Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Guardian"
channel.
-
17
-
1:29 Chuka Umunna "Globalization hasn't delivered enough." Wrong - it worked just fine and as it was intended to work. "Globalization" is a neoliberal speciality, it protects the investments of Western manufacturing companies in exotic countries, it pits the workforce of the wealthy and the poor countries against each other. Makes them compete.
"free" trade" agreements make sure the products made under sweatshops conditions can then be exported by the Western companies from the poor to the wealthy countries - since the wages are low they cannot sell them where they produce them, the workers = potential customers just do not have enough disposable income. That works only with the economic recipe applied after WW2, in U.S., Western Europe, Japan, .... When the workers got their fair share in the gains of productivity and could buy what was produced with their relatively high wages.
So with "globalization" it must be guaranteed that no government EVER can slap import tariffs on those sweatshop products in order to stop outsourcing of domestic jobs. Those agreements still apply for a long time after they were quitted (30 years is very common, that is insanely long, the Western companies can sue governments in this time for compensation - and they use a private "court" system.
So the governments handed power over to the Multinationals and it is very hard to get out of these deals.
The corporations can of course easily have their branches everywhere (letterbox corporations) so they will have party status everywhere and can sue most of the relevant governments. (Philip Morris did that, they used an old "trade deal" between Australia and Hongkong to sue Australia, not that Hongkong has any importance for their cigarette selling or the production. The letter Corp. was the pretext to misuse such an agreement to sue against laws that protect Australian citizens).
Deregulation of finance enables speculation and allows the transfer of higher and higher profits to tax heavens. These tax heavens are useful for tax dodgers and for organized crime - and for the regime changing government agencies.
.
The politicians did the bidding of Big Biz - they were either fooled by them and were uncritically eating up the fancy buzzwords from the 1980s on - or they knew what they were doing and colluded.
So Chuka: is it just uncritical repetition of what you have heard - and you never THOUGHT ABOUT it ? - and what it the use of "getting an education" and no doubt having a lot of staff and reserach resources, if you cannot figure that out ?
The neoliberal agenda of course also hijacked the MSM and also to a large degree "reputable", well financed academia - for instance in economics. Only after the financial crisis they got some backlash from the outsiders (who were always there but until then were ignored. From then on they made themselves heard better - mostly with the help of books and the internet).
Thanks to the Mainstream Media one can hear the buzzwords, the misleading explanations, the matter of fact claims (which are wrong), the unprecise juggling with terms all the time.
For instance export, international trade and globalization is usually conflated by the audience. And by most journalists and politicians as well. Once people START THINKING about them, they usually are aware that these are different things.
So they are kept in the stage of not even thinking about these terms, are being fed with bullet points and buzzwords and - taking those claims so much as a given that they do not think about them.. It is a little bit like with religion. When you heard the stories from childhood on the obvious contradictions will escape you - because you take the information as "a given".
The fuzziness is certainly intentional - by the think tanks who came originally up with those terms. Lack of precision in definitions and terms of course does not allow the audience to grasp the essence of the idea, of what is going on.
And the public is not supposed to UNDERSTAND the difference between international export (which can be very beneficial) and globalization.
The famous export industry of Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Nordic countries grew and flourished under only somewhat free market conditions. A lot of tariffs, protectionism, regulation was going on. Did not hinder them. At. All.
No EU, no globalization, no common currency, not even the WTO rules applied at that time. Tariffs, customs procedures, etc.
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
As for him being "weak" - I could totally see him politely and STUBBORNLY defending the interests of the UK in the EU negotiations. And with UK interests I mean ALL of UK especially the low to middle income people, the citizens, consumers, smaller businesses, the industries that do not have the ear of the neoliberals (Tories or New Labour, doesn't matter). Like the fishing industry. While May will first and foremost defend Big Biz, the City of London, the interests of the tax dodgers, the interests of wealthy people (fox hunting anyone - it was almost as if she WANTED TO LOSE). And if she can May will use the negotiations as pretext to ram further promote her neoliberal agenda in the country.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE. Like the Financial Crisis caused by Big Finance, THEY were rescued and THEY are doing great, while the citizens were subjected to austerity. Austerity does not work as an economic recipe - but if you work for the few on the back of the many austerity is a good strategy.
10
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
The governments could have jumpstarted renewable energy production and could have favoured the Rust Belt, the coal region and the poor Southern states (lots of people if you think about it).
A reasonable industrial policy would have reversed the trend of neoliberalism and would have reduced the work time (with the SAME purchasing power -
Either by giving an allowance to each citizens, kind of partial UBI, and / or by making the companies keep wages the same while reducing worktime. There are industries that can automate and others that can't do it as well. So an element of transfer of wealth and allowances would be necessary - so the car worker AND the nurse would profit from being part of a high technology culture although the work of nurses include much more human labor.
The 2 oil crises in the 1970s and the recessions were used by the elites to do away with the New Deal, they promoted selfishness, everbody is on their own, everybody is eager that no one should ever have a small advantage (now people want single payer but NOT for "illegal" immigrants. These people WORK someone PROFITS from their work. Those should be made to pay MORE (consumers for cheap veggies, construction, meat packing, farm workers).
Wages must rise, the outstourcing must be reversed (but slowly not with trade wars !) - and because of increased productivity the worktime must be reduced (we are going there anyway AI !). Between 1947 and 1970 productivity plus 112 %, average hourly wages adjusted for inflation plus 97 % - so almost double the purchasing power.
From then on a lot ! of the productivity gains should have been given to the workers (they got the lions share - and that is necessary or consumers cannot keep up with the output of goods). but not in form of higher wages (which only encourages consumerism! and a throwaway materialistic culture) - the productivtiy wins should have been given in TIME. so 39, 38, 37 .... 30 hours for the SAME wage (adjusted for inflation). When that is done in lockstep with productivity gains the profit, costs, revenue, output - it all remains the same.
(if you have a machine that allows you to double output, you can fire half of the staff and produce the same output. or keep all your staff, then you will have to sell the double volume of output. Or you half the worktime and pay them the same weekly amount of money - which equals a pay rise - then consumers (your customers) will have the same disposable income. Output in goods will remain the same (so it does not need a throwaway culture and excessive marketing to keep the system going), prices will remain the same (except for adaption for inflation).
The 40 hour week was around the U.S. before 1940 (Ford, Railway workers, ....), it became law in 1940 - in Europe in the 50s as soon as they recovered from the war. It was a good fit for the state of AUTOMATION THEN - this was almost 80 years ago. It is not written down in the gospel "Thou shalt work 40 hour weeks". Look at videos about modern production in automotive - and compare it to how they used to do it in the 1940s and 1950s. And they did not have computers, telephones were a rare thing, communication was in another era, and transportation of goods and people as well. Never mind science, chemistry, technology, machine building, international exchange of technology relevant goods.
Of course if the 1 % and their politicians were in it to serve regular people they would not have started deregulating and making it safe and lucrative to outsource.
Coal companies strategically bankrupted (to evade liability for environmental disaster - there was a spill that was so outrageous poisoning the river, that they could not cover it up). They let the company in the state go bankrupt, not the mother in another state (or letterbox). With those shenanigans usually the pensions funds are lost as well. (They are good with that, too).
6
-
4
-
I would make the NHS the lithmus test: World Bank per capita health care expenditures in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200, average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000, Australia 6,000, Norway plus 8,000. You ADD 40 / 45 % to the UK expenditures and land at the German and Austrian level (5,600 resp. 5,400). The NHS is and always has been a very cost efficient system (certainly the most cost-efficient in Europe, among the best in the world - of course other better funded system might have been better or more comfortable) According to Larry Sanders it runs on 100 billion GBP a year now, the Tories CUT 15 - 20 BILLIONS in the last 6 -8 years (which is HUGE), and plan 20 billions more in cuts. The word RECKLESS and RUTHLESS comes to mind. - the average voter may not know it - but it is the job of a politician to know that you cannot have a system worthy of a First World Country without some MINIMUM funding. - They evoke the vision of financial problems w/o ever mentioning that the UK always has spent much less than comparable nations. - the honest thing would be to admit that they do not want to have modern healthcare for EVERYONE - hard to sell that in a democracy.
* comparing wealthy nations ! wages are a huge factor in healthcare, so you can compare Australia with France, Denmark, or Germany. The average wages in Hungary or Poland for instance are much lower so that is not
comparable.
Intentionally undermining the NHS makes sense (in an evil way), a public health service that works well (enough) and is still among the most cost efficient in the world * cannot be sold off to for-profit interests. Public means NON profit ! - in the eyes of the conservatives it is a major flaw that such a large chunk of the economy will on principle not benefit the financier and rentier class.
Public means: it is only meant to do well for the patients and the staff (while staying within a reasonable budget).
Let me repeat: they have a healthcare system with lean funding that works O.K. and then the financial crisis (Banking crisis !) and the high costs of the wars (which the population did not want in the first place) and the high costs of the bank bailouts and the economic downturn were the PRETEXT to IMPOSE AUSTERITY and to make MASSIVE CUTS.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE to wreck the publicly funded systems (that benefit only the low to middle income people and on top they might ask the wealthier segment to contribute more in comparsion to fund the healthcare and social care systems).
The madness has method and history: Thatcher publicly promised to not touch the NHS, secretly planned otherwise - and her team made a massive intervention, they were not as ideological and realized that move could amount to policital suicide.
Any party willing to compromise the healthcare and social care system, a press (owned by rich persons !) that does not call a spade a spade - and the part of the opposition (New Labour) that does not fiercly oppose and call out those schemes are useless/evil/reckless/sell-outs.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"moderate" terrorists who do the dirty work for the U.S. and NATO in Libya (Libya Islamic Fighting Group LIFG, Manchester boys, Salman Abedy the Manchester bomber - see John Pilger article: What did the prime minister know) and Syria. They were/ are trained, financed, armed and get intelligence from the West, Israel, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Qatar. Medical help also form Israel (they are treated in their hospitals - that also includes ISIS).
In the case of ISIS they were gladly tolerated (for some time and in Syria). John Kerry is on record in Sep. 2016: we wanted ISIS to grow stronger in Syria - that would weaken the position of Assad.
Never mind the terror against civilians in Syria, the region and even the West.
Well the regime change plot of the U.S. could have worked except for the military help of Iran and Hezbollah (ground troops) and Russia (airforce, some diplomatic help, for instance in 2013).
Until then the moderate terrorists were allowed to sell the oil from occupied Syrian oil fields (most of it went to Tukey). That explains also how ISIS could attract so many of the mercenaries (many switched to them from other Islamist groups) - they could pay better thanks to the oil revenue.
Drilling for oil and transporting it in trucks is a quite stationary and visible operation.The trucks cannot drive offroad, allegedly they even used tankers.
The U.S. could not be bothered to disturb the operation. The Russian airforce had no qualms doing that when they entered the scene.
4
-
I would make the NHS the lithmus test: World Bank per capita health care expenditures in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200, average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500, Australia 6,000, Norway plus 8,000. You ADD 40 / 45 % to the UK expenditures and land at the German and Austrian level (5,600 resp. 5,400). The NHS is and always has been a very cost efficient system (certainly the most cost-efficient in Europe, among the best in the world - of course other better funded system might have been better or more comfortable) According to Larry Sanders it runs on 100 billion GBP a year now, the Tories CUT 15 - 20 BILLIONS in the last 6 -8 years (which is HUGE), and plan 20 billions more in cuts. The word RECKLESS and RUTHLESS comes to mind. - The average voter may not know it - but it is the job of a politician to know that you cannot have a system worthy of a First World Country without some MINIMUM funding. - They evoke the vision of financial problems w/o ever mentioning that the UK always has spent much less than comparable nations. - the honest thing would be to admit that they do not want to have modern healthcare for EVERYONE - hard to sell that in a democracy.
Intentionally undermining the NHS makes sense (in an evil way), a public health service that works well (enough) and is still among the most cost efficient in the world * cannot be sold off to for-profit interests. Public means NON profit ! - in the eyes of the conservatives it is a major flaw that such a large chunk of the economy will on principle not benefit the financier and rentier class.
* comparing wealthy nations ! wages are a huge factor in healthcare, so you can compare Australia with France, Denmark, or Germany. The average wages in Hungary or Poland for instance are much lower so that is not comparable.
Public means: it is only meant to do well for the patients and the staff (while staying within a reasonable budget).
Let me repeat: they have a healthcare system with lean funding that works O.K. and then the financial crisis (Banking crisis !) and the high costs of the wars (which the population did not want in the first place) and the high costs of the bank bailouts and the economic downturn were the PRETEXT to IMPOSE AUSTERITY and to make MASSIVE CUTS.
NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE to wreck the publicly funded systems (that benefit only the low to middle income people and on top they might ask the wealthier segment to contribute more in comparsion to fund the healthcare and social care systems).
The madness has method and history behind it: Thatcher publicly promised to not touch the NHS, secretly planned otherwise - and her team made a massive intervention, they were not as ideological and realized that move could amount to policital suicide.
Any party willing to compromise the healthcare and social care system, a press (owned by rich persons !) that does not call a spade a spade - and the part of the opposition (New Labour) that does not fiercly oppose and call out those schemes are useless/evil/reckless/sell-outs.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@planetmikusha5898 he was dedicated to educate people on politics and did the uphill race to get elected. If having a full time job means being PAID for 40 hours work and benefits and a 9 - 5 schedule - then he did not have a "full-time" job. but he certainly had a passion and a vision and stubbornly followed it.
For some reason the small independent left leaning party always picked the races for HIGHER OFFICE. Which they invariably lost (approx 10 % was the highest result they ever got). so at that time that looked like a futile endeavour.
1976: Supreme court decision - money spend on ads etc. equals free speech. So the special interests and their money were just in the proces of taking over politics.
Sanders additionally to campaigning worked odd jobs to pay the bills. lived modestly. worked in child education, healthcare or care for the elderly, for the tax office. Self employed as film maker, author, radio contributor, and also as carpenter.
I think he could have played nice with the Democratic party and they would have found a lower level (comfy) position for which he would run under their ticket. He didn't do that, he had his convictions and additionally he and the small Independent party did not take large donations from corporations.
As mayor he massively increased turnout and his majority when 2 years in charge (they vote every 2 years). His first race he won with 18 votes more (10 after the recount). The Republicans did not even run a candidate against the Corporate Democrat, the long time mayor.
They did 2 years later - Sanders must have made a good impression with the voters, in the 3 candidate race he won easily. That was after intense hostility and obstruction from the buddies of the ousted mayour in the city council. First thing they fired his secretary and Sanders had only support from 2 council members, so no veto power.
An upcoming council election fixed that - the citizens did not appreciate that attitude of some council members and gave him more cooperative council members. Plus he started to work with the Republican council members on a case to case base.
He has increased his majorities in every office he had since then (mayor, Congress, Senate) - and his does not get the votes bought by rich donors.
3
-
3
-
TRANSCRIPT: [Headline: Jeremy Corbyn has rekindled our imagination. We can now dare to hope.]
Political failure is in essence a failure of imagination. Jeremy Corbyn has rekindled our imagination by challenging the old beliefs about what's possible in politics.
Who are the realists now and who are the dreamers ?
Everything we were told was inevitable in politics turns out to be contingent .
All those hard truths turn out to be just matters of opinion.
Those dreams of a better, fairer, kinder, future so long dismissed as impossible now look eminently feasible.
The media, the government, hostile Labour MPs, have thrown everything they had at Corbyn and it has all bounced off. Their ammunition box is empty.
It looks likele another general election is forced on the government within months. It's hard to see what they can do to stop him.
For many years it was an article of faith in the Labour Party that to win you had to lose. To win an election you had to lose your values, and lose your principles, and replace them with the ideology of your opponents. Taking power meant abandoning power. Victory required retreat on all fronts. This was a belief espoused by Tony Blair, by Gordon Brown, and the people who drafted Ed Miliband's wretchedly timid manifesto.
Corbin has exploded the labour myths. You don't have to lose to stand a high chance of winning. In fact today it seems that you cannot win unless you offer a clear alternative to financial and corporate power.
It's hard to imagine any of his challengers for the Labour leadership Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall, or Owen Smith turning the party's fortune around like this.
Six weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn was dismissed by almost everyone as unelectable, now he looks irresistible
2
-
The naysayers want to study the economic measures of FDR (New Deal). Keynsian economic policies: If the private sector fails to hire enough people the government steps in - and ensures good (or at least somewhat sufficient) wages and job opportunities - and is able to do so with HIGH TAXES.
We are talking of 70 % top marginal income tax - later in 1944 94 % percent. With some exemptions that was 85 % of every Dollar over 2,7 million USD = approx. 2 million GBP in todays !! money. And that was paid - no tax evasion, and also no outsourcing of jobs. That was Keynsian spending - and WW2 was Keynsian spending on stereoides. These spending policies were continued well into the 1960s - under JFK the highest income tax rate was still 90 %. (The race to the moon was expensive and so was the continued going to war of the U.S. empire).
Roosevelt came into office in March 1933 - desperate times for the the plebs. 1 million people had joined the unions in the year before, demonstrations and strikes everywhere. Only 16 years before the Russian Revolution had happened - it was in the collective awareness. The "haves" with some common sense were worried - and rightly so.
2 days after FDR came into office they closed down the banks to figure out which ones would have to go into bankruptcy and which ones needed to be recapitalized. After one week FDR spoke to the public on radio (60 million listeners) explained the measures and the concept of deposit insurance. In the weeks after that the reopened surviving banks got money again on the savings accounts - public trust had been restored.
Glass Steagal was passed and that (and other laws) ensured for the next 50 years "boring" prudent, rational business practices of all institutions who held savings accounts and were under the protection of deposit insurance. (Boring = financial services the common citizens need, use and understand like loans, savings accounts, money transfers). Almost NO banks defaulted - and the very few were small events and the insurance could easily cover them !
After Bill Clinton put the final nail into the coffin of financial regulations (around 1998) it took the "industry" less than 10 years to wreck the global economy. The City of London is a big player in the Ponzi scheme that is finance these days.
FDR introduced NEW welfare and social programs (unemployment benefits and the public pension system = social security).
Let me repeat: at the hight of the crisis - they did the opposite of what the politicians of today were doing with austerity, cuts of services and "deregulation" of the job market = weakening labour protection and keeping wages stagnant or declining.
Under FDR they started spending a whole lot more on welfare and social services and government investments !
Government hired people directly - clean up in storm devastated woods for instance - work brigades with young, unmarried men from the cities, doing the outdoor gig in the Northern woods. The government was surprised how popular that program was - pale city dwellers did work in the woods, lot's of fresh air, and their relatives were glad that they were out of harms way and earned some money. (Else the devil has always work for idle hands).
The government also spent on infrastructure thus indirectly creating jobs in the construction industry (streets, national parks, bridges) but that took planning and came a little later. The farmers had seen a severe plunge in the prices for their products and then there were draught and dust storms that wrecked vast regions (dust bowl storms ! ). They received financial help as well - and many of those farmers went to other regions as migrant workers so they desperately needed work.
And they set a MINIMUM WAGE for the first time (no flexible work schemes, no arguments like "a little money is better than no money at all" - which starts effectively a race to the bottom and completely undermines the base of mass production - which is mass consumption which needs disposable income). Those who had work had to be given a minimum amount - and could of course support other family members without income and spend money into the economy.
The 40 hour week became more usual in certain professions and large corporations - and in 1940 the 40 hour work week became the law of the land. So no Zero Hour contracts - on the contrary a living wage for (often) reduced hours.
Of course the U.S. had huge debt after WW2. All the continuous governmend spending and war, and financing of the allies (especially UK) and the Marshall Plan was expensive. And they continued the spending spree to facilitate the transition from a booming war to a thriving consumer economy in the 50s.
The U.S. had the highest ever federal debt in 1947 - ratio debt vs. GDP, absolute numbers are meaningless. - With HIGH taxes and GOOD wages - the U.S. GREW out of it's high debt within 10 years. Those good wages were supported by workers rights laws and even more by LOW UNEMPLOYMENT also due to government programs and investments.
So FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK violated EVERY NEOLIBERAL PRINCIPLE - and it showed in the results - didn't it ??
2
-
@SuikaNine + crocodile Global manmade warming causes massive Climate Change (which could even mean sometimes cooler temperatures in some places - the Arctic Vortex is an example. It can mean too much or too little rain, it could even mean the gulf stream stopping and Northern Europe getting colder in some centuries time.
Either way a deviation of the patterns of climate we are used to and rely on for growing food and for our settlements.
More energy (heat) in the system means more volatility and stronger weather events. Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico might not become more frequent, but they damn sure will become stronger, the "once in 50 year megastorm" can be expected every 5 or 10 years, .....
I recommend the videos of potholer54 (which explained the relationship between CC and GW and the use of both terms by the scientific community. Contrary to some claims by the Climat Change deniers both terms have been in use for long time, there was no switch from one term to the other. And true to form he proves that by showing the publications.
His videos are 5 - 15 minutes (most about Global Warming), he has a training as scientist (geology), worked for the oil industry (prospecting) and then as science journalist.
He debunks the deniers the clueless, biased or hypeerbolic media (and occasionally zealots from the other side when they get carried away, it is bad enough no need to be imprecise, be hyperbolic, have click-bait headlines)
Highly recommended.
By following his arguments you will learn a lot about the subject (and the precision of someone who is into the scientific mindset. Sources, sources, sources - actally READING the studies (all of it) - and being specific and exact. Of course he has the training to understand the studies.
It is not legitimate to only read the abstract to a study - but often the author foresees the potential to be intentionally "misunderstood" by the deniers or by the media in search of an attention grabbing headline: So they often debunk the potential misquotes or give qualifying comments already ! in the abstracts (usually the abstract is available to the public but ofen there is a paywall for the content of the study).
Well, they are either clueless, do not care or are eager to misrepresent and torture the facts - so the authors may preach caution all they want even in the abstract (what the public is most likely to see) - they WILL BE MISQUOTED.
Somehow he manages to pack all of that into 10 - 15 minutes segments.
2
-
The concept is not new - see Bradbury Pound WW1, it is just completely against the interests of commercial banks. And it contradicts the agenda of the ruling class to have the lower classes always somewhat struggeling and have scarcity (for them).
Labour under Corbyn is the only party that I think would even be WILLING to use it (despite the "elites" not liking it).
The usual ways to fund government spending quite naturally imposes limitations and restrictions. It is even worse with a gold backed currency Dr. Kelton calls the gold standard a straitjacket for the economy. Versus a FIAT currency (that is what we have now - Nixon gave up the gold standard in the U.S. in 1974 and the world followed suite).
QE for the People (Sovereign Money, MMT) can help to assess the untapped resources of the economy and to allocate the funds and resources better (with better outcomes for the majority of the population *) - but the resources of the economy are still not unlimited.
* If you leave the housing market to the landlord class that is nice for already wealthy or rich people people. People need a roof over their head, they need to live nearby where the jobs are (even if they have to live with a long commute), they cannot escape being the means of making a profit for somebody else.
If the government can effortlessly create the funding for bold social housing projects (well built !, good quality, an investment for at least 30 - 50 years) - and the country can provide the architects, constructions workers, the materials (cement, windows, steel, doors, flooring…) to build those houses - then it is excellent for the workers, the construction companies and for those who can live there at affordable costs.
the renters will have lower expenses - so more spending power for other things, more accountability if the renters have a say or can own the project as a community. Council owned does not quite work - see Grenfell Tower. If the very active house community had had a say - that building would have been renovated in a reasonable manner and we would not even know the name.
such housing programs also means more competition for the private landlords. And the landlord class would have a hard time to policially denounce them, if the masses profit from them.
Workers could be more prone to risk a strike or leave an unpleasant job - they are not going to get evicted right away. Their cost of living are not that high and they had a chance to save up.
Eminent domain might be used to get land which rich investors (domestic or foreign) have hoarded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The only chance of the coal miners to "adapt" as individuals (in a highly interconnected world with an economy that is now dominated by multinations !) - they could have moved to the already overcrowded areas, compete there for apartments and jobs - send some money home to the state (like the Mexicans do).
The overcrowded areas also have problems with water (Arizona, Texas, California), exploding rent and housing prices. The infrastructure and houses in West Virginia and the elderly people there can be left to rot. Retail would go under of course, not enough (paying) patients for hospitals, schools would become obsolete.
And then the Rust Belt and the South can repeat the execercise. They can all take responsibility for what is going on because the global elites made it happen - and crowd in the few areas where there are still (low pay service sector) jobs.
A person with 20 or 30 that can see themselves as coder of working in the financial "industry" or as lawyer likely already left the state. you cannot make a coal miner with 30 years into a coder (and ask the senior Disney coders how they had to train the IT workers from India that came to replace THEM). Engineers work a lot in the Military Industrial complex. Again, if a miner has not detected their engineering talent already - it is unlikely to pop up at the age of 40.
(Working a qualified job needs: the intellectual capability AND the mindset / confidence - and that has a LOT to do with culture, school, upbringing, family and gender expectations. A miner in the 5th generation maybe cannot SEE himself as engineer, doctor, lawyer, coder. And on an unconscious level they might feel that it would be "treason" to their family traditions. (Tribe loyalty is hundreds of thousands of years old, that tumps the insights of the frontal lobes).
They would need to leave the region to get the education and then to find work - and become part of the coastal white collar class (never mind the added competition for the other white collars, and higher costs of living, or that not everyone is suited to be a white collar from their abilities. If they do not have what it takes for a white collar career they can compete for McJobs).
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MOON LEAP Capitalism and the related Military Industrial Comples is the problem - migration need not be and is certainly NOT the main problem. Bannon is part of the neoliberal Wallstreet bankster class - so he cannot point out the elephant in the room. A good scapegoat is needed.
The immigrations numbers are too high for it to go on - but the migrants and asylum seekers in the country COULD be integrated. But the governments (before the refugees / mirgants came in masses) could not even be bothered to make good provisions for the natives. So of course they do not fund public services enough etc.
Well funded public services and an ambitious affordable housing program (public housing) create a lot of jobs. Plus bringing infrastructure up to date. Just tax the rich and the profitable businesses (if the U.S. some major European player on the continent and / or U.K. agreed on that - Apple, Google etc. could be forced to pay the taxes to fund the public spending. Highest icome tax rate in the 1940s and after WW2 90 %. JFK and Nixon discussed effective 72 % - and not for insanely high amounts of money, double digit millions - in todays value.
The foreign investors CAN be prevented to buy up attractive real estate and price the locals out of the housing market. Most governments just chose to side with the real estate "developers" and the landlord class. screw the people and the skyrocketing rent in the places where the jobs are. (there are other examples: New zealand recently, Berlin, many Austrian touristic regions only allow people who live permanently there to BUY real estate. Even Austrians, other EU citizens or other foreigners cannot buy property until they live there and have a stake in the community.
The mayors have that power and are held accountable to use it to protect the locals.
You do not really think Bannon the ex Wallstreet guy would reign in the landlord and "investor" class ??
Or reign in neoliberalism ? He leveraged it to "earn" money. Lots of it.
High rent, underfunded crumbling public services gives the natives the impression that there is not "enough for everyone in the country - housing, jobs, money for education.
There was enough in the 1960s and 70s when ALL modern wealthy nations (except Japan) had plenty of immigration. But then the country INVESTED in the citizens. Now they have adopted neoliberalism (the globalized modern form of predatory capitalism) and serve big biz.
Let me add that "predatory" is redundant with capitalsm. That is the default mode.
Meanwhile 5 families own 50 % of wealth on the globe. Sky rocketing inequality - everywhere, in the wealthy countries especially in the U.S. and U.K.
The upper 20 % doing extremely well would not be a problem - if regular people would still get the fair share. But then the rich would not be insanely rich but only very rich. That is not enough. A major part of the income and most of the productivity wins go to the top. there are plenty of graphs on the web (search for Thomas Piketty).
I saw a good cartoon: A huge and fat man sitting before a wonderful pie. And a thin (European looking) man and a ragged brown man sitting at the other sides of the table
the fat man has got almost all of the pie, a very small slice is in the middle of the table nearby the thin man (but he does not quite "have" it).
Fat man to thin man: Take good care - or brown man will steal your pie.
If the Western "leadership" stopped the regime change wars (Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan ..) and would abstain from forcing their "free" trade agreements on Africa or Asia - there would be much less immigrants. people mostly stay in the country when they see that the country progresses.
There is no wave of European migrants to the U.S. for instance.
(The neoliberal assault on the South of Europe or the Baltic states drives the young, healthy and well educated out of the country, they show up in the U.S. as well. But they come documented and it is not the large numbers. The not so qualified Greek, Spaniards, Lithuanians, .... stay at home or go to another European country at most. Polish people did it in masses they came to the U.K. Neoliberalism fucked up their country as well (but they are white and very Christian - so what now).
That has been going on since the advent of neoliberalism.
WW2 until the 1970s was the exception of the rule, then for political reasons and to avoid another war born out of economic despair - capitalism had the leash on and was countered by strong labor (outsourcing was polticially, technically and legally not possible). So domestic production with good wages.
The elected "leaders" of the Western world had not yet made it safe and profitable for their big businesses to outsource and thus undermine the negotiation power of people who worked for their income (as opposed to the landlord and stock "market" "investor" class - also known as speculators).
1
-
1
-
1
-
"moderate" terrorists who do the dirty work for the U.S. and NATO in Libya (Libya Islamic Fighting Group LIFG, Manchester boys, Salman Abedy the Manchester bomber - see John Pilger article: What did the prime minister know) and Syria. They were/ are trained, financed, armed and get intelligence from the West, Israel, Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Qatar. Medical help also form Israel (they are treated in their hospitals - that also includes ISIS).
In the case of ISIS they were gladly tolerated (for some time and in Syria). John Kerry is on record in Sep. 2016: we wanted ISIS to grow stronger in Syria - that would weaken the position of Assad.
Never mind the terror against civilians in Syria, the region and even the West.
Well the regime change plot of the U.S. could have worked except for the military help of Iran and Hezbollah (ground troops) and Russia (airforce, some diplomatic help, for instance in 2013).
Until then the moderate terrorists were allowed to sell the oil from occupied Syrian oil fields (most of it went to Tukey). That explains also how ISIS could attract so many of the mercenaries (many switched to them from other Islamist groups) - they could pay better thanks to the oil revenue.
Drilling for oil and transporting it in trucks is a quite stationary and visible operation.The trucks cannot drive offroad, allegedly they even used tankers.
The U.S. could not be bothered to disturb the operation. The Russian airforce had no qualms doing that when they entered the scene.
1
-
1
-
So the "elites" like the idea being spread that THEY and their fortunes are needed to get things financed, especially if government is pressed for money because of less tax revenue. And they like the government budgets to be low - 1) THEY do not want to pay more taxes and 2) with reduced tax revenue the government either must accrue debt in form of bonds (another safe investment). More debt is O.K. for war, bank bailouts, subsidies for Big Biz, etc.
OR government must privatize. More safe investment opportunites. 3) with smaller government budgets the plebs cannot make demands on the government and are kept at their place.
And the "elites" do not like at all the idea of Debt and Interest Free Money to finance projects for the common good. No capital gains then (those who PRODUCE and CREATE make a profit, for instance construction companies. But no capital gains - unearned income like interest, rent, dividends).
That is the idea behind privatizaion of water or railway (natural monopolies which do not require creativity. It is about managing an operation. Same with the NHS).
The idea to offer the safe profitable investment opportunity to rich people is that we somehow "need their money." - money which the government doesn't have. (The government can always CREATE money)
No - the state CAN create the money - if the service (inevitable and without competition = natural monopoly) yields revenue, that can be used to offset the originally created money.
Now, public services CAN be run in an inefficient manner (same as private entities). But they also can be run like a clockwork (NHS in the time when it had lean but just about sufficient funding - that was approx. 10 years ago BEFORE the Tories defunded it).
Now the idea of having not too much government debt and that there is only so much tax revenue (plus giving tax cuts for the rich and enabling tax evasion for the rich) makes it possible to sell RESTRICTION and AUSTERITY to the PLEBS.
They know from their individual experience that you sometimes have to tighten the belt - and intuitively and naively assume the economy - a system of millions of people - works the same way.
Note how there are NO restriction for subsidies for multinationals, for banks that demand bailouts, for politicians, for the car industry during a bankster caused recession, etc. - but if they indulge - somehow has to tighten the belt, and the kitchentable economic ideas help to sell the concept to the masses that unfortunately, unfortunately it is them who will have to suffer the cuts. Being against it would be like being against gravity.
When one understands how money is created either by commercial banks in form of loans (the default case) or by the government directly in coordination with the central bank - then the idea of austerity is off the table.
Nor is it possible to sell the idea that "we need the big investors".
So only in times of crisis the elites use debt and interest free money - and until now media, political leadership and acadamia never bothered the unwashed masses with a consistent and comprehensive explanation WHY these ways of financing things can work very well - if used wisely and with accountability.
And then came the internet ...
1
-
1
-
I know these concepts and have seen them better presented. - I recommend Dr. Richard Werner about Debt and Interest free Money. And a pdf published by the Bank of England: Money Creation in a Modern Economy. - both well presented, well explained, not too time consuming. positivemoney(dot)org has short videos with everything to do with money.
(I know the balance concept from a presentation of German economists - I am also not clear about the blue (the world) - British trade surplus/deficit likely).
Anyway - it is like in double bookkeeping. you shift the plus and minus around between the accounts. So it is not math - it is arithmetics.
Some WILL have the surplus and the others will have the debt - and the are mirrored. If the graph is not exact - they get the real data and there may be some flaws (like that the fortunes of very rich people is estimated, the foreign part).
Of course the people that have the naive understanding that the government should "just reduce its debt" (in our current system where money is created in form of debt) do not realize it is a zero sum game. Reducing debt is another way of saying the government runs a surplus in this year = it takes more in in form of tax revenue than it spends.
Well then the corporations and / or the households will hold the debt, that is not only plausible - it is the law of the accounting that strikes.
In our time the companies do not acquire debt (big highly profitable multinationals that dominate 60 % of the economy are sitting on cash).
Corporations only take out loans if they think the debt financed investments will result in creating products they can sell, that means there is enough consumer demand. The high profits of the companies result from tax cuts and evasion, stagnant wages at home and even lower in the poor countries. That does not make for robust consumer demand.
In the German presentation I saw the debt of the German corporate world in the Era of the Economic Miracle. (Then the government and private households had the surplus or were around zero and the corporations had the debt).
As indoctrination would have it - my first reaction was negative (As a private citizen I do not like debt). Which is interesting because at that time I already knew many of these concepts that break with the conventional wisdom.
Well, that was a time of increasing prosperity for the majority of citizens and a time of economic stability. So Corporate Debt is not bad after all ?
It meant that companies were confidently asking for loans (expecting they would produce more with the loans - and be able to sell the stuff, too.
While banks equally confidently granted those loans. Well actually commercial banks use their legal privilege to CREATE money when they give a loan.
Naive understanding is that one must "have" the money to lend it to someone else (that is how it works between individuals.
Banks grant access to the (untapped) resources of the economy (with the money of the loan one can buy workforce, patents, rent offices, buy equipment, materials. Consumers get access to homes, cars,...).
The creation of money (it is an accounting entry) either triggers the production of goods and services - or they were recently produced and can be bought off the shelves.
It is not talked about that banks create most of the money they lend (approx 90 %). - and then there is ALSO the possibility that the government together with the central banks creates money (in digital form). That we are not supposed to know at all.
It is usually reserved for times of crisis.
It was done in the form of QE for finance (to the tune of trillions in the UK, U.S. and the Euro zone).
But not a peep about QE For The People - the unwashed masses would get excited. Next thing they demand social housing be financed in that way (or renationalizing the railway, or renewables, or funding the NHS, ....)
a) the banks like to be the only ones to use the privilege of money creation b) the landlord class could extract so much rent from the citizens. (more competition). There could be non-profit developers. Community owned housing.
Never again could austerity be sold to the sheeple.
Or WW1 Brixton pound. or long time ago the talley sticks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
During the Economic Miracle the world was not "highly competitive" there was some competition along with a lot of protectionism - among equally strong economies. The workforce was not forced to compete with poor workers in dictatorships (that is something OUR politicians made possible, safe and lucrative with "free" "trade" deals - on behest oftheir buddies from Big Biz).
Within the societies there was more solidarity.
Especially until the 1950s there was a LOT of protectionsim going on, fixed exchange rates AND the Marshall Plan, the U.K. got the most of it btw. No fierce competition - on the contrary. And it was the same with Japan (not sure if they got Marshall Plan funds).
THAT jumstarted the ECONOMIC MIRACLE. The countries on the continent did better than the U.K. - even Germany recovered quicker after the war and the good times lasted longer than in the U.K.
Part of it is class and hostility between corporations and unions (coming from bitter fights for worker's rights, after all the Labour movement originated in the U.K.).
And also the impact of losing the colonies, other countries were used to make do without the unearned benefits of exploiting other nations - so they were set up to do better in the post colonial world.
If in a society where so many parents fail in basic childcare (whatever the reasons may be) - something goes terribly wrong in THAT SOCIETY. They do not have that in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, ....
There is individual responsibility. But that does not help the child who misses out. And not every person can counteact the TREND.
You can wish or demand all you want that all parents should have the means and capability to care for their children. There are SYSTEMIC EFFECTS and SYSTEMIC FAILURES .
Food banks for nurses (which is a qualified profession) SYSTEMIC FAILURE.
Zero Hours contracts, unemployment rates beautified (a few hours paid work count as "employed). SYSTEMIC FAILURE. The strong economies don't have that.
13 % of the area of London belongs to Qatari investors. Rent prices exploding everywhere where the jobs are. SYSTEMIC FAILURE - politicians allowed that to develop - they could have prevented that as well. See recent legislation in New Zealand. Or regulation in Austria in touristic areas. Outsiders are welcome to buy up property in the remote and cheap areas, even in the cities as long as it does not get out of hand. But NOT in the very attractive regions.
They mayors can prevent people that do not LIVE in the region to BUY real estate (Austrians, EU citizens, other countries - it does not matter). Therefore the locals can afford to stay in the area.
High rents and job insecurity of course have effects on food purchases - and the modest joy of getting some treats. Moreover ongoing financial worries wear people down. Being a parent is demanding, constant stress, maybe the parent was not very strong and grounded to begin with.
1 of 65 million citizens on the streets to protest against an upcoming war. Many Tories and Blairite MPs vote for the war regardless - EPIC FAILURE of the political class. The people on the streets KNEW better - w/o the experts to advise them. Citizens for whom politics is a side show in their life, they are not PAID to be informed about the issues. But they still smelled the coffee.
Blair KNEW of course that there very likely were no WMDs, that the U.S. was hellbent to not have UN inspectors do another tour in Iraq to make sure.
Schroeder and Sarkozy KNEW as well - that is why they kept their countries out of the mess. Especially France saying NO triggerd furious reactions from the White House - they instructed THEIR media to launch a propaganda attack on France - which they did.
For the money the U.K. wasted (never mind ethical considerations, the hundreds of thousands of killed Iraqis, and lost British lifes) they could easily and generously support families with children.
Maybe some of these parents are negligent. or caught up in a dysfunctional family dynamics. That tends to go over generations, and is not likely to improve with MORE STRES (economic stress).
Or they are overworked and worn down - also by financial worries. They do not let their children go hungry, but what else do the children not get in that time ?
Anyway: those parents are not as negligent, clueless or criminal as the political class.
I exclude the Corbynistas and the Green party - THEY would have let Cheney/Bush start that mess on their own.
A true Labour government might have seen the writing on the wall and reigned in British banks in time - so that they did not get involved when the U.S. banks went crazy (the banks of Canada or Sweden did not get harmed by the GFC for instance).
Some individuals are stronger than their circumstances - many are not. Hard times do not always bring out the best in people. Some just falter, and the children with them and / or later LIKE them.
In the U.K. class is more important than in many other European countries, it hinders economic and societal progress.
1
-
1
-
A reasonable industrial policy would have reversed the trend of neoliberalism and would have reduced the work time (with the SAME purchasing power -
Either by giving an allowance to each citizens, kind of partial UBI, and / or by making the companies keep wages the same while reducing worktime. There are industries that can automate and others that can't do it as well. So an element of transfer of wealth and allowances would be necessary - so the car worker AND the nurse would profit from being part of a high technology culture although the work of nurses include much more human labor.
The 2 oil crises in the 1970s and the recessions were used by the elites to do away with the New Deal, they promoted selfishness, everbody is on their own, everybody is eager that no one should ever have a small advantage (now people want single payer but NOT for "illegal" immigrants. These people WORK someone PROFITS from their work. Those should be made to pay MORE (consumers for cheap veggies, construction, meat packing, farm workers).
Wages must rise, the outstourcing must be reversed (but slowly not with trade wars !) - and because of increased productivity the worktime must be reduced (we are going there anyway AI !). Between 1947 and 1970 productivity plus 112 %, average hourly wages adjusted for inflation plus 97 % - so almost double the purchasing power.
From then on a lot ! of the productivity gains should have been given to the workers (they got the lions share - and that is necessary or consumers cannot keep up with the output of goods). but not in form of higher wages (which only encourages consumerism! and a throwaway materialistic culture) - the productivtiy wins should have been given in TIME. so 39, 38, 37 .... 30 hours for the SAME wage (adjusted for inflation). When that is done in lockstep with productivity gains the profit, costs, revenue, output - it all remains the same.
(if you have a machine that allows you to double output, you can fire half of the staff and produce the same output. or keep all your staff, then you will have to sell the double volume of output. Or you half the worktime and pay them the same weekly amount of money - which equals a pay rise - then consumers (your customers) will have the same disposable income. Output in goods will remain the same (so it does not need a throwaway culture and excessive marketing to keep the system going), prices will remain the same (except for adaption for inflation).
The 40 hour week was around the U.S. before 1940 (Ford, Railway workers, ....), it became law in 1940 - in Europe in the 50s as soon as they recovered from the war. It was a good fit for the state of AUTOMATION THEN - this was almost 80 years ago. It is not written down in the gospel "Thou shalt work 40 hour weeks". Look at videos about modern production in automotive - and compare it to how they used to do it in the 1940s and 1950s. And they did not have computers, telephones were a rare thing, communication was in another era, and transportation of goods and people as well. Never mind science, chemistry, technology, machine building, international exchange of technology relevant goods.
1
-
1
-
The trick is called "democracy" - the incumbents had the advantage that they GOT the seat by the party (and usually not out of their own power and because of a grassroots campaign or notable union activism that built their name recognition and brand).
They HAD TIME to connect with the constituents, do some trainins in public appearances and give the voters the distinct feeling that they had their back. Moreover they had time to come to accept the change in labour and to find good connections with the activists.
Many MPs won their seats with vastly improved majorities - thanks to the grassroots - and it is not like THEY had done or encouraged the grassroots. For Momentum etc. it was country over party over Blairie prick. (for instance Stephen Kinnock, and he is very ready to undermine Corbyn, although he was smart enough to fly under the radar since June 2017)
BBC documentary: Labour: The Summer That Changed Everything - go to 30 :00 and watch the reactions of Blairites when they found out that the June 2017 was NOT catastrophically lost.
in "New Labour" the majority abstained in the infamous welfare vote and they also could not be bothered to call a spade a spade whent the Tories started to defund the healthcare system that already ! had to leanest budget of all wealthy European countries. (World bank health care expenditures of nations)
"wealthy" is important, costs of living influence wage levels. Wages are an important cost factor in healthcare, so you can compare the U.K. with Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy, .... - better than all of them.
You can slap 40 % ON the U.K. expenditures and land at the German level. And Germany is still in the overall range in Europe, more on the higher end of course ! Comparing with Hungary would not be legitimate - they have a much lower wage level and costs of living.
Only when Corbyn got the megaphone the NHS was talked about - so much so that now the Tories could be bothered to improve funding somewhat (too little too late of course).
So if a Labour MP had fought tooth and nail (like Corbyn for instance) and maybe also was on the right side of the Iraq war - now its the time to get the pat on the back from the voters and to announce the good deeds.
Most of these careerists thought they had their seats for sure - never mind trying to undermine the leader that was elected by the base.
Most of them did not earn their seat with doing their own grassroots campaign. And if they did - getting reelected should be a piece of cake.
I do not doubt that Blair would gladly have kicked Corbyn or Skinner from his seat and if possible out of the party. Well, Corbyn had the backing of his constituents. They KNEW he backed them as well.
And both men could have won as Independents. If the Blairites had gotten crazy. They EARNED and WORKED FOR their seat. Therefore it was safe.
1