New Economic Perspectives has the article The New York Times Claims that Opposing EU Austerity Leads to Anti-Semitism by William Black.

It turns out that opposition to austerity is a key cause of Anti-Semitism – at least in the imagination of NYT reporters.

“With Europe still shaking from a populist backlash against fiscal austerity, some Jews speak of feeling politically isolated, without an ideological home.”

That sentence is odd on multiple dimensions. First, there is the question of what is “shaking” Europe. The NYT thinks it is opposition to austerity – not austerity – that is “shaking” Europe. That reverses reality. The troika’s infliction of austerity forced the Eurozone back into a gratuitous Second Great Recession and much of periphery into a gratuitous Second Great Depression. It has now pushed Italy into a third recession and the eurozone as a whole into “stagnation” – eight years after the bubbles burst and six years after the most acute phase of the financial crisis. Eurozone austerity is one of the great crimes against humanity.

This is just another reason why I have trouble understanding why Jews of any foresight would still believe in The New York Times, fiscal austerity, or any Ayn Rand philosophy extolling the greed of oligarchs.

The realization the other day that fundamentalist Muslims seem to be the most adamant opponents of the ills caused by unfettered capitalism, leads me to the following transition.

It is one thing to want to support Israel, but when it comes to turning a blind eye to the cause of the Palestinians, we are treading dangerously near to being on the wrong side of the class war. The support for Israel and the resultant blame put on the Palestinians sounds to me too remarkably close to the arguments of the 1% against the 99% in this country and the world in general.

If you blame the downtrodden for all of their problems without realizing who is doing the treading, then you may be on the wrong side of the argument. Whatever little logic you may have on your side will be hardly noticed when the downtrodden finally rise up.

The Boston Globe has the column Charlie Baker saved Harvard Pilgrim. Can we stop debating it? by Shirley Leung.

It’s true that Baker raised rates by a lot, but so did other insurers at the time. The increases, however, weren’t onerous enough to prevent Harvard Pilgrim from growing. Membership rose from a low of 750,000 to more than 1 million on his watch.

Yes, Baker was well paid, but his compensation package was in line with his peers in 2008, the last full year he was CEO. He still doesn’t hold a gold coin to Ted Kelly, who made out with nearly $50 million a year as CEO and chairman of Liberty Mutual.

As for Baker rescuing Harvard Pilgrim, let’s get this straight because you’re going to hear a lot from Martha Coakley, the attorney general and Democrat gubernatorial candidate who will tell you Charlie was no hero. He got a state bailout. Slashed jobs. Hiked prices. Is this leadership?

So this is what you need to know: After serving in the Weld and Cellucci administrations, Baker went off to work in health care, and in 1999, he was brought in to fix a company in deep trouble. He did so with a plan, a firm hand on the rudder, and grit. He pulled out of Rhode Island. He cut jobs, even outsourced them. He invested in technology to improve customer satisfaction.

By the time he left, Harvard Pilgrim was rated the best health insurer in America in annual rankings conducted by a respected nonprofit. So give the guy credit where credit is due.

So we get the idea that Charlie Baker should be governor because his health insurance rate increases were not any worse than the other insurance companies at the time.  Being a firm believer in the law of supply and demand, we are to conclude that Shirley Leung isn’t purposely leaving out the other side to the story of Harvard/Pilgrim’s increasing enrollment that would offset the increase in rates.

We can praise Charlie Baker for being no more rapacious than other executives when it comes to his compensation package.  I’m supposed to consider voting for Baker because he is not nearly as bad as Ted Kelly?

As far as Charlie Baker being a job creator, Leung says “He cut jobs, even outsourced them.”  Let’s also praise Baker because “He invested in technology to improve customer satisfaction” after he decimated morale amongst his workforce with draconian job cuts.  OK, so that last part is only my interpretation.  Doesn’t the world have a problem that corporations can save money by replacing workers with automation, and feels a need to apportion the benefits of increased productivity to only its top management and share holders?  The Charlie Baker’s of the world are the problem, not the solution.

Charlie Baker must be a genius to have rescued Harvard/Pilgrim with his own ingenuity (and a “state bailout”).

Now, consider the responsibilities of a governor.  Suppose you manage to run the government by keeping within your budget, cutting taxes, and laying off people, but the state has a higher unemployment rate, crumbling infrastructure, declining education achievements, and higher rates of poverty.  Can you simply say that the negatives are just not my job as you could when you were in private business?

Let’s hope we never elect a governor who thinks that running a state is just like running a business.