A few points worth noting from the article: water's a big deal in the Middle East, and Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan have come to blows (and/or nearly so) a few times over it; desalination is looking more economically viable (though its environmental effects are still unknown; power, at least, could come from renewables, as wind and solar prices become competitive with fossil fuels); as one Israeli farmer puts it, at least the way Israeli politics have gone, the money is going to the major desalination corporation (for the next 25 years!), shifting incentives (and public scrutiny) away from the public utilities.
The Federal Reserve Board Is Much More Likely to Take Your Job Than a Robot, so Naturally the Media Are Talking About Robots →
Quoted in full:
Today's culprit is National Public Radio. The point here is extremely simple. We know how fast robots and other technologies are replacing workers. In fact the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures it quarterly, it's called "productivity growth."
Productivity growth has actually been very slow in the last decade, as in the opposite of robots stealing our jobs. But hey, why should news outlets be limited by data?
By contrast, if the Fed starts raising interest rates, it can prevent millions of people from getting jobs over the next few years. This will also keep tens of millions from getting pay raises since a weak labor market will reduce their bargaining power. But hey, why bother listeners and readers with this stuff, let's have another piece on those nifty robots.
Sunnis Fleeing ISIS Find Few Doors Open Elsewhere in Iraq →
With new waves of civilians fleeing violence in Anbar there are now more internally displaced Iraqis, nearly three million, than there were at the height of the bloody sectarian fighting that followed the American invasion, when millions of Iraqis were able to flee to Syria. That door is closed because of that country’s own civil war. And now doors in Iraq are closing, too, worsening sectarian tensions as the Shiite authorities restrict where fleeing Sunnis can seek safety.
I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How. →
A peek into modern science (and its problems), and a fun story.
Left Field →
Looking at the Democratic primary as a movie, a film critic might say that Sen. Bernie Sanders is a little “on-the-nose” as an antagonist to Hillary Clinton. He is her reverse. Where Hillary is well-known (and to many women, an icon), he is obscure. Where she embodies the establishment, he is on its outskirts, a self-identified “socialist” from the liberal enclave of Burlington, Vermont. Where she gives six-figure speeches, he is among the “poorest” members of the Senate with a net worth of roughly $460,000. She plans to run a $2 billion campaign; he hopes to raise $50 million.
And where Clinton is in the middle of the mainstream, Sanders has been an iconoclast for decades. As a House member, he co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, opposed both wars in Iraq, and voted against the Patriot Act. As a senator for Vermont since 2007, he’s criticized the bank bailouts, voted against Tim Geithner’s nomination for Treasury Secretary, and gave a nearly nine-hour speech against a partial extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Now, as a candidate in the Democratic nomination race, he’s an advocate for the left wing of the party. “I am not running against Hillary Clinton,” he said in a recent interview with the Washington Post. Instead, he’s launching a crusade—against inequality, against Wall Street, and against the “billionaire class” that he claims dominates American politics. “Billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the candidates of their choice,” he says on his campaign website. “These people own most of the economy. Now they want to own our government as well.”
Polish Voters Elect Eurosceptic President; Disenchantment with Brussels Spreads →
Andrzej Duda outed president Bronisław Komorowski, the pro-Brussels incumbent centrist Civic Platform party president, in an election over the weekend. Komorowski was expected to win.
The Duda Victory Sent Shockwaves Through Polish Politics, and no doubt Brussels as well.
The win for the socially conservative, nationalist, eurosceptic party, which saw Mr Duda oust Bronisław Komorowski, the government-backed incumbent from the presidential palace, represents a significant lurch to the right in Polish politics. It has sent shockwaves through the country’s political establishment that could ultimately topple the ruling party in October after eight years in power.
Backed by both the country’s restless, anti-establishment youth and its conservative pensioners, Mr Duda’s election, which was unthinkable just a few months ago, represents a significant and far-reaching rejection of the ruling Civic Platform party.
The Latest on IS: Militia name for Anbar fight draws ire →
The name Shiite militias are using to describe the Iraqi operation to retake Anbar province from the Islamic State group is drawing ire from the Pentagon over its sectarian tilt.
The Popular Mobilization Units have named the battle that began Tuesday in Arabic: "Labaik Ya Hussein." That means "I am here, Hussein" in English. It refers to a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and one of the most revered figures of Shiite Islam.
That has added to the worries about the Shiite militias operating in Anbar, a predominantly Sunni province long suspicious of the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Whatever Happened to Antitrust? →
Last week’s settlement between the Justice Department and five giant banks reveals the appalling weakness of modern antitrust.
The banks had engaged in the biggest price-fixing conspiracy in modern history. Their self-described “cartel” used an exclusive electronic chat room and coded language to manipulate the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency exchange market. It was a “brazen display of collusion” that went on for years, said Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
But there will be no trial, no executive will go to jail, the banks can continue to gamble in the same currency markets, and the fines – although large – are a fraction of the banks’ potential gains and will be treated by the banks as costs of doing business.
America used to have antitrust laws that permanently stopped corporations from monopolizing markets, and often broke up the biggest culprits.
No longer. Now, giant corporations are taking over the economy – and they’re busily weakening antitrust enforcement.
The result has been higher prices for the many, and higher profits for the few. It’s a hidden upward redistribution from the majority of Americans to corporate executives and wealthy shareholders.
Wall Street’s five largest banks now account for 44 percent of America’s banking assets – up from about 25 percent before the crash of 2008 and 10 percent in 1990. That means higher fees and interest rates on loans, as well as a greater risk of another “too-big-to-fail” bailout.
But politicians don’t dare bust them up because Wall Street pays part of their campaign expenses.
Similar upward distributions are occurring elsewhere in the economy...