-seeking. Expect more scandals.

A Sense Of Proportion

After the next Israeli elections, the primary reason for the latest war between Israelis and Palestinians will have disappeared. So the military action will probably diminish around then... until the next time some people in power (on either side) see a political advantage in starting an otherwise pointless military campaign.

However, my focus is mainly on the ethics of the war and the military strategy - largely from an Israeli standpoint. Most Israelis staunchly support the war (as is common in the early days of such type of action). However, when I ask any Israeli if s/he thinks that the war will bring about a reduction in Palestinian aggression against Israel, the response is invariably No.

When no one believes that this military strategy will be effective, how should we classify the killing of nearly 500 persons (and counting), the wounding of thousands of persons (and counting), and the large-scale destruction of both public and private property? Are we not talking about murder, assault, and theft out of hatred and, at best, for revenge?

The Complete Mantra

While running for office, Obama regularly chanted out loud his campaign mantra. He also encouraged others to join in. Yes we can.

What we are learning during these transition days is that Obama's mantra has a second part, repeated silently after the first part. The complete mantra is: Yes we can... but no we won't.

Change We Can Believe In?

While running for office, Obama could hardly speak a single sentence without using the word change. Most troops will be home from Iraq by the middle of 2010... he pledged. There will be a fixed timetable... he pledged.

• Barack Obama will responsibly end the war in Iraq:
  
  Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.
  
  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
  

But how likely is this to happen if Obama retains Robert Gates, who staunchly opposes a fixed timetable for bringing the troops out of Iraq? And, really, how credible was Obama's word on this, given his personal preference to send more US troops to Afghanistan? (Needless to say, sending more US troops to Afghanistan is a preference that Gates shares.)

Obama's spin on this is continuity. But so much continuity even surprises a skeptic like me. I doubt that McCain would have retained as much of the Bush legacy.

From all of the above, at least Obama's strategy for reviving the economy is getting clearer. And, no, there is nothing original - no change in substance or ethics - in that either.

Rational Cost Cutting

As the bubble of capitalism has now burst, managers of large corporations are eager to improve their dismal decreasing profits by cutting costs. At first, they reduce perquisites, but soon they invariably resort to layoffs. Here I propose a rational, phase-wise approach to staff-related cost-cutting.

Phase 1: Reduce the salaries of high-level managers.
In this phase, reduce the salaries of such managers. Managerial bonuses and perquisites should be sharply reduced or even eliminated as the management goals clearly have not been met.

Phase 2: Consolidate high-level management.
In this phase, assign the duties of two or more such managers to a single manager. Managers who are relieved of their duties should be lowered in rank by one level, with the corresponding pay cut.

Phase 3: Reduce the salaries of middle-level managers.
In this phase, reduce the salaries of such managers. Managerial bonuses and perquisites should be sharply reduced or even eliminated as the management goals clearly have not been met.

Phase 4: Consolidate middle-level management.
In this phase, assign the duties of two or more such managers to a single manager. Managers who are relieved of their duties should be lowered in rank by one level, with the corresponding pay cut.

Phase 5: Consolidate staff on all levels.
In this phase, some employees will be laid off. Layoffs should be based on three factors: seniority, efficiency, uniqueness of contribution.

NOTE: This proposal is not a complete process of cost-cutting. Obviously, other methods may also be adopted simultaneously (for example, laying off anyone deemed to be responsible for significant profit loss and discontinuing product lines with minimum contribution to profitability). This proposal merely attempts to offer an efficient and humane approach to employee remuneration and job security.

Bailout Needs A Bailout

Looks like Bush's bailout for the US economy needs a bailout.

The fact is that the US economy is a bubble overdue to burst. Just printing another $700 billion - based on little if any real wealth - is not going to solve anything. It will not restore confidence. It will only inflate the dollar.

Inflating the dollar might help a bit with exports... as long as prices do not go up as quickly as the dollar value goes down. But once the prices do go up, then the only effect will be that the purchasing power of US consumers will be reduced.

When consumer purchasing power is reduced, companies sell less. To increase or even just maintain profit, companies must offset their loss of income. For that purpose, they adopt cost-cutting measures like layoffs, reduced bonuses, hiring cheaper labor in another country, and so on. And that further reduces the purchasing power of US consumers.

Thus the downward spiral will continue.

Part of the solution to the problem is to maintain a more simple and transparent economy. This can be accomplished by tying the dollar value to bullion deposits and closing all speculative markets. But those measures are also only temporary stabilizers.

There is still one great problem to overcome. That problem is the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor that is inevitable under capitalism - a system where the individual's right to hoard vast portions of a finite aggregate wealth is largely unfettered.

The truth is that there is no fix for capitalism. The truth is that capitalism must be discarded. And so the US is fast heading toward a major social transformation. 1776 was a war of independence. Soon we will witness the real American Revolution.