One of the events that shaped the life of Howard Zinn was a bombing run he participated in near the end of WWII. He later learned that many hundreds of people were killed in that attack and that it was unnecessary three weeks prior to the end of the war. Military commanders would have known that there was no military need for the attack, but ordered it anyway, possibly for career advancement.
I think Barack Obama at this stage in the Afghan War may be justifiably accused of acting similarly. The war there is widely regarded as unwinnable. The situation is about as bleak as it has ever been in terms of the likelihood of winning a military victory. I am not in the know on such questions. Maybe that assessment is wrong. But if anybody would know it would be Barack Obama. If it's true, what to make of the massive death that the Afghans are being subjected to? Here's a horrifying story about a kill team in Afghanistan that frequently looked for isolated unarmed Afghan civilians to murder. In photos now public these soldiers are shown posing with a 15 year old boy they murdered in cold blood as if he were some sort of hunting trophy. These are isolated incidents to be sure and I know that many of our soldiers do their best to do what is right, but this is the kind of thing that will happen in a war zone. For it to continue under conditions where the leadership knew it was all pointless would be an enormous tragedy.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose this war. Atrocities against Afghans are rampant, as they are in all wars. I personally am unaware of a rationale for the violence in any case. Why do we want to overthrow the Taliban? They didn't attack us. And according to many experts, including RNC Chair Michael Steele, ex CIA officials, the President of the EU (revealed via Wikileaks), Congressman Jim Moran, and others, this war is not winnable. Sustaining a pointless and unwinnable war is nothing short of an outrage.
Monday, March 28, 2011
God Told Noah to Not Worry About Global Warming
It would be one thing if religionists in some obscure country believed that their god would protect them from environmental destruction. But instead it's members of the US Congress and the US is so powerful it may have the fate of the species in its hands.
John Shimkus is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. There's no reason to fret about global warming, he tells us, because God promised never again to destroy the earth with a flood. Well that's a relief. I suppose when Jesus returns and the stars fall to the earth and the moon turns to blood we'll have more to deal with than excess CO2.
These people aren't cynics. They are true believers. They really think it's all a liberal hoax. They are our elected representatives. I think every new tea party candidate in Congress is a global warming denier. And as I continue to talk with Christians I continue to confirm my fears. They really don't care because they really think Jesus will bail them out.
John Shimkus is a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. There's no reason to fret about global warming, he tells us, because God promised never again to destroy the earth with a flood. Well that's a relief. I suppose when Jesus returns and the stars fall to the earth and the moon turns to blood we'll have more to deal with than excess CO2.
These people aren't cynics. They are true believers. They really think it's all a liberal hoax. They are our elected representatives. I think every new tea party candidate in Congress is a global warming denier. And as I continue to talk with Christians I continue to confirm my fears. They really don't care because they really think Jesus will bail them out.
Friday, March 25, 2011
At What Point Do You Call It Tyranny?
When your government is not at all constrained by laws that's tyranny. We all know that wars are to be authorized by Congress. Obama didn't even bother to ask them as he attacked Libya.
Rights of habeus corpus go back hundreds of years, to the Magna Charta. In cases where our government doesn't want to abide by them though these days they are out. What about cruel and unusual punishment? Bradley Manning is being subjected to mind destroying isolation and isn't even convicted yet.
Bush has admitted torturing, which violates laws that are on our books. It's not merely international law that he violated. Seems it doesn't matter. The rules don't apply to top governmental officials. At what point do you call it tyranny?
Rights of habeus corpus go back hundreds of years, to the Magna Charta. In cases where our government doesn't want to abide by them though these days they are out. What about cruel and unusual punishment? Bradley Manning is being subjected to mind destroying isolation and isn't even convicted yet.
Bush has admitted torturing, which violates laws that are on our books. It's not merely international law that he violated. Seems it doesn't matter. The rules don't apply to top governmental officials. At what point do you call it tyranny?
Sharia Law OK Sometimes
At least 13 states apparently don't have the blinders on. They've introduce bills to ban Sharia Law. Of course it's a huge problem in places like Utah and Wyoming where these Muslims are just taking over. You just know that if the right wing started to talk constantly about the looming threat of big purple dinosaurs we'd immediately see frightened Midwestern residents taking action to stop Barney.
The CIA though is grateful for Sharia Law though because it allowed Raymond Davis to escape justice thanks to the clause related to blood money payments to the victim's families. Apparently the victim's families are headed to America.
The CIA though is grateful for Sharia Law though because it allowed Raymond Davis to escape justice thanks to the clause related to blood money payments to the victim's families. Apparently the victim's families are headed to America.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Haiti - Neoliberal Paradise
Haiti is one of the poorest nations in the world and also one where neoliberal programs have been in full swing for a long time. This is something that some want to deny, but I don't know how it can be denied.
In December of 1990 the top two candidates for President in Haiti were a former World Bank official, Marc Bazin, and Jean Bertrand-Aristide. Bazin was the US favored candidate because the World Bank and IMF are the primary implementers of neoliberal policies, the implementation of which is frequently referred to by the term Washington Consensus. Bazin's plans are simple. Cut import restrictions beyond their already non-existent level, reduce tariff's, and variously do all the other things favored by business. These supposedly will be a tremendous benefit for the poor.
Aristide is basically a progressive. He wants to do the very opposite. Rebuild Haiti's industries to where they can be self sufficient again. This means tariffs, taxes, and government that provides services to the poor. Make companies pay social security taxes. Increase minimum wage. There is some info on his policies here.
The assumption was that Bazin would win. He had all the money and all the power. But Haiti shocked the world. Aristide earned 67% of the vote and Bazin got 14%.
But that didn't matter. Haiti's first ever excursion into democracy would be brief. Aristide was immediately overthrown in a coup and Bazin was appointed acting Prime Minister. The US, while verbally objecting, did what it took to give the coup regime legitimacy and sustain it.
In 1994 Clinton allowed Aristide to return, but on conditions. He had to accept the harsh neoliberal regime of the defeated Bazin. Aristide had no choice but to comply, and did so.
The results were predictable. What happened was not unlike what happened to Haitian pig farmers when USAID mandated that they destroy all of their pigs and replace them with Iowa pigs in the early 80's. Haitian rice farmers were pretty efficient and the industry is important to the peasants, just as the Haitian pig industry was a backbone of the economy for many of the nation's poor. But how can they compete with American rice? Haitian rice production languishes as it has been doing for a while. A condition of IMF loans in the 80's was reduction in tariffs on rice and other agricultural products. US subsidized rice imports continue to rise. Peasants are driven off their land and into sweatshops near the slums. This makes sense because they are pursuing their comparative advantage. They need to be in the factories, not producing rice. That's more efficient.
The same is true of poultry. Tyson chicken floods the market with dark meat, which is not wanted by US consumers. Most other countries have functional governments that block that garbage. So Tyson first tried to dump it in Mexico and Canada, but since they have functional governments they were able to prevent it. Not Haiti, with it's non-existent governmental agencies. This destroyed the native Haitian chicken production. It's interesting that even Clinton, who comes out of Arkansas, which is where Tyson headquarters is, has admitted the destructive nature of these policies on Haiti. He doesn't mention Tyson, but only "Arkansas farmers."
All kinds of additional cause and effect relationships related to neoliberal policies within Haiti are discussed here. Ultimately Aristide was removed from power again in 2004 because he did not implement the neoliberal policies fast enough. Today his political party is banned from participating in the elections.
The results are of course a catastrophe. People on the very edge of subsistence. And the poverty exacerbates all the other problems. When an earthquake hits Cuba or Chile there may be a few deaths. When it happens in Haiti it's hundreds of thousands dead. As food prices rise the first riots are in Haiti. Just as the many millions killed in China due to Mao were not necessarily killed because Mao intended it but because he enacted policies that lead to their deaths, so Haitians die due to economic policies imposed on them by force by people, like Clinton, that for some reason don't recognize the destructive nature of these policies until it is too late.
This is neoliberalism. Good for short term profits which benefit the already wealthy. Good even for Americans that can buy really cheap clothes at Wal-Mart. Really bad and really cruel towards the millions of peasants in Haiti that have been denied self determination.
In December of 1990 the top two candidates for President in Haiti were a former World Bank official, Marc Bazin, and Jean Bertrand-Aristide. Bazin was the US favored candidate because the World Bank and IMF are the primary implementers of neoliberal policies, the implementation of which is frequently referred to by the term Washington Consensus. Bazin's plans are simple. Cut import restrictions beyond their already non-existent level, reduce tariff's, and variously do all the other things favored by business. These supposedly will be a tremendous benefit for the poor.
Aristide is basically a progressive. He wants to do the very opposite. Rebuild Haiti's industries to where they can be self sufficient again. This means tariffs, taxes, and government that provides services to the poor. Make companies pay social security taxes. Increase minimum wage. There is some info on his policies here.
The assumption was that Bazin would win. He had all the money and all the power. But Haiti shocked the world. Aristide earned 67% of the vote and Bazin got 14%.
But that didn't matter. Haiti's first ever excursion into democracy would be brief. Aristide was immediately overthrown in a coup and Bazin was appointed acting Prime Minister. The US, while verbally objecting, did what it took to give the coup regime legitimacy and sustain it.
In 1994 Clinton allowed Aristide to return, but on conditions. He had to accept the harsh neoliberal regime of the defeated Bazin. Aristide had no choice but to comply, and did so.
The results were predictable. What happened was not unlike what happened to Haitian pig farmers when USAID mandated that they destroy all of their pigs and replace them with Iowa pigs in the early 80's. Haitian rice farmers were pretty efficient and the industry is important to the peasants, just as the Haitian pig industry was a backbone of the economy for many of the nation's poor. But how can they compete with American rice? Haitian rice production languishes as it has been doing for a while. A condition of IMF loans in the 80's was reduction in tariffs on rice and other agricultural products. US subsidized rice imports continue to rise. Peasants are driven off their land and into sweatshops near the slums. This makes sense because they are pursuing their comparative advantage. They need to be in the factories, not producing rice. That's more efficient.
The same is true of poultry. Tyson chicken floods the market with dark meat, which is not wanted by US consumers. Most other countries have functional governments that block that garbage. So Tyson first tried to dump it in Mexico and Canada, but since they have functional governments they were able to prevent it. Not Haiti, with it's non-existent governmental agencies. This destroyed the native Haitian chicken production. It's interesting that even Clinton, who comes out of Arkansas, which is where Tyson headquarters is, has admitted the destructive nature of these policies on Haiti. He doesn't mention Tyson, but only "Arkansas farmers."
All kinds of additional cause and effect relationships related to neoliberal policies within Haiti are discussed here. Ultimately Aristide was removed from power again in 2004 because he did not implement the neoliberal policies fast enough. Today his political party is banned from participating in the elections.
The results are of course a catastrophe. People on the very edge of subsistence. And the poverty exacerbates all the other problems. When an earthquake hits Cuba or Chile there may be a few deaths. When it happens in Haiti it's hundreds of thousands dead. As food prices rise the first riots are in Haiti. Just as the many millions killed in China due to Mao were not necessarily killed because Mao intended it but because he enacted policies that lead to their deaths, so Haitians die due to economic policies imposed on them by force by people, like Clinton, that for some reason don't recognize the destructive nature of these policies until it is too late.
This is neoliberalism. Good for short term profits which benefit the already wealthy. Good even for Americans that can buy really cheap clothes at Wal-Mart. Really bad and really cruel towards the millions of peasants in Haiti that have been denied self determination.
Income for Fully Employed Males Down Compared to 1970
It's true that the median family income has been rising pretty consistently, though it's rising at a slower rate since the 70's. But how much of that is merely due to the fact that women are entering the workforce?
Elizabeth Warren has the data and it's fitting the pattern of the post Bretton Woods stagnation. She offered a lecture called "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class" and she compiles some extremely informative data. I wish I could find the slides themselves and can't seem to, but I'll provide a time stamped link to the portion in the Youtube clip that shows one of the slides in the video.
And here it is. Median income for married couples and also for fully employed males from 1970 to 2005. Family income is up. But the median fully employed male is actually earning $800 less than his father did a generation ago. That despite the staggering gains in productivity that have occurred since that time.
Here's another interesting fact. What are Americans doing with the extra money that they have with the two income earners? Buying fancy clothes? Buying expensive cars and homes? Buying all kinds of cool electronics? The savings rate is down dramatically. Revolving debt (basically credit card debt) is up. Is it because Americans are irresponsible?
The data is surprising. Americans are spending 32% less on clothes. Food, including eating out, bottled water, etc is down 18%. Appliances? Down 52%. Per car costs? Down 24%. Electronics spending is up of course. A mere $300/yr it went up, which is not a lot. On net typical consumption went down. A few things went up. Dog food. Alcohol. But overall in terms of ordinary consumption costs are dropping.
So what's going on? Where is spending rising? Take an ordinary 3 bedroom 1 bath house. 76% more expensive today. Mortgage rates are down, but housing costs were up. The median house grew. From 5.8 rooms to 6.1 rooms. And the median family did pick up either a second bathroom or a third bedroom, but not both. That's counter intuitive because we've all seen the new houses being built. They are huge. But what that tells you is the new housing market had shifted in service to more wealthy people, not entry level earners.
What about health insurance? Warren looked specifically at healthy families with an employer provided health insurance plan. So this is skewed towards the more fortunate people but it allows an apples to apples comparison. The family pays 74% more.
Car costs are up 52%. Per car costs are down, but the median family has gone from being 1 income to 2 income and thus has gone from being a 1 car family to a 2 car family.
Child care is a new expense picked up by the two income family that wasn't there before, so that's a large addition.
Finally the tax rate has gone up about 25%. We do have progressive taxation, which means the first dollar of the second earner is taxed after the last dollar of the first earner, so that means the tax rate for the family unit has increased.
With regards to these 5 major costs, notice that they are kind of fixed. I mean, you don't have to buy clothes every month, or appliances. You need food but it's possible to eat cheaper if you like. But there's no backing off on a mortgage, health care, day care, taxes, and car payments. Month in and month out it's kind of fixed.
Family income is up. But when this two income family has actually paid down their fixed expenses for the month we reach a startling realization. They actually have less money available than the single income family had in 1970. Why did savings drop from about 11% to about zero? Why is credit card debt up? People have less available in terms of flexible expenditures. That's the deregulated, union busting, tax cutting miracle that we've experienced over the last 35 years.
Elizabeth Warren has the data and it's fitting the pattern of the post Bretton Woods stagnation. She offered a lecture called "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class" and she compiles some extremely informative data. I wish I could find the slides themselves and can't seem to, but I'll provide a time stamped link to the portion in the Youtube clip that shows one of the slides in the video.
And here it is. Median income for married couples and also for fully employed males from 1970 to 2005. Family income is up. But the median fully employed male is actually earning $800 less than his father did a generation ago. That despite the staggering gains in productivity that have occurred since that time.
Here's another interesting fact. What are Americans doing with the extra money that they have with the two income earners? Buying fancy clothes? Buying expensive cars and homes? Buying all kinds of cool electronics? The savings rate is down dramatically. Revolving debt (basically credit card debt) is up. Is it because Americans are irresponsible?
The data is surprising. Americans are spending 32% less on clothes. Food, including eating out, bottled water, etc is down 18%. Appliances? Down 52%. Per car costs? Down 24%. Electronics spending is up of course. A mere $300/yr it went up, which is not a lot. On net typical consumption went down. A few things went up. Dog food. Alcohol. But overall in terms of ordinary consumption costs are dropping.
So what's going on? Where is spending rising? Take an ordinary 3 bedroom 1 bath house. 76% more expensive today. Mortgage rates are down, but housing costs were up. The median house grew. From 5.8 rooms to 6.1 rooms. And the median family did pick up either a second bathroom or a third bedroom, but not both. That's counter intuitive because we've all seen the new houses being built. They are huge. But what that tells you is the new housing market had shifted in service to more wealthy people, not entry level earners.
What about health insurance? Warren looked specifically at healthy families with an employer provided health insurance plan. So this is skewed towards the more fortunate people but it allows an apples to apples comparison. The family pays 74% more.
Car costs are up 52%. Per car costs are down, but the median family has gone from being 1 income to 2 income and thus has gone from being a 1 car family to a 2 car family.
Child care is a new expense picked up by the two income family that wasn't there before, so that's a large addition.
Finally the tax rate has gone up about 25%. We do have progressive taxation, which means the first dollar of the second earner is taxed after the last dollar of the first earner, so that means the tax rate for the family unit has increased.
With regards to these 5 major costs, notice that they are kind of fixed. I mean, you don't have to buy clothes every month, or appliances. You need food but it's possible to eat cheaper if you like. But there's no backing off on a mortgage, health care, day care, taxes, and car payments. Month in and month out it's kind of fixed.
Family income is up. But when this two income family has actually paid down their fixed expenses for the month we reach a startling realization. They actually have less money available than the single income family had in 1970. Why did savings drop from about 11% to about zero? Why is credit card debt up? People have less available in terms of flexible expenditures. That's the deregulated, union busting, tax cutting miracle that we've experienced over the last 35 years.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Solutions for Third World Countries and Neoliberalism
What I would suggest to my right wing friends is that powerful countries and corporations follow a particular pattern of profit maximization in third world nations that sustains those nations in an impoverished condition. That strategy is as follows.
First you displace local production with cheap products, often produced with state subsidy. So an example would be Mexican corn growers. These farmers were fairly efficient, but they can't compete with US subsidized agri-business. Flood the market with cheap corn and the farmers go out of business.
Bankrupt farmers are easily driven off their land and into slums in large cities. In those cities you set up US owned production facilities. The labor pool, which has ballooned due to the displacement and includes desperate people that are near starvation, will produce excellent low labor rates.
Further work with the government to retain weak labor laws. This means safety or minimum wage laws are constructed so as to maximize profit. Unionization is easily resisted with extremely desperate and weak people. Again, this maximizes profits.
Now that the conditions are right, talk about how free trade is great. Talk about how it would be immoral to take the private property of others. Talk about rugged individualism and standing on your own. It's wrong to take what you haven't earned. The owners of the Panasonic factory (stockholders) worked hard, saved their money, bought the stock, and so now you must prove your value to them if you expect to get additional compensation. Want more wages? Do more work.
There's nothing free market about this methodology until you get to the very final stages. The factory relies on automation and mass production techniques developed for WWII by state subsidy. The shipping methods (delivering the product from Mexico to the US) was likewise developed for the war. The shipping occurs on an interstate highway system that was developed and financed by the public. Of course computers are used to design the product as were the factory tools. Computer development was funded by the state in the early R&D stages. The corn used to drive the farmers off the land was subsidized by the state. Now we're at the final stages of this process that maximizes profits for Panasonic and in comes the moralizing. Private property must be respected. Your wage must be set by the market. If you want to improve your condition you must do it yourself.
Free markets may or may not be great. We'll never know because they've never been tried and probably never will be tried. What we are faced with in places like Mexico and Haiti is so called free markets are very selectively applied, and they've created unimaginable poverty.
So my question is, what is the solution for Haiti today? Imagine that someone was able to do to you what our government has done to Haitians. Suppose they take everything of value that you have. Suppose somehow they could wipe your brain and take away your education, which for most of us in the US is the primary resource we use to earn a living. When they had done that to you and most of everyone else they told you that you could compete with others to be a servant in their mansion. Millions of starving people would drive the price of that work down. The rest are left with nothing. How is it possible to make this situation right?
Free trade at the very end in this scenario would not help us. What would help is violation of certain assertions about the sanctity of private property rights. That would be obvious to us as we stood outside the owner's mansions and tried to scrape enough food together to feed our families. Listening to the owners moralize and talk about theoretically possible solutions that have no chance of being implemented would do nothing but distract from the serious nature of the present problem.
First you displace local production with cheap products, often produced with state subsidy. So an example would be Mexican corn growers. These farmers were fairly efficient, but they can't compete with US subsidized agri-business. Flood the market with cheap corn and the farmers go out of business.
Bankrupt farmers are easily driven off their land and into slums in large cities. In those cities you set up US owned production facilities. The labor pool, which has ballooned due to the displacement and includes desperate people that are near starvation, will produce excellent low labor rates.
Further work with the government to retain weak labor laws. This means safety or minimum wage laws are constructed so as to maximize profit. Unionization is easily resisted with extremely desperate and weak people. Again, this maximizes profits.
Now that the conditions are right, talk about how free trade is great. Talk about how it would be immoral to take the private property of others. Talk about rugged individualism and standing on your own. It's wrong to take what you haven't earned. The owners of the Panasonic factory (stockholders) worked hard, saved their money, bought the stock, and so now you must prove your value to them if you expect to get additional compensation. Want more wages? Do more work.
There's nothing free market about this methodology until you get to the very final stages. The factory relies on automation and mass production techniques developed for WWII by state subsidy. The shipping methods (delivering the product from Mexico to the US) was likewise developed for the war. The shipping occurs on an interstate highway system that was developed and financed by the public. Of course computers are used to design the product as were the factory tools. Computer development was funded by the state in the early R&D stages. The corn used to drive the farmers off the land was subsidized by the state. Now we're at the final stages of this process that maximizes profits for Panasonic and in comes the moralizing. Private property must be respected. Your wage must be set by the market. If you want to improve your condition you must do it yourself.
Free markets may or may not be great. We'll never know because they've never been tried and probably never will be tried. What we are faced with in places like Mexico and Haiti is so called free markets are very selectively applied, and they've created unimaginable poverty.
So my question is, what is the solution for Haiti today? Imagine that someone was able to do to you what our government has done to Haitians. Suppose they take everything of value that you have. Suppose somehow they could wipe your brain and take away your education, which for most of us in the US is the primary resource we use to earn a living. When they had done that to you and most of everyone else they told you that you could compete with others to be a servant in their mansion. Millions of starving people would drive the price of that work down. The rest are left with nothing. How is it possible to make this situation right?
Free trade at the very end in this scenario would not help us. What would help is violation of certain assertions about the sanctity of private property rights. That would be obvious to us as we stood outside the owner's mansions and tried to scrape enough food together to feed our families. Listening to the owners moralize and talk about theoretically possible solutions that have no chance of being implemented would do nothing but distract from the serious nature of the present problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)