Suchergebnisse

The deterioration of nuclear arms treaties, especially within the context of the war in Ukraine, presents worrying trends not seen in generations as Washington and Moscow are one step away from direct conflict. The Doomsday Clock "now stands at 90 seconds to midnight–the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been," according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.The Russian Duma has advanced plans to withdraw ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty, citing the need to restore parity with the U.S. which has yet to ratify the decades-old treaty. While the decision to withdraw ratification will not be as damaging as America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2002 and 2019, respectively, it serves as another reminder that attention must be directed towards addressing an increased nuclear threat, especially as war rages in Ukraine. The U.S. must lead by example — like ratifying the CTBT — when it comes to international treaties it expects other countries to abide by. Unsurprisingly, following Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments on the subject earlier this month at the Valdai International Discussion Club, the legislative process for de-ratification began at pace. Officials have clarified that, at present, Moscow does not see a need to resume nuclear tests even if Russia were to withdraw.The CTBT, adopted in 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly and ratified by 174 countries, prohibits nuclear weapon tests or explosions anywhere in the world. The treaty has never officially entered into force as several states have not yet signed on or completed the process of ratification, including China, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Israel, and the U.S. Nevertheless, "the CTBT is one of the most successful agreements in the long history of nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. Without the option to conduct nuclear tests, it is more difficult, although not impossible, for states to develop, prove, and field new warhead designs," notes Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association.In part due to Russia's war in Ukraine, Moscow has increased reliance on its nuclear arsenal in an attempt to deter escalation as its conventional forces have encountered stiff resistance by Ukrainian fighters heavily backed by American and European financial and military support.Indeed, there have been several warnings (and even threats) from the Kremlin and the Russian security establishment, some more subtle than others, about Moscow's willingness to defend what it views as its existential interests in Ukraine, ultimately with nuclear force if necessary. Not to be outdone by their Russian colleagues, commentators in the U.S. and Europe appear comfortable calling Moscow's bluff and encouraging an array of options for the intensification of the conflict. The Biden administration, however, has generally approached the introduction of new weapon systems into the conflict with a healthy dose of moderation, so as to assess the reaction from the Kremlin. This deliberative process, even if opposed by many in the transatlantic community, is critical. Nevertheless, and as bitter as it is to accept, the uncertainty over "how much is too much" for Moscow does implicitly impose restraints on Kyiv's backers.While American and European commentators have proven right thus far, and no nuclear escalation has occurred, the greatest tragedy is that the day after they are proven wrong there will be nobody left to tell.Following the near apocalyptic episode remembered as the Cuban Missile Crisis, leaders from the U.S. and the Soviet Union sought to establish mechanisms to prevent once again from being on the doorstep of nuclear annihilation. These began in 1963 with the Limited Test Ban Treaty and by 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan jointly stated that "a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought." The two leaders eventually went on to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which represented the first time the U.S. and the U.S.S.R agreed to reduce the actual number of nuclear arms. As strategic stability between the two most heavily equipped nuclear states on Earth continues to deteriorate and the deplorable state of diplomatic relations does not bode well for the return of nuclear treaties, China, Britain and others are seeking to modernize and enhance their nuclear capabilities. It's also possible that more states may resort to developing their own nuclear arsenals, viewing the possession of such weapons as the only real means of self-defense in an increasingly disorderly world.For its part, the U.S. is in the process of a $2 trillion, three decades-long initiative to upgrade its nuclear triad and accompanying infrastructure. A recently published report by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States paints an alarmist picture of the strategic threat the U.S. faces in the world today, and offers recommendations that will likely produce further instability. As the Quincy Institute's Bill Hartung recently wrote, "Astoundingly, the commission argues that these investments are not enough, and that the U.S. should consider building and deploying more nuclear weapons, even as it endorses dangerous and destabilizing steps like returning to the days of multi-warhead land-based missiles while placing nuclear-armed missiles in East Asia. These steps would only introduce more uncertainty into the calculations of China and Russia, making a nuclear confrontation more likely."The exorbitant expense that the maintenance and modernization of nuclear arsenals require, not to mention the otherworldly destruction that their usage entails, ought to be reason enough for the leading nuclear nations of the 21st century to work towards managing relations so as to eschew a new nuclear arms race.Unfortunately, a return of serious strategic stability discussions in the short-term appears to be more wishful thinking. Nevertheless, these conversations will prove essential once the acute phase of the war in Ukraine is over and amidst a changing international context where responsible statecraft will be foundational to collective humanity's survival. The environmental degradation that occurred when unrestricted nuclear testing was the norm following World War II is still visible in parts of the world today. While today a de facto ban on nuclear testing has long been followed by the vast majority of states, even those not ascribed to the test-ban treaty, a return to previous levels of testing — when the global climate is already suffering severe challenges — must be averted.

An open letter released Wednesday signed by more than 100 veterans of the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, ex-military officers, and former Republican lawmakers and activists called for fellow conservatives and congressional Republicans to support increased military aid to Ukraine and criticized President Biden for "seem[ing] more concerned about the prospects of a Russian defeat than of a Russian victory."The letter, initiated by the "nonpartisan" Vandenberg Coalition, a "network" of hawkish foreign policy think tankers and former officials convened by long-time neo-conservative Elliott Abrams, was directed primarily at "conservative" lawmakers and their constituents who have appeared increasingly resistant to providing more aid to Kyiv."Abandoning America's friends while they are falling victim to aggression is a pattern associated with the American left, from Vietnam to Afghanistan," according to the letter."Conservatives should not be rushing to lock arms with progressive isolationists. The security of Asia and of Europe are linked, which is why the elected leaders of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia have all sent aid to Ukraine. We support urgent, robust additional American aid to Ukraine," it concluded.Published in The National Review, the letter comes in the immediate aftermath of "the House GOP's decision not to include further funding to support Kyiv and its war effort" in the stopgap government funding bill that was passed last weekend and the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who had allegedly quietly agreed with the Biden administration to push for additional funding for Ukraine in the coming weeks.According to a September 7-18 poll released Tuesday by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs poll, about 50% of self-identified Republicans nationwide support continued military aid to Ukraine, while 45% or Republican respondents said the aid to date "has not been worth the cost." Overall, Republican respondents were significantly more skeptical of U.S. support for Ukraine than self-identified Democrats or independents.The Vandenberg Coalition was created by Abrams — who served as "special representative" for both Venezuela and Iran under Trump and deputy national security adviser with particular responsibility for Middle East policy under Bush — in April, 2021 with the evident intention of reuniting predominantly neoconservative "Never Trumpers" with other hawkish Republicans who had served under or otherwise supported the former president behind a policy of confrontation with Russia, China, Iran, and other perceived U.S. adversaries. The initiative took its name from Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a conservative Michigan Republican who, as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, worked with the Truman administration to gain congressional backing for the Marshall Plan and NATO after World War II.The Coalition appears to model itself in part on the Project for the New American Century (1997-2006) and its successor, the Foreign Policy Initiative (2009-2017), as a mainly neoconservative network for hawks of various ideological backgrounds, including primacists, aggressive nationalists, such as Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton and prominent leaders of the Christian Right, to exchange information and analysis and publish "open letters" signed by dozens of former senior national security officials, retired military brass, Republican lawmakers, and analysts from various think tanks.In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, PNAC's letters and their signatories based in key think tanks — notably the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Foundation for Defending of Democracies (FDD), and the Center for Security Policy — played key roles in building public and elite support for the Bush administration's "war on terror," especially in the Middle East.The new Vandenberg letter appears to follow that playbook, although it is directed more at "conservatives" and Republicans rather than a more general audience.Among the more than 100 signatories, many of whom were identified by their former official positions in the Bush and Trump administrations rather than their past or current non-governmental affiliations, a number of individuals based at several of the same think tanks that played such a prominent role in promoting the Iraq war, including Danielle Pletka, Gary Schmitt, and Michael Rubin at AEI; Clifford May and at FDD, and Kenneth Weinstein at Hudson, not to mention Abrams himself, who is currently based at the Council on Foreign Relations, stood out.Remarkably, the list also included Randy Scheunemann, who directed the high-powered White House-sponsored Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in the run-up to the war at the same time that he headed a public relations and lobbying firm that promoted Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, a major source of fabricated intelligence and disinformation that the Bush administration used to rally public opinion in favor of the invasion.In the letter, its signatories stressed the likelihood of disastrous outcomes across the world if Ukraine did not receive more U.S. military assistance and stressed that Kyiv is "not asking for American troops, only American weapons and equipment.""Efforts to stop our aid to Ukraine could lead to a Russian battlefield victory, with catastrophic effects for American security," it warned. "Putin would eye the next stage of the Russian empire's restoration, and China would have a green light to take Taiwan."The Coalition has published two other letters signed by multiple individuals. In February 2022, it published an open letter signed by more than three dozen mainly neoconservative former Bush administration officials and think tankers that called a major Amnesty International report that concluded that Israel was practicing a form of apartheid in its treatment of Palestinians "untruthful, deceptive, and antisemitic."In January, it published a letter directed to the "editors, authors, and contributors to major scientific, medical and journalistic publications worldwide" that called for "accountability for those scientific and news publications that actively sought to censor voices investigating the origins of COVID-19."The Coalition's most recent letter and its focus on "conservative" reservations about supporting Ukraine recalls to some extent a 1996 Foreign Affairs article, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," by leading neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan who were concerned that conservatives would be unable to "resist the combined assault of [then-presidential candidate Pat] Buchanan's 'isolationism of the heart" and the Republican budget hawks on Capitol Hill." The article argued in favor of a U.S. foreign policy designed to maintain a "benevolent global hegemony."One year later, the two authors jointly founded PNAC with a Statement of Principles signed by, among others, key architects of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abrams.

Red Eye is destined to always be something of a footnote. Everyone involved in the film will always be known for something else, Wes Craven for the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and the entire cast from Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy to Brian Cox will always be known for other films. Moreover, its premise, which spends over two thirds of the film not just on a plane, but on two seats of a plane--a sort of bottle episode of a movie--seems hard to imaging being made today in which it is always bigger spectacles that get audiences.  All of this is unfortunate, because it is not only a decent film, but one which has more to say than it would first appear. Most of this has to do with emotional labor. This is not just that the film takes place on a plane, the locus classicus of emotional labor since Arlie Hochschild wrote her monumental study, The Managed Heart. In that book she focused in part of the flight attendant a a kind of vanguard of emotional labor. Much of the work of the flight attendant has to do with performing and maintaining the right mood and and attitude, first with themselves, cultivating a warm smile, and then with the passengers. It is a labor that utilizes an emotion, or at least the display of an emotion, to produce an emotion, to create calm passengers and happy customers. Hochschild's study was written over forty years ago, and not only has flying changed since then, caught between the profit squeeze that has undermined the conditions of emotional labor and a post 9/11 regime that adds security and surveillance to the emotional labor of "service with a smile." Emotional labor has changed as well. It is no longer reserved for a vanguard of flight attendants, bartenders, bill collectors, and others; it is now distributed throughout the workforce, even those workers who never interact with customers are expected to smile and appear to be professional.When we meet Lisa (Rachel McAdams) she is shown to be adept at both waged and unwaged emotional labor. While in a cab returning from her grandmother's funeral she juggles two phone calls. One is from a coworker dealing with some difficult customers at the hotel where she works. She reminds her coworker that there are "no difficult customers, just customers with special needs." The other call is from her recently divorced father, who is struggling with insomnia and an empty nest. That Lisa is returning from a funeral suggest that she has some emotional needs of her own, but we never really hear or see them. Even her father's offers of support, which include the gift of a Dr. Phil book, are more about placating him than helping her. Lisa embodies the selfless care and concern that is situated at the intersection of waged and unwaged emotional labor. As she puts it, "That's me, people pleaser 24/7." Lisa is not just a seller of emotional labor; she is also a consumer of it, as we all are, as she arrives at the airport to find that her flight is delayed and she is part of a group of frustrated and tired travelers now being managed by a airline representative. There is solidarity of sorts between emotional workers; Lisa is quick to intervene when one man takes out his frustrations on the airline representative. This leads to Lisa meet Jackson (Cillian Murphy) another passenger on her plane. Their airport meeting could be considered a kind of "meet cute" and one might think that they are watching a romantic comedy at this point, if it was not for the opening scenes of stolen wallets and smuggled rocket launchers.After Lisa and Jackson board, and end up seated next to each other, we learn what connects their airport meeting to the rocket launcher and theft. Their meeting was no accident.  He is there to make sure she uses her hotel connection to move the Deputy Director of Homeland Security to a room with an ocean view. The better to target him with a rocket launcher for a dramatic. These days apparently even international mercenary groups have need for emotional labor. He refers to himself as a manager, however, in that his role is not so much to perform his own emotions but to manage the emotions and perception of others. His job is to be threatening and menacing with Lisa, telling her that her father will be killed if she does not do what he says, while at the same time convincing every else on the plane, including the flight attendants, that nothing is wrong, that Lisa is just being emotional. At this point Lisa finds herself desperately trying to express her need, to tell someone the truth, in order to save her father and the Deputy Director of Homeland Security. This pits emotional laborer against emotional management as Lisa tries to get the word out about what is happening, and Jackson tries to keep her in line. He has an advantage, however, in that part of the emotional labor of patriarchy is claiming that one does not have emotions, making women seem to be emotional, and relying on "facts and logic" as he puts it. He is also not above using a quick head butt when the situation calls for it. Lisa's struggle is as much with herself, with overcoming the desire to be a people pleaser, to think of others first, as it is with Jackson. I won't give the rest of the plot away, only point out that my focus on emotional labor is in some sense legitimated in the final scene of the film when Lisa tells the difficult customers at the hotel to shove it up their ass. Wes Craven is no doubt most famous for the Nightmare on Elm Street, a film which posited that monsters could follow us into our dreams and kill us there; Red Eye shows us that our jobs, what we do for a living, follow us into the very core of our being, making us "people pleasers." Sometimes we have to kill the manager in our head (or at least stab it in the throat). 

The House returned to session this week after the summer recess and only has until the end of the month — two weeks — to pass the 12 funding bills necessary to avoid a government shutdown. In lieu of a long-term spending bill, the White House has urged lawmakers to pass a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure which would maintain current funding levels until a larger agreement is reached. In addition to the money needed to keep the government running, President Joe Biden's $25 billion supplemental spending request for Ukraine also hangs in the balance. The House Freedom Caucus, the roughly 50-member bloc of Republicans, has voiced strong opposition to a stopgap measure. In August, the group released a list of demands that would be necessary for them to approve the spending bills on the table. Included in the group's statement from last month — which required the support of 80 percent of its members — is a rejection of "any blank check for Ukraine in any supplemental appropriations bill."Meanwhile, the Biden administration and Senate Republican leadership have endorsed legislation that ties Ukraine-related assistance with increased disaster relief funding in an emergency spending package. Last Thursday, Punchbowl News reported that McCarthy was considering attaching the disaster relief to a continuing resolution while omitting aid to Ukraine from the short-term spending bill, setting up a potential showdown with the White House and Senate. McCarthy has sent mixed signals about his position on Ukraine aid since saying that there would be no "blank check" for Kyiv prior to ascending to the speakership. By deciding to separate Ukraine aid from the stopgap funding bill and reportedly instead tying it to controversial immigration policies, McCarthy has leaned closer to the right flank of his party on this question. This maneuver may open the door for more debate over funding for Ukraine, though the group is not necessarily in agreement over what precisely "no blank check" means. A spokesperson for freshman Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), for example, told Responsible Statecraft in an email that the congresswoman does not and never will support any aid package to Ukraine. Other Republicans who are not formally a part of the Freedom Caucus, have made similar statements. Prior to the midterm elections, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said that if the GOP were to win the House, "not another penny" would go to Ukraine. And Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) has introduced legislation that would cut off all funding to Kyiv. Others have called for the conditioning of aid. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), one member of the Freedom Caucus who in the past consistently supported unconditional support for Kyiv, has changed his tune in response to the stalled counteroffensive. "I'll be blunt, it's failed," Harris said at a town hall meeting last month. "I'm not sure it's winnable anymore." Asked in an interview following the town hall about what this analysis meant for his support for the next tranche of funding, Harris said, "If there is humanitarian monies, nonmilitary monies, or military monies without an inspector general, I'm not supporting it."Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed hesitancy about whether and when it was worth it to pass a funding measure at this point in time. "Why are we talking about Ukraine supplemental when we can't figure out how to fund our own operation of government to do what it's supposed to do?" he asked during a press gaggle on Monday morning. "I want to see what claim there is for actual success in Ukraine," he added. "And I want to know how every dollar that $113 billion is going to be spent. Come present that to me as a member of Congress, and then talk to me about" what future funding should look like. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) earlier this year introduced an amendment to the NDAA that would have required the Biden administration to clearly define and assess its war strategy before Congress approved any more funding. The restriction would have only applied to the funds doled out in the NDAA each year.As RS's Kelley Vlahos reported at the time, "[r]ight now that includes several hundred million budgeted for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), but would not impact the vast bulk of money that might be passed in a supplemental package." The amendment eventually failed, with a vote tally of 129-301. Now, Davidson, who has not voted in favor of any aid package to date, tells RS, "A blank check to Ukraine is off the table. There shouldn't be any consideration of future aid until the Biden administration provides Congress with a clear mission." Until then, Davidson says, he will continue to oppose any further aid. The looming debate could set up a clash between McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). McConnell has been a staunch supporter of Ukraine's effort. As a recent profile in Politico noted: "Just since McCarthy's debt ceiling deal at the end of May, which sent a chill through the ranks of Congress's defense hawks, McConnell has used eight speeches on the Senate floor and five news conferences to address the importance of supporting the Ukrainians."A number of other prominent Senate Republicans, including John Thune (R-S.D.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — both members of McConnell's leadership team — and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) all expressed their disappointment at McCarthy's reported decision to keep Ukraine funding out of the continuing resolution. According to Punchbowl, Graham has been "trying to impress on House Republicans that pulling the plug on Ukraine would amount to 'creating chaos in the world' and rewarding Vladimir Putin."But, as the Washington Post reported earlier this week, tensions are continuing to grow among the GOP over how long Washington can continue to fund Ukraine, and some members of the GOP caucus have begun to worry that the effort can become another "forever war." Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, who one month after Russia's invasion released a statement strongly supporting the defense of Ukraine and sending aid to Kyiv, saying "America should always choose the side of democracy and freedom. I'll continue to make that choice every day that I represent you in Congress," now tells the Post that he will not support any further aid absent a clear strategy."I can support something, but I can't support nothing," he said. "That's how you get what happened in Afghanistan."

The U.S. is poised to supply Ukraine with ATACMS missiles, according to an ABC News report on Saturday. "They are coming," an official said, adding that all plans concerning security assistance to Ukraine are subject to change. Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, are "on the table" for a future aid package, a second official told ABC. ATACMS missiles — which boast a range 190 miles or 300 km — could help Ukrainian forces strike targets in Crimea, regarded by top Ukrainian officials and many Western observers as the Ukraine War's decisive terrain. The planned ATACMS transfer has not been corroborated by any officials willing to speak on the record. "There's no decision on ATACMS right now," said White House spokesman John Kirby, according to ABC News. "As the president has said, they're not off the table… we continue to discuss the viability of ATACMS," he added.The reported decision to send ACAMS missiles to Ukraine, if confirmed, would follow a longstanding Western pattern of initially refusing to supply Kyiv with certain high-profile weapons only to reverse course as the war drags on. Senior U.S. officials asserted in the opening weeks of the 2022 Russian invasion that there are no plans to send Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine. They noted that these systems would need to be operated on Ukrainian territory by American troops, thus making the U.S. an active participant in the conflict. Meanwhile, as late as January 2023, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley reportedly opposed sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine amid concerns that they don't serve the Ukrainian military's needs and are too complicated to operate, maintain, and repair. The White House has since reversed its stance on both issues, supplying Kyiv with one Patriot system and approving the transfer of 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks. The ongoing debate over deliveries of F-16 jet fighters is playing out in similar fashion. President Biden and top administration officials have repeatedly ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine over the past 18months, echoing concerns about escalation if the jets are used to strike targets inside Russia. The White House announced in August that it will begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s later this year, a dramatic volte face that is intended to lay the groundwork for Ukraine to receive and operate F-16s provided by U.S. allies Denmark and the Netherlands. Saturday's report is the clearest indication yet that the provision of ATACMS could follow this well-established pattern of months of hesitancy or even outright refusal followed by a stark, sudden reversal. Not everyone thinks it's a good idea."As the Biden administration grows more desperate to show progress in the war, it is running greater and greater risks in daring Moscow to retaliate against the West," the Quincy Institute's Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe said Saturday after the news. "The danger is that we will only discover where Russia's red lines are drawn after we have crossed them."The West's "boiling the frog" approach to Ukraine aid appears to be premised on a range of calculations concerning Russian behavior and the war's underlying dynamics. Western policymakers reportedly share the concern that a sudden, drastic surge in aid, marshaling the full might of NATO's arsenal into colossal aid packages announcing all available weapons within a short time span, could invite catastrophic escalation up to and including the use of nuclear weapons and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. By spacing out deliveries of major weapons systems, the thinking goes, the West can slowly dilute Russia's red lines and ramp up aid to Ukraine at minimal risk. Secondly, Ukraine's armed forces (AFU) are limited in how much aid they can absorb by training, logistics, and maintenance requirements. Western governments can pledge everything at once, but it would still take years for the weapons to be delivered, deployed, and utilized in substantial quantities. The ATACMS report follows closely on the heels of a surprise announcement by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian forces have begun using domestically produced long-range missiles. Zelenskyy said the mystery missile was used to successfully strike a target as far as 700 kms away, with the secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, noting that the new weapon boasts an even longer range.No details concerning this unnamed missile have been independently confirmed, nor has its existence been verified. Whereas the weapons provided by Kyiv's western backers come with prohibitions on strikes against targets inside Russian territory, the AFU can use missiles it manufactures without any such constraints. Ukrainian officials made no secret of their plans for this new weapon: "Believe me, already very soon someone [in Russia] will be burned, and burned in the direct sense of the word," Danilov said, according to the Washington Post. Though ATACMS possess roughly four times the range of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, missiles being transferred by the U.S. to Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest that they significantly outrange the Storm Shadow missiles pledged and supplied to Ukraine by the British and French earlier this summer. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted in September 2022 that the provision of longer-range weapons to Kyiv is a "red line" that would make the U.S. "a party to the conflict." Moscow's response to such deliveries, threatened Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, will be to capture more of Ukraine's territory: "The further you supply weapons, the further we will move away from our territory the line beyond which [Ukraine can strike Russia]," he said. Signals that the U.S. is inching closer to greenlighting the provision of ATACMS missiles may have been spurred by disappointing battlefield developments. As the main thrust of Ukraine's much-anticipated summer counteroffensive in the southern Zaporizhzhia region continues to yield marginal gains at a "slower than expected" pace, Western planners and policymakers are already discussing upcoming Ukrainian offensives in 2024 and beyond. Though neither platform can make it to Ukraine in time for the summer counteroffensive, some military observers believe that F-16s and ATACMS can play a key role in Ukraine's future attempts to recapture Russian-occupied territory in the country's south and southeast.

Tomorrow brings the first
significant televised debate among 2023 Louisiana gubernatorial candidates,
yet the most significant candidate by the polls won't be there. That reflects
an escalating trend towards ushering this kind of campaign event into
irrelevancy, because candidates increasingly control the presentation of campaign
information.

Front runner Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry won't attend this put
on by a consortium of television stations, the Baton Rouge Advocate, and
the Urban League. He
said he would take a pass because of the Urban League's presence, which holds
itself out as nonpartisan but has a
history of fronting left-wing causes. For example, Landry has been critical
of overbroad assertions of affirmative action, most recently filing
suit to prevent the federal government from applying outcome-oriented usage
of it for environmental regulation without regard for intent, while the Urban
League has
given full-throated support of expansive use of the concept.

Landry also may have had queasiness about the Advocate,
which has a thinly-disguised antipathy towards him that shapes its coverage of
the campaign. When it's not publicizing
molehills in an attempt to make mountains out of Landry oversights, it reprints
pieces from the far-left Louisiana Illuminator website that makes no bones about
its disdain for Landry, and its subsidiary shopper Gambit's leftist editor unleashes
editorial broadsides against him.

No matter. Landry can sit out widely-televised debates
– although he has pledged to participate in one next week by another consortium
of television stations – without any harm to his chances of winning because of
how technology has revolutionized how politicians can communicate with candidates.

He's not the first gubernatorial candidate to pass
on widely-broadcast deabtes. Republican former Gov. Bobby Jindal didn't bother
at all in 2011, while in 2015 Republican former Sen. David Vitter skipped some.
These past choices reveal, and amplify, why Landry's choice not only won't hurt
his campaign but also avoids potential harm to it.

To start, front runners derive the least benefit
from a candidate forum. The last thing they want to do is to appear to grant
equal stature to those trying to catch him from well behind by sharing a stage
with them. Additionally, the least controllable environment for a candidate is
these kinds of events, where they are at most risk to commit
gaffes, and by definition front runners have the most to lose when they
make such errors.

But the thing is, for this to work you have to be
a genuine front runner. It worked for Jindal because he faced nonentities as
opponents. It didn't
work for Vitter because although he figured himself as having support akin
to what Landry has today, at least a third of the intended electorate, in
reality what little polling had occurred up to that point pointed to a trend
that came through on election day: Vitter only marginally outpaced other GOP
big names in the field, with their infighting allowing Democrat then-state Rep.
John Bel Edwards
to slip away.

Landry has that advantage and, better for him,
increased technological benefits compared to a dozen years ago. Then, social
media still was gaining traction and smart phones weren't widely in use. Now,
social media occupies an important informational tool for many, particularly among
those without a lot of interest in politics to receive information about
politics, while smart phones are nearing ubiquity.

Every day that passes gives politicians more enhanced
ability to communicate directly with voters and capacity to bypass
intermediaries such as the media. And when you have $8
million in the bank like Landry, that magnifies this.

The goal of candidates is to place in front of a
voter information they want him to have. Decades ago, that was difficult.
Direct mail or phone contact was intermittent and expensive, and other contact
such as media ads over airwaves and on eye-level signage were inefficient and
hit and miss. Often, they needed unreliable intermediaries such as media coverage by way
of news or news events like debates to supplement their efforts to have any serious
chance of winning.

That's all changed. Through social media, e-mail, texting,
and web advertisements candidates now have a far greater ability to establish
direct contact in much more targeted ways more likely for the casual observer
of politics to consume, rather than hope the occasional view of a flier or
billboard or seeing/hearing a media ad dropped in a predictable time slot
subsumed by other programming gets the job done. Or, to put in context of the
debate, why make the effort to tune in and give up an hour of your time when
the information will come before you organically in your social media feed, the
websites you visit, e-mail notes you receive, and text messages (all of which you're
free to ignore if you like)? Or why take the effort to look up what the
chattering classes have to say about a contest when candidate information, as
well as information from others but likely curated according to your partisan
and issue preferences, comes right at you?

Little has changed about the small subset of the
population interested in politics and how they become persuaded. And the
two-step flow of information, where the casual voter who wants to think
minimally about a vote decision may rely upon a transmitter, like another politician,
media, or a person they consider informed, for an opinion on how to vote still
applies. But relying upon the informed has decreased in importance because the
information now is so readily available, because the costs for candidates
communicating that has dropped so dramatically.

Perhaps no institution has seen such a steep
decline in its influence over elections as the legacy media, as new media and candidates
muscle them out of the way. Legacy media and a special interest are precisely the
entities conducting this forum. The small numbers that consumed these events
even two decades ago have fallen dramatically, and the much larger portion representing
the generally-inattentive population who used to depend upon them to transmit information
crucial to their vote choices likewise has plunged in size. Candidates with
sufficient resources to conduct one-on-one communications with voters don't
need this tool to succeed, and given how participation can degrade a campaign
depending upon circumstances, the rational choice for such blessed candidates is
to minimize participation in these.

Hawkish critics of the Biden administration have been constantly agitating for escalation over Ukraine for the last year and a half.Whatever Biden has done in support of Ukraine, hawks complain that he has been too slow and too stinting in what the U.S. provides, and they have often urged Washington to intensify or widen the war. Fortunately for the U.S. and Europe, Biden has ignored their most aggressive demands and slow-walked the rest. The latest proposal from a prominent Biden critic, however, promises to repeat some of the worst mistakes of the Cold War while having little or no effect on the fighting in Europe.Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead thinks that the right way to wear down Russia in a war of attrition is by attacking Russian interests in far-flung, peripheral areas around the world. Mead claims that "we operate in a target-rich environment" for bringing the "cost of war home to the Kremlin," and he lays out a series of policies that are either unworkable, counterproductive or useless. Among other things, he calls for the U.S. to "roll up" the Wagner Group in the Sahel, work with Turkey and others to "make Mr. Putin's presence in Syria ruinously expensive," bring pressure to bear on Russian forces in Moldova, and "target Mr. Putin's Latin American allies."Even assuming that it was practical and wise for the U.S. to do any of these things, it is hard to see how they would significantly impair Russia's war effort or aid Ukraine in a war of attrition. If the U.S. managed to make things difficult enough for Russian forces and mercenaries in other parts of the world that it was no longer worth it for Moscow to keep them there, that would just lead to additional resources and manpower being redirected to fighting in Ukraine. It isn't clear why Mead believes that the U.S. and "its allies in Europe and the Gulf" have the capabilities to eliminate Russian influence in the Sahel. French influence is in retreat in many countries, U.S. partners keep losing control in military coups, and so-called "allies" from the Gulf are not reliably on the same side as the U.S. in political and military crises across Africa. The problem wasn't that the U.S. and its allies were "standing passively by" but that they were actively pursuing militarized policies that have repeatedly blown up in their faces. Russia has managed to exploit some of the resulting upheaval to its advantage.While he doesn't spell out exactly how the U.S. would go about "rolling up" Russian mercenaries, it would presumably involve a larger military footprint and an even more interventionist policy than the one the U.S. already has. How the U.S. is supposed to operate in countries governed by juntas that work with Russia is also conveniently left out. Is Washington supposed to "roll up" these junta regimes, too? Good luck to the U.S. officials that would have to explain why more American troops are being sent into harm's way in West Africa for the sake of a dubious effort to bleed Russia. Mead never explains why Turkey and unnamed "neighboring states" would want to take part in his anti-Russia coalition in Syria. Neither does he explain why inflicting losses on Russia in Syria wouldn't prompt Russian-backed reprisals against U.S. forces there and elsewhere in the Middle East. He ascribes virtually unlimited power to the U.S. and its allies to cause serious harm to Russia without considering potential costs or thinking through what would happen next. Mead's recommendations would be effective in antagonizing Moscow and inviting retaliation, but they would do virtually nothing to aid Ukraine. Striking at mercenaries in Mali and soldiers in Syria isn't going to help Ukraine overcome its disadvantage in manpower or eliminate Russian defenses.The proposal for Latin American states may be the most far-fetched of the bunch. The U.S. already punishes several regional countries with close ties to Moscow with devastating sanctions, and this has caused those states to rely more on Russia. Mead doesn't specify what he means when he says that the U.S. should "target" these countries, but it isn't hard to imagine that he might be suggesting some effort at regime change. There aren't many things that would damage the reputation of the United States in Latin America more than reverting to the bad old days of sponsoring coups to force neighboring countries to toe Washington's line.If the U.S. took "a concerted approach toward pushing Russia out of the Western hemisphere," it would undermine its relations with many of our neighbors and possibly even drive some fence-sitting states closer to Moscow. Far from weakening Russian influence, heavy-handed attempts at bullying Latin American countries would be a propaganda coup for Moscow and they would make a mockery of Washington's claim that every country can choose its own partners and allies.The last thing the U.S. should be doing is escalating its rivalry with Russia in other regions. It would threaten to hurt U.S. interests in the targeted areas, and it would expose U.S. forces already there to additional risks while putting more of those forces into dangerous situations. It could also create additional enemies and alienate potential partners as Washington makes clear that its policy in Ukraine takes precedence over everything else. The U.S. has a hard enough time making the case for its support for Ukraine in many parts of the world, and it would face even more skepticism if it decided to start bringing the war to other continents by striking at Russian interests.Mead bills these absurd proposals as "smarter and politically more sustainable ways" to aid Ukraine against Russia, but there is nothing smart about further stoking instability in the Sahel and Syria in the name of hurting Moscow. This puts a rivalry with Russia ahead of the lives and interests of people in the affected countries. It repeats the Cold War error of treating these countries as nothing more than battlegrounds to be contested and then abandoned when the rivals lose interest. None of this would help Ukraine in the slightest, but it would likely increase costs for the United States and for the nations that would be affected by these foolish proposals.Instead of trying to widen the conflict to other corners of the globe, the U.S. should focus its efforts on trying to find a way to halt the fighting in Ukraine through a ceasefire that can become the basis for a more lasting armistice.

In the New Yorker this week, journalist Keith Gessen wrote a piece disentangling what he called "the painful and knotty arguments" over whether and when Washington should pursue negotiations in Ukraine.


He uses the example of Samuel Charap, a researcher at the RAND corporation — who has made the case for the United States to seek an endgame to the war — to explore the calls from a small group of experts in Washington, who, in Gessen's formulation "argue that there might be a way to end the war sooner rather than later by freezing the conflict in place, and working to secure and rebuild the large part of Ukraine that is not under Russian occupation"


The piece answers what the author sees as the four key questions about when and whether diplomacy can be successful, analyzing the debates over nature of negotiations, the military outlook for the foreseeable future, Vladimir Putin's ultimate intentions, and, as Gessen put it on Twitter, if there is "any acceptable solution, even a temporary one, that leaves parts of Ukraine occupied by Russian forces?"


On the first question, Charap offered his thoughts on what diplomacy looks like, and what it hopes to achieve. "Diplomacy is not the opposite of coercion," he told the New Yorker. "It's a tool for achieving the same objectives as you would using coercive means. Many negotiations to end wars have taken place at the same time as the war's most fierce fighting."


Charles Kupchan, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has also argued that Washington needs a plan to get to the negotiating table, is quoted in Gessen's piece describing what the initial stages of such diplomacy at the conclusion of the current counteroffensive could look like.


"I wouldn't say, 'You [referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] do this or we're going to turn off the spigot.' But you sit down and you have a searching conversation about where the war is going and what's in the best interest of Ukraine, and you see what comes out of that discussion."


On Thursday, the New York Times released a podcast titled "Is it Time to Negotiate with Putin?," which seeks to answer similar questions, and comes to the conclusion that the war will not end with a decisive victory for either side.


"We've sort of moved well out of the kind of the fairy tale stage of this conflict," said New York Times opinion columnist Lydia Polgreen, who added that it was time for a new frame for discussions. She also noted that there were other countries with an interest in this war, and their views may contrast with those in Washington and Kyiv. "You have a lot of different power centers, or emerging or aspiring power centers in the world seeing this conflict through lots of different lenses, you know, and jockeying for their own interests," she said. "And this kind of no negotiation at all position that the Ukrainians have is, I think, increasingly running up against this multiplicity of interests that are pressing on lots of different pressure points around the globe."


Part of what seems to be animating these assessments is the realization that Kyiv's counteroffensive will not end in an overwhelming win, and that, as a result, the alternative is a protracted war in Ukraine.


In mid-August, Politico's NatSec daily newsletter reported that a growing number of U.S. officials are wondering whether Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was right when he called for the beginning of negotiations with Russia last November, when Ukraine had clear momentum on the battlefield.


"Most people now recognize that Plan A isn't working. But that doesn't mean they're prepared to discuss Plan B," Charap says in the New Yorker story. For him, what that Plan B should be is clear: "It would be a diplomatic strategy."


In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:


—For the second time since Russia left the Black Sea grain deal in July, a ship safely left Ukraine through a temporary humanitarian corridor. The ship, which departed from the port of Odessa last weekend, was carrying steel bound for Africa. Meanwhile, the Turkish and Russian foreign ministers met on Thursday to discuss possibilities for reviving the deal, but the talks ended without any meaningful progress according to the New York Times.


The meeting was reportedly a preparatory meeting for a future summit between the two countries' leaders, though a date has not yet been set. The Times says that the discussion was centered around "a plan that [Moscow] casts as an alternative to the deal, one that appears aimed at helping its own exports. (...) In its proposal, Russia says it envisions sending one million tons of grain to Turkey — at a price subsidized by Qatar — that would then be transported to countries that need it."


—The Wall Street Journal reports that "The Biden administration and its European allies are laying plans for long-term military assistance to Ukraine to ensure Russia won't be able to win on the battlefield and persuade the Kremlin that Western support for Kyiv won't waver." According to the report, Western officials are seeking ways to make pledges for Ukraine's defense more permanent in case Donald Trump or another candidate who is skeptical of sending more aid is elected president of the United States in 2024.


—The Quincy Institute's Anatol Lieven wrote in the Guardian this week about Russian public opinion over the war in Ukraine and the prospect of future negotiations. "From conversations I've had, it appears that a large majority of elite and ordinary Russians would accept a ceasefire along the present battle lines and would not mount any challenge if Putin proposed or agreed to such a ceasefire and presented it as a sufficient Russian victory," Lieven writes. "The general elite aversion to pursuing total victory in Ukraine is however not the same thing as a willingness to accept Russian defeat – which is all that the Ukrainian and US governments are presently offering. Nobody with whom I have spoken within the Moscow elite, and very few indeed in the wider population, has said that Russia should surrender Crimea and the eastern Donbas."


U.S. State Department news:


The State Department did not hold its regular press briefing this week.

Reapportionment shook up Caddo and Bossier Parish
representation in the Louisiana Legislature, setting up for some new faces, refugees
from other local offices, and intense clashes on this fall's ballot.

The area's overall declining population rearranged
things considerably. Which boundaries are coming and going will create some
interesting dynamics.

In the House of Representatives, District 1 won
last time for his first term by Republican Danny
McCormick, retreated from Bossier Parish to become a completely Caddo-based
entity. He will again face Republican Randall Liles in a race that
could be closer than last time. Although McCormick eked out a general election
win without runoff, he ran six percentage points better in Bossier than Caddo.
Still, the foothold he has established over the past four years and votes reflecting
the district's ideological tilt should be enough to reelect him.

The Bossier precincts largely transfer into
District 10, the Webster Parish-based district held by an unopposed Republican
Wayne McMahen. The district him for currently has Bossier's most southern
precinct as a footnote, but starting in 2024 his Bossier portion swings north
and grows substantially.

The other district within Bossier that largely was
an afterthought, the Caddo-based District 2 currently held by the leader of
Democrats' House caucus Sam Jenkins, expanded somewhat around old Bossier City.
Jenkins will try for the Senate District 39 seat of term-limited Democrat Greg
Tarver, and in his place Democrat Caddo School Board Member Terence Vinson will
make his second try for the seat in eight years. He is joined by Democrat Caddo
Parish Commissioner Steven Jackson.

Vinson's familiarity with the district should
help, but his main asset is the quite erratic and controversial tenure that Jackson
has had in office. In Bossier, Jackson committed his most recent and biggest
folly, convicted
for impersonating a police officer, which should just add to fodder that
ends Jackson's political career.

Joining Jenkins in pursuit of a Senate seat is
District 4 Democrat Cedric Glover. That House territory open, school board
member Democrat Jasmine Green, term-limited Democrat commissioner Lyndon
Johnson, and former District 3 candidate Democrat Joy Walters, who in 2019 lost narrowly
to Democrat Tammy Phelps, who didn't draw an opponent this year, when she lived
in that district. This could go in any direction, likely to the candidate who most
convincingly runs to the far left ideologically while conveying an ability to
bring home the bacon.

District 5 shifted eastward, still containing southeastern
Caddo but with much of it now outside the parish, the plurality of that in southern
Bossier and the remainder scattered well south into Red River Parish. Former
Bossier Parish School Board Member Republican Dennis Bamburg played his cards
right to become only one of three rookies to enter the House next year without
drawing any opposition.

While that district entered Bossier, District 6
exited it and will pick up a new representative as GOP state Rep. Thomas Pressly will gun for Senate District
38 that moved over to grab east Shreveport. Michael Melerine, present Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education member, also will take part in musical chairs
by running for this spot. He is a big favorite against no party public defender
Evan McMichael and Democrat theater
manager and activist Robert Darrow.

In recent years, the traditional afterthought House
district in Caddo has been District 7, as most of it is in rural parishes to
the south. GOP incumbent Larry Bagley
is heavily favored to retain that seat for a final term. In Bossier, the
boundaries shoved a bit north, District 8 Republican Raymond Crews faces no opposition for
another term.

As
previously noted, district boundary changes and Bossier political
establishment annoyance will create a rugged reelection battle for Republican Dodie Horton to secure a final term. She
squares off against businessman Chris
Turner, the establishment's pick. Her solid conservative legislative record
might be enough to hold him off.

The reconfigured Senate District 38, open as
incumbent Barry Milligan declined to run for a second term, that drew in Pressly
managed to retain former Democrat now Republican former seat holder John Milkovich.
Voters after one term grew sour on his taste
for big government in particular and Milligan handily defeated him last
time. Pressly is favored over him and also banker but previously political
operative Republican Chase
Jennings.

Spanning both parishes with a little presence in
Bossier, the District 39 race that attracted Glover and Jenkins also brought
back Democrat former state Rep. Barbara Norton, who tried to contest Tarver
last time but who
ran afoul of the residency requirement. With all three having tasted success
in running in parts of the district, this also will be a contest where the winning
candidate most convincingly runs to the left and shows an ability to pile up
the pork. Making things even more interesting, perennial GOP candidate Jim
Slagle is back, with his impact uncertain on who will make the runoff, or even
against him. However, Glover's track record also as Shreveport mayor perhaps
gives him a slight edge.

Perhaps receiving the award for most far-flung district
touching multiple parishes, the plurality of new District 31's residents lie in
Bossier and Caddo, washing over the southern reaches of each. As in the case of
House District 9 but for somewhat different reasons, this turned out as a battle
of the Bossier political establishment, if not of the rump grouping of white northwest
Louisiana Democrats whose power steadily has faded, against conservative insurgents. As previously noted, establishment forces back retired basketball coach Republican Mike McConathy while insurgents are
behind one of the Legislature's most prominent disruptors of traditional
liberal populism, term-limited Republican state Rep. Alan Seabaugh in a race sure to be close.
Again, a long legislative conservative record may allow Seabaugh to move into
the upper chamber.

Finally, as
previously noted another contest in which the establishment has a vested
interest occurs in District 36, which has migrated south and mostly out of
Webster Parish. Republican incumbent Robert
Mills, who beat an establishment incumbent last time that spent the most money
on a legislative race in history, takes on another establishment favorite in
the form of Republican Bossier Parish School Board Member Adam Bass. Mills has run into difficulty
among area conservatives by not backing an effort to hold the line on spending
hundreds of millions more dollars on capital outlay this past year, and this
disgruntlement presented an opportunity for the establishment to jump on him.
Mills will have to hope an otherwise solidly conservative voting record carries
him to victory.

Economics is about solving lots of little puzzles. At a July 4th party, a super smart friend -- not a macroeconomist -- posed a puzzle I should have understood long ago, prompting me to understand my own models a little better. How do we get inflation from the big fiscal stimulus of 2020-2021, he asked? Well, I answer, people get a lot of government debt and money, which they don't think will be paid back via higher future taxes or lower future spending. They know inflation or default will happen sooner or later, so they try to get rid of the debt now while they can rather than save it. But all we can do collectively is to try to buy things, sending up the price level, until the debt is devalued to what we expect the government can and will pay. OK, asked my friend, but that should send interest rates up, bond prices down, no? And interest rates stayed low throughout, until the Fed started raising them. I mumbled some excuse about interest rates never being very good at forecasting inflation, or something about risk premiums, but that's clearly unsatisfactory. Of course, the answer is that interest rates do not need to move. The Fed controls the nominal interest rate. If the Fed keeps the short term nominal interest rate constant, then nominal yields of all bonds stay the same, while fiscal inflation washes away the value of debt. I should have remembered my own central graph: This is the response of the standard sticky price model to a fiscal shock -- a 1% deficit that is not repaid by future surpluses -- while the Fed keeps interest rates constant. The solid line is instantaneous inflation, while the dashed line gives inflation measured as percent change from a year ago, which is the common way to measure it in the data. There you have it: The fiscal shock causes inflation, but since the nominal interest rate is fixed by the Fed, it goes nowhere, and long term bonds (in this linear model with the expectations hypothesis) go nowhere too. OK for the result, but how does it work? What about the intuition, that seeing inflation coming we should see higher interest rates? Let's dig deeper. Start with the simplest model, one-period debt and flexible prices. Now the model comes down to, nominal debt / price level = present value of surpluses, \[\frac{B_{t-1}}{P_t} = E_t \sum_{j=0}^\infty \beta^j s_{t+j}.\] (If you don't like equations, just read the words. They will do.) With a decline in the present value of surpluses, the value of debt coming due today (top left) can't change, so the price level must rise. The price of debt coming due is fixed at 1, so its relative price can't fall and its interest rate can't rise. Or, this model describes a price level jump. We get bad fiscal news, people try to spend their bonds, the price level jumps unexpectedly up, (\(P_t\) jumps up relative to \(E_{t-1}P_t\), but there is no further inflation, no rise in expected inflation so the interest rate \(i_t = r+ E_t \pi_{t+1}\) doesn't change. Ok, fine, you say, but that's one period, overnight debt, reserves at the Fed only. What about long term bonds? When we try to sell them, their prices can go down and interest rates go up, no? No, because if the Fed holds the nominal interest rate constant, their nominal prices don't change. With long term bonds, the basic equation becomes market value of nominal debt / price level = expected value of surpluses, \[\frac{\sum_{j=0}^\infty Q_t^{(j)} B_{t-1}^{(j)}}{P_t} = E_t \sum_{j=0}^\infty \beta^j s_{t+j}.\] Here, \(Q_t^{(j)}\) is the price of \(j\) period debt at time \(t\), and \(B_{t-1}^{(j)}\) is the face value of debt at the beginning of time \(t\) that matures in time \(t+j\). (\(Q_t^{(j)}=1/[1+y^{(j)}_t)]^j\) where \(y^{(j)}_t\) is the yield on \(j\) period debt; when the price goes down the yield or long-term interest rate goes up. )So, my smart friend notices, when the present value of surpluses declines, we could see nominal bond prices \(Q\) on top fall rather than the price level \(P\) on the bottom rise.  But we don't, because again, the Fed in this conceptual exercise keeps the nominal interest rate fixed, and so long term bond prices don't fall. If the \(Q\) don't fall, the \(P\) must rise. The one-period price level jump is not realistic, and the above graph plots what happens with sticky prices. (This is the standard continuous time new-Keynesian model.) The intuition is the same, but drawn out. The sum of future surpluses has fallen. People try to sell bonds, but with a constant interest rate the nominal price of long term bonds cannot fall. So, they try to sell bonds of all maturities, pushing up the price of goods and services. With sticky prices, this takes time; the price level slowly rises as inflation exceeds the nominal interest rate. A drawn out period of low real interest rates slowly saps the value of bondholder's wealth. In present value terms, the decline in surpluses is initially matched by a low real discount rate. Yes, there is expected inflation. Yes, long-term bondholders would like to escape it. But there is no escape: real rates of return are low on all bonds, short-term and long term. So, dear friend, we really can have a period of fiscal inflation, with no change in nominal interest rates. Note also that the inflation eventually goes away, so long as there are no more fiscal shocks, even without the Fed raising rates. That too seems a bit like our reality. This has all been in my own papers for 20 years. It's interesting how hard it can be to apply one's own models right on the spot. Maybe it was the great drinks and ribs. 

Bossier City's long history of trying to count coup
on Shreveport for once might serve it well, with an opportunity presenting
itself through a blunder by the latter.

For decades, Bossier City leaders have burdened themselves
with a psychological inferiority complex relating to their larger and
better-known (and, to many outsiders, with a more easily-pronounceable name) neighbor
across the Red River. Feeling overshadowed, they have pursued policies
attempting to make their city stand out from, if not look better than,
Shreveport.

Usually,
it has led to undesirable consequences. Leaders chafed when no
comprehensive hospital located in Bossier City, so they decided to build the
government-run Bossier Medical Center. That worked out until it became apparent
that Willis-Knighton Systems would come to town with an initial offer allegedly
for $42 million to buy BMC, whereupon egos kicked in and city leaders refused
it. WKS then built its own, drove BMC numbers steeply into the red, and in a
short time the city had a fire sale of the facility, which no longer operates,
for $18 million. (Two city councilors from that era, no party Jeff Darby
and Democrat Bubba
Williams, still serve on the Council.)

That was just an opportunity missed, as opposed to
the current money pit that is the Brookshire Grocery Arena. Built just after
the BMC debacle for tens of millions more dollars than at first contemplated,
it has consistently lost money year after year. But city leaders wanted a
modern indoor arena to contrast with what Shreveport had available (the Hirsch Memorial
Coliseum, which technically isn't even the city's but is part of a nonprofit
organization), so rather than wait on a nongovernment entity to build one it
took the plunge, to taxpayers' everlasting regret.

Typically, it has been the heavy hand of
government intervention, spending more to bulk up, that Bossier City has turned
to in order to draw its intended contrast which then backfired, stubbornly
resisting the idea that a government that spent less with lower taxation and
fees would create more incentive for people to live and work there. To
paraphrase Edmund Burke, to make people love their city, the city ought to
be lovely.

Now there presents a way to do that with a much more
valid dose of government intervention, courtesy of Shreveport's
impending jettison of a total smoking ban at its casinos. Earlier this week
it changed its ordinance
regarding smoking to require just a quarter of the area of a casino, boat or
land, to be nonsmoking. It's uncertain whether Republican Mayor Tom
Arceneaux will veto it or, if so, that veto would be overridden as it
passed on a 4-2 vote.

Practically speaking, that means there is no ban
at all. No technology can prevent smoke from wafting around nonsmoking areas.
In essence, this puts the facilities off-limits to anybody who suffers
physiologically from having to breathe smoke.

Shreveport thusly becomes the first jurisdiction in
the country to reverse itself on a smoking ban. The rationale for the declining
city, facing sharp population loss and revenue retrenchment as a result, to do
this was the restriction hurt the bottom line of the city's casinos and therefore
related city tax collections. Theoretically, one could make an argument that enforcement
of nonsmoking could do this, for gambling is an addictive behavior like smoking
with a relatively high association between the two, Thus, a smoking ban disproportionately
could chase away chumps.

Yet the data
don't indicate as such. Smoking bans have gone into place in all of the state's
largest cities for casinos, but changes in revenue in places that did largely
have tracked those located in jurisdictions that continue to allow smoking.
Indeed, a review
of Shreveport and Bossier City markets, with the latter continuing to allow
people to smoke up in casinos, shows no significant difference in revenue changes.

Changes trending down, of course, that have little
to do with smoking and everything
to do with increased competition from Texas but particularly tribal casinos
in Oklahoma. It seems that smoking bans are basically unrelated with revenues because
of a substitution effect. Smokers
tend to be older, less educated, and lower-income compared to nonsmokers,
so it may be that potentially fewer admittances by smokers could be partially
offset by some nonsmokers who then lose more lucre.

Regardless, a deeper civil rights issue remains. A
growing portion of the population suffers from pulmonological conditions where
even a hint of smoke can send them into distress, something they can't control –
as opposed to smoking, which is an entirely voluntary action where consequences
are exported to other people who can avoid these only by curtailing their own
autonomy. In fact, with smoking in the population at nearly half its rate of
two decades ago, the proportions of smokers and people with pulmonological
diseases are about equal.

While argumentation about exportation of smoke
onto others, such as casino employees, that can impact negatively their health
merit investigation as there appears to be some association between someone's
health and breathing in smoke, there is no doubt that a causal mechanism exists
where smoke negatively affects directly some people's pulmonological health. In
essence permitting smoking in any part of a casino denies a portion of the
population the ability to work there, eat there, gamble there, and be
entertained in whatever other way there – meaning smokers are privileged in their
conduct of a voluntary behavior over those who suffer from a disability they
must bear involuntarily.

Decades ago, when mainly in the South and
profusely in Shreveport and Bossier City citizens shamefully were discriminated
against merely for the color of their skin in the conduct of commerce, the U.S.
Congress stepped in and legislated to guarantee that people couldn't be denied commercial
access solely on the basis of that. In our constitutional system, health
matters are governed by states, and local governments if delegated that way by
the states. A statewide ban by Louisiana on smoking in casinos would be best,
but absent that local governments should take up that in order to protect equal
access for vulnerable citizens.

Bossier City instituting a smoking ban in its
casinos would produce a rare instance where the city in trying to distinguish
itself from Shreveport acted on the whole actually to increase its citizens'
autonomy and quality of life. That it hasn't done this to date is to its
discredit, but that's magnified if it fails to act when served this reminder of
the west bank's stupidity.

To wear a mask in a store, bus, classroom, or other public space is now to be in a small, and dwindling minority, as much as this might vary from place to place. Aside from a few holdouts, doctors offices, the place where I get my haircut, and so on, there are no mandates requiring masks anymore. That it is a minority, and a choice, is not the way that it often appears, at least to those who do not wear masks.One thing that I have heard, and others who still wear masks hear from time to time, is the assertion, "You do not have to wear those anymore" by some bystander. Sometimes this is truly meant to be helpful, as if someone thinks we have not received the news. Underlying this correction is the unstated claim that the only reason anyone would ever wear a mask is if they were made to do so. It can only be compliance and not cooperation. What is more interesting, as the tweet above indicates, is that there is a strange tendency to interpret mask wearing as not just compliance but conformity. People wearing masks are see as sheepishly obeying rules that do not exist, and conforming to a community that is non-existent. There may, in some contexts, and situations, be some social pressure to wear a mask, but given the overall numbers that pressure would seem so small as to be meaningless. What else explains the couples where one person, usually a woman, wears a mask while the other, usually a man, does not? Many people have interpreted this reaction, and the hostility to mask wearing as the acting out of a guilty conscience. People do not want to be reminded of the pandemic in the first place, and on top of this, to be reminded that they could be doing more, or something, to stop its spread. Almost inadvertently "mask wearers" have become a kind of "Guilty Remnant" from The Leftovers. The Leftovers is show more people should be talking about, especially now. It takes place after 2% of the worlds global population disappears suddenly one day. The show deals with the ramifications of this traumatic event. The Guilty Remnant as they call themselves are a cult of sorts, dedicated to not letting society return to business as usual. They wear white, stalk survivors of the disappeared, and smoke copious amounts of cigarettes as if to underscore the transient and random nature of death. If we could all go at any moment why not light up? Masking could be interpreted as a refusal to let the world move on. However, there are two important differences between our world and the show. In the world of The Leftovers, no one has really moved on, everyone is struggling to make sense of an inexplicable event. In our world we have been trying to move on since before the pandemic even started. Second, in the world of The Leftovers the event was traumatic, instant, but it is over. The US still records four hundred deaths a day.. A scene from The Leftovers Masking could also be understood as an uncomfortable reminder of not just the ongoing pandemic but our overall dependency on others. One of the traumatic effects of the pandemic, at least on life in the USA, was the sudden recognition that none of us are "kingdoms within a kingdom," that our lives are dependent upon countless others, truckers, warehouse workers, cooks, dishwashers, etc. that for the most part remain out of sight and out of mind. The mask is a symbol of our species being, that we share the same world and live together even as we try to tell ourselves we live in isolation and separation. Which is not to say that the virus affects us all equally, the entire history of our response to the virus, from the uneven access to vaccines, to the spotty protections offered by such things as working from home, which protected a small number at the expense of many more. I would like to offer a third interpretation. In order to do so we must historicize the pandemic, and our response to it a little bit, at the very beginning, in year one before the vaccines were even developed, there were many calls to return to normal at any cost, that the cure should not become worse than the disease. There was an almost ghoulish demand to sacrifice lives at the alter of the economy. That is not what we are dealing with now. What is striking about the contemporary restoration of normal is that it is less ideological, less a political project, than the insistence of persistent force of necessity. No one says that we are sacrificing lives to restore the economy anymore, ghouls are at least honest, but with a shrug we just proclaim that nothing else can be done. Mandates are dropped because of the resistance it elicits from customers, the same with vaccination requirements, everything is left to a choice. We become kingdoms within a kingdom even in the face of pandemic that would remind us otherwise.Previously, on this blog (and elsewhere) I argue that capitalism can be understood as an institutionalization of Spinoza's formula of "seeing the better and doing the worse."  We often know what the right thing to do is, but we are confronted by the necessity of doing otherwise because it will help us keep our job, make it possible to buy what we need. The pandemic is particular instantiation of this, as academic administrators drop vaccine mandates out of the fear that enrollments will decline, stores drop mask mandates because it will threaten business, and so on. Some of the people in these situations know that they are doing the worse. Of course seeing the better and doing the worse is difficult, it creates a constant schism. It is better to just do the worse and claim nothing better is possible. You see the better and do the worse long enough, you lose sight of the better. 

Neuvostoliiton hajottua venäjänkielisen väestön asema Virossa joutui kiivaan poliittisen kamppailun kohteeksi. Viron venäjänkielinen väestö, joka oli asettunut Viron alueelle neuvostovallan aikana, alettiin nähdä muukalaisina, joiden oikeus kotiin ja kansalaisuuteen Virossa tulivat monin tavoin kyseenalaistetuiksi. Tälle Neuvostoliiton sisäisen siirtolaisuuden kautta syntyneelle venäjänkieliselle väestölle ei annettu automaattisesti Viron kansalaisuutta, heillä ei ollut oikeutta kaksoiskansalaisuuteen ja heiltä edellytettiin viron kielen taitoa, mitä suurimmalla osalla heistä ei ennestään ollut. Tätä politiikkaa perusteltiin sillä, että se oli ainoa tapa suojella Viron kansallista itsenäisyyttä, ja uuden valtion perustana täytyi olla ajatus etnisestä virolaisuudesta ja viron kielestä. Tämän seurauksena venäjänkielinen väestö, joka oli kotiutunut Viroon vuosikymmenten kuluessa, on kokenut, että heidän kotinsa neuvostoajan jälkeisessä Virossa on uhattuna. He ovat myös kokeneet sosialismin kaatumista seuranneet, dramaattiset taloudelliset ja sosiaaliset muutokset, mukaan lukien Viron integrointi uusliberaalin kapitalismin rakenteisiin ja neuvostoaikaisten sosioekonomisten rakenteiden rapautuminen. Näihin muutoksiin on liittynyt monenlaista kamppailua, ja erityisesti iäkkäämmät sukupolvet ovat kärsineet myös tunnetasolla paljon. Tämä väitöskirja analysoi näitä kotiin ja kuulumiseen liittyviä kamppailuja Viron Narvassa. Narva on Viron koillisosassa sijaitseva suhteellisen pieni teollisuuskaupunki, jossa venäjänkieliset muodostavat asukkaiden enemmistön. Narvasta tuli rajakaupunki Viron itsenäistymisen yhteydessä, ja myöhemmin EU:n itäisin kaupunki. Keskityn erityisesti venäjänkielisen väestön kodin 'tekemisen' käytäntöihin, joita tarkastelen sekä neuvostoaikana että Neuvostoliiton hajoamisen jälkeisenä aikana. Tarkastelen venäjänkielisten narvalaisten arjen käytäntöjä kotia koskevan antropologisen tutkimuksen valossa, ja keskityn erityisesti kodin poliittisiin ulottuvuuksiin. Ammennan erityisesti niistä teoreettisista keskusteluista, joissa käsitteellistetään siirtolaisten kodin rakentamisen käytäntöjä ja kotia mahdollisuuksien tilana. Tarkastelen kodin 'tekemistä' materiaalisena, emotionaalisena, sosiaalisena ja poliittisena toimintana, ja ymmärrän sen prosessina, joka muokkautuu suhteessa valtioon, tulevaisuuden toiveisiin sekä jälkisosialistiseen transformaatioon. Tutkimus perustuu laajaan etnografiseen kenttätyöhön Narvassa vuosina 2010– 2011 sekä lyhyen seurantajakson aikana vuonna 2018. Informanttini ovat syntyneet Viron ulkopuolella entisen Neuvostoliiton alueella, mutta muuttaneet neuvostoaikana Narvaan. Tutkimuksen päähenkilöitä ovat siis neuvostoajan siirtolaiset, erityisesti venäjänkieliset iäkkäät sukupolvet, sekä kaupunki itsessään. Selvittämällä venäjänkielisen väestön muuttoliikkeen historiaa neuvostoaikana, kodin 'tekemisen' käytäntöjä Narvassa sinne muutettaessa sekä vuosikymmenten aikana muokkautuvaa asumisen ja kodin 'tekemisen' prosessia suhteessa paikkaan, paikallisyhteisöön ja valtioon, tutkimukseni valottaa sitä, miten keskustelukumppaneideni käsitys kodista Narvassa on muuttunut neuvostoajan jälkeen. Analysoin tapoja, joilla ihmiset muuntavat paikan kodiksi investoimalla siihen aikaa, energiaa ja työtä. En kuitenkaan tarkastele koteja ensisijaisesti henkilökohtaisena projektina, vaan korostan sosiaalisten ja taloudellisten rakenteiden, intersubjektiivisten neuvottelujen sekä poliittisten ja taloudellisten prosessien merkitystä. Tarkastelussani koti siis ulottuu rajattujen yksityisten tilojen, kuten asuntojen ja datšojen, ulkopuolelle. Koti luodaan suhteessa kaupungin rytmeihin ja rutiineihin, ja osana paikallisia ja valtiollisia poliittisia projekteja. Osoitan, että Narvasta tuli 'koti' erityisten sosiaalisten käytäntöjen ja ideologisesti muovautuneiden moraalimaailmojen kautta. Tämä tutkimus valottaa sitä prosessia, jossa Narva muuttui toivon ja kehityksen paikasta epävarmuuden ja epäoikeudenmukaisuuden tyyssijaksi neuvostosukupolven kokemuksissa. Samalla tutkimus valottaa kodin ja kotiutumisen sosiaalisia ja poliittisia prosesseja laajemminkin, kuten myös jälkisosialistisen transformaation ongelmakohtia. ; After the Soviet dissolution, home and the right to home became highly contested and politicised issues for Estonian Russian-speakers who had resettled in Estonian territory during the Soviet period. They began to be seen by the majority population as strangers who did not rightfully belong in an independent Estonia. The Soviet-era Russian-speaking resettlers were not automatically granted Estonian citizenship, were not entitled to dual citizenship, and were required to acquire Estonian language skills, which most of them did not already have. These policies, which undermined the position of Russian-speakers in comparison with the Soviet period, were justified by the post-Soviet Estonian state as being the only way to safeguard the sovereignty of an Estonian nation-state built on the idea of Estonian ethnicity and language. However, Russian-speakers have felt their home in post-Soviet Estonia to be under threat. They have also experienced the dramatic transformation of economic and social relations that came with the fall of socialism, including the integration of Estonia into the structures of neoliberal capitalism and its distancing from the socioeconomic structures of the former Soviet space. These changes have been accompanied by many struggles and a great deal of emotional suffering, especially for the older generations. This thesis examines past and present home-making practices among Narva's Russian-speaking population, the dominant inhabitants of a relatively small industrial town in the North-Eastern region of Estonia that became a border-town with the formation of the Russian Federation in 1991. I explore the everyday practices of Russian-speaking Narvans by engaging with the scholarship of anthropology of home, especially its political aspects, drawing from and contributing to discussions that emphasise the specificities of migrants' home and home as a space of possibilities. I use analytical lenses that scrutinise home-making as a material, emotional, social and political practice, with reference to relationships to both state and hope, and to postsocialist transformation. This thesis builds on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Narva both in 2010- 2011 and during a short follow-up period in 2018 when I investigated the home- making practices of Russian-speaking Narvans who were born elsewhere and had moved to the town. By inquiring into their mobile life trajectories, processes of homing in Narva upon arrival and ongoing practices of dwelling in and relating to the place, the people and the ruling state, my research sheds light on why and how my interlocutors' sense of home in Narva, a particular kind of "Russian town" in the Soviet West, has changed since the Soviet era. The protagonists of this study are the Soviet-era resettlers, especially the Russian-speaking older generations with established Soviet subjectivities, and the town itself. I analyse the ways in which people turn places into homes by investing time, energy and labour. However, instead of arguing for home as a personal matter, I emphasize the role of wider societal structures, intersubjective matters, and external forces, including state politics and neoliberal capitalism, that affect how homes can be practised and perceived. In my exploration, home radiates out from tiny private capsules, such as apartments and dachas. Home is produced in relation to the rhythms and routines of the town at large, and as part of the local and national political projects. I discuss how Narva became a homely place through specific practices of sociality and ideologically shaped moral worlds. This study sheds light on the process by which Narva turned from a place of hope and development into a place of uncertainty and injustice in the experiences of the Soviet generation. At the same time, the study reflects the social and political processes of home and home-making more broadly, and disentangles the problematics of postsocialist transformation.

Las innovaciones tecnológicas –específicamente en materia de telecomunicaciones- han revolucionado el mercado mundial en tanto provee a las personas de herramientas para realizar actividades de distinta índole con mayor accesibilidad, inmediatez, eficacia y rapidez. Una de las más propagadas son las plataformas digitales de intermediación (aplicativos o apps) que, a través del espacio digital proporcionado por el internet, ponen en contacto personas y empresas que intercambian productos y servicios. En este escenario podemos identificar la participación de tres personajes: (i) los prestadores u oferentes del servicio (e.j. conductores, anfitriones, etc.); (ii) los usuarios (consumidores finales); y, (iii) los intermediarios (p.e. Uber, AirBnB, Housers, etc.); cada uno de ellos desempeñando funciones diferenciadas pero conectadas una con otra. Como vemos, la economía de pares se aleja del esquema de mercado tradicional construido sobre la base de la relación proveedor-consumidor, para dar paso a un nuevo esquema de negocio consumidor-consumidor (o también descrito como P2P por la denominación peer to peer) que nos propone la interrogante, si en este tipo de negocios donde no entra a tallar un proveedor ¿quién responde por la afectación del derecho del consumidor? Efectivamente, la regulación que contemple este tipo de transacciones debe enmarcarse dentro de la normativa de protección al consumidor, pues son los intereses de los consumidores los que se ven directamente afectados. En tal sentido, corresponde identificar al agente que debe responder ante el consumidor por los productos y servicios que brinda en el mercado, bajo parámetros de idoneidad exigidos por la normativa especializada. Sobre el tema mucho se ha escrito, específicamente respecto al alcance de la responsabilidad que recae sobre los intermediarios frente a los consumidores finales, sin perjuicio de ello, para abordar la problemática con plenitud, considero que es necesario determinar la responsabilidad entre los prestadores del servicio específico y los consumidores finales, situación que se presenta de manera manifiesta en lo que se ha denominado economía colaborativa o economía de pares y de la que no existe abundante bibliografía. Es precisamente aquella falta de precisión respecto al agente responsable ante el consumidor en operaciones o transacciones de economía colaborativa lo que impulsa el presente trabajo a proponer una alternativa de solución a partir del análisis de todos los aspectos que rodean a la economía colaborativa, con el objetivo de contribuir al conocimiento de la materia y servir como referente en la elaboración de políticas regulatorias como la propuesta. No han faltado voces que sostienen que el problema descrita se soluciona con intervención gubernamental a través de regulaciones sectoriales distintas al sistema de protección al consumidor, no obstante, opino que no es la forma más adecuada, por la naturaleza de las transacciones de la economía colaborativa y por los riesgos que estas podrían generar al ser aplicadas a transacciones tan dinámicas como las estudiadas. Es así que la estructura del presente trabajo consistirá en tres capítulos: (i) la introducción, en el cual se planteará el problema, que a su vez comprende el planteamiento del problema y enunciado, la hipótesis y objetivos del presente trabajo, lo cual servirá como pauta que dirigirán los contenidos de los demás capítulos; (ii) el marco teórico, en el cual expondremos de manera expositiva y enunciativa los referentes normativos, jurisprudenciales y doctrinarios que tienen incidencia directa e indirecta en el tema propuesto; y, (iii) los resultados, donde desarrollaremos de manera argumentativa, cualitativa e interpretativa los antecedentes planteados en el capítulo anterior. De lo expuesto líneas arriba se finalizará con las conclusiones y recomendaciones del caso. ; Technological innovations - specifically in telecommunications matters - have revolutionized the world market as it provides people with tools to carry out activities of a different nature with greater accessibility, immediacy, efficiency and speed. One of the most widespread are the digital mediation platforms (applications or apps) that, through the digital space provided by the internet, put people and companies in contact that exchange products and services. In this scenario, we can identify the participation of three characters: (i) the service providers or suppliers (e.g. drivers, hosts, etc.); (ii) the users (end consumers); and, (iii) the intermediaries between them (e.g. Uber, AirBnB, TaxiBeat, etc.). Much has been written on the subject, specifically regarding the scope of the responsibility that falls on intermediaries vis-à-vis end consumers, without prejudice to this, we consider that to complete the puzzle it is necessary to determine the responsibility between service providers and consumers final, which has not been fully developed from the doctrine, a situation that manifests itself in a manifest way in what has been called collaborative economy or peer economy. Indeed, the peer economy breaks the traditional market scheme built on the basis of the supplier-consumer relationship, the core of the economy, to give way to a new consumer consumer business scheme (or also described as P2P by the name peer to peer) that proposes the question, if in this type of business where a supplier does not enter to carve, who is responsible for the affectation of consumer rights? It is precisely that uncertainty that prompts this work to propose an alternative solution based on the analysis of all the aspects that surround the collaborative economy, with the aim of contributing to the knowledge of the matter and serving as a reference for legal or regulatory initiatives. There has been no lack of voices that argue that the problem described above is solved simply with the intervention of the Government through normative regulation, however, we consider that, although the initiative is laudable, it is not the most appropriate way to address this issue. Thus, the structure of this work will consist of three chapters: (i) the introduction, in which the problem will be raised, which in turn includes the statement of the problem and statement, the hypothesis and objectives of this work, which will serve as a guideline that will direct the contents of the other chapters; (ii) the theoretical framework, in which we will present in an expository and enunciative manner the normative, jurisprudential and doctrinal references that have direct and indirect impact on the proposed topic; and, (iii) the results, where we will develop in an argumentative, qualitative and interpretive way the antecedents raised in the previous chapter. From the above lines, the conclusions and recommendations of the case will be concluded ; Tesis

This thesis proposes to widen the understanding of corporate tax avoidance determinants', and its economic consequences by using a large sample of firms from 39 countries. We relied on (Atwood et al. 2012) measure of corporate tax avoidance that become a benchmark for many tax avoidance studies. Particularly, we study in the first essay how financial reporting quality affects corporate tax avoidance. Our results show that greater earnings quality reduces corporate tax avoidance. This finding is consistent with the agency theory perspective. Furthermore, we build on the existing literature and test whether the strength of the legal institutional environment affects the relationship between earnings quality and corporate tax avoidance. Our results show that the association between earnings quality and corporate tax avoidance is stronger in countries with higher levels of legal institutions.Secondly, the purpose of the second essay is to shed the light on the relation between corporate tax avoidance, and investment inefficiency in a multi-country design. we find that corporate tax avoidance is positively associated with suboptimal investments. This result supports the agency perspective and suggests that tax avoidance activities lead to a resource allocation problem. Particularly, the positive effect of corporate tax avoidance is due to the underinvestment problem suggesting that firms engaging in tax saving activities suffer from exacerbated information asymmetry issues leading them to underinvest. More importantly, the results show that the relationship between tax avoidance and investment inefficiency was magnified on account of the global financial crisis. We also find that firm and country-level institutional characteristics affect the relation between corporate tax avoidance activities and investment inefficiency. Specifically, the positive effect of tax avoidance on investment inefficiency is less prevalent in highly financial reporting quality firms. Moreover, investor protection mitigates the positive effect of tax avoidance practices on suboptimal investments. However, in the GFC period, investor protection loses its role to enforce and protect minority shareholders rights'.Finally, in the third essay, we investigate whether corporate tax avoidance affects the value of excess cash. Additionally, this study analyzes the effect of some macroeconomics factors such as, legal institutions and economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on this relationship. Our findings lend credence to the idea that corporate tax avoidance could increase the value destruction associated with cash holdings suggesting, that investors sanction the value of cash hold by firms that avoiding higher taxes. This study extends the current literature that shows that corporate cash policy is influenced by country-level macro settings. Our results reveal that economic policy uncertainty hampers the discount in the value of excess cash, particularly, an uncertain period, investors will underestimate any negative reputational practices and are less likely to sanction the misuse of corporate resources made by managers. Moreover, we show that corporate tax avoidance has a negative impact on the value of cash only for firms which operated in countries with stronger institutional quality. ; Cette thèse propose trois essais dont l'objectif est d'élargir la compréhension des déterminants de l'évasion fiscale des entreprises et de ses conséquences économiques en utilisant un large échantillon d'entreprises issu de 39 pays. Nous nous sommes appuyés sur la mesure de l'évasion fiscale des entreprises de (Atwood et al. 2012) qui est devenue une référence pour de nombreuses études internationales sur l'évasion fiscale. En particulier, nous étudions dans le premier essai comment la qualité de l'information financière affecte l'évasion fiscale des entreprises. Nos résultats montrent qu'une plus grande qualité des bénéfices réduit l'évasion fiscale des entreprises. Cette conclusion est cohérente avec la théorie de l'agence. En outre, nous nous appuyons sur la littérature existante pour vérifier si la force de l'environnement institutionnel affecte la relation entre la qualité des bénéfices et l'évasion fiscale des entreprises. Nos résultats montrent que l'association entre la qualité des bénéfices et l'évasion fiscale des entreprises est plus forte dans les pays où le niveau des institutions juridiques est plus élevé.L'objectif du deuxième essai est de mettre en exergue la relation entre l'évasion fiscale et l'inefficacité de l'investissement dans un modèle multi-pays. Nous constatons que l'évasion fiscale des entreprises est positivement associée à des investissements sous-optimaux. Ce résultat soutient la perspective de l'agence et suggère que les activités d'évasion fiscale conduisent à un problème d'allocation des ressources. En particulier, l'effet positif de l'évasion fiscale des entreprises est dû au problème de sous-investissement, ce qui suggère que les entreprises qui s'engagent dans des activités d'économie d'impôt souffrent de problèmes d'asymétrie d'information exacerbés qui les conduisent à sous-investir. Plus important encore, les résultats montrent que la relation entre l'évasion fiscale et l'inefficacité de l'investissement a été amplifiée en raison de la crise financière mondiale. Plus précisément, l'effet positif de l'évasion fiscale sur l'inefficience de l'investissement est moins important dans les entreprises dont la qualité de l'information financière est élevée. En outre, la protection des investisseurs atténue l'effet positif des pratiques d'évasion fiscale sur les investissements sous-optimaux. Cependant, au cours de la période de la récente crise financière de 2008 (GFC), les évidences empiriques prouvent que la protection des investisseurs perd son rôle de mise en application et de protection des droits des actionnaires minoritaires.Enfin, dans le troisième essai, nous cherchons à savoir si l'évasion fiscale affecte l'excès de valeur des liquidités. En outre, cette étude a été consacrée à l'analyse de l'effet de certains facteurs macroéconomiques tels que les institutions juridiques et l'incertitude politique économique (EPU) sur cette relation. Nos résultats accréditent l'idée que l'évasion fiscale pourrait augmenter la destruction de valeur associée aux liquidités, suggérant que les investisseurs sanctionnent la valeur des liquidités détenues par les entreprises qui évitent les impôts. Cette étude élargit la littérature actuelle qui montre que la politique de trésorerie des entreprises est influencée par les paramètres macroéconomiques. Nos résultats révèlent que l'incertitude de la politique économique entrave l'actualisation de la valeur des liquidités excédentaires, en particulier, en période d'incertitude, les investisseurs sous-estiment les pratiques négatives en matière de réputation et sont moins susceptibles de sanctionner la mauvaise utilisation des ressources de l'entreprise par les dirigeants. De plus, nous montrons que l'évasion fiscale a un impact négatif sur la valeur des liquidités uniquement pour les entreprises qui opèrent dans des pays où la qualité institutionnelle est plus forte.