TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Aug 23, 2019
CAPITALISM REPRESENTED ITSELF AS FREEING SERFS, SLAVES, ETC. FREEDOM BECAME CAPITALISM'S SELF-CELEBRATION WHICH IT LARGELY REMAINS. YET THE REALITY OF CAPITALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS CELEBRATORY SELF-IMAGE. THE MASS OF EMPLOYEES ARE NOT FREE INSIDE CAPITALIST ENTERPRISES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR LIVES (E.G., WHAT THE ENTERPRISE WILL PRODUCE, WHAT TECHNOLOGY IT WILL USE, WHERE PRODUCTION WILL OCCUR, AND WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE PROFIT WORKERS' EFFORTS HELP TO PRODUCE). IN THEIR EXCLUSION FROM SUCH DECISIONS, MODERN CAPITALISM'S EMPLOYEES RESEMBLE SLAVES AND SERFS. YES, PARLIAMENTS, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC. HAVE ACCOMPANIED CAPITALISM - AN ADVANCE OVER SERFDOM AND SLAVERY. YET EVEN THAT ADVANCE HAS BEEN LARGELY UNDERMINED BY THE INFLUENCE OF THE HIGHLY UNEQUALLY DISTRIBUTED WEALTH AND INCOME THAT CAPITALISM HAS EVERYWHERE GENERATED.
RICHARD D. WOLFF
---------------------------------------------------------
The rapacity of contemporary capitalism is enabled by the weakness,
dishonesty, and cowardice of the flaccid and collaborationist left.
Luciana Bohne
--------------------------------------------------------
Socialism for the Rich, Capitalism for the Poor
Noam Chomsky: Consider this: Every time there is a crisis, the taxpayer is called on to bail out the banks and the major financial institutions. If you had a real capitalist economy in place, that would not be happening. Capitalists who made risky investments and failed would be wiped out. But the rich and powerful do not want a capitalist system. They want to be able to run the nanny state so when they are in trouble the taxpayer will bail them out. The conventional phrase is "too big to fail."
The IMF did an interesting study a few years ago on profits of the big US banks. It attributed most of them to the many advantages that come from the implicit government insurance policy -- not just the featured bailouts, but access to cheap credit and much else -- including things the IMF researchers didn't consider, like the incentive to undertake risky transactions, hence highly profitable in the short term, and if anything goes wrong, there's always the taxpayer. Bloomberg Businessweek estimated the implicit taxpayer subsidy at over $80 billion per year.
-----------------------------------------------
“As soon as you're born they make you feel small
By giving you no time instead of it all
'Til the pain is so big you feel nothing at all…
Keep you doped with religion, and sex, and T.V.
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see…”
— John Lennon, “Working Class Hero
The reason we have poverty is that we have no imagination. There are a great many people accumulating what they think is vast wealth, but it's only money... they don't know how to enjoy it, because they have no imagination.
alan watts
articles
*CEOs are starting to realize that greed isn’t so good after all
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Billionaires whine about paying taxes in reality-challenged Wall Street Journal op-ed
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*What Uber and the Koch Brothers Have in Common: A Plan to Destroy Public Transit
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*People kill people but capitalism makes it easy and profitable around the world
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The World’s Wealthiest Family Gets $4 Million Richer Every Hour
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Chase plans to screw its credit card holders next week. Here’s how to stop them from screwing you.(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Millions of US taxpayers’ money invested in private prison firms
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*David Cay Johnston: The key way the super rich avoid taxes — and a simple way to close their tax loopholes once and for all(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Financial Industry Preys on 401(k) Fees. It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way.
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*GrubHub is trying to get its grubby paws into mom-and-pop restaurants' pockets
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*America’s biggest economic problem isn’t China
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Walmart got a $2.2 billion tax cut. Now it's laying off workers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Here are 4 ways unrestrained crony capitalism is making Americans’ lives miserable
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Profit over safety? Boeing under fire over 737 Max crashes as families demand answers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Evidence shows a drug already on the market might treat Alzheimer’s, but the company hid the data(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Challenging Corporate Investment in Anti-Abortion States
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s Trade War with China Benefits Big Corporations—Not Ordinary Workers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Here’s why Capitalism vs Socialism is a false choice
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Six people who prove capitalism is broken in America
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Here’s the big problem with American capitalism
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*The Normalization of Corruption
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*5 BIG MYTHS SOLD BY THE DEFENDERS OF CAPITALISM(excerpt below)
*CAPITALISM: THE NIGHTMARE(excerpt below)
*funnies and charts(below)
*THIS INFOGRAPHIC SHOWS HOW ONLY 10 COMPANIES CONTROL ALL THE WORLD’S BRANDS(ARTICLE BELOW)
The reality of capitalism
...Magical thinking is not limited to the beliefs and practices of pre-modern cultures. It defines the ideology of capitalism. Quotas and projected sales can always be met. Profits can always be raised. Growth is inevitable. The impossible is always possible. Human societies, if they bow before the dictates of the marketplace, will be ushered into capitalist paradise. It is only a question of having the right attitude and the right technique. When capitalism thrives, we are assured, we thrive. The merging of the self with the capitalist collective has robbed us of our agency, creativity, capacity for self-reflection and moral autonomy. We define our worth not by our independence or our character but by the material standards set by capitalism—personal wealth, brands, status and career advancement. We are molded into a compliant and repressed collective. This mass conformity is characteristic of totalitarian and authoritarian states. It is the Disneyfication of America, the land of eternally happy thoughts and positive attitudes. And when magical thinking does not work, we are told, and often accept, that we are the problem. We must have more faith. We must envision what we want. We must try harder. The system is never to blame. We failed it. It did not fail us...
Reign of Idiots By Chris Hedges - apr 30, 2017
fundamentals of american capitalism
*always promote patriotism and american exceptionalism so the stupid public will think you are on their side
*nothing is more important than maximizing profits
*Never pass on opportunities to defraud CUSTOMERS
*when you get caught cheating on your taxes, make sure you have bribed enough government officials to minimize damage.
*maintain lobbyists, front groups, think tanks, etc. to lie and cover-up your corporate corruption.
*develop schemes to steal employee wages
*Maximize tax avoidance strategies
*hire part-time workers and deny them benefits
*always look to outsource labor to corrupt 3rd world countries to reduce labor costs
*sell mediocre products that never perform as advertised
*once your company is caught in scandal, mount an ad campaign portraying yourself as a wholesome organiZation
*never acknowledge guilt once your company is fined or sued
*hire lobbyist to bribe local politicians
*always scheme to avoid as many government regulations as possible
*make sure to defeat union organizing
*make sure that employees bare most of the cost of benefit packages
*underfund employees' pension plans
*make sure you can steal pension fund money through bankruptcy
*re-market and re-package old products as new and raise the price
exposing the bullshit!!!
CEOs are starting to realize that greed isn’t so good after all
August 23, 2019
By Tom Conway, Independent Media Institute - Commentary - Raw Story
Gordon Gekko found religion this week. Gekko, the lead in the 1987 movie “Wall Street” about capitalism gone corruptly amok, is most famous for his phrase: “greed is good.”
On Monday, real-world Gekkos--181 corporate CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable—signed a pledge saying they think greed isn’t so good, after all.
Instead of bowing at the altar of larger corporate profits to hand out to executives and shareholders, these CEOs declared that corporations must demonstrate some reverence for other stakeholders as well: workers, customers, suppliers, communities and the environment.
If corporations actually devoted themselves to achieving this goal, it would be a return to the decades of the 20th century between 1930 and 1970 when many corporations did, in fact, abide by these values. The American middle class was more robust then, as pay rose in tandem with productivity. Unions held a stronger position in the economy. And the disparity between CEO and worker pay was dramatically smaller. But believing the country will revert to those economic times without force is naïve. The Roundtable’s announcement is nothing but a stunt.
Though the 181 Roundtable CEOs signed the stakeholder capitalism document, practicing the principles is an entirely different thing. And not even every member of the Business Roundtable came around and endorsed the document. The “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” says those who did sign “share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.” They underlined the word all. And they wrote in the present tense, as if they were already operating their corporations this way.
That, frankly, is ridiculous.
Take, for example, these signers of the document: Amazon, General Motors, Duke Energy, Chevron and Honeywell. In 2018, they not only paid no taxes, they demanded taxpayers give them money.
Or take these signers: Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and McKesson. They all face lawsuits alleging they contributed to the opioid crisis that still kills 40 Americans every day.
Or how about signatory National Gypsum, one of four companies that agreed to pay $190 million to settle a price fixing case?
And there’s signer Duke Energy, which paid $102 million in fines and restitution after pleading guilty to polluting 70 miles of the Dan River.
Among the participants is General Motors, which benefited from the U.S. taxpayer bailout, and is now shutting down two American factories and plans to close three more in North America and lay off a total of 14,000 workers even as it expands production in Mexico. And there’s United Technologies, which depends on taxpayer dollars as a massive defense contractor, but which closed a plant in Indiana and partially closed another, Carrier, and sent the work to Mexico.
Also on the list of signatories is Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, all of which required bailout money from American taxpayers. JPMorgan Chase is led by Jamie Dimon, chairman of the Business Roundtable and evangelist for the corporate focus change.
It’s just great that 181 of America’s richest CEOs attained civic enlightenment. But their statement on the purpose of corporations came with absolutely no concomitant announcements of change.
Jamie Dimon could have led the way easily. He could, for example, end the bank’s exorbitant overdraft fees, which can rise to $102 a day. These fees, generally squeezed out of the bank’s poorest account holders, rake in $2 billion a year for JPMorgan Chase.
Dimon could raise the wages of the bank’s workers, which seems a natural after U.S. Rep. Katie Porter grilled him at a congressional hearing about a JPMorgan Chase worker paid so little that she runs a $567 deficit each month.
“I’m wholly sympathetic,” Dimon told Rep. Porter about the worker’s plight.
“She’s short $567, what would you suggest she do?” the lawmaker asked.
“I don’t know, I’d have to think about that,” Dimon said.
That was in April. The CEO who pulled down $31 million last year has had four months to think about it. How long does it take to figure out that tellers might be able to cover their bills if CEO pay had not grown 940 percent since 1978 while worker pay rose only a paltry 12 percent? How long does it take to figure out that the solution is for Dimon to slash his own pay and increase that of tellers?
Similarly, on the very day that the Business Roundtable released the corporate pledge that featured Boeing CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg’s name, federal investigators determined there was sufficient merit to pursue nine unfair labor practice charges against the corporation.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) represents Boeing workers in Washington and Oregon, and workers there receive family-supportive wages and benefits.
But Boeing has fought its South Carolina workers’ attempts to unionize. A group of about 176 technicians in South Carolina voted last year to join the IAM, but Boeing is trying to overturn that election and now faces charges that it illegally fired five workers in retaliation for their support of the union.
If Muilenburg, whose compensation last year was $30 million, really believes Boeing’s workers are among the stakeholders to which the corporation has a “fundamental commitment,” he could have ended this dispute before the unfair labor practice charges were filed by rehiring the fired workers, recognizing the IAM and bargaining in good faith with the union.
Jotting down a bunch of words on paper with absolutely no accountability for implementing them is a lot easier than complying with mandates from Congress.
And right now, Congress is striking fear in the hearts of these CEOs. That’s part of what prompted this lovefest with customers and communities and employees. This Business Roundtable document was a preemptive strike intended to prevent Congress from actually requiring decent corporate citizenship. Legislation to place workers on the boards of directors of large corporations has been introduced, and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown sponsored legislation to give workers $1 for every $1 million corporations spend on stock buybacks, a maneuver that greatly benefits shareholders. If Brown’s proposal had been law last year, it would have put $20,000 in the bank accounts of every JPMorgan Chase worker.
CEOs can feel that cold breeze on their necks. Winter is coming, and not just in the form of legislation. There may be a downturn or possibly a recession on the horizon. And workers are restless already. They didn’t benefit from that giant tax break corporations demanded and got, the tax break that ballooned the national debt and deficit. Workers’ wages have been virtually flat for decades, while the rich continually got richer and richer. Young people are staggering under the burden of college debt and low-paid work, and they’ve told pollsters they want real change.
A whole crew of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president have offered programs to support labor unions and control corporate greed. They range from proposals to strengthen collective bargaining to those prohibiting corporations from buying back their stock unless they meet conditions like paying all workers at least $15 an hour and limiting executive compensation.
The Business Roundtable has gone back and forth on the duties of a corporation ever since University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman asserted in 1970 that despite the fact that society grants corporations benefits like limited legal liability for shareholders, corporations have absolutely no responsibilities to society.
Friedman wrote, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” The Roundtable embraced this greed is good philosophy is 1997, stating, “the principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners.”
Now, according to the Roundtable’s announcement on Monday, CEOs have experienced another conversion and plan a revival of 1950s corporate values. That assertion without action just doesn’t cut it. Real transformation is essential. And that will only happen if laws change to enable unions to grow and flourish again and bring about real change for working Americans because Gekko and his ilk still believe in their cold black heart of hearts that greed is good.
On Monday, real-world Gekkos--181 corporate CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable—signed a pledge saying they think greed isn’t so good, after all.
Instead of bowing at the altar of larger corporate profits to hand out to executives and shareholders, these CEOs declared that corporations must demonstrate some reverence for other stakeholders as well: workers, customers, suppliers, communities and the environment.
If corporations actually devoted themselves to achieving this goal, it would be a return to the decades of the 20th century between 1930 and 1970 when many corporations did, in fact, abide by these values. The American middle class was more robust then, as pay rose in tandem with productivity. Unions held a stronger position in the economy. And the disparity between CEO and worker pay was dramatically smaller. But believing the country will revert to those economic times without force is naïve. The Roundtable’s announcement is nothing but a stunt.
Though the 181 Roundtable CEOs signed the stakeholder capitalism document, practicing the principles is an entirely different thing. And not even every member of the Business Roundtable came around and endorsed the document. The “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” says those who did sign “share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders.” They underlined the word all. And they wrote in the present tense, as if they were already operating their corporations this way.
That, frankly, is ridiculous.
Take, for example, these signers of the document: Amazon, General Motors, Duke Energy, Chevron and Honeywell. In 2018, they not only paid no taxes, they demanded taxpayers give them money.
Or take these signers: Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and McKesson. They all face lawsuits alleging they contributed to the opioid crisis that still kills 40 Americans every day.
Or how about signatory National Gypsum, one of four companies that agreed to pay $190 million to settle a price fixing case?
And there’s signer Duke Energy, which paid $102 million in fines and restitution after pleading guilty to polluting 70 miles of the Dan River.
Among the participants is General Motors, which benefited from the U.S. taxpayer bailout, and is now shutting down two American factories and plans to close three more in North America and lay off a total of 14,000 workers even as it expands production in Mexico. And there’s United Technologies, which depends on taxpayer dollars as a massive defense contractor, but which closed a plant in Indiana and partially closed another, Carrier, and sent the work to Mexico.
Also on the list of signatories is Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, all of which required bailout money from American taxpayers. JPMorgan Chase is led by Jamie Dimon, chairman of the Business Roundtable and evangelist for the corporate focus change.
It’s just great that 181 of America’s richest CEOs attained civic enlightenment. But their statement on the purpose of corporations came with absolutely no concomitant announcements of change.
Jamie Dimon could have led the way easily. He could, for example, end the bank’s exorbitant overdraft fees, which can rise to $102 a day. These fees, generally squeezed out of the bank’s poorest account holders, rake in $2 billion a year for JPMorgan Chase.
Dimon could raise the wages of the bank’s workers, which seems a natural after U.S. Rep. Katie Porter grilled him at a congressional hearing about a JPMorgan Chase worker paid so little that she runs a $567 deficit each month.
“I’m wholly sympathetic,” Dimon told Rep. Porter about the worker’s plight.
“She’s short $567, what would you suggest she do?” the lawmaker asked.
“I don’t know, I’d have to think about that,” Dimon said.
That was in April. The CEO who pulled down $31 million last year has had four months to think about it. How long does it take to figure out that tellers might be able to cover their bills if CEO pay had not grown 940 percent since 1978 while worker pay rose only a paltry 12 percent? How long does it take to figure out that the solution is for Dimon to slash his own pay and increase that of tellers?
Similarly, on the very day that the Business Roundtable released the corporate pledge that featured Boeing CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg’s name, federal investigators determined there was sufficient merit to pursue nine unfair labor practice charges against the corporation.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) represents Boeing workers in Washington and Oregon, and workers there receive family-supportive wages and benefits.
But Boeing has fought its South Carolina workers’ attempts to unionize. A group of about 176 technicians in South Carolina voted last year to join the IAM, but Boeing is trying to overturn that election and now faces charges that it illegally fired five workers in retaliation for their support of the union.
If Muilenburg, whose compensation last year was $30 million, really believes Boeing’s workers are among the stakeholders to which the corporation has a “fundamental commitment,” he could have ended this dispute before the unfair labor practice charges were filed by rehiring the fired workers, recognizing the IAM and bargaining in good faith with the union.
Jotting down a bunch of words on paper with absolutely no accountability for implementing them is a lot easier than complying with mandates from Congress.
And right now, Congress is striking fear in the hearts of these CEOs. That’s part of what prompted this lovefest with customers and communities and employees. This Business Roundtable document was a preemptive strike intended to prevent Congress from actually requiring decent corporate citizenship. Legislation to place workers on the boards of directors of large corporations has been introduced, and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown sponsored legislation to give workers $1 for every $1 million corporations spend on stock buybacks, a maneuver that greatly benefits shareholders. If Brown’s proposal had been law last year, it would have put $20,000 in the bank accounts of every JPMorgan Chase worker.
CEOs can feel that cold breeze on their necks. Winter is coming, and not just in the form of legislation. There may be a downturn or possibly a recession on the horizon. And workers are restless already. They didn’t benefit from that giant tax break corporations demanded and got, the tax break that ballooned the national debt and deficit. Workers’ wages have been virtually flat for decades, while the rich continually got richer and richer. Young people are staggering under the burden of college debt and low-paid work, and they’ve told pollsters they want real change.
A whole crew of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president have offered programs to support labor unions and control corporate greed. They range from proposals to strengthen collective bargaining to those prohibiting corporations from buying back their stock unless they meet conditions like paying all workers at least $15 an hour and limiting executive compensation.
The Business Roundtable has gone back and forth on the duties of a corporation ever since University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman asserted in 1970 that despite the fact that society grants corporations benefits like limited legal liability for shareholders, corporations have absolutely no responsibilities to society.
Friedman wrote, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” The Roundtable embraced this greed is good philosophy is 1997, stating, “the principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners.”
Now, according to the Roundtable’s announcement on Monday, CEOs have experienced another conversion and plan a revival of 1950s corporate values. That assertion without action just doesn’t cut it. Real transformation is essential. And that will only happen if laws change to enable unions to grow and flourish again and bring about real change for working Americans because Gekko and his ilk still believe in their cold black heart of hearts that greed is good.
Greed is God!!
Billionaires whine about paying taxes in reality-challenged Wall Street Journal op-ed
August 15, 2019
By Brad Reed - Raw Story
Billionaires Bernie Marcus and John Catsimatidis this week took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to complain about having to pay taxes on the grounds that they know how to spend their money far better than the government does, and should thus be left alone so they can create wealth.
Marcus, who is the founder of home goods retailer Home Depot, and Catsimatidis, who is a supermarket magnate based in New York, both believe that it would be deeply wrong for them to pay higher taxes because making money is the single most patriotic thing they do as American citizens.
“We know we can spend our dollars more wisely, and in ways that benefit our communities and our country, than politicians can,” they write. “We continually plow most of our earnings back into the enterprises and charities we support, built, own or operate. Our businesses in particular are our legacies, and our greatest passion is to ensure that they keep growing and innovating for decades beyond our lifetimes. Every additional dollar the government takes from us is a dollar less for this critical process of expanding America’s wealth and job-creating businesses.”
In the case of Marcus’s Home Depot, however, “plowing” earnings back into the company often takes the form of share buybacks that benefit investors but do not raise wages for workers.
As CNBC reported earlier this year, Home Depot announced a massive $15 billion buyback of shares that was so large that it earned the company the title of a “Buyback Monster.”
Given that buybacks don’t put more money into workers’ salaries or research and development, they have become an easy target for politicians who attack them as drivers of wealth inequality. Even conservatives like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) now want to end tax advantages for stock buybacks on the ground that “we have too often failed to make the well-being of working Americans the terms for market success.”
Marcus’s claim that his business is providing prosperity for its employees is also dubious given Home Depot’s long history of union busting, which prevents employees from bargaining for higher pay.
Home Depot has also been the subject of multiple class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of its workers, including a $2.6 million settlement over claims that the company failed to provide adequate seating to its workers, and a $10 million settlement for not properly training its employees to handle hazardous waste, which led to a fire breaking out in a store in Marina del Rey, California.
Elsewhere in the editorial, the billionaires say that taxing them would mean they would not be able to give as much money to charity. But as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik argues, one major reason why billionaires give to charity is because it helps them score further tax reductions.
Additionally, all of this charitable giving on behalf of the wealthy has not fixed problems such as contaminated pipes in Flint, Michigan, nor the continuously crumbling roads and bridges that blanket the American heartland.
Read the entire editorial at this link.
Marcus, who is the founder of home goods retailer Home Depot, and Catsimatidis, who is a supermarket magnate based in New York, both believe that it would be deeply wrong for them to pay higher taxes because making money is the single most patriotic thing they do as American citizens.
“We know we can spend our dollars more wisely, and in ways that benefit our communities and our country, than politicians can,” they write. “We continually plow most of our earnings back into the enterprises and charities we support, built, own or operate. Our businesses in particular are our legacies, and our greatest passion is to ensure that they keep growing and innovating for decades beyond our lifetimes. Every additional dollar the government takes from us is a dollar less for this critical process of expanding America’s wealth and job-creating businesses.”
In the case of Marcus’s Home Depot, however, “plowing” earnings back into the company often takes the form of share buybacks that benefit investors but do not raise wages for workers.
As CNBC reported earlier this year, Home Depot announced a massive $15 billion buyback of shares that was so large that it earned the company the title of a “Buyback Monster.”
Given that buybacks don’t put more money into workers’ salaries or research and development, they have become an easy target for politicians who attack them as drivers of wealth inequality. Even conservatives like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) now want to end tax advantages for stock buybacks on the ground that “we have too often failed to make the well-being of working Americans the terms for market success.”
Marcus’s claim that his business is providing prosperity for its employees is also dubious given Home Depot’s long history of union busting, which prevents employees from bargaining for higher pay.
Home Depot has also been the subject of multiple class-action lawsuits filed on behalf of its workers, including a $2.6 million settlement over claims that the company failed to provide adequate seating to its workers, and a $10 million settlement for not properly training its employees to handle hazardous waste, which led to a fire breaking out in a store in Marina del Rey, California.
Elsewhere in the editorial, the billionaires say that taxing them would mean they would not be able to give as much money to charity. But as Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik argues, one major reason why billionaires give to charity is because it helps them score further tax reductions.
Additionally, all of this charitable giving on behalf of the wealthy has not fixed problems such as contaminated pipes in Flint, Michigan, nor the continuously crumbling roads and bridges that blanket the American heartland.
Read the entire editorial at this link.
What Uber and the Koch Brothers Have in Common: A Plan to Destroy Public Transit
BY JEREMY MOHLER - In These Times
8/13/19
At first glance, the rideshare corporation Uber couldn’t appear more different than conservative oil-mogul billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch. Uber has hired numerous former Democratic Party campaign managers and lobbyists and the company’s CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, has publicly criticized the Trump administration, including over the travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries. The Kochs, meanwhile, have gained a reputation for bankrolling the Republican Party.
Yet Uber—the Silicon Valley startup-gone-public—shares at least one goal with the most prominent funders of modern conservatism: the destruction of America’s public transit.
While polarization in the United States is on the rise when it comes to metrics like party affiliation and media consumption, there’s a frightening level of agreement in corporate America, regardless of party loyalty. Examining where both Uber and the Koch brothers agree exposes the consensus hiding beneath the surface of our current political gridlock. Yes, rideshare corporations and oil tycoons share a financial interest in a car-centric future. But both also lobby for corporate tax cuts, deregulation and fewer rights and protections for workers. Both also envision a society with weakened or nonexistent public goods, part of a 40-year privatization trend that’s touched everything from public education to water access. From this vantage point, government is, in fact, getting things done and solving problems—just for corporate America rather than poor and working people.
A close look at the growing war on public transit reveals the planks of this corporate consensus.
In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Uber’s executives claim to see a “massive market opportunity” in the estimated 4.4 trillion miles traveled each year by people using public transit across 175 countries. The company continues to heavily subsidize per-ride costs to inflate its value to investors and undercut existing options, despite bleeding billions of dollars. “Uber is effectively a middleman for a money transfer from venture-capital (VC) firms to consumers,” writes James P. Sutton in National Review. Simply put, effectively supplanting the taxi industry wasn’t enough: Uber plans on undercutting public transit to finally turn a profit.
For their part, the Koch brothers are funneling money to their political action committee (PAC), Americans for Prosperity, to kill proposed public transit projects nationwide. Last year, they led the charge in stopping a popular $5.4 billion transit plan in Nashville, Tennessee, that had even been backed by a coalition of the city’s business community. The Kochs have funded similar anti-public transit efforts in Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah and other states.
Their stated rationale, of course, is lower taxes. Americans for Prosperity tried to kill a 2017 gas-tax plan in Indiana meant to raise a billion dollars to invest in buses and infrastructure, even though it was introduced by the state’s GOP-led House of Representatives. Cutting taxes is the Koch brothers’ bread and butter. They contributed $20 million to help pass the Trump tax plan, which slashed taxes for their primary business, Koch Industries, by as much as $1.4 billion a year.
Uber has joined the Koch brothers on this libertarian crusade, using a corporate shell game to avoid paying billions in taxes and lobbying against taxes and fees on rides across the globe.
The corporate behemoths also share a stated goal of “cutting red tape.” The Koch brothers bankrolled the founding of the nation’s first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, which sees “limited government,” i.e., deregulation, as a key ingredient of freedom. They also funded the now-defunct Freedom Partners, which developed a road map that shaped the early days of the Trump administration’s deregulatory policy agenda. Uber, together with its main competitor Lyft, boasted more lobbyists in 2016 than Amazon, Microsoft and Walmart combined. As of June 2018, the two corporations had convinced 41 state legislatures and many local governments to pass legislation protecting them from regulation.
Most importantly, both the Koch brothers and Uber understand that their freedom depends on taking freedom away from working people. Uber has spent generously on fighting to ensure its drivers maintain their precarious status as independent contractors. The company has also invested heavily in technology that would get rid of drivers altogether, including driverless cars. The Koch brothers’ anti-worker views date back much further, all the way to the counterrevolutionary days at the end of the New Deal era. Fred Koch, Charles and David’s father, owned an oil refinery corporation and was active in the archconservative John Birch Society. Through groups like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Kochs have long led the attack against collective bargaining rights for public employees, including train and bus drivers.
At the end of the day, the Koch Brothers and Uber are much like Coke and Pepsi. They may have clashing styles, but their product is largely the same: lower corporate taxes, deregulation, lower wages, and private control over public goods like mass transit.
Yet Uber—the Silicon Valley startup-gone-public—shares at least one goal with the most prominent funders of modern conservatism: the destruction of America’s public transit.
While polarization in the United States is on the rise when it comes to metrics like party affiliation and media consumption, there’s a frightening level of agreement in corporate America, regardless of party loyalty. Examining where both Uber and the Koch brothers agree exposes the consensus hiding beneath the surface of our current political gridlock. Yes, rideshare corporations and oil tycoons share a financial interest in a car-centric future. But both also lobby for corporate tax cuts, deregulation and fewer rights and protections for workers. Both also envision a society with weakened or nonexistent public goods, part of a 40-year privatization trend that’s touched everything from public education to water access. From this vantage point, government is, in fact, getting things done and solving problems—just for corporate America rather than poor and working people.
A close look at the growing war on public transit reveals the planks of this corporate consensus.
In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Uber’s executives claim to see a “massive market opportunity” in the estimated 4.4 trillion miles traveled each year by people using public transit across 175 countries. The company continues to heavily subsidize per-ride costs to inflate its value to investors and undercut existing options, despite bleeding billions of dollars. “Uber is effectively a middleman for a money transfer from venture-capital (VC) firms to consumers,” writes James P. Sutton in National Review. Simply put, effectively supplanting the taxi industry wasn’t enough: Uber plans on undercutting public transit to finally turn a profit.
For their part, the Koch brothers are funneling money to their political action committee (PAC), Americans for Prosperity, to kill proposed public transit projects nationwide. Last year, they led the charge in stopping a popular $5.4 billion transit plan in Nashville, Tennessee, that had even been backed by a coalition of the city’s business community. The Kochs have funded similar anti-public transit efforts in Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, Utah and other states.
Their stated rationale, of course, is lower taxes. Americans for Prosperity tried to kill a 2017 gas-tax plan in Indiana meant to raise a billion dollars to invest in buses and infrastructure, even though it was introduced by the state’s GOP-led House of Representatives. Cutting taxes is the Koch brothers’ bread and butter. They contributed $20 million to help pass the Trump tax plan, which slashed taxes for their primary business, Koch Industries, by as much as $1.4 billion a year.
Uber has joined the Koch brothers on this libertarian crusade, using a corporate shell game to avoid paying billions in taxes and lobbying against taxes and fees on rides across the globe.
The corporate behemoths also share a stated goal of “cutting red tape.” The Koch brothers bankrolled the founding of the nation’s first libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, which sees “limited government,” i.e., deregulation, as a key ingredient of freedom. They also funded the now-defunct Freedom Partners, which developed a road map that shaped the early days of the Trump administration’s deregulatory policy agenda. Uber, together with its main competitor Lyft, boasted more lobbyists in 2016 than Amazon, Microsoft and Walmart combined. As of June 2018, the two corporations had convinced 41 state legislatures and many local governments to pass legislation protecting them from regulation.
Most importantly, both the Koch brothers and Uber understand that their freedom depends on taking freedom away from working people. Uber has spent generously on fighting to ensure its drivers maintain their precarious status as independent contractors. The company has also invested heavily in technology that would get rid of drivers altogether, including driverless cars. The Koch brothers’ anti-worker views date back much further, all the way to the counterrevolutionary days at the end of the New Deal era. Fred Koch, Charles and David’s father, owned an oil refinery corporation and was active in the archconservative John Birch Society. Through groups like the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the Kochs have long led the attack against collective bargaining rights for public employees, including train and bus drivers.
At the end of the day, the Koch Brothers and Uber are much like Coke and Pepsi. They may have clashing styles, but their product is largely the same: lower corporate taxes, deregulation, lower wages, and private control over public goods like mass transit.
People kill people but capitalism makes it easy and profitable around the world
As tragic as our domestic mass murders are, they're a fraction of the global carnage caused by guns made in the USA
BOB HENNELLY - Salon
AUGUST 11, 2019 12:00PM (UTC)
The corporate media fakes soul searching for the root cause of mass murder in a nation that floods the world with weapons of every description and markets violence as recreation and entertainment.
You don’t have to be Marianne Williamson to know that this is another manifestation of late-stage vulture capitalism that has no conscience and feeds off the ever-mounting pile of human carrion it generates worldwide.
As tragic as our domestic mass murders are here, they are just part of the carnage around the world caused by weapons stamped proudly “Made in America.”
And while our politicians beat their chest about the United States being the bulwark to counterterrorism, we are the chief exporters of its tools out the back door of our loading dock.
Be sure with the billions of dollars the exporters of death have made, they easily bought and paid for the very same politicians who now offer American communities caught in the crossfire of gun violence just thoughts and prayers.
As the Trump administration tortures undocumented families from south of the border, separating children from their parents and putting them all in cages and the San Antonio shooter took aim in Walmart, its gunfire from American made weapons used by drug-gangs that have migrants fleeing northward.
That’s the iron ring of death and human misery forged by an economic system bereft of morality that uses just a portion of the vast profits it generates to subvert our politics and our legal system.
In 1994 Congress made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess” a semiautomatic assault weapon as well as high capacity magazines. The legislation prohibited 19 different models of this class of weapon.
In 2004, President George W. Bush and the GOP, primed with millions of dollars from the gun lobby, let the decade long assault weapons ban expire.
U.S. guns flooded places like Mexico where The Economist reported in May “that 70% of gun crimes in Mexico involve American-bought weapons” and “the share of homicides in Mexico involving a firearm grew from 16% in 1997 to 66% in 2017.”
The Economist continued. “That suggests around half of Mexico’s 33,000 murder victims last year were killed by a gun manufactured in the United States, which had 14,542 gun-homicides in 2017. An American-made gun is more likely to be used in a murder in Mexico than at home.”
While one of President Trump’s first actions was to sign-off on rolling back of an Obama era regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, he also shifted the responsibility for approving gun exports “from the State Department to the Department of Commerce, which applies looser rules,” according to The Economist.
For days now, since the back-to-back mass murders in San Antonio and Dayton the corporate news media has pondered ‘just what is it about the American character that lends itself to such random acts of such monstrous violence?’
Hmmm . . . just what could it be?
With panel after panel presented in “special reports” with bloody graphics and 911 calls as an audio scene-setter, the same old talking heads take turns diagnosing the seemingly intractable problem of random gun violence that is so uniquely an American problem.
One expert says it’s the undiagnosed mentally ill, who just happen to be mostly young white men who find succor in the dark recesses of the internet. Another will blame Donald Trump and the resurgence of white nationalism. The on-call ex-FBI and DOJ officials talk about their need for more “tools in their counter-terrorism toolbox” and the need for a domestic “war on terror 2.0.”
Really? We haven’t come to terms with the geopolitical ravages and costs of the initial war on terror, and now they want to bring the concept home. There’s just no sense of the cruel irony that we spent trillions, accelerated global warming and destroyed millions of lives prosecuting the first war on terror and all for what? Live fire drills at Walmart?
On the latest spate of mass murders, the safest ground for pundits to land on in their 30-second answer is to blame the widespread availability of guns in our country that is just five percent of the world’s population but owns 42 percent of the civilian-owned guns on the planet.
That means we are sitting on close to 400 million guns in a country with close to 330 people. Feel safe?
We are captive to the capitalist world view that detaches a product, no matter how potentially lethal, from the consequences of its use as if a commercial transaction where some sort of baptism that absolves the seller from whatever action a depraved customer might take.
Case in point, an economic impact study released in April by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, that gushed about their sector’s exponential economic growth in “recent years has been nothing short of remarkable.”
The trade group’s economic impact footprint went from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $52.1 billion in 2018, a 171 percent increase in just a decade. NSSF reported the gun industry paid $15.7 billion in wages and paying $6.8 billion in taxes in 2018.
Yet, not factored in their cost-benefit analysis is the annual $229 billion in gun-violence related spending as well as the $8.6 billion in direct costs to cover emergency room and overall medical costs attributed to gun violence.
According to the Gifford Law Center, a gun control advocacy think tank, over the past decade 1.3 million Americans have been shot. Close to 36,000 are killed annually, or an average of one hundred a day. There is one mass shooting a day on average in the U.S. — that’s incidents with four or more people killed or wounded by gunfire.
But take heart, it’s August and President Trump has declared it National Shooting Sports Month and the National Sport Shooting Foundation reminds us the country’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers “take great pride in supporting wildlife conservation efforts.”
You don’t have to be Marianne Williamson to know that this is another manifestation of late-stage vulture capitalism that has no conscience and feeds off the ever-mounting pile of human carrion it generates worldwide.
As tragic as our domestic mass murders are here, they are just part of the carnage around the world caused by weapons stamped proudly “Made in America.”
And while our politicians beat their chest about the United States being the bulwark to counterterrorism, we are the chief exporters of its tools out the back door of our loading dock.
Be sure with the billions of dollars the exporters of death have made, they easily bought and paid for the very same politicians who now offer American communities caught in the crossfire of gun violence just thoughts and prayers.
As the Trump administration tortures undocumented families from south of the border, separating children from their parents and putting them all in cages and the San Antonio shooter took aim in Walmart, its gunfire from American made weapons used by drug-gangs that have migrants fleeing northward.
That’s the iron ring of death and human misery forged by an economic system bereft of morality that uses just a portion of the vast profits it generates to subvert our politics and our legal system.
In 1994 Congress made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess” a semiautomatic assault weapon as well as high capacity magazines. The legislation prohibited 19 different models of this class of weapon.
In 2004, President George W. Bush and the GOP, primed with millions of dollars from the gun lobby, let the decade long assault weapons ban expire.
U.S. guns flooded places like Mexico where The Economist reported in May “that 70% of gun crimes in Mexico involve American-bought weapons” and “the share of homicides in Mexico involving a firearm grew from 16% in 1997 to 66% in 2017.”
The Economist continued. “That suggests around half of Mexico’s 33,000 murder victims last year were killed by a gun manufactured in the United States, which had 14,542 gun-homicides in 2017. An American-made gun is more likely to be used in a murder in Mexico than at home.”
While one of President Trump’s first actions was to sign-off on rolling back of an Obama era regulation to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, he also shifted the responsibility for approving gun exports “from the State Department to the Department of Commerce, which applies looser rules,” according to The Economist.
For days now, since the back-to-back mass murders in San Antonio and Dayton the corporate news media has pondered ‘just what is it about the American character that lends itself to such random acts of such monstrous violence?’
Hmmm . . . just what could it be?
With panel after panel presented in “special reports” with bloody graphics and 911 calls as an audio scene-setter, the same old talking heads take turns diagnosing the seemingly intractable problem of random gun violence that is so uniquely an American problem.
One expert says it’s the undiagnosed mentally ill, who just happen to be mostly young white men who find succor in the dark recesses of the internet. Another will blame Donald Trump and the resurgence of white nationalism. The on-call ex-FBI and DOJ officials talk about their need for more “tools in their counter-terrorism toolbox” and the need for a domestic “war on terror 2.0.”
Really? We haven’t come to terms with the geopolitical ravages and costs of the initial war on terror, and now they want to bring the concept home. There’s just no sense of the cruel irony that we spent trillions, accelerated global warming and destroyed millions of lives prosecuting the first war on terror and all for what? Live fire drills at Walmart?
On the latest spate of mass murders, the safest ground for pundits to land on in their 30-second answer is to blame the widespread availability of guns in our country that is just five percent of the world’s population but owns 42 percent of the civilian-owned guns on the planet.
That means we are sitting on close to 400 million guns in a country with close to 330 people. Feel safe?
We are captive to the capitalist world view that detaches a product, no matter how potentially lethal, from the consequences of its use as if a commercial transaction where some sort of baptism that absolves the seller from whatever action a depraved customer might take.
Case in point, an economic impact study released in April by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, that gushed about their sector’s exponential economic growth in “recent years has been nothing short of remarkable.”
The trade group’s economic impact footprint went from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $52.1 billion in 2018, a 171 percent increase in just a decade. NSSF reported the gun industry paid $15.7 billion in wages and paying $6.8 billion in taxes in 2018.
Yet, not factored in their cost-benefit analysis is the annual $229 billion in gun-violence related spending as well as the $8.6 billion in direct costs to cover emergency room and overall medical costs attributed to gun violence.
According to the Gifford Law Center, a gun control advocacy think tank, over the past decade 1.3 million Americans have been shot. Close to 36,000 are killed annually, or an average of one hundred a day. There is one mass shooting a day on average in the U.S. — that’s incidents with four or more people killed or wounded by gunfire.
But take heart, it’s August and President Trump has declared it National Shooting Sports Month and the National Sport Shooting Foundation reminds us the country’s firearms and ammunition manufacturers “take great pride in supporting wildlife conservation efforts.”
The World’s Wealthiest Family Gets $4 Million Richer Every Hour
The 25 wealthiest dynasties on the planet control $1.4 trillion
Bloomberg
August 10, 2019
The numbers are mind-boggling: $70,000 per minute, $4 million per hour, $100 million per day.
That’s how quickly the fortune of the Waltons, the clan behind Walmart Inc., has been growing since last year’s Bloomberg ranking of the world’s richest families.
At that rate, their wealth would’ve expanded about $23,000 since you began reading this. A new Walmart associate in the U.S. would’ve made about 6 cents in that time, on the way to an $11 hourly minimum.
Even in this era of extreme wealth and brutal inequality, the contrast is jarring. The heirs of Sam Walton, Walmart’s notoriously frugal founder, are amassing wealth on a near-unprecedented scale — and they’re hardly alone.
The Walton fortune has swelled by $39 billion, to $191 billion, since topping the June 2018 ranking of the world’s richest families.
Other American dynasties are close behind in terms of the assets they’ve accrued. The Mars family, of candy fame, added $37 billion, bringing its fortune to $127 billion. The Kochs, the industrialists-cum-political-power-players, tacked on $26 billion, to $125 billion.
So it goes around the globe. America’s richest 0.1% today control more wealth than at any time since 1929, but their counterparts in Asia and Europe are gaining too. Worldwide, the 25 richest families now control almost $1.4 trillion in wealth, up 24% from last year.
To some critics, such figures are evidence that capitalism needs fixing. Inequality has become an explosive political issue, from Paris to Seattle to Hong Kong. But how to shrink the growing gap between the rich and the poor?
As the tension increases, even some billionaire heirs are backing steps such as wealth taxes.
“If we don’t do something like this, what are we doing, just hoarding this wealth in a country that’s falling apart at the seams?” Liesel Pritzker Simmons, whose family ranks 17th on the Bloomberg list, said in June. “That’s not the America we want to live in.”
A notable addition this year: the Saudi royal family.
The House of Saud is worth $100 billion, based on the cumulative payouts royal family members are estimated to have received over the past 50 years from the Royal Diwan, the executive office of the king.
That’s a lowball figure. After all, oil giant Saudi Aramco, the linchpin of the Saudi economy, is the world’s most profitable company. The kingdom is hoping to take it public at a $2 trillion valuation.
Tallying dynastic dollars isn’t an exact science. Fortunes backed by decades and sometimes centuries of assets and dividends can obfuscate the true extent of a family’s holdings. The net worth of the Rothschilds or Rockefellers, for instance, is too diffuse to value. Clans whose wealth is currently unverifiable are also absent.
But of those we can track, most are reaping the rewards of ultra-low interest rates, tax cuts, deregulation and innovation. Koch Industries, for instance, has a venture-capital arm. The latest generation of Waltons is establishing its own enterprises.
Other big gainers include the owners of fashion house Chanel and Italy’s Ferrero family, whose brands include Nutella spread and Tic Tac mints. In India, the fortune of the Ambani family swelled $7 billion, to $50 billion.
In all, the world’s 25 richest families have $250 billion more wealth, compared to last year.
The rich aren’t necessarily getting richer together. The Quandt family dropped eight places following a poor year for Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, which has battled trade tensions and slowing global markets as BMW invests in the disruptive shift to self-driving electric vehicles. The Dassault, Duncan, Lee and Hearst families all fell from the list.
And this could in many ways represent a peak, as U.S. President Donald Trump escalates a trade war with China and worries grow about a global recession.
“It can be very challenging to preserve wealth over the long-term,” said Rebecca Gooch, research director at Campden Wealth, a network and education business for generational-wealth holders. “Family-owned operating businesses can shift from booming to declining, a family’s investment portfolio might not be well diversified or there can be issues with generational transitions.”
See complete list
That’s how quickly the fortune of the Waltons, the clan behind Walmart Inc., has been growing since last year’s Bloomberg ranking of the world’s richest families.
At that rate, their wealth would’ve expanded about $23,000 since you began reading this. A new Walmart associate in the U.S. would’ve made about 6 cents in that time, on the way to an $11 hourly minimum.
Even in this era of extreme wealth and brutal inequality, the contrast is jarring. The heirs of Sam Walton, Walmart’s notoriously frugal founder, are amassing wealth on a near-unprecedented scale — and they’re hardly alone.
The Walton fortune has swelled by $39 billion, to $191 billion, since topping the June 2018 ranking of the world’s richest families.
Other American dynasties are close behind in terms of the assets they’ve accrued. The Mars family, of candy fame, added $37 billion, bringing its fortune to $127 billion. The Kochs, the industrialists-cum-political-power-players, tacked on $26 billion, to $125 billion.
So it goes around the globe. America’s richest 0.1% today control more wealth than at any time since 1929, but their counterparts in Asia and Europe are gaining too. Worldwide, the 25 richest families now control almost $1.4 trillion in wealth, up 24% from last year.
To some critics, such figures are evidence that capitalism needs fixing. Inequality has become an explosive political issue, from Paris to Seattle to Hong Kong. But how to shrink the growing gap between the rich and the poor?
As the tension increases, even some billionaire heirs are backing steps such as wealth taxes.
“If we don’t do something like this, what are we doing, just hoarding this wealth in a country that’s falling apart at the seams?” Liesel Pritzker Simmons, whose family ranks 17th on the Bloomberg list, said in June. “That’s not the America we want to live in.”
A notable addition this year: the Saudi royal family.
The House of Saud is worth $100 billion, based on the cumulative payouts royal family members are estimated to have received over the past 50 years from the Royal Diwan, the executive office of the king.
That’s a lowball figure. After all, oil giant Saudi Aramco, the linchpin of the Saudi economy, is the world’s most profitable company. The kingdom is hoping to take it public at a $2 trillion valuation.
Tallying dynastic dollars isn’t an exact science. Fortunes backed by decades and sometimes centuries of assets and dividends can obfuscate the true extent of a family’s holdings. The net worth of the Rothschilds or Rockefellers, for instance, is too diffuse to value. Clans whose wealth is currently unverifiable are also absent.
But of those we can track, most are reaping the rewards of ultra-low interest rates, tax cuts, deregulation and innovation. Koch Industries, for instance, has a venture-capital arm. The latest generation of Waltons is establishing its own enterprises.
Other big gainers include the owners of fashion house Chanel and Italy’s Ferrero family, whose brands include Nutella spread and Tic Tac mints. In India, the fortune of the Ambani family swelled $7 billion, to $50 billion.
In all, the world’s 25 richest families have $250 billion more wealth, compared to last year.
The rich aren’t necessarily getting richer together. The Quandt family dropped eight places following a poor year for Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, which has battled trade tensions and slowing global markets as BMW invests in the disruptive shift to self-driving electric vehicles. The Dassault, Duncan, Lee and Hearst families all fell from the list.
And this could in many ways represent a peak, as U.S. President Donald Trump escalates a trade war with China and worries grow about a global recession.
“It can be very challenging to preserve wealth over the long-term,” said Rebecca Gooch, research director at Campden Wealth, a network and education business for generational-wealth holders. “Family-owned operating businesses can shift from booming to declining, a family’s investment portfolio might not be well diversified or there can be issues with generational transitions.”
See complete list
Chase plans to screw its credit card holders next week. Here’s how to stop them from screwing you.
The Supreme Court gave Chase a license to break the law, but there's a way out.
IAN MILLHISER - Thinkprogress
JUL 30, 2019, 8:00 AM
JPMorgan Chase, the banking behemoth that provides credit cards to thousands of Americans, sent an email to many of its customers in late May which sought to strip those customers of most of their rights to sue the bank if the bank violates the law. Though the email gave those customers the ability to opt out of this effort to strip away their rights, the instructions on how to do so were buried deep in the email — deep enough that the bank likely hoped no one would read that far.
The subject of the email was “Important information regarding changes to your Chase account.” A copy of the email was forwarded to ThinkProgress by a Chase customer who received it.
Forced arbitration
The relevant portions of the email concern forced arbitration, an abusive practice largely invented by conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Beginning in the 1980s, the Supreme Court began to rewrite the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 — a statute that, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words, was intended to allow “merchants with relatively equal bargaining power” to resolve disputes through private arbitrators — to allow companies to force workers and consumers into a privatized arbitration system that favors corporate parties. This rewriting accelerated in the 21st century, with a series of 5-4 decisions that departed sharply from the Arbitration Act’s text.
The Act, for example, exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Nevertheless, in Circuit City v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration agreements.
Similarly, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that companies may force their customers to sign away their right to join a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business for that company. More recently, in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a 5-4 court explained that workers can be forced to sign a forced arbitration agreement with a class action ban under pain of firing.
As a paper by the Economic Policy Institute’s Ross Eisenbrey explains, individual workers forced into arbitration are less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than they are before a real judge. And when they do prevail, they typically receive far less money.
Similarly, class action bans effectively allow companies to illegally take money from their workers or consumers with impunity, so long as they only take a little bit at a time.
Class actions allow multiple plaintiffs, who all share a similar grievance against the same defendant, to join together in a single lawsuit against that defendant. They are particularly important when a company engages in widespread, low-dollar lawbreaking against many individuals.
Suppose, for example, that a bank decides to illegally charge a $150 fee to each of its 100,000 credit card customers. Nearly none of these customers will sue the bank over a matter of only $150, because the cost of litigating such a case will exceed the amount of money at issue. So if the customers cannot join together in a class action, the bank will walk away with a cool $15 million ($150 * 100,000).
How to opt-outThe Chase email contains both a forced arbitration provision and a ban on class actions. It “provides that all disputes between you and Chase must be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION,” and explicitly states that parties to the forced arbitration agreement “GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT (except for matters that may be taken to a small claims court).” The email further provides that class actions “are not available under this agreement to arbitrate.”
Though the email does allow some claims to proceed in small claims court rather than before an arbitrator, it also provides that such claims must proceed “on an individual basis.” Thus, the email seeks to immunize Chase from class action litigation.
Significantly, however, the email also provides that customers may opt out of the forced arbitration provision and class action ban, but only if they comply with very specific instructions.
Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?
Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or effective.
If you received this email, in other words, and do not wish to give up your rights to your credit card company, you must send a letter via snail mail to the P.O. Box listed above — and you must do so by late next week.
Though it may be surprising that Chase allows people to opt-out of forced arbitration, the opt-out provision serves a very specific legal purpose. As Professor Charlotte Garden wrote in a recent paper on forced arbitration, California law arguably permits courts to strike down forced arbitration provisions if that provision is imposed without choice. So it’s in a company’s interest to give customers a choice to opt-out — so long as the choice is buried where few people are likely to notice it.
As Garden explained, the delivery service Grubhub imposed a forced arbitration agreement on its drivers. Yet “only two delivery drivers of thousands had opted out of the [forced arbitration provision] during the months after Grubhub added its opt out clause.” Similarly, “only 270 drivers out of more than 160,000” opted out of Uber’s forced arbitration agreement. Thus, opt-out clauses help protect companies from a court decision invalidating a forced arbitration agreements, and they typically do so at virtually no cost to the company. Few people notice them. Fewer still probably understand them. So almost no one opts out.
Chase, however, cannot prevent members of the media from reporting on this abusive practice. Nor can it prevent any of its customers who read this column from invoking the opt-out provision.
Disclaimer: This column does not contain legal advice and does not create an attorney/client relationship. If you wish to obtain legal advice, consult your own lawyer.
The subject of the email was “Important information regarding changes to your Chase account.” A copy of the email was forwarded to ThinkProgress by a Chase customer who received it.
Forced arbitration
The relevant portions of the email concern forced arbitration, an abusive practice largely invented by conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Beginning in the 1980s, the Supreme Court began to rewrite the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 — a statute that, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words, was intended to allow “merchants with relatively equal bargaining power” to resolve disputes through private arbitrators — to allow companies to force workers and consumers into a privatized arbitration system that favors corporate parties. This rewriting accelerated in the 21st century, with a series of 5-4 decisions that departed sharply from the Arbitration Act’s text.
The Act, for example, exempts “workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” Nevertheless, in Circuit City v. Adams, the Supreme Court held that most workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce may be forced into arbitration agreements.
Similarly, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that companies may force their customers to sign away their right to join a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business for that company. More recently, in Epic Systems v. Lewis, a 5-4 court explained that workers can be forced to sign a forced arbitration agreement with a class action ban under pain of firing.
As a paper by the Economic Policy Institute’s Ross Eisenbrey explains, individual workers forced into arbitration are less likely to prevail before an arbitrator than they are before a real judge. And when they do prevail, they typically receive far less money.
Similarly, class action bans effectively allow companies to illegally take money from their workers or consumers with impunity, so long as they only take a little bit at a time.
Class actions allow multiple plaintiffs, who all share a similar grievance against the same defendant, to join together in a single lawsuit against that defendant. They are particularly important when a company engages in widespread, low-dollar lawbreaking against many individuals.
Suppose, for example, that a bank decides to illegally charge a $150 fee to each of its 100,000 credit card customers. Nearly none of these customers will sue the bank over a matter of only $150, because the cost of litigating such a case will exceed the amount of money at issue. So if the customers cannot join together in a class action, the bank will walk away with a cool $15 million ($150 * 100,000).
How to opt-outThe Chase email contains both a forced arbitration provision and a ban on class actions. It “provides that all disputes between you and Chase must be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION,” and explicitly states that parties to the forced arbitration agreement “GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT (except for matters that may be taken to a small claims court).” The email further provides that class actions “are not available under this agreement to arbitrate.”
Though the email does allow some claims to proceed in small claims court rather than before an arbitrator, it also provides that such claims must proceed “on an individual basis.” Thus, the email seeks to immunize Chase from class action litigation.
Significantly, however, the email also provides that customers may opt out of the forced arbitration provision and class action ban, but only if they comply with very specific instructions.
Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?
Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or effective.
If you received this email, in other words, and do not wish to give up your rights to your credit card company, you must send a letter via snail mail to the P.O. Box listed above — and you must do so by late next week.
Though it may be surprising that Chase allows people to opt-out of forced arbitration, the opt-out provision serves a very specific legal purpose. As Professor Charlotte Garden wrote in a recent paper on forced arbitration, California law arguably permits courts to strike down forced arbitration provisions if that provision is imposed without choice. So it’s in a company’s interest to give customers a choice to opt-out — so long as the choice is buried where few people are likely to notice it.
As Garden explained, the delivery service Grubhub imposed a forced arbitration agreement on its drivers. Yet “only two delivery drivers of thousands had opted out of the [forced arbitration provision] during the months after Grubhub added its opt out clause.” Similarly, “only 270 drivers out of more than 160,000” opted out of Uber’s forced arbitration agreement. Thus, opt-out clauses help protect companies from a court decision invalidating a forced arbitration agreements, and they typically do so at virtually no cost to the company. Few people notice them. Fewer still probably understand them. So almost no one opts out.
Chase, however, cannot prevent members of the media from reporting on this abusive practice. Nor can it prevent any of its customers who read this column from invoking the opt-out provision.
Disclaimer: This column does not contain legal advice and does not create an attorney/client relationship. If you wish to obtain legal advice, consult your own lawyer.
Millions of US taxpayers’ money invested in private prison firms
At least 20 public worker pension funds have invested in firms profiting from Trump’s immigration policy, including California and New York
This story is co-published with the Documented news website and newsletter
Max Siegelbaum of Documented
The Guardian
Thu 11 Jul 2019 07.00 BST
Millions of US taxpayer dollars are being invested into private prison operators involved in the detention of thousands of migrants across the United States, an investigation shows.
Some of the largest investments, which are by pension funds for public sector workers such as teachers and firefighters, come from states with “sanctuary” policies, such as New York, California and Oregon.
Nationwide, at least 20 pension funds and plans have invested in Geo Group or CoreCivic, the two biggest private prison operators, according to a Guardian/Documented analysis of US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.
These funds range from big organizations like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPers), which manages $81bn in stock holdings, to the more modestly sized funds like the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, which manages about $2.3bn.
Public worker funds across the US have at least $67m currently invested in the two companies, according to filings from the first quarter of 2019, which probably show just a portion of the total amount of public sector pension money invested in both companies.
The two firms have become more attractive to investors after Donald Trump became president, pushing tougher immigration policies. The firms have secured contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) which has turned to private operators as it has detained growing numbers of immigrants.
‘Complicity is unacceptable’
While the holdings in the SEC filings are only a tiny proportion of the estimated $3.8tn invested in public retirement funds, immigration advocacy campaigners and some lawmakers say they have a symbolic power, and have called for public pensions funds to follow the lead of some banks and disinvest.
Last week it emerged one of Canada’s biggest pension funds quietly divested from the two firms after the Guardian/Documented had reported late last year that the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) held nearly US$8m in stock in Geo Group and CoreCivic.
Disinvestment in private prison operators sent a powerful message, according to Daniel Altschuler, director of civic engagement and research at Make the Road New York, an immigrant advocacy organization.
“Taking a stand sends a message that complicity with companies that are profiting from people’s pain is unacceptable,” said Altschuler.
This is a message some major banks have been getting, he added. “As some cities and states either divest or look at divestment, the banks have been aware of that.”
In March, JPMorgan Chase & Co decided to stop financing private prison companies. They had previously underwritten bonds and syndicated loans for Geo Group and CoreCivic.
Earlier this week SunTrust Bank announced it would be ceasing to do business with the private prison industry. Last month Bank of America did the same.
The Miami Herald reported that the bank had provided Caliburn, the operator of a Florida facility where roughly 2,300 migrant children are held, with a loan of $380m and a $75m credit line. The bank said that it decided to cease doing business with prison operators, in part due to “the concerns of our employees and stakeholders in the communities we serve”, a Bank of America spokesperson told CNN.
Private prison operators boom in Trump era
Towards the end of Barack Obama’s second term, the justice department (DoJ) decided to discontinue all use of private prison corporations to house American prisoners and immigrant detainees. The stock for Geo Group and CoreCivic immediately plummeted more than 30% each.
But shortly after Trump was sworn in, he discontinued the DoJ policy and the stock of both companies slowly started climbing again. Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018, as the administration began to ramp up its crackdown on immigrants, the targeted average daily population of detained immigrants grew 50%.
Since 1 January 2017, Geo Group has won agency contracts worth over $390m, according to data from USA Spending, the federal government’s spending tracker. CoreCivic received over $228m in the same timeframe.
Biggest investments from New York and California
According to the SEC data, the largest investments into both companies come from the New York Teachers Retirement System, which has a total investment of $9.5m, and CalPers, which has an investment of $9.5m into the companies.
Other states with immigrant-friendly policies and investments in the two companies include Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.
The state board of administration of the Florida Retirement System reported about $3.8m in the first quarter of 2019. In a response to questions, John Kuczwanski, manager of external affairs for the fund, said they had more than $16m invested in the two companies, actively and passively.
About half of the 20 pension funds responded to a request for comment on their holdings.
Most of them said they made their investments through following indices created by financial research firms like S&P. Some had portions of their money managed by external firms.
Some funds said environmental social and corporate governance (ESG) principles informed investments; several said they had no ESG guidelines.
In a statement, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) said their holdings in the two firms are “primarily passively held in portfolios that track a broad market index. NYSTRS is mindful of balancing fiduciary duties with environmental, social and governance concerns in investing. Where appropriate, and on a case by case basis, we express our views on ESG through our proxy voting program.
“For example, there was a recent Geo Group shareholder proposal calling for the publication of an annual human rights report. NYSTRS voted for this proposal.”
CalPers said: “CalPers global equity portfolio is comprised of more than 10,000 companies from across the globe, and is largely managed through an index-oriented investment strategy. For more information on CalPers’ investment strategies, see our policies page … [and] our CalPers governance and sustainability principles.”
The Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund grew its investment over 45% from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2019, from about $1.4m to about $2m.
Arizona’s state retirement fund its investment grew 44%.
Best returns
Some funds said maximising returns was their focus, not social concerns.
“We’re not a social investor. We want to get the best return while managing risk,” said Beau Barnes, deputy executive secretary and general counsel at the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System.
A representative from Pennsylvania’s Public School Employees’ Retirement System said that fund does not have ESG principles either, and only follows a state law that forbids them from investing in companies with ties to Sudan and Iran.
“Our statues generally prohibit prioritization of social investing considerations over maximization of long-term risk-adjusted returns,” said Matt Clark of the South Dakota Investment Council.
While Geo Group has maintained a relatively stable price, CoreCivic has plummeted from about $30 to $19 in three years. The median growth in investment over the course of the Trump administration was 14%.
Collectively, these 20 public sector funds manage more than $319bn, of which just 0.02% is invested in those two private prison companies.
Calls to divest
Some public pensions have been resistant to calls to divest.
After a hard-fought campaign spearheaded by a group of advocates called Educators for Migrant Justice, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System into divested the fund’s holdings from CoreCivic in November 2018 and Geo Group, which amounted to about $12m.
Now, advocates are focusing on CalPers.
“We’re starting to see traction with board members,” said Emily Claire Goldman, founder and director for Educators for Migrant Justice, an ESG transparency initiative. Goldman explained that the pension fund industry has started increasingly using private equity as an investment vehicle, which she said “is a complete black box”.
CoreCivic and Geo Group say they follow the government’s guidelines for detention practices and routinely pass inspection. “Geo’s facilities are highly rated by independent accreditation entities … and provide high-quality services in safe, secure and humane residential environments,” the company said in a statement.
Some of the largest investments, which are by pension funds for public sector workers such as teachers and firefighters, come from states with “sanctuary” policies, such as New York, California and Oregon.
Nationwide, at least 20 pension funds and plans have invested in Geo Group or CoreCivic, the two biggest private prison operators, according to a Guardian/Documented analysis of US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.
These funds range from big organizations like the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPers), which manages $81bn in stock holdings, to the more modestly sized funds like the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, which manages about $2.3bn.
Public worker funds across the US have at least $67m currently invested in the two companies, according to filings from the first quarter of 2019, which probably show just a portion of the total amount of public sector pension money invested in both companies.
The two firms have become more attractive to investors after Donald Trump became president, pushing tougher immigration policies. The firms have secured contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) which has turned to private operators as it has detained growing numbers of immigrants.
‘Complicity is unacceptable’
While the holdings in the SEC filings are only a tiny proportion of the estimated $3.8tn invested in public retirement funds, immigration advocacy campaigners and some lawmakers say they have a symbolic power, and have called for public pensions funds to follow the lead of some banks and disinvest.
Last week it emerged one of Canada’s biggest pension funds quietly divested from the two firms after the Guardian/Documented had reported late last year that the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) held nearly US$8m in stock in Geo Group and CoreCivic.
Disinvestment in private prison operators sent a powerful message, according to Daniel Altschuler, director of civic engagement and research at Make the Road New York, an immigrant advocacy organization.
“Taking a stand sends a message that complicity with companies that are profiting from people’s pain is unacceptable,” said Altschuler.
This is a message some major banks have been getting, he added. “As some cities and states either divest or look at divestment, the banks have been aware of that.”
In March, JPMorgan Chase & Co decided to stop financing private prison companies. They had previously underwritten bonds and syndicated loans for Geo Group and CoreCivic.
Earlier this week SunTrust Bank announced it would be ceasing to do business with the private prison industry. Last month Bank of America did the same.
The Miami Herald reported that the bank had provided Caliburn, the operator of a Florida facility where roughly 2,300 migrant children are held, with a loan of $380m and a $75m credit line. The bank said that it decided to cease doing business with prison operators, in part due to “the concerns of our employees and stakeholders in the communities we serve”, a Bank of America spokesperson told CNN.
Private prison operators boom in Trump era
Towards the end of Barack Obama’s second term, the justice department (DoJ) decided to discontinue all use of private prison corporations to house American prisoners and immigrant detainees. The stock for Geo Group and CoreCivic immediately plummeted more than 30% each.
But shortly after Trump was sworn in, he discontinued the DoJ policy and the stock of both companies slowly started climbing again. Between fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2018, as the administration began to ramp up its crackdown on immigrants, the targeted average daily population of detained immigrants grew 50%.
Since 1 January 2017, Geo Group has won agency contracts worth over $390m, according to data from USA Spending, the federal government’s spending tracker. CoreCivic received over $228m in the same timeframe.
Biggest investments from New York and California
According to the SEC data, the largest investments into both companies come from the New York Teachers Retirement System, which has a total investment of $9.5m, and CalPers, which has an investment of $9.5m into the companies.
Other states with immigrant-friendly policies and investments in the two companies include Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah.
The state board of administration of the Florida Retirement System reported about $3.8m in the first quarter of 2019. In a response to questions, John Kuczwanski, manager of external affairs for the fund, said they had more than $16m invested in the two companies, actively and passively.
About half of the 20 pension funds responded to a request for comment on their holdings.
Most of them said they made their investments through following indices created by financial research firms like S&P. Some had portions of their money managed by external firms.
Some funds said environmental social and corporate governance (ESG) principles informed investments; several said they had no ESG guidelines.
In a statement, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System (NYSTRS) said their holdings in the two firms are “primarily passively held in portfolios that track a broad market index. NYSTRS is mindful of balancing fiduciary duties with environmental, social and governance concerns in investing. Where appropriate, and on a case by case basis, we express our views on ESG through our proxy voting program.
“For example, there was a recent Geo Group shareholder proposal calling for the publication of an annual human rights report. NYSTRS voted for this proposal.”
CalPers said: “CalPers global equity portfolio is comprised of more than 10,000 companies from across the globe, and is largely managed through an index-oriented investment strategy. For more information on CalPers’ investment strategies, see our policies page … [and] our CalPers governance and sustainability principles.”
The Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund grew its investment over 45% from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2019, from about $1.4m to about $2m.
Arizona’s state retirement fund its investment grew 44%.
Best returns
Some funds said maximising returns was their focus, not social concerns.
“We’re not a social investor. We want to get the best return while managing risk,” said Beau Barnes, deputy executive secretary and general counsel at the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System.
A representative from Pennsylvania’s Public School Employees’ Retirement System said that fund does not have ESG principles either, and only follows a state law that forbids them from investing in companies with ties to Sudan and Iran.
“Our statues generally prohibit prioritization of social investing considerations over maximization of long-term risk-adjusted returns,” said Matt Clark of the South Dakota Investment Council.
While Geo Group has maintained a relatively stable price, CoreCivic has plummeted from about $30 to $19 in three years. The median growth in investment over the course of the Trump administration was 14%.
Collectively, these 20 public sector funds manage more than $319bn, of which just 0.02% is invested in those two private prison companies.
Calls to divest
Some public pensions have been resistant to calls to divest.
After a hard-fought campaign spearheaded by a group of advocates called Educators for Migrant Justice, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System into divested the fund’s holdings from CoreCivic in November 2018 and Geo Group, which amounted to about $12m.
Now, advocates are focusing on CalPers.
“We’re starting to see traction with board members,” said Emily Claire Goldman, founder and director for Educators for Migrant Justice, an ESG transparency initiative. Goldman explained that the pension fund industry has started increasingly using private equity as an investment vehicle, which she said “is a complete black box”.
CoreCivic and Geo Group say they follow the government’s guidelines for detention practices and routinely pass inspection. “Geo’s facilities are highly rated by independent accreditation entities … and provide high-quality services in safe, secure and humane residential environments,” the company said in a statement.
David Cay Johnston: The key way the super rich avoid taxes — and a simple way to close their tax loopholes once and for all
July 10, 2019
By David Cay Johnston, DC Report @ Raw Story
Our investigative series The Koch Papers illustrates many deep problems in America’s creaky, century old-income tax system, especially how our Congress has, through favors to donors, transformed it into has two tax systems, separate and unequal.
These dual systems pose a threat to our nation’s social stability, to our national security and to America remaining a nation of equality under law. But there is a simple solution to this, as we shall see. It requires only that Congress stand up for honest and fair tax law enforcement, not the interests of those major campaign donors who cheat.
One of the most significant lessons applies to William Ingraham Koch and his company whether or not, as his former chief tax executive claims, the IRS failed to curb massive income tax “fraud.” That’s because if Koch did find a way to lawfully collect more than $100 million in tax-free profits annually it is just as much a public issue as if he did it by cheating.
Congress, Are You Listening?
No reasonable person can defend a system under which workers laboring all year for the $7.25 federal minimum wage pay more than a dollar a day in income taxes while billionaire business owners pocket millions in profits tax-free.
Nor is there any reasonable defense for hamstringing our tax police by requiring them to intensely audit the working poor while cutting resources to audit the well to do and the corporations they own.
America’s federal income tax system was long regarded as the most efficient and effective in the world, studied by tax administrators from Argentina to Zimbabwe. China’s system was designed four decades ago with American advice. Britain’s was reformed a quarter century ago to be more like America’s.
But today we suffer because our Congress has failed in its duty to ensure that our federal tax system flows from the economy instead of cutting against it while making sure that the tax police—the IRS—enforce our tax laws equal shares of fairness and vigor. The Koch Papers series illuminates all of these problems and more.
The creation of two tax systems grows from Congress treating Americans differently depending on how they earn their daily bread.
Congress does not trust those in the first system—workers, pensioners and investors who collect dividends and interest.
For these Americans, income is independently verified and taxes are withheld before people get paid.The IRS knows how much you made because Congress requires your employer, pension agency or stock broker to report your income to IRS computers.
Under this reporting regime, cheating is nearly impossible.
America’s other income tax system applies to wealthy people who own their business, including Bill Koch and Donald Trump.
No Income Verification
Congress trusts such people to faithfully report their revenues, profits and losses and to pay 100 percent of their income taxes voluntarily. Unlike workers, there is little or no independent verification of business income.
It makes no sense to regard them as models of integrity, given decades of experience showing that tax cheating is rampant. One man pocketed $450 million tax-free with the IRS in the dark until a jilted lover turned him in. The IRS admitted in 2005 that it has no idea about the extent of high-end tax cheating.
Audits are the only way to have any assurance that rich business owners are paying the taxes that Congress requires.
But the number of audits has been shriveling along with time spent per audit. In addition, the IRS adopted rules two decades ago, at the behest of Congress, requiring auditors to warn companies in advance what issues would be examined and to not look more broadly unless the evidence they found rose to indications of criminality. The IRS long ago abandoned quality in corporate audits in favor of closing them quickly. And it has told Congress that the tax code is so complex that it cannot untangle many of the tax shelters sold by Wall Street.
Corporations have learned that withholding documents is a good way to avoid getting caught not paying all the taxes they owe. That is one of the many accusations against Bill Koch and his company leveled in whistleblower complaints by Charles Middleton, Koch’s former top tax executive. Koch and his company, Carbon Oxbow LLC, simply say the IRS closed its audit with no changes.
Playing ‘Audit Roulette’
Middleton gave the IRS documents that he says show Koch and his company knowingly engaged in “audit roulette,” which is cheating in the expectation that it was unlikely to be caught by IRS auditors and, if is, by withholding documents.
Last year, the risk that millionaires and billionaires would have their tax returns audited was 1-in-31. Every tax expert I know says the willingness to play audit roulette has been rising as audits of the rich and their companies have shrunk over the last three decades.
Tax audit roulette, not incidentally, is a much safer bet than spinning the wheel in Atlantic City where the odds are 19-to-1.
Audit rules for partnerships, which do not pay taxes directly, are dramatically more in favor of tax cheats. Over the last two decades, audit rates have ranged between 400-to-1 at the turn of the centuryto 224-to-1 in recently.
The falling audit risk is measured by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which has a federal court order requiring the IRS to turn over data monthly.
TRAC’s latest report documents “an alarming and continued downward spiral in government audits of the wealthiest taxpayers and America’s corporate giants. Despite growing income inequality—where the top 1% of Americans control much of the wealth in the United States—less and less attention is being given by federal agents and investigators to determine whether these same individuals and businesses properly report their true incomes and pay taxes on these dollars. Billions of dollars are arguably at stake, as is American faith in the fairness of our federal tax system.”
The way to make the system fair is to require withholding on all income. Business owners who take money out of their companies should be required to rely on a trustee whose legal duty is to withhold taxes and report the income, risking prison or failure to do so. That is how the system operates for workers, pensioners and investors.
Along with this Congress needs to enact rules requiring the reporting of loans to and from companies by their owners that are consolidated with individual income reports. That will enable IRS computers to flag what appear to be loans being used to disguise income, though in most cases follow up would be needed by humans.
In our complex 21st Century economy we are beset with mind-numbing problems, many of which seem to defy sensible solutions. But requiring that all income be verified and treating business owners the same as their workers, that’s a simple problem that will get fixed if we demand our Congress act in our best interests regardless of how much it offends tax cheats among the political donor class.
These dual systems pose a threat to our nation’s social stability, to our national security and to America remaining a nation of equality under law. But there is a simple solution to this, as we shall see. It requires only that Congress stand up for honest and fair tax law enforcement, not the interests of those major campaign donors who cheat.
One of the most significant lessons applies to William Ingraham Koch and his company whether or not, as his former chief tax executive claims, the IRS failed to curb massive income tax “fraud.” That’s because if Koch did find a way to lawfully collect more than $100 million in tax-free profits annually it is just as much a public issue as if he did it by cheating.
Congress, Are You Listening?
No reasonable person can defend a system under which workers laboring all year for the $7.25 federal minimum wage pay more than a dollar a day in income taxes while billionaire business owners pocket millions in profits tax-free.
Nor is there any reasonable defense for hamstringing our tax police by requiring them to intensely audit the working poor while cutting resources to audit the well to do and the corporations they own.
America’s federal income tax system was long regarded as the most efficient and effective in the world, studied by tax administrators from Argentina to Zimbabwe. China’s system was designed four decades ago with American advice. Britain’s was reformed a quarter century ago to be more like America’s.
But today we suffer because our Congress has failed in its duty to ensure that our federal tax system flows from the economy instead of cutting against it while making sure that the tax police—the IRS—enforce our tax laws equal shares of fairness and vigor. The Koch Papers series illuminates all of these problems and more.
The creation of two tax systems grows from Congress treating Americans differently depending on how they earn their daily bread.
Congress does not trust those in the first system—workers, pensioners and investors who collect dividends and interest.
For these Americans, income is independently verified and taxes are withheld before people get paid.The IRS knows how much you made because Congress requires your employer, pension agency or stock broker to report your income to IRS computers.
Under this reporting regime, cheating is nearly impossible.
America’s other income tax system applies to wealthy people who own their business, including Bill Koch and Donald Trump.
No Income Verification
Congress trusts such people to faithfully report their revenues, profits and losses and to pay 100 percent of their income taxes voluntarily. Unlike workers, there is little or no independent verification of business income.
It makes no sense to regard them as models of integrity, given decades of experience showing that tax cheating is rampant. One man pocketed $450 million tax-free with the IRS in the dark until a jilted lover turned him in. The IRS admitted in 2005 that it has no idea about the extent of high-end tax cheating.
Audits are the only way to have any assurance that rich business owners are paying the taxes that Congress requires.
But the number of audits has been shriveling along with time spent per audit. In addition, the IRS adopted rules two decades ago, at the behest of Congress, requiring auditors to warn companies in advance what issues would be examined and to not look more broadly unless the evidence they found rose to indications of criminality. The IRS long ago abandoned quality in corporate audits in favor of closing them quickly. And it has told Congress that the tax code is so complex that it cannot untangle many of the tax shelters sold by Wall Street.
Corporations have learned that withholding documents is a good way to avoid getting caught not paying all the taxes they owe. That is one of the many accusations against Bill Koch and his company leveled in whistleblower complaints by Charles Middleton, Koch’s former top tax executive. Koch and his company, Carbon Oxbow LLC, simply say the IRS closed its audit with no changes.
Playing ‘Audit Roulette’
Middleton gave the IRS documents that he says show Koch and his company knowingly engaged in “audit roulette,” which is cheating in the expectation that it was unlikely to be caught by IRS auditors and, if is, by withholding documents.
Last year, the risk that millionaires and billionaires would have their tax returns audited was 1-in-31. Every tax expert I know says the willingness to play audit roulette has been rising as audits of the rich and their companies have shrunk over the last three decades.
Tax audit roulette, not incidentally, is a much safer bet than spinning the wheel in Atlantic City where the odds are 19-to-1.
Audit rules for partnerships, which do not pay taxes directly, are dramatically more in favor of tax cheats. Over the last two decades, audit rates have ranged between 400-to-1 at the turn of the centuryto 224-to-1 in recently.
The falling audit risk is measured by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, which has a federal court order requiring the IRS to turn over data monthly.
TRAC’s latest report documents “an alarming and continued downward spiral in government audits of the wealthiest taxpayers and America’s corporate giants. Despite growing income inequality—where the top 1% of Americans control much of the wealth in the United States—less and less attention is being given by federal agents and investigators to determine whether these same individuals and businesses properly report their true incomes and pay taxes on these dollars. Billions of dollars are arguably at stake, as is American faith in the fairness of our federal tax system.”
The way to make the system fair is to require withholding on all income. Business owners who take money out of their companies should be required to rely on a trustee whose legal duty is to withhold taxes and report the income, risking prison or failure to do so. That is how the system operates for workers, pensioners and investors.
Along with this Congress needs to enact rules requiring the reporting of loans to and from companies by their owners that are consolidated with individual income reports. That will enable IRS computers to flag what appear to be loans being used to disguise income, though in most cases follow up would be needed by humans.
In our complex 21st Century economy we are beset with mind-numbing problems, many of which seem to defy sensible solutions. But requiring that all income be verified and treating business owners the same as their workers, that’s a simple problem that will get fixed if we demand our Congress act in our best interests regardless of how much it offends tax cheats among the political donor class.
you are being robbed!!!
op - ed: The Financial Industry Preys on 401(k) Fees. It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way.
BY Dean Baker, Truthout
PUBLISHED July 8, 2019
Many people studying retirement income have long warned about the risk to future retirees from the collapse of the traditional defined benefit pension. Middle-class workers have generally been able to enjoy reasonably comfortable retirements due to the income these defined pensions provided, in addition to their Social Security.
However, with defined benefit pensions rapidly disappearing, and Social Security benefits replacing a smaller share of income, the prospects for future retirees looks considerably worse. An increase in the percentage of health care costs not covered by Medicare also does not help.
Conservatives have long argued that the loss of defined benefit pensions was no big deal since 401(k)s and IRAs would fill the gap. Many actually claimed that these retirement instruments were superior to pensions since workers have more control over these defined contribution systems, where workers decide how much they want to contribute and how quickly they draw it down.
That claim is harder to make now that 401(k)s have been in existence for almost four decades. The situation for near-retirees does not look very good. They are going to have to work until age 67 to collect full Social Security benefits.
Last year, economist David Rosnick looked at the most recent Survey of Consumer Finance from the Federal Reserve Board. It showed that the middle quintile of households in the 55 to 64 age range had, on average, just $99,000 in retirement savings.
That amount of retirement savings could provide a boost of roughly $5,000 to $6,000 a year above Social Security income. That is roughly half as much as the middle quintile of current retirees receives from defined benefit pensions. (This group of current retirees already gets over $2,000 a year, on average, from defined contribution plans like 401(k)s or 403(b)s.) It is also worth noting that the homeowners in this group now have an average of just 58.5 percent of their home paid off, compared to 81.0 percent in 1989. We can expect a serious decline in retiree living standards.
There are two reasons why 401(k)s have not filled the gap created by the loss of traditional pensions. The first is simply that many workers don’t have them at their workplace. Either employers don’t enroll workers until they are employed for a year or two, or businesses find the paperwork associated with a 401(k) to be too big of a headache. As a result, only 50 percent of workers currently contribute to a 401(k).
The second big problem is that financial industry fees eat up much of what gets contributed to these accounts. Average expenses of 401(k)s run over 1.0 percent of holdings and in some companies as much as 2.0 percent. This is a huge deal.
For someone saving $3,000 a year, the 1.0 percent pulled out by financial industry fees will reduce retirement savings by almost $30,000 after 30 years. A worker paying 2.0 percent in annual fees will have handed almost $50,000 to the financial industry after 30 years.
The losses would be even larger for workers making bigger contributions. A worker putting $6,000 into their account for 30 years, and paying 2.0 percent in fees, will have made a gift of $100,000 to the financial industry.
This is where the Oregon story comes in. Oregon has established a system of state-managed accounts where employers who do not have their own retirement plan are required to enroll their employees. The plan has a default 5 percent contribution from workers. While workers can opt out of this contribution, the overwhelming majority have chosen not to do so. By having workers contribute every year, and by having a system with far lower costs than privately managed 401(k)s, workers can expect retirement incomes of close to 80 percent of their working income when the system is fully phased in.
It is great to see this system in place in Oregon, but similar systems will also soon be in operation in California, New York, Illinois and several other states. These systems will likely require adjustments as time goes on, but by ensuring that workers contribute in most years of employment and that costs are low, workers can use these systems to replace the retirement that used to come from traditional pensions.
Ideally, this sort of system could be implemented nationally, but with the current president and Congress, that is out of the question. Even if the Democrats retake the White House in 2020, they may not have the ability to get a system like this through Congress.
As a result, we are likely to see the same sort of divide with retirement income that we already see with minimum wages, paid family and sick leave, and other benefits for workers and families. Progressive states are moving forward with measures that ensure their residents a decent standard of living. Meanwhile, the states controlled by Republicans are going as fast as they can in the opposite direction.
This is not a good story for the tens of millions of workers and their families that happen to live in Republican states. But we should at least be glad that workers in some states are benefiting from progressive policies and hope that the rest of the country will follow the same path before too long.
However, with defined benefit pensions rapidly disappearing, and Social Security benefits replacing a smaller share of income, the prospects for future retirees looks considerably worse. An increase in the percentage of health care costs not covered by Medicare also does not help.
Conservatives have long argued that the loss of defined benefit pensions was no big deal since 401(k)s and IRAs would fill the gap. Many actually claimed that these retirement instruments were superior to pensions since workers have more control over these defined contribution systems, where workers decide how much they want to contribute and how quickly they draw it down.
That claim is harder to make now that 401(k)s have been in existence for almost four decades. The situation for near-retirees does not look very good. They are going to have to work until age 67 to collect full Social Security benefits.
Last year, economist David Rosnick looked at the most recent Survey of Consumer Finance from the Federal Reserve Board. It showed that the middle quintile of households in the 55 to 64 age range had, on average, just $99,000 in retirement savings.
That amount of retirement savings could provide a boost of roughly $5,000 to $6,000 a year above Social Security income. That is roughly half as much as the middle quintile of current retirees receives from defined benefit pensions. (This group of current retirees already gets over $2,000 a year, on average, from defined contribution plans like 401(k)s or 403(b)s.) It is also worth noting that the homeowners in this group now have an average of just 58.5 percent of their home paid off, compared to 81.0 percent in 1989. We can expect a serious decline in retiree living standards.
There are two reasons why 401(k)s have not filled the gap created by the loss of traditional pensions. The first is simply that many workers don’t have them at their workplace. Either employers don’t enroll workers until they are employed for a year or two, or businesses find the paperwork associated with a 401(k) to be too big of a headache. As a result, only 50 percent of workers currently contribute to a 401(k).
The second big problem is that financial industry fees eat up much of what gets contributed to these accounts. Average expenses of 401(k)s run over 1.0 percent of holdings and in some companies as much as 2.0 percent. This is a huge deal.
For someone saving $3,000 a year, the 1.0 percent pulled out by financial industry fees will reduce retirement savings by almost $30,000 after 30 years. A worker paying 2.0 percent in annual fees will have handed almost $50,000 to the financial industry after 30 years.
The losses would be even larger for workers making bigger contributions. A worker putting $6,000 into their account for 30 years, and paying 2.0 percent in fees, will have made a gift of $100,000 to the financial industry.
This is where the Oregon story comes in. Oregon has established a system of state-managed accounts where employers who do not have their own retirement plan are required to enroll their employees. The plan has a default 5 percent contribution from workers. While workers can opt out of this contribution, the overwhelming majority have chosen not to do so. By having workers contribute every year, and by having a system with far lower costs than privately managed 401(k)s, workers can expect retirement incomes of close to 80 percent of their working income when the system is fully phased in.
It is great to see this system in place in Oregon, but similar systems will also soon be in operation in California, New York, Illinois and several other states. These systems will likely require adjustments as time goes on, but by ensuring that workers contribute in most years of employment and that costs are low, workers can use these systems to replace the retirement that used to come from traditional pensions.
Ideally, this sort of system could be implemented nationally, but with the current president and Congress, that is out of the question. Even if the Democrats retake the White House in 2020, they may not have the ability to get a system like this through Congress.
As a result, we are likely to see the same sort of divide with retirement income that we already see with minimum wages, paid family and sick leave, and other benefits for workers and families. Progressive states are moving forward with measures that ensure their residents a decent standard of living. Meanwhile, the states controlled by Republicans are going as fast as they can in the opposite direction.
This is not a good story for the tens of millions of workers and their families that happen to live in Republican states. But we should at least be glad that workers in some states are benefiting from progressive policies and hope that the rest of the country will follow the same path before too long.
GrubHub is trying to get its grubby paws into mom-and-pop restaurants' pockets
Controlling restaurants' internet presence. Cornering the online takeout market. GrubHub looks a lot like a cartel
NICOLE KARLIS - Salon
JULY 5, 2019 10:00PM (UTC)
As if Silicon Valley needed another grimy exemplar of its culture of arrogance, a new report reveals the cartel-esque way that GrubHub exploits and forcibly takes cuts from mom-and-pop restaurants.
Yes, GrubHub, the seemingly-innocent food app you may have used to order takeout or delivery from local restaurants — one of the first mainstream apps of its kind to bring ordering takeout online and away from the phone. It seemed convenient and benign enough at first. Then it acquired a handful of related companies, including Seamless, AllMenus and MenuPages, essentially becoming a duopoly with Yelp. Now, in its rapacious quest for profit, GrubHub has allegedly been making money off restaurants by controlling their internet presence without them knowing.
The report, published in New Food Economy, documents the story of Shivane M., who owns two small restaurants in Brooklyn and Queens with her husband. Shivane was gearing up to ditch GrubHub after realizing the company’s commission fees had been increasing over the years, hurting her restaurants' bottom line. One month, she gave an $8,000 cut to the company. In an attempt to ditch GrubHub, she considered increasing her restaurant's web presence to offer online orders from their own website. But according to the report, Shivane was shocked to find that GrubHub already owned a domain that matched her restaurant’s name. Shivane makes clear she never “gave them permission to do that.”
Shivane is not alone. GrubHub has actually registered more than 23,000 web domains (full list here). Additionally, according to the report by the New Food Economy, GrubHub has allegedly set up generic, templated pages that look like restaurant websites, but only link to GrubHub, and provide phone numbers that GrubHub controls. This tactic enables GrubHub to charge the restaurant a commission fee, making sure that GrubHub is always the middleman, even when the restaurant is unaware.
GrubHub has denied these claims since the story was published, saying its contract agreements with businesses allow the company to engage in marketing tactics on their behalf. “The allegations are untrue,” Chief Executive Matt Maloney wrote in an email to employees, obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “And those spreading false narratives are being reckless.”
The Los Angeles Times obtained a contract that supported Maloney’s disputes. The terms of service signed by restaurant owners says GrubHub “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.”
There are two sides to every story, but the bottom line is this type of issue has become synonymous with the gig economy and big tech companies. You saw this with journalism: tech companies, mostly Twitter, Facebook and Google, came to control the majority of the distribution of online news; once they got to that point, those companies came to dictate to the news sites (off whom they profit) the rules of engagement in order to keep news sites' ad revenue coming. Just as the media industry has been decimated by tech's oligopolies, GrubHub seems intent on doing the same to the restaurant industry. And because corporations can afford lawyers who can foresee how to squirrel away contractual language like the aforementioned, the power imbalance is embodied in the fine print.
As Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, explained to the Los Angeles Times, “the terms of service have become a way for these large companies to establish and justify an exploitative relationship. They’re typically something that is take it or leave it. If you don’t take it, you’re locked out of half the market.”
One might also recall the saga of Uber and Lyft, a duopoly that has become a gatekeeper for rideshare drivers' (often terrible) wages. Said drivers are largely helpless in the face of these megaliths (though that doesn't mean some haven't attempted to band together to try to make a better wage).
It might be too late for small restaurants to regain their internet presence, and do their own marketing to reach more customers — unless lawmakers take some action. For now, if you feel uncomfortable with letting a middleman like GrubHub take a cut off every takeout or delivery order, you can always just order over the phone. (Just make sure it's not one of the "fake" forwarding numbers that GrubHub secretly controls.)
Yes, GrubHub, the seemingly-innocent food app you may have used to order takeout or delivery from local restaurants — one of the first mainstream apps of its kind to bring ordering takeout online and away from the phone. It seemed convenient and benign enough at first. Then it acquired a handful of related companies, including Seamless, AllMenus and MenuPages, essentially becoming a duopoly with Yelp. Now, in its rapacious quest for profit, GrubHub has allegedly been making money off restaurants by controlling their internet presence without them knowing.
The report, published in New Food Economy, documents the story of Shivane M., who owns two small restaurants in Brooklyn and Queens with her husband. Shivane was gearing up to ditch GrubHub after realizing the company’s commission fees had been increasing over the years, hurting her restaurants' bottom line. One month, she gave an $8,000 cut to the company. In an attempt to ditch GrubHub, she considered increasing her restaurant's web presence to offer online orders from their own website. But according to the report, Shivane was shocked to find that GrubHub already owned a domain that matched her restaurant’s name. Shivane makes clear she never “gave them permission to do that.”
Shivane is not alone. GrubHub has actually registered more than 23,000 web domains (full list here). Additionally, according to the report by the New Food Economy, GrubHub has allegedly set up generic, templated pages that look like restaurant websites, but only link to GrubHub, and provide phone numbers that GrubHub controls. This tactic enables GrubHub to charge the restaurant a commission fee, making sure that GrubHub is always the middleman, even when the restaurant is unaware.
GrubHub has denied these claims since the story was published, saying its contract agreements with businesses allow the company to engage in marketing tactics on their behalf. “The allegations are untrue,” Chief Executive Matt Maloney wrote in an email to employees, obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “And those spreading false narratives are being reckless.”
The Los Angeles Times obtained a contract that supported Maloney’s disputes. The terms of service signed by restaurant owners says GrubHub “may create, maintain and operate a microsite (“MS”) and obtain the URL for such MS on restaurant’s behalf.”
There are two sides to every story, but the bottom line is this type of issue has become synonymous with the gig economy and big tech companies. You saw this with journalism: tech companies, mostly Twitter, Facebook and Google, came to control the majority of the distribution of online news; once they got to that point, those companies came to dictate to the news sites (off whom they profit) the rules of engagement in order to keep news sites' ad revenue coming. Just as the media industry has been decimated by tech's oligopolies, GrubHub seems intent on doing the same to the restaurant industry. And because corporations can afford lawyers who can foresee how to squirrel away contractual language like the aforementioned, the power imbalance is embodied in the fine print.
As Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, explained to the Los Angeles Times, “the terms of service have become a way for these large companies to establish and justify an exploitative relationship. They’re typically something that is take it or leave it. If you don’t take it, you’re locked out of half the market.”
One might also recall the saga of Uber and Lyft, a duopoly that has become a gatekeeper for rideshare drivers' (often terrible) wages. Said drivers are largely helpless in the face of these megaliths (though that doesn't mean some haven't attempted to band together to try to make a better wage).
It might be too late for small restaurants to regain their internet presence, and do their own marketing to reach more customers — unless lawmakers take some action. For now, if you feel uncomfortable with letting a middleman like GrubHub take a cut off every takeout or delivery order, you can always just order over the phone. (Just make sure it's not one of the "fake" forwarding numbers that GrubHub secretly controls.)
America’s biggest economic problem isn’t China
June 27, 2019
By Robert Reich - Commentary - Raw Story
Xi Jinping might possibly agree this weekend when he meets Donald Trump on further steps to bring down China’s trade imbalance with the US, giving Trump a face-saving way of ending his trade war.
But Xi won’t agree to change China’s economic system. Why should he?
The American economic system is focused on maximizing shareholder returns. And it’s achieving that goal. Last Friday, the S&P 500 notched a new all-time high.
But average Americans have seen no significant gains in their incomes for four decades, adjusted for inflation.
China’s economic system, by contrast, is focused on maximizing China. And it’s achieving that goal.
Forty years ago China was still backward and agrarian. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy, home to the world’s biggest auto industry and some of the world’s most powerful technology companies. Over the last four decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty.
The two systems are fundamentally different.
At the core of the American system are 500 giant companies headquartered in the US but making, buying and selling things all over the world. Half of their employees are non-American, located outside the US. A third of their shareholders are non-American.
These giant corporations have no particular allegiance to America. Their only allegiance and responsibility is to their shareholders.
They’ll do whatever is necessary to get their share prices as high as possible – including keeping wages down, fighting unions, reclassifying employees as independent contractors, outsourcing anywhere around world where parts are cheapest, shifting their profits around the world wherever taxes are lowest, and paying their top CEOs ludicrous sums.
At the core of China’s economy, by contrast, are state-owned companies that borrow from state banks at artificially low rates. These state firms balance the ups and downs of the economy, spending more when private companies are reluctant to do so.
China’s core planners and state-owned companies will do whatever is necessary both to improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy.
Trump thinks that’s unfair. But it works. Since 1978, the Chinese economy has grown by an average of more than 9% per year. Growth has slowed recently, and American tariffs could bring it down to 6% or 7%, but that’s still faster than almost any other economy in the world, including the US.
The American system relies on taxes, subsidies and regulations to coax corporations to act in the interest of the American public. But these levers have proven weak relative to the overriding corporate goal of maximizing shareholder returns.
Last week, for example, Walmart, American’s largest employer, announced it would lay off 570 employees despite taking home more than $2bn courtesy of Trump and the Republican corporate tax cuts. Last year, the company closed dozens of Sam’s Club stores, leaving thousands of Americans out of work.
At the same time, Walmart has plowed more than $20 billion into buying back shares of its own stock, which boosts the pay of Walmart executives and enriches wealthy investors but does nothing for the economy.
It should be noted that Walmart is a global company, not adverse to bribing foreign officials to get its way. Last Thursday it agreed to pay $282m to settle federal allegations of overseas corruption, including channeling more than $500,000 to an intermediary in Brazil known as a “sorceress” for her ability to make construction permit problems disappear.
The Trump tax cut did squat for jobs and wages but did nicely for corporate executives and big investors. Instead of reinvesting the savings into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies used it to buy back stock.
But wait. America is a democracy and China is a dictatorship, right?
True, but most Americans have little or no influence on public policy – which is why the Trump tax cut did so little for them.
That’s the conclusion of professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues before Congress and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.
Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations, those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.
Don’t blame American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.
But because of their dominance in American politics and their commitment to share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans, it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness.
I’m not suggesting we emulate the Chinese economic system. I am suggesting that we not be smug about the American economic system.
Instead of trying to get China to change, we should lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American policy.
China isn’t the reason half of America hasn’t had a raise in four decades. The simple fact is Americans cannot thrive within a system run largely by big American corporations, organized to boost their share prices but not boost Americans.
But Xi won’t agree to change China’s economic system. Why should he?
The American economic system is focused on maximizing shareholder returns. And it’s achieving that goal. Last Friday, the S&P 500 notched a new all-time high.
But average Americans have seen no significant gains in their incomes for four decades, adjusted for inflation.
China’s economic system, by contrast, is focused on maximizing China. And it’s achieving that goal.
Forty years ago China was still backward and agrarian. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy, home to the world’s biggest auto industry and some of the world’s most powerful technology companies. Over the last four decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty.
The two systems are fundamentally different.
At the core of the American system are 500 giant companies headquartered in the US but making, buying and selling things all over the world. Half of their employees are non-American, located outside the US. A third of their shareholders are non-American.
These giant corporations have no particular allegiance to America. Their only allegiance and responsibility is to their shareholders.
They’ll do whatever is necessary to get their share prices as high as possible – including keeping wages down, fighting unions, reclassifying employees as independent contractors, outsourcing anywhere around world where parts are cheapest, shifting their profits around the world wherever taxes are lowest, and paying their top CEOs ludicrous sums.
At the core of China’s economy, by contrast, are state-owned companies that borrow from state banks at artificially low rates. These state firms balance the ups and downs of the economy, spending more when private companies are reluctant to do so.
China’s core planners and state-owned companies will do whatever is necessary both to improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy.
Trump thinks that’s unfair. But it works. Since 1978, the Chinese economy has grown by an average of more than 9% per year. Growth has slowed recently, and American tariffs could bring it down to 6% or 7%, but that’s still faster than almost any other economy in the world, including the US.
The American system relies on taxes, subsidies and regulations to coax corporations to act in the interest of the American public. But these levers have proven weak relative to the overriding corporate goal of maximizing shareholder returns.
Last week, for example, Walmart, American’s largest employer, announced it would lay off 570 employees despite taking home more than $2bn courtesy of Trump and the Republican corporate tax cuts. Last year, the company closed dozens of Sam’s Club stores, leaving thousands of Americans out of work.
At the same time, Walmart has plowed more than $20 billion into buying back shares of its own stock, which boosts the pay of Walmart executives and enriches wealthy investors but does nothing for the economy.
It should be noted that Walmart is a global company, not adverse to bribing foreign officials to get its way. Last Thursday it agreed to pay $282m to settle federal allegations of overseas corruption, including channeling more than $500,000 to an intermediary in Brazil known as a “sorceress” for her ability to make construction permit problems disappear.
The Trump tax cut did squat for jobs and wages but did nicely for corporate executives and big investors. Instead of reinvesting the savings into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies used it to buy back stock.
But wait. America is a democracy and China is a dictatorship, right?
True, but most Americans have little or no influence on public policy – which is why the Trump tax cut did so little for them.
That’s the conclusion of professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues before Congress and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.
Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations, those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.
Don’t blame American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.
But because of their dominance in American politics and their commitment to share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans, it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness.
I’m not suggesting we emulate the Chinese economic system. I am suggesting that we not be smug about the American economic system.
Instead of trying to get China to change, we should lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American policy.
China isn’t the reason half of America hasn’t had a raise in four decades. The simple fact is Americans cannot thrive within a system run largely by big American corporations, organized to boost their share prices but not boost Americans.
Walmart got a $2.2 billion tax cut. Now it's laying off workers
Retail giant is among numerous companies that shared tax windfall with shareholders while laying off many workers
IGOR DERYSH - Salon
JUNE 20, 2019 10:00AM (UTC)
Walmart announced it will lay off hundreds of workers in North Carolina despite receiving billions in tax cuts that the Republican Party and President Trump claimed would spur job growth.
The giant retailer will lay off about 570 employees and close its corporate office near the Charlotte airport, despite signing a 12-year lease just four years earlier, the Charlotte Business Journal reported.
The work done at the Charlotte facility will be outsourced to a firm in Arkansas, according to the report.
Layoffs are expected to begin in September and continue into 2020.
“This was a difficult decision that affects friends and associates we care about deeply,” the company said in a statement to the Charlotte Business Journal. “We appreciate their important contributions, and we’re committed to handling every transition over the next seven months smoothly and respectfully. We are maintaining a corporate presence in Charlotte. As our company continues evolving, we’ve said we must strike the right balance between managing the needs of our business, our associates and our customers.”
The layoffs come as Walmart reaps billions in tax cuts thanks to the 2017 Republican tax cuts. Walmart saved $1.6 billion through the first three quarters of 2018, The New York Times reported in December, and experts say the tax law will save the company $2.2 billion in taxes per year, roughly a 40 percent cut from past years.
Trump touted Walmart’s decision to give employees one-time $1,000 bonuses as proof that his tax cuts were working. “Great news, as a result of our TAX CUTS & JOBS ACT!” the president tweeted last year.
The tweet came just hours before Walmart announced that it would be closing 63 of its Sam’s Club stores and laying off thousands of employees. The closures came after the company announced a $20 billion stock buyback.
Walmart is not the only major company laying off workers despite saving billions.
The technology giant Qualcomm announced last year a $10 billion stock buyback, which benefits wealthy shareholders, while laying off more than 1,500 people in California.
"Consistent with our commitment to return capital to our stockholders, we are pleased that our Board has approved a new stock repurchase authorization,” the company said at the time.
Kimberly-Clark, the makers of products like Kleenex and Huggies, claimed that the tax cut would be "the equivalent of a 6% increase in earnings," only to lay off 5,500 people, or 13 percent of its workforce, immediately following the tax cuts, The Washington Post reported.
"We also anticipate ongoing annual cash flow benefits from tax reform," company COO Maria Henry said, "that provides us flexibility to allocate significant capital to shareholders."
CNBC reported last year that stock buybacks averaged $4.8 billion per year in 2018, double the rate from the previous year. Companies made a record $1.1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018 and are expected to surpass that number this year, according to Axios.
Axios reported that despite a huge windfall from the tax cuts, the top 1 percent of earners and big companies are “sitting on record levels of unused cash.” Instead of reinvesting the money into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies are instead using it to buy back stock.
Companies could use that money pay their workers more, Capital Economics chief economist Neil Shearing told the outlet, but "that would be terrible for the stock market.”
The giant retailer will lay off about 570 employees and close its corporate office near the Charlotte airport, despite signing a 12-year lease just four years earlier, the Charlotte Business Journal reported.
The work done at the Charlotte facility will be outsourced to a firm in Arkansas, according to the report.
Layoffs are expected to begin in September and continue into 2020.
“This was a difficult decision that affects friends and associates we care about deeply,” the company said in a statement to the Charlotte Business Journal. “We appreciate their important contributions, and we’re committed to handling every transition over the next seven months smoothly and respectfully. We are maintaining a corporate presence in Charlotte. As our company continues evolving, we’ve said we must strike the right balance between managing the needs of our business, our associates and our customers.”
The layoffs come as Walmart reaps billions in tax cuts thanks to the 2017 Republican tax cuts. Walmart saved $1.6 billion through the first three quarters of 2018, The New York Times reported in December, and experts say the tax law will save the company $2.2 billion in taxes per year, roughly a 40 percent cut from past years.
Trump touted Walmart’s decision to give employees one-time $1,000 bonuses as proof that his tax cuts were working. “Great news, as a result of our TAX CUTS & JOBS ACT!” the president tweeted last year.
The tweet came just hours before Walmart announced that it would be closing 63 of its Sam’s Club stores and laying off thousands of employees. The closures came after the company announced a $20 billion stock buyback.
Walmart is not the only major company laying off workers despite saving billions.
The technology giant Qualcomm announced last year a $10 billion stock buyback, which benefits wealthy shareholders, while laying off more than 1,500 people in California.
"Consistent with our commitment to return capital to our stockholders, we are pleased that our Board has approved a new stock repurchase authorization,” the company said at the time.
Kimberly-Clark, the makers of products like Kleenex and Huggies, claimed that the tax cut would be "the equivalent of a 6% increase in earnings," only to lay off 5,500 people, or 13 percent of its workforce, immediately following the tax cuts, The Washington Post reported.
"We also anticipate ongoing annual cash flow benefits from tax reform," company COO Maria Henry said, "that provides us flexibility to allocate significant capital to shareholders."
CNBC reported last year that stock buybacks averaged $4.8 billion per year in 2018, double the rate from the previous year. Companies made a record $1.1 trillion in stock buybacks in 2018 and are expected to surpass that number this year, according to Axios.
Axios reported that despite a huge windfall from the tax cuts, the top 1 percent of earners and big companies are “sitting on record levels of unused cash.” Instead of reinvesting the money into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies are instead using it to buy back stock.
Companies could use that money pay their workers more, Capital Economics chief economist Neil Shearing told the outlet, but "that would be terrible for the stock market.”
Here are 4 ways unrestrained crony capitalism is making Americans’ lives miserable
Alex Henderson - Salon
June 17, 2019
Although Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both running for president in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, have similar economic views, they part company when it comes to the use of the words “socialism” and “capitalism.” Sanders describes himself as a “democratic socialist,” while Warren has declared, “I’m a capitalist to my bones.” But truth be told, Sanders and Warren are both disciples of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society — and both of them are campaigning on the fact that unrestrained crony capitalism has been a source of misery for the American working class.
The private sector certainly has its place in the United States, but absent sufficient regulation, one doesn’t have a free market, but rather, monopolies, gaping inequality and exploitation of consumers. Sanders, Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others in the liberal/progressive movement of 2019 are not really anti-capitalist; what they are railing against is crony capitalism.
Here are some ways in which unrestrained crony capitalism is making Americans’ lives miserable.
1. Health care
Of all the major industrialized developed countries, the United States is the most dysfunctional when it comes to health care. Americans pay more for health care than their counterparts in Europe, Australia, Japan or New Zealand, yet get much worse results. And Americans are dying younger: life expectancy, according to CIA World Factbook data, was only 79 in the U.S. in 2015 compared to 84 in Japan, 82 in Switzerland, Italy and Australia or 81 in the Netherlands and Sweden.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare, was an improvement over the horrible health insurance system the U.S. had before that, but insurance companies still have way too much power and can discourage Americans from seeking preventative care. Democrats have different views on how to achieve universal health care: Sanders favors a Medicare-for-all system, while the centrist Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (another presidential candidate) favors an aggressive expansion of Obamacare combined with a possible public health option.
Democrats can have a robust debate on what universal health care should ultimately look like in the U.S., but whatever their views, there is no question that insurance companies and their abusive practices exemplify crony capitalism at its absolute worst.
2. Banking abuses
Sanders, contrary to what the far right claims, is not promoting a “government takeover of banking,” but he does favor using anti-trust laws to break up large megabanks into much smaller banks and forcing them to compete with one another. Ironically, a self-described “democratic socialist” — unlike his Republican opponents in the Senate — is the one promoting a fundamental element of free-market capitalism: competition. And when megabanks are allowed to merge with other megabanks and competition is reduced, consumers inevitably suffer. Banks have a long history of charging outrageous fees for everything from writing checks to using debit cards to having checking account balances under $1500, and the more the too-big-to-fail model is encouraged, the more abusive they are inclined to be.
3. A severe housing crisis
Warren is absolute right when she asserts that the U.S. is suffering from “a severe lack of affordable housing.” The problem is especially harsh in large cities, where millions of Americans are rent-stressed yet cannot afford to purchase a home. Developers, as Warren has noted, “can usually turn bigger profits by building fancier new units targeted at higher-income families rather than units targeted at lower-income families.” To tackle the crisis, Warren has proposed legislation to encourage “federal investments to increase” the United States’ “housing supply.”
4. Unfair tax policies
The GOP-sponsored Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which lowered the corporate tax rate in the U.S. from 35% to 21%, is classic trickle-down economics. While giant corporations have prospered, the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax code offered precious little tax relief for the American middle class. And in fact, some of the tax deductions that the law eliminated or reduced resulted in higher tax bills for middle class Americans.
The private sector certainly has its place in the United States, but absent sufficient regulation, one doesn’t have a free market, but rather, monopolies, gaping inequality and exploitation of consumers. Sanders, Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others in the liberal/progressive movement of 2019 are not really anti-capitalist; what they are railing against is crony capitalism.
Here are some ways in which unrestrained crony capitalism is making Americans’ lives miserable.
1. Health care
Of all the major industrialized developed countries, the United States is the most dysfunctional when it comes to health care. Americans pay more for health care than their counterparts in Europe, Australia, Japan or New Zealand, yet get much worse results. And Americans are dying younger: life expectancy, according to CIA World Factbook data, was only 79 in the U.S. in 2015 compared to 84 in Japan, 82 in Switzerland, Italy and Australia or 81 in the Netherlands and Sweden.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare, was an improvement over the horrible health insurance system the U.S. had before that, but insurance companies still have way too much power and can discourage Americans from seeking preventative care. Democrats have different views on how to achieve universal health care: Sanders favors a Medicare-for-all system, while the centrist Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (another presidential candidate) favors an aggressive expansion of Obamacare combined with a possible public health option.
Democrats can have a robust debate on what universal health care should ultimately look like in the U.S., but whatever their views, there is no question that insurance companies and their abusive practices exemplify crony capitalism at its absolute worst.
2. Banking abuses
Sanders, contrary to what the far right claims, is not promoting a “government takeover of banking,” but he does favor using anti-trust laws to break up large megabanks into much smaller banks and forcing them to compete with one another. Ironically, a self-described “democratic socialist” — unlike his Republican opponents in the Senate — is the one promoting a fundamental element of free-market capitalism: competition. And when megabanks are allowed to merge with other megabanks and competition is reduced, consumers inevitably suffer. Banks have a long history of charging outrageous fees for everything from writing checks to using debit cards to having checking account balances under $1500, and the more the too-big-to-fail model is encouraged, the more abusive they are inclined to be.
3. A severe housing crisis
Warren is absolute right when she asserts that the U.S. is suffering from “a severe lack of affordable housing.” The problem is especially harsh in large cities, where millions of Americans are rent-stressed yet cannot afford to purchase a home. Developers, as Warren has noted, “can usually turn bigger profits by building fancier new units targeted at higher-income families rather than units targeted at lower-income families.” To tackle the crisis, Warren has proposed legislation to encourage “federal investments to increase” the United States’ “housing supply.”
4. Unfair tax policies
The GOP-sponsored Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which lowered the corporate tax rate in the U.S. from 35% to 21%, is classic trickle-down economics. While giant corporations have prospered, the Republican overhaul of the U.S. tax code offered precious little tax relief for the American middle class. And in fact, some of the tax deductions that the law eliminated or reduced resulted in higher tax bills for middle class Americans.
Profit over safety?
Boeing under fire over 737 Max crashes as families demand answers
Relatives are demanding clarity and believe they should be consulted on when or if the 737 Max flies again
Edward Helmore in New York
The Guardian
Mon 17 Jun 2019 02.00 EDT
On 10 March, 24-year-old Samya Stumo was on her way to start a healthcare job in Kenya when, along with 156 other passengers on an Ethiopian Airlines-operated Boeing 737 Max 8, she died as the plane took a high-speed dive into countryside outside Addis Ababa.
Now her parents, Michael Stumo and Nadia Milleron, together with her great-uncle Ralph Nader, have become the most vocal relatives to demand a say on when or if the fastest-selling plane in Boeing’s history should fly again.
For four months since the tragedy, Stumo and Milleron say they have been thwarted in their quest for clarity from Boeing, the company’s political representatives in Washington and regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration.
The couple recently filed a 50-page negligence lawsuit against Boeing, Ethiopian Airlines and Rosemount Aerospace, the makers of the sensor that informed the Max’s controversial MCAS anti-stall system at the center of investigations into the Ethiopian tragedy and the Lion Air Max crash last October.
“We just don’t want there to be a third crash,” Michael Stumo told the Guardian. “Nothing was done after the first Lion Air crash. Something has to be done now after the second.”
The drip of information about the rush development of the Max 8, the shortcomings and ferocity of its anti-stall technology, and the degree to which regulators permitted Boeing to certify the plane and its systems, have left Samya Stumo’s parents with little reason for confidence.
“We have a fear that the un-grounding process is being rushed and improperly influenced by a concern for Boeing’s profits more than for safety,” Stumo said.
In previous air crashes, families have had months to grieve before engaging in the process of investigation and public hearings. In this case, there was no time wasted. FAA officials have indicated the Max 8 could be back in service by the end of the year, though officially airlines have been told to keep the plane off their schedules only until 3 September.
“We felt only economic interests were being represented. So we felt an obligation to get involved quicker than we might want to,” Stumo said.
While the family is leaving the technical negligence arguments about the plane and its software systems to their lawyers, their narrative is straightforward. “The MCAS software grabbed control of the plane, overpowered the pilots and ran this plane into the ground at 500 or 600mph,” Stumo said.
In the days and months after the crash, the victims’ families communicated through WhatsApp groups. The single largest nationality of passengers lost in the Ethiopian crash was Kenyan, accounting for 47 passengers. There are currently 43 cases from the crash filed in Illinois district court, including on behalf of 10 Canadian victims, three generations of the Manant Vaidya family and the wife and three children of Kenyan Paul Njoroge.
Nadia Milleron said the couple are trying to help families from abroad through the US legal system. “After the Indonesian crash, there was no opportunity for victims’ families to stand up and say anything, so there was a second crash. We feel we have to do this.”
As other air crashes have shown, the greater the ability of victims’ families to work together the better the outcome. But Stumo said reliving the experience in the media or in testimony is distressing. “It takes something out of us each time we do it, but we want a return to a safety-first culture in American aviation.”
The couple recalled their hurried trip to Ethiopia in the hope Samya might have survived or that she or her effects might be recoverable. But the plane and its passengers were obliterated on impact.
As lawsuits begin to wind their way through the court system, a key question for the families – and future passengers – is when and if the 737 should be recertified by US regulators.
Boeing faces an estimated $1.4bn bill for canceled flights and airlines’ lost profits if the Max is still grounded by the end of September. It has cut its production rate for the model by 10 planes a month to 42.
Earlier this week, Ali Bahrami, the FAA administrator for aviation safety, said the agency was “under a lot of pressure” and that the plane should be back in the air by December, echoing comments by Boeing’s chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg.
But the FAA is not the only regulator involved. The European Aviation Safety Agency is examining Boeing’s changes to the plane’s flight-control system – a process that will not conclude until the end of July at the earliest.
“We don’t have confidence the FAA has not been captured by Boeing,” said Stumo. He believes the agency was unduly lax in allowing Boeing to include the MCAS system in the first place.
If or when the 737 Max is approved for service, airlines may face difficulties convincing passengers of its safety.
A study by US-based Global Business Travel Association for the Financial Times found more than 80% of business travel managers expressed concern about flying on the jet and two-thirds thought their employees might change travel plans to avoid flying on it.
American Airlines said last week it would ask airline executives to fly on the plane first to help build public confidence, reported Bloomberg.
On the eve of the Paris Air Show on Sunday, Muilenburg said he was “disappointed” that Boeing had not “crisply” relayed information in 2017 about changes in a cockpit alert system designed to warn pilots of a fault in the MCAS system.
Muilenburg said that the company “was very confident in the design solution that we have come up with”. Boeing, he added, had work to do “to re-earn the public’s trust”.
Victims’ families are also highly attuned to efforts to shift blame to the pilots for the crash. Last month, the Missouri Republican Sam Graves cited pilot error as a factor in the crash – which was rejected by Ethiopian Airlines. Boeing’s Muilenburg also implicated “foreign” pilots in the crashes and denied flaws in the 737 Max.
“It doesn’t give us confidence,” said Stumo. “You don’t blame the pilots that the plane overpowered, and you can’t just have the pilots as the last piece of redundancy before a crash.”
An Ethiopian Airlines representative said any effort “to divert public attention from the flight control system problem of the airplane is a futile exercise because it is not based on factually correct analysis”.
Nader, Milleron’s mother’s brother, has come out against the jet ever returning to service. He says placing larger engines on an airframe designed in the 1960s represents a basic design flaw.
The 737 Max “must never fly again”, Nader said at an aviation safety event in Washington earlier this month. “It’s not a matter of software. It’s a matter of structural design defect: the plane’s engines are too much for the traditional fuselage.”
But arguing for permanent grounding risks cutting victims’ families out of the safety process, an outcome Stumo and his wife are reluctant to consider because it could exclude them from the deliberative process of reapproval.
Instead, they maintain, instead of being guided by financial interests, Boeing needs to go back to being a premier, safety-at-all-costs, manufacturer.
If that requires a change of leadership, so be it, said Stumo. “Boeing needs to come clean. It needs to say: something went wrong with this plane. It grabbed control multiple times and tried to run it into the ground. It overpowered the pilots, and we need to figure out how this will not happen again.”
Now her parents, Michael Stumo and Nadia Milleron, together with her great-uncle Ralph Nader, have become the most vocal relatives to demand a say on when or if the fastest-selling plane in Boeing’s history should fly again.
For four months since the tragedy, Stumo and Milleron say they have been thwarted in their quest for clarity from Boeing, the company’s political representatives in Washington and regulators at the Federal Aviation Administration.
The couple recently filed a 50-page negligence lawsuit against Boeing, Ethiopian Airlines and Rosemount Aerospace, the makers of the sensor that informed the Max’s controversial MCAS anti-stall system at the center of investigations into the Ethiopian tragedy and the Lion Air Max crash last October.
“We just don’t want there to be a third crash,” Michael Stumo told the Guardian. “Nothing was done after the first Lion Air crash. Something has to be done now after the second.”
The drip of information about the rush development of the Max 8, the shortcomings and ferocity of its anti-stall technology, and the degree to which regulators permitted Boeing to certify the plane and its systems, have left Samya Stumo’s parents with little reason for confidence.
“We have a fear that the un-grounding process is being rushed and improperly influenced by a concern for Boeing’s profits more than for safety,” Stumo said.
In previous air crashes, families have had months to grieve before engaging in the process of investigation and public hearings. In this case, there was no time wasted. FAA officials have indicated the Max 8 could be back in service by the end of the year, though officially airlines have been told to keep the plane off their schedules only until 3 September.
“We felt only economic interests were being represented. So we felt an obligation to get involved quicker than we might want to,” Stumo said.
While the family is leaving the technical negligence arguments about the plane and its software systems to their lawyers, their narrative is straightforward. “The MCAS software grabbed control of the plane, overpowered the pilots and ran this plane into the ground at 500 or 600mph,” Stumo said.
In the days and months after the crash, the victims’ families communicated through WhatsApp groups. The single largest nationality of passengers lost in the Ethiopian crash was Kenyan, accounting for 47 passengers. There are currently 43 cases from the crash filed in Illinois district court, including on behalf of 10 Canadian victims, three generations of the Manant Vaidya family and the wife and three children of Kenyan Paul Njoroge.
Nadia Milleron said the couple are trying to help families from abroad through the US legal system. “After the Indonesian crash, there was no opportunity for victims’ families to stand up and say anything, so there was a second crash. We feel we have to do this.”
As other air crashes have shown, the greater the ability of victims’ families to work together the better the outcome. But Stumo said reliving the experience in the media or in testimony is distressing. “It takes something out of us each time we do it, but we want a return to a safety-first culture in American aviation.”
The couple recalled their hurried trip to Ethiopia in the hope Samya might have survived or that she or her effects might be recoverable. But the plane and its passengers were obliterated on impact.
As lawsuits begin to wind their way through the court system, a key question for the families – and future passengers – is when and if the 737 should be recertified by US regulators.
Boeing faces an estimated $1.4bn bill for canceled flights and airlines’ lost profits if the Max is still grounded by the end of September. It has cut its production rate for the model by 10 planes a month to 42.
Earlier this week, Ali Bahrami, the FAA administrator for aviation safety, said the agency was “under a lot of pressure” and that the plane should be back in the air by December, echoing comments by Boeing’s chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg.
But the FAA is not the only regulator involved. The European Aviation Safety Agency is examining Boeing’s changes to the plane’s flight-control system – a process that will not conclude until the end of July at the earliest.
“We don’t have confidence the FAA has not been captured by Boeing,” said Stumo. He believes the agency was unduly lax in allowing Boeing to include the MCAS system in the first place.
If or when the 737 Max is approved for service, airlines may face difficulties convincing passengers of its safety.
A study by US-based Global Business Travel Association for the Financial Times found more than 80% of business travel managers expressed concern about flying on the jet and two-thirds thought their employees might change travel plans to avoid flying on it.
American Airlines said last week it would ask airline executives to fly on the plane first to help build public confidence, reported Bloomberg.
On the eve of the Paris Air Show on Sunday, Muilenburg said he was “disappointed” that Boeing had not “crisply” relayed information in 2017 about changes in a cockpit alert system designed to warn pilots of a fault in the MCAS system.
Muilenburg said that the company “was very confident in the design solution that we have come up with”. Boeing, he added, had work to do “to re-earn the public’s trust”.
Victims’ families are also highly attuned to efforts to shift blame to the pilots for the crash. Last month, the Missouri Republican Sam Graves cited pilot error as a factor in the crash – which was rejected by Ethiopian Airlines. Boeing’s Muilenburg also implicated “foreign” pilots in the crashes and denied flaws in the 737 Max.
“It doesn’t give us confidence,” said Stumo. “You don’t blame the pilots that the plane overpowered, and you can’t just have the pilots as the last piece of redundancy before a crash.”
An Ethiopian Airlines representative said any effort “to divert public attention from the flight control system problem of the airplane is a futile exercise because it is not based on factually correct analysis”.
Nader, Milleron’s mother’s brother, has come out against the jet ever returning to service. He says placing larger engines on an airframe designed in the 1960s represents a basic design flaw.
The 737 Max “must never fly again”, Nader said at an aviation safety event in Washington earlier this month. “It’s not a matter of software. It’s a matter of structural design defect: the plane’s engines are too much for the traditional fuselage.”
But arguing for permanent grounding risks cutting victims’ families out of the safety process, an outcome Stumo and his wife are reluctant to consider because it could exclude them from the deliberative process of reapproval.
Instead, they maintain, instead of being guided by financial interests, Boeing needs to go back to being a premier, safety-at-all-costs, manufacturer.
If that requires a change of leadership, so be it, said Stumo. “Boeing needs to come clean. It needs to say: something went wrong with this plane. It grabbed control multiple times and tried to run it into the ground. It overpowered the pilots, and we need to figure out how this will not happen again.”
Evidence shows a drug already on the market might treat Alzheimer’s, but the company hid the data
Mark Sumner
Daily Kos Staff
Wednesday June 05, 2019 · 4:02 AM PDT
As the headline above suggests, this is a story that offers some incredibly hopeful information that could change the lives of tens of millions of people in America alone. It’s also a story that contains some information tailor-made to generate white hot rage. And, finally, it’s a story of genuinely baffling decisions, for which the real reasons are probably still hidden.
The Washington Post reports that drug giant Pfizer found some extraordinary information in the insurance records of people who took its widely prescribed arthritis drug, Enbrel. Researchers combing over the data found that Enbrel users appeared to have a 64% lower incidence of developing Alzheimer’s. And then, Pfizer took this hint of amazing, life-altering, life-saving potential … and buried the information for the next four years.
Of course, there was the possibility—even the strong possibility—that this was nothing. It had a big dataset to work with, but connections like this emerge from almost any big set of data. Maybe there was a connection to the drug. Maybe people who go in for arthritis treatment are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s. Maybe people who were developing Alzheimer’s were less likely to complain about joint pain. Maybe it was all noise, no signal.
Pfizer had a scientific basis for believing that was the case. Its research showed that the effective compound in Enbrel doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. So it seemed unlikely that it could directly affect a neurological condition. Unlikely—but not certain. After all, the mechanisms of Alzheimer’s are still poorly understood. Maybe Enbrel interfered with the production of proteins associated with Alzheimer’s plaques. Maybe it worked in some wholly unexpected way. The researchers at Pfizer didn’t know. Couldn’t know. Not without testing.
And here’s where the rage comes in. Because when this data turned up in 2015, Enbrel was only a few years from the end of its patent protection. The conducting of clinical trials carried an estimated cost of $80 million. Asking for approval of the drug for use in a new area was considered “heavy lifting.” So Pfizer didn’t pursue the data. And it told no one.
With generics on the way, and a suspicion that the magical effect would disappear on close examination, Pfizer simply decided to skip it. In fact, it had its own neurological unit that had been looking into Alzheimer’s, rather unsuccessfully, but rather than route Enbrel that way, it closed the unit, laying off 300 researchers.
And this is where we come to the genuinely awful part of the article. Because, according to the experts cited by the Post, the solution to this issue is to make it easier for drug companies to extend patents by applying for use in new areas. That, they suggest, would give companies like Pfizer incentive to check out things like, “Does this drug we already have on the market perhaps work to halt the world’s most insidious and heartbreaking disease?” Let’s break that down.
If Pfizer had decided to pocket only 96% of what it raked in from Enbrel in 2018, it could have paid for those clinical trials. But that’s just one year. The statistical data was noticed in 2015. So just 1% of the returns over that period would have covered it. But wait. Most drug patents run for 20 years, and are often extended when the company makes a minor tweak in formulation or dosage. If 2018 was a typical year, Pfizer might have easily made $40 billion from Enbrel over the life of the patent. The cost of checking its effectiveness for Alzheimer’s would be 0.2% of what the company has already raked in.
So, what the experts are saying is that paying out $80 million on a drug that’s already pulled in billions is too much to ask. Not unless the company is given new incentives. Because preventing Alzheimer’s is apparently not enough of an incentive to hand over a tiny fraction of profits.
Then there’s the genuinely inexplicable part: Pfizer didn’t tell anyone. Maybe it thought the numbers were a fluke. Maybe it thought the cost of checking it out was too high. Maybe its arms were just too tired for that “heavy lifting,” but … why not tell someone? $80 million might well have fallen in the range for financing by a research organization. Or a government agency. For a potential Alzheimer’s cure, Senate Republicans might even climb off their asses long enough to pass a bill.
The story certainly seems to suggest that the system around drug companies, data, and testing needs to be changed. But “make it easier to lock things down for decades longer so they can monopolize potential profits” doesn’t seem like the intuitive answer.
The Washington Post reports that drug giant Pfizer found some extraordinary information in the insurance records of people who took its widely prescribed arthritis drug, Enbrel. Researchers combing over the data found that Enbrel users appeared to have a 64% lower incidence of developing Alzheimer’s. And then, Pfizer took this hint of amazing, life-altering, life-saving potential … and buried the information for the next four years.
Of course, there was the possibility—even the strong possibility—that this was nothing. It had a big dataset to work with, but connections like this emerge from almost any big set of data. Maybe there was a connection to the drug. Maybe people who go in for arthritis treatment are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s. Maybe people who were developing Alzheimer’s were less likely to complain about joint pain. Maybe it was all noise, no signal.
Pfizer had a scientific basis for believing that was the case. Its research showed that the effective compound in Enbrel doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier. So it seemed unlikely that it could directly affect a neurological condition. Unlikely—but not certain. After all, the mechanisms of Alzheimer’s are still poorly understood. Maybe Enbrel interfered with the production of proteins associated with Alzheimer’s plaques. Maybe it worked in some wholly unexpected way. The researchers at Pfizer didn’t know. Couldn’t know. Not without testing.
And here’s where the rage comes in. Because when this data turned up in 2015, Enbrel was only a few years from the end of its patent protection. The conducting of clinical trials carried an estimated cost of $80 million. Asking for approval of the drug for use in a new area was considered “heavy lifting.” So Pfizer didn’t pursue the data. And it told no one.
With generics on the way, and a suspicion that the magical effect would disappear on close examination, Pfizer simply decided to skip it. In fact, it had its own neurological unit that had been looking into Alzheimer’s, rather unsuccessfully, but rather than route Enbrel that way, it closed the unit, laying off 300 researchers.
And this is where we come to the genuinely awful part of the article. Because, according to the experts cited by the Post, the solution to this issue is to make it easier for drug companies to extend patents by applying for use in new areas. That, they suggest, would give companies like Pfizer incentive to check out things like, “Does this drug we already have on the market perhaps work to halt the world’s most insidious and heartbreaking disease?” Let’s break that down.
If Pfizer had decided to pocket only 96% of what it raked in from Enbrel in 2018, it could have paid for those clinical trials. But that’s just one year. The statistical data was noticed in 2015. So just 1% of the returns over that period would have covered it. But wait. Most drug patents run for 20 years, and are often extended when the company makes a minor tweak in formulation or dosage. If 2018 was a typical year, Pfizer might have easily made $40 billion from Enbrel over the life of the patent. The cost of checking its effectiveness for Alzheimer’s would be 0.2% of what the company has already raked in.
So, what the experts are saying is that paying out $80 million on a drug that’s already pulled in billions is too much to ask. Not unless the company is given new incentives. Because preventing Alzheimer’s is apparently not enough of an incentive to hand over a tiny fraction of profits.
Then there’s the genuinely inexplicable part: Pfizer didn’t tell anyone. Maybe it thought the numbers were a fluke. Maybe it thought the cost of checking it out was too high. Maybe its arms were just too tired for that “heavy lifting,” but … why not tell someone? $80 million might well have fallen in the range for financing by a research organization. Or a government agency. For a potential Alzheimer’s cure, Senate Republicans might even climb off their asses long enough to pass a bill.
The story certainly seems to suggest that the system around drug companies, data, and testing needs to be changed. But “make it easier to lock things down for decades longer so they can monopolize potential profits” doesn’t seem like the intuitive answer.
Challenging Corporate Investment in Anti-Abortion States
May 30th, 2019
by Phil Mattera - dirt diggers digest
For the past three decades, labor activists have watched with frustration as foreign automakers concentrated their U.S. investments in states hostile to labor unions and worker rights. The problem continues today as Volkswagen is reported to be colluding with state officials in Tennessee to thwart a new United Auto Workers organizing drive.
Now reproductive rights activists are facing a similar challenge: what to do about large corporations doing business in states that are taking aggressive action to restrict women’s right to choose.
There are already moves by some media companies to address the issue by saying they will reconsider working in Georgia, a favorite location for film and television production because of its generous tax credits. In recent days, companies such as Netflix, Walt Disney and WarnerMedia have made statements saying they could shun the Peach State because of its new law that would effectively outlaw abortion.
While trying to appear bold, the companies are actually taking a weak position by saying they would act only if the law takes effect, ignoring the fact that Georgia and the other states are paving the way for a weakening of reproductive rights by the U.S. Supreme Court even if their laws are struck down before being implemented.
The media industry is not the only sector that is susceptible to pressure campaigns. Many large corporations have made substantial investments in the hardline anti-abortion states, often receiving sumptuous subsidy packages from state and local officials. Here are examples from the Good Jobs First Subsidy Tracker:
Alabama: Toyota and Mazda got $900 million for an auto assembly plant. Amazon.com got $54 million for a fulfillment center. Google got $81 million for a data center.
Georgia: Kia got $410 million for an auto assembly plant. Baxter International got $211 million for a pharmaceutical production facility.
Kentucky: Amazon.com got $75 million for a distribution facility. Toyota got $146 million for an auto assembly plant expansion.
Louisiana: IBM got $152 million for a technology center. ExxonMobil got $118 million for a refinery upgrade.
Mississippi: Continental Tire got $595 million for a manufacturing facility. Toyota got $354 million for an assembly plant.
Missouri: Amazon.com got $78 million for a fulfillment center. Boeing got $229 million to expand its operations in the state.
Ohio: Amazon.com got $93 million for a data center. General Electric got $98 million for a global operations center.
It may be unrealistic to expect that corporations will abandon facilities in the anti-abortion states, but they may face pressure to avoid future investments in those places.
The big subsidy packages that may be offered by those states to lure the investments could also come to be seen in a very different light – the same way that gifts from the opioid-tainted Sackler family to major cultural institutions are now treated as toxic.
Not long ago, we saw how economic pressure on states helped to undermine opposition to gay marriage. We will now see whether similar pressure, exercised by targeting big business investment, can also help defeat the attack on reproductive rights.
Now reproductive rights activists are facing a similar challenge: what to do about large corporations doing business in states that are taking aggressive action to restrict women’s right to choose.
There are already moves by some media companies to address the issue by saying they will reconsider working in Georgia, a favorite location for film and television production because of its generous tax credits. In recent days, companies such as Netflix, Walt Disney and WarnerMedia have made statements saying they could shun the Peach State because of its new law that would effectively outlaw abortion.
While trying to appear bold, the companies are actually taking a weak position by saying they would act only if the law takes effect, ignoring the fact that Georgia and the other states are paving the way for a weakening of reproductive rights by the U.S. Supreme Court even if their laws are struck down before being implemented.
The media industry is not the only sector that is susceptible to pressure campaigns. Many large corporations have made substantial investments in the hardline anti-abortion states, often receiving sumptuous subsidy packages from state and local officials. Here are examples from the Good Jobs First Subsidy Tracker:
Alabama: Toyota and Mazda got $900 million for an auto assembly plant. Amazon.com got $54 million for a fulfillment center. Google got $81 million for a data center.
Georgia: Kia got $410 million for an auto assembly plant. Baxter International got $211 million for a pharmaceutical production facility.
Kentucky: Amazon.com got $75 million for a distribution facility. Toyota got $146 million for an auto assembly plant expansion.
Louisiana: IBM got $152 million for a technology center. ExxonMobil got $118 million for a refinery upgrade.
Mississippi: Continental Tire got $595 million for a manufacturing facility. Toyota got $354 million for an assembly plant.
Missouri: Amazon.com got $78 million for a fulfillment center. Boeing got $229 million to expand its operations in the state.
Ohio: Amazon.com got $93 million for a data center. General Electric got $98 million for a global operations center.
It may be unrealistic to expect that corporations will abandon facilities in the anti-abortion states, but they may face pressure to avoid future investments in those places.
The big subsidy packages that may be offered by those states to lure the investments could also come to be seen in a very different light – the same way that gifts from the opioid-tainted Sackler family to major cultural institutions are now treated as toxic.
Not long ago, we saw how economic pressure on states helped to undermine opposition to gay marriage. We will now see whether similar pressure, exercised by targeting big business investment, can also help defeat the attack on reproductive rights.
Trump’s Trade War with China Benefits Big Corporations—Not Ordinary Workers
BY DEAN BAKERn - in these times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2019, 4:29 PM
Some events give extraordinary insights into the biases of the economics profession. The trade war with China clearly fit the bill.
The origins of the trade war can be traced to campaign promises Trump made to go after China over its large trade surplus with the United States, which he attributed to “currency manipulation.” The argument was that by intervening in currency markets (buying up U.S. dollars), China was propping up the value of the dollar against its own currency.
This makes Chinese goods and services relatively cheaper to U.S. consumers and makes U.S. goods more expensive to Chinese purchasers. The net effect is to increase U.S. imports of Chinese goods and reduce U.S. exports to China, thereby leading to a large trade deficit.
While most economists now acknowledge that China was intervening in currency markets in the last decade (they did not acknowledge the currency intervention at the time), they insist that this is no longer an issue. China is no longer a large net buyer of dollar denominated assets, so the argument goes, therefore it is not currently keeping down the value of its currency against the dollar.
As I have argued elsewhere, this argument ignores the effect of China holding well in excess of $3 trillion worth of dollar denominated assets. Its decision to hold a massive stock of dollar assets depresses the value of the Chinese yuan against the dollar, thereby maintaining the competitive advantage from a lower valued currency.
This is the same logic that applies with the Fed’s decision to hold trillions of dollars worth of assets that it acquired as part of its quantitative easing program. Even though the Fed is not currently buying assets, most economists argue that its holding of assets still works to keep down interest rates. Perhaps in the next decade they will acknowledge that the same relationship holds with China’s massive stock of dollars and the relative value of the dollar and the yuan, but for now they insist that currency intervention was only an issue in the past.
This is important background, because currency values will directly affect our trade balance with China, and thereby impact the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States. While reducing the trade deficit will not get back most of the relatively high paying manufacturing jobs that were lost in the last decade, it would likely still be a plus for relatively less-educated workers who still rely on manufacturing as a source of higher paying jobs.
Although currency is mostly off the table in Trump’s trade war, intellectual property is very much on the table. And here Trump has the support of economists across the political spectrum, who argue that he has a legitimate complaint, even if they don’t endorse his go it alone cowboy tactics.
The complaint is the China is not respecting “our” intellectual property. This lack of respect takes two main forms. One is simply not honoring the patents, copyrights, and trademarks of U.S. corporations. The other is requiring technology transfers by U.S. corporations that locate operations in China. This usually means taking on a domestic Chinese company as a partner, which will then gain expertise in the use of the U.S. company’s technology.
It is very impressive how the bulk of the economics profession has been willing to legitimate the switch in focus of Trump’s trade war. He had run around the country in his campaign denouncing China as a world class currency manipulator. He pledged to take punitive actions against China for its currency practices on Day One of his administration. Getting China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar actually would have provided some benefit to U.S. workers. But now currency is off the table and we are fighting a trade war to protect “our” intellectual property.
If it’s not obvious already, it is not “our” intellectual property that Trump and his bipartisan crew of economist cheerleaders are interested in protecting. It is the intellectual property of large corporations like Boeing, GE, Pfizer, and Microsoft. Very few people in the United States are in a position where they have to worry about China using their patents or copyrights without compensation. This is a real concern to many large U.S. corporations. The question is whether it should be a concern to the rest of us.
Most immediately, the concerns of ordinary workers are likely to go in the opposite direction. If companies like Boeing and General Electric don’t have to worry about being forced to transfer technology to Chinese companies when they outsource to China, they will have more incentive to outsource to China. That’s about as straightforward as it gets. Instead of reducing our trade deficit in manufacturing goods, this change is likely to increase it.
But this goes to an even deeper issue. We have seen a massive increase in wage inequality over the last four decades. Most economists probably believe some version of the skills biased technical change story – that new technologies have placed a greater premium on skills like math, science, and engineering – while reducing the value of less-educated workers.
Trump’s trade war gives us an insight into the real story. It was not technology that led him to focus his efforts on protecting intellectual property to the neglect of currency issues; it was a political decision made in response to the political power of the most affected groups. And, Boeing, GE, and the rest have far more political power than the workers who labor in their factories or indeed, less-educated workers as a class.
Trump and the political elites more generally are prepared to have a trade war to protect the intellectual property of large U.S. corporations, and indirectly to benefit the more highly paid segment of the labor force. They would not do the same to increase the employment and wage prospects for less-educated workers, the two-thirds of the labor force without a college degree.
To be clear, there is an issue that we should not be allowing China to take at no cost the technology that we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to develop. That is a reasonable argument, but that hardly implies that we need to force them to respect patent and copyright protection.
We need to ensure that China and other countries share in the cost of developing new technologies. There are far more modern and efficient mechanisms than patent monopolies, which are a relic of the Medieval guild system. While negotiating sharing mechanisms may be a difficult process, it is not obviously more difficult than preserving the patent system. President Obama likely would have had the Trans-Pacific Partnership completed and approved by Congress before he left office if it had not been for haggling over terms of drug patent-related protections.
It is also important to recognize that we will likely have far more to gain from having access to China’s technology than the other way around. China is already far and away the global leader in clean technologies, with as much installed solar and wind energy as the rest of the world combined, and an electric car industry that now produces as many cars as all other countries put together.
China currently spends roughly the same share of its GDP on research and development as the United States. Its economy is already 25 percent larger than the US economy and will be more than twice as large in less than a decade. Rather than focusing on bottling up U.S. technology, a forward-thinking trade agenda would be focused on ensuring our access to Chinese technology.
Unfortunately, trade policy is not crafted in the national interest, it is crafted with the goal of making the rich richer. This is what Donald Trump’s trade war is all about. And, as is the case with so many other wars, it is about working class people being forced to sacrifice by paying high tariffs to advance the goals of the rich.
The origins of the trade war can be traced to campaign promises Trump made to go after China over its large trade surplus with the United States, which he attributed to “currency manipulation.” The argument was that by intervening in currency markets (buying up U.S. dollars), China was propping up the value of the dollar against its own currency.
This makes Chinese goods and services relatively cheaper to U.S. consumers and makes U.S. goods more expensive to Chinese purchasers. The net effect is to increase U.S. imports of Chinese goods and reduce U.S. exports to China, thereby leading to a large trade deficit.
While most economists now acknowledge that China was intervening in currency markets in the last decade (they did not acknowledge the currency intervention at the time), they insist that this is no longer an issue. China is no longer a large net buyer of dollar denominated assets, so the argument goes, therefore it is not currently keeping down the value of its currency against the dollar.
As I have argued elsewhere, this argument ignores the effect of China holding well in excess of $3 trillion worth of dollar denominated assets. Its decision to hold a massive stock of dollar assets depresses the value of the Chinese yuan against the dollar, thereby maintaining the competitive advantage from a lower valued currency.
This is the same logic that applies with the Fed’s decision to hold trillions of dollars worth of assets that it acquired as part of its quantitative easing program. Even though the Fed is not currently buying assets, most economists argue that its holding of assets still works to keep down interest rates. Perhaps in the next decade they will acknowledge that the same relationship holds with China’s massive stock of dollars and the relative value of the dollar and the yuan, but for now they insist that currency intervention was only an issue in the past.
This is important background, because currency values will directly affect our trade balance with China, and thereby impact the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States. While reducing the trade deficit will not get back most of the relatively high paying manufacturing jobs that were lost in the last decade, it would likely still be a plus for relatively less-educated workers who still rely on manufacturing as a source of higher paying jobs.
Although currency is mostly off the table in Trump’s trade war, intellectual property is very much on the table. And here Trump has the support of economists across the political spectrum, who argue that he has a legitimate complaint, even if they don’t endorse his go it alone cowboy tactics.
The complaint is the China is not respecting “our” intellectual property. This lack of respect takes two main forms. One is simply not honoring the patents, copyrights, and trademarks of U.S. corporations. The other is requiring technology transfers by U.S. corporations that locate operations in China. This usually means taking on a domestic Chinese company as a partner, which will then gain expertise in the use of the U.S. company’s technology.
It is very impressive how the bulk of the economics profession has been willing to legitimate the switch in focus of Trump’s trade war. He had run around the country in his campaign denouncing China as a world class currency manipulator. He pledged to take punitive actions against China for its currency practices on Day One of his administration. Getting China to raise the value of its currency against the dollar actually would have provided some benefit to U.S. workers. But now currency is off the table and we are fighting a trade war to protect “our” intellectual property.
If it’s not obvious already, it is not “our” intellectual property that Trump and his bipartisan crew of economist cheerleaders are interested in protecting. It is the intellectual property of large corporations like Boeing, GE, Pfizer, and Microsoft. Very few people in the United States are in a position where they have to worry about China using their patents or copyrights without compensation. This is a real concern to many large U.S. corporations. The question is whether it should be a concern to the rest of us.
Most immediately, the concerns of ordinary workers are likely to go in the opposite direction. If companies like Boeing and General Electric don’t have to worry about being forced to transfer technology to Chinese companies when they outsource to China, they will have more incentive to outsource to China. That’s about as straightforward as it gets. Instead of reducing our trade deficit in manufacturing goods, this change is likely to increase it.
But this goes to an even deeper issue. We have seen a massive increase in wage inequality over the last four decades. Most economists probably believe some version of the skills biased technical change story – that new technologies have placed a greater premium on skills like math, science, and engineering – while reducing the value of less-educated workers.
Trump’s trade war gives us an insight into the real story. It was not technology that led him to focus his efforts on protecting intellectual property to the neglect of currency issues; it was a political decision made in response to the political power of the most affected groups. And, Boeing, GE, and the rest have far more political power than the workers who labor in their factories or indeed, less-educated workers as a class.
Trump and the political elites more generally are prepared to have a trade war to protect the intellectual property of large U.S. corporations, and indirectly to benefit the more highly paid segment of the labor force. They would not do the same to increase the employment and wage prospects for less-educated workers, the two-thirds of the labor force without a college degree.
To be clear, there is an issue that we should not be allowing China to take at no cost the technology that we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to develop. That is a reasonable argument, but that hardly implies that we need to force them to respect patent and copyright protection.
We need to ensure that China and other countries share in the cost of developing new technologies. There are far more modern and efficient mechanisms than patent monopolies, which are a relic of the Medieval guild system. While negotiating sharing mechanisms may be a difficult process, it is not obviously more difficult than preserving the patent system. President Obama likely would have had the Trans-Pacific Partnership completed and approved by Congress before he left office if it had not been for haggling over terms of drug patent-related protections.
It is also important to recognize that we will likely have far more to gain from having access to China’s technology than the other way around. China is already far and away the global leader in clean technologies, with as much installed solar and wind energy as the rest of the world combined, and an electric car industry that now produces as many cars as all other countries put together.
China currently spends roughly the same share of its GDP on research and development as the United States. Its economy is already 25 percent larger than the US economy and will be more than twice as large in less than a decade. Rather than focusing on bottling up U.S. technology, a forward-thinking trade agenda would be focused on ensuring our access to Chinese technology.
Unfortunately, trade policy is not crafted in the national interest, it is crafted with the goal of making the rich richer. This is what Donald Trump’s trade war is all about. And, as is the case with so many other wars, it is about working class people being forced to sacrifice by paying high tariffs to advance the goals of the rich.
Here’s why Capitalism vs Socialism is a false choice
DAVID KORTEN, YES! MAGAZINE - COMMENTARY - raw story
05 MAY 2019 AT 01:25 ET
Economic power is—and always has been—the foundation of political power. Those who control the peoples’ means of living rule.
In a democracy, however, each person must have a voice in the control and management of the means of their living. That requires more than a vote expressing a preference for which establishment-vetted candidatewill be in power for the next few years.
My previous column, “Confronting the Great American Myth,” distinguished true democracy from government by the wealthy, a plutocracy. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Constitution was written by representatives of the new nation’s wealthy class to keep people like themselves in power.
On Jan. 4, the newly elected Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced HR1, the For the People Act of 2019. Its aim is to make voting easier, reduce the influence of big money, and curtail gerrymandering. Even before it was introduced, the champions of having rich people rule were falsely characterizing it as an attack on the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans.
The provisions of HR1 represent an important step in a transition from the plutocracy we have to the democracy most Americans want. Unfortunately, political gridlock assures that HR1 has no chance of becoming law until at least after the 2020 election. Yet the popular yearning for democracy reflected in that bill makes this a propitious moment for a serious conversation about what a true democracy might look like and why it would be a good idea.
We stand at an epic choice point for our nation and for humanity. The plutocracy now in place has put us on a path to self-extinction—a future with no winners, rich or poor. We must now seek a path that restores the health of Earth’s regenerative systems while securing equity, material sufficiency, peace, and spiritual abundance for all—exactly the opposite of the plutocrats’ drive to secure the power, privilege, and material excess for themselves. This makes democracy far more than just a good idea; it is now an imperative.
The power of plutocracy depends on keeping the people divided against each other along gender, racial, religious, or other fault lines. The goal is to divert our attention from themselves so that they can maintain their power and continue to amass wealth.
Champions of plutocracy would also have us believe that we must choose between two options: capitalism (private ownership and management) or socialism (government ownership and management). They prefer we not notice that in their most familiar forms, both capitalism and socialism feature an undemocratic concentration of control over the means of living in the hands of the few. Democracy is essential for either to work effectively for the benefit of all.
Plutocrats generally favor capitalism, because in the extreme form we now experience, it supports virtually unlimited concentrations of wealth and power. Its practitioners are also drawn by capitalism’s ideological claim that unregulated markets will assure that the presumed benefits of a growing economy will be shared by everyone, and so the rich need not bear any personal responsibility beyond maximizing their personal financial gain.
The critical economic and political question for humanity is not whether our means of living will be controlled by corporations or government, but whether control will be concentrated for the benefit of the few or dispersed, with benefits shared by everyone.
Support for the needed economic transition can come from many places. Just as people are not necessarily racist because they are White or misogynistic because they are male, people do not necessarily become plutocrats just because they are rich. Many wealthy people work actively for economic and political democracy and support radical wealth redistribution, including through support of progressive taxation and significant taxing of inherited wealth.
The political and economic democracy we seek cannot be easily characterized as either capitalist or socialist. It is a system of substantially self-reliant local economies composed of locally owned enterprises and community-secured safety nets with responsibilities shared by families, charities, and governments. Such a system facilitates self-organizing to create healthy, happy, and productive communities.
In our complex and interconnected world, this system will require national and global institutions responsive to the people’s will and well-being to support cooperation and sharing among communities, but the real power will be dispersed locally. There would be ample room for competition among local communities to be the most beautiful, healthy, democratic, creative, and generous. There is no place for colonizing the resources of others or for predatory corporations.
These communities will most likely feature cooperative and family ownership of businesses. They will also recognize the rights of nature and their shared responsibility to care for the commons and to share its gifts.
The rules of plutocracy evolved over thousands of years. We have far less time to come up with suitable rules for democratic alternatives. That search must quickly become a centerpiece of public discussion.
In a democracy, however, each person must have a voice in the control and management of the means of their living. That requires more than a vote expressing a preference for which establishment-vetted candidatewill be in power for the next few years.
My previous column, “Confronting the Great American Myth,” distinguished true democracy from government by the wealthy, a plutocracy. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Constitution was written by representatives of the new nation’s wealthy class to keep people like themselves in power.
On Jan. 4, the newly elected Democratic majority in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced HR1, the For the People Act of 2019. Its aim is to make voting easier, reduce the influence of big money, and curtail gerrymandering. Even before it was introduced, the champions of having rich people rule were falsely characterizing it as an attack on the freedom of speech of ordinary Americans.
The provisions of HR1 represent an important step in a transition from the plutocracy we have to the democracy most Americans want. Unfortunately, political gridlock assures that HR1 has no chance of becoming law until at least after the 2020 election. Yet the popular yearning for democracy reflected in that bill makes this a propitious moment for a serious conversation about what a true democracy might look like and why it would be a good idea.
We stand at an epic choice point for our nation and for humanity. The plutocracy now in place has put us on a path to self-extinction—a future with no winners, rich or poor. We must now seek a path that restores the health of Earth’s regenerative systems while securing equity, material sufficiency, peace, and spiritual abundance for all—exactly the opposite of the plutocrats’ drive to secure the power, privilege, and material excess for themselves. This makes democracy far more than just a good idea; it is now an imperative.
The power of plutocracy depends on keeping the people divided against each other along gender, racial, religious, or other fault lines. The goal is to divert our attention from themselves so that they can maintain their power and continue to amass wealth.
Champions of plutocracy would also have us believe that we must choose between two options: capitalism (private ownership and management) or socialism (government ownership and management). They prefer we not notice that in their most familiar forms, both capitalism and socialism feature an undemocratic concentration of control over the means of living in the hands of the few. Democracy is essential for either to work effectively for the benefit of all.
Plutocrats generally favor capitalism, because in the extreme form we now experience, it supports virtually unlimited concentrations of wealth and power. Its practitioners are also drawn by capitalism’s ideological claim that unregulated markets will assure that the presumed benefits of a growing economy will be shared by everyone, and so the rich need not bear any personal responsibility beyond maximizing their personal financial gain.
The critical economic and political question for humanity is not whether our means of living will be controlled by corporations or government, but whether control will be concentrated for the benefit of the few or dispersed, with benefits shared by everyone.
Support for the needed economic transition can come from many places. Just as people are not necessarily racist because they are White or misogynistic because they are male, people do not necessarily become plutocrats just because they are rich. Many wealthy people work actively for economic and political democracy and support radical wealth redistribution, including through support of progressive taxation and significant taxing of inherited wealth.
The political and economic democracy we seek cannot be easily characterized as either capitalist or socialist. It is a system of substantially self-reliant local economies composed of locally owned enterprises and community-secured safety nets with responsibilities shared by families, charities, and governments. Such a system facilitates self-organizing to create healthy, happy, and productive communities.
In our complex and interconnected world, this system will require national and global institutions responsive to the people’s will and well-being to support cooperation and sharing among communities, but the real power will be dispersed locally. There would be ample room for competition among local communities to be the most beautiful, healthy, democratic, creative, and generous. There is no place for colonizing the resources of others or for predatory corporations.
These communities will most likely feature cooperative and family ownership of businesses. They will also recognize the rights of nature and their shared responsibility to care for the commons and to share its gifts.
The rules of plutocracy evolved over thousands of years. We have far less time to come up with suitable rules for democratic alternatives. That search must quickly become a centerpiece of public discussion.
Six people who prove capitalism is broken in America
Over the last few years, the Guardian talked to many people for whom capitalism isn’t working – here are a few of their stories
Lauren Aratani
the guardian
Thu 2 May 2019 10.43 EDT
Work hard, get paid, thrive. That’s the way the system is supposed to work. If you’re not thriving, according to this logic, you’re simply not working hard enough.
But that’s not the reality many people live, even in wealthy, industrialized nations like the United States. For many Americans, long hours and unrelenting dedication to their job are not enough to save them from homelessness, debt, and other humiliations.
In 2018, the world’s richest 2,200 billionaires saw a 12% increase in wealth, according to a report by the development charity Oxfam, while the world’s poorest half saw an 11% drop in wealth. And in the United States today, the richest three Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country.
This widening gulf means, on the one hand, stories of the children of billionaires ruining their parents’ multimillion-dollar paintings with cornflakes – and, on the other, the many employees of billion-dollar companies who struggle to pay rent.
Over the last few years, the Guardian talked to many people for whom capitalism as we know it isn’t working. Here are a few of their stories:
The Lyft driver who says she’s lucky to make $8 an hour, after expenses
Many Uber and Lyft drivers in the United States get paid less than minimum wage and struggle to cover the expenses of the job. Some drivers, like Nicole Moore, have begun to organize to fight for their rights as drivers. “There is no reason this should be the fastest-growing low-wage job in America,” she said.
The Amazon warehouse worker who lives out of her car
Numerous Amazon warehouse workers have filed cases against the company for leaving them to suffer through workplace injuries with little to no pay to cover health costs. Vickie Shannon Allen, who works at a fulfillment center in Haslet, Texas, hurt her back while working as a lineman. Between healthcare costs and weeks when her back prevented her from working and getting paid, she has become homeless. She started living in her car, parked outside the very warehouse where she works. “They cost me my home, they screwed me over and I go days without eating,” she told the Guardian last year.
The Virginia boy who takes classes in plywood trailers while the state promises Amazon huge tax breaks
With too many students and not enough space in its school district, Fairfax county in Virginia has turned to desperate measures to accommodate its students. Over 22,000 students in the county – the third-richest in America – attend classes in trailers made of cheaply constructed plywood. The state’s governor has proposed increasing education funding by $269m, yet he offered Amazon nearly three times as much in tax breaks, leaving teachers and parents feeling like their children are being robbed.
Rachna Sizemore, whose son is autistic and was transferred to a school nearly half an hour away because of overcrowding, is worried about the potential dangers of learning in a trailer. “In this era of school shootings, having our children in trailers, which [are] open to the public without any of the security that we have for the buildings … that’s not safe and that’s not a good learning environment,” she told the Guardian.
A Tesla factory worker who was told to keep working after his co-worker on the assembly line passed out from exhaustion
“I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla, told the Guardian in 2017. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”
The single mother of two who works six days a week at a fast food restaurant, yet is homeless
Fran Marion works six days a week at a Popeyes in Kansas City for $9.50 an hour. When the city condemned the house she was living in because her landlord refused to make repairs, she was made homeless. Her two teenage children live with a friend, and she stays with a co-worker. “Not having a home, honestly, you guys, it makes me feel like I am a failure. Like I have let my kids down,” Marion told the Guardian in August 2017.
The laid-off GM worker who feels cheated by Trump’s broken promises
“It’s been two years now since [Trump’s] election and all I see is more job losses,” Tommy Wolikow of Lordstown, Ohio, said last year. “I went back to school, I’m a qualified diesel technician, I got my class A [commercial] driver’s license. I did what you are supposed to do. The jobs that are out there in my area are all low-paying. I can’t raise my three daughters on those wages. People are picking up and leaving.”
But that’s not the reality many people live, even in wealthy, industrialized nations like the United States. For many Americans, long hours and unrelenting dedication to their job are not enough to save them from homelessness, debt, and other humiliations.
In 2018, the world’s richest 2,200 billionaires saw a 12% increase in wealth, according to a report by the development charity Oxfam, while the world’s poorest half saw an 11% drop in wealth. And in the United States today, the richest three Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country.
This widening gulf means, on the one hand, stories of the children of billionaires ruining their parents’ multimillion-dollar paintings with cornflakes – and, on the other, the many employees of billion-dollar companies who struggle to pay rent.
Over the last few years, the Guardian talked to many people for whom capitalism as we know it isn’t working. Here are a few of their stories:
The Lyft driver who says she’s lucky to make $8 an hour, after expenses
Many Uber and Lyft drivers in the United States get paid less than minimum wage and struggle to cover the expenses of the job. Some drivers, like Nicole Moore, have begun to organize to fight for their rights as drivers. “There is no reason this should be the fastest-growing low-wage job in America,” she said.
The Amazon warehouse worker who lives out of her car
Numerous Amazon warehouse workers have filed cases against the company for leaving them to suffer through workplace injuries with little to no pay to cover health costs. Vickie Shannon Allen, who works at a fulfillment center in Haslet, Texas, hurt her back while working as a lineman. Between healthcare costs and weeks when her back prevented her from working and getting paid, she has become homeless. She started living in her car, parked outside the very warehouse where she works. “They cost me my home, they screwed me over and I go days without eating,” she told the Guardian last year.
The Virginia boy who takes classes in plywood trailers while the state promises Amazon huge tax breaks
With too many students and not enough space in its school district, Fairfax county in Virginia has turned to desperate measures to accommodate its students. Over 22,000 students in the county – the third-richest in America – attend classes in trailers made of cheaply constructed plywood. The state’s governor has proposed increasing education funding by $269m, yet he offered Amazon nearly three times as much in tax breaks, leaving teachers and parents feeling like their children are being robbed.
Rachna Sizemore, whose son is autistic and was transferred to a school nearly half an hour away because of overcrowding, is worried about the potential dangers of learning in a trailer. “In this era of school shootings, having our children in trailers, which [are] open to the public without any of the security that we have for the buildings … that’s not safe and that’s not a good learning environment,” she told the Guardian.
A Tesla factory worker who was told to keep working after his co-worker on the assembly line passed out from exhaustion
“I’ve seen people pass out, hit the floor like a pancake and smash their face open,” Jonathan Galescu, a production technician at Tesla, told the Guardian in 2017. “They just send us to work around him while he’s still lying on the floor.”
The single mother of two who works six days a week at a fast food restaurant, yet is homeless
Fran Marion works six days a week at a Popeyes in Kansas City for $9.50 an hour. When the city condemned the house she was living in because her landlord refused to make repairs, she was made homeless. Her two teenage children live with a friend, and she stays with a co-worker. “Not having a home, honestly, you guys, it makes me feel like I am a failure. Like I have let my kids down,” Marion told the Guardian in August 2017.
The laid-off GM worker who feels cheated by Trump’s broken promises
“It’s been two years now since [Trump’s] election and all I see is more job losses,” Tommy Wolikow of Lordstown, Ohio, said last year. “I went back to school, I’m a qualified diesel technician, I got my class A [commercial] driver’s license. I did what you are supposed to do. The jobs that are out there in my area are all low-paying. I can’t raise my three daughters on those wages. People are picking up and leaving.”
Here’s Exactly Who’s Profiting from the War on Yemen
And how the U.S. could stop weapon sales if it wanted to.
the fundamentals of slave-capitalism!!!
Here’s the big problem with American capitalism
MARSHALL AUERBACK, INDEPENDENT MEDIA INSTITUTE - COMMENTARY - raw story
18 DEC 2018 AT 09:14 ET
It’s part of the American experience to find yourself in an elevator, in an airplane terminal, or at home, looking at a screen with stock numbers whizzing by, and people yammering about how America is somewhere on the spectrum between wonderful or about to disintegrate because of a 5 percent swing in Boeing or Microsoft stock. How did we get to a national economic conversation that is dominated by chatter on the rise and fall of stocks, when it’s just a small part of economic life for most of the 300 million people who live in this country?
American-style shareholder capitalism, with its incessant focus on maximizing stock value, started gaining primacy over European/Japanese-style stakeholder capitalism in the 1980s. It was premised on a notion best epitomized by Milton Friedman that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits, laying the groundwork for the idea that shareholders, being the owners and the main risk-bearing participants, ought therefore to receive the biggest rewards. Profits therefore should be generated first and foremost with a view toward maximizing the interests of shareholders, not the executives or managers who (according to the theory) were spending too much of their time, and the shareholders’ money, worrying about employees, customers, and the community at large. The economists who built on Friedman’s work, along with increasingly aggressive institutional investors, devised solutions to ensure the primacy of enhancing shareholder value, via the advocacy of hostile takeovers, the promotion of massive stock buybacks or repurchases (which increased the stock value), higher dividend payouts and, most importantly, the introduction of stock-based pay for top executives in order to align their interests to those of the shareholders. These ideas were influenced by the idea that corporate efficiency and profitability were impinged upon by archaic regulation and unionization, which, according to the theory, precluded the ability to compete globally.
While tying corporate decision-making and its performance to stock price to incentivize efficient resource allocation and productive transformations sounds superficially attractive, the champions of this theory never bothered to show how these outcomes could be achieved if shareholder capitalism was fully implemented. In fact, the historical experience has been abysmal. GM and GE, to cite two prominent examples, were once poster boys for the success of American capitalism. More recently, they are presumed to be speculative candidates for bankruptcy. They are but a symptom of the bigger problem. And there is a growing skepticism in the ability of American capitalism to deliver on its economic promise of prosperity.
In the 1980s, we were still at the embryonic stages of shareholder capitalism, and American institutional investors aggressively proselytized both domestically and abroad. During that time, when I was working as a fund manager in Japan, Toyota became a particularly prominent target, on the grounds that the company wasn’t using its substantial cash pile “productively.” The argument was made that the company’s management was maximizing their self-regarding interests over shareholder value. Holding onto the cash reserves was thought to be a mistake, lest managers be tempted to make unproductive investments. This despite that fact that by any traditional metric—profitability, market share, sales, return on investments—Toyota remained a remarkably successful company.
Backed by domestic institutions (particularly from their associated companies), Toyota’s management resisted the push of the foreign investors like myself, many of whom were leading the charge to distribute the company cash pile to shareholders. Toyota management made the seemingly anachronistic decision that the cash was best retained to invest in future lines and cope with changing market conditions, as well as retaining valuable and skilled employees, who were key to the company’s growing productivity and global sales success (even at a cost of some short-term harm to profitability). They also argued that elevating dividend payouts would derogate from needed research and development, which was required to retain the company’s edge over global competitors.
Given that Toyota has retained the ranking of most valuable car brand in the world six years running (in fact, number one in 11 of the 13 years in which the survey has been conducted), senior management’s strategy appears to have been vindicated. There is stable ownership and decision-making structure. Focus is on enterprise-specific skill development and cultivating capabilities in-house. Toyota consolidates product and its production process planning and ensures that sufficient training and equipment (pertaining to processes required for new products) are provided or developed in-house. It largely finances operations using its internal cash flow. Neither stock buybacks nor high-dividend payouts are the norm. In short, the company has developed a long-term development strategy that fuses innovation with high-quality, sustainable management practices that operate durably at scale for many millions of customers around the world.
By contrast, Professor William Lazonick’s seminal study, “Profits without Prosperity,” underscores the notion that top-level U.S. executives, whose incentives have been increasingly based on stock-based financial targets, have lost the ability to develop the innovative capabilities of an enterprise. Instead, spurred by the prospect of stock gains, the executives have channeled their focus toward “short-termist” achievement of targets (such as by giving out excessive loans to finance customers’ purchases to boost quarterly sales targets, as Detroit’s “Big Three” have done repeatedly), increasing share valuations and increasing the variable component of their compensation (by share repurchases). As a result, their enterprises have become financialized, and their balance sheets severely weakened. The shortcomings of the companies that have fallen victim to this trend have been masked by the performance of the company stock, in itself a mirage brought about by financial engineering to boost share prices, as Rana Foroohar has documented in her book, Makers and Takers.
The focus on short-termism has ultimately degraded the financial health of the corporations concerned, as well as cannibalizing future investment opportunities. As Lazonick pointed out, in many instances where U.S. executives have resorted to stock repurchases, payouts were well above the net income, and in many cases occurred even when the company wasn’t profitable; certainly, there was little correlation to company performance per se. Cash that could be deployed toward creating a better product line has instead been spent on stock buybacks, while the strategy of expanding loans to customers to purchase the underlying product effectively steals from future sales, as well as expanding corporate leverage. Another way companies catered to shareholder capitalism was by selling off capital-intensive, but cash flow-generative businesses, as Jack Welch did when he became CEO of GE and shifted the company focus away from sales of jet engines, nuclear reactors and mining equipment, instead building up GE Capital, which ultimately became another “too big to fail” financial behemoth (and has done much to contribute to GE’s deterioration).
Additionally, a deregulated labor market that allows for “costless” hiring or firing (“costless” only from the perspective of management, obviously, not labor) in reality has reinforced this short-termism and further degraded long-term corporate performance. Executives abuse the “benefits” of a largely deregulated labor market to sack workers with impunity, thereby generating the “free” cash flow that can be used instead for share repurchases, even as the company loses valuable labor expertise, which can generate future production bottlenecks.
One must also question the notion that the stock market is an efficient gauge of corporate performance, especially when management is prone to what Professor Bill Black calls “control fraud.” There is an asymmetry of information between corporate insiders and institutional shareholders, which means that putting a “price” on managerialism so as to discipline them if the management engages in unproductive investments is a fantasy. Exposed to the harsh light of reality, this is an especially absurd idea that only an economist could love, given the divergent time frames between institutional investors monitored on the basis of quarterly performance versus executives who must make investment decisions, the results of which may not be established for years. This is exacerbated by the ludicrous notion that dilettante fund managers, relatively unschooled in anything (other than MBA degrees that propagate concepts like maximizing shareholder value), could possibly be superior judges of corporate performance and allocators of capital against those who have literally learned the business from the factory floor up.
In the “downsize and distribute” regime of American shareholder capitalism, the labor force is downsized, certain operations are discontinued, and the cash retrieved from these processes is distributed rather than retaining and reinvesting in developing the productive capabilities. American executives have proven all too willing to disgorge cash annually on buybacks at the expense of identifying the investments in organization and technology that were needed to remain competitive in the industry in which they operated.
In contrast to Germany or Japan, real engineering has been replaced by financial engineering. This is what the doctrine of “shareholder value” has actually delivered: unproductive share buybacks, which manipulate short-term share price performance, even as it derogates from long-term research and development, engenders persistent short-termism in corporate decision-making, and induces value extraction, rather than value creation. All of this financial vandalism has created multiple economic crises, long recessions, growing inequality and decades of stagnant incomes for the average American worker. Shareholder value in truth has created no real value at all.
American-style shareholder capitalism, with its incessant focus on maximizing stock value, started gaining primacy over European/Japanese-style stakeholder capitalism in the 1980s. It was premised on a notion best epitomized by Milton Friedman that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits, laying the groundwork for the idea that shareholders, being the owners and the main risk-bearing participants, ought therefore to receive the biggest rewards. Profits therefore should be generated first and foremost with a view toward maximizing the interests of shareholders, not the executives or managers who (according to the theory) were spending too much of their time, and the shareholders’ money, worrying about employees, customers, and the community at large. The economists who built on Friedman’s work, along with increasingly aggressive institutional investors, devised solutions to ensure the primacy of enhancing shareholder value, via the advocacy of hostile takeovers, the promotion of massive stock buybacks or repurchases (which increased the stock value), higher dividend payouts and, most importantly, the introduction of stock-based pay for top executives in order to align their interests to those of the shareholders. These ideas were influenced by the idea that corporate efficiency and profitability were impinged upon by archaic regulation and unionization, which, according to the theory, precluded the ability to compete globally.
While tying corporate decision-making and its performance to stock price to incentivize efficient resource allocation and productive transformations sounds superficially attractive, the champions of this theory never bothered to show how these outcomes could be achieved if shareholder capitalism was fully implemented. In fact, the historical experience has been abysmal. GM and GE, to cite two prominent examples, were once poster boys for the success of American capitalism. More recently, they are presumed to be speculative candidates for bankruptcy. They are but a symptom of the bigger problem. And there is a growing skepticism in the ability of American capitalism to deliver on its economic promise of prosperity.
In the 1980s, we were still at the embryonic stages of shareholder capitalism, and American institutional investors aggressively proselytized both domestically and abroad. During that time, when I was working as a fund manager in Japan, Toyota became a particularly prominent target, on the grounds that the company wasn’t using its substantial cash pile “productively.” The argument was made that the company’s management was maximizing their self-regarding interests over shareholder value. Holding onto the cash reserves was thought to be a mistake, lest managers be tempted to make unproductive investments. This despite that fact that by any traditional metric—profitability, market share, sales, return on investments—Toyota remained a remarkably successful company.
Backed by domestic institutions (particularly from their associated companies), Toyota’s management resisted the push of the foreign investors like myself, many of whom were leading the charge to distribute the company cash pile to shareholders. Toyota management made the seemingly anachronistic decision that the cash was best retained to invest in future lines and cope with changing market conditions, as well as retaining valuable and skilled employees, who were key to the company’s growing productivity and global sales success (even at a cost of some short-term harm to profitability). They also argued that elevating dividend payouts would derogate from needed research and development, which was required to retain the company’s edge over global competitors.
Given that Toyota has retained the ranking of most valuable car brand in the world six years running (in fact, number one in 11 of the 13 years in which the survey has been conducted), senior management’s strategy appears to have been vindicated. There is stable ownership and decision-making structure. Focus is on enterprise-specific skill development and cultivating capabilities in-house. Toyota consolidates product and its production process planning and ensures that sufficient training and equipment (pertaining to processes required for new products) are provided or developed in-house. It largely finances operations using its internal cash flow. Neither stock buybacks nor high-dividend payouts are the norm. In short, the company has developed a long-term development strategy that fuses innovation with high-quality, sustainable management practices that operate durably at scale for many millions of customers around the world.
By contrast, Professor William Lazonick’s seminal study, “Profits without Prosperity,” underscores the notion that top-level U.S. executives, whose incentives have been increasingly based on stock-based financial targets, have lost the ability to develop the innovative capabilities of an enterprise. Instead, spurred by the prospect of stock gains, the executives have channeled their focus toward “short-termist” achievement of targets (such as by giving out excessive loans to finance customers’ purchases to boost quarterly sales targets, as Detroit’s “Big Three” have done repeatedly), increasing share valuations and increasing the variable component of their compensation (by share repurchases). As a result, their enterprises have become financialized, and their balance sheets severely weakened. The shortcomings of the companies that have fallen victim to this trend have been masked by the performance of the company stock, in itself a mirage brought about by financial engineering to boost share prices, as Rana Foroohar has documented in her book, Makers and Takers.
The focus on short-termism has ultimately degraded the financial health of the corporations concerned, as well as cannibalizing future investment opportunities. As Lazonick pointed out, in many instances where U.S. executives have resorted to stock repurchases, payouts were well above the net income, and in many cases occurred even when the company wasn’t profitable; certainly, there was little correlation to company performance per se. Cash that could be deployed toward creating a better product line has instead been spent on stock buybacks, while the strategy of expanding loans to customers to purchase the underlying product effectively steals from future sales, as well as expanding corporate leverage. Another way companies catered to shareholder capitalism was by selling off capital-intensive, but cash flow-generative businesses, as Jack Welch did when he became CEO of GE and shifted the company focus away from sales of jet engines, nuclear reactors and mining equipment, instead building up GE Capital, which ultimately became another “too big to fail” financial behemoth (and has done much to contribute to GE’s deterioration).
Additionally, a deregulated labor market that allows for “costless” hiring or firing (“costless” only from the perspective of management, obviously, not labor) in reality has reinforced this short-termism and further degraded long-term corporate performance. Executives abuse the “benefits” of a largely deregulated labor market to sack workers with impunity, thereby generating the “free” cash flow that can be used instead for share repurchases, even as the company loses valuable labor expertise, which can generate future production bottlenecks.
One must also question the notion that the stock market is an efficient gauge of corporate performance, especially when management is prone to what Professor Bill Black calls “control fraud.” There is an asymmetry of information between corporate insiders and institutional shareholders, which means that putting a “price” on managerialism so as to discipline them if the management engages in unproductive investments is a fantasy. Exposed to the harsh light of reality, this is an especially absurd idea that only an economist could love, given the divergent time frames between institutional investors monitored on the basis of quarterly performance versus executives who must make investment decisions, the results of which may not be established for years. This is exacerbated by the ludicrous notion that dilettante fund managers, relatively unschooled in anything (other than MBA degrees that propagate concepts like maximizing shareholder value), could possibly be superior judges of corporate performance and allocators of capital against those who have literally learned the business from the factory floor up.
In the “downsize and distribute” regime of American shareholder capitalism, the labor force is downsized, certain operations are discontinued, and the cash retrieved from these processes is distributed rather than retaining and reinvesting in developing the productive capabilities. American executives have proven all too willing to disgorge cash annually on buybacks at the expense of identifying the investments in organization and technology that were needed to remain competitive in the industry in which they operated.
In contrast to Germany or Japan, real engineering has been replaced by financial engineering. This is what the doctrine of “shareholder value” has actually delivered: unproductive share buybacks, which manipulate short-term share price performance, even as it derogates from long-term research and development, engenders persistent short-termism in corporate decision-making, and induces value extraction, rather than value creation. All of this financial vandalism has created multiple economic crises, long recessions, growing inequality and decades of stagnant incomes for the average American worker. Shareholder value in truth has created no real value at all.
Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”
BY
Richard D. Wolff Truthout
With the Democratic Socialists of America now counting 48,000 people within its membership and socialist candidates such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pushing for free universities and Medicare for All, Americans are once again discussing capitalism versus socialism. Fortunately, they are not doing so in the old Cold War manner of uncritically celebrating one while demonizing the other. Rather, it’s a debate over the choice Americans must make now between keeping capitalism or changing the system to some form of socialism. As debates often do, this debate awakens us to problems and differences in how we understand its basic terms. For clarity and to make progress in this important debate, we need to stop conflating “capitalism” with the market. This is done far too often and on all sides of the debate.
Markets are a means of distributing resources and products, goods and services. Quid pro quo exchange defines markets: one person offers to sell to another who offers to buy at a mutually agreed ratio that may or may not be mediated by money. To say that a market exists means that such an exchange system is what accomplishes distribution. To say that a market exists says nothing about how production is accomplished or how resources are converted into products. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a description of how the production of goods and services is organized, and how the participants relate to one another in the process of production. Thus conflating “capitalism” with “the market system” loses sight of the fact that markets can exist in relation to different systems of production.
We can get at this in other words. Markets were mechanisms of distribution in societies with very different production systems. For example, in economies based on the enslavement of people, resulting in a production system involving masters and slaves, “inputs” and “outputs” — including enslaved people — were often bought and sold in markets. We might then speak of slave markets: when a slave production system coexisted with a market distribution system.
If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system.
To take another example, feudal manors were production systems that juxtaposed lords and serfs. Since serfs were not slaves, no market in serfs existed. They were distributed via other, non-market systems. However, their non-human inputs and outputs could be distributed via markets, and in European feudalism often were distributed via market exchanges. Capitalist production systems – organized around the employer-employee (rather than the master-slave or lord-serf) relationship – could likewise coexist with market systems of distribution. Under capitalism, non-human inputs, labor power (the capacity to do labor), and outputs are all often distributed via market exchanges.
Thus it is confused to refer to capitalism as a “market system.” Market distribution systems vary in their specific qualities according to the different production systems and systems of exploitation with which they co-exist. Capitalist markets differ from slave markets, and both differ from feudal markets, but they are all markets. Moreover, markets usually coexist and interact with state apparatuses. Those interactions are marked with greater or lesser degrees of state interventions: from rigid regulation of exchanges all the way over to “free” trade or markets where regulation is minimized or absent. The state apparatus can also abolish the market system and replace it with an alternative system of distribution.
In that event, however, capitalism is not abolished because the market has been abolished. If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system. For the state to replace markets with some administrative (e.g., planned) system of distribution says nothing about the production system. The resources and products of a capitalist system of production can be distributed via more or less state-regulated markets or via non-market distribution systems. The same applies to the resources and products of slave and feudal production systems.
Why does it matter to differentiate markets and other distribution systems from production systems? The answer emerges from the recognition that most economic systems combine one or more production systems with one or more distribution systems. For a long time, the observers of such combinations – both celebrants and critics – have tended to conflate the two systems combined, as if they were one. Indeed, defining capitalism as “the market” or the “free market” system is precisely such a conflation.
Karl Marx went to considerable lengths to differentiate critiques of market exchange from his critique of capitalist production. He believed that major social problems of his time – inequality, cyclical instability, etc. – emerged from the capitalist production system as much or more than from the market system. He was a critic of both, but he kept the criticisms separate for basic reasons of analytical clarity and revolutionary strategy.
From capitalism’s beginnings, reformers have sought to soften its hard edges often by means of state interventions in markets. Minimum wages, maximum interest rates, progressive taxation, and so on are among their chosen mechanisms. More generally, reformers responded to capitalism’s profit-driven distribution of wealth by having the state redistribute that wealth according to non-capitalist (non-profit) criteria.
A more extreme criticism of markets displaced them in favor of other mechanisms of distributing resources and products such as centralized or decentralized state institutions charged with distribution, private institutions similarly charged, etc. However, if and when the production system continued to juxtapose employers and employees, all the different distribution systems discussed above – “free” market, regulated market, and non-market – coexist and interact with a capitalist production system.
To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.
Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.
Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.
Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.
Markets are a means of distributing resources and products, goods and services. Quid pro quo exchange defines markets: one person offers to sell to another who offers to buy at a mutually agreed ratio that may or may not be mediated by money. To say that a market exists means that such an exchange system is what accomplishes distribution. To say that a market exists says nothing about how production is accomplished or how resources are converted into products. Capitalism, on the other hand, is a description of how the production of goods and services is organized, and how the participants relate to one another in the process of production. Thus conflating “capitalism” with “the market system” loses sight of the fact that markets can exist in relation to different systems of production.
We can get at this in other words. Markets were mechanisms of distribution in societies with very different production systems. For example, in economies based on the enslavement of people, resulting in a production system involving masters and slaves, “inputs” and “outputs” — including enslaved people — were often bought and sold in markets. We might then speak of slave markets: when a slave production system coexisted with a market distribution system.
If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system.
To take another example, feudal manors were production systems that juxtaposed lords and serfs. Since serfs were not slaves, no market in serfs existed. They were distributed via other, non-market systems. However, their non-human inputs and outputs could be distributed via markets, and in European feudalism often were distributed via market exchanges. Capitalist production systems – organized around the employer-employee (rather than the master-slave or lord-serf) relationship – could likewise coexist with market systems of distribution. Under capitalism, non-human inputs, labor power (the capacity to do labor), and outputs are all often distributed via market exchanges.
Thus it is confused to refer to capitalism as a “market system.” Market distribution systems vary in their specific qualities according to the different production systems and systems of exploitation with which they co-exist. Capitalist markets differ from slave markets, and both differ from feudal markets, but they are all markets. Moreover, markets usually coexist and interact with state apparatuses. Those interactions are marked with greater or lesser degrees of state interventions: from rigid regulation of exchanges all the way over to “free” trade or markets where regulation is minimized or absent. The state apparatus can also abolish the market system and replace it with an alternative system of distribution.
In that event, however, capitalism is not abolished because the market has been abolished. If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system. For the state to replace markets with some administrative (e.g., planned) system of distribution says nothing about the production system. The resources and products of a capitalist system of production can be distributed via more or less state-regulated markets or via non-market distribution systems. The same applies to the resources and products of slave and feudal production systems.
Why does it matter to differentiate markets and other distribution systems from production systems? The answer emerges from the recognition that most economic systems combine one or more production systems with one or more distribution systems. For a long time, the observers of such combinations – both celebrants and critics – have tended to conflate the two systems combined, as if they were one. Indeed, defining capitalism as “the market” or the “free market” system is precisely such a conflation.
Karl Marx went to considerable lengths to differentiate critiques of market exchange from his critique of capitalist production. He believed that major social problems of his time – inequality, cyclical instability, etc. – emerged from the capitalist production system as much or more than from the market system. He was a critic of both, but he kept the criticisms separate for basic reasons of analytical clarity and revolutionary strategy.
From capitalism’s beginnings, reformers have sought to soften its hard edges often by means of state interventions in markets. Minimum wages, maximum interest rates, progressive taxation, and so on are among their chosen mechanisms. More generally, reformers responded to capitalism’s profit-driven distribution of wealth by having the state redistribute that wealth according to non-capitalist (non-profit) criteria.
A more extreme criticism of markets displaced them in favor of other mechanisms of distributing resources and products such as centralized or decentralized state institutions charged with distribution, private institutions similarly charged, etc. However, if and when the production system continued to juxtapose employers and employees, all the different distribution systems discussed above – “free” market, regulated market, and non-market – coexist and interact with a capitalist production system.
To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.
Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.
It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.
Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.
Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.
'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie
How a farcical series of events in the 1880s produced an enduring and controversial legal
precedent
ADAM WINKLER - the atlantic
Somewhat unintuitively, American corporations today enjoy many of the same rights as American citizens. Both, for instance, are entitled to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.
That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.
The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. A leader of the Republican Party for more than a decade, Conkling had even been nominated to the Supreme Court twice. He begged off both times, the second time after the Senate had confirmed him. (He remains the last person to turn down a Supreme Court seat after winning confirmation). More than most lawyers, Conkling was seen by the justices as a peer.
It was a trust Conkling would betray. As he spoke before the Court on Southern Pacific’s behalf, Conkling recounted an astonishing tale. In the 1860s, when he was a young congressman, Conkling had served on the drafting committee that was responsible for writing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then the last member of the committee still living, Conkling told the justices that the drafters had changed the wording of the amendment, replacing “citizens” with “persons” in order to cover corporations too. Laws referring to “persons,” he said, have “by long and constant acceptance … been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.” Conkling buttressed his account with a surprising piece of evidence: a musty old journal he claimed was a previously unpublished record of the deliberations of the drafting committee.
Years later, historians would discover that Conkling’s journal was real but his story was a fraud. The journal was in fact a record of the congressional committee’s deliberations but, upon close examination, it offered no evidence that the drafters intended to protect corporations. It showed, in fact, that the language of the equal-protection clause was never changed from “citizen” to “person.” So far as anyone can tell, the rights of corporations were not raised in the public debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or in any of the states’ ratifying conventions. And, prior to Conkling’s appearance on behalf of Southern Pacific, no member of the drafting committee had ever suggested that corporations were covered.
There’s reason to suspect Conkling’s deception was uncovered back in his time too. The justices held onto the case for three years without ever issuing a decision, until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case. Then, shortly after, another case from Southern Pacific reached the Supreme Court, raising the exact same legal question. The company had the same team of lawyers, with the exception of Conkling. Tellingly, Southern Pacific’s lawyers omitted any mention of Conkling’s drafting history or his journal. Had those lawyers believed Conkling, it would have been malpractice to leave out his story.
When the Court issued its decision on this second case, the justices expressly declined to decide if corporations were people. The dispute could be, and was, resolved on other grounds, prompting an angry rebuke from one justice, Stephen J. Field, who castigated his colleagues for failing to address “the important constitutional questions involved.” “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” he wrote, and they deserved to know if they had equal rights too.
Rumored to carry a gun with him at all times, the colorful Field was the only sitting justice ever arrested—and the charge was murder. He was innocent, but nonetheless guilty of serious ethical violations in the Southern Pacific cases, at least by modern standards: A confidant of Leland Stanford, Field had advised the company on which lawyers to hire for this very series of cases and thus should have recused himself from them. He refused to—and, even worse, while the first case was pending, covertly shared internal memoranda of the justices with Southern Pacific’s legal team.
The rules of judicial ethics were not well developed in the Gilded Age, however, and the self-assured Field, who feared the forces of socialism, did not hesitate to weigh in. Taxing the property of railroads differently, he said, was like allowing deductions for property “owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or young men.”
So, with Field on the Court, still more twists were yet to come. The Supreme Court’s opinions are officially published in volumes edited by an administrator called the reporter of decisions. By tradition, the reporter writes up a summary of the Court’s opinion and includes it at the beginning of the opinion. The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.
Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that “corporations are persons within the meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment. “It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,” explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.
His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Indeed, the faux precedent in the Southern Pacific case would go on to be used by a Supreme Court that in the early 20th century became famous for striking down numerous economic regulations, including federal child-labor laws, zoning laws, and wage-and-hour laws. Meanwhile, in cases like the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the real intended beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment. Between 1868, when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and an astonishing 312 cases on the rights of corporations.
The day back in 1882 when the Supreme Court first heard Roscoe Conkling’s argument, the New-York Daily Tribune featured a story on the case with a headline that would turn out to be prophetic: “Civil Rights of Corporations.” Indeed, in a feat of deceitful legal alchemy, Southern Pacific and its wily legal team had, with the help of an audacious Supreme Court justice, set up the Fourteenth Amendment to be more of a bulwark for the rights of businesses than the rights of minorities.
That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.
The head lawyer representing Southern Pacific was a man named Roscoe Conkling. A leader of the Republican Party for more than a decade, Conkling had even been nominated to the Supreme Court twice. He begged off both times, the second time after the Senate had confirmed him. (He remains the last person to turn down a Supreme Court seat after winning confirmation). More than most lawyers, Conkling was seen by the justices as a peer.
It was a trust Conkling would betray. As he spoke before the Court on Southern Pacific’s behalf, Conkling recounted an astonishing tale. In the 1860s, when he was a young congressman, Conkling had served on the drafting committee that was responsible for writing the Fourteenth Amendment. Then the last member of the committee still living, Conkling told the justices that the drafters had changed the wording of the amendment, replacing “citizens” with “persons” in order to cover corporations too. Laws referring to “persons,” he said, have “by long and constant acceptance … been held to embrace artificial persons as well as natural persons.” Conkling buttressed his account with a surprising piece of evidence: a musty old journal he claimed was a previously unpublished record of the deliberations of the drafting committee.
Years later, historians would discover that Conkling’s journal was real but his story was a fraud. The journal was in fact a record of the congressional committee’s deliberations but, upon close examination, it offered no evidence that the drafters intended to protect corporations. It showed, in fact, that the language of the equal-protection clause was never changed from “citizen” to “person.” So far as anyone can tell, the rights of corporations were not raised in the public debates over the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment or in any of the states’ ratifying conventions. And, prior to Conkling’s appearance on behalf of Southern Pacific, no member of the drafting committee had ever suggested that corporations were covered.
There’s reason to suspect Conkling’s deception was uncovered back in his time too. The justices held onto the case for three years without ever issuing a decision, until Southern Pacific unexpectedly settled the case. Then, shortly after, another case from Southern Pacific reached the Supreme Court, raising the exact same legal question. The company had the same team of lawyers, with the exception of Conkling. Tellingly, Southern Pacific’s lawyers omitted any mention of Conkling’s drafting history or his journal. Had those lawyers believed Conkling, it would have been malpractice to leave out his story.
When the Court issued its decision on this second case, the justices expressly declined to decide if corporations were people. The dispute could be, and was, resolved on other grounds, prompting an angry rebuke from one justice, Stephen J. Field, who castigated his colleagues for failing to address “the important constitutional questions involved.” “At the present day, nearly all great enterprises are conducted by corporations,” he wrote, and they deserved to know if they had equal rights too.
Rumored to carry a gun with him at all times, the colorful Field was the only sitting justice ever arrested—and the charge was murder. He was innocent, but nonetheless guilty of serious ethical violations in the Southern Pacific cases, at least by modern standards: A confidant of Leland Stanford, Field had advised the company on which lawyers to hire for this very series of cases and thus should have recused himself from them. He refused to—and, even worse, while the first case was pending, covertly shared internal memoranda of the justices with Southern Pacific’s legal team.
The rules of judicial ethics were not well developed in the Gilded Age, however, and the self-assured Field, who feared the forces of socialism, did not hesitate to weigh in. Taxing the property of railroads differently, he said, was like allowing deductions for property “owned by white men or by old men, and not deducted if owned by black men or young men.”
So, with Field on the Court, still more twists were yet to come. The Supreme Court’s opinions are officially published in volumes edited by an administrator called the reporter of decisions. By tradition, the reporter writes up a summary of the Court’s opinion and includes it at the beginning of the opinion. The reporter in the 1880s was J.C. Bancroft Davis, whose wildly inaccurate summary of the Southern Pacific case said that the Court had ruled that “corporations are persons within … the Fourteenth Amendment.” Whether his summary was an error or something more nefarious—Davis had once been the president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company—will likely never be known.
Field nonetheless saw Davis’s erroneous summary as an opportunity. A few years later, in an opinion in an unrelated case, Field wrote that “corporations are persons within the meaning” of the Fourteenth Amendment. “It was so held in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,” explained Field, who knew very well that the Court had done no such thing.
His gambit worked. In the following years, the case would be cited over and over by courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, for deciding that corporations had rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Indeed, the faux precedent in the Southern Pacific case would go on to be used by a Supreme Court that in the early 20th century became famous for striking down numerous economic regulations, including federal child-labor laws, zoning laws, and wage-and-hour laws. Meanwhile, in cases like the notorious Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), those same justices refused to read the Constitution as protecting the rights of African Americans, the real intended beneficiaries of the Fourteenth Amendment. Between 1868, when the amendment was ratified, and 1912, the Supreme Court would rule on 28 cases involving the rights of African Americans and an astonishing 312 cases on the rights of corporations.
The day back in 1882 when the Supreme Court first heard Roscoe Conkling’s argument, the New-York Daily Tribune featured a story on the case with a headline that would turn out to be prophetic: “Civil Rights of Corporations.” Indeed, in a feat of deceitful legal alchemy, Southern Pacific and its wily legal team had, with the help of an audacious Supreme Court justice, set up the Fourteenth Amendment to be more of a bulwark for the rights of businesses than the rights of minorities.
5 Big Myths Sold by the Defenders of Capitalism
Our dominant economic system causes too many Americans too much pain.
By Valerie Vande Panne / AlterNet December 29, 2017, 11:22 AM GMT
I’ve been writing about the economic and environmental realities of marginalized communities for some time, primarily from the perspective of positive systems that are growing to support disenfranchised people. Many of these alternative economic networks, such as barter and time trade, are born out of necessity. As I explore these economies and some of the new ways communities are fostering and investing in health and growth, I am increasingly met by the same arguments against them—and every single one of these arguments is a myth. Capitalism is, at its core, an entrenched system of addiction, whose very root is the greed of over-consumption, whether it's food, sex, money, mouse clicks, or property.
Here are five myths people continue to promote that we’ll all be better off without.
1. Myth: Jobs Will Save Us!
Permits to pollute and tax breaks are just two of the things corporations receive when they promise jobs to local populations. In a city like Detroit, which has struggled for decades with unemployment and economic decay, oil companies, real estate moguls and sports teams have all offered jobs in exchange for getting something big in return. At the end of the day, the promised jobs aren’t necessarily fulfilled. The rich get richer while the poor fund corporate projects, die from corporate pollution or end up on welfare because they never got the jobs promised in the first place.
---
2. Myth: Brand Loyalty Over Small Businesses
You know it when you see it: Nike, Adidas, Apple, Polo. People identify by the logos they wear, and they’ll pay top dollar for that logo. But why pay top dollar to advertise a company you have no connection to? Brands should pay you for your loyalty, but unless you’re Instafamous, they don't. For the hundreds you spend on a label, you could pay a local tailor or seamstress to make something tailored just for you. Retail doesn’t want you to do that, but why not give it a try? You might be surprised to find what replacing brand loyalty with real-world community loyalty can bring you.
3. Myth: Trickledown Economics Works
We’ve been talking about this issue as long as I can remember, and it still doesn’t work. Just because the rich received a special tax break that will make them exponentially richer does not mean they will spend any money on you, or contribute anything healthy or beneficial to any community other than their own. Isn’t that what "A Christmas Carol" was all about? That the only way the wealthy will ever share their wealth is if they are terrorized by ghosts? Believing in the benevolent goodness of the super-rich is one of the most perverse things we do in the U.S., and perhaps it’s rooted in the myth that you, too, can one day be wealthy.
4. Myth: Pull Yourself up by Your Bootstraps
The myth that if you just work hard enough you will one day be rich is a pervasive idea in the United States. This myth relies on the absence of inherited wealth and ignores the grievous injustices often committed in creating that wealth, and denies racism, marginalization and generational disenfranchisement. Yet people continue to preach it as gospel. The exceptions are held up as rules, without a close examination of how those folks got to where they are. No one in this world makes it to the top alone, and the lower one is on the ladder, the harder it is to get to the top—especially when the structure is the ladder of capitalism. Make the system a jungle gym, and have the community work together to navigate it, and see how much more successful and happy everyone can be.
5. Myth: Everyone Is Free in a Capitalist Society
In an age of clicks, sponsored content and fake news, it’s sometimes hard to tell capitalism from freedom. After all, capitalism is marketed to you every day as freedom, on television, social media and even NPR. But capitalism doesn’t equate freedom. Look at the prison industrial complex or the number of people going to debtors prison for unaffordable and unpaid civil infractions. Look at the nearly 20,000 households in Detroit that had their water shut off just this year as a result of unpaid water bills. Look at the homelessness created by bad mortgages from which lenders continue to profit. Capitalism in each of these cases isn’t promoting freedom, but robbing freedom from millions of Americans who could, in another time and under a humane system of economic governance, might prosper in communities they are able to contribute to and benefit from.
Capitalism is fueled by many more myths than just these. But these five might be nice places to start disassembling the dominant economic system that is causing too many Americans pain.
Here are five myths people continue to promote that we’ll all be better off without.
1. Myth: Jobs Will Save Us!
Permits to pollute and tax breaks are just two of the things corporations receive when they promise jobs to local populations. In a city like Detroit, which has struggled for decades with unemployment and economic decay, oil companies, real estate moguls and sports teams have all offered jobs in exchange for getting something big in return. At the end of the day, the promised jobs aren’t necessarily fulfilled. The rich get richer while the poor fund corporate projects, die from corporate pollution or end up on welfare because they never got the jobs promised in the first place.
---
2. Myth: Brand Loyalty Over Small Businesses
You know it when you see it: Nike, Adidas, Apple, Polo. People identify by the logos they wear, and they’ll pay top dollar for that logo. But why pay top dollar to advertise a company you have no connection to? Brands should pay you for your loyalty, but unless you’re Instafamous, they don't. For the hundreds you spend on a label, you could pay a local tailor or seamstress to make something tailored just for you. Retail doesn’t want you to do that, but why not give it a try? You might be surprised to find what replacing brand loyalty with real-world community loyalty can bring you.
3. Myth: Trickledown Economics Works
We’ve been talking about this issue as long as I can remember, and it still doesn’t work. Just because the rich received a special tax break that will make them exponentially richer does not mean they will spend any money on you, or contribute anything healthy or beneficial to any community other than their own. Isn’t that what "A Christmas Carol" was all about? That the only way the wealthy will ever share their wealth is if they are terrorized by ghosts? Believing in the benevolent goodness of the super-rich is one of the most perverse things we do in the U.S., and perhaps it’s rooted in the myth that you, too, can one day be wealthy.
4. Myth: Pull Yourself up by Your Bootstraps
The myth that if you just work hard enough you will one day be rich is a pervasive idea in the United States. This myth relies on the absence of inherited wealth and ignores the grievous injustices often committed in creating that wealth, and denies racism, marginalization and generational disenfranchisement. Yet people continue to preach it as gospel. The exceptions are held up as rules, without a close examination of how those folks got to where they are. No one in this world makes it to the top alone, and the lower one is on the ladder, the harder it is to get to the top—especially when the structure is the ladder of capitalism. Make the system a jungle gym, and have the community work together to navigate it, and see how much more successful and happy everyone can be.
5. Myth: Everyone Is Free in a Capitalist Society
In an age of clicks, sponsored content and fake news, it’s sometimes hard to tell capitalism from freedom. After all, capitalism is marketed to you every day as freedom, on television, social media and even NPR. But capitalism doesn’t equate freedom. Look at the prison industrial complex or the number of people going to debtors prison for unaffordable and unpaid civil infractions. Look at the nearly 20,000 households in Detroit that had their water shut off just this year as a result of unpaid water bills. Look at the homelessness created by bad mortgages from which lenders continue to profit. Capitalism in each of these cases isn’t promoting freedom, but robbing freedom from millions of Americans who could, in another time and under a humane system of economic governance, might prosper in communities they are able to contribute to and benefit from.
Capitalism is fueled by many more myths than just these. But these five might be nice places to start disassembling the dominant economic system that is causing too many Americans pain.
Capitalism: The Nightmare
Paul Street
From Truthdig: The neoliberal, arch-capitalist era we inhabit is chock full of statistics and stories that ought to send chills down the spines of any caring, morally sentient human. Nearly three-fourths (71 percent) of the world’s population is poor, living on $10 a day or less, and 11 percent (767 million people, including 385 million children) live in what the World Bank calls “extreme poverty” (less than a $1.90 a day). Meanwhile, Oxfam reliably reports that, surreal as it sounds, the world’s eight richest people possess among themselves as much wealth as the poorest half of the entire human race.
The United States, self-described homeland and headquarters of freedom and democracy, is no exception to the harshly unequal global reality. Six of the world’s eight most absurdly rich people are U.S. citizens: Bill Gates (whose net worth of $426 billion equals the wealth of 3.6 billion people), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Larry Ellison (Oracle) and Michael Bloomberg (former mayor of New York City). As Bernie Sanders said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2016, the top 10th of the upper 1 percent in the U.S. has nearly as much wealth as the nation’s bottom 90 percent. Seven heirs of the Walton family’s Walmart fortune have among them a net worth equal to that of the nation’s poorest 40 percent. Half the U.S. population is poor or near-poor and half lacks any savings.
Just over a fifth of the nation’s children, including more than a third of black and Native American children, live below the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level, while parasitic financers and other capitalist overlords enjoy unimaginable hyper-opulence. One in seven U.S. citizens relies on food banks in “the world’s richest country.” Many of them are in families with full-time wage-earners—a reflection of the fact that wages have stagnated even as U.S. labor productivity consistently has risen for more than four decades.
Failure by Design
These savage inequalities reflect government policy on behalf of “the 1 percent” (better, perhaps, to say “the 0.1 percent”). U.S. economic growth since the late 1970s has been unequally distributed, thanks to regressive policy choices that have served the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary working people. As Joshua Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute showed in his important 2011 study, “Failure By Design,” the following interrelated, bipartisan and not-so-public policies across the long neoliberal era have brought us to a level of inequality that rivals the Gilded Age of the late 19th-century robber barons era. These policies include:
● Letting the value of the minimum wage be eroded by inflation.
● Slashing labor standards for overtime, safety and health.
● Tilting the laws governing union organizing and collective bargaining strongly in favor of employers.
● Weakening the social safety net.
● Privatizing public services.
● Accelerating the integration of the U.S. economy with the world economy without adequately protecting workers from global competition.
● Shredding government oversight of international trade, currency, investment and lending.
● Deregulating the financial sector and financial markets.
● Valuing low inflation over full employment and abandoning the latter as a worthy goal of fiscal and economic policy.
These policies increased poverty and suppressed wages at the bottom and concentrated wealth at the top. They culminated in the 2007-09 Great Recession, sparked by the bursting of a housing bubble that resulted from the deregulation of the financial sector and the reliance of millions of Americans on artificially inflated real estate values and soaring household debt to compensate for poor earnings.
After the crash, the government under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama bailed out the very financial predators who pushed the economy over the cliff. The Obama administration, populated by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup operatives, left the rest of us to wonder “Where’s our bailout?” as 95 percent of the nation’s new income went to the top 1 percent during his first term. (read more)
The United States, self-described homeland and headquarters of freedom and democracy, is no exception to the harshly unequal global reality. Six of the world’s eight most absurdly rich people are U.S. citizens: Bill Gates (whose net worth of $426 billion equals the wealth of 3.6 billion people), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Larry Ellison (Oracle) and Michael Bloomberg (former mayor of New York City). As Bernie Sanders said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2016, the top 10th of the upper 1 percent in the U.S. has nearly as much wealth as the nation’s bottom 90 percent. Seven heirs of the Walton family’s Walmart fortune have among them a net worth equal to that of the nation’s poorest 40 percent. Half the U.S. population is poor or near-poor and half lacks any savings.
Just over a fifth of the nation’s children, including more than a third of black and Native American children, live below the federal government’s notoriously inadequate poverty level, while parasitic financers and other capitalist overlords enjoy unimaginable hyper-opulence. One in seven U.S. citizens relies on food banks in “the world’s richest country.” Many of them are in families with full-time wage-earners—a reflection of the fact that wages have stagnated even as U.S. labor productivity consistently has risen for more than four decades.
Failure by Design
These savage inequalities reflect government policy on behalf of “the 1 percent” (better, perhaps, to say “the 0.1 percent”). U.S. economic growth since the late 1970s has been unequally distributed, thanks to regressive policy choices that have served the rich and powerful at the expense of ordinary working people. As Joshua Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute showed in his important 2011 study, “Failure By Design,” the following interrelated, bipartisan and not-so-public policies across the long neoliberal era have brought us to a level of inequality that rivals the Gilded Age of the late 19th-century robber barons era. These policies include:
● Letting the value of the minimum wage be eroded by inflation.
● Slashing labor standards for overtime, safety and health.
● Tilting the laws governing union organizing and collective bargaining strongly in favor of employers.
● Weakening the social safety net.
● Privatizing public services.
● Accelerating the integration of the U.S. economy with the world economy without adequately protecting workers from global competition.
● Shredding government oversight of international trade, currency, investment and lending.
● Deregulating the financial sector and financial markets.
● Valuing low inflation over full employment and abandoning the latter as a worthy goal of fiscal and economic policy.
These policies increased poverty and suppressed wages at the bottom and concentrated wealth at the top. They culminated in the 2007-09 Great Recession, sparked by the bursting of a housing bubble that resulted from the deregulation of the financial sector and the reliance of millions of Americans on artificially inflated real estate values and soaring household debt to compensate for poor earnings.
After the crash, the government under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama bailed out the very financial predators who pushed the economy over the cliff. The Obama administration, populated by Goldman Sachs and Citigroup operatives, left the rest of us to wonder “Where’s our bailout?” as 95 percent of the nation’s new income went to the top 1 percent during his first term. (read more)
funnies and charts
Cartoon: Hedge fund nation
By Jen Sorensen
Tuesday Dec 19, 2017 · 5:01 AM PST
This Infographic Shows How Only 10 Companies Control All the World’s Brands
Tom Cahill | December 31, 2016
From U.S. Uncut: Almost all of the food and beverage brands we know are owned by just 10 global conglomerates, according to a blistering new report.
Oxfam’s 52-page “Behind the Brands” report goes into great detail about how just ten companies — Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International (previously known as Kraft), Nestle, PepsiCo, and Unilever — own basically every brand of food sold in grocery stores around the globe. The report is part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign, which seeks to provide a sustainable food supply to an estimated global population of nine billion by 2050.
The “Behind the Brands” report grades each company through a series of scorecards, gauging how attentive it is toward core issues like how it treats farm workers, women, small-scale farmers, local land and water supplies, its climate change policy, and a company’s transparency. By and large, the scorecards found that the so-called “Big 10” food companies shirk their responsibility to local populations and the environment, falling far short of where they could be given their tremendous resources and influence. In some cases, Big 10 companies actually undermine food security, natural resources, and human rights, according to Oxfam:
• Companies are overly secretive about their agricultural supply chains, making claims of ‘sustainability’ and ‘social responsibility’ difficult to verify;
• None of the Big 10 have adequate policies to protect local communities from land and water grabs along their supply chains;
• Companies are not taking sufficient steps to curb massive agricultural greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate changes now affecting farmers;
• Most companies do not provide small-scale farmers with equal access to their supply chains and no company has made a commitment to ensure that small-scale producers are paid a fair price;
• Only a minority of the Big 10 are doing anything at all to address the exploitation of women small-scale farmers and workers in their supply chains.
In addition to those damning declarations from Oxfam, the report also found that despite the enormous financial wealth concentrated among the Big 10 companies (an estimated $872.8 billion market cap amongst all but Mars, which is privately owned), the farmers working the land owned by these companies live in abject poverty.
Globally, some 450 million men and women work in the agriculture sector, and 60 percent of those live in poverty. In a cruel ironic twist, 80 percent of the global population classified as “chronically hungry” are farmers. The “Behind the Brands” report outlined how the practices of the Big 10 companies exacerbate the global problem of chronic hunger:
“[T]he use of valuable agricultural resources for the production of snacks and sodas means less fertile land and clean water is available to grow nutritious food for local communities. And changing weather patterns due to greenhouse gas emissions – a large percentage of which come from agricultural production – continue to make these small-scale farmers increasingly vulnerable… [T]he sourcing of commodities – cocoa, sugar, potatoes, tomatoes, soy, coffee, tea and corn – is still plagued with injustice and inequity, much as it was 100 years ago.”
But these concerns aren’t just coming from one nonprofit — in conducting research for the report, Oxfam found that where food comes from and whether or not a food producer is being socially and environmentally responsible is a top concern for a wide majority consumers in developed countries. This could also produce economic blowback for companies that don’t adhere to sustainable business standards. Weber Shandwick — a New York-based public relations firm — found that 70 percent of American consumers avoid buying products from companies they don’t like....
...As far as the scorecard for the Big 10 is concerned, none of the world’s largest food producers scored in the 8-10 (“good”) range on any of the criteria used for the evaluation. While Nestle and Unilever lead their competitors in several areas, they still fall short in how they treat the land, women, and small-scale farmers. The three worst offenders — General Mills, Kellogg’s and ABF — didn’t score above a 3 out of 10 score (“poor”) except for a scant few categories. And out of a maximum score of 70, Nestle, who ranked at #1 among the Big 10, still only scored 38 (only 54 percent). If the scorecard was a college exam, Nestle would still score an F.
Oxfam’s 52-page “Behind the Brands” report goes into great detail about how just ten companies — Associated British Foods (ABF), Coca-Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International (previously known as Kraft), Nestle, PepsiCo, and Unilever — own basically every brand of food sold in grocery stores around the globe. The report is part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign, which seeks to provide a sustainable food supply to an estimated global population of nine billion by 2050.
The “Behind the Brands” report grades each company through a series of scorecards, gauging how attentive it is toward core issues like how it treats farm workers, women, small-scale farmers, local land and water supplies, its climate change policy, and a company’s transparency. By and large, the scorecards found that the so-called “Big 10” food companies shirk their responsibility to local populations and the environment, falling far short of where they could be given their tremendous resources and influence. In some cases, Big 10 companies actually undermine food security, natural resources, and human rights, according to Oxfam:
• Companies are overly secretive about their agricultural supply chains, making claims of ‘sustainability’ and ‘social responsibility’ difficult to verify;
• None of the Big 10 have adequate policies to protect local communities from land and water grabs along their supply chains;
• Companies are not taking sufficient steps to curb massive agricultural greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate changes now affecting farmers;
• Most companies do not provide small-scale farmers with equal access to their supply chains and no company has made a commitment to ensure that small-scale producers are paid a fair price;
• Only a minority of the Big 10 are doing anything at all to address the exploitation of women small-scale farmers and workers in their supply chains.
In addition to those damning declarations from Oxfam, the report also found that despite the enormous financial wealth concentrated among the Big 10 companies (an estimated $872.8 billion market cap amongst all but Mars, which is privately owned), the farmers working the land owned by these companies live in abject poverty.
Globally, some 450 million men and women work in the agriculture sector, and 60 percent of those live in poverty. In a cruel ironic twist, 80 percent of the global population classified as “chronically hungry” are farmers. The “Behind the Brands” report outlined how the practices of the Big 10 companies exacerbate the global problem of chronic hunger:
“[T]he use of valuable agricultural resources for the production of snacks and sodas means less fertile land and clean water is available to grow nutritious food for local communities. And changing weather patterns due to greenhouse gas emissions – a large percentage of which come from agricultural production – continue to make these small-scale farmers increasingly vulnerable… [T]he sourcing of commodities – cocoa, sugar, potatoes, tomatoes, soy, coffee, tea and corn – is still plagued with injustice and inequity, much as it was 100 years ago.”
But these concerns aren’t just coming from one nonprofit — in conducting research for the report, Oxfam found that where food comes from and whether or not a food producer is being socially and environmentally responsible is a top concern for a wide majority consumers in developed countries. This could also produce economic blowback for companies that don’t adhere to sustainable business standards. Weber Shandwick — a New York-based public relations firm — found that 70 percent of American consumers avoid buying products from companies they don’t like....
...As far as the scorecard for the Big 10 is concerned, none of the world’s largest food producers scored in the 8-10 (“good”) range on any of the criteria used for the evaluation. While Nestle and Unilever lead their competitors in several areas, they still fall short in how they treat the land, women, and small-scale farmers. The three worst offenders — General Mills, Kellogg’s and ABF — didn’t score above a 3 out of 10 score (“poor”) except for a scant few categories. And out of a maximum score of 70, Nestle, who ranked at #1 among the Big 10, still only scored 38 (only 54 percent). If the scorecard was a college exam, Nestle would still score an F.
The "Golden Age of Capitalism" Was an Era of Racism and Secret Coups
By Emma Caterine, Truthout
From Bernie Sanders calling violently anti-Communist President Eisenhower a socialist, to a plethora of op-eds hailing the allegedly great policies the Republicans had toward labor and refugees, you have probably seen at least one liberal in your life mourn the loss of the Republicans of the so-called "Golden Age of Capitalism," the 1950s. These arguments usually rest on the achievements of that time, such as the desegregation of the military, a corporate tax rate of 50 percent, a top income tax rate of 91 percent, a rate of profit that stood above 20 percent throughout the decade and annual average Gross Domestic Product growth of 3.13 percent.
While most of these achievements are objectively true, this argument of the "once-good" Republican Party can only be sustained when one ignores the context in which these policies were created, the violent campaign against Communism domestically and abroad, and the caveats and exceptions to the policies that predominantly created wealth and welfare at the expense of people of color.
The Context
While there are disagreements as to the level of responsibility, it is generally agreed by economists and historians that the United States escaped the Great Depression, at least in part, by its engagement in World War II. There are two facets of how the war improved the economy: (1) Governmental investment and even takeover of industry created jobs and recycled stagnant fixed capital, such as factories and machinery; and (2) By bombing the post-war foreign competition out of existence, at least for a significant amount of time. The positive effect of the war on the economy was undeniable at the time, and it was a reality that the small government Republicans had to accommodate to.
But that certainly does not mean that they did not try to push for deregulation and a "free market" in the little ways that were politically feasible. President Eisenhower's election was in part due to the capitalists of the time becoming fed up with the Democrats' intervention, such as President Truman's failed attempt to seize the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company to end strikes. President Eisenhower would employ the virtually opposite tactic during the Steel Strike of 1959 by using the "back-to-work" provision of the Taft-Harley Act. Ironically, the dispute was only settled by a politically ambitious then-Vice President Richard Nixon stepping in and telling steelmakers it was better to settle before the Democratic Congress began hearings on the strike, which would not be as supportive of the companies as Eisenhower was.
Republican US Imperialism at a Discount
With the current political debate around refugees, many liberals have pointed to the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 to shame the Republicans for their opposition to accepting more refugees. The Act did indeed result in 214,000 immigrants gaining admission to the country. But the problem is that under this Act, most -- if not all -- of the Syrian refugees would have been denied entry. The quotas for the Act were as follows: 90,000 West Germans and Austrians; 10,000 from NATO members, Turkey, Sweden, Iran and Trieste (now part of Italy); 2,000 Polish veterans; 60,000 Italians; 17,000 Greeks; 17,000 Dutch; 4,000 for those residing in US consulate districts in the "Far East;" 2,000 Chinese; and 2,000 for Jews and Palestinians of the new Israel who were part of the UN's refugee program.
These quotas show two things: (1) An obvious bias against people of color, with no quota whatsoever for North Africans who were affected by WWII and a pitifully small one for Chinese and Middle Eastern people; and (2) This Act was part of the Republican strategy against Communism abroad by rewarding NATO members and Western Europe. Iran is particularly notable because it was that same year, 1953, that Eisenhower's administration pioneered a new, cheaper version of overthrowing foreign democratic governments through a single CIA agent instigating a coup against the recently elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The strategy was so successful that they did it again in Guatemala the next year, despite the previous Truman administration having aborted a similar mission in 1952 after public pressure.
Who Was Left Behind in the Golden Age?
US capitalism's "Golden Age" wasn't so golden for the people of color residing in the country. Despite the desegregation begun by President Truman and continued by President Eisenhower in the military, no effort was made to ensure that the Black veterans had equal access to the benefits of such service by either the Democrats or Republicans. President Eisenhower was the second Republican president in history get a plurality of the Southern votes during 1956, and despite his enforcement of the law at Little Rock, Arkansas (which he always maintained was not about integration, but about federal power), sympathized strongly with the Southern whites and their racist views on topics like "miscegenation."
The 83rd Republican-controlled Congress passed laws that criminalized affiliation with Communist organizations, which Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., promptly used to shut down the Communist-affiliated Civil Rights Congress, which is most famous for the "We Charge Genocide" petition to the United Nations. Congress also began the privatization of the infamous Fannie Mae, ensuring that greed was prioritized over public good and setting the mortgage market down a path that has and continues to redline Black communities and systemically deprive them of wealth.
The Danger of Nostalgia
Many Bernie Sanders supporters have wondered why their candidate was not able to garner as much support from the Black community when his policy proposals were far more in favor of Black people than those proposed by Hillary Clinton. I have watched Senator Sanders' career for a long time, since I was a teenage community organizer lobbying for the Employee Free Choice Act, and I've observed him expressing the perverse kind of nostalgia that many older white leftists do for the 1950s and its middle class. Many women and people of color are justifiably skeptical about plans packaged as bringing back a "Golden Age" where they faced broad discrimination with little recourse. A political revolution against our current system would not be the return to a less megalomaniacal Republican Party, and certainly not the election of a xenophobic fascist billionaire who is an outsider in name only. The political revolution is happening every day, being carried about by the working class and the youth who know that this two-party system is a fraud. Consider this an invitation to join.
While most of these achievements are objectively true, this argument of the "once-good" Republican Party can only be sustained when one ignores the context in which these policies were created, the violent campaign against Communism domestically and abroad, and the caveats and exceptions to the policies that predominantly created wealth and welfare at the expense of people of color.
The Context
While there are disagreements as to the level of responsibility, it is generally agreed by economists and historians that the United States escaped the Great Depression, at least in part, by its engagement in World War II. There are two facets of how the war improved the economy: (1) Governmental investment and even takeover of industry created jobs and recycled stagnant fixed capital, such as factories and machinery; and (2) By bombing the post-war foreign competition out of existence, at least for a significant amount of time. The positive effect of the war on the economy was undeniable at the time, and it was a reality that the small government Republicans had to accommodate to.
But that certainly does not mean that they did not try to push for deregulation and a "free market" in the little ways that were politically feasible. President Eisenhower's election was in part due to the capitalists of the time becoming fed up with the Democrats' intervention, such as President Truman's failed attempt to seize the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company to end strikes. President Eisenhower would employ the virtually opposite tactic during the Steel Strike of 1959 by using the "back-to-work" provision of the Taft-Harley Act. Ironically, the dispute was only settled by a politically ambitious then-Vice President Richard Nixon stepping in and telling steelmakers it was better to settle before the Democratic Congress began hearings on the strike, which would not be as supportive of the companies as Eisenhower was.
Republican US Imperialism at a Discount
With the current political debate around refugees, many liberals have pointed to the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 to shame the Republicans for their opposition to accepting more refugees. The Act did indeed result in 214,000 immigrants gaining admission to the country. But the problem is that under this Act, most -- if not all -- of the Syrian refugees would have been denied entry. The quotas for the Act were as follows: 90,000 West Germans and Austrians; 10,000 from NATO members, Turkey, Sweden, Iran and Trieste (now part of Italy); 2,000 Polish veterans; 60,000 Italians; 17,000 Greeks; 17,000 Dutch; 4,000 for those residing in US consulate districts in the "Far East;" 2,000 Chinese; and 2,000 for Jews and Palestinians of the new Israel who were part of the UN's refugee program.
These quotas show two things: (1) An obvious bias against people of color, with no quota whatsoever for North Africans who were affected by WWII and a pitifully small one for Chinese and Middle Eastern people; and (2) This Act was part of the Republican strategy against Communism abroad by rewarding NATO members and Western Europe. Iran is particularly notable because it was that same year, 1953, that Eisenhower's administration pioneered a new, cheaper version of overthrowing foreign democratic governments through a single CIA agent instigating a coup against the recently elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. The strategy was so successful that they did it again in Guatemala the next year, despite the previous Truman administration having aborted a similar mission in 1952 after public pressure.
Who Was Left Behind in the Golden Age?
US capitalism's "Golden Age" wasn't so golden for the people of color residing in the country. Despite the desegregation begun by President Truman and continued by President Eisenhower in the military, no effort was made to ensure that the Black veterans had equal access to the benefits of such service by either the Democrats or Republicans. President Eisenhower was the second Republican president in history get a plurality of the Southern votes during 1956, and despite his enforcement of the law at Little Rock, Arkansas (which he always maintained was not about integration, but about federal power), sympathized strongly with the Southern whites and their racist views on topics like "miscegenation."
The 83rd Republican-controlled Congress passed laws that criminalized affiliation with Communist organizations, which Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., promptly used to shut down the Communist-affiliated Civil Rights Congress, which is most famous for the "We Charge Genocide" petition to the United Nations. Congress also began the privatization of the infamous Fannie Mae, ensuring that greed was prioritized over public good and setting the mortgage market down a path that has and continues to redline Black communities and systemically deprive them of wealth.
The Danger of Nostalgia
Many Bernie Sanders supporters have wondered why their candidate was not able to garner as much support from the Black community when his policy proposals were far more in favor of Black people than those proposed by Hillary Clinton. I have watched Senator Sanders' career for a long time, since I was a teenage community organizer lobbying for the Employee Free Choice Act, and I've observed him expressing the perverse kind of nostalgia that many older white leftists do for the 1950s and its middle class. Many women and people of color are justifiably skeptical about plans packaged as bringing back a "Golden Age" where they faced broad discrimination with little recourse. A political revolution against our current system would not be the return to a less megalomaniacal Republican Party, and certainly not the election of a xenophobic fascist billionaire who is an outsider in name only. The political revolution is happening every day, being carried about by the working class and the youth who know that this two-party system is a fraud. Consider this an invitation to join.
There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Free Market’
Capitalism with absolutely no government intervention is a myth — and always was.
By Jill Richardson
From Other Words: The debates leading up to the election this year will no doubt invoke the “American value” of capitalism. But what, exactly, does that mean? And what should it mean?
I’m no economist, but I took a few economics courses while earning an undergraduate business degree. Growing up in a capitalist society, I thought I understood the basic concepts underlying capitalism — free markets, competitive advantage, and so forth.
Then I actually read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the founding work that described what we call capitalism in the first place. That was a game changer.
We’re all probably familiar with Smith’s ideas at some level.
The market regulates itself, as each of us operates based on our own self-interest. Businesses try to earn profits, and consumers try to meet their needs at the best prices. The market ensures that the demand of consumers is met with supply from business.
The government’s job, the doctrinaire thinking goes, is to get the heck out of the way. It doesn’t set prices or quotas. It just lets the market function.
Adam Smith cast this arrangement in glowing terms in 1776. He was describing England during the Industrial Revolution. He thought it was amazing that millions of individual actors, each operating based on self-interest, could so efficiently revolutionize society without any central planning at all.
Only, he was wrong.
In fact, the growing British Empire was undertaking economic interventions on a colossal scale — and would do even more in the centuries to come. The British set out all over the globe, claiming colonies in the New World and later India and Africa, setting up trade policies that benefited the British at the expense of the colonized.
The British imported cotton from their colonies for their own factories, as well as wheat to feed British workers in the isles. Colonial India, meanwhile, suffered several massive famines. Even as tens of millions of Indians starved to death, record amounts of Indian wheat were exported to feed British factory workers laboring in a so-called free market.
Before the Industrial Revolution, Indian textiles reigned supreme. But British authorities kept industrial textile technologies out of India in order to capture the global textile market, impoverishing the colony further.
Other British staples — tea and sugar — were also imported from British colonies. That sugar was produced by enslaved Africans in the Caribbean.
Some invisible hand.
Smith also overlooked the utter misery textile workers lived in, even in Britain. The system “worked” at making some people rich. But the squalid and wretched lifestyles of laborers, including children — which inspired the writing of Charles Dickens — were its cost.
We in America have meddled in markets plenty in our own right — not least through historical crimes like slavery and colonialism. But we’ve also developed more benign interventions that can actually help people.
We ban child labor, for example, and enforce (admittedly inadequate) minimum wage protections. We require businesses to offer safe and healthy workplaces. We ban the sale of dangerous drugs. We try to regulate pharmaceuticals to make sure they’re safe and effective.
In other words, capitalism with absolutely no government intervention is a myth — and always was.
We can debate the pros and cons of specific regulations. But if you hear a candidate claiming that capitalism means doing away with all regulations — or that any government interference in the market equates to socialism or communism — they’re being dishonest.
I’m no economist, but I took a few economics courses while earning an undergraduate business degree. Growing up in a capitalist society, I thought I understood the basic concepts underlying capitalism — free markets, competitive advantage, and so forth.
Then I actually read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the founding work that described what we call capitalism in the first place. That was a game changer.
We’re all probably familiar with Smith’s ideas at some level.
The market regulates itself, as each of us operates based on our own self-interest. Businesses try to earn profits, and consumers try to meet their needs at the best prices. The market ensures that the demand of consumers is met with supply from business.
The government’s job, the doctrinaire thinking goes, is to get the heck out of the way. It doesn’t set prices or quotas. It just lets the market function.
Adam Smith cast this arrangement in glowing terms in 1776. He was describing England during the Industrial Revolution. He thought it was amazing that millions of individual actors, each operating based on self-interest, could so efficiently revolutionize society without any central planning at all.
Only, he was wrong.
In fact, the growing British Empire was undertaking economic interventions on a colossal scale — and would do even more in the centuries to come. The British set out all over the globe, claiming colonies in the New World and later India and Africa, setting up trade policies that benefited the British at the expense of the colonized.
The British imported cotton from their colonies for their own factories, as well as wheat to feed British workers in the isles. Colonial India, meanwhile, suffered several massive famines. Even as tens of millions of Indians starved to death, record amounts of Indian wheat were exported to feed British factory workers laboring in a so-called free market.
Before the Industrial Revolution, Indian textiles reigned supreme. But British authorities kept industrial textile technologies out of India in order to capture the global textile market, impoverishing the colony further.
Other British staples — tea and sugar — were also imported from British colonies. That sugar was produced by enslaved Africans in the Caribbean.
Some invisible hand.
Smith also overlooked the utter misery textile workers lived in, even in Britain. The system “worked” at making some people rich. But the squalid and wretched lifestyles of laborers, including children — which inspired the writing of Charles Dickens — were its cost.
We in America have meddled in markets plenty in our own right — not least through historical crimes like slavery and colonialism. But we’ve also developed more benign interventions that can actually help people.
We ban child labor, for example, and enforce (admittedly inadequate) minimum wage protections. We require businesses to offer safe and healthy workplaces. We ban the sale of dangerous drugs. We try to regulate pharmaceuticals to make sure they’re safe and effective.
In other words, capitalism with absolutely no government intervention is a myth — and always was.
We can debate the pros and cons of specific regulations. But if you hear a candidate claiming that capitalism means doing away with all regulations — or that any government interference in the market equates to socialism or communism — they’re being dishonest.
Why Tax Havens Are Political and Economic Disasters
Seeking prosperity through lax business and tax regulations leaves countries worse off
by Brooke Harrington
From The Atlantic: In the early 1990s, economists coined the term "the resource curse" to describe a paradox they observed in countries where valuable natural resources were discovered: Rather than thriving, such countries often crumbled, economically and politically. The newfound wealth, instead of raising living standards for all, generated violence, as well as accelerating the growth of inequality and corruption. Terry Karl, a Stanford political science professor, dubbed this the "paradox of plenty." The same story has played out again and again all over the world, from Venezuela (where Karl did her research on the destruction wrought by oil wealth) to Sierra Leone (home of blood diamonds) and Afghanistan (which, despite $3 trillion in mineral wealth, remains among the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world).
A similarly insidious pattern has developed in recent years among the countries serving as offshore financial centers. Many, like the countries affected by the resource curse, are former colonial states struggling to stay fiscally viable; the "resource" they discover is human capital, in the form of a population literate and numerate enough to provide financial services, such as the filing and compliance tasks linked to offshore corporations, trusts, and foundations. For these economically and politically fragile countries, the influx of cash provided by involvement in international finance seems like an unmitigated blessing, offering jobs and revenues for a relatively small investment in infrastructure, such as high-speed internet access.
But as many are finding, becoming a tax haven has unexpected costs. Precipitous economic, political, and social declines have occurred so often in such states that observers have coined a new term for it: “the finance curse.” When the "finance curse" strikes a country, there is a recurrent pattern: While its democracy, economy, and culture remain formally intact, they are increasingly oriented to and co-opted by international elites. In other words, such countries gradually become organized around the interests of people who don't even live there, to the detriment of those who do. The services produced by these countries protect cosmopolitans’ wealth, but the riches never flow to the the local producers, undermining their capacity for self-governance and social cohesion, as well as the development of infrastructure and institutions.
This has led to increasing economic fragility for offshore financial centers, along with political corruption and social decline, as evidenced by a rise in crime and violence. I experienced the latter in my own research on the global wealth-management industry: In the course of visiting 18 tax havens in every major region of the world, I encountered this social decay directly through a number of experiences, including being robbed at Pae Moana in the Cook Islands. A local fisherman I met afterwards said the rise in burglary and violent crime in the islands began with the growth of the offshore industry. Not only the wealth it brought in, but also the new value system focused on exploitation and greed, meant that “everyone calls us the ‘Crook Islands’ now.” The finance industry had begun to eat away at the nation’s democratic institutions: Referring to a recent political-corruption scandal, the fisherman said, “They’ve got our government in their pockets. I hate what they've done to my country.”
But as I learned, the workings of the finance curse have shaped not only the development of small post-colonial nations like the Cook Islands, but also that of seemingly wealthy and well-established ones. For example, recent reporting on the Channel Island of Jersey has documented the crippling of the country's economy, government, and society in one of the world's leading financial centers—a place that was once considered a "miracle of plenty" and a role model for other would-be tax havens.
The corrosion described by the finance curse has affected even some of the wealthiest financial centers, such as Luxembourg, which is the domicile of choice for $3.5 trillion worth of mutual-fund shares and over 150 banks. As a result of a robust financial-services sector that contributes 27 percent of the country’s economic production, the Grand Duchy boasts the highest per capita GDP in the Europe, far outstripping its nearest rivals, Norway and Switzerland. At first blush, Luxembourg would appear to be in terrific shape: a wealthy democracy, thriving in the center of Western Europe.
However, as the economist Gabriel Zucman has shown, Luxembourg's role as a leading tax haven has benefitted foreigners at the expense of locals, across the board. Over 60 percent of the country’s workforce is comprised of foreigners, who reap virtually all the benefits of the wealth generated by the Duchy. The society, as a result, is fracturing along expat-versus-local lines, both in economic and political terms.
As Zucman documents, inequality in the Grand Duchy has skyrocketed, with poverty doubling since 1980, and real wages for ordinary Luxembourgers stagnating for the past 20 years. Meanwhile, salaries for expat wealth managers have exploded, tripling housing prices in Luxembourg City. However, even this new wealth has not benefitted the local economy: Due to Luxembourg’s tax policies, public institutions such as the educational system are in "accelerated decline," mainly to the detriment of locals. The result, Zucman observes, is that Luxembourg has become more of a free-trade zone than a state.[...]
A similarly insidious pattern has developed in recent years among the countries serving as offshore financial centers. Many, like the countries affected by the resource curse, are former colonial states struggling to stay fiscally viable; the "resource" they discover is human capital, in the form of a population literate and numerate enough to provide financial services, such as the filing and compliance tasks linked to offshore corporations, trusts, and foundations. For these economically and politically fragile countries, the influx of cash provided by involvement in international finance seems like an unmitigated blessing, offering jobs and revenues for a relatively small investment in infrastructure, such as high-speed internet access.
But as many are finding, becoming a tax haven has unexpected costs. Precipitous economic, political, and social declines have occurred so often in such states that observers have coined a new term for it: “the finance curse.” When the "finance curse" strikes a country, there is a recurrent pattern: While its democracy, economy, and culture remain formally intact, they are increasingly oriented to and co-opted by international elites. In other words, such countries gradually become organized around the interests of people who don't even live there, to the detriment of those who do. The services produced by these countries protect cosmopolitans’ wealth, but the riches never flow to the the local producers, undermining their capacity for self-governance and social cohesion, as well as the development of infrastructure and institutions.
This has led to increasing economic fragility for offshore financial centers, along with political corruption and social decline, as evidenced by a rise in crime and violence. I experienced the latter in my own research on the global wealth-management industry: In the course of visiting 18 tax havens in every major region of the world, I encountered this social decay directly through a number of experiences, including being robbed at Pae Moana in the Cook Islands. A local fisherman I met afterwards said the rise in burglary and violent crime in the islands began with the growth of the offshore industry. Not only the wealth it brought in, but also the new value system focused on exploitation and greed, meant that “everyone calls us the ‘Crook Islands’ now.” The finance industry had begun to eat away at the nation’s democratic institutions: Referring to a recent political-corruption scandal, the fisherman said, “They’ve got our government in their pockets. I hate what they've done to my country.”
But as I learned, the workings of the finance curse have shaped not only the development of small post-colonial nations like the Cook Islands, but also that of seemingly wealthy and well-established ones. For example, recent reporting on the Channel Island of Jersey has documented the crippling of the country's economy, government, and society in one of the world's leading financial centers—a place that was once considered a "miracle of plenty" and a role model for other would-be tax havens.
The corrosion described by the finance curse has affected even some of the wealthiest financial centers, such as Luxembourg, which is the domicile of choice for $3.5 trillion worth of mutual-fund shares and over 150 banks. As a result of a robust financial-services sector that contributes 27 percent of the country’s economic production, the Grand Duchy boasts the highest per capita GDP in the Europe, far outstripping its nearest rivals, Norway and Switzerland. At first blush, Luxembourg would appear to be in terrific shape: a wealthy democracy, thriving in the center of Western Europe.
However, as the economist Gabriel Zucman has shown, Luxembourg's role as a leading tax haven has benefitted foreigners at the expense of locals, across the board. Over 60 percent of the country’s workforce is comprised of foreigners, who reap virtually all the benefits of the wealth generated by the Duchy. The society, as a result, is fracturing along expat-versus-local lines, both in economic and political terms.
As Zucman documents, inequality in the Grand Duchy has skyrocketed, with poverty doubling since 1980, and real wages for ordinary Luxembourgers stagnating for the past 20 years. Meanwhile, salaries for expat wealth managers have exploded, tripling housing prices in Luxembourg City. However, even this new wealth has not benefitted the local economy: Due to Luxembourg’s tax policies, public institutions such as the educational system are in "accelerated decline," mainly to the detriment of locals. The result, Zucman observes, is that Luxembourg has become more of a free-trade zone than a state.[...]
Reverse mortgages: The final blow killing middle class wealth
From Demo Underground: Many fellow Americans that have worked their entire lives, weathered several recessions and depressions, put their children through school, helped many in need, and faithfully paid their mortgages for decades are now being taken advantage of once again. Most have followed all the rules necessary to be considered fiscally responsible, yet because of "legal fraud" by the financial sector and policies effected by purchased politicians, their years in retirement will be compromised.
The Plutocracy, the one percent has walked away with a large percentage of their 401Ks, their SEPs, and to some extent their financial security. Because of stagnant or falling real wages, much of the working middle class have maxed out on their credit in the attempt to maintain their standard of living. For a Plutocracy that feeds on perpetual growth, from where will it feed now? An old and well-crafted financial instrument known as the reverse mortgage is being marketed on steroids to a baby boomer population.
...........//snip
Most Americans amass most of their wealth within their homes. Each generation in a responsible family is better off when the previous generation wills their assets forward. Reverse mortgages are yet another financial instrument that stunts the growth of the middle class by encouraging home owners to extract the capital out of their homes and use it as a supplement to their retirement or to simply splurge. Inasmuch as most reverse mortgages are federally regulated, their upfront costs are very high. These costs amount to free cash for the bank and mortgage insurance companies, your money transferred to them for a marginal service.
The big dirty secret is that reverse mortgages, like student loans pre-Obama, are nothing but a no-risk gift to the bankers, a wealth transfer engine from the masses to a select few. When the "owner" of the home dies, the government pays the bank any difference between the amount owed (interest plus principal) less the sale price of the home. If the heirs want to keep the home, they must pay the loan off in full. If the amount owed is more than the value of the home, the heirs must pay 95 percent of what is owed to the bank with the government paying the rest. What is the reason for the bank being in the transaction? It is there simply to extract from the government and the homeowner. They have absolutely nothing at risk for the profits they make.
Reverse mortgages mask a systemic problem that affects the American worker, a backward and inhumane retirement system. Every American worker makes a vibrant economy possible by providing 40, 50 or more years of work, taxes, and spending. It is appalling that a worker is incapable of having Social Security capable of providing a decent living. No one should have to deplete all of their assets to survive.
The Plutocracy, the one percent has walked away with a large percentage of their 401Ks, their SEPs, and to some extent their financial security. Because of stagnant or falling real wages, much of the working middle class have maxed out on their credit in the attempt to maintain their standard of living. For a Plutocracy that feeds on perpetual growth, from where will it feed now? An old and well-crafted financial instrument known as the reverse mortgage is being marketed on steroids to a baby boomer population.
...........//snip
Most Americans amass most of their wealth within their homes. Each generation in a responsible family is better off when the previous generation wills their assets forward. Reverse mortgages are yet another financial instrument that stunts the growth of the middle class by encouraging home owners to extract the capital out of their homes and use it as a supplement to their retirement or to simply splurge. Inasmuch as most reverse mortgages are federally regulated, their upfront costs are very high. These costs amount to free cash for the bank and mortgage insurance companies, your money transferred to them for a marginal service.
The big dirty secret is that reverse mortgages, like student loans pre-Obama, are nothing but a no-risk gift to the bankers, a wealth transfer engine from the masses to a select few. When the "owner" of the home dies, the government pays the bank any difference between the amount owed (interest plus principal) less the sale price of the home. If the heirs want to keep the home, they must pay the loan off in full. If the amount owed is more than the value of the home, the heirs must pay 95 percent of what is owed to the bank with the government paying the rest. What is the reason for the bank being in the transaction? It is there simply to extract from the government and the homeowner. They have absolutely nothing at risk for the profits they make.
Reverse mortgages mask a systemic problem that affects the American worker, a backward and inhumane retirement system. Every American worker makes a vibrant economy possible by providing 40, 50 or more years of work, taxes, and spending. It is appalling that a worker is incapable of having Social Security capable of providing a decent living. No one should have to deplete all of their assets to survive.
America’s Future Depends on Containing Neoliberalism
By Frank Fear ~ LA Progressive
The Rise and Evolution of Neoliberalism
The concept was born in 1930s Europe in reaction to The New Deal in America and The Nazi Movement in Germany. Both expressions were seen as totalitarian, squelching individual freedom and initiative. Over time, Neoliberalism morphed, becoming especially attractive to those who favored reducing regulatory oversight, downsizing government, and accentuating capitalism as the coin of the realm.
“The market” would take care of things—literally all things—and the market metaphor expanded to embrace a variety of domains associated with social and economic life. In Monbiot’s view, “Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations…. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.”
It wasn’t until the early 1980s—with Margaret Thatcher in power in Great Britain and Ronald Reagan in the U.S.—that a neoliberal philosophy became a guiding force for national and international affairs. In famously declaring, “There is no alternative,” Thatcher showed how dedicated she was to free markets, free trade, and global capitalism. The American analogue, “Reaganomics” (aka supply-side economics), focused on redressing “an undue tax burden, excessive government regulation, and massive public spending programs that hampered growth.”
“Call it Reaganism or Thatcherism, economism, or market fundamentalism,” William Deresiewicz writes, “neoliberalism is an ideology that reduces all values to money values. The worth of a thing is the price of the thing. The worth of a person is the wealth of the person. Neoliberalism tells you that you are valuable exclusively in terms of your activity in the marketplace — or, in Wordsworth’s phrase, your ‘getting and spending’.”
Neoliberalism was no short-term political fancy, either. It persisted and expanded, promulgated by powerful advocates, to the point that it changed the way America does business. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz believes that Neoliberalism has “rewritten the rules” of the U.S. economy by privileging elites. It did so by deregulating business affairs, privatizing public and human services, cutting social services, lowering taxes, and reducing government size and scope. In exchange, elites promised “trickle down benefits” and declared “A Thousand Points of Light” would take care of human and social needs.
Impacts of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism proceeded, undeterred, without a counterweight. In so doing, though, it created a stink in social affairs. Today, America is something different from what it was before. The unimaginable now happens. Consider three examples.
•Flint, Michigan. There was a time when what happened to Flint wouldn’t have happened in this country. Today it does, in part, because of lower taxes, corporate dependency, limited regulations, and cost-savings for public services. But “Flint,” the city, isn’t just one place. Metaphorically it’s everywhere: a racially concentrated population in socioeconomic distress with an affluent population living comfortably distant.
•Infant mortality. It’s mindboggling to conceive that 21st Century America would struggle in this domain, but it does. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported recently that about 25 industrialized countries are doing better than the U.S. in keeping children alive. A recent New York Times headline was harsh and direct: The U.S. Is Failing in Infant Mortality, Starting at One Month Old.
•Income. According to a new report released by The Congressional Budget Office, American incomes increased differentially across income categories from 1975-2013. Incomes for the Top 1% increased nearly 200% during that 35-year period, but rose only 18% for those in the bottom four income quintiles. (Note: According The Economic Policy Institute, family income of about $400k per year is required in the U.S. to get into the 1% category; and the average income in that bracket is $1.2 million dollars. The average family income for everybody else is about $46k per annum). “Increased inequality is prominent,” conclude researchers at The World Bank. Stiglitz confirms that conclusion with this finding: “91% of all increases in income from 2009 to 2012 in the U.S. went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.”
The challenge is clear: America won’t be America much longer—at least how we many of us perceive America to be—if circumstances and trends like these continue. But it won’t be easy to shift into a different gear. Neoliberalism is embedded in American psyche and culture. Around for such a long time, it has become “the way things are”—what’s “normal.”[...]