text:
California Free Press
'A Win for the Planet!': Dutch Supreme Court Issues Landmark Ruling Mandating Climate Action
Published on Friday, December 20, 2019
by Common Dreams
The nonprofit that brought the case called it "a groundbreaking decision that confirms that individual governments must do their fair share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Supporters of a climate case in the Netherlands celebrated the Dutch Supreme Court's ruling Friday. (Photo: Urgenda/Twitter)
Advocates for climate action celebrated Friday after the Supreme Court of the Netherlands upheld a landmark ruling that found the Dutch government is obligated under international human rights law to more ambitiously reduce greenhouse gas emissions that drive global heating.
The case was initially launched in 2013 by the nonprofit Urgenda Foundation on behalf of hundreds of Dutch citizens and has been repeatedly appealed.
"Today, at a moment when people around the world are in need of real hope that governments will act with urgency to address the climate crisis, the Dutch Supreme Court has delivered a groundbreaking decision that confirms that individual governments must do their fair share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," an Urgenda spokesperson said after the ruling.
The court ruled that the Dutch government must cut emissions by at least 25% compared with 1990 levels by the end of 2020 "because of the risk of a dangerous climate change that can also seriously affect the residents of the Netherlands in their right to life and well-being," according to a translation from BuzzFeed News.
History is written @climatecase @Urgenda pic.twitter.com/yByIgDOElW
— Urgenda (@urgenda) December 20, 2019
Tessa Kahn, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network, took to Twitter to highlight former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson's reaction to the ruling:
Absolutely historic day for #climatejustice. Supreme Court confirms that human rights obligations of Dutch government require it to significant & urgently reduce emissions. No further opportunity for appeal. Climate justice is a legal and moral obligation. pic.twitter.com/8s4HmjSWhS
— Tessa Khan (@tessakhan) December 20, 2019
The ruling is "a victory for the climate, for our planet, and for future generations," declared Greenpeace International general counsel Jasper Teulings, who welcomed the news in a tweet. "Now let's put this in action."
Urgenda's win "could inspire people worldwide to hold governments legally accountable for #ClimateChange," the Greenpeace International account said on Twitter. "This puts all laggard governments on notice: act now or see you in court."
Reporting on the news out of the Netherlands Friday, Forbes pointed out that "inspired by the success of Urgenda's case, other organizations brought their representatives to court. Similar legal initiatives are taking place in several countries, including Belgium, Canada, Pakistan, and the United States."
Meanwhile, back in the Netherlands—as the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth noted Friday—Urgenda is also suing fossil fuel giant Royal Dutch Shell for its contributions to the global climate crisis.
Fantastic news to kick of the winter break:
The Dutch supreme court has ruled the NL government must increase climate action now.
Guess who the brilliant lawyers @urganda are suing next? @Shell for damaging the #climate.#ClimateCase https://t.co/MFpw63kQbg https://t.co/78UUb0CG0N
— Friends of the Earth (@foeeurope) December 20, 2019
Posted at 08:32 PM in Common Dreams, Climate Change, Europe, Global Warming | Permalink | Comments (0)
What's Behind America's Vicious Cycle of Economic Inequality
PERILS TO AMERICA'S DEMOCRACY OF DESCENDING TO A NEO-LIBERAL CAPITALISTIC AUTOCRACY
by Frank Thomas
I agree with Umair Haque's excellent essay, Why America is the First Poor Rich Country, that our historical process of growing income/wealth concentration creates a vicious cycle that persists through generations, effectively corroding our democracy. A theme of inevitably increasing income and wealth concentration under our capitalistic model that the indefatigable researcher, Thomas Piketty focused on in depth. We have an enhanced Free Market Capitalism democracy variant that's dangerously evolving into an Aristocracy - sharp contrast to Europe's constantly refined 'mixed blending' of socialist and capitalist elements in their multi-party, relatively inclusive Social Democracies. It comes down to a European 'noblesse oblige' culture. That means those with wealth, power, influence recognize that their advantageous positions come with some morally obligated social-economic responsibilities. Unlike the U.S., Europe has on average very low income 'break-levels' where the highest progressive tax rate kicks in for ALL at the same income break- level.
But unlike Europe, we have large numbers in the Top 1%, 5%, 10% income brackets earning increasingly prodigious incomes at much lower tax rates that kick in at very high income 'break-levels.' Besides low inheritance tax rates, this income tax advantage contributes greatly to our nation's huge income inequality and obscenely disproportionate shares of national income and wealth received by the Top 10% vs. the Bottom 90%. The Top 1% has a vast majority of wealth in the economy and control of financial markets. So, we have the 'noblesse' without the 'oblige,' i.e., the most fortunate maximize their income and wealth, with scant attention to a moral obligation to support the lot of the less fortunate and stagnantly progressing middle class. In fact, such 'oblige' behaviour is usually obstructed or given a token last thought by the conservative right.
As I've said before in prior writings, Europe's mature "social democracies" like the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and others are NOT centres of "socialism" where individual freedom and enterprise are lost according to Republicans. This is the constant demonizing ad hominem rant of the American conservative right. With few exceptions, EU countries in the main are quintessentially vibrant capitalistic economies with sound, encompassing, well-managed social welfare and safety nets. An example of a thriving capitalistic economy with an outstanding multi-party structure and social welfare system is the Netherlands. A small country of 18 million people with an economy that has given rise to such world enterprising companies as Unilever, Phillips, Royal Dutch Shell, Heineken, KLM, DSM, ASML.
Europe's social democracies seek to ensure economic and job opportunity fairness, to incentivize opportunities, to provide protections, to restrain corruption and the excesses of capitalism including externalized costs. Europe's social democracies show us that free markets, lower consumption levels (52% of GDP vs. 70% of GDP in U.S.), high societal investments in infrastructure, education, quality social welfare and safety nets can co-exist rather well - even reinforce and complement each other.
In contrast, the U.S. economy and governing system based on a broad, strong working blue collar and middle class is being transformed into a feudal society by a small number of wealthy elites, giant corporations, banks and bought politicians. A society where a fair share in income and asset ownership by the common working folk has disappeared into a 'daily bread', pay check-to-pay check, job survival struggle - now being made appallingly worse by current and rapidly forthcoming technical advances in digitalization, robotization and artificial intelligence. Over recent decades a rough, ultra-demanding, dominant capitalistic paradigm has been in play in America where the working folk are experiencing near zero upward mobility; where a majority of people are failing to progress in good times and are forced to share the brunt of the pain in bad times.
Current levels and trends in income and wealth inequality would certainly have terrified the Founding Fathers. They believed that broad-based property ownership and prosperity were essential to the sustenance of the republic. John Adams wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." Adams feared that "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation, that an oligarchy arising out of inequality would manipulate voters, creating a system of subordination to all. Does this sound familiar to what's been happening in America?
Since the late 1970s, our nation has been overtaken by the conservative-right, doctrinaire harangue that a minimally regulated 'market' economy equates with democracy; i.e., the 'market' is the foundation of our social-economic-political system. Like Umair Haque, I've examined and am haunted by how our free market capitalism politically influences and controls our economic system at the expense of the social welfare system. Simply said, the conservative right proponents of 'market liberalism' ignore how an unfettered 'market' and lobby-influenced politicians can come to function undemocratically. The moneyed elite and corporations inexorably use their leverage to marginalize the rights, wages, social welfare of average Americans, to exploit their tax advantages to the hilt using exotic tax avoidance structures.
The Founding Fathers clearly viewed government as the protector of the many, not the few. In general, they believed economics - not politics - concentrates wealth and power. Their conception of political democracy was that it extends to every citizen equally - one person, one vote. By contrast, the 'market' tends to recognize only money - one dollar, one vote. It cares less about the penniless, those hit by bad times, those unable to pay for decent healthcare coverage, those unable to pay for their children's trade school or college education. The Founders concluded that the rich and wealthy tend to monopolize society's resources and social welfare distribution. They knew that when income and wealth become highly concentrated, like in our country today, political power can never be democratically shared.
To repeat, the Founding Fathers believed wide disparities in wealth result when an elite manipulates politics to extract monies and benefits from the labour of hard-working citizens as well as marginalize their political power. For example, politics and our highest court aligned to form the legal reality of "corporate personhood" in the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. This decision makes corporations and labor unions free as 'citizens' to fund political candidates, to support or denounce an individual candidate (e.g.by political advertising). And there are no spending limits. Many reputable constitutional experts say the unconstrained corporate political spending is eroding our democracy. The Citizen's United ruling contributes to making the one person, one vote principle fundamentally ever more compromised, if not a joke. We know that the primary goal of a corporate entity is to generate maximum profits for its shareholders. In contrast, most EU countries set and enforce very LOW limits on political spending by corporations and other associations.
After a long history of massively destructive wars and ruthless rulers-dictators-kingships Europeans have come to accept government's role to hold income and wealth disparities equitably in balance – in order for the 'market and democracy' to operate democratically and harmoniously in any meaningful way. That's why the maximum progressive individual tax rate in EU countries for ALL citizens averages around 51% on an individual ordinary income over $90,000 or euro 80,000.
This compares to U.S. progressive tax rates of 22% on incomes of $39,500 to $84,000, with step-by-step tax rate rises to 35% on incomes of $200,000 to $500,000 to a maximum tax rate of 37% on incomes above $500,000. Latter compares EU's maximum average 51% tax rate on all incomes above +-$90,000. Extremely LOW U.S. progressive tax rates on very high levels of ordinary income and even lower rates of 0% to 20% on millions in capital gains – 10% of all American households own 84% of all stock – ensure that the Top 1%, 5% 10% income/wealth classes become richer and richer at the expense of the Bottom 90%.
In Europe, a significant income and social benefit comes from EU redistribution policies that bring a variety of financial gains to every citizen. To name a few using the Netherlands as an example: average student college costs of less than $15,000/year (euro+-13,500) with zero tuition costs in a number of EU countries; quality, reasonable healthcare coverage at an affordable universal monthly premium, of $130 (euro 115) for everyone 18 or above and a government subsidy of up to 70% of the monthly premium for incomes below $35,000 (euro 30,000); a government monthly apartment rental subsidy for low income people of up to 40%, 4-week vacation for everyone partly funded by withheld taxes; up-to-date, quality, well-maintained infrastructure and educational systems.
I'm not suggesting our country should copy the European progressive tax system or economic model which generally works well for most EU countries. And it's adjusted up or down when societal needs warrant that. The European social-economic model has been achieved by, in addition to other factors noted by Umair, e.g. better economic interactions and redistribution, better public goods, better worker representation, uniform-for-all progressive high tax rates with hardly any deductions. And as mentioned, the highest progressive tax rates average around 51% and generally apply to Everyone with an income above $90,000. Thus, income and wealth distribution is FAR more broadly dispersed in Europe for a good quality-of-life standard for nearly all citizens. Reasonable social welfare benefits and safety nets support those with annual income levels below $35,000.
A good balance between capitalistic market and government social welfare policies has been achieved without the interaction of multiple factors that have caused the great divide in productivity and compensation in America since 1975. Again, I'm not advocating we should adopt a typical European social-economic model like the Netherlands or Sweden, Norway, Germany, Austria. But we could learn a LOT by examining carefully the social-economic workings of these excellent free Market & Government "hybrid" social democracies.
Some radical adjustments indeed are needed to our "economic-social miracle paradigm:" a sky-high costly Military-Industrial complex; an unaffordable, poor coverage basic quality healthcare for all; trillions in investments required for a 3rd world obsolete infrastructure and weak pre-college education system; absence of a united, aggressive, innovative, pragmatic transition to green energy sources and lifestyle supported by a president who denies the existential reality of human-induced fundamental climate change, calling it a hoax, pure scientific rubbish!
Stagnant tax revenue and GDP growth in combination with $trillions needed in infrastructure and education investments, new records of Defence spending, steeply rising health care costs, 2017 tax cuts going mostly to the Top 10% and corporations in GOOD economic times are accelerating federal Deficits, Debt and Interest to new record levels. Thus, there's little financial cushion for WEAK economic times. Federal deficits have been soaring to $779 (+15%) billion in FY2018, to $984 billion (+11%) in FY2019 to an expected rise of over $1.1 trillion in FY2020.
Obama inherited a huge unemployment level of 9.9% in July 2009; massive federal money pump-priming brought that down to 4.7% in 2016, to 4.1% in 2017. Around 85% of Trump's Jan. 2017 tax cuts went to the rich and corporations. But data indicates the tax cuts are not being recovered by economic growth and a low 3.8% unemployment in March 2019. We are in a cycle where spending is growing faster than tax revenue generation and we are doing this in GOOD times.
TABLE 1: U.S. FY 2017-2018 & 2019-2020 Budget s Yield High Deficit Trend & Stagnant Growth in Tax Revenues
FY2017-2018
% Growth
TAX REVENUES :Data in Billions
$205.00 30.9%
Payroll Taxes
$1,171.00 0.7%
Excise Taxes/Other Taxes
Interest on Debt
TOTAL SPENDING
The Jan. 2017 tax cuts aren't generating sufficient additional GDP growth to make tax revenues higher than they would have been if the tax cuts had never been passed. In fact, the CBO had forecast FY2018 government tax revenues at $3.53 trillion. But, revenues were actually $3.32 trillion or $200 billion less, contributing to a $779 billion deficit (+15%). In FY2019, tax revenues increased less than 1% while spending increased much more causing another sharp increase in the federal deficit to $984 billion (+26%). This occurred with a 2.5% GDP growth rate and a low 3.8% unemployment rate. Same story for FY2019-2020 where the deficit is expected to rise to $1.1 trillion (+11%) with a 2.5% GDP growth rate.
What's the lesson here? The Trump tax cuts for the rich and corporations in GOOD economic times are in fact helping to accelerate America's growing budget deficits. The tax cuts are way short of paying for themselves. Tax savings to the rich and corporations do not Trickle Down. Yes, more workers have jobs but mostly at marginal, bare survival wages. And then there are the financial pressures coming from critically needed substantial investments in our infrastructure and pre-college education systems. What happens when the economic situation slows down?
Welcome to the next world of a potential financial crisis of all crises. Despite all the 'hurrahs' about our economy's current 2.75% GDP growth rate and unemployment rate of 3.8% in March 2019, The Joint Committee on Taxation, the Tax Policy Center, the CBO and Penn Wharton Budget Model are warning that the new Trump tax law is going to continue to lead to higher rising $1 trillion annual deficits over next 3 or 4 years.
The years after WWII into the late 70s through were ones of substantial economic growth, a broadly and equitably shared prosperity. Inflation-adjusted incomes grew at roughly the same rate for all income brackets, approximately doubling between the later 1940s and mid-1970s. The Top 1%'s share of U.S. annual income before taxes (including capital gains) peaked at 23.9% in 1928 before the Great Depression, fell to 10% in 1980, recovered to 23.5% in 2007 before the Great Recession, then fell somewhat, and is now back on path to a 25 % income share of U.S. income. Helped by Trump's Jan. 2017 tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
The top individual tax rate was reduced to 37% on an increased break-level income $500,000. The corporate Statutory tax rate and Effective tax rate after special deductions were 35% and 27%, respectively. The 2017 tax cut law lowered the Statutory rate to 21%, thereby creating an Effective corporate tax rate today of +-18% after special deductions. Given this gigantic tax cut gift to corporations and the many tax avoidance loopholes still available, is it any wonder corporations paid an obscenely TINY 7% share (down from 10% in previous years) of total government tax revenues in FY2018. This monstrously low 7% share will inevitably drop further in subsequent years. It compares to a 50% share of all government tax revenues being paid by personal income taxes and 36% by payroll taxes. This change and the disproportionate income growth advantage of the Top 1% and 10% under the 2017 lowered progressive tax rates on high incomes and annual incomes above $500,000 have intensified our nation's perilously deep income/wealth divide.
Under Trump's 2017 tax law, 60 of our largest corporations paid zero taxes on $79 billion U.S. profits in 2018. In fact they received a $4 billion tax rebate. Prior to the new tax law, 30 corporations paid zero taxes. The Effective tax rate of corporations that paid taxes was a TINY 17% in 2018. That rate was the lowest since 1947, and substantially below the new 21% statutory tax rate.
In 1974, the average U.S. CEO salary was 50 times the average worker wage vs. 46 times in Europe. Today, the average U.S. CEO salary is over 310 times the average worker wage vs. 55 times in Europe. That will get ever worse, if possible, under the new 2017 tax law.
Umair Haque is right that the American public has little idea on what led to the extraordinary U.S. income and wealth gap compared to no such development in Europe. In his words:
"Why didn't Europe's "labour share of income" - that is, how much regular people receive - decline, like in the United States? The simple answer, of course, is "more social democracy, and less capitalism." But what does that mean? It means that European structures and institutions are radically different from American ones - so different, that many Americans have little idea such things ever exist.
Having lived and worked in Europe for nearly 40 years, I compliment Umair Haque for an incisive essay on our deep societal disintegration and polarization that keeps intensifying. About all I can say is what others like Umair are saying: we must open our eyes, minds and hearts to our country's severe disunity and structural problems and come to shared solutions. This calls for a reawakening of our civility towards each other, reclaiming cooperatively the social and economic balance and spaces in our society in favour of the small, the ignored, the local accountable community, the cooperative, the small existing and promising upstart enterprise.
Thinking creatively, constructively, cooperatively outside-the-box was what made our nation great before and after WWII through the 1970s. That more pragmatic, compromise, cooperative approach was working reasonably well and fairly for post WWII generations born in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s to late 1970s. But things have been going mostly downhill ever since for the average American.
All of the above brings me to some thoughtful words by Leroy Greason - former professor, dean, president of my alma mater Bowdoin College in Maine who died August 28, 2011:
"We are seldom absolutely right. Even when most alive and living beyond ourselves, we had best walk humbly with our gods." As one colleague of Mr. Greason remarked, "His greatest gift was his ability to find common ground among disparate people and to inspire them to work together."
We desperately need qualities like that in these times of overlapping, complex fundamental societal and environmental changes within and outside our traditional spaces and thinking process.
Frank Thomas The Netherlands March 16, 2019
Edited and Added To: December 1, 2019
Posted at 06:19 AM in Frank Thomas, Capitalism, Europe, The Poor, The Rich, The US | Permalink | Comments (0)
Off the Top of My Head
US Alienating European Allies by Sanctioning Nord Stream 2 Natural Gas Pipeline
by John Lawrence, December 15, 2019
The US is getting prolific in its use of sanctions. It is now targeting a Russian pipeline, the Nord Stream 2, which is set to deliver natural gas to Germany. This is irritating the hell out of German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas who tweeted, "the European energy policy will be decided in Europe, not in the U.S. We fully reject external interference and extraterritorial sanctions." So the US is pissing off not only its supposed enemies but also its friends and allies all over the world by its use of sanctions, which sanctions in Russia's and Germany's case will not do much to stop the almost completed pipeline. The sanctions — crafted by Senators Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat — have been attached to the 2020 National Defense Appropriations Act, which already has been approved by Congress.
The sanctions will also apply to to the TurkStream pipeline from Russia to Turkey which runs under the Black Sea. It seems everyone wants to get their natural gas from Russia and the US is doing a last ditch effort to slow down that progress although the effort will be futile in the long run and the only legacy will be that the US has pissed off its allies. The Nord Stream 2 runs under the Baltic Sea and allows Russia to by pass Ukraine which has become a sore spot for everyone concerned there. According to Bloomberg:
Congress could have been much harsher with its sanctions, though. It could have hit Nord Stream 2's financial investors, all major European energy companies: Engie SA, Uniper SE, OMV AG, Wintershall Dea GmbH and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. It could have sanctioned Russian debt. It could have made it impossible to import equipment for the construction of Russian pipelines and do repairs and maintenance on them. All of these measures have been considered at various times, but struck down in order to avoid a major confrontation with the European Union and an upheaval in financial markets.
The US is rapidly isolating itself from the rest of the world by its use of sanctions and by Trump's stated goal of America First which amounts to the same thing. America is losing friends and losing its influence as a world leader something that it had taken for granted in the past. The US' use of sanctions has forced the rest of the world, allies and enemies alike, to come up with an alternative means of doing business without the use of the US dollar. This doesn't bode well for the US dollar which up to now has held sway as the world's reserve currency. Trump has set about destroying all those relationships which gave the dollar a privileged position among the world's currencies.
The US is already borrowing about $100 billion a month to fund its budget deficit. It relies on other countries to soak up most if not all of this debt, but other countries are buying less US debt each month especially in light of how the US has weaponized the US dollar by the use of sanctions. Barron's reported in May 2019:
Last week's sale of 10-year Treasury notes was met with lackluster demand. Investors entered just $2.17 of bids for every $1 of notes sold, the lowest for any 10-year auction since 2009. Some analysts guessed that foreign buyers were retreating in the face of an escalating trade war with China, the largest single holder of Treasuries other than the Federal Reserve. The fear is that China will start dumping its holdings, driving the price of Treasuries down.
In the first four months 2019, foreigners bought 12% of the Treasuries auctioned, down from 2011's average of 22%. Wall Street banks and hedge funds have had to step in to soak up the Treasuries that foreign governments are increasingly unwilling to buy. What happens then is that the Federal Reserve takes these Treasuries off Wall Street's hands and buries them on its balance sheet. The Fed announced in October 2019 that it would buy $60 billion worth of Treasuries a month, which amounts to Quantitative Easing (QE) although they're not calling it that. Basically, the Fed is eating $60 billion of US debt per month after Wall Street regurgitates it since it can't by law buy Treasuries directly. Wall Street is just the middle man. This, of course, is enriching Wall Street banks, but not the people of the US who would prefer QE for the people. The other angle is that the US needs to keep interest rates low because it has $23 trillion in national debt on which it has to pay interest. If interest rates rise, that means that the US will be going into debt at an increasing rate just to pay interest on its debt.
As Treasuries decline in value, US foreign creditors may not only buy less US debt, but they may also dump the US debt they now own on the market. This would lead to the fact that holding US Treasury debt may become less desirable as that debt becomes worthless, and as other currencies step up to replace the US dollar - at least in part - as the world's reserve currency. That may happen also as the US minimizes its relationship with Saudi Arabia which had agreed to price its oil only in terms of dollars in return for military support. With global warming upon us, the use of oil needs to decrease as fossil fuels in and of themselves become less desirable while other alternatives such as natural gas become preferable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. All this presages a Federal Reserve that must step in to eat and bury more and more US debt tending to make the dollar less worthy and less effective as the world's reserve currency.
Posted at 11:59 AM in John Lawrence, Climate Change, Europe, Federal Reserve, Fossil Fuels, Germany, Global Warming, Off the Top of my Head, Russia, The US, Trump, Wall Street | Permalink | Comments (0)
At COP 25 Kickoff, Spain's Socialist Leader Rips 'Fanatics' Like Trump Who Deny Climate Crisis
Published on Monday, December 02, 2019
"No one can escape this challenge by themselves. There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is."
by Jake Johnson, staff writer
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez delivers a speech during the first day of the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25) on December 02, 2019 in Madrid, Spain. (Photo: Europa Press News/Europa Press via Getty Images)
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez kicked off COP 25 in Madrid, Spain on Monday by condemning the "handful of fanatics" who continue to deny the reality of the climate crisis as it wreaks havoc across the globe and threatens to render large swathes of the planet uninhabitable.
Sánchez, leader of the Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and proponent of a Green New Deal for Spain, did not condemn any nations or world leaders by name. But Sánchez implored the international community to combat "alternative facts," an apparent shot at the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
—Pedro Sánchez, Spanish prime minister
"For years, several versions of climate change denial were in circulation," said Sánchez. "Today, luckily only a handful of fanatics deny the evidence. No one can escape this challenge by themselves."
"There is no wall that can protect any country, regardless of how powerful it is," Sánchez added in another thinly veiled jab at the Trump White House, which took the first step toward withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord last month.
Sánchez said Spain will "lead by example" by crafting climate policy that phases out fossil fuels with sufficient urgency while ensuring a just transition for workers and vulnerable communities.
The PSOE emerged victorious in parliamentary elections in April and November after running on a Green New Deal platform. Following its November win, the PSOE agreed to form a coalition with the left-wing Podemos party as the far-right, climate-denying Vox party quickly gained ground in parliament.
As HuffPost's Alexander Kaufman wrote Sunday, "if Sánchez's center-left vision of a Green New Deal could be criticized for not being ambitious enough, the inclusion of the anti-austerity Podemos could make the country the first to seriously attempt the kind of Green New Deal progressives elsewhere have laid out to curb soaring economic inequality and planet-heating emissions."
"Green New Dealers on both sides of the Atlantic argue that addressing both crises at once is key to staving off a resurgent neo-fascist right wing," Kaufman wrote.
During his speech on Monday, Sánchez stressed the importance of ensuring that the "ecological transition" away from fossil fuels is fair and equitable.
"It must be the lever of change against inequality, it must imply justice and equity," said Sánchez. "Our country has assumed that mandate and is determined to act. Progress, if not sustainable, does not deserve to be called progress."
Posted at 10:04 AM in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Climate Change, Europe, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming, Green New Deal | Permalink | Comments (0)
Is Bernie's & Elizabeth's Universal Medicare Plan Better Done In Phases?
I've written extensively about Holland's universal Basic Healthcare Plan required for ALL of its 17 million people. It's administered by private insurance firms under close Oversight Control by government agencies. Hospitals and insurance firms act as non-profit entities.
The Dutch Basic Plan provides standard coverage for everyone for 85%-90% of all medical needs which are paid for by standard uniform premiums, deductibles for everyone - adjusted once at the end of each year. Children below 18 pay no premium or deductible charges. And there are no co-pays. Insurers offer 3 upgrade levels to the Basic Plan for more exotic healthcare coverage possibilities at premiums that are not wildly expensive.
The Basic Plan standard coverage for all means that medical costs, e.g., a hip or appendix operation, vary little among service providers throughout Holland. Under a system of managed competition, 5 or 6 insurers administer ±95% of all annual medical claims. This factor and Holland's Basic Plan standard coverage for ALL produce significant purchase cost savings. Pharmaceutical costs, while still unacceptably high, are ±40 to 60% less costly than same pharmaceuticals in the U.S.
The nation-wide standard medical services and medical coverage by non-profit insurer and hospital entities as well as enormous purchasing power leverage and operating efficiencies keep costs down. The system has built in efficiency policies, e.g., focusing strongly on preventative care, sharing knowledge, allocating expensive equipment and medical services among hospitals in a cost-effective way that also insures quality care. And it's a transparent system. When things go wrong in any sector, they are generally addressed in a timely professional manner.
Under the Dutch Basic Plan for All, my wife and I this year each pay a monthly standard premium of euro 120 or $135 and standard yearly deductible of euro 385 ($430). This comes to a total combined annual premium cost of euro 2,700 ($3,200) and deductible cost of euro 770 ($860). In 2019, people with a collective annual income below euro 37,885 ($41,675) receive a government monthly allowance of up to 75% of the standard monthly premium noted above. Also, the value of one's collective assets (such as savings and shares) must be below euro 145,136 ($160,000). Holland's standard annual premium cost of $3,200 per household of two compares to America's outrageous average annual self-insured household cost of ±$16,000 or employer sponsored insurance average cost of $18,800. (Source: Kaiser Foundation)
My question is simple. If Holland and other EU countries can achieve far less expensive, quality healthcare coverage under various universal healthcare plans for populations varying from 10 million to 80 million, why can't we do the same with a Medicare Optional Healthcare Plan for ALL that begins with a lower population demand of ±120 million or less than a third of our total population of 325 million today?
A 'fast walk-before-we-run' approach seems especially appropriate given the complexity and incredible lack of healthcare plan standardization and fragmented purchasing of our hybrid system. Half the money comes from private insurance of the self-insured by dozens of insurer firms and the employer insured, and the other half comes from the public sector of federal, state, and local governments paying into Medicare and Medicaid. Little wonder we have thousands of different healthcare plans with poor standardization where insurer shareholder interests and giant management salaries play a big role. All this makes transforming to a Medicare Plan for ALL a truly huge 'revolutionary' but technically difficult undertaking and battle with insurance firms.
A smaller scale but strong first-step 'optional approach' to achieving a 100% publicly tax-funded Basic healthcare for ALL - as Medicare today works for all people over 65 - seems to make a lot of sense. When the financial and quality-coverage benefits are shown in practice through broad-scale operational cost efficiencies and far better standard coverage, many millions more of the privately insured and employer insured people will very likely enter the Medicare Basic Plan. Of course the Basic Plan must incorporate the exact same standard excellent coverage for everyone in each state as occurs under Medicare's current's plan for ±75 million people over 65 - and under Holland's Basic Plan for ALL of its 17 million people.
If a Medicare Plan 'REQUIRED for ALL,' i.e., Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren's all-embracing approach - versus a Medicare 'OPTIONAL Plan for ALL,' i.e., Pete Buttigieg's first-step approach - presents technical, public and/or political introductory acceptance problems incapable of being overcome in one leap, then why not pragmatically take a first-step smaller scale OPTIONAL Medicare Single Payer approach?
Eliminating the extremely high $16,000 to $18,800 average household self-insured and employer-sponsored insurance cost for premiums, deductibles, co-pays for mediocre coverage and replacing these sky-high cost plans with progressive tax rate increases plus very significant management, purchasing, and efficiency cost savings will produce considerable net household financial benefits for much improved 'standard' medical care coverage.
Just as an illustration, progressive tax rate increases might be 3% on family incomes below $50,000, rising to 4% on incomes up to $500,000, and 5% on incomes up to $1 million and capped at that level. The net result should be an annual average household healthcare cost of $10,000 or less - through increased taxes and significant system cost savings.
It shouldn't be an Einstein problem to expertly and simply illustrate the mathematical credibility of a potentially substantial national and household cost reduction for much better medical care coverage under a publicly financed, smaller scale first-step Optional Medicare Single-Payer approach.
The extraordinary fragmentation and non-standardization of our healthcare system among many small and some giant shareholder profit-oriented insurance firms and thousands of providers - operating generally under a myriad of diverse and often obtuse healthcare plans concerning what's covered and what's not covered – will inevitably DRIVE premiums, co-pays, coinsurance higher and higher together with mediocre care coverage
Our structural, chaotic, super-costly system over 50 states is also getting ever worse by rising trends in enduring medical afflictions now being identified earlier in people by advancing technology. Treatment and payment of these long-term afflictions – e.g., cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer's, disease, etc. – must be undertaken and paid for. Expensive long term care and acute medical costs cannot be absorbed by a Basic Plan for common medical care needs.
Holland's answer is two forms of statutory health insurance. The statutory standard Basic Plan for all covers 90% common medical care needs. The Long-Term Care Act statutory social insurance covers long-term afflictions and uninsurable medical risks and cost that cannot be absorbed or born by individuals. About 90% of long-term care is financed through the Long Term Act. Taxpayers pay a nominal contribution based on taxable income. Long Term Care and Basic Plan Care are provided mostly by private non-profit organizations.
But the non-profit insurer/provider scheme in Holland is highly unlikely to occur in the U.S. where insurer and hospital profit making is so deeply ingrained. Today, nation-wide insurer profits are $100 billion. That's why a 'First-Step' Optional Medicare 'Single-Payer' Plan is so critical. Without it, we'll never get our huge national healthcare cost down from 16% of GDP to 11% of GDP as is the case in Europe. We'll never get our obscene annual average family household healthcare cost down from +$16,000 - $18,800 to below $10,000 range as is the case in Europe.
Frank Thomas, October 21, 2019, The Netherlands
Posted at 04:59 PM in Frank Thomas, Europe, Health Care, The US | Permalink | Comments (1)
Allemansrätt or Outdoor Access Rights gives you the Right to a Free Campsite in Sweden. Why Not Allemansrätt for Homeless in US?
by John Lawrence, October 8, 2019
All over Europe it's legal to camp out on private or public property as long as you respect the property rights of the owner. In Sweden these include:
You are allowed to access any land, except private residences, the immediate vicinity (70 meters) of a dwelling house and cultivated land.
You can put up a tent.
You are allowed to collect flowers, mushrooms and berries.
Driving on private roads is allowed unless there's a sign saying otherwise.
Swimming in lakes is allowed.
You can access any beach as long as you stay away from private residences.
You are allowed to catch fish in the five big lakes and along the entire coastline.
Why is it so difficult to come to the same conclusion about homeless camping in America? They wouldn't have to sleep on public sidewalks in LA, San Diego or San Francisco if they had designated areas (parks) where they could rest in peace and security and with sanitation facilities. Part of the angst of the homeless is that they have no place to be, let alone call home, that is legally sanctioned and where they are not subject to being told to move by police and where they can rest assured that their belongings won't be put in a truck and hauled away to the city dump.
Rick Steves says:
In the US, we think of campgrounds as picturesque outposts near a lake or forest. By contrast, European "campings" (the international word for campgrounds) are often located within or on the outskirts of an urban center and can range from functional (like park-and-rides) to vacation extravaganzas, with restaurants, mini water parks, and miniature golf. Many campgrounds have small grocery stores and washing machines. In general, European campgrounds are less private than American versions, and many forbid open fires.
Aside from the biggest cities, most tourist-friendly areas have a campground within a reasonable walk or bus ride from the town center or train station. And if you're camping outside a major city, the money you save on parking alone will likely pay for your campsite (leave your car at the campground and take the handy bus downtown).
In Europe "wild camping" is legal in many countries, not just Sweden. Wild camping is camping other than in paid campgrounds so it's free. Even paid campgrounds are cheap and the fee could be absorbed by the City for the homeless if such a policy were to be carried out in California. Some of the countries in which wild camping is legal are the following:
Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Turkey, Ukraine and Scotland among many other places. In addition "pole camping" is allowed in many countries like the Netherlands. Pole camping is a form of camping that is allowed in designated areas marked by poles.
You can even camp close to Paris, Florence, Venice and Rome. In Paris, for instance, you can camp in the Bois de Boulogne - A campground on the banks of the Seine in a vast city park. Time to downtown: 15 min.
I have advocated a solution to homelessness that involves placing campgrounds near or in major cities with portable sanitation facilities, lockers etc. There would be a small charge for paying customers, and they would be free for the homeless. These could be provided at minimal cost to the city compared to actual housing. With people paying $1000. a month just for a bed, let alone a room, in San Francisco, this seems like a reasonable solution. Free transit passes could even be provided for the homeless. Security could be provided and waste management, of course, would be important.
The alternative:
SAN FRANCISCO — Housing costs have become so expensive in some cities that people are renting bunk beds in a communal home for $1,200 a month. Not a bedroom. A bed.
PodShare is trying to help make up for the shortage of affordable housing in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles by renting dormitory-style lodging and providing tenants a co-living experience.
A PodShare membership allows you to snag any of the 220 beds — or pods — at six locations across Los Angeles and one in San Francisco. There's no deposit and no commitment. You get a bed, a locker, access to wifi and the chance to meet fellow "pod-estrians." Each pod includes a shelf and a personal television. Food staples, like cereal and ramen, and toiletries like toothpaste and toilet paper, are also included.
With legally sanctioned campsite near urban cores, the homeless problem could be resolved for a negligible cost compared to "affordable" housing which is inevitably market based. At the same time camping on public sidewalks should be made illegal. This would give the homeless a safe and clean place to be unhasseled by police as well as safe and clean sidewalks for urban residents. It's a no brainer so why aren't our politicians doing it?
Posted at 11:24 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Homelessness, Off the Top of my Head | Permalink | Comments (0)
Vaping or Cigarettes: Choose Your Poison
by John Lawrence, June 9, 2019
Only in America can you put a product on the market without any testing to see if there are any health risks. It's about testing by marketing to the American people and you find out later whether the product is toxic or not. In Europe they have the precautionary principle where products are tested first before they are released on the public. So who would have thought that a product that was touted as safer than cigarettes would turn out to be far more deadly and debilitating? Cigarettes contain tobacco which when inhaled is thought to be hazardous to your health, but, like a lot of other products, it won't kill you immediately. That will take 30 years or so. Vaping contains a toxic mixture of chemicals which, as it turns out, can kill you in far less time. Hundreds of people across the country have been sickened by a severe lung illness linked to vaping, and a handful have died, according to public health officials. Many were otherwise healthy young people, in their teens or early 20s.
So who would have thunk it? The Food and Drug Administration is warning that there appears to be a particular danger for people who vape THC, the psychoactive chemical in marijuana. So people will just have to go back to smoking marijuana the traditional way - in a bong. Or maybe in a hookah. A hookah is a device for vaporizing nicotine using water instead of a bunch of chemicals. That seems far more healthier. It seems that the chemicals in e-cigarettes congeal in the lungs making their function useless and leading to lung disease. The e-cigarette industry, for whom vaping is extremely profitable, have tried to lay the blame on vaping THC and other street products. They would hate to see their investments go down the drain. However, in 53 cases of the illness in Illinois and Wisconsin, 17 percent of the patients said they had vaped only nicotine products, according to an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine.
So a word of caution to vapers: Get a life! You can smoke marijuana legally in most states now. Vote for a Democratic President, and, most importantly, a Democratic Senate in 2020, and marijuana will probably be legalized at the Federal level. Some so-called "hard drugs" have even been used on a regular basis by some people who have led very successful, even celebrated, lives. Take jazz drummer, Art Blakey, for example. Today he is being lauded for having had one of the most successful bands in jazz history. He is considered to be a legendary drummer. Blakey was a heroin addict, a very highly functioning one, and he introduced many of his sidemen to heroin. One of them was Lee Morgan, considered to be one of the great trumpet players of jazz history. However, Morgan's addiction did not have such a happy outcome as did Blakey's. By 1967 Lee was a junkie who had fallen so low that he was seen sleeping on the street outside Birdland without shoes and committing petty crimes so he could buy drugs. Still his record, "The Sidewinder", whose title tune was written on a piece of toilet paper during a break in a recording session, became Blue Note's best-selling record ever, breaking the previous sales record roughly ten times over.
So a word of caution to Americans: be careful of what you put in your mouth. The American mantra is Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware. According to the journal article, "e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless; it can expose users to substances known to have adverse health effects, including ultrafine particles, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds and other harmful ingredients." Omigod, you mean that I can't trust American products that I can buy legally on the market more than I can trust street drugs? Well opioids are a case in point. They have been prescribed by legitimate doctors, sold by legitimate pharmacies and the patients have become addicts.
Another note of caution: stay away from Monsanto's Roundup, a pesticide whose main ingredient is glyphosate. The Guardian reports:
Germany has said it will phase out the controversial weedkiller glyphosate because it wipes out insect populations crucial for ecosystems and pollination of food crops.
The chemical, also suspected by some experts to cause cancer in humans, is to be banned by the end of 2023 when the EU's approval period for it expires, ministers said.
Biologists have sounded the alarm over plummeting insect populations that affect species diversity and damage ecosystems by disrupting natural food chains and plant pollination.
"What harms insects also harms people," said environment minister Svenja Schulze, of the centre-left Social Democrats, who warned of a future when fruit could become a luxury.
"What we need is more humming and buzzing," added Schulze, stressing that "a world without insects is not worth living in".
So modern technology is not all it's cracked up to be whether on the chemical level or on the fossil fuel level or on the plastics level. The fact of the matter is that the technology developed in the last couple hundred years since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is ruining the environment on small scales and large scales. Unless there is a change, the earth, let alone the oceans or mundane pollution, will become uninhabitable for humans at least. Probably some insects will survive, but insecticides and pesticides are doing their best to eliminate even those. Probably some day some space travelers will alight on earth only to wonder what happened here that the earth should have become a dead planet.
Posted at 07:51 AM in John Lawrence, Addiction, American Culture, Drugs, Europe, Laissez Faire Capitalism, Lifestyle, Marijuana, Off the Top of my Head, Pharmaceuticals, The Environment | Permalink | Comments (0)
Europe Sets Up an Exchange to Get Around American Sanctions
by John Lawrence, July 2, 2019
France, Germany and the UK have set up a payment channel with Iran called INSTEX, to help continue trade and circumvent US sanctions. They are hoping that this will keep Iran from abrogating the JPCOA which is the deal that Trump backed out of and would have limited Iran's nuclear development. By circumventing US sanctions these European countries hope to continue doing business with Iran. But not so fast warns the US. The US will not let any country, even its allies, violate the spirit of the sanctions even if they find a way to violate the letter. The US threatens to sanction those European allies if they continue to do business with Iran under any circumstances. This is driving a wedge between the US and its allies who disagree with Trump's decision to quash the Iran nuclear deal.
The Paris-based Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) was formally registered by Britain, France and Germany and is operating essentially like a clearinghouse for credit points. It is now up and running. This avoids a need for the exchanging of real money. Europe hopes that continued trade will keep Iran adherent to its commitments under the nuclear deal. India, which has long relied on Iranian oil but is also a US ally, has started using a system that is separate from but similar to the EU effort. Thus US allies are challenging the global dominance of the American dollar.
U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker said in a letter to Instex President Per Fischer. "I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex. Engaging in activities that run afoul of U.S. sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the U.S. financial system." As the US uses sanctions in an attempt to bully the rest of the world, it is attempting to dictate to other countries who it can and who it cannot do business with. So much for free trade. If the US doesn't like you, it can ruin your economy and the economy of any other nation who does like you. What the US has done is to isolate itself not only from its adversaries but from its allies and friends as well.
What this portends for the US dollar is that other trading systems will be set up around the world which exclude the use of the dollar. This will create alliances in which the US is excluded. Other countries will not bow down to US bullying tactics but will find ways to conduct business without the use of the American dollar. Thus US dominance of the global financial system will be diminished and the US will lose influence in the world.
Posted at 08:02 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Sanctions | Permalink | Comments (0)
'A Green Wave Has Swept the European Parliament': In Show of Demand for Climate Action, Green Parties Surge in EU Elections
Published on Monday, May 27, 2019
"A substantial share of the world has finally decided climate action is necessary now."
"The Green Wave has swept across Europe. We want to thank everyone who has voted for change and climate action," Ska Keller, one of the Greens' leading candidates for European Commission president, said in a statement Sunday following four days of continent-wide voting. (Photo: European Greens)
Underscoring the growing demand for bold climate action that has found expression in global youth-led strikes, marches, and civil disobedience over the past year, Green parties across Europe had their strongest-ever EU parliamentary election performance after running on a platform of transformative environmental change.
"It's time the European Union puts all its efforts into a sustainable future and starts caring for its citizens."
—Bas Eickhout, European Greens
"The Green Wave has swept across Europe. We want to thank everyone who has voted for change and climate action," Ska Keller, a German MEP and one of the Greens' leading candidates for European Commission president, said in a statement Sunday following four days of continent-wide voting.
"This trust given to us by voters is both a task and a responsibility to put green polices into action," said Keller.
As The Guardian reported, the "Greens' surge was strongest in Germany, where Die Grünen finished second behind Angela Merkel's center-right CDU with almost 21 percent of the vote, according to provisional estimates—nearly double their 2014 total."
A #GreenWave has swept the European Parliament with a historic election result 🌻 https://t.co/p3Nr61H4mC#EUelections2019 pic.twitter.com/VCc2qE4Ccy
— European Greens (@europeangreens) May 26, 2019
Greens also had strong showings in Finland, France, and Ireland on the back of higher-than-usual voter turnout.
"Finland's Greens... came second with 16 percent of the vote, while in a major upset, Europe Écologie-Les Verts, led by a former senior Greenpeace figure, came third in France with 13.3 percent, up from 8.9 percent," according to The Guardian. "Against all expectations, a Portuguese Green Party won its first European parliamentary seat."
Projections Sunday indicated that, overall, Greens secured 71 seats in the European Parliament—up from 52 seats five years ago. According to exit polling, the Greens' surge was bolstered by strong support from young voters.
Bas Eickhout, vice president of the European Greens, said the election outcome gives the party a "mandate and duty to drive change in Europe."
"Any new Commission should take this into account, as our program of climate protection, social justice, and defense of rule of law and democracy gave the Greens this important win," Eickhout said in a statement. "It's time the European Union puts all its efforts into a sustainable future and starts caring for its citizens."
🇪🇺 #EuropeanElectionResults: Youth vote has been credited for the rise of the green parties pic.twitter.com/Twje5hM8SF
— FRANCE 24 English (@France24_en) May 27, 2019
With much of the media's attention centered on electoral gains by far-right parties amid Brexit chaos, observers argued that gains by the Greens—particularly as the climate science becomes more grim by the day—should be the focus of headlines across the globe.
"The best news of the night is Green parties winning more seats than ever in EU elections," tweeted environmentalist Madalina Preda. "The people know we need climate action now."
The best news of the night is Green parties winning more seats than ever in EU elections. The people know we need climate action now 💚 https://t.co/XlHLjKgZDI
— Madalina Preda (@madalinampreda) May 27, 2019
The main story with European elections is the continent-wide surge of Green Parties. The kids striking for climate, @GretaThunberg, and @ExtinctionR are having an impact. More voters in Europe understand the climate crisis, and that it requires global coordination.
— manu saadia 🖖 (@trekonomics) May 26, 2019
Bill McKibben, author and founder of 350.org, said the European election results make Green parties important leaders in the global fight for a livable future.
"A substantial share of the world has finally decided climate action is necessary now," McKibben tweeted.
Posted at 09:50 AM in Common Dreams, Climate Change, Europe, Global Warming | Permalink | Comments (0)
Billionaire Wipes Out Student Loan Debt at Morehouse College
by John Lawrence, May 24, 2019
Robert Smith, a black billionaire, paid off all the student loan debt for the graduating class at historically black Morehouse College - some $40 million of it. One guy alone had $200,000 in student loan debt. Now it's up to some of the white billionaires to pay off student loan debt at their alma maters. Ha. Ha. Won't happen. Alternatively, if you are of Italian or Irish descent you can get a free college education anywhere in the EU and get dual citizenship to boot. Or you can go to Germany and get a free college education regardless of your heritage. Germany needs skilled workers, and this reality creates a win-win situation for American students. All students enrolled in any of the country's public universities can attend for free. What's more, German universities offer a wide range of programs entirely in English, and an American student can earn a university degree in Germany without speaking a word of German.
Why aren't American students taking advantage of these options? It's a no brainer. The opportunities today are at the global level. Someone who doesn't learn a foreign language and just graduates from some podunk American college with $50 or $100 thousand in student loan debt is choosing a life of debt peonage. People who qualify for Italian citizenship can also get free health care in that country. You can pass the citizenship on to your children. You can remain an American citizen so you have all the advantages of American citizenship as well as all the advantages of European citizenship. If you get citizenship in one EU country, you can travel or go to school in any EU country so it's like being a citizen of Europe not just Austria or Italy.
Europe remains a well-known, highly sought-after destination for students seeking refuge from high-priced U.S. colleges and universities, but public universities in countries such as Mexico and Brazil also have virtually free tuition; students pay registration fees, which amount to very little when considering the exchange rates. Some universities offer top-quality programs of study in English. Earning a degree south of the border also makes it possible for students to learn highly sought-after languages of commerce, such as Spanish and Portuguese.
It's a no brainer especially for the 17 million Americans of Italian descent. Citizenship in Italy means that you are a citizen of the EU and can live, work and travel visa free anywhere in the EU. Free medical care is nothing to take for granted. There is no free long term health care for seniors in the US even if you have Medicare. Medicare does not cover nursing homes which are very expensive. Jus sanguinis, or the right to citizenship because your ancestor was born in a particular country, applies to a number of other countries besides Italy: Ireland, Austria and the Czech Republic, for example. Some countries only recognize jus sanguinis for one generation. In other words you would have to be born to a father or mother who is a citizen of that country. But Italy recognizes your right to acquire Italian citizenship if your ancestor going back many generations was born in Italy. Italy only became a country in 1861 so you can't go back farther than that.
This is a wonderful opportunity especially for those of Italian descent. Being an Italian citizen is the same as being a citizen of the EU. With that and dual American citizenship you are practically a citizen of the world and can choose to live wherever it is most advantageous or propitious.
Posted at 07:32 AM in John Lawrence, Colleges and Universities, Debt, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Student Loans | Permalink | Comments (0)
17 Million Americans Qualify for Italian Citizenship
There was an excellent show on CBS Sunday Morning last Sunday based in Florence, Italy in which one of the segments dealt with the fact that anyone of Italian descent in America or elsewhere can also claim Italian citizenship. It is called jus sanguinis, Latin for "right of blood," which grants direct descendants citizenship to a country based on their ancestor's nationality. So most of the 17 million Italian Americans can also get dual citizenship in Italy. Having done that they have the right to live and work anywhere in the European Union! This means free medical care, free university and college tuition, visa free travel anywhere in the EU, the right to own property and get a job anywhere in the EU. And you don't have to give up your American citizenship. Such a deal!
The program went into depth about one American, a Phil Feretti, whose great grandfather moved from Italy to the US for a better life and now Phil has moved back to Italy for a better life. He sold his US real estate and bought a magnificent villa in Tuscany! Two sisters from Oregon also claimed their Italian citizenship by right of descent and visit often but have no plans to move there permanently. But who knows? If things descend into chaos here it may be a wise move to go there.
Some other countries also allow immigration if you can prove your ancestor was a citizen there. Such countries as France, Ireland, Australia, Hungary (where real estate is really cheap, fast developing, a good place for a summer home), Israel (if you're Jewish) and Argentina. In the US you are only a citizen if you're born on American soil unless you become a naturalized citizen. If your great grandfather was from Italy, for example, immigrated here and had children before he became a naturalized American citizen, his children and their children ad infinitum are considered to be Italian citizens.
As an Italian citizen, you are entitled to receive Italian healthcare which is world class and much more affordable when compared to healthcare in the States. Having Italian dual citizenship entitles you to rent and buy property hassle free. Here are some of the other advantages:
The ability to work, reside and study in Italy and across the 27 EU member states (e.g. Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands etc.) without the need of a Visa. EU citizens are often prioritized over people from outside the EU for many professional and educational opportunities.
Simplified and more cost-effective process to purchase properties in Italy.
Tax-Free import of vehicles (car, trucks etc.) directly from the US to Italy
You will have access to public medical care and high-quality public education as available to EU citizens.
You will have the right to vote for the Italian Parliament representative in your region.
You will be able to transfer Italian citizenship to all children under 18 years old automatically.
You will be able to establish a firm identity with your Italian heritage.
As the US becomes the United State of Trumpistan, it is advisable to have an escape route from the madness and idiocy of the greatest empire the world has seen since the Roman Empire which is in the process of collapsing from overextension (800 military bases around the world) and hubris. Global warming has produced severe weather mainly in the nation's midsection with tornadoes, torrential rain and flooding on a daily basis. If I were Italian or of Italian descent, I wouldn't hesitate to trade all this for free medical care, no student loan debt, mozzerella and chianti. Unfortunately, most of my ancestors are from the UK and Germany where there is no jus sanguinis. I do have French ancestry, however, going back 11 generations. Paris, City of Light, here I come.
Posted at 06:53 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Italy, Off the Top of my Head, The American Dream, The American People | Permalink | Comments (0)
Running on Green New Deal and Economic Justice, Socialists Prevail in Spain's Snap Election
Published on Monday, April 29, 2019
While the rise of the far-right, xenophobic Vox Party sparked alarm, it performed well below expectations
Supporters gather outside of the PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers' Party) headquarters on April 28, 2019 in Madrid, Spain. (Photo: Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images)
The Socialist Workers' Party emerged victorious in Spain's snap election on Sunday after running on a platform that included a Green New Deal to combat the climate crisis, a minimum wage increase, and higher taxes on the rich.
"Sánchez came out in support of the U.S. Green New Deal—sometimes translated as 'El New Deal Verde' or 'El Green New Deal de España'—in January and has campaigned on it throughout the election."
—Kate Aronoff, The Intercept
With more than 99 percent of the votes counted, the Socialist Party, or PSOE, won 123 of the 350 seats in Parliament. While not enough for an outright majority, the PSOE is now in a position to form a broad left-leaning coalition that would include the anti-austerity Podemos Party.
Speaking to supporters in Madrid following Sunday's election—which also saw the far-right Vox Party enter Parliament—Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the PSOE's win sends "a message to the world that it's possible to win against regression and authoritarianism."
"With that the future has won and the past has lost," said Sánchez at a victory rally.
A better than expected day for the Left in Spain. PSOE win easily according to the exits, Podemos in third only 2 points behind the PP! Looks like a coalition. pic.twitter.com/TImZfPyRUN
— Ronan Burtenshaw (@ronanburtenshaw) April 28, 2019
Decent result for the left of center in Spain. It looks like the specter of the far-right Vox actually drove votes for the Center-left PSOE. The far left Podemos declined a bit but will probably be in a coalition govt with PSOE plus some regional Catalan or Basque parties pic.twitter.com/MWY7liVMp9
— Nando (@nandorvila) April 28, 2019
As The Intercept's Kate Aronoff reported ahead of Sunday's election, "Sánchez came out in support of the U.S. Green New Deal—sometimes translated as 'El New Deal Verde' or 'El Green New Deal de España'—in January and has campaigned on it throughout the election."
"As outlined in the party's recently released 110-point manifesto," Aronoff wrote, "the overall goal of Spain's Green New Deal is an economy-wide mobilization involving participation from local communities, civil society, unions, and businesses, with an industrial policy that treats decarbonization as an engine of job creation."
Teresa Ribera, Spain's minister for ecological transition, told Aronoff that the Green New Deal "accepts that we are in an emergency moment where we need to transform."
"We cannot get as big a transformation as we need without [a] big dose of just transition and solidarity policies," Ribera said. "Otherwise there will be many people who are left behind."
The Labour party is pushing to declare a national emergency on climate change, and PSOE and Podemos in Spain are both running on a Green New Deal. Almost seems like left parties are the only ones taking this crisis seriously https://t.co/qZLgnGyU1l
— Kate Aronoff (@KateAronoff) April 28, 2019
While PSOE strengthened its position in the Spanish government, the rise of the xenophobic, anti-feminist Vox Party sparked alarm in the run-up to country's snap election.
As the New York Times reported, Vox—which won 24 seats in Parliament—"promised not only to quash the secessionist challenge in Catalonia but also to recentralize Spain by removing the powers of its regional governments."
But while acknowledging Vox's surge is certainly cause for serious concern, Washington Post reporter James McAuley noted that the far-right party performed well below expectations.
Don't disagree but would challenge emphasis
Tonight was also a win for Spanish left unafraid to govern as such. Sanchez raised 2019 min wage 22% and won big. And you say Spain never confronted fascist past, but Sanchez is the guy who is literally going to dig up Franco come June https://t.co/QwDUuJeoON
— James McAuley (@jameskmcauley) April 28, 2019
"Vox was supposed to do much better than it did. Its entry into Parliament is clearly huge but really not the story tonight," McAuley tweeted.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Posted at 10:06 AM in Common Dreams, Europe, Green New Deal, Socialism | Permalink | Comments (0)
New Zealand Does the Right Thing: Bans Assault Rifles and High Capacity Cartridges
by John Lawrence, March 21, 2019
After the horrific mass shooting, New Zealand has banned military style weapons in short order. Guess there's no NRA there! They followed the lead of Australia which did the same thing under similar circumstance. Now gun owners are required to turn in their guns. Authorities in Australia destroyed over a million guns. The US should follow suit and get these guns off the street and out of the hands of mass murderers. The licensing procedure for owning a gun should be harder than the licensing procedure for driving a car. It should consist of a thorough background check, a written and oral exam, a year's worth of classes and a demonstration of safe firearms usage. In short it should be harder to own and shoot a gun than it is to drive a car.
CNN reported:
All military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will be banned in New Zealand following the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques that killed 50 people, New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced on Thursday.
"On 15 March our history changed forever. Now our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place," Ardern said at a press conference in the capital Wellington. The announcement came after the country's cabinet agreed to overhaul the law and ban military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles 72 hours after the Christchurch attacks. "Every semi-automatic weapon used in the terror attack on Friday will be banned," Ardern continued, adding that she hoped the law would be in place by April 11. "This legislation will be drafted and introduced in urgency."
An estimated 1.2 million guns are in circulation in the country, according to New Zealand Police -- one for every three people. Ardern said the buyback scheme could cost between $100 million to $200 million. Later on Thursday, New Zealand Police announced all 50 bodies from the shootings had been identified. "This means that all victims are now able to be released to their families," Police Commissioner Mike Bush said in a statement. Arden said a "nationwide reflection" for the dead would be held on Friday -- one week after the attack. ...
In the wake of the reforms, mass shootings in Australia dropped to zero, gun suicides declined by an average of 4.8% per year, and gun-related homicides declined by an average of 5.5% per year. Philip Alpers, founding director of GunPolicy.org and a University of Sydney academic, said the buyback "has a good chance of delivering the same life-saving public health benefit as that which followed the 1996 Australian buyback."
It has been well known that the reduction of guns in society reduces the number of suicides and homicides as the Australian statistics show. Now will the gun capital of the world - the US - do the same? It would be well within the bounds of the Second Amendment to institute strict gun laws in the US requiring all gun owners to pass strict background checks and licensing procedures while eliminating military style weapons. It would also be within the Second Amendment to limit the number of guns a person could own to, say, two. Let's hope people in the US come to their senses or the US will end up being the only society where mass shootings occur.
Please see A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence In The US And Europe
by Frank Thomas and John Lawrence in the San Diego Free Press
Posted at 07:52 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Guns, Off the Top of my Head, The US | Permalink | Comments (0)
Italy Defies US. Makes Deal With China
Italy has become the latest EU country (there are 13 others) to sign a deal to become a participant in China's Belt and Road Initiative as Xi Jinping gets ready to visit Italy March 21. The US and the EU fear that China is taking over the world, not by military force, but by being a do gooder, increasing trade and building ports, highways, roads and bridges. The US has cautioned its allies that it will not stand idly by and let this happen.
Reuters reported:
The Belt and Road project lies at the heart of China's foreign policy strategy and was incorporated into the ruling Communist Party constitution in 2017, reflecting Xi's desire for his country to take a global leadership role.
The United States, locked in a trade war with Beijing, worries that Xi's initiative is designed to bolster China's political and military influence, and could be used to spread technologies capable of spying on Western interests.
"No need for Italian government to lend legitimacy to China's infrastructure vanity project," a spokesman for the White House's national security advisers said on Saturday in a rare public rebuke for one of Washington's staunchest allies.
Refusing to back down, Italy has nonetheless tried to reassure the United States, releasing a draft of the MOU to show it offers up no firm commitments and makes no reference to the sort of technology transfers feared by Washington.
Likewise eager to show that its pro-China policy is bearing fruit, the government has leaked reports that 50 agreements might be signed during Xi's March 21-23 visit, including deals with oil company Eni, gas infrastructure firm Snam and shipbuilder Fincantieri.
Italy also hopes to unveil projects to develop trade through its ports of Genoa, Trieste and Palermo. Although China's COSCO Shipping has bought control of the largest port in Greece, Italy says it offers better entry points into Europe.
Germany has already defied the US by going ahead with the NORD II pipeline connecting Germany with Russia. The US has threatened to sanction Germany over the pipeline. So now the US is threatening not only its supposed enemies and the weaker countries in the world, it's threatening its allies. Probably not a good policy or the US won't have any friends left in the world. It has already broken with the EU and the rest of the world over the climate change agreement and over Iran. What next?
U.S. sanctions against the Russian-backed Nord Stream 2 pipeline would be the wrong way to solve a dispute over energy supply, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said on Thursday.
U.S. President Donald Trump has accused Germany of being a "captive" of Russia due to its energy reliance and urged it to halt work on the $11 billion, Russian-led gas pipeline that is to be built in the Baltic Sea.
"Questions of European energy policy must be decided in Europe, not in the U.S.," Maas said. "To impose unilateral sanctions against Nord Stream 2 is certainly not the way to go."
Meanwhile US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is threatening to deny visas to any member of the International Criminal Court who is investigating US war crimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere. "The United States will revoke or deny visas to any International Criminal Court (ICC) individuals investigating alleged war crimes by U.S. forces or allies, including in Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said." Is US policy towards the rest of the world spinning out of control as it seems like the US is making enemies and losing friends? The US is continuing to threaten allies, enemies, the United Nations and everyone and anyone who disagrees with it. Is this any way to run a foreign policy? Before you know it the US will be going it alone in a world united against it.
Posted at 07:50 AM in John Lawrence, China, Europe, Foreign Policy, Germany, Off the Top of my Head, Sanctions | Permalink | Comments (0)
WATCH: Pence Met with Icy Silence in Munich, Praising Trump and Attempting to Bully Leaders on Foreign Policy
Published on Saturday, February 16, 2019 by Common Dreams
The vice president arrived at the Munich Security Conference ready to promote President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda—but his demands over Venezuela and Iran were not well received
by Julia Conley, staff writer
Vice President Mike Pence was met with silence when he told a group of international leaders that he brought "greetings from President Donald Trump" to the Munich Security Conference. (Photo: @MostafaMe4/Twitter)
Vice President Mike Pence received an icy response from world leaders at the Munich Security Conference Saturday, as he made clear his aim for the weekend was to promote his President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda.
The vice president began his remarks by telling world leaders, "I bring greetings from the 45th president of the United States of America, President Donald Trump"—and was met with a long silence before describing Trump's accomplishments as "extraordinary" and "remarkable."
Addressing U.S. allies at the Munich Security Conference, Mike Pence is met with silence as he tells the audience: "I bring greetings from the 45th president of the United States of America, President Donald Trump." pic.twitter.com/yr7SNVhCVf
— Axios (@axios) February 16, 2019
Pence appears to have mistaken Munich audience for Trump tribute dinner
— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) February 16, 2019
In addition to heaping praise on the president, Pence chastised European and Asian leaders for remaining in compliance with the Iran nuclear deal and called on them to join the U.S. in recognizing Juan Guaido as president of Venezuela, weeks after the right-wing opposition leader declared himself the head of the country despite President Nicolas Maduro winning re-election last May.
Pence urged the E.U. to "step forward for freedom" by recognizing Guaido as president.
US Vice President Mike Pence calls on the European Union to recognise Venezuela's opposition leader Juan Guaido as the country's president pic.twitter.com/F5nJCiuGGB
— TRT World Now (@TRTWorldNow) February 16, 2019
Millions of Venezuelans in recent days have signed an open letter rejecting the United States' attempt to intervene and pressure the country and international community to recognize Guaido.
Slamming European countries for "undermining U.S. sanctions" by staying in the painstakingly-reached Iran nuclear deal, Pence called on world leaders to turn away from Iran while accusing the country of antisemitism.
"The Iranian regime openly advocates another Holocaust and it seeks the means to achieve it," said Pence.
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called Pence's accusation "laughable."
"Iran has always supported the Jews," he told Der Spiegel. "We are just against Zionists."
"Iran's historic and cultural record of coexistence and respect for divine religions, particularly Judaism, is recorded in reliable historic documents of various nations," Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi added in a statement.
"The principle that underlies our foreign policy is the aggressive and occupying nature of the Zionist regime [Israel] … which is a killing machine against the Palestinian people," he said.
Regarding Iran, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also addressed the conference, defending the decision of Germany and other European nations to stay in the nuclear agreement and observing the Trump administration's isolation in the debate over the deal.
Merkel has observed "the Europeans on one side and the Americans on the other side," she said—a dynamic which was illustrated by the conference's reception of the vice president.
Posted at 08:55 AM in Common Dreams, Europe, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
Pence Brings Greetings From Trump: No Applause. Merkel Mocks Trump: Wild Applause
by John Lawrence, February 18, 2019
Trump has become the pariah and laughingstock of the whole world. Angela Merkel took him down at the Munich conference and the audience cheered. Pence lauded Trump and got stony-faced silence from the audience.
The Washington Post reported:
MUNICH — An annual security conference where Western allies have long forged united fronts erupted Saturday into a full-scale assault on the Trump administration's foreign policy. European leaders, would-be Democratic challengers and even the president's Republican backers took the floor to rebuke the president's go-it-alone approach.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel — habitually cautious about provoking Trump — led the charge, unleashing a stinging, point-by-point takedown of the administration's tendency to treat its allies as adversaries.
The speech appeared to provide much-needed catharsis. Trump's antagonistic behavior has bred two years of accumulated grievance in much of Europe but has been met with few substantive answers on how to effectively challenge it.
Merkel accused the United States of strengthening Iran and Russia with its plans for a speedy military pullout from Syria. She expressed shock that the Trump administration would deem BMWs made in South Carolina a threat to national security.
... Merkel was followed to the podium Saturday by Vice President Pence, who was met with only tepid applause — and some incredulous looks — when he proclaimed Trump "the leader of the free world."
Merkel even made fun of Trump's remark that German cars, many of which are manufactured in the US, are a threat to US national security. Clearly, the traditional European allies are standing up to Trump and calling him out over his pull-out from the Iran nuclear deal, over Germany's NORD 2 pipeline deal with Russia and Europe's refusal to go along with and bow down to ridiculous and wrong headed American policies and demands that the rest of the world kow tow to it. Pence demanded that Europe honor American sanctions against Iran but Europe is having none of it. They've developed a work-around and will continue to do business with Iran much to Pence's and Trump's chagrin.
Posted at 08:28 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
How Capitalist Utopia Became Everyone Else's Dystopia
by Umair Hague, Eudaimonia & Co., July 30, 2018
How American Elites Ruined Their Society in a Way the World Hasn't Seen Since Weimar Germany
Take a good, hard look at the chart above. I don't usually write essays about charts— but this one's different. It's American collapse in four lines. It says that American elites mismanaged their economy so badly, so fatally, so totally, the rich world hasn't seen the like since Weimar Germany. They created a capitalist utopia — but the problem is that that's everyone else's dystopia.
To understand the story of this gargantuan, historic failure — not managing a society in any way resembling "well", or even "sanely" — it's probably best to understand what Europe did right — and then come back to what America did wrong. Which, in short, is that it embarked on one of history's greatest fools' quests since alchemy, a utopian mission to turn the lead of capitalism into the gold of prosperity for everyone. But lead doesn't turn into gold.
Why didn't Europe's "labour share of income" — that is, how much regular people receive— decline, like in the States? The simple answer, of course, is "more social democracy, and less capitalism." But what does that mean? It means that European structures and institutions are radically different from American ones — so different, that many Americans have little idea such things even exist.
The first way that Europe differed was in how economics institutions "interact" — deal with one another. In Europe, unions weren't destroyed — they thrived. Deals between unions and companies are brokered formally or informally by governments. But that's just the beginning. In Germany, for example, worker's representatives sit on company boards. In France, collective bargaining is a right, negotiated by sectors, for example, among all waiters and restauranteurs — not individual companies and employers. In Scandinavia, companies have to account for their social costs and benefits. There's much more — but this is just an essay. The point is that Europe developed better mechanisms for economic interaction —fuller ones, if you like, which ensured more stable, opportune, and empowered societies. Average people had genuine power to demand a fairer more of an economy's gains — as they should, not just for moral reasons, but also socio-political ones, which we'll come to.
But Europe's story isn't just about interactions — it's also about investment. Europe also invested in great public goods. Public healthcare, education, finance, media, safety nets, and so on. Think of Britain's NHS and BBC, or the French pension system. American economists came to call these great institutions the "welfare state", derisively — and so they missed their economic point completely. It wasn't just that they gave people "handouts", as American pundits might have said — it was that they did something crucial in a modern economy: they employed vast numbers of people, at stable, rising, and decent incomes, doing meaningful work, not just at useless jobs.
So those great public institutions set a soft floor that the private sector had to compete with in terms of wages. America's biggest employers, instead, became Walmart and McDonald's — but one of Britain's biggest is the NHS. The result is that European incomes stayed higher and more stable than American incomes, because people had alternatives to mega-capitalism preying on them a little more viciously every year.
Hence, social-scale public goods also meant that Europeans could enjoy the basics of life at reasonable prices, precisely because many of them were employed at better incomes, in the production of those very public goods — whereas in America, capitalism had to produce such things as healthcare, education, finance, and media. But it had no incentive to produce these things well, affordably, at high quality, or even completely. So Americans got squeezed savagely — they had to pay skyrocketing prices for the basics of life, which capitalism only offered them partially.
Hence, America became a place full of strange, weird, absurd capitalist paradoxes: fresh food costing three times as much as frozen food, whole cities without working utilities or supermarkets, basic medicines like insulin costing thousands, childbirth priced at half an average person's yearly income. And some things just weren't available to many at all. No "health insurance"? Sorry — you die. Bad "credit"? Sorry — no housing. Want that cutting edge cancer drug? It'll cost you $500K — but for Europeans, it's free. Americans lived perched right at the edge of ruin, trying desperately to afford the things that Europeans took for granted — but those things were the very ones which life depends on most — food, water, healthcare, education, finance, media, pensions.
What does all that remind you of? Shortages. Rationing. A system unable to provide for people's fundamental needs. A cratering quality of life. The basics of life simply unavailable or unaffordable to most. It should remind you of the Soviet Union. That's not just an analogy — it's a repetition of history. Let me explain. America didn't not just follow Europe's lead. It did precisely the opposite. Remember Europe's two great innovation? Better economic interactions, and better public goods? America did the reverse.
Let's start with economic interactions — in America there was only one kind allowed, according to capitalist utopia: markets. Hence, America destroyed its unions, quite obviously. But more interesting is the fact that all these novel mechanisms Europe had pioneered — the German idea of workers' representatives sitting on boards, the French idea of collective bargaining as deals between sectors of workers and employers, brokered formally or informally by governments, or even the idea that anyone but now powerless average people had any "responsibility" at all — were off the table. They were seen as outlandish science fiction, and still are. No one in the elite considered, proposed, or advocated them. Don't you think that's strange? Not on the right — and not on the left, either.
Both sides of American economics had devolved into something like alchemy. They were on a quest to turn lead into gold — that is, to turn capitalism into prosperity. The right advocated something like totalitarian capitalism, capitalism as the only force in society — and the left, something like slightly less totalitarian capitalism. Hence, not a single American economist of renown, left or right, said something like: "Hey everyone! We should have an NHS! A French-style sectoral bargaining for everyone! And also a BBC! They'd employ people, raise incomes, and reverse the big problem in the economy." Don't you think that's strange?
Look at the chart above again. What date does it begin? 1980. The trend was there, in other words, for decades, to see. Yet no one chose to see it.No one of renown rang an alarm bell — except maybe Joe Stiglitz. Mostly, American elites thought everything was going swimmingly well. Isn't that a little stunning?
Alchemists were looking to turn lead into gold. American elites were looking to turn capitalism — and only capitalism — into prosperity. Alchemists never looked elsewhere, questioning their question. American elites never looked at Europe, questioning their question. If they had — even once — they would have seen the trend above, wouldn't they? American economics, in other words, became the study of capitalism, and capitalism alone. But that way, it became a kind of self-fulfilling, and self-defeating, prophecy. There were many times alchemists thought they'd turned lead into gold. But it turned out to be fools' gold, or a patina, or a veneer. In the same way, American elites, only ever looking at America, only ever studying, researching, thinking about America, never looked at Europe — and so what could they learn? They couldn't.
All that American elites could do was to keep trying more and more extreme forms of capitalism — because they'd already assumed that the answer to the question of prosperity was capitalist utopia. Hence, capitalism went extreme, and became dystopian. Having assumed they knew the answer to the wrong question, they set about imagining, theorizing, endorsing, and proposing was capitalism, taken to new heights of gruesome absurdity, every year, in a weird and fatal escalation of folly.
Let me give you one of my favourite examples. In the 1980s, it became legal to raid pensions funds. Why? Well, the idea was that collective investment were bad. Everyone should have their own "retirement account." Let them eat stocks. But the problem was pretty obvious. If you're working 10 hours a day, what time do you have to manage a pension? What if you're not interested? And doesn't it set long-term incentives for a company to hold such balances, too — to manage more wisely, instead of running something like a chop shop? Europe would have reeled in horror, laughing at such an obviously foolish idea. And yet American economists, obsessed with the idea of capitalist utopia, quickly launched "reform" after "reform", of just the same manner. Privatization, deregulation, stripping away bargaining rights, rolling back basic protections, from minimum wages, to vacation time, to overtime, to unionization, to benefits.
All these eroded whatever norms, values, shared social contract employers might have once felt they had. Now anything was fair game. Companies had nothing invested in their workers beyond their daily wages, really — so why treat them as anything more than disposable commodities? And so soon enough, Americans were working "jobs" that weren't really "jobs" in the old sense — they carried few benefits, offered little stability, security, mobility, and therefore, held out a shrinking chance at a decent life. America had handed total control of the economy over to capitalists. But the problem was that capitalists were a tiny number of people — 10% of people owned 80% of stocks, and even less owned companies, in any real sense. The effect was that industry after industry came to be dominated by mega-monopolies — Walmart, Amazon, Google, because there was simply nothing to restrain capital's natural tendency to accumulate wealth, power, and fortune.
America had gone Soviet. It had become a land where gigantic institutions used artificial scarcity, controlled shortages, and rigid price controls (only upwards, not downwards) as a mechanism to exploit and prey on people — the system was unable to provide for people anymore, even in basic ways. And funnier and more tragically, it was precisely America's elites who thought all this was exactly the right thing to do — not just economically, but morally, too. If you're poor — you're weak, and therefore, you deserve to be punished. Capitalist utopia is for the strong! The only kind of justice that was allowed in the promised land was the ideological whip. Because underlying this strange and foolish quest American thought had become, lay the same old myths which had always haunted, and maybe even cursed America: self-reliance, cruelty, greed, domination, might makes right.
Yet America's elites never questioned themselves once. They never looked at the world. They were too busy mesmerized by the alchemists who were telling them fantastic tales of turning lead into gold. Of capitalism becoming a promised land of prosperity. It did — for a tiny handful of people, whom, today, are richer and more powerful than kings of old. But for everyone else, America became a gruesome, bizarre dystopia. A land where children are sold bulletproof backpacks because no one can rein in the gun lobby. Where people choose between chemotherapy and bankruptcy. Where billionaires plan to flee to Mars — but a single rocket could pay for a thousand teachers, or the drinkable water, healthcare, and income that millions don't have.
Like all utopian dreams, America's failed catastrophically. Not because it didn't try hard enough at turning lead into gold. But because it did. Lead doesn't turn into gold. Capitalism, alone, doesn't turn into prosperity. It was a fools' quest from the beginning. But there they still are, the wise men, wearing their suits, nodding their heads, stroking their chins, wagging their fingers— have they learned anything yet?
Posted at 07:59 AM in Capitalism, Europe, Inequality, The US, Utopias | Permalink | Comments (1)
The American Empire
by John Lawrence, October5, 2018
It's an empire when you have 1000 military bases in almost every country of the world. Those countries without American military bases are surrounded by countries that do have them. It's an empire when you control the world's reserve currency and financial system. It's an empire when the American central bank (the Federal Reserve) controls the other central banks of the world. It's an empire when you can apply sanctions that limit the rights of other countries to do business with each other. It's an empire when you can freeze bank accounts of anyone anywhere in the world.
Total, the French oil company, won't do business with Iran because the US applied sanctions that would threaten Total's bottom line if they persisted in their business relationship with Iran.
CNBC reported:
French energy giant Total has yet to permanently pull out of Iran following the renewal of U.S. sanctions, but CEO Patrick Pouyanne on Wednesday sounded a pessimistic note about his company's prospects in the country.
Total positioned itself to develop a portion of the world's largest natural gas field after the 2015 Iran nuclear deal lifted punishing sanctions on the Iranian economy. However, the company is now preparing to abandon the Persian Gulf project unless the U.S. government issues the company a sanctions waiver.
That would protect Total from so-called secondary sanctions, which the United States can use to punish foreign companies that engage in prohibited activity with Iran. Washington gave firms 90 to 180 days to wind down their business in the country after President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the nuclear deal last month.
"There's not a single international company like Total who can work in any country with secondary sanctions. I don't have the right. It's just the reality of the world," Pouyanne told CNBC at an OPEC seminar in Vienna.
Pouyanne acknowledged that his position probably does not sit well with Europe's leaders. The European Union has attempted to salvage the nuclear deal by passing measures aimed at protecting the bloc's firms that have business dealings in Iran.
But Pouyanne told CNBC he must be pragmatic and face reality.
"The reality is that the capital of the world today is in the hands of the U.S.," he said. "Is it right that in this world the U.S. [is] using that ... to impose some rules for other countries? That's a debate."
Secondary sanctions are particularly perilous for multinationals like Total. Engaging in sanctioned activity with Iran could prompt the American government to cut Total off from the massive U.S. financial system and force the firm to wind down its operations in the States.
"The U.S. could decide that I could not have access to any U.S. financing," Pouyanne said. "It's impossible, let me be clear, to run an international company like Total without having access to U.S. financing or to U.S. shareholding."
Total says U.S. banks are involved in about 90 percent of the company's financing operations, while American investors account for more than 30 percent of its shareholding. The company has more than $10 billion deployed in U.S. operations.
By comparison, Total spent less than 40 million euros, or roughly $46 million, on its project developing the massive South Pars natural gas field in Iranian waters.
America was already great before Trump came to office if by great you mean that the US controls every other country in the world both militarily and economically. The only thing not great about America is that it has a great underclass of homeless and people living paycheck to paycheck but every empire has had its slaves or peons. I guess Trump is going to double down on American greatness and really crack the whip on these other countries that don't fall into line. When he's done with them, they will either pay up or be forced into submission as American sanctions are applied to them.
Posted at 07:50 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Iran, Off the Top of my Head, Sanctions, The Military | Permalink | Comments (0)
Will the US Sanction the EU?
by John Lawrence
The rest of the world doesn't agree with President Trump's pulling out of the nuclear agreement with Iran. Iran has been complying with the agreement so why should the US pull out based on the judgment of one man? If the US is a democracy, shouldn't it take more than one to reverse a policy that was entered into on behalf of the world's greatest super power? The US has vowed to put sanctions on any entity doing business with Iran. However, the EU is standing up to the US in the persona of Trump and devising a workaround that will supply Iran with everything it needs regardless of Trump's threat of sanctions.
DW reported:
The remaining signatories of the Iran nuclear deal announced on Monday that they would establish a channel to facilitate payments for Iran's exports, including oil, as well as its imports. The decision was reached after high-level closed-door talks at the UN in New York.
"Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports, including oil," Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the EU announced in a joint statement.
The members' stated intent is "to protect the freedom of their economic operators to pursue legitimate business with Iran."
The SPV could breathe life into the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal, and was sought by Tehran in order to counter the reimposition of sanctions triggered by the US's exit from the deal.
The European Union has struggled to devise a workable legal framework to shield its companies from the effects of US sanctions, which are set to come into effect in November, and has tried to deter firms from pulling out of Iran.
If Trump can singlehandedly and unilaterally pull out of an international deal, it effectively makes him a dictator. The fact that this deal was never ratified by Congress signifies the fact that the US Congress is totally dysfunctional. In a democracy, the people or their representatives should stand behind the deals made in their name. Just because Trump thinks the Iran deal was a bad deal does not make it so. Every other signatory to the deal thinks it was a good deal. Trump is just exercising dictatorial powers turning the US into a dictatorship with a Congress that is irrelevant. This is how democracies become dictatorships.
Will the US then sanction the EU and drive the US further apart from its erstwhile allies? Already China and Russia are developing ways to circumvent US sanctions. They are tired of having the US, which they thought was a rational and trustworthy actor, control the world's financial system. When the dollar no longer reigns supreme, the chickens will soon be coming home to roost on the US national debt. But no worries. The Federal Reserve will simply print more money to pay off the debt. That seems to be working so far.
Posted at 08:05 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Iran, Off the Top of my Head, Sanctions | Permalink | Comments (0)
EU, China and Russia in move to sidestep US sanctions on Iran
From the Guardian:
Special Purpose Vehicle aims to keep Iran in 2015 nuclear deal with barter system
Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov with EU external affairs chief Federica Mogherini in New York on Tuesday. Photograph: Alexander Shcherbak/TASS
The European Union, Iran, China and Russia have set out a plan to sidestep unilateral US sanctions designed to cripple the Iranian economy and force the Iranians to renegotiate the nuclear deal signed in 2015.
European diplomats hope the proposed measure – known as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) – will help persuade an increasingly reluctant Iran to stay inside the deal in the hope of rescuing its economy.
Speaking on the sidelines of the UN general assembly in New York, Federica Mogherini, the EU external affairs chief, said the SPV was designed to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports – including oil – and imports, so long as the firms involved were carrying out legitimate business under EU law.
The aim is to make the SPV available not just to EU firms but to others, she added.
In his address to the United Nations general assembly, Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, stressed Tehran's continued commitment to the deal and accused the US of pressurising other countries into violating the nuclear agreement.
"Confronting multilateralism is not a sign of strength," he said. "Rather, it is a symptom of the weakness of intellect. It betrays an inability in understanding a complex and interconnected world."
But the US president Donald Trump's secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, addressing an anti-Iran pressure group, said he was "disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed" by the EU plan.
"This is one of the of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security," Pompeo said.
Versions of the SPV floated by thinktanks suggest it could underpin a sophisticated barter system that can avoid US Treasury sanctions. For example, Iran could ship crude oil to a French firm, accumulating credit that could then be used to pay an Italian manufacturer for goods shipped the other way, without any funds traversing through Iranian hands or the banking system.
A multinational European state-backed financial intermediary would be set up to handle deals with companies interested in Iran transactions and with Iranian counter-parties. Any transactions would not be transparent to the US, and involve euros and sterling rather than dollars.
The proposal is additional to a blocking statute passed by the EU in August that theoretically makes EU companies immune from sanctions imposed by the US in pursuit of its Iran policy. In theory, the statute empowers EU firms to seek compensation from US Treasury for trying to impose extra-territorial sanctions in breach of the statute. So far this statute has not been tested in court.
Richard Nephew, a former Barack Obama official and author of The Art of Sanctions, expressed scepticism on Twitter, saying that for the SPV to be taken up, European firms – many with either US employees, or US subsidiaries – must still be prepared to take the risk of being sanctioned by the US.
He also suggested US sanctions could be applied to the traded good as much as to the cash to fund the trade. He predicted few firms would take that risk, outside some SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] heavily dependent on Iran for their income.
Jarrett Blanc, another former Obama staffer for the Iran deal, broadly agreed with Nephew, but was more sympathetic, writing that "the symbolism here is probably Europe's most important contribution, and it may be sufficient depending on what China, India, Turkey do on oil". He added: "The payment mechanism move opens the door to a longer-term degradation of US sanctions power."
Either way, Europe needs a solution soon after months of railing against US economic imperialism. The vast majority of European firms are planning to pull out.
Trump announced two sets of US secondary sanctions in May, and other sanctions imposed in August cover shipping and insurance. The other more important sanctions – aimed at ending Iranian oil exports, still the heart of the faltering Iranian economy – do not bite until 5 November.
In advance of the oil sanctions, Iran's crude sales to China fell 21% between May and August, according to Eurasia Group. But it is unclear how long China will stick to that trend.
The assumption is that many countries like India and Russia will continue to trade with Iran and challenge the US to try to impose sanctions, pointing out that in reality it is the US, by tearing up the agreement and not them, that is in breach of UN resolutions.
Posted at 08:36 AM in The Guardian, China, Europe, Iran, Russia, Sanctions | Permalink | Comments (0)
Rather Than NATO Allies Increasing Spending Why Doesn't US Decrease Spending to Their Levels?
by John Lawrence, July 26, 2018
President Trump is upset about the disparity between European defense spending and American defense spending. He says NATO allies are getting a free ride. He wants them to increase defense spending to US levels. Here's an idea. Why doesn't the US with its bloated oversize defense budget decrease spending to their levels? The US defense spending, when you add in intelligence spending, spending on nuclear bombs (that's the Energy Department) and Homeland Security is over a trillion dollars. The US spends more on defense than the seven next highest spending countries combined. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2015 US defense spending outstripped that of China, Russia, UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia and India combined. In 2018 it's even worse.
So why don't the European countries push back towards the US and demand that the US decrease its defense spending? I guess they really don't care that US citizens go without adequate food, shelter and infrastructure as long as their ox isn't being gored. They like the US being the world's policeman and making a big show about talking tough with Russia. Of course when it comes to practical matters, Germany is happy to partner with Russia on the Nord II pipeline which will bring Russian natural gas to Germany at a reasonable rate. Such hypocrisy! And needless waste of defense dollars.
Wouldn't it be better to bring Russia into the fold rather than continuing to make them the outsiders? Of course when you need something from them that's mutually beneficial, then they aren't the enemy any more. The fact is that if the US ceased to be the world's policeman and sanctions imposer, the US economy would collapse. It's based on financial engineering and military spending. Other than that it has shipped off its manufacturing base to countries where the labor input is cheaper. The US is the world's largest debtor nation so it has to keep all those creditor nations in line. Else they might come calling and demanding their money.
The US is so poor and in debt that it can't even keep up with a $4 trillion infrastructure deficit. It is borrowing money just to pay interest on the national debt! Meanwhile, China is building infrastructure not only in China but around the world with its Belt and Road initiative. They have figured out the correct way to use fiat money. The US uses fiat money only to bail out the big banks, not to help Joe Six Pack. His mortgage can go up in flames for all the Federal Reserve, the nation's privately owned central bank, cares. In China the central bank is publicly owned. Maybe that's the difference.
Posted at 06:38 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Infrastructure, Off the Top of my Head, Russia, The Military Industrial Complex | Permalink | Comments (0)
Can the Brit's Baby Trump Blimp Come Play at Trump's DC Military Parade?
Published on Tuesday, July 17, 2018 by Common Dreams
The UK protests should be an inspiration to Americans resisting Trump
by Medea Benjamin
The best thing about Donald Trump's visit to England and Scotland was the protests—or Carnival of Resistance, as some called them. Their outrageous signs, costumes, and visuals, including the Baby Trump blimp, were in contrast to our oftentimes sedate US demonstrations. That's why a GoFundMe has been started to make Baby Trump Blimp the Guest of Honor at the November 10th protest against Trump's scheduled military parade in Washington DC. The American public would certainly get a lift from an oversized Trump in diapers hovering above Trump's macho display of guns and missiles.
The UK protests should be an inspiration to Americans resisting Trump. When Trump met with British Prime Minister Theresa May and Queen Elizabeth, then went to Scotland for a round of golf, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets in opposition. With good humor and lively, creative actions, they trounced Trump's policies on everything from immigration, race relations, women, climate change, gun violence and war. One sign said it all: "We love the US but dislike pussy-grabbing, fake tanning, sabre rattling, serial philandering, white supremacist pandering, compulsive lying, first amendment-defying, corporate whoring, hate-mongering, no shaming, infant detaining, immigrant blaming, Putin colluding, climate change denying, over privileged, draft dodging, underperforming, inheritance squandering, insecure, infantile, snake-oil selling, small minded, tiny handed, celebrity demagogues."
"The revolution is coming, I don't care what you think; the ship looks stable right before it sinks."
The carnival atmosphere included drag queens decked out in their finest wigs and gowns, with signs proclaiming "No Closets, No Cages." A brass band called Trumpets Against Trump delighted the crowds with their brash tunes. A singing group with orange wigs crooned "We Shall Overcomb." Young women held photos of Trump with sparkles and red lipstick advocating "Less Guns, More Glitter." Rappers called for radical transformation: "The revolution is coming, I don't care what you think; the ship looks stable right before it sinks."
The belle of the ball, however, was Baby Trump—the delightful giant orange blimp of a screaming baby, wearing a diaper and gripping a cell phone for tweeting. The creators of the Baby Trump inflatable, who call themselves "the Babysitters," got the idea while hanging out in a pub, thinking about how to visualize their opposition to Trump's xenophobia that is affecting both the United States and Europe. Recalling comedian Jon Stewart's characterization of Trump as a "man-baby," they got the idea of making the blimp to target Trump's fragile ego. "He doesn't seem to be affected by the moral outrage that comes from his behavior and his policies," said organizer Matt Bonner. "We realized that you can't reason with him, but you can ridicule him." They also thought that in these dark and disturbing times, both in the US and in Europe, humor would be a welcome relief. Their idea struck a chord with the public: a crowd-funding campaign garnered $25,000 to make the big baby fly.
The "Babysitters" did, indeed, nail Trump's behavior, as he acted like an infantile bully on the visit. He hurled insults at his host, Prime Minister Theresa May, chastising her for not following his advice on Brexit. He criticized London's first Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, who authorized the Trump blimp on free speech grounds. Trump accused Khan of being soft on terrorism and allowing too many immigrants into London.
In a blatant show of dog whistle racism, Trump insulted not only Brits but all of Europe, saying immigration is "changing the culture" of Europe.
Ironically, vintage British culture was on full display at the protests, with signs such as "Teapot Not Despot," "Hate is not my cup of tea," or the height of disdain: "He probably doesn't even like tea." Some signs used widely recognized colloquialisms, like "Trump can bugger off" and "Too many tweets make a twat." Others needed translation, like "Feed him to the corgis", referring to a popular Welch dog originally bred to herd sheep, or "Go Home: Wonsit W*nker", invoking a masterbuting orange cheese puff.
Trump certainly got the message. The protests led him to avoid the entire downtown of London. "When they put out blimps to make me feel unwelcome, [there was] no reason for me to go to London," Trump told the Sun newspaper. "I used to love London as a city. I haven't been there in a long time. But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?" But even at the US Ambassador's residence in Regent's Park, where Donald Trump and Melania stayed, protesters showed up with signs like: "Not Even Your Wife Likes You." And outside his meeting with the Queen, Trump was met by merrymakers proclaiming, "Save our queen from the fascist tangerine."
Retreating to his golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland, Trump was still hounded by opponents. A Greenpeace activist was arrested for paragliding over the golf course with a banner reading "Trump: Well Below Par." Scots gathered at the nearby beach to denounce Trump's "special relationship" with Scotland because his mother grew up there. One sign opposing Trump's treatment of immigrants read: "Yer Maw Was an Immigrant, Ye Nugget."
Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn addressing the London crowd. "We are asserting our right to a world that is not divided by misogyny, racism, and hate. We wish to live in a world of peace not at war, we wish not to blame refugees for wars that they themselves are victims of."
The protests did have a serious side, with speakers like popular Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn addressing the London crowd. "We are asserting our right to a world that is not divided by misogyny, racism, and hate. We wish to live in a world of peace not at war, we wish not to blame refugees for wars that they themselves are victims of," Corbyn said to thunderous applause."When we divide ourselves by xenophobia, when we divide ourselves by hatred, at the end of the day we all lose. When we unite together with common objectives, we can all win."
A woman leaving the London protest at the end of the day was ecstatic. "I don't know if we made a difference, but we had a great time," she laughed. "We saw Jeremy Corbyn, we saw the floating Baby Trump, and we drank gin. What more could we want?"
So on this side of the pond, let's toast to values and creativity of the Brits and to Baby Trump crossing the Atlantic in time for Trump's military parade. Join the GoFundMe to bring the big baby stateside. In these grim times, we could use a good dose of British humor.
Posted at 07:37 AM in Common Dreams, Europe, The US, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
Russia's Meddling in OUR Election: How Dare They!
A question that might be asked is "What dirt did they hope to get on Hillary by hacking into Hillary's personal server and the Democratic National Committee's server?" Why would Hillary have dirt about herself on her own server? Why would the DNC? This phony outrage about Russian meddling in our elections is a tempest in a teapot, a mountain out of a mole hill. The USA has meddled in the results of democratic elections by overthrowing Salvador Allende in Peru and Mossaddegh in Iran and installing brutal dictators in their respective places. Mohammad Mosaddegh was the head of a democratically elected government that was illegally removed in a CIA coup. He held office as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom's Secret Intelligence Service. I could go on and on about how the US has meddled in other countries' elections, but I won't. Look it up. The complicit American media won't tell you about it.
So as much as I don't want to, I have to agree with Trump again that Hillary and the DNC should have devoted more resources to securing their systems. It's just about time and money to make your server unhackable, but most people and entities don't want to spend the time or money. Instead, they're too busy dunning us for more money. The fact that Mueller has identified 13 Russians who were directly responsible for the "meddling" means nothing. The suggestion that Trump should ask Putin to extradite them to the US is risible. What planet are these politicians and media people living on?
Trump is disrupting the whole US military-industrial complex and media mindset on foreign policy. So far he has not suggested that the defense budget be reduced as Europe pays for a larger share of their own defense. That would be truly disruptive. If not Trump, then the progressives out there like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders should pick up the ball from Trump and demand that the US reduce its defense budget commensurate with the EU countries' increase in theirs. The Democratic party has staked their future on the fact that the American people will rise up and revolt against Trump once the facts of the Mueller investigation are out. I don't think the Mueller investigation will reveal anything earthshaking other than Trump was trying to feather his own nest by cutting business deals with Russia.
Why shouldn't we make friends with out enemies? If we did, we wouldn't have to spend so much on defense. But then the whole edifice of hate built up towards certain countries of the world would come tumbling down and the military-industrial complex' budget along with it. There is too much money at stake. We need enemies in order to justify spending a trillion dollars a year on defense. Trump is challenging the status quo on that. He's challenging the prevailong narrative that Russia is bad. We're good. Russia's allies are bad. Our allies are good. That's bullshit. Our ally, Saudi Arabia, is conducting genocide in Yemen with US assistance. We could be at peace any time that a US President and the US political establishment decided to do so. But that would cost these guys too much money. Basically, they would just have to stop trying to bully other countries as their MO.
Instead, US foreign policy is all about making other countries do our bidding. After Trump established a cordial relationship with Kim Jong Un, right away the US meme of making it all about him getting rid of all his nuclear weapons before the US would do anything to benefit him got established. This is what Pompeo and the media were all about. They take the same tack with Putin. "Mr. Putin if you'll only give Crimea back to Ukraine and confess your sins, then we might be friends." Trump is absolutely right about the hypocracy of Angela Merkel and Germany in crying wolf over the Russians at the same time they are cooperatively building a pipeline in order for Germany to receive Russian natural gas. If Germany and Russia are such enemies, aren't they afraid that Russia might turn off the gas at a critical moment? No, it's all about the money not the underlying realities.
I thin the Dems better not hang all their hopes on the Mueller investigation revealing something perfidious on Trump's part. They better hang their hopes on Bernie Sanders' economic agenda, and, may I suggest, carrying forward a friendly relationship with our enemies that Trump has at least broken the ice with?
Posted at 07:50 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Foreign Policy, Korea, Russia, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
Does Trump's Challenging NATO Allies to Spend More on Defense Mean that the US Will Spend Concomitantly Less?
I would be all for Trump's jawboning our NATO allies to spend more on defense if that meant that the US would decrease its defense budget by the same amount as the total increase by our NATO allies. If it just means that the US will spend the same amount, then it's a bunch of poppycock. The EU should take over their own defense with minimal help from the US. Then there would be little reason for the US to spend such huge amounts on defense. The money could be spend on improving infrastructure here at home. If Trump wants to make America great again, he better start thinking about reducing the US defense budget which, all told, amounts to over a trillion dollars. He better start thinking about using the savings from a reduced defense budget to help the American people. In order to Make America Great Again, Step 1 would be to reduce the defense budget, which purportedly is for defending other countries around the globe, and use the money saved here at home. The defense budget should reflect that money which is necessary to defend just the US and not every other country in the world especially the EU countries which have plenty of money. We don't need to be the world's policeman.
Whatever happened to the idea that, if you make friends with your enemies, you won't have to spend so much money defending yourself against them? The US modus operandi is predicated on the fact that there will be permanent and ongoing wars. The military-industrial complex needs war and the threat of war in order to justify its existence and in order to justify all the money they're making off of war. Therefore, they have to gin up the threat. If peace broke out, large corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman would lose business. Their stock price would go down. CEOs and executives wouldn't be able to justify their huge salaries. Therefore, it's in their interests to have a cottage industry thinking up reasons for even more defense expenditures. Besides it appeals to the macho nature of many men, civilian and otherwise.
As William Hartung points out, the defense budget , when you take into account all the hidden costs, is over a trillion dollars. Department of Defense: $639 billion. War Budget (outside the DoD budget): $64.6 billion. Nuclear Warheads (Department of Energy): $20 billion. Other Defense (Money that goes to defense related activities in departments other than DoD): $8 billion. Homeland Security: $50 billion. Military Aid at the State Department: $7 billion. Intelligence (16 separate agencies including CIA and NSA): $70 billion. Veterans Administration: $186 billion. Military retirement: $80 billion. Defense share of interest on national debt: $100 billion.
When you add it all up, pretty soon you're talking about real money - over a trillion dollars worth. Clearly, this situation is not sustainable. But the current mentality on Wall Street and elsewhere is make all the profits you can in the short term. When the whole edifice collapses, take your money and get out to whatever part of the world welcomes you and your money. Clearly, all those profiting from the current corporate culture do not have to stay here. Only the poor have to stay put and suffer the consequences of profligate defense spending.
The world needs realignment. Russia should be a friend, not an enemy. In these respects, Trump is right. The US and the Democratic Party should get off this kick about demonizing everyone that is Russia's friend like Iran, Syria and China. As Trump has suggested, to his credit, the US should accept Russia's annexation of Crimea. The US and the West should get over it - their horror of what Russia has supposedly done, much of it made up to support the military-industrial complex. And Germany is so horrified by Russia, but as Trump points out, they are building a major pipeline with Russia so they can get Russian natural gas. Quelle horreur!
Thanks to Trump, a peaceful world is at least thinkable. But the Democrats won't let go of their support of the status quo which supports Saudi Arabia.Their motto is that the ally of the enemy of my friend is my enemy too. Russia is the ally of Iran which is the enemy of Saudi Arabia so, therefore, Russia must be our enemy too or the whole world based on Nixon's petrodollar deal with Saudi Arabia would collapse. It will collapse anyway as the world goes more and more to recyclables and the value of oil plummets.
Posted at 07:48 AM in John Lawrence, Corporations, Europe, Foreign Policy, Germany, Homeland Security, Off the Top of my Head, Oil, The Military, The Military Industrial Complex, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
NATO is an Anachronism: The EU Should Provide for its Own Defense
I don't much like Trump's agenda (One thing I cheer is the fact Scott Pruitt is gone), but he is on the right track when it comes to NATO. The European Union needs to provide for its own defense needs and not rely on the US. The US could save hundreds of billions of dollars by decommissioning all its military bases in Europe and sending the personnel home. The US need not be the world's bully, ahem, policeman. That money saved could rebuild US infrastructure which is in a sorry state. Hundreds of thousands of US military are stationed at some 1000 bases all over the world. The US is effectively occupying all these countries.
Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective to make peace with the world's supposed villains than to spend so much money defending ourselves against them? This is Trump's actual breakthrough in disrupting the status quo of the US military-industrial complex and defense establishment. The Democratic party is hell bent on recreating the Cold War and demonizing Russia and China. This demonizing is becoming ineffective especially with respect to China with whom we have enormous trade relationships. Most American corporations have moved their manufacturing operations to China so how can we possibly go to war with them when cheap American goods are produced in China? So the warmongers have been defeated there except for the fact that Trump is starting a trade war with them. We'll see how this all plays out, but I think his trade war won't amount to much. It threatens the whole US economy.
Also Trump's overtures to Russia, much to the dismay of the establishment and the Democrats who want to view Putin as a villain, threatens to take Russia off the table as a potential enemy. If only Hilllary had been elected, we would have been able to keep Russia squarely in the enemy camp. Now that Trump has made nicey-nice with North Korea, American bureaucrats are even further alarmed that Trump might pull troops out of South Korea. The defense establishment is alarmed that its budget might be reduced. They are alarmed that the US would relinquish its role as the world's policeman. They are fixated on keeping North Korea as an enemy, and their method of doing it is focusing exclusively on making having a peaceful relationship dependent on whether or not North Korea gets rid of all its nukes. This is putting the cart before the horse. The focus should be put on having a peaceful relationship first. Many other countries have nukes, and we are not so worried about them. Perhaps Trump inadvertently did the right thing by creating peace first, and then other things are negotiable. At least that's North Korea's view and the view of many other countries' diplomats.
The US should transition from being the world's bully to being the world's caretaker. But it will not because the defense lobby is so strong. Like other empires it will finally collapse when the US dollar becomes just one of many acceptable currencies. That is already happening. Then the full realization of the $20 trillion US national debt will hit us squarely in the face. We are already printing money just to pay the interest on it. How long will it be before the dollar's inherent worth slides down the scale? Regions of the US, notably California, are already taking steps to protect themselves from Wall Street's next collapse by establishing public banks which are detached from the Wall Street banking empire.
The next hopefully progressive US regime ala Bernie Sanders should correct Trump's egregiously unacceptable initiatives on climate change, the environment and taxation, but should take the ball and run with it on the examples he has set so far with respect to devillifying Russia and North Korea. Next should be Iran. The US needs to distance itself from Saudi Arabia and stop supporting its genocide in Yemen. Making peace with our enemies will delegitimize the US defense establishment and free up money for infrastructure and peace building activities throughout the world. The US should transition from being the world's bully to being the world's care taker.
Posted at 07:32 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, The Military, The Military Industrial Complex | Permalink | Comments (0)
Immigration: So What Is The Solution?
There has been a lot of turmoil lately over the subject of immigration. The Right wants to keep them all out; the Left wants to let them all in. No one, it seems, has a somewhat rational idea of how to solve the problem. There is a lot of heat, but little light. So here I offer a modest proposal for dealing with the immigration problem.
I divide it into three parts: 1) what to do with illegal immigrants that are already here, 2) how to keep potentially illegal immigrants out and 3) how to deal with legal immigration. As for #1, I think the court system should deal with them humanely. No separation of families. If they've been here a long time and have led constructive lives, grandfather them in. If they've been here a short time and/or have committed criminal acts, send them back. The court system should make those decisions. Especially if they have children who are American citizens, they should stay although they should not be given the rights of citizenship if they came here illegally.
2) Instead of devoting military resources to manning 1000 bases in every country in the world and spending almost the entire military budget of $1 trillion on foreign wars and threats, devote the lion's share of that budget to solving problems in our own hemisphere. A large share of that should go to preventing illegal immigration although it should be spent rationally not on some fantasy of a border wall. Most illegals get here by overstaying their visas. That program needs attention so that persons on visas are tracked to make sure they go back when their time is up. Secondly, a smart and sophisticated electronic and satellite patrol system should be set up at the border. The border patrol should be stepped up. Helicopter and camera surveillance should be implemented. In some places a wall or a virtual wall or a barrier of some kind should be put in place. It should be impossible just to raft across the Rio Grande and then take off on land. Human trafficking should be stopped.
Resources should be devoted to dealing with crime in Mexico and Central America and economic development should be undertaken there so people will be happy and secure in their home countries. This in lieu of our defense budget which is entirely misallocated and focused on Europe and Asia. It should be focused on our own border and our own hemisphere.
3) Immigration policy should focus almost exclusively on refugees. There is a refugee crisis going on all over the world, largely precipitated by wars in the Middle East which the US started. These countries were largely functional until George W Bush invaded Iraq based on a lie in 2003, and Obama encouraged the "Arab spring" and regime change. Europe, Germany in particular, is facing a a huge refugee crisis created by, guess who, us! Therefore, the US should be accepting a large number of those refugee immigrants that are now flooding Europe, and again the policy of economic development in their home countries which we have largely destroyed should be implemented. I totally disagree with Trump's policy of accepting as legal immigrants only the best and the brightest. We should be accepting refugees from all over the world as in Emma Lazarus' poem: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." That was US immigration policy then. There is even more reason why it should be US immigration policy now. And besides it will alleviate the pressure that Europe is under causing the upsurge in right wing politicians there.
In short US immigration policy should be compassion towards those who have come here illegally and have led constructive lives, zero illegal immigration brought about by devoting a significant part of the defense budget to prevention and a legal immigration policy focused on refugees, most of which have been created by American wars in the Middle East.
Posted at 07:41 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Immigration, Off the Top of my Head | Permalink | Comments (0)
Trump's Summits With Kim Jung Un and Now Putin
by John Lawrence, June 29, 2018
While the Washington establishment decries Trump's getting together with the likes of Kim and Putin, I think it's probably a good idea to talk and reduce the tension with our so-called enemies. There are lots of reasons why some Americans feel animosity towards these two, but the fact remains that we should try twice as hard to get along with those we disagree with as we do with those we agree with. Trump is charting his own path on foreign policy, and he might actually make a difference in this department although when it comes to climate change, the environment or taxes, he has gone totally the wrong route. But he could change on these issues given enough time. I'm not holding my breath. When it comes to immigration, we should look to our "allies" as to how they're dealing with their own, much more urgent, immigration crisis. Cooler heads could avail, but I doubt if they will.
I think Trump is all about enriching himself even further and using the Presidency to do it. After all, this is the model for US politicians at this point. All the Congressmen use their offices to enrich themselves when they leave Congress to "spend more time with their family" which is a euphemism for "to get a lucrative job with a corporation for which I got legislation they wanted written into law." I think that's what the Mueller investigation will find: that Trump was all about greasing his own palms and using his office to do it rather than doing something underhanded and nefarious to help Russia subvert American institutions.
The New York Times reported:
The Helsinki talks, which will come on the heels of a NATO summit meeting in Brussels on July 11 and 12, could exacerbate American relations with European allies even as it eases tensions with Russia.
Mr. Trump this week sent his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, to Moscow, where he met on Wednesday with Mr. Putin.
Afterward, an aide to Mr. Putin, Yuri Ushakov, reiterated Moscow's denial that it tried to influence the United States presidential election in 2016, comments that Mr. Trump cited on Thursday in a Twitter post before the meeting with Mr. Putin was announced.
"Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election!" Mr. Trump wrote.
The potential for such a high-level meeting has concerned some American allies in Europe, particularly because of recent tensions between the Trump administration and traditional American allies including Canada, France and Germany.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that it was important to get along with Russia and other countries.
But a meeting with Mr. Putin, and improving the relationship between the United States and Russia, have long appeared to be priorities for Mr. Trump.
Yes, the old status quo of NATO is hard to give up for the European allies and the Clinton branch of the Democratic party in the US. Trump is a disrupter, and, if he can bring some progress towards reintegrating Russia with Europe, that would be all to the better. Germany, in particular is hypocritical towards Russia as it leans on its NATO security blanket even while being dependent on Russian natural gas. The EU better get on with making friends with Putin instead of relying on the NATO and American security blankets which are frayed and superannuated. Just think how much money we could save if we didn't have to defend Europe. Trump has put that meme out there. I hope he follows up on it.
Posted at 07:13 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Russia, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
US Expects EU to Sacrifice Economic Interests in Order to Impose Sanctions
Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement sets the stage for reimposing sanctions on Iran. However, European countries have billions of euros in trade deals with Iran that would go by the wayside if they followed through and reimposed sanctions. They didn't want out of the nuclear deal in the first place, and they don't want to let go of those trade deals.
Take Italy for example. Their economy is struggling, and they have billions of euros in trade deals signed with Iran that could help their economy. They are blocking the EU from participating in Trump's sanctions. If one country in the EU blocks the sanctions, the EU cannot reimpose sanctions. Trump's capriciousness in backing out of the deal would cost other countries billions of euros if they go along with Trump whom they disagree with vehemently in the first place. Let Trump fuss and fume and tweet all he wants. Finally, the EU as well as other countries are standing up to him and will find ways to circumvent the American dollar.
The US is screwing around with major European economies all because of Trump's volatility and arbitrariness. His is a government by pet peeves and irrationality. He knows nothing about government or world affairs. Instead he has a layman's angst over perceived threats to his self-interest. His impetuousness leads to the US shooting itself in the foot and offending our allies. Case in point: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatens to impose the "strongest sanctions in history" on Iran. The French economy minister proposes that Europe fight the U.S. sanctions by compensating European businesses hurt by the sanctions.
The pipeline between Russia and Europe is a major investment that Europe will not give up no matter how much Trump tries to bully them. The Nord Stream II pipeline connects Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea. Germany gets a third of its natural gas from Russia.
Forbes reports:
France's Engie is involved. Germany's Uniper and Wintershall are stakeholders. So is Royal Dutch Shell of the U.K., meaning all three signatories to the Iran deal are also getting punished for doing business with Gazprom.
Gazprom was sanctioned by Obama in July 2014, but not by Europe. Europe relies on Gazprom as its chief foreign source of natural gas. This is particularly true in Germany, where Russian gas accounts for nearly a third of supply.
In August 2017, Nord Stream II was placed under discretionary sanctions, which is sort of like sanctions-light. It means a company can proceed, but faces the risk that Treasury may decide to go after them someday.
The Trump Administration later added Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller to its sanctions list in February. Worth noting, Exxon was fined a couple million dollars last year just for signing a legal document with Igor Sechin, the sanctioned CEO of oil firm Rosneft. Exxon is disputing the fine.
Gazprom and Miller are the latest persona non grata in Washington. But Europe is not giving up on them. Not the French. Not the Germans. Not the Brits, either.
Despite the sanctions against Nord Stream II, the threat has not put a stop to its construction.
With the Iran deal being canceled, European leaders impacted by it are likely to be in "enough is enough" mode when it comes to Washington. These extraterritorial sanctions are not in their interests.
OK. Europeans disagree with Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal which was working great as far as they were concerned. They developed economic ties and interests with Iran which are, after all peace time activities designed to further understanding and peaceful development. Now Trump wants to punish our allies and cause them economic hardship because of his capriciousness. What's wrong with this picture?
Posted at 08:12 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Sanctions, The US, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
EU and Iran Will Attempt to Salvage Nuclear Deal Following Trump's Breach of Agreement
Published on Saturday, May 19, 2018 by Common Dreams
"America's actions...show that it is not a trustworthy country in international dealings."
Miguel Arias Canete, the EU's top energy official, announced Saturday that the EU will attempt to salvage the Iran nuclear deal without the U.S.(Photo: Union Europea en Peru/Flickr/cc)
The European Union and Iran signaled on Saturday that they would not permit President Donald Trump's deeply unpopular decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal to deteriorate their own involvement in the agreement.
"We have sent a message to our Iranian friends that as long as they are sticking to the agreement the Europeans will...fulfill their commitment. And they said the same thing on the other side," Manuel Arias Canete, the EU's top energy official, told reporters in Tehran.
Trump announced on May 8 that the U.S. would reimpose sanctions that had been lifted under the agreement reached in 2015 by the Obama administration, in exchange for Iran's curbing of its nuclear program.
The president breached the agreement despite multiple reports from international investigators since the deal was reached that Iran was fully complying with the agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
The EU will aim to continue trade with Iran, Arias told reporters. The EU's announcement came a day after the European Commission declared it would introduce a law to ban companies on the continent from complying with Trump's sanctions—further isolating the Trump administration in its stance against Iran.
Should the EU's attempts to salvage the deal with Iran fall through in the wake of Trump's decision, said Iranian nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi, the country could resume their enrichment of 20 percent uranium. The JCPOA successfully kept Iran's supply of low enriched uranium at about one percent of its level before the deal was reached.
"We hope [Europe's] efforts materialize," Salehi said at a news conference on Saturday. "America's actions...show that it is not a trustworthy country in international dealings."
Posted at 06:59 AM in Common Dreams, Europe, Iran | Permalink | Comments (0)
Peace is Not the Absence of War
by John Lawrence, May `19, 2018
Peace is the active construction of a better world. Sort of like what China is doing with its Belt and Road initiative. The rest of the world is just waiting for the US Empire to finally collapse. The signs of an empire in decline are everywhere. From electing a clown and fool as President to sending children to school in an unsafe environment where any day they could be killed to a sick movie, TV and video game gun culture to a solipsistic, me first economic system which produces a growing class of homeless people.
The EU is seeking to do an end run around the American dollar so as to avoid being in the position of having to obey Trump's bullying commands about sanctions. US influence is waning, it's moral and ethical leadership a thing of the past. France is plotting to finance exports to Iran, and aims to sidestep U.S. sanctions.
France will start offering euro-denominated credits to Iranian buyers of its goods later this year, a move to bolster trade while keeping it outside the reach of U.S. sanctions, the head of state-owned investment bank Bpifrance said
France and other European countries have been looking to increase trade with Iran since Paris, Washington and other world powers agreed in 2015 to lift many economic sanctions in exchange for controls on Iran's nuclear program.
The plan is to offer dedicated, euro-denominated export guarantees to Iranian buyers of French goods and services. By structuring the financing through vehicles without any U.S. link, whether to the currency or otherwise, the aim is to avoid the extraterritorial reach of U.S. legislation.
The move could anger U.S. President Donald Trump, who has threatened to pull out of the Iran nuclear agreement reached by his predecessor Barack Obama. Washington has maintained some financial restrictions, leaving private banks - even those based outside the United States - wary of financing deals.
"We put a lot of preparation into this in 2017 and we keep on working, every single day, on the conditions of our entrance into Iran," Bpifrance's chief executive Nicolas Dufourcq said on Wednesday, referring to the new loans.
"This is a completely separate flow (of money)," he added. "There is no (U.S.) dollar in this scheme... no one holding a U.S. passport."
There is a pipeline of about 1.5 billion euros in potential contracts from interested French exporters, Dufourcq told lawmakers on Wednesday.
France, which has had close business ties with Iran since before the fall of the Shah in 1979 and still operates several large factories there including Renault and PSA plants, is not alone in Europe in seeking to deepen trade ties.
A French banking source said Italy, Germany, Austria and Belgium were also working on mechanisms that would shield their companies from the risk of U.S. sanctions. It was not immediately clear how closely coordinated the efforts are.
The dollar became the world's reserve currency because of oil when the Saudis agreed to trade oil only for dollars. But the days of oil being the world's primary commodity are over. Solar and wind energy are cheaper, and their price is going down each and every day. Now oil is becoming the world's most expensive form of energy. So oil's days are numbered. Besides oil can now be traded using the Chinese yuan. So US sanctions will soon be moot, and Trump can fuss and fume all he wants. The rest of the world wants to conduct peaceful business and not be subject to US bullying.
America is destroying itself with its insane gun culture. Guns are ubiquitous on TV, in the movies, in video games. Criminal activity becomes America's form of enjoyment. The thrill of killing becomes America's entertainment whether vicariously or for some in actuality. School shootings are becoming an everyday occurrence. Americans are so bored with life that violence is the only way to perk themselves up. That and drugs. Drugs have become a way of life. They are prescribed in TV commercials, and there is a drug just right for you from cradle to grave.
There is no peace as long as the US surrounds the world with 1000 military bases. The American economy is predicated on war. Major US corporations would go bankrupt unless they could produce Tomahawk missiles and drones. War has been automated to resemble a video game. It's conducted remotely. Kids brought up on violent video games can go right into the military having acquired the necessary set of skills.
While the US sinks deeper into a morass of violence, war and gun culture, the rest of the world is disentangling itself and disengaging from the bankrupt US leadership and the US dollar.
Posted at 06:59 AM in John Lawrence, American Culture, Europe, France, Germany, Off the Top of my Head, Peace | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Balanced Society: A Capitalist/Socialist Hybrid
by John Lawrence, March 2018
Frank Thomas had an excellent piece yesterday in which he wrote about the European societies as being hybrids of capitalism and socialism in which they are continually trying to adjust the balance to get it just right so that the societies serve the people and not just the rich or not just the poor or not just the corporate lobbyists. I commented that these societies are reflective of human individuals most of whom are not completely selfish nor are they completely altruistic. Most individuals are a combination of both. So a society which reflects individual character but not extreme character types is probably the best fit for the majority of the population.
Communism expected individuals to be extremely altruistic in that everyone was expected to be completely unselfish and work for the betterment of all with no individual property. Free market capitalism caters to those individuals who are extremely selfish and don't want their tax dollars going to help any other individuals. They want to keep everything for themselves rather than to put anything towards the betterment of society in general or helping poor people. The US is an example of free market capitalism, at least that's what the party in power, the Republicans, are trying to create going forward. If they had their way, there would be no social welfare programs and every function of society would be privatized. Everything would have to be paid for by individuals and, if they couldn't pay, they would have to go without. This is Social Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, the opposite of which is Social Democracy, a capitalist/socialist hybrid.
The European societies are generous when it comes to free health care, free education and spending for public infrastructure available to all. At the same time, they encourage everyone to work and contribute to society. Entrepreneurialism is encouraged and even supported. In Sweden, if you can't find a job, the government will help you find one. They keep a database of available jobs for the whole country. They will support you until you can get started in a new job which they've helped you find.
As Frank Thomas reported, Netherlands Is In Top 5 Most Competitive World Economies. Four out of Five of the top competitive societies are European ahead of the US which is number seven. And by any measure Europeans seem to be happiest compared to other societies.
In the US social security and medicare are the main social programs which are a legacy of the period when the US society cared more about people in general and not just feathering the nests of the rich and giving them huge tax breaks. Ayn Rand, the philosopher, represents the extremely selfish individual and the kind of society in which extremely selfish individuals flourish. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan is a follower of Ayn Rand as was Treasury Secretary Milton Friedman. Many Republicans subscribe to her theory of life and society.
As I wrote previously:
In a National Geographic survey, Denmark ranked as the world's happiest country. It's a combination of several factors including the feeling that their country cares for them. They can never sink too low because their country will always help them if they are willing to help themselves. They can truly pursue their passion in life because they are set free from worrying about the need to just survive. They have free health care, free education up to and including the university level and parental leave at full pay for a year after every child is born. This can be shared between the two parents including gay and lesbian parents.
Posted at 07:02 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Off the Top of my Head, Social Darwinism, Social Democracy, Survival of the Fittest, The Economy, The US | Permalink | Comments (0)
Denmark: The World's Happiest Country?
There are 5 criteria that the survey used to rate happiness: financial, social, purpose, physical and community. The thought is that you can't be really happy if your physical body is out of whack. And that comes down to not just treating illness as what "health care" in the US consists of. It means how active physically you are. Danes and other Europeans do a lot of walking as well as participate in other physical activities so they have a more robust personal power plant.
The private and the public are in a healthy balance. There's not the intense conflict between the two spheres as you find in the US. There's a feeling that "We're all in this together. An American anthropologist, Jonathan Schwartz, based in Copenhagen said, "Danish happiness is closely tied to their notion of tryghed, the snuggled, tucked-in feeling that begins with a mother's love and extends to the relationship Danes have with their government."
Engaging work and rewarding play are more in balance. Danes get 4 weeks of vacation each year. They feel free to work in a job that is personally rewarding instead of one that represents a daily grind to eke out a living. "The Danes seem more aware of the total needs of a person than most other places," said a psychologist at Claremont Graduate University in California. In other words they are more in tune with life. Maybe it's because they don't devote half their national budget to militarism as we do in the US. The US, assuming for itself the role of world policeman, has been a colossal failure resulting in the fact that there are 65 million refugees in the world.
Perhaps the world's refugees should take up a chant #Refugees' Lives Matter similar to #Black Lives Matter. Their plight at the hands of the US military is similar to the plight of black people at the hands of US police forces.
Posted at 07:21 AM in John Lawrence, Europe, Lifestyle, Off the Top of my Head | Permalink | Comments (0)
Some 'Why?' Questions – Part 3 of a Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence in the US and Europe
January 10, 2013 by Source
Continued from Part 2
By Frank Thomas and John Lawrence
WHY does America's weakly regulated gun culture vs. that in Europe correlate to out-of-sight gun homicide rates in the U.S.? One WHY answer is that there are higher levels of U.S. criminality compared to England, Switzerland, Norway, and other EU countries … illustrated by the number of U.S. citizens in prison per 100,000 population of 750 ± vs. 100 ± in the EU! (see European Institute for Crime Prevention & Control, "International Statistics on Crime and Justice," 2010).
Our sub-cultures of violent and less violent crime justify for many Americans the constitutional argument of self-defense, thus allowing high cartridge capacity, semi-automatic firearms of all sorts to roll off gun manufacturers' production lines. We are at a crossroads … where it's not only the high gun ownership level that contributes to high homicide rates but also the high level of crime and military-style killings by the emotionally unbalanced (as occurred in Newtown) that motivate more people to acquire guns for self-defense.
"Since there are so many guns, we need more guns." This NRA promoted endless feedback loop only opens up more opportunities for homicidal maniacs to go on indiscriminate shooting sprees … killing children, adolescents and adults. In the end, what it all seems to come down to is that we are by nature a violent nation … and have always been so.
Studies by the National Institute of Justice conclude that greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does NOT appear to affect the general U.S. violence level. In other words, the fact the U.S. is a violent society does not have so much to do with guns. The fact that our violent crime is so DEADLY has much to do with guns … e.g., resort to AR-15s!
Continue reading "Some 'Why?' Questions – Part 3 of a Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence in the US and Europe" »
Posted at 06:43 AM in Frank Thomas, John Lawrence, Europe, Guns, The US | Permalink | Comments (0)
Some Factual Gun Statistics – Part 2 of A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence In The US And Europe
January 9, 2013 by Source
Editor's note: Originally published on Jan. 8, the San Diego Free Press is republishing this three-part series in honor of the one year anniversary of the Newtown school shooting, which claimed the lives of 20 children and six adults.
Photo:Wikipedia
In almost every measurable statistic whether it be gun ownership, gun homicide rate or total firearm-related deaths including suicides and accidents, the US leads the world in deadly gun violence. Although statistics show that a firearm in the household is more likely to be used on a family member than an intruder, the NRA promotes gun ownership as a means of self-protection and as a crime deterrent.
Britain has a much stricter gun control culture with relatively few guns in households. You couldn´t get a more murder free society than Britain or Japan which has banned practically all guns. In contrast, America has as many firearms as there are people – a situation made irreversibly dangerous knowing that guns have at least a 100-year life cycle.
While the original primary motivation for an armed populace under the 2nd Amendment was to defend against tyrants and invaders, America´s last 60 years of an accelerating gun ownership dynamic –legal and illegal – is now perceived and promoted as an absolute necessity to defend ourselves against outrageous, multiple crime subcultures and misfits. The fact that there are so many guns out there seems to justify the rationale that even more guns are necessary in an ever expanding feedback loop. If it is correct that the size of the national gun collection is directly related and proportional to gun violence levels in the U.S., then, as the total number of guns in the hands of the American people continues to grow, so will the level of gun violence.
In 2010, roughly 70% of US homicides were by gun whereas in Britain including Northern Ireland only 9% were by gun. In the US in 2012 the total firearm-related death rate including both suicides and homicides was 10.2 per 100,000; in France the comparative figure was 3.0; in Britain, 0.25 . So the US firearms-related death rate was about 40 times that of Britain!
The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – at 89 guns for every 100 Americans compared to 6 in Britain, 31 for Canada and Norway. And the gun murder figures themselves are equally astounding. While there were 9,960 U.S. gun homicides in 2010, there were only 58 in Britain. Britain´s population is one-fifth of the US population. When adjusted for this, British gun murders are equivalent to 290 US gun murders.
Thus, versus Britain, the US had 34 times more gun homicides. In 2010, there were total of only 1,164 EU-17 gun homicides vs. 9,960 U.S. gun homicides making the U.S. homicide rate higher by a factor of 11 on an equivalent population basis. In the years 2010 and 2011, homicides by guns as a percentage of total homicides were about 28% in the EU-17 vs. 70% in the US. In 2011 there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms. In 2012, there were over 500 gun murders in Chicago alone – almost half the total of the EU-17 countries. Contrary to propaganda by the NRA, these figures show that smaller levels of gun possession lead to smaller numbers of gun homicides.
Obviously, European social and cultural factors play a major role along with much more restrictive, broadly accepted gun controls. In fact, Britain's strict gun controls led to record low gun homicides in 2011 and to its lowest intentional (gun and non/gun) homicide level ever.
Continue reading "Some Factual Gun Statistics – Part 2 of A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence In The US And Europe" »
A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence In The US And Europe (Part 1)
While US gun crime and all crime levels are slowly but almost imperceptibly declining, they still remain relatively astronomically high compared with Europe. In this article, we compare US and European levels of gun violence and gun control to see if we can make any sense of the gun debate in the wake of the increasing frequency of mass murders as well as the almost mundane everyday killings in urban areas like Chicago and Detroit. Frank is an ex-pat who has lived in Europe for over 30 years. John has lived in San Diego for over 40 years.
It's time to get serious on prohibiting gun acquisition or possession by people with a history of mental illness and by high risk groups such as felons, drug addicts or alcoholics. It's time to get serious on limiting civilian gun sales to one shot at a time pistols and rifles with cartridge or chamber capacities of no more than six bullets. It's time to get serious on conducting thorough criminal and mental health background checks and having waiting periods for high risk people and first-time buyers seeking gun permits.
Complicating matters, in my (John's) view, is that most mass murderers have no prior record of mental illness nor have they obtained their guns illegally. The main problem, we believe, is that so many legal and illegal guns are out there, particularly powerful high bullet capacity semi-automatic weapons and assault type pistols and rifles, that only an all-out effort to get them off the street and out of households is going to do any good. It's the easy availability and sheer number of guns that creates our unique climate of gun violence.
Part 1 – The 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Unlike Europe, America's 2nd Amendment has given constitutional support to a culture where the gun is designed, worshiped, and elevated to a sacred, very efficient killing status.
While our nation has had a somewhat constant, but international-wise very high, level of homicide violence, gun proliferation has enabled a greater portion of that violence to become deadly in sharp contrast to Europe. Pro-gun advocates like to say that violent crime rates are far higher in Europe as a result of restrictive gun controls. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Clearly, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to create a militia of citizens to protect the country from foreign invaders, especially the British who had just been beaten in the War of Independence and would have had another try at it in the War of 1812. The militia concept took the place of a standing army.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689, which predates our Bill of Rights by 100 years, codified an ancient self-protection right with the words, … "subjects who are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This gave birth to the English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but the vague wording is a far cry from the absolute wording of our 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Continue reading "A Cultural Comparison: Gun Violence In The US And Europe (Part 1)" »
RISE To The RIGHT In GERMAN ELECTIONS
MUST BE SEEN In Context Of GERMANY's EXCELLENT PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SYSTEM
The recent German elections show that, since the arrival of over 1.2 million refugees (mostly from Syria) in 2015 and 2016, Germany is indeed changing to the right – but I certainly would not say in a radical or unhealthy way. This is because EU economies and political proportional representation systems, like Germany's, generally combine stable elements of basic social needs and safety nets with individual/corporate capitalistic initiatives and market mechanisms. Rules are enacted and enforced to insure fair play and social harmony.
In the German elections, the CDU/CSU centrist coalition together with the SPD socialist party went from a very high 502 Parliamentary seats or 79.7% of the 630 seats, BEFORE the elections, to a lower total of 399 seats or 56.3% of 709 Parliamentary seats now. In light of the SPD's decision not to join Merkel's CDO/CSU centrist party group in a new coalition government, Merkel must find a way to unite, for example, with the Green left of center party and FDP right of center party to form a reasonably centrist coalition government. Although the rising AfD rather conservative nationalistic party won 12.6% of the total vote for all parties, making it the 3rd largest party followed closely by the FDP party with 10.7% of the total vote, Merkel will not be forming a coalition government with this far right party.
Forming a governing coalition will be no easy task. But Merkel will respect the clear voter message of getting disciplined control of and cutting back drastically on her open-door immigration policy. The extraordinary extent and speed at which the flood of refugees have entered Germany under Merkel's leadership is creating considerable societal strains, e.g. severe problems of assimilation as well as fears of expanding criminality and terrorist acts, and a watering down of the German culture. Very understandable and natural concerns, in my view.
But I don't think Germany is heading into a radical, socially-polarizing, ultra-right transition under their multi-party, proportional representation system. This is because as noted earlier, there are many structural "checks and balances" inherent in the European political multi-party, proportional representation constitutional structures. Far more than the paralyzed two-party Mess the US is trapped in where "social polarization" is evolving on a scale and depth many, many times more alarming and potentially dangerous to our democracy than most EU countries.
Continue reading "RISE To The RIGHT In GERMAN ELECTIONS" »
Posted at 08:43 AM in Frank Thomas, Europe, Voting Methods | Permalink | Comments (5)
Collateral Damage: U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Strike Western European Allies
JULY 28, 2017 from counterpunch
by DIANA JOHNSTONE
Do they know what they are doing? When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European "friends"?
Whether they know or not, they obviously don't care. U.S. politicians view the rest of the world as America's hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.
The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.
This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to be America's dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France. Who also sometimes happen to be competitors, but such crass considerations don't matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress, totally devoted to upholding universal morality.
Economic "Soft Power" Hits Hard
Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble. In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.
By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas to their German friends, at much higher prices.
That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.
While the U.S. preaches "free competition", it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition at the international level.
Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran" which warns that "there remain serious legal, political, financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas". The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.) fines, surveillance by "a myriad of regulatory agencies", personal danger, deficiency of insurance coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop in shareholder value.
Continue reading "Collateral Damage: U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Strike Western European Allies" »
Posted at 09:47 AM in Europe, Russia | Permalink | Comments (0)
People in Denmark Are Much Happier Than People in the United States
Posted at 08:05 PM in Europe, Gross National Happiness, Socialism | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sanders: Corbyn Surge in UK Shows World Rising Up Against Austerity, Inequality
"People in the U.K., the U.S. and elsewhere want governments that represent all the people, not just the 1%," Sanders said
Jake Johnson, staff writer
Sanders said he has been "impressed" by Corbyn's "willingness to talk about class issues." (Photo: Getty)
Responding to the results of the U.K. election, which commentators have already deemed a "political upset" for the ages and a stunning backfire for Prime Minister Theresa May, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Thursday congratulated Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and the British people for "rising up against austerity and massive levels of income and wealth inequality."
"Globalization has left far too many people behind." —Sen. Bernie SandersPeople "all over the world" are fighting the same battle, Sanders added, concluding:
People in the U.K., the U.S. and elsewhere want governments that represent all the people, not just the 1%. I congratulate Jeremy Corbyn for running a very positive and effective campaign.
Corbyn's strong run—which culminated in an additional 31 seats for Labour and a hung parliament—was, in many ways, reminiscent of the Sanders "revolution" in the United States, which posed a stark challenge to "the billionaire class" and a political establishment flush with corporate money. Sanders himself drew the comparison between his campaign and Corbyn's recently on a three-day U.K. speaking tour, during which he praised the Labour leader's "willingness to talk about class issues."
"These problems are not unique to the U.S.," Sanders noted. "Globalization has left far too many people behind. Workers all over the world are seeing a decline in their standard of living. Unfettered free trade has allowed multinational corporations to enjoy huge profits and make the very rich even richer while workers are sucked into a race for the bottom."
Corbyn utilized similar messaging. Under his leadership, the Labour Party this year published one of the most left-wing manifestos in its history, adopting a slogan Sanders backers surely recognized: "For the many, not the few."
It is unsurprising, then, that British voters were seen donning Sanders apparel as they cast their ballots for Labour.
Peter Bloom, writing for Common Dreams, argued the campaigns of Sanders and Corbyn both successfully harnessed similar forces, and thus "exposed the beginnings of a potentially new political mainstream."
Bloom concluded:
Corbyn's strong campaign is no small political achievement. Historically, he has altered the public discussion on major issues of the economy and foreign policy. He has also shown that a full throttled progressive agenda is not only not suicidal but potentially downright popular.
For many, Corbyn's remarkable surge in recent weeks and his performance in an election that was prematurely viewed as a landslide opportunity for the Conservatives is a strong indicator of the electoral viability of left populism and of the strong desire for systemic change.
Posted at 07:43 PM in Bernie Sanders, Europe, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
Europe's View of Trump
by Robert Reich
European governments, preparing for a round of major summits with Donald Trump, are wary.
I spent much of the past week speaking with officials and cabinet ministers in Europe. All they wanted to talk about was Trump.
Here, in summary, are the most frequent remarks I heard from them, and from others in my travels, in rough order of frequency:
1. Trump is unstable, and we're not going to count on anything he says or commits to.
2. Trump doesn't support NATO or European integration.
3. Trump is actively encouraging racist nationalists in our country.
4. Trump is allied with Putin to bring Europe down.
5. There's no doubt Trump worked with Putin to win the U.S. presidential election.
6. If Trump's polls drop too low, he'll start a war in order to get Americans to rally around him. (Opinions varied on whether Trump's war would be with North Korea, Iran, terrorists in Nigeria, or an escalation in Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.)
7. How did you Americans come to elect this ego-maniac? (Others called him an infant, moron, ignoramus, fool.)
8. He's another Berlusconi (or Franco, Mussolini, Salazar, Hitler).
9. We remember fascism. We never thought it would happen in America.
10. The world depends on American leadership. We're very worried.
My overall impression: Anti-Trump sentiment is even stronger in Europe than it is in the U.S. If Trump expects his European trip to give him a reprieve from his troubles at home, he's mistaken.
Posted at 10:48 AM in Robert Reich, Europe, Trump | Permalink | Comments (0)
Bush AND Obama Both Responsible for Screwing Up the Middle East
by John Lawrence from the San Diego Free Press
Regime Change Was Their Common Theme
Obama wanted it to be part of his legacy that he ended two wars, those in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were started by his predecessor, George W Bush along with his vice President Dick Cheney. Only it's not working out entirely as he planned, and he's coming in for a lot of criticism from, among others, Cheney himself. In a new book, Exceptional, Why the World Needs a Powerful America, written with daughter Liz Cheney, Cheney criticizes Obama while defending his own legacy. Cheney has been in full self-rehabilitation mode ever since he stepped down as George W Bush's brain.
The criticism now is that Obama left Iraq too soon and thus created a power vacuum that ISIS has filled. No doubt ISIS stepped into the vacuum created by the departure of Saddam Hussein, but the part that Cheney is missing is that his administration took out Saddam for no valid reason whatsoever and created the power vacuum in the first place. As long as Saddam was in power, no group such as al Qaeda or ISIS could possibly have gained a foothold in Iraq.
As Colin Powell said recently on Meet the Press, and I paraphrase, you can't take out the guy at the top if there is no structure beneath him to support a stable government and expect good results. Certainly neither George W Bush, who wanted to create western style democracies in the Middle East using war as a means, nor Barack Obama, who wanted to do the same thing by encouraging the youth to rise up after getting rid of despicable dictators, have achieved the results they were hoping for.
Powell also mentioned that all sixteen US Intelligence Agencies concurred in the fact that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. It was a massive exercise in self delusion and self deception on a national basis and giving the Boss the results the Boss wanted because the agencies knew what the Boss wanted to hear. There was no integrity or ethics in the massive intelligence apparatus of the US government and the massive deception it perpetrated on the American public, not to mention the rest of the world.
Bush's perfidy was signaled two years before 9/11 when he told his ghostwriter that he wanted to be a wartime President:
HOUSTON -- Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade...if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow.
Sadam might have been a bad guy, but he was a bulwark against instability in Iraq. There is no way that al-Qaeda or ISIS could have gained a foothold there as long as Sadam was in power. Part of his effectiveness as a dictator is that he kept the religious tensions bubbling just under the surface in check. When Sadam was gone, religious factions came to the fore and destroyed Iraq's secularism under Sadam. Part of the problem is that no effective successor to Saddam has materialized, one who can put the lid back on the cauldron.
The only leaders of Iraq in the interim have been incompetent and ineffective. Obama has been too rosy in his assessment of the possibilities for reform in the Middle East. Perhaps a brutal Saddam-like leader is about the best they are capable of in those countries at the present time.
Obama encouraged young Egyptians to reform their country to become a democracy, and that too has been an abysmal failure. Egypt went from being controlled by the military through a couple of iterations, a couple of moves on the chess board, and back to being controlled by the military again despite the "Arab Spring," the youth revolt and the Internet. You can't blame Obama for trying to make a better world by relatively peaceful means.
Do Bad Dictators Serve a Useful Function?
The only problem is that that doesn't seem to be in the cards for some countries whether for historical or cultural reasons. Surely it's not for a lack of successful models including the US and the European Union, which despite their problems are still light years ahead as civilizations than the likes of Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. The simmering cauldrons of religious animosity and hatred boiled over once there was no strong and brutal leader to hold them in check. The key to modernizing these societies is first to secularize them.
In 2011 Obama pressured Mubarek to resign and encouraged the protesters, all to no subsequent avail. In a one on one conversation by telephone with Mubarak on February 1, Obama told the Egyptian president nearly point blank to resign, and Mubarak refused. Obama told Mubarak: "It is time to present to the people of Egypt it's next government." Mubarak replied: "Let's talk in the next three or four days."
Subsequent Egyptian governments were hamhanded and incompetent. The Muslim Brotherhood's government under Mohamed Morsi turned into a fiasco. Eventually, the military which had run Egypt for years stepped back in and ousted Morsi who found himself on death row while Mubarek who had been on death row got a reprieve. It's a topsy turvy world. So it's back to square one in Egypt with the military in control and no reforms evidently taking hold. The "Arab Spring" was a bust. It turned to winter pretty fast.
Despite Obama's peaceful intentions, as contrasted with Bush and Cheney's warlike ones, Obama's meddling in the middle East has had negative results. In Obama and Egypt's Revolution Obama was quoted:
"It is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear—and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak—is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.
"To the people of Egypt, particularly the young people of Egypt, I want to be clear: We hear your voices. I have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren."
It's clear Obama told Mubarek to leave and encouraged Egyptian young people to create a new society. Trouble was they didn't know how to do it. They weren't capable of doing it, and they had no historical or cultural precedents for doing it.
The Road to Hell by Good and Bad Intentions
Even in Libya, which was at least a stable country under Gaddafi, the lack of stability and power vacuum has been exploited by the likes of ISIS. The irony of the situation is that Gaddafi as well as Sadam were aging dictators who were mellowing toward the West. Obama's good intentions have led us down the road to hell just as resolutely as Bush and Cheney's nefarious ones. Now Cheney's advice somehow seems relevant again after attempts at reform in the Middle East have fallen flat. The road to hell has been paved with Obama's good intentions just as they were by his predecessor's bad intentions.
From Lessons from Obama's War in Libya:
In fact, at the time of the 2011 NATO intervention, Gaddafi had made nice with the West, given up his nuclear weapons program, and was providing the United States good intelligence on Islamist terrorists. However, because Gaddafi had long been demonized, France and the United States just couldn't resist taking advantage of the Arab Spring revolt against him to get rid of him for good.
Yet there are still people who argue that toppling Gaddafi was needed for the symbolic goals of standing with the NATO allies and siding with Arab Spring revolts, even though the latter didn't turn out to be very democratic after all. However, such symbolism is trumped by the harsh reality that, if anything, U.S. security has been eroded by Gaddafi's weapons being spread around the Middle East and by the resulting internal mayhem in Libya, which in turn has led to terrorist training bases and ISIS strongholds in that country. Even these developments could probably be overstated as threats to the United States per se, but security-wise the United States was still better off when Gaddafi kept things under control in Libya.
Another case in point is Syria. Obama took a stand that Bashar al-Assad had to go. He said that Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people was a game changer. He had crossed a red line. "To use weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line in terms of international norms and laws," Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. In 2011 Obama called for al-Assad to resign after months of his violent crackdown on protesters. The rhetorical escalation was backed by new U.S. sanctions designed to undermine Assad's ability to finance his military operation. Obama said there was a "red line" in Syria if al-Assad used chemical weapons. It was an empty threat.
"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way," Obama said in a written statement. "For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside." Result: he's still in power and millions of Syrian refugees are risking death and besieging western Europe. Talk about good intentions backfiring. Hindsight is making Dick Cheney look good and seem relevant again.
This is from Obama Has Insisted for Years That Assad Has to Go. Looks Like He Changed His Mind:
President Obama first declared that it was time for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down in August, 2011, five months into the uprising against his rule. Since then, it's been the consistently stated position of the White House that resolution of the civil war in Syria requires Assad's departure. This has remained true even as the focus of America's attention has shifted to Assad's enemy, ISIS, and as worsening chaos in Libya and Yemen have led many to reconsider the wisdom of overthrowing dictators in countries riven by sectarian violence.
As long as Sadam was in power in Iraq, Mubarek in Egypt and Gaddaffi in Libya there was no power vaccuum and the liklihood of an ISIS like movement being successful was nil. The fact that al-Assad is still in power in Syria is cold comfort due to the fact that the civil war in that country has destabilized it and created millions of refugees. In the world today there are some 50 million refugees many of them barely clinging to life. It's a worldwide crisis, and a crisis for western Europe because they're all determined to get there in order to have a chance at a sane, useful and happy life.
The Arab Spring Was a Total Bust
As of September 2012, governments have been overthrown in four countries: Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen. The Arab Spring came to nought. All the demonstrations in Tahir Square, all the high hopes and ambitions for a better life, all the sophisticated use of the internet to organize young people, all the Facebook - it all came to nothing despite Obama's encouragement. It wasn't supposed to turn out like this.
The Arab Spring was supposed to bring peace, democracy and stability to not only the nations where it took root, but also others around it in the Middle East and North Africa. It was supposed to usher in an end of violence and heavy-handed government tactics, just like it ushered out entrenched leaders. In short, it was supposed to mean a brighter future.
Not more instability, not more violence, not fewer freedoms.
But that's what happened, even if the level of unrest hasn't been even or universal. Some countries, such as Jordan, instituted reforms without really roiling their societies. Others, such as Iraq, never saw a popular uprising, but have seen burgeoning violence. And now, Yemen is on the brink of civil war as it battles a rebel group that has overthrown the government and seized parts of key cities.
And now Cheney's new book gives him the chance to say "I told you so." Forget about the fact that he and Bush started the whole thing with the removal of Saddam.
Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College is the author of several books, including "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter" and, most recently, "The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South."
According to Blowback: Vijay Prashad on How Islamic State Grew Out of U.S Invasion of Iraq, Destruction of Nation:
There's a very dangerous game going on here, both from Hillary Clinton, from the Republicans, from Tony Blair. They want to make the case that the Islamic State is a child of the Syrian war. They want to deny the fact that the Islamic State has its roots fundamentally in the destruction of the Iraqi state by the American invasion in 2003. You know, it's very easy to destroy a state. It took the Iraqi people over a hundred years to build institutions; that was destroyed by the Americans in an afternoon.
Once you destroy the state, you create a vacuum. For the first time on Iraqi soil, one saw al-Qaeda groups come in, and that was in 2004, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was a Jordanian militant, comes into Tal Afar and creates al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. You know, even bin Laden found him to be a bit unpalatable, because he was deeply sectarian and extraordinarily violent. The Americans tried to crush al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, but by 2006, despite the big surge, despite the bombing of Fallujah, Ramadi—you know, names that the American public now are quite familiar with—despite the razing of these cities, the Islamic State was born in 2006. It's not yesterday's creation. This was a product of the Iraq War.
The roots of ISIS were created when George W Bush destroyed the Iraqi state. It was helped along when Obama told Mubarek and al-Assad to step down and got rid of Gaddafi.
In his book Cheney says, "Those who say the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake are essentially saying we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power". Well yes, the world would be immeasurably better off if Bush and Cheney had never invaded Iraq and Sadam was still in power. Bush and Cheney had to make their case as strong as possible that Sadam was a threat to the world because he possessed weapons of mass destruction.The real reason is that Bush lusted after being a wartime President with all the "political capital" that would accrue to him.
Regarding Bush the road to hell was paved with bad intentions. As far as Obama is concerned the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Both led to similar results. Removing bad guy dictators created a power vacuum, destabilized several middle Eastern countries and led to the rise of ISIS. We would all be better off if the bad guys had remained in place. The US has been directly responsible for destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate, killing over a million people, mostly civilians, ruining millions of people's lives forcing them into refugee status and destabilizing Europe because of it. This does not even count the hundreds of billions of dollars the US military-industrial complex has spent on war and the weapons of war, money that has not been spent on creating peace around the world and taking care of pressing social and infrastructure problems at home.
The US has sown acrimony and tension in the Middle East thus insuring resentment towards the US and the west and continued war for the next hundred years unless the US immediately apologizes, turns away from spending billions on war and instead puts that money into peace building efforts in the Middle East. Money should be transferred from the war machine to the Peace Corps and similar efforts. But US war efforts sustain a self-fulfilling prophecy guaranteeing that the military will have to be used ad infinitum to tamp down the tensions and resentments that it has created in the first place. All those making money off of war should be delighted.
The problem is that Obama is still in the thrall of the neocons whose mantra is regime change. Robert Parry in How Neocons Destabilized Europe has nailed it: "The neocon prescription of endless "regime change" is spreading chaos across the Middle East and now into Europe, yet the neocons still control the mainstream U.S. narrative and thus have diagnosed the problem as not enough "regime change.""
The refugee chaos that is now pushing deep into Europe – dramatized by gut-wrenching photos of Syrian toddler Aylan Kurdi whose body washed up on a beach in Turkey – started with the cavalier ambitions of American neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks who planned to remake the Middle East and other parts of the world through "regime change."
Instead of the promised wonders of "democracy promotion" and "human rights," what these "anti-realists" have accomplished is to spread death, destruction and destabilization across the Middle East and parts of Africa and now into Ukraine and the heart of Europe. Yet, since these neocon forces still control the Official Narrative, their explanations get top billing – such as that there hasn't been enough "regime change."
Posted at 05:48 PM in John Lawrence, Europe, Foreign Policy, War | Permalink
The Greek Tragedy: A Labyrinth of Debt
Wall Street's Stranglehold on Greece
How to figure out the ongoing crisis that is Greece? What exactly is going on there? As per usual it's another chapter in the strange saga that involves Wall Street's stranglehold over the world economy. What happened to Greece is similar to what happened to American mortgage holders after they were encouraged to go in over their collective heads borrowing more money than they could reasonably expect to be in a position to pay back. Greece did the same.
Will Greece default soon? Will they stay in the Eurozone or be ejected out of it. These questions have been hanging in the air for what seems like an interminably long time. Is Greece having a liquidity crisis or an insolvency crisis? That is the question. If the former, a short term loan should be able to get them over the hump. If the latter no loans or bailouts of any kind will ever solve their problem.
It all started when Goldman Sachs assisted Greece in lying their way into the Eurozone in the first place. They really didn't qualify for admission but Goldman hid that small detail under a heap of trompe l'oeil, sleight of hand and financial shananigans that got past the critical eyes of the European ministers. They manufactured a highly questionable derivative scheme involving a currency swap that used artificially high exchange rates to conceal Greek debt. Goldman then turned around and hedged its bets by shorting Greek debt just as they had done with the mortgage crisis in the US. Predictably, these derivative bets went very wrong for the less sophisticated of the two players, namely, Greece. A 2.8 billion loan to Greece in 2001 became a 5.1 billion debt by 2005. In the US mortgage fiasco they packaged subprime loans in portfolios, after having loaned money to people with questionable ability to pay back the loans, and then bet that they would default. Goldman made tons of money that way.
Now this operation on the part of Goldman should come as no surprise to those familiar with Goldman's shenanigans leading up to the debt crisis of 2008 in which they packaged a bunch of mortgages that were designed to fail into collateralized debt obligations, sold them off to unsuspecting investors and then turned around and placed bets against them. Such a deal was the Abacus fund designed by John Paulson who made billions on it. The American government then bailed out the too big to fail Wall Street banks while leaving the underwater mortgagees to dangle from a fiscal rope.
They did the same thing with Greece. They loaned Greece big bucks for its 2004 Olympic Games. Greece also borrowed a lot of money for its military. In retrospect it was foolish of Greece to borrow all this money. It never got a return on its investment from the Olympic games which it thought would encourage tourism. The Olympic site essentially became a heap of trash and rubble.
While Greeks Suffer, Big Banks Are Made Whole
With Greece owing tons of money to Wall Street, the European Central Bank (ECB) stepped in with loans ostensibly to the suffering Greek people but not really. Instead the borrowed money went straight to Wall Street to pay off Greek debts to them. The debt never really went away. Instead it was converted to debt owed to the ECB. Private debt was converted to public debt with the Greek people left hanging just as American mortgagees were.
Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, is a former employee of Goldman Sachs. So he represents Wall Street interests. It's in Wall Street's interests that austerity be imposed on Greece and that Greece be forced to sell off public assets to private investors at fire sale prices. Draghi was vice chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs International from 2002 to 2005 so he is a natural to protect Wall Street interests, not the interests of the Greek people.
Just as a poor person who cannot pay his debts is forced to sell off his assets at fire sale prices, Greece has been forced into what is called a debt deflation spiral. Greek assets and bank collateral get deflated meaning they decrease in value making it even more onerous to make debt payments or borrow new money. Interest rates for Greece go up because the deflation of assets makes their situation even more precarious. Finally, the poor person having sold off all his assets hits the road and becomes homeless. This is also the prospect for Greece.
There is one ray of hope for Greece, however. It's primary balance - meaning its financial situation before debt and interest payments are taken into account - has become positive in the last couple of years. The Greek government is actually taking in more in revenues than it's paying out in expenses which means it is no longer in recession. There is positive GDP growth. That means that if Greece repudiated or defaulted on all its debts, it would actually be in the black. When debt payments are taken into account, however, the situation is hopeless: Greece is insolvent.
Since the ECB is not designed to do fiscal policy ala John Maynard Keynes, who believed in deficit financing to prime the pump of a down and out economy as ostensibly happened during the Great Depression when the US government borrowed money and spent it into the economy in order to get it moving again, Greece is left in the position that a) it can't borrow any more money at reasonable interest rates and b) it can't print money and spend its way out of debt. It is in the position of the average household which must balance its budget and pay its bills. If it can't pay its bills, its creditors will demand that its assets be sold.
The question is, if Greek debt were nullified by default, would Greece be in a position to have a functioning economy in which government revenues would be sufficient for it to pay its bills? Evidently, the answer is yes because Greece has a positive primary balance. In that case Greece would not be insolvent. But when Greek debt is taken into account without it being written down by the ECB which is highly unlikely, Greece cannot pay its bills and is, therefore, insolvent.
Greek taxpayers have been notorious for not paying taxes. The ECB will not and should not let Greece become a money pit for the rest of the Eurozone countries. Having no central bank of its own and the inability to just print money like the US does, Greece is stuck between a rock and a hard place. For sure it needs to start collecting taxes especially from the rich who should be prevented from taking their money out of the country and putting it in secret Swiss bank accounts like rich Americans do.
The anti-austerity Syriza Party, that took control of Greece recently, has not been able to convince the ECB to cut Greece a break by writing down its debt to a level that the Greek government could manage. The ECB is holding most of the cards. Therefore, Syriza will not get any further than its predecessors did with the ECB. The EU, however, must consider the implications of a Greek default either within the Eurozone or one in which they leave the Eurozone completely and perhaps become aligned with Russia, something that the US would not be too happy about either.
The ECB has been reluctant to print money as the US Fed does except to bail out Wall Street. Controlled basically by Germany which underwent hyperinflation in the 1920s, the ECB is reluctant to risk that happening again. So they are on the horns of a dilemma. From Greece's point of view, it might make more sense to default on its loans, exit the Eurozone and start over with structural reforms it imposes on itself. It could obtain liquidity financing elsewhere like Russia or China. But it wouldn't have the heavy foot of the ECB standing over it and almost guaranteeing that Greece will become a perpetual debtor.
The noose around Greece's neck is this: the ECB will not accept Greek bonds as collateral for the central bank liquidity all banks need until the new Syriza government accepts the very stringent austerity program imposed by the troika (the EU Commission, ECB and IMF). That means selling off public assets (including ports, airports, electric and petroleum companies), slashing salaries and pensions, drastically increasing taxes and dismantling social services, while creating special funds to save the banking system. Just as the person who loses his job and cannot make his mortgage payment must hit the road, the Greek people through no fault of their own are being told to hit the road. Many young Greeks are doing just that and emigrating.
This could all have been avoided if Greece had a public central bank not beholden to Wall Street or the ECB for money. A public bank can create its own money and spend it into the economy thereby avoiding paying interest to Wall Street or the ECB. This gets people back to work and gets around the predicament of having to borrow money to get the economy running again as Keynesian economics would necessitate.
Greece doesn't have the luxury of Keynesian pump priming.
Germany's Bild newspaper claims that Athens is planning a special tax on the country's 500 richest families. Bild says the measure is included on the Greek finance ministry's list of reforms, which also includes a luxury tax on items such as expensive cars and trips to Greek islands, and higher taxes on workers earning over €30,000 per year.
This is a step in the right direction no doubt. It's a conundrum facing the US as well: how to tax the wealthy in order to help out the poor and middle class. Syriza probably would not mind forcing austerity on the rich. It just doesn't want to balance its budget on the backs of the poor by cutting their pensions and the minimum wage any more than they've been cut already.
The Financial Times reported on May 6 that Greece will rehire 13,000 civil servants whose jobs were cut in an overhaul of the public administration agreed with bailout lenders. Clearly, Syriza will not be bullied by the Troika. Hopefully, Greece will get its house in order by balancing its budget on the backs of the rich not on those of the poor.
There is additional possible cooperation between Russia and Greece and even the possibility of Russia providing financial assistance. And where there's financial assistance, military association would not be far behind. Military cooperation would not only be a thorn in the side of the EU but one also in the side of the US which has only one military base in the Greek island of Crete. Financial and military cooperation go hand in hand as we have recently seen with the Obama championed free trade deal know as the TPP. It's as much about reducing China's influence in the Asian sphere as it is about economic cooperation.
This is from Business Insider:
Additionally, Russia and Greece's new government have taken initiatives to explore their military and economic relationship (for example, here, here, and here).
In fact, the new Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras even said in early February: "Greece and Cyprus can become a bridge of peace and cooperation between the EU and Russia."
So this part of the world could soon become very interesting — and a huge pain for Europe.
The EU has to consider the implications to a Greek default which might not only be a harbinger of future defaults for other weak EU states such as Spain and Portugal, but might increase Russia's influence in countries surrounding the Eurozone which are becoming increasingly friendly with Russia. Could China be far behind as well in offering financial help?
Posted at 09:44 PM in John Lawrence, Debt, Europe, Wall Street | Permalink
Can Greece Master Its Debt, Deflation, Insolvency Trap?
By Frank Thomas from the San Diego Free Press
Greece's Solvency Problem
The Western world is moving out of a public debt-deflation crisis of the worst sort … and Greece is still in the middle of it as the worst example of a dire fiscal crisis in a weaker member country that can destabilize the entire euro zone.
Greece is simply de facto insolvent …as was Lehman Brothers in the recent Great Recession and the U.S. at the start of the Great Depression. The Troika (ECB [European Central Bank], IMF [International Monetary Fund], EU Commission) has been mistakenly treating the Greek bailout debt problem as a liquidity issue – optimistically hoping this in combination with tough reform measures would enable Greece to achieve debt sustainability and economically grow out of its debt problem. That's failed … so far.
It's not a liquidity issue. It's an immediate and long term solvency crisis – an inability to generate adequate tax revenues and asset values (whether pledged or sold) to repay debts, especially those due in short term. Having just met a euro 750 million debt payment, Greece's cash chest is empty. By June, two debt payments are due of euro 1.6 billion and euro 7.0 billion. Debt default is on the horizon.
Most of the euro 240 billion 'bailout' funds went to foreign creditor banks, not to fund Greek government operations. Even if Greece had ongoing access to ECB's Emergency Liquidity Funds temporary funds, this wouldn't solve underlying problem of excessive debt obligations and overall deficits after debt service, intensified by austerity measures aimed at improving the country's competitiveness. During 2009-2014, wage, pension, and spending cuts shrunk GDP 26% . This and higher debt skyrocketed the debt/GDP ratio from 130% of GDP in 2009 to 175% in 2014. Greece's tendency to be in budget deficit and debt troubles started long before the 2008-2013 great recession. This history and the great recession have pushed Greece into a disastrous "over-indebtedness, deflation and insolvency trap."
Over-indebtedness and deflation are the two dominant drivers in recessions and depressions. Disturbances in debt and purchasing power trigger disturbances in most other economic variables. The spiral process develops along following lines: over-indebtedness leads to liquidation and stress selling of assets, leads to contraction of deposits and velocity of money circulation, leads to price deflation, leads to decline in net worth of businesses, leads to bankruptcies and lower business profits or losses, leads to a reduction in output and employment to cut losses.
When over-indebtedness does not reduce prices or deflation rises from other than debt causes, then the resulting cycle will be much softer or much less destructive. But, when the debt and deflation diseases occur together, as is happening in Greece, they act and react on each other. Then over-indebtedness leads to deflation and deflation leads to more debt owed – the more debtors pay, the more they owe. (See: "Debt-DeflationTheory of Great Depressions," by Irving Fisher; "Falling Into a Liquidity Trap?" ECO-Societe Generale, Dec. 2013).
The more Greece cuts fiscal spending and hikes taxes, the more growth gets hit and deflation expands, the harder it becomes to meet ECB deficit and debt targets … leading to more debt required. The combination of extreme over-indebtedness and a policy of internal devaluation of assets, wages, pensions and other costs leads to deflation. Unchecked so far, this has brought Greece to insolvency where debts cannot be met by assets, even if sold.
When over time an economy with a rising high debt level has been depressed 26% by an internal devaluation, then the debt/GDP ratio will go UP, not DOWN … as is Greece's story. It's not just recession and deflation that push up debt. The existing huge public debt overhang acts as a drag on the economy. This is the circular debt and deflation economic stagnation Greece is stuck in. An economy caught in such a trap doesn't easily return to a growth path and healthy debt/GDP ratio as Japan has demonstrated.
What Is Historical Origin of Greece's Fiscal Troubles?
Greece has had a long history of fiscal trouble – an economy constantly burdened with excessive debt, budget deficits, bureaucracy, restrictive regulations, poor transparency, flaky statistics, and rampant corruption. Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rigoff in their book, "This Time is Different," a history of financial crises, conclude Greece has spent half of the past two centuries in default.
Since WWII through 1998, Greece had hardly a balanced year without relying on heavy subsidies from abroad. Greece entered the euro zone in 2001 – using falsified debt and deficit numbers ignored by the banking establishment. During 2001-2007, the door opened for long term funds at low interest rates and under-pricing of default risk (supported by Germany's credit worthiness). Thus, a sharp reduction in debt service costs gave Greece some fiscal space to reduce its debt burden. Instead, Greece went on a spending and debt splurge that placed its debt burden on an unsustainable path – where the primary budget deficit soared to over 10% of GDP in 2009 and the debt/GDP ratio jumped from 100% in 2001 to 130% in 2009.
Adding fuel to the fire, in 2002 investment banks like Goldman Sachs were offering complex, secret derivative products including cross currency swaps used to guarantee government revenues from bond issues in foreign denominations. These specially designed swaps provided a hedge against exchange rate oscillations using a fictional exchange rate, allowing a country to exchange its dollar (or Yen) loans into a greater number of euros. In Greece's case, this hedge transaction created a credit (covert loan) of nearly $1 billion to the Greek government. Reporting of the credit in the balance sheet was not required by European accounting rules.
Since these swaps weren't registered as debt, the Greek government and other EU governments were enticed to spend beyond their means. Greece exploited cross currency swaps presumably to help avoid the huge fines levied under the Maastricht Treaty for violating the 60% debt/GDP ratio limit and the 3% overall budget deficit limit.
The Greek people were neither aware of nor a party to the financial risks their government officials were exposing them to. Yet they, as taxpayers, are responsible for paying the price of a euro 240 billion European bailout debt. Social costs stemming from the government's fiscal mismanagement have been excruciating – a 26% joblessness, massive homelessness, an educational system in shambles, a serious brain drain, a generational dead-end future for many.
Why Wasn't Keynesian Pump-Priming Utilized?
One reasonable answer to this question comes from a Eurobank Research report: (See: Eurobank Research, "Is Deflation a Risk For Greece?")
"Avoiding monetary and/or fiscal contraction during the recession and allowing automatic stabilizers to work, as suggested by Keynesian thinking, was not an option. Greece has purposefully implemented internal devaluation in order to reclaim price competitiveness losses against trade partners. Even if this was not the case, participation in a Monetary Union (i.e., loss of autonomy in the exercise of monetary policy) implies that the country would be unable to combat inflation via monetary means. In addition, given the huge size of public deficits and the explosive path public debt had embarked on, a fiscal expansion would only enlarge the fiscal crisis and the ensuing collapse of output. Loss of access in international capital markets meant a fiscal expansion was not feasible anyway. Instead, the country had to implement a draconian fiscal consolidation program which led to a contraction of the primary budget balance from a deficit of -10.5% in 2009 to a primary surplus of 2.1% in 2013." (Editor's note: 2.1% excludes huge 10.1% one-time recapitalization cost; primary budget surplus was 1.7%% in 2014 and a 2.9% primary surplus is expected in 2015).
An important point to stress here is that for the first time in more than a decade Greece is on a path of reporting a primary budget surplus (before debt payment) for the years 2013, 2014, and an expected surplus in 2015. After 6 years of a deep recession and 26% GDP decline, Greece appears to be emerging slowly out of the recession. Its economy grew 0.8% in 2014 and is forecast to grow more than 2.5% in 2015.
TABLE 1 shows Greece's impressive fiscal adjustment i.e. significant improvement in its primary budget balance since 2009:
SOURCE: ("Should Other Eurozone Programme Countries Worry About A Reduced Greek Primary Surplus Target?" - Feb. 2015 Forecast of the European Commission)
The structural primary balance excludes both one-off measures (e.g., bank recapitalization costs) and impacts of the economic cycle. Greece's 2009-2014 primary balance improvement of 11.9 percentage points from a -10.2% primary deficit in 2009 to a 1.7% primary surplus in 2014 is astonishing enough. A 2.9% primary surplus is expected in 2015. The structural primary balance improvement of 16.1 percentage points – is even more astonishing. It's TWICE that of Ireland, Portugal and Spain. To stabilize Greece's debt situation, the ECB and IMF believe the country must achieve a debt-stabilizing primary surplus target of 4.5% of GDP. This, however, does not negate fact Greece is insolvent and will still need constructive debt relief to reverse its debt-deflation spiral and spur economic growth.
Greece has two ills propelling insolvency: the Exceptional Scale of its Debt and the Weak Quality of its Assets supporting that debt. A state of insolvency occurs when an entity's debts (liabilities) exceed its assets making it almost impossible to raise funds to meet financial obligations or to pay debts as they come due – regardless whether assets are sold or mortgaged. Greece's Finance Minister himself has said, "Greece is bankrupt." Mention of the 'insolvency' word makes creditors nervous and complicates ECB's task as it's apparently illegal to extend Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) to an insolvent country. Greece is cash-strapped and can't meet upcoming heavy debt repayments in July/August. So desperate is the situation, consideration is being given to tapping into the euro 1.5 billion reserve funds of local municipalities to stay afloat until end of May. Even temporary use of pension and social security funds is being reviewed.
And funding crunch pressures could get much worse. For example, a staggering outflow of over euro 20 billion of bank deposits has occurred since last November. Where will the funds come from to match this outflow? Another potential money pressure is that four big banks hold a huge euro 18 billion of capital in the form of Deferred Tax Assets and Deferred Tax Credits owed by the Greek state. If the banks request this money, it must be provided in cash, not government bonds. So over 50% of the Greek banking system – which is owned largely by the Greek state – is in the form of a cash IOU from the Greek state. This tight interconnectedness between the Greek state and its banks, operating under a "patronage" culture rather than a meritocratic system, has long magnified Greece's gross mismanagement of its finances.(See: "ECB Asks: Are Greek Banks Solvent," by Raoul Ruparel, Feb. 20, 2015)
Continuing an all-out austerity program to return Greece to a sustainable fiscal path needs to be rethought. Persistent deflationary pressure could hurt the country's fragile debt sustainability now at 175% of GDP (vs. 130% in 2009). I believe internal deflation and enormous size of Greek debt make it impossible to grow out of that debt. Accepting more loans to meet debt service obligations worsens matters by further squeezing income and increasing debt. Still, despite 5 years of severe austerity, Greece's broad economic picture is getting better, but life is much worse for most Greeks.
An excessive public debt curse constrains government actions by the need to service debt – which seriously compromises or crowds out critically vital investments in infrastructure, education, health care, child welfare, etc. The negative financial and social impact would have been much more disastrous without the bailout funds.
If a government is running primary budget deficits, it needs to borrow money to continue running. That has been the Greek government's argument to its citizenry, namely, austerity is necessary to keep bailout funds coming to fund basic services like infrastructure, education, health care.
However, if a government is running primary budget surpluses as Greece now is, it's much easier to get by without access to foreign debt markets. This depends on the timing and amounts of debt that must be paid to official creditors who are not about to accept a 'haircut' on the Greek debt owed them.
If Greece can raise recent trend of primary surpluses to 4.5% target of GDP, it will be able to finance its current level of consumption and investment, including government and private spending, without depending much on foreign capital inflows. That surplus will cover an interest cost of 4% of GDP, leave some fiscal space for economic growth incentives, for unforeseeable adverse cost events but not for high one-time costs which occur often in Greece. And it leaves little fiscal space to reduce debt principle and no space to meet large debt payments.
Greece's problem is insolvency, not a temporary liquidity shortfall. Funds are being lent to Greece to meet current debt service obligations on assumption this will bring Greece to renewed growth and income adequate to meet long-term debt obligations. Despite Greece's weak economy and giant debt burden, 5 years of draconian austerity did produce a 1.7% primary budget surplus in 2014. BUT, the debt level still expanded to 175% of GDP from 130% in 2009.
This dramatizes how serious Greece's insolvency problem is. Tough austerity measures and a huge euro 240 billion bailout injection of 'liquidity' funds – of which +85% went to creditor banks, not to fund Greek operations (except freeing up funds for basic social services) – can't solve the over-indebtedness and deflation and insolvency trap. A crisis of distrust prevails, pitting debtor and creditor against each other. Many feel official lending by ECB and IMF is only worsening crisis and insuring a certain default and "haircut" for creditors.
ECB President Mario Draghi has laid down the financial 'Maginot Line' to Greece regarding bailout funds. In essence, his message to Greece is move fast on concessions and key reforms (e.g., inflated pensions, huge tax evasion, accounting irregularities) or you are on your own. In latter event, an 'orderly default' and 'friendly exit' from the euro currency zone, but not necessarily the EU, is the only recourse.
The ECB has cut off Greek access to the normal lending process where loan risk is divided among the 19 euro zone countries. For years, Greece has failed to meet a very important lending provision, namely, that the supporting collateral must be sound. In the ECB's opinion, Greek bank collateral is not worth much. Accordingly, the ECB has stopped accepting Greek bonds as collateral. In essence, access to capital markets by the Greek government and Greek banks has been closed down.
In prior bailouts, the ECB waived the collateral provision. But, upon hearing of Premier Tsipras' refusal to continue with key reforms, the ECB has withdrawn its waiver. Greece now only qualifies for Emergency Liquidity Assistance which the ECB is tightly limiting. ELA comes at a higher interest rate, and the Greek Central Bank assumes formal risk liability, not the euro zone countries. But, if something goes wrong, the euro zone is the ultimate backup.
According to Draghi, ELA support will be given providing Greek banks have adequate collateral and are solvent – two conditions that are not being met. A slowly developing bank run has brought the financial backup level of Greek banks below the peak-crisis level in 2012 – driving the interest rate on 3-year Greek securities to 30% range. In Draghi's words, "Collateral is being destroyed."
Greece's interest payments are relatively low thanks to a low 2.2% average interest rate on its outstanding debt. If Greece had to borrow at the 8% market rate for its 10-year government bonds, its overall budget deficit would explode to over 15%. Despite the low 2.2% interest rate on public debt, total interest payments are still a substantial 4.0% of GDP due to Greece's extravagant debt build-up.
Generally, a country's national debt grows by the size of its overall budget deficit or surplus and strength of its economy. If Greece can consistently achieve a positive 2-4% primary budget surplus, its debt burden as a % of GDP will eventually decline so long as the GDP growth rate exceeds the average interest rate (now 2.2%) on government debt. (See: Martin Feldstein, Harvard Prof. of Economics – "The Greek Budget Myth," Nov. 2013)
But, the Greek economy remains weak, not helped by severe austerity measures. Unless Greece can increase its rate of annual growth +2% and stabilize deflation, its overall budget deficit after debt payment will be high and the current 175% debt/GDP ratio will hardly change.
Where To Go From Here?
Greece's acute insolvency is not being solved by spending and amassing debt far beyond its means and ability to grow itself out of the interest and principal debt payments. Result? Since the 2009 crisis, Greece has been forced to borrow more and more from the EU in an 'ad hoc manner' in emergency situations.
Daniel Gros and Thomas Mayer deftly address the problem of balancing of moral hazard by sharing EU support and risks vs. relying purely on financial markets to resolve an "excess debt-insolvency" crisis like Greece is experiencing.(See: "How To Deal With The Threat of A Sovereign Default in Europe," March/April 2010; "Debt Reduction Without Default?" Feb. 2011). In Gros and Mayer's opinion:
This 'ad hoc manner' (piecemeal liquidity) approach is unsatisfactory. The European Monetary system should be made robust enough to minimize the disruption caused by the failure of one member. The drafters of the Maastricht Treaty failed to appreciate that, in a context of fragile financial markets, the perceived (and real) danger of a financial meltdown makes a 'pure' no-bailout response unrealistic … The EU needs to design a scheme capable of dealing with the threat of sovereign default and capable of organizing an orderly default as a last resort … The strongest negotiating asset of a debtor is always that default cannot be contemplated because it would bring down the entire financial system.
For a Greek type of insolvency crisis, Daniel Gros and Thomas Mayer propose an innovative, fair market-based debt reduction option without a formal default. The concept shows promise for vastly mitigating disruption in financial markets caused by a foreign sovereign default. An orderly debt workout framework would help prevent a taxpayer bailout of a sovereign. Also, contagion effects would become very limited since market participants could estimate ex ante their maximum risk exposure by lending to another country. Some variation of the Gros-Mayer market-based debt reduction concept deserves reexamination by ECB authorities, if that has not already been done.
Greece is locked into a debt, internal deflationary economic stagnation that has all the ingredients of lasting as long as Japan's 20 year economic stagnation! The ad hoc manner of accepting more loans to pay current debt service obligations only makes matters worse … as does an ongoing crushing austerity on the Greek people.
As to what to do now, I would give first priority to quickly and decisively restructuring Greece's debt, including upcoming euro 1.6 billion and euro 7 billion payments.
The restructuring should provide real debt relief that allows Greece fiscal space to resume productive investment while also executing reforms selectively aimed at systemically poor tax collection, restrictive and regulatory labor practices raising the cost of doing business, inflated pension funds, absence of financial transparency and discipline, lack of confidence in statistical data, a governance and banking system functioning under an egregiously dishonest culture of 'patronage' rather than 'meritocracy.'
The task is finding right balance between debt relief and limited austerity while not losing momentum with reforms, not increasing moral hazard or disrupting Greece's real economy. The overall aim should be to improve Greece's 'economic model' for responsible growth and access to capital markets.
Restructuring can take many forms, combinations: implementing a variation of the Gros-Mayer market-based debt reduction concept, swapping a portion of existing debt for bonds, linking interest payments to future economic growth as proposed by Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, replacing Greek debt owned by the ECB with "perpetual bonds," adopting a new Greek currency but keeping Greece in euro zone, rolling debt over, extending debt maturities or deferring debt payments.
If at the end of the negotiating process, parties cannot agree to an acceptable civil, humane, debt restructuring, debt relief and reforms in everyone's best interest, then an orderly, friendly well-managed EXIT of Greece from the euro is the only option … leaving responsibility to Premier Tsipras's government to resurrect an economy sunk in a sea of bureaucracy and debt.
An exit will hurt. Greece will eventually gain a more competitive currency, but this will not come cheaply without contagion impacts and some concrete costs. The current ECB euro 240 billion bailout averages euro +-600 per person for euro zone countries. How much this rises depends on the debt restructuring actions and reforms undertaken and how sound the exit process is risk-controlled. In this regard, the ECB has made a commitment to do "whatever is necessary to protect the euro."
But, If Greece's exit is judged a 'least-worse' scenario, what to do if the Portuguese, Spaniards, and Italians want a similar divorce? Greece out of the euro zone – given its geostrategic position at the crossroads between East and West – brings some indefinable risks.
Besides the economic issue, there's a fundamental political issue … HOW IMPORTANT IS GREECE STRATEGICALLY TO EUROPE?
Frank Thomas May 18, 2015 The Netherlands
Posted at 09:42 PM in Frank Thomas, Debt, Europe | Permalink
Sweden Getting 65% of its Energy From Non Fossil Based Fuels NOW!
by John Lawrence and Frank Thomas
Sweden set to get 82% of its energy from non fossil based fuels by 2020
Why is it that other countries can convert from fossil based energy which is destroying the atmosphere and producing global warming to renewables in a relatively short time while the US is lagging way behind? One reason is the lobbying activities of the gas and electric companies to deter individually based solar and wind systems that would detract from the profits generated by their centrally based energy producing systems. Here in San Diego, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) lobbies against any law that would make it profitable for individual homeowners to expand their solar systems and sell their energy back into the grid. SDGE wants the role of selling energy entirely to themselves. And besides they want their ratepayers, not their shareholders, to pay for the decommissioning of the San Onofre nuclear plant.
However, Sweden has done things differently. An article by James Burgess highlights some unique reasons why Sweden has gone from a 75% dependency of fossil fuels in the mid-70s to 35% today. One key factor is that Sweden introduced this culture-changing transition over 22 years ago, as did Germany and Denmark. The incentive came in 1991 when Sweden seriously began taxing carbon to move consumers away from fossil fuels.
In the mid 70s, Sweden got 75% of its energy from fossil based fuels. Their goal is to get only 18% from fossil fuels by 2020. That means that 82% of their energy will be from renewables and nuclear by 2020. This represents enormous progress compared to the meager progress of the US in converting to non fossil based fuels. In the US less than 20% of energy production was from renewables and nuclear in 2010.
Not only Sweden but Germany and Denmark as well are making huge progress towards converting away from polluting carbon based energy production. As the following table shows, Sweden produces 65% of its energy right now from non fossil based fuels:
Table 1: Sweden's % Mix of Total Primary Energy Supply -- 2010
Oil...................................27%
Gas...................................3%
Coal..................................5%
Sub-Total Fossil Fuels.........35%...vs. Goal 2020 of 18%
Nuclear.............................30%...vs. Goal 2020 of 32%
Renewables.......................35%...vs. Goal 2020 of 50%
GRAND TOTAL.................100%.........................100%
: International Energy Agency -- 2012 Report of Sweden's Energy Outlook
One of the key elements in Sweden's policy is a carbon tax. In 1991, or 22 years ago, they decided to heavily tax carbon in order to encourage consumers to get away from fossil fuels. The carbon tax system has changed a bit over the years, increasing from $133 per ton to $150 per ton. This forced consumers to pay more but it has been essential to help persuade people to pursue clean energy sources. Then in the 60s, 70s and thereafter, aggressive investments were made in nuclear and especially biomass and hydropower. This early and proactive action to go green (like Denmark and Germany have done) with their own unique mix of sustainable renewables has resulted in dramatic success.
How does Sweden "get 'er done"? This is from Economonitor:
Firstly, thanks to extensive investment beginning in the 50s and 60s, Sweden now generates most of its electricity from hydroelectric and nuclear power plants. And with the recent rise in wind turbine installations, the country now gets over 47% of all consumed energy from renewable sources.
Oil now only accounts for 27% of Sweden's energy supply, and is constantly falling due to the increased popularity of biofuels. Natural Gas contributes just three percent, and coal is only really used for industrial purposes and is almost unused as a source of electricity generation. The IEA states that "Sweden has the lowest share of fossil fuels in the energy supply mix among IEA member countries."
This makes US progress to date to a sustainable energy future (with a few exceptions, e.g., California, Vermont) look like the incredible FARCE it truly is! We are nowhere close to Sweden's (nor Germany or Denmark's) sustainable energy transition to zero-and-low-carbon emitting modern energy systems by 2050 nor the strategic clarity of how to get there. Despite the fast move to low-carbon shale gas, the U.S. clearly appears on a path dominated by fossil fuels for decades.
And as we noted in a prior writing, China especially and India are on a world-leading disaster course as far as CO2/Ch4 atmospheric pollution goes. And this in turn has a huge positive feedback on the increasing rate of Arctic permafrost and deep sea ice meltdowns ... potentially releasing earth-threatening massive amounts of CO2 and highly toxic CH4 into the atmosphere.
Elsewhere, Germany has made huge progress in converting to solar based energy production. Their secret is to encourage individual homeowners and farmers to install solar capacity at their places of residence and business. They do this by making it legal for individuals to sell solar produced energy back into the grid and make a profit on their investment unlike here in the US in general and San Diego in particular where SDGE and other energy producing companies have lobbied against the selling of energy back into the grid. Germany does this by means of a feed-in tariff which pays individuals for their energy production. As a result solar farms have sprouted all over Germany.
Since 2000 Germany has converted 25 percent of its power grid to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass. The architects of the clean energy movement Energiewende, which translates to "energy transformation," estimate that from 80 percent to 100 percent of Germany's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2050.
Likewise, Denmark is on a mission to remove carbon-polluting fossil fuels entirely by 2050. In March of 2012, Frank wrote:
Remarkably, Denmark already produces 20% of its total energy needs from renewables versus 8% for the U.S. today. Denmark will increase this percentage to 33% by 2020, meeting the EU 2020 target of 30% comprising wind, biomass, biogas, biofuels, solar. The above range of gross energy consumption mixes in 2050 under different energy scenarios are calculated to meet expected energy demand in 2050 of 600-700 petajoule (PL) per year.
The Danish are not waiting to learn that fossil fuels are a finite global resource. Protecting future energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are driving Denmark's transition to a new energy strategy, NOW. The country's planning for fossil fuel independence is thorough, covering all contingencies – a far cry from our seemingly "business as usual" market approach to energy supply security, environment, and financing policy initiatives. Danish clean energy investments will be offset by lower fossil fuel expenditures and CO2 reductions and a proposed security of supply tax. Denmark's Commission on Climate Change Policy sums up the gradual increased pressure on public budgets as the result of tax revenues lost by reduced use of fossil fuels as follows:
"The government's objective is to be independent of fossil fuels. This has the effect, that fossil fuels that are highly taxed will be replaced by other, more environmentally friendly types of energy taxed at a lower rate and in some cases tax exempt. In order to offset this detrimental effect on tax revenues, other energy taxes may be increased, provided the overall tax burden is not increased."
In summary, while more progressive nations like Sweden, Germany and Denmark have adopted aggressive policies to get their countries off of dependence on fossil fuels and onto renewables, the US has left energy policy largely to be controlled by the oil and gas industries and their lobbyists at the state and Federal level. That is why here in San Diego consumers can look forward not to being able to solarize their houses and businesses and to selling energy back into the grid but to continuing rate increases as SDGE lobbies the California Public Energy Commission (PUC). They want to be the sole providers of energy for San Diego and in collusion with the heavily lobbied PUC the sole determinant of what energy consumers will pay.
Posted at 11:17 AM in Frank Thomas, John Lawrence, Europe, Oil, Solar | Permalink
President Obama: The US Should Follow Sweden's Renewable Energy Lead
Author: James Burgess · September 6th, 2013 ·from EconoMonitor
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama held a meeting and press conference with Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Prime Minister of Sweden, in which he was asked what the US could learn from Sweden. He replied:
"What I know about Sweden, I think, offers us some good lessons. Number one, the work you have done on energy I think is something the United States can and will learn from. Because every country in the world right now has to recognize if we are going to continue to grow and improve our standard of living while maintaining a sustainable planet, we are going to have to change our patterns of energy use. And Sweden I think is far ahead of many other countries."
That begs the question, why is Sweden so far ahead of other countries, and how can the US benefit?
Think Progress explains that this high level capacity of renewable energy generation was not luck, but the result of a strong desire to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, which in the mid-70s accounted for nearly 75% of energy.
The biggest driver behind the push to increase renewable and clean energy generation was an early carbon tax adopted back in 1991. The carbon tax system has changed a bit over the years, increasing from $133 per tonne to $150 per tonne, and forcing consumers to pay more, and industry less, but it has been essential to help persuade people to pursue clean energy sources, and raise money that the government could invest in developing renewable energy generating capacity.
Daniel Engström, the director of the Forum for Reforms, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability in Sweden, commented that fewer people in Sweden deny the existence of climate change compared to the US, meaning that there is less opposition to investing in renewable energy. He also remarked that because oil is so expensive, and the carbon tax has been effect for such a long time, that no one actually notices it anymore.
And for any of you who think that Sweden has only reached this level of renewable energy development by over investing in one sector at the expense of the rest of the economy, Fred Bergsten, the director emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, said that, "Sweden has one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe; it runs a budget surplus every year; its corporate tax rates are considerably lower than U.S. rates; and it spends more on research and development, as a share of its economy, than we do." Whilst the most European economies collapsed in recent years, Sweden managed to thrive economically, proving that economic success does have to go hand in hand with high carbon emissions.
This piece is cross-posted with OilPrice.com with permission.
Posted at 04:11 PM in Europe | Permalink
Treasure Island Trauma
By PAUL KRUGMAN from the New York Times
A couple of years ago, the journalist Nicholas Shaxson published a fascinating, chilling book titled "Treasure Islands," which explained how international tax havens — which are also, as the author pointed out, "secrecy jurisdictions" where many rules don't apply — undermine economies around the world. Not only do they bleed revenues from cash-strapped governments and enable corruption; they distort the flow of capital, helping to feed ever-bigger financial crises.
One question Mr. Shaxson didn't get into much, however, is what happens when a secrecy jurisdiction itself goes bust. That's the story of Cyprus right now. And whatever the outcome for Cyprus itself (hint: it's not likely to be happy), the Cyprus mess shows just how unreformed the world banking system remains, almost five years after the global financial crisis began.
So, about Cyprus: You might wonder why anyone cares about a tiny nation with an economy not much bigger than that of metropolitan Scranton, Pa. Cyprus is, however, a member of the euro zone, so events there could trigger contagion (for example, bank runs) in larger nations. And there's something else: While the Cypriot economy may be tiny, it's a surprisingly large financial player, with a banking sector four or five times as big as you might expect given the size of its economy.
Why are Cypriot banks so big? Because the country is a tax haven where corporations and wealthy foreigners stash their money. Officially, 37 percent of the deposits in Cypriot banks come from nonresidents; the true number, once you take into account wealthy expatriates and people who are only nominally resident in Cyprus, is surely much higher. Basically, Cyprus is a place where people, especially but not only Russians, hide their wealth from both the taxmen and the regulators. Whatever gloss you put on it, it's basically about money-laundering.
And the truth is that much of the wealth never moved at all; it just became invisible. On paper, for example, Cyprus became a huge investor in Russia — much bigger than Germany, whose economy is hundreds of times larger. In reality, of course, this was just "roundtripping" by Russians using the island as a tax shelter.
Unfortunately for the Cypriots, enough real money came in to finance some seriously bad investments, as their banks bought Greek debt and lent into a vast real estate bubble. Sooner or later, things were bound to go wrong. And now they have.
Now what? There are some strong similarities between Cyprus now and Iceland (a similar-size economy) a few years back. Like Cyprus now, Iceland had a huge banking sector, swollen by foreign deposits, that was simply too big to bail out. Iceland's response was essentially to let its banks go bust, wiping out those foreign investors, while protecting domestic depositors — and the results weren't too bad. Indeed, Iceland, with a far lower unemployment rate than most of Europe, has weathered the crisis surprisingly well.
Unfortunately, Cyprus's response to its crisis has been a hopeless muddle. In part, this reflects the fact that it no longer has its own currency, which makes it dependent on decision makers in Brussels and Berlin — decision makers who haven't been willing to let banks openly fail.
But it also reflects Cyprus's own reluctance to accept the end of its money-laundering business; its leaders are still trying to limit losses to foreign depositors in the vain hope that business as usual can resume, and they were so anxious to protect the big money that they tried to limit foreigners' losses by expropriating small domestic depositors. As it turned out, however, ordinary Cypriots were outraged, the plan was rejected, and, at this point, nobody knows what will happen.
My guess is that, in the end, Cyprus will adopt something like the Icelandic solution, but unless it ends up being forced off the euro in the next few days — a real possibility — it may first waste a lot of time and money on half-measures, trying to avoid facing up to reality while running up huge debts to wealthier nations. We'll see.
But step back for a minute and consider the incredible fact that tax havens like Cyprus, the Cayman Islands, and many more are still operating pretty much the same way that they did before the global financial crisis. Everyone has seen the damage that runaway bankers can inflict, yet much of the world's financial business is still routed through jurisdictions that let bankers sidestep even the mild regulations we've put in place. Everyone is crying about budget deficits, yet corporations and the wealthy are still freely using tax havens to avoid paying taxes like the little people.
So don't cry for Cyprus; cry for all of us, living in a world whose leaders seem determined not to learn from disaster.
Posted at 06:05 PM in Europe, Tax Havens | Permalink
Giant Victory in Europe on Taxing Financial Speculation
Published on Wednesday, January 23, 2013 by Institute for Policy Studies
European ministers didn't even have to take a formal vote because it was obvious that there was sufficient support to move ahead
EU finance ministers were scheduled to vote January 22 on whether to authorize 11 member states to proceed with the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT). As it turned out, the ministers didn't even have to take a formal vote because it was obvious that there was sufficient support to move ahead.
Members of National Nurses United protest against the Robinhood Tax. (Photograph: National Nurses United)The 11 countries are Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia. It will be possible for other governments to opt in at a later date. And in fact, the Netherlands has expressed interest, but they want to negotiate an exemption for their pension funds.
The next step is for the European Commission to make a proposal for the tax. The proposal will be based on one introduced by the Commission in September 2011 that would apply a 0.1% tax rate on trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01% rate for derivatives trades. As described in the European Council statement released today, the aim of this proposal is "for the financial industry to make a fair contribution to tax revenues, whilst also creating a disincentive for transactions that do not enhance the efficiency of financial markets."
The proposed tax is based on the "residence principle," meaning that a financial transaction would be taxed in each case where a resident of one of the participating EU member states was involved even if the transaction was carried out in a country that is not a participant.
The tax proposal will have to be adopted by unanimous agreement of the participating member states. EU Tax Commissioner Algirdas Semeta says it is possible that the tax could enter into force beginning January 1, 2014.
Although some press reports have said the funds will go towards bailing out European banks, there is no agreement yet on how revenues will be allocated. International campaigners who have been advocating for financial transactions taxes for several years will be redoubling their efforts to demand that revenues to go towards social and environmental purposes.
© 2013 Institute for Policy Studies
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project of the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive multi-issue think tank, in Washington DC. She's also the co-author of the IPS report, America's Bailout Barons: Taxpayers, High Finance, and the CEO Pay Bubble.
Posted at 07:42 AM in Europe, Taxes | Permalink
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IN EUROPE
In answer to the question, do European nations have a similar U.S. 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms including an individual and collective right ? The summary answer is NO.
However, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which predates our Bill of Rights by 100 years, codified an ancient self-protection right with the words, " … subjects who are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This gave birth to the English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, but the vague wording is a far cry from the absolute wording of our 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In Britain, the possession of most types of arms are strictly controlled for the common good. Criminals, children, and the mentally ill are not allowed to be armed. The UK Firearms Act of 1968 sets rigid requirements for a firearms certificate. A concept of compulsory security for rifles and shotguns is in effect and extends to shotguns. Centre-fire self-loading and pump action rifles are banned as well as automatic weapons. Gun rights and strict rules have culturally evolved to a point where today England has one of the lowest gun ownership levels and gun homicide rates in the world. Further, this has not resulted in high non-gun homicides or violent crime culture as purist anti-gun control believers like to say.
This low gun access approach works for England but probably would never work for the U.S. Our nation is totally saturated in a gun culture – including quasi machine guns that can shoot 30-50-100 bullets in seconds. We are a country where an individual can go into a gun show and walk out with a semi-automatic weapon and no background check … where insane people have easy access to military style weapons! Lanza used three of four semi-automatic weapons belonging to his mother, all easily accessible. This potential from ever more efficiently designed arms to murder many people rapidly makes the case for re-defining U.S. gun law all the more urgent.
Switzerland also has no constitutional guarantee of an individual's right to bear arms. The national legislature could ban gun ownership anytime. But today Switzerland is a heavily armed nation. This reflects a centuries old Swiss culture to have arms to resist possible invaders or despotic tyrants, like Hitler in WWII. The country's high gun ownership level comes with a very low gun homicide rate vs. the U.S. All males at 18 join the military and can take their military assault weapon home with them when they leave. Thus, up to 500,000 military assault weapons are estimated to be in Swiss households today. These weapons must be locked up and ammunition is kept in central arsenals. The government supplies bullets for shooting festivals. Canton police may issue special permits for civilians to own assault rifles – typically as licensed collectors—and such weapons may not be fired in full automatic mode. The country hosts some of the largest rifle shooting events in the world. While gun ownership laws have tightened upon handguns and non-military weapons, it is still reasonably easy to get a hand gun. But, it is illegal to carry guns in public.
As stated earlier, social attitudes and discipline concerning guns play a major role in Europe. The Swiss and Norwegian easier gun access cultures illustrate that the ability to possess arms is not necessarily a direct causal link to a greater gun homicide or crime rate. This is true in an opposite way for England where a much more difficult access to guns does not ipso facto translate into much higher levels of non-gun homicides or crime rates as some pro-gun enthusiasts suggest.
Spain enforces strict controls over firearms. The constitution clearly states: "The State shall have exclusive competence over … the regime for the production, trading, holding, and use of weapons." In Finland, citizens must have a valid reason for a gun license such as hunting, recreation, or gun exhibitions. An amendment to the 1997 Scotland Firearms Act banned private possession of all modern pistols, even for competitive sporting purposes. Small bore rifles are not limited. Many types of rifles, shotguns, and black powder pistols and long arms may be privately owned. Luxembourg has a complete ban on guns. In the Netherlands, assault rifles, silencers, and short-barreled shotguns as well as any kind of high capacity magazine are banned for civilian possession unless authorized by the Minister of Justice.
Our neighbor, Canada, has no constitutional right to bear arms. Gun ownership is strictly regulated and certain gun models are prohibited by the Firearms Act. Canada's crime rate is lower than that of the U.S.
Unlike America, the European individual right to bear and keep arms is NOT entrenched in constitutional law. The U.S. gun culture inherited from England and Switzerland of protecting ourselves against tyrannical government was expanded on by Thomas Jefferson with his remarks:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed may be attached with greater confidence than the armed man." (Thomas Jefferson, Common Place Book , 1774-1776 (quoting from "On Crimes and Punishment" by criminologist Cesare Beccaria 1764).
It should not be surprising that the right to bear arms has remained closely and jealously guarded in America. Our constitution has left the 50 states free to regulate the private possession of weapons in whatever way deemed appropriate to them. Today 43 states have some kind of right to bear arms provisions which are far more relevant to proposed state and local gun controls than the 2nd Amendment. However, in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, the U.S. Supreme Court holds that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, potentially weakening state and local gun control laws.
The fundamental purposes of the 2nd Amendment have come to represent: (a) the individual right to protect oneself against other individuals and (b) the collective right to protect oneself against a tyrannical government. Both U.S. 2nd Amendment protections are seen to be rather anachronistic by European standards for a number of reasons. BUT, these rights are steadfast, virtual "emotional" realities for many Americans. In Europe, having guns – except for hunting and shooting festivals and except for well-controlled Swiss assault weapons as a retired civilian-militia protection against invaders – is simply NOT built into the psyche of Europeans who in general have little interest in nor see the necessity of owning guns as a defense against criminals or their governments.
The challenge for America is where to draw the line between the rightful, normal gun means to defend oneself as opposed to the use of modern multi-murderous weaponry and magazines. U.S. anti-gun regulation paranoia abounds in the thought than any restriction is the first step to the total banning of guns, ultimately making citizens more unsafe against criminals who will never give up guns. This is further supported by NRA's false claim that there is no statistical evidence the 1994-2004 semi-automatic assault gun ban had a measureable effect in reducing violent wide-scale shootings.
Complete gun control in America is never going to happen given the 2nd Amendment and fact there are too many guns already out there. We have created a climate of gun protection and resort to gun violence by criminals and non-criminals (e.g., crimes of passion) that is deeply cultural and self-perpetuating… that is leap years worse and ingrained than in Europe and Canada by any statistical measure. (see Tables 1 and 2, "Gun & Non-Gun Homicides in US and Europe")
Posted at 03:21 PM in Frank Thomas, Europe, Guns | Permalink
GUN & NON-GUN HOMICIDES IN U.S. AND EUROPE
The Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, Columbine mass killings and now the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre bring up once again the fundamental differences in firearm levels, semi-automatic and automatic weaponry, gun-related and non-gun related homicides in the U.S. vs. Europe. America is a nation of guns. Our gun laws facilitate this as well as the indiscriminate sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons of myriad styles ... thanks to a pro-gun activist lobbying culture that never slows down.
It's time to get serious on prohibiting gun acquisition or possession by people with a history of mental illness, by high risk groups such as felons, drug addicts or alcoholics. It's time to get serious on limiting gun sales to one shot at a time pistols and rifles with limited cartridge capacities. It's time to get serious on conducting thorough criminal and mental health background checks and publicized waiting periods for high risk people and first time buyers seeking gun permits.
The fact that our violent crime is so deadly has everything to do with guns. Unlike Europe, America's 2nd Amendment has given support to a culture where the gun is designed, worshiped, and elevated to a sacred, efficient killing status. While our nation has had a somewhat constant, but very high, level of homicide violence, gun proliferation has enabled a greater portion of that violence to become deadly in sharp contrast to Europe. Pro-gun advocates like to say that violent crime is far higher in Europe as a result of restrictive gun controls. Nothing could be further from the truth.
How have we come this far?
It started in the 18th century when the Swiss "citizens 'militia" model was cited in support of passage of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution on the rights of citizens to keep and bear firearms. Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has allowed and even required its citizens to arm as a defense against Europe's despots. For centuries a well-armed Swiss populace has kept its independence by defeating the mighty armies of European monarchs. The Swiss learned early that tyrannical invading foreign forces kill more people than do criminals or the deranged.
In 1791, U.S. Representative Andrew Jackson acknowledged the Swiss influence on the right to bear arms when he said: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia which finally delivered them from the tyranny of the lords." Similarly, the right to bear arms as part of a "well regulated militia" formed the original basis for our 2nd Amendment. General George Wingate, founder of the NRA, heaped praise on the Swiss militia model as being the ideal model for securing the country's security.
However, under the banner of linking "freedom" to personal armed "readiness," the NRA has long adopted the position that efforts to restrict gun sales – whether semi-automatics, AR-15s or AK-47s , machine guns, or hunting rifles – are an assault on our constitutional rights under the 2nd Amendment. In truth, the 2nd Amendment does NOT sanction the right to semi-automatic and automatic individual firearms. Further, the NRA propagates that inadequate gun control laws have nothing to do with the epidemic of gun-related killings. "People kill, not guns." The way to make people safer is MORE Semi-Automatic Guns and better background control of society's psychiatrically disabled.
Today, Switzerland has many guns but few murders … thanks to strict gun control laws and a popular recreational shooting culture. Swiss households use firearms mainly as a peaceful, sport-shooting family occupation at contest-festivals where eating, drinking, socializing abound. Shooting-range festivals have come to be recognized as a wholesome community activity. Well- enforced rules apply to permits, safety training, gun/ammunition handling discipline. Ammunition sold at ranges must be used there. Males aged 20 to 42 must keep their rifles and pistols at home. This culture fosters gun sanity. Over time, these social-attitudes have helped to keep Swiss total gun and non-gun homicide far below those of the U.S.!
England has a much stricter gun control culture with relatively few guns in households. You couldn't get a more murder free society than England (or Japan) which has banned practically all guns. In contrast, America has as many firearms as there are people – a situation made irreversibly dangerous knowing that guns have at least a 100-year life cycle. While the original primary motivation for an armed populace under the 2nd Amendment was to defend against tyrants and invaders, America's last 60 year accelerating gun ownership dynamic is now perceived and promoted as an absolute necessity to defend ourselves against outrageous, multiple crime subcultures and misfits.
The following data summarizes a remarkable story about fundamentally different gun cultural and social attitudes, resort to violence and how these relate to gun availability and controls.
TABLE 1: % of Homicides by Guns; Gun Homicide Rate Per 100,000 People; Guns Per 100 People in the U.S. and Selected EU Countries – 2010
% of Homicides Gun Homicide Guns Per 100
By Guns Rate/100,000 People People
United States 67.5% 3.2 89
Canada 31% 0.5 31
England (a) 9% 0.1 6
Switzerland 31% 0.2 46
Norway 7% 0.1 31
EU-17 Average 28% 0.3 26
TABLE 2: Number of Intentional Homicides vs. Homicides by Guns, and Intentional Homicides Per 100,000 Population – 2010
Intentional Gun Intentional
Homicides Homicides Homicides/100,000
U.S. 12,996 9,960 4.2
Canada 554 173 1.6
England (a) 638 58 1.0
Switzerland 52 16 0.7
Norway 29 2 0.6
Total EU-17 3,528 1,164
EU-17 Country Ave. 208 68
EU Equivalent 2,702 884
US Higher 4.8 Times 11 Times
SOURCE Tables 1,2: UNODC 2012, Small Arms Survey, FBI Data on Wikipedia _______________________________________________________________
(a) Includes Northern Ireland
An obvious FALACY propagated by U.S. pro-gun spokesmen and their associations is that European total homicides and crime under Gun Controls regime are much HIGHER than U.S. homicides. The same people claim European homicides are even HIGHER than they were BEFORE Gun Controls – all part of the standard gun lobby LIE that less guns mean more non-gun murders and violence using other methods … thus higher crime rates. What a fairy tale this is!
Tables 1 exposes this LIE by showing that much higher gun possession leads to far higher homicides with guns, almost 70% of all U.S. homicides vs. 28% in Europe. Contrary to propaganda by NRA universal gun advocates, European absolute numbers of total homicides for any country – intentional homicides including gun homicides – are very TINY.
Table 2 shows total British intentional homicides in 2010 were 638 of which 58 were gun murders. England's total population is a fifth of the U.S. population. When adjusted for this, British total murders are equivalent to 3090 and 290 gun murders. Thus, versus England, America's gun homicides are 34 times higher and intentional homicides are 4.8 times higher on an equivalent basis.
EU-17 country average homicide data in Table 2 was adjusted for population differences. In 2010, EU-17 total population is 412 million or average per country of 24.2 million vs. a U.S. population of 311 million or 13 times higher. Thus, U.S. intentional homicides are of 12,960 are 4.8 times higher and gun homicides of 9,960 are astronomically 11 times higher than equivalent EU-17 levels 2,702 and 884, respectively . One starts to feel we are so SATURATED with guns of all types and power and the MONEY that comes from it (like from drugs) that we may have well reached a point of no return.
FBI experience shows that guns are at least 20 times more likely to be used in a non-fatal crime than in a non-fatal defense. There is no proof that guns are used to kill more in self-defense than in a commission of a crime. A fear of getting shot back at will deter most murderers. There´s some truth here. BUT, the attacker has the initiative, gun power, and tactical advantage over defenders … surprise, planning, initiative. Still, given the deep gun culture and high robbery/assault crime in America, it´s true that overly restrictive handgun controls rob potential victims (e.g., households) of the most effective means of defending themselves against would-be attackers.
Some argue gun banning causes people to switch to other murder weapons (knives, clubs, poison, illegal guns) which are dangerous but in reality fortunately not as efficiently deadly as guns. The intentional homicide rate (see Table 2) provides a meaningful comparison of total homicides including gun homicides and homicides by other methods. Intentional homicide is "unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person." Excluded are deaths from war, accidents, suicide, manslaughter, terrorist acts, etc.
Although 70% of U.S. intentional homicides are from GUNS compared to 28% for EU countries, EU-17 absolute numbers of intentional homicides and gun homicides are still substantially lower on an equivalent basis. Obviously, European social and cultural factors play a major role along with much more restrictive, broadly accepted gun controls. In fact, England's strict gun controls led to record low gun-homicides in 2011 and to its lowest intentional homicide level ever .
The correlation of gun availability and violence is an unending chicken and egg debate. Is the U.S. dilemma of extreme levels of violent crime due mostly to easy gun availability and an exceptionally high ownership level or to other intransigent societal factors? For example, England and Norway had achieved low gun-homicide rates even prior to having strict gun controls. Clearly, many confounding societal mechanisms – mental illness, uncensored violent TV films and video games, racial divides, alcohol/drug abuse, self-destruction, income inequality, jealousy, anger, physical abuse, youth gangs in urban cities – all are contributing root causes of gun injuries and homicide rates … much more so in America than in Europe.
Switzerland's low gun homicide rate seems a contradiction upon first glance. Here's a country with one of the highest gun ownership levels in Europe that also has a relatively low gun homicide rate! Same applies to Norway. In contrast, England has an exceptionally low gun ownership levels and gun homicide rates. The Swiss, Norwegian and even Canadian firearms experience refutes the belief that very low gun-homicide rates are due to strict gun controls on ownership levels … while British and overall other EU country experience confirms that belief.
SOME WHY ANSWERS ON WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE
WHY does America's weakly regulated gun culture vs. that in Europe correlate to out-of-sight gun-homicide rates compared to Europe? One WHY answer is the many levels of U.S. criminality compared to England, Switzerland, Norway, and other EU countries … illustrated by the number of U.S. people in prison per 100,000 population of +-750 vs. +- 100 in the EU! (see European Institute for Crime Prevention & Control, "International Statistics on Crime and Justice," 2010).
Our sub-cultures of violent and less violent crime justify for many Americans the constitutional argument of self-defense, thus allowing high-cartridge capacity semi-automatic firearms of all sorts to roll off producers' production lines. We are at a crossroads … where it's not only the high gun ownership level that contributes to high homicide rates but also the high level of crime and military-style killings by the emotionally unbalanced (as occurred in Newtown) that motivate more people to acquire guns for self-defense.
"Since there are so many guns, we need more guns,´´ This NRA self-fulfilling thinking only opens up more opportunities for homicidal maniacs to go on indiscriminate shooting sprees … killing children, adolescents, adults. In the end, what it all seems to come down to is that we are by nature a violent nation … and have always been so. Studies by the National Institute of Justice conclude that greater gun availability increases the rates of murder and felony gun use, but does NOT appear to affect the general U.S. violence level. In other words, the fact the U.S. is a violent society does not have so much to do with guns. The fact that our violent crime is so DEADLY has much to do with guns … e.g., resort to AR-15s!
Research I've examined makes a case that homicides are tied to the willingness and ability to resort to violence as an attacker or defender, not just to the mere existence of firearms. Studies show that our already horrendously high U.S. total gun homicide rates would be even higher it weren't for right-to-concealed-carry state laws allowing individuals properly licensed to carry firearms for protection against crime. In right-to-carry states, studies reveal that violent crime rates compared to other states are +-25% lower, murder rates 50% lower, and robbery rates 50% lower.
Control of guns to reduce our tendency to violence remains critical. But complex social factors already noted cannot be brushed aside as they are also a powerful cause of violence. Why does Switzerland or Norway, for example, have such low absolute levels of violent crime and gun-homicides despite being among the most armed household nations in the world? Solving our violence dilemma lies in the social, cultural, psychological determinants of violence as much as it does in the widespread ownership of guns. The enemy is US and the battlefield is mostly in the urban areas and along racial divides.
The hunter world is clearly not where the gun problem and violence is. Hunters do not use semi-automatic assault weapons. Over many years hunting in the wild woods of northern Maine, I used a 30-30 lever-action rifle with less than six shells in the chamber. My father, as a State Police Officer, taught me well how to use a rifle safely and with respect.
Another WHY answer most people sense is that America has gone nuts producing and selling semi-automatic pistols and rifles that release dozens of bullets in seconds. Military-style assault weapons are really great for our soldiers in Afghanistan … but insane as everyday sold household defense products for the general public. Here's where guns are indeed the major precipitator of a culture of violence. I can't believe that General Wingate, founder of the NRA, had in mind a population armed with such deadly automatic big-cartridge weaponry that can be purchased almost at will by the teenager, the novice, the mentally and emotionally unstable. As pointed out, when guns are used they are almost always used for murder … this particularly applies to automatic weapons.
Another WHY answer explaining Europe's very low intentional homicide, gun homicide, and crime rates is that guns are generally viewed here as anathema after so many centuries of human killing. That is why European countries do not see ownership of firearms as a constitutional right … as embraced in our 2nd Amendment. In Europe, one hears little of the U.S. pro-gun facile arguments that `gun control disarms law-abiding citizens.´ Controls are in place and enforced to limit the availability of firearms manufactured or obtained illegally. Strict selling, permit, and safety training regulations are constantly being improved. England and Switzerland are two of the safest places to be although each has an entirely different approach to gun control.
One researcher of Europe's very low gun homicides and violence summed it all up pretty well:
"The bottom line is one of social attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue though armed heavily like Switzerland or lightly like England and other European countries generally do not experience massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland and Norway fit the mold. The U.S. does not." (Note: even Norway had its first mass killer of young people last year).
As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, "Violence is as American as apple pie."
TABLEs 1 and 2 also show huge homicide and violence differences between U.S. and our neighbor, Canada. Canada has plenty of guns largely used for hunting. But U.S. firearm homicide levels at 10,000 a year or a 3.2 homicide rate per 100,000 people is at least 5 times higher equivalently than Canada's +-200 firearm homicides a year for a 0.5 homicide rate. The 300 million U.S. guns in private hands vs. 7 million in Canada equates to 5 guns per 6 Americans vs. 1 gun per 6 Canadians. It's clear again that European style social and cultural factors plus strict gun controls play a BIG role in discouraging crime and violence in Canada. We could learn a lot from our next door neighbor.
Another WHY answer is how the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment has evolved and changed. The 2nd Amendment is one long sentence with some key phrases that are a lawyer´s hell or paradise … depending on which side he or she is on. It says:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
First came a legal challenge in Aymette v. State (1840) where the court held that, "citizens have an unqualified right to keep and bear arms." The court held this right is not just for those individuals who are members of the militia.
Then came the vague, poorly arrived and seeming contradictory decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939) where the court held that the 2nd Amendment "protects the right to bear arms only if the arms in question are those that would be useful as part of a civilian militia."
Finally, Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the 2nd Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia."
Then came a landmark case McDonald v. Chicago (2010) where the Supreme Court held the right to "keep and bear arms" under the 2nd Amendment applies also to the states. The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling was vague on the scope of gun rights in regard to states.
Over time under the 2nd Amendment, the right has come to be recognized that individuals may possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes – but certainly not an aggressive right to inflict harm on others. But as one constitutional expert has said:
"The 2nd Amendment does NOT grant any right to keep and bear arms (writer's edit: certainly NOT automatic military assault weapons). Furthermore, the rest of The Bill of Rights does not describe any right to do so. These rights are thought of as natural rights or God-given rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment is just a reminder to the government they should not try to stop people from having this right."
Little wonder the NRA and other pro-gun lobbying groups tenaciously support the 2nd Amendment on the basis that guns are the best deterrent of crime against individuals … under their facile philosophy: "As guns increase, we are safer. As guns decrease, there are more murders."
So, argues the NRA president, "arm the school teachers and guards!" Of course maniac killer(s) can always go for these people first with the advantage of planning, surprise, and initiative.
I hope this article effectively argues the utter falsehood and incredibly dangerous social risk implications of this kind of thinking.
Posted at 02:06 PM in Frank Thomas, Europe, Guns | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Update on the Eurozone
The European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission, and IMF some time ago pledged €240 billion in rescue loans of which Greece has already received €150 billion. Without these bailout funds that have been keeping the country afloat since May of 2010, Greece would be forced out of the eurozone. Many now see this possibility as having a disastrous domino effect on other financially troubled eurozone nations.
EU Finance Ministers and the IMF have just agreed to: release the next €44 billion ($57 billion) installment of loans to Greece, lower the interest rate, and return €11 billion in profits from ECB purchases of Greek government bonds. The Ministers have also agreed to help Greece buy back its own bonds from private investors. These actions are more than enough to enable the government to pay wages and pensions in December. In return, Greece is bound to more rounds of austerity measures and to submit its economy to tight scrutiny.
The current package aims to cut public debt now at 175% of GDP to 124% by 2020. Greece is seeking a two-year extension of this deadline. However, Germany and the Netherlands are against this as well as further writeoff of Greek debt. It is felt such actions will only weaken the country's resolve to go foreward on painful structural reforms. The IMF believes more fresh capital and even debt writeoff relief will be necessary to get proper control of Greece's debt situation over the next decade.
Both Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, are leary of more debt relief. In fact, Premier Rutte has called for a change in EU laws to allow a country to leave the euro. But Chancellor Merkel has been trying to quell demands from her own coalition for Greece to leave the eurozone. She feels the consequences of this step are far more ominous than giving more financial loan assistance to Greece.
So solutions to the debt crisis are a step-by-step process made more unnerving by heavily-indebted situations in Spain, Italy and Portugal. But I do have confidence the EU Ministers -- at a slow but steady, reflective approach in concert with the IMF -- will do what is structurally needed to stabilize the debt crisis, boost confidence, and positive growth. This may include some easing of austerity measures that are obviously worsening a multi-year contraction of the Greek and Spanish economies. A few months ago, most European northern nations, Germany included, were indicating a willingness to sacrifice Greece. That has changed as Germany now appears determined to deter a broader eurozone crisis that could be precipitated by a Greek exit.
In contrast, the British would likely decide to leave the eurozone if a referendum were held today. More and more British people feel that the excessive austerity to save the euro and debt-laden nations is creating destructive, destabilizing fragmentation, economic retrogression, and toxic internal politics. Many British see a US of Europe with one currency as simply unrealistic ... unlike the United States which is a country of immigrants providing a far more general cohesiveness. Vastly different EU country cultures and traditions make a cohesive, harmonized EU federal state impossible. So goes much UK public opinion of late.
Interesting European times of critical change on so many fronts! But the eurozone has passed another test of its credibility to take decisions on dire financial issues ... without the US option of printing money through "quantitative easing."
Posted at 10:48 AM in Frank Thomas, Europe, Germany | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Jazz Links
Geoffrey Keezer
Jaime Valle
Lisa Hightower
Gilbert Castellanos
Holly Hofmann
Joe Marillo
Coral MacFarland Thuet
Randy Porter
Duncan Moore
Bob Magnusson
Rob Thorsen
Mike Wofford
Peter Sprague
Jazzconnect.com - jazz musician websites, CD store, jukebox and free MP3s
The Jazz Foundation of America - Helping Musicians In Need
Jerry Jazz Musician, Jerry Jazz Musician
Jazz Museum in Harlem
Jazz | All About Jazz
John Coltrane: One Down, One Up
Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker: Town Hall, New York City, June 22, 1945
Monk and Coltrane: Thelonious Monk and John Coltrane at Carnegie Hall
Best album of 2005 (*****)
Wilhelm Reich: Mass Psychology of Fascism
William Glasser: Positive Addiction
Abraham Maslow: The Psychology of Being
Herbert Marcuse: Eros and Civilization
Power and Personality by Harold D. Laswell
East West Synthesis
Make a donation through Paypal, and I will send you a copy of my book.
Please Donate by Clicking on the Button
The Power is in the Present
Creating a World of Liberty and Justice for All
The Dance of Life in Each of Us
Should Facebook and Twitter Stop Trump's Lies?
CNN Moderators, Alarmed by Cost of Medicare for All, Ignore Price Tag of Endless War
John Lawrence on The Alienated Rut of Tribalism in America
F. Thomas on The Alienated Rut of Tribalism in America
F. Thomas on Another Look at Thomas Piketty's "Law of Inequality"
John on Medicare For All: the Real Deal
F. Thomas on Off the Top of My Head
John on Off the Top of My Head
LEONARD GILMAR on Is Bernie's & Elizabeth's Universal Medicare Plan Better Done In Phases?
F. Thomas on TRUMP'S GRAVE CHARACTER DEFICIENCIES WILL BE HIS DUE DOWNFALL
Hewlett Packard Coupon
Social Choice and Beyond
Dr. Carol Carnes
Don't Throw Me in the Brier Patch!
Education, Careers, Jobs, Employment
Ethics, Morality, Values
Hypocrite Alert
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Lyft and Uber
Manners, Mores
Mortgage Crisis
Neocon Principles
Obama Presidency
Parliamentary System
Politonomics
Preferensism
Public Banking
Range Voting
San Diego Free Press
Social Choice
Tax the Rich
The 1%
The American People
The Constitution Project
The Decent Society
The Federal Government
The Middle Class
The Military Industrial Complex
The Prison System
The Rich
The Role of Government
The Second Amendment
The United Nations
The Universe, Time and Space
The US
Uber and Lyft
Voting Methods
Blogs, Websites I Visit
Student Loan Justice
Range Voting Blog
Medical Trip Info
Robert Reich's Blog
The OB Rag
© California Free Press 2017