Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Chronicle's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
103 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, innumerable comparisons have been drawn between the current state of affairs and the Great Depression of the 1930s. Their causes, their courses of development and their outcomes have been compared and contrasted, with the resultant analyses used to support all sorts of contradictory interpretations and policy prescriptions.
Less than a month ago, Bloomberg BNA published a man named David Michaels as saying that “employers recognize that managing safety is useful not only to prevent injuries and fatalities, but in fact leads to a more profitable company.” Although all of this is true, the implication behind the statement of Mr. Michaels, the head of the Labor Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)—that such safety is best brought about by state action—is a bit more problematic.
Political debates of late have exhibited a tendency to deteriorate into accusations of socialism from the right and free-market fundamentalism from the left. (Of course, given the remarkable similarity of the Democratic and Republican parties, I think it’s safe to say that it’s socialists and free-market fundamentalists who are probably most upset by this).
In many ways, the history of the 20th century can be understood as the history of an ideological struggle between different methods of social organization. In fact, “two systems can be said to have dominated the 20th century,” as economist Janos Kornai has written, identifying these two as “the capitalist system” on the one hand and “the socialist system” on the other.
There is a tendency, in contemporary political and economic discourse, to reduce conversations to the level of the aggregate. Thus, we speak in terms of “labor” seeking goals, “nations” taking action and “society” handing the president a mandate. Such a way of looking at the world, as convenient and at times useful as it might be, commits a serious error. A great deal of grief might be saved by framing our discussions around the individual, rather than the collective.
As Massachusetts senator-elect Elizabeth Warren prepares to be sworn in next month, rumor already has it that she will be assigned to the Senate Banking Committee.
One of the most ubiquitously practiced—and yet, seldom interrogated or defended with any true intellectual rigor—habits of the state comes in the form of the restriction of the pool of labor in any given industry. Although such restrictions can come in a myriad of forms, such as licensure, unionization or mandatory school attendance until adulthood (as in the case of the NBA), the economic consequences for consumers and unlucky (or unconnected) labor are almost always the same.
In recent years, a collection of millionaires has made appeals to the state to increase tax rates on high earners. Among these ostensible champions of the greater good, no voice has been louder, perhaps, than that of celebrated financial guru and Washington insider Warren Buffett.
As the after effects of Hurricane Sandy continue to be felt in the North, a new specter—gasoline rationing—is making its own unpleasant presence more and more painful for consumers. In the wake of the storm, demand for gasoline has increased dramatically. At the same time, the supply of gas—especially from powerless local providers and damaged regional suppliers—has either stagnated or sharply contracted. In response, local governments have rather unwisely attempted to keep prices down by imposing price ceiling and gas rationing boondoggles on the desperate populations.
It’s Nov. 7, 2012, a year of campaigning has just come to a close, and our next president has just been elected. As such, everyone is abuzz with celebrations, frustrations and their predictions for the next four years. Although I can’t really speak to the former, it’s safe to say that, with regards to the latter, we more or less know what to expect.
During the most recent presidential debate, President Barack Obama congratulated himself on a continuation of the United States’ policy of economic sanctions against Iran. “We … organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy,” he said. “Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles [sic].” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, for his part, enthusiastically joined the president in his analysis. “It’s also essential for us … to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means,” Romney said. “And crippling sanctions are something I’d called for five years ago. … It’s absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. … I would tighten those sanctions further.”
As the next presidential election draws closer and closer, those who are passionate about voting will almost certainly intensify their efforts to promote the act of voting and increase voter turnout in general. As with any election year, I suppose, it will not be uncommon to hear advertisements for all variants of the vote—early, on-campus, absentee or otherwise—and especially to witness an aggressive campaign against voter abstinence. Such abstinence will itself be elevated as an issue of central importance, and is likely to be surrounded with solutions involving everything from education to identification, fiduciary incentives to mandated participation, even registration to legislation.
Last month, a man named Alvin Schlangen was tried in a Minnesota court for violating a state law against the sale of raw milk. The case against Schlangen, which dealt with what reasonable people will recognize as a relatively inconsequential transgression, was made on the basis of a series of raids of the farmer’s property. These raids produced evidence proving that Schlangen was, in fact, guilty of the crime. In a surprise maneuver, however, Schlangen’s jury decided to nullify the case by simply declaring that he was not guilty.
This week will mark the first presidential debate between the incumbent Barack Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney. Although the two are certain to discuss a number of hot-button issues, major media outlets have begun to suggest that the debate will serve mostly as an evaluation of the candidates themselves. Thus, the winner of the debate is perhaps less likely to be measured by reason and strength of argument than he is by his eloquence and the vague category of “likeability.”
It has long been a tenet of conventional political wisdom that the provision of basic education—like the provision of roads, armies, health care and financial markets—cannot be left up to the whims and wishes of individuals. The voluntary arrangements that would spontaneously result from such an approach to these goods would be wholly insufficient, the argument goes, and thus an imposition of rigid order from the top down is most desirable. This idea has been especially on display in the area of education over the past several years, as several state governors have clashed strongly with teachers’ unions and, most recently, some teachers have even gone on strike. For the most part, however, the opposing parties in these debates have agreed as to the basic premise of state-run education, and have quibbled mostly over the specifics of its implementation.
This past weekend marked the first anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests, which swept first into Zuccotti Park and then across the globe last year in response to the growing frustration surrounding sluggish economic growth and social discontent in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008. A once-newsworthy, if not altogether coherent, movement, OWS captured media attention for a couple of months before finally becoming tiresome, lapsing out of the public eye and then succumbing under the inertia of its own bureaucratic in-fighting. It has briefly flickered, though, back into the spotlight, as its birthday celebration this weekend brought talk of sit-ins, citizen’s arrests and even an op-ed from a committed socialist.
Last week, the government of Honduras announced its intentions to essentially sell three of its cities to a swath of international investors. This maneuver—described as an effort by an impotent government to try to both quell criminal activity and stimulate economic growth—is expected to result in something akin to the arrangement in cities such as Dubai and Hong Kong, which are usually referred to as “states within a state.”
In recent news, Apple, Inc. has won a decisive lawsuit against fellow electronics and software developer Samsung. The lawsuit, which found Samsung guilty of infringing on a number of Apple’s patents, awarded over $1 billion to Apple, and sent a formidably clear message to all others in the field. It has effectively dictated that any imitation of Apple’s products will not be tolerated, and that consumers should receive all their finger scrolling and “pinch-to-enlarge” technology from a single company.
Earlier this month, Amendment One—an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage, among other kinds of domestic partnerships—was passed by voters. Much has already been made of the bill’s content and the need to “vote against,” but it seems to me that the issue should never have been put to the vote in the first place.
The Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, a four-day long annual celebration of documentary filmmaking hosted here in Durham, North Carolina, is turning 15 this weekend. It’s safe to say, though, that its age hasn’t begun to show.
