Leiter links to Beinart,  "...this hard-hitting opinion piece in the NYT"

On the surface, the battle between Mr. Netanyahu and his critics does indeed look familiar. In recent years, from Brazil to Hungary to India to the United States, anti-government protesters have accused authoritarian-minded populists of threatening liberal democracy. But look closer at Israel’s political drama and you notice something striking: The people most threatened by Mr. Netanyahu’s authoritarianism aren’t part of the movement against it.

The demonstrations include very few Palestinians. In fact, Palestinian politicians have criticized them for having, in the words of former Knesset member Sami Abu Shehadeh, “nothing to do with the main problem in the region — justice and equality for all the people living here.”

The reason is that the movement against Mr. Netanyahu is not like the pro-democracy opposition movements in Turkey, India or Brazil — or the movement against Trumpism in the United States. It’s not a movement for equal rights. It’s a movement to preserve the political system that existed before Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition took power, which was not, for Palestinians, a genuine liberal democracy in the first place. It’s a movement to save liberal democracy for Jews.

This is mostly true, but also a non-sequitur: even in an apartheid state, the loss of judicial independence can make the place worse, and especially when the courts are the only branch of government which sometimes defend the rights of the victims of apartheid-like policies.  All Israeli Jews and Arabs will be worse off if judicial independence is destroyed; the situation of the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be mostly unchanged (although I can't see how they would not eventually be worse off if the judiciary is fully subordinated to the right-wing coalition).

"This is mostly true, but also a non-sequitur..." There's not much to say. 

Serendipity, via Jäger. 

"Convergence on inflation and divergence on price control among post Keynesian pioneers: insights from Galbraith and Lerner"

Epistemologically their relationship to the market mechanism was fundamentally different, in particular because of an institutionalist anchoring for Galbraith and a neoclassical one for Lerner. This divergence was reinforced by Galbraith’s practical expertise—not only within the OPA but also the United States Strategic Bombing Survey and then the State Department—as well as his field know ledge—notably through his activity at Fortune magazine, whereas Lerner’s activities remained largely confined to academia. Normatively Lerner had an almost dogmatic fascination for the market price mechanism, in the name of the principle of consumer sovereignty which lay at the core of neoclassical welfare economics.