I would be surprised

Posted on Nov. 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

Right or wrong

Posted on Nov. 10, 2009 at 5:37 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

And while President George W. Bush talks of putting more money in the hands of consumers to swing machines boost their confidence and kick them into spending more, one has to wonder whether encouraging individuals to go into greater debt while the nation pays off its own is a prudent policy. It is becoming common in U.S. households to have fully mortgaged luxurious lifestyles with relatively no job security.

But the greatest gamble that Greenspan is taking has nothing to do with taxes (the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy primarily through discount rates). The story goes that he plays these economic games lying in the bathtub for hours in the morning, soothing his bad back. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, many find the whole thing rather credible and interesting, but no one can figure out the math. In the end, some of the smartest people in the world, from Tokyo to New York, just take his word as diktat, and few question his authority or judgment

I am certainly not capable of judging the wisdom or effectiveness of Greenspan's game plan. But with all their riches and good life, U.S. central bankers and, indeed, politicians are still willing to take huge risks to harvest rewards for their people. All we see in Russia is a stagnation of ideas while billions of dollars are washed offshore and the domestic economy and millions of people languish.

Right or wrong, the effects of U.S. policy impact the lives of the American people almost immediately – discount rates go down, markets go up, mortgages change, financing rates are cut, housing markets react and so on. In Russia, no matter what the government does, the lot of the people remains unchanged. Despite all the reforms in the past year, there has been almost no change in the daily lives of ordinary people. And with the effects of the 1998 ruble devaluation and higher oil prices about to come to an end, things are likely to cultured pearl jewelry get worse.

But back to the great gamble on productivity. We do not have time to go into the gory details of this new theory, and we will let enlightened business publications such as the Wall Street Journal deal with it. But just like the Theory of Relativity, there is some common sense underlying the Theory of Productivity. Greenspan, even at 70 and with his weak spine, has guts of steel, one must acknowledge. His theory is that all those computers, high-tech devices, enterprise software and e-commerce tools that companies have been spending billions on will finally start working. With cheaper, mobile-computing and communication devices that can be operated even by novices (seen those DHL drivers carrying "Beam-me-up-Scottie"-type gizmos?), millions of American workers will be able to improve their efficiency and productivity by many times. With that will come higher earnings, greater consumer confidence and the partying shall go on.

Such will be the impact on overall productivity, and so sure are the chances that the United States will be able to pay off all of its national debt, that Greenspan is able to cut interest rates and support tax relief. Even with lower taxes, the gamble goes, the government will have enough for Social Security, education reform and putting more cops on the street (though giving handguns to every kid would make law enforcement easier according to their theory).

It is impossible to say if there is enough real mathematics behind the new U.S. budget and this whole theory, especially from a man who has trouble adding single-digit figures (Bush, not Greenspan). But it is a worthwhile gamble on the future of the New Economy. For a long time now, it has been accepted that knowledge and information are the driving forces behind the economy and that information technology is going to have a great impact on the way we work and produce (and reproduce). Time will tell whether the gamble will pay off, but the U.S. budget and policies are futurally oriented and risk-takers always reap the rewards.

Tobbin's lawyer made no mention of any spying charge

Posted on Nov. 10, 2009 at 5:35 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

But Pope's defenders

Posted on Nov. 10, 2009 at 5:34 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

But Pope's defenders, including Astakhov, Pope's wife, Cheryl, and the U.S. government, insist that he is a businessman legitimately working with Russian scientists to market their inventions in the West.

When Pope's closed trial begins, FSB prosecutors will present 10 volumes of evidence claiming that on his most recent trip, as on 26 previous visits to Russia, Pope was clandestinely purchasing military secrets. The alleged secret that they have latched onto, Astakhov said, is the marine propulsion system Pope was in the process of buying when he was arrested.

Before he was arrested, Pope had already purchased part of the plans and technical data for a system used in surface and underwater vessels, and was tying up the rest of the deal, Astakhov said. But in leaks to the Russian press, the FSB has alleged that the system was an integral part of the Squall underwater missile, a top-secret piece of technology worth millions of dollars. Astakhov denied the charge, saying the system was developed 10 years ago and that Pope had budgeted only $30,000 for the purchase.

Government documents showing that the plans had been declassified were ruled inadmissible as evidence by the case's FSB-appointed judge, Astakhov said. Still, he said the law is behind Pope.

"We believe that he did not know and did not need to know that they were secret," he said. "There was no secret, and there was no way for him to nugget pearl check. He can't be charged for that. It's presumption of innocence."

But it wouldn't be the first time the law has turned against Pope. Russian law forbids prosecutors to try a sick man until he has been healed, but a judge denied Pope's request to delay the trial and to gain access to English-speaking cancer specialists. Pope's wife, Cheryl, says he is suffering from a relapse of a rare form of bone cancer, called hemangiopericytoma, with which he was diagnosed in 1986.

And the judge also denied his request for a jury trial, even though the right is guaranteed under the Russian Constitution.

The FSB, meanwhile, argues that Pope, whose tour in the U.S. Navy included a stint as an intelligence officer, is too dangerous a spy to be given much slack. And their star witnesses will likely be the two Russian scientists with whom Pope was negotiating. Both were initially imprisoned and later released after promising to cooperate with the investigation.

Since leaving the Navy in 1994, Pope has specialized in acquiring Russian military technology and converting it for civilian uses, first for Penn State University and then for two private firms. According to the FSB, that has all been a cover for his espionage – although they do not say for whom, specifically he is working, even in their case file, Astakhov said.

According to Astakhov, however, Pope was always careful to explain to Russian partners that he was not interested in secret material.

And Russian politicians have reacted angrily to calls from the United States for Pope to be let go, including a demand by the U.S. House of Representatives to impose sanctions on Russia until he is released.

"I think the House probably thinks America can do anything it pleases," said Gennady Seleznyov, the Communist speaker of the State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, according to Reuters. "This is the crudest interference in our criminal legislation."

Nonetheless, the pressure has reached the highest levels. After the United States made it a policy to bring up the case at every high-level meeting between American and Russian officials, President Vladimir Putin, himself a former KGB spy and FSB director, called in the case's chief investigator for a meeting, Astakhov said. Asked whether he was sure he could win, the investigator said yes. Putin reportedly then told the investigator to multi-strands pearl necklace go ahead but warned him his job depended on winning.

The Russian politician abroad

Posted on Nov. 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM - 0 Comments - Post Comment - Link

Then, America becomes the land of opportunities, where a hard-up Russian political figure looking to criticize policy back home can hope to make a few thousand dollars doing a lecture-lamentation tour.

Indeed, it's surprising how many of these earnest critics turn up in the States in pursuit of a bit of cash, public resonance and sometimes even a roof over their heads.

Everyone who's anyone in Russian politics has come here to inform the American people – liberals Anatoly Chubais, Grigory Yavlinsky, Yegor Gaidar, Sergei Kiriyenko, Boris Nemtsov, Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov and even Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Some have come more than once; some have come predicting economic boom in Russia, some economic bust, and some to prophesy impending dictatorship.

Nothing has changed today. The Russians are still coming, though what really brings them to Washington, New York and Boston is, above all, a pressing urge to fill wallets that have started to look a little slim, and to wrest themselves from the grasp of creeping public obscurity. The thing is, though, that not everyone can elbow their way into this select group of lecture-givers, because it is the inviting American side that gets to turquoise necklace decide who in Russia is a "real democrat," and who is not.

Recently, the ranks of visiting Russians were joined by two oligarchs – Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky. Berezovsky came to reveal the "truth" about evil President Vladimir Putin to the Americans. Then he appealed for support for his noble plan to help Russian intellectuals emigrating abroad. But Berezovsky's public appearances didn't draw many of these same Russian emigres. Most present were Russian embassy staff, Russian journalists and retired CIA officers.

Little of what Berezovsky said in his numerous interviews actually found its way onto TV screens and into the papers. But he did get a great welcome at Georgetown University where the students were all but at his feet, because, as one student said, "he literally smells of money," and in a country where millionaires are revered, Berezovsky makes an excellent role model, no matter what he comes out with.

Unlike Berezovsky, who tried to be as public as possible, Gusinsky turned up in the States incognito. But he was also looking for support, hoping to secure the help of concerned and influential quarters of American public opinion in the event of his conflict with the Russian authorities going too far.

It's always when the going gets tough at home that Russian politicians come to America to lament their fate before Congress or groups of Russian affairs specialists, who, though they hardly ever get the forecasts right, are allowed to form the White House's Russia policy. The Russians know which cards to play to win a listening ear in the States, and favorites include threats to freedom of the press, curbs on democracy and restriction of business freedom.

But though the American ear might listen, the Russian complainers don't stay in the limelight for long. In Soviet times, the few who made it to the United States to speak could hope for some understanding and moral and material support. But these days, Americans are less interested. They don't understand why, whenever problems arise in Russia, instead of doing something about it at home, its politicians feel the need to fly to America and brief retired spies and unemployed Russia specialists on the issues.

Meanwhile, our politicians and businessmen don't seem to pearl strand give this situation much thought. So, next time something goes wrong in Russia, don't go looking for our liberals, democrats and other concerned people in Putin's office or in the government corridors. Look for them instead in U.S. congressmen's offices and in the lecture halls of the various American foundations.