This. The real irony about the banks is that by heavily regulating banks and explicitly backing them, we also implicitly allow this sort of abusive behavior towards customers.
A good primer, but more like SIGINT 101 CIRCA 1970. No mention of China, Iran, North Korea, or the use of SIGINT against terrorist or insurgent networks.
Requiring employers to shop for and provide health insurance is only going to complicate the already complex system and lead to crappier less competitive outcomes.
If you don't think that Pakistani and Iranian intelligence did not pass along the lessons learned to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan then I don't know what else to say other than this:
What? How can you put Manning in the same category?
Sure he established the trend and legitimized Wikileaks, but most of what he released was tactically valuable to enemies of the U.S. Arguably Manning did endanger the lives of U.S. service members and for that I will have a hard time forgiving her/him.
What you neglect to mention is that Europe and the US had high import taxes to protect their industries from eachother.
Somehow the US still managed to become a superpower. China will be fine if it can transition to a better system of government. Globalization doesn't seem necessary for a country with a huge domestic market.
Demanding better working conditions for Foxconn employees is called having a conscience not hypocrisy.
^ I was listening to this earlier and I can't help but point out the creeping government overreach in all aspects of our lives. We drop bombs at the drop of a hat, and send people to prison for thought crimes.
I really hope everyone can see that we must roll back the powers of the federal government, or it is going to roll over us.
I think you might be underestimating the impact of slackening demand. Emerging market airlines put in a ton of orders over the past 10 years, now we're seeing them slash airfare prices and/or cancel orders due to continued pressure. You can also point to state-owned/supported enterprises in the Middle East and China which are terrible allocators of capital and have therefore encouraged the glut. Nevermind the strategic imperative of the U.S. and Europe to have exclusive access to a producer of worldwide transports during times of war.
There are many examples of duopolies who do just fine. I think you are ignoring the negative influence of ambitious countries in this industry.
I have eaten at Maurice's several times (it is delicious), but never knew the history. Confederate flags are common at businesses throughout the region, so it's hard to single out Maurice's as an outlier in this regard. Still an interesting read that will make me rethink whether to eat there.
I hate Comcast. Haven't used them in many years, but seemingly every month I read about something shady they have done to their customers.
I seriously question how many Comcast customers will opt to use any more services than they absolutely have to from an abusive cable monopoly. Maybe I am missing something here?
So I know a lot of intelligence folks who cover different "threat vectors". I have never met one who doesn't believe that their coverage universe is the most important one to focus on.
Fighting nuclear proliferation is important, but ultimately it is a losing battle. In 100 years will less countries have nuclear weapons or will more? Regimes will aggressively pursue it because they can see how things shook out for Qaddafi and Saddam vs Kim.
I think the reality is that MAD has kind of worked. As scary as it is, nobody (sane) wants to push the button because they understand that these are very different weapons, and it would mean the end of life as we know it. Pressing that button ever means total ostracism. So far anyway..
The other interesting question in my mind is does this lead to a lot of stratified borders/countries?
Former Marine here. I thought this article was funny when it recirculated just prior to the recent election. But I also sort of thought to myself "Yeah I would vote for him over HRC or Trump."
Now I worry. A few thoughts:
1. If the military remains the most-trusted branch of government that's a bad thing. We need to take steps to reduce its power now.
2. If the Freedom Caucus is really committed to reducing the powers (and spending) of government they should be fervently resisting budget plans to expand the armed forces and pull us back from pointless non-productive conflict in the Middle East.
3. It is critical that Congress finds ways to reverse the rise in income disparity or we're going to have an even more dissatisfied and formerly middle-class voter base next cycle.
4. If Congress remains gridlocked by partisanship we are surely heading down the Road to Serfdom, and voters will either cede more power to Trump, or perhaps worse, be dissatisfied and demand an even stronger strong man.
You could do hi-tech manufacturing with high school graduates if they actually studied a high-tech curriculum or had the opportunity to apprentice for 2-3 years.
College is not (and should not be) required for everyone who wants a decent middle class job.