Japan Finally Got Inflation. Nobody Is Happy About It.
11 months ago
War and Peace and Cycling, Not Necessarily Together
I have to ask, only half jokingly, if the Cold War historians are waiting for a pivotal event to declare Cold War II retroactively, like the financial gurus have declared Recession 2008. It seems to me there are quite a few elements of a perfect storm on the Russian front! My non-nuanced predictions, launched from my armchair vantage point:I, of course, have all the answers. "A" new cold war between Russia and the West is quite possible. One could even say that it's already a fact, at least at a low level of intensity. However, "the" Cold War was about the shape of the post-World War II world, about what would take the place of Nazism/Fascism, Japanese militarism, and (European) colonialism. The U.S. and the Soviet Union represented what turned out to be mutually exclusive visions for the future (indeed, of where history was headed), and each felt it could leave the other with no new gains, least of all perhaps in the de-colonizing "third world." Each also felt that long-term, it ought to work to undermine the influence of the other. It seems that today, Russia's ambitions are more limited. Partly because of that, the West isn't as united as in the 1940s and '50s, or as anxious about where for example developing countries will go in their politics. One could argue that on the issue of so-called "failed" and "outlaw" states, Russia and the West still have more in common than things that divide them. Both face potential terrorist violence, for example, and neither side wants to see nuclear capabilities fall into the hands of terrorists or unstable regimes. Russia's traditional sphere of influence seems to be the major bone of contention, in part because of the way the West has extended its influence there since 1990. That's an issue that is easier (not: easy) to manage than a deeply ideological conflict about the future of the world. Unfortunately, it will probably mean no tight, formal ties between the West (certainly not NATO) and Georgia or Ukraine; and it could also mean (because of the way Putin and his posse continue to tighten their hold on the place) losing a few Russian Facebook friends.
Putin emboldened by the new term limits, will become President after Medvedev resigns in the near future.
Russia will indeed take advantage of new legislation to start an incremental tightening of foreign access to citizens. (will I lose my new Russian Facebook friends?)
The EU, without the OSCE to hide behind, will waffle and stall on a MAP for Georgia, keeping NATO membership in limbo.
The incoming US administration will have to do some fast stepping when it comes to the bilateral relations the Bush administration forged with Saakashvili's administration; with the EU waffling, our bilateral relationship will start to look a unilateral one if we step up our presence in Russia's "sphere of influence".
Russia will continue to fast-track citizenship in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, while the quality of life in those regions continues to decline due to rampant crime and corruption. then leverage an eventual take-over with a claim of protecting the majority of Russian citizens living in those regions.
For what it's worth...
I'm content to let many of the nation's newspapers go belly up, but I'm nervous about a world where many cities are entirely without a few seasoned reporters, who make it their business to ask hard questions and keep an eye on those in need of accountability.A few reporters--that's not going to do it; just like investigative reporting alone is not what makes a good news outlet.
Newspapers are, first and last, devices for delivering ads to readers. It's the ads which account for all the profits, not the cash coming from subscribers or people who buy their paper at the newsstand.Salmon then proceeds to argue that "news itself is free," always has been. This is fine as far as it goes, but the cut-backs at many papers suggest that it doesn't go very far. I'm not an economist by a long shot, but don't ads also pay for newsrooms, reporters, correspondents, distribution networks? The fact remains that papers (and other news outlets) need real income to sustain real, professional news gathering operations. Real income may come from ads more than anything else, but without readers willing to get the actual paper, the ads aren't going to be there either. They will go somewhere else, for example to websites. But I don't think anybody is arguing that news organizations can maintain their newsroom strength on the basis of internet advertising alone? If they could, then most of this discussion would be about a minority of old-fashioned people such as myself not wanting to spend even more time in front of the computer. But I don't think that's the case. Look at the quality of information provided for free on the internet. If it's any good, it's usually backed by a professionals , often a traditional news organization. Because there are many other ways to get "information" on-line, it's doubtful enough people are going to be willing to pay for access to the really solid sites. Look also at user tolerance for ads: it's much easier to put up with ads (i.e. consider their message) in a paper than on a website, especially if the ad rolls out over the story you're about to read. So print media should remain important venues for all kinds of advertisers also. The bottom line for me remains that as citizens we have choices, and that, on balance, a responsible choice is to spend a little money on a regular basis buying the product from a credible news organization. The easiest, most effective way to do this remains buying a newspaper. It's not expensive, it's good for your brain, and it's essential to democracy.