Category: U.S. Politics

  • Putin Comes Courting in Syria, U.S. Acts Coy

    You may be aware that when the Syrian conflict was just getting started Assad offered to team up with the U.S. to fight ISIS.  The U.S. said no thank you.  Now Putin has offered to help end it with pretty much the same result.  You might think the situation is too complex to make a judgement call here, but once you’ve made it a priority to protect populations in each country, it becomes clear that it’s a mistake to reject such an offer.  Here Stephen F. Cohen and and John Bachelor talk about Putin’s recent offer to help end the Syrian civil war: ((http://www.thenation.com/article/the-obama-administration-rejects-russias-offer-to-form-a-new-military-coalition-vs-isis-in-syria/))

    Also in the last post I called for an end to the World Bank.  Well, it looks like the bank is up to its old tricks in Greece.  Greece’s creditors have raised taxes on Greek Farmers.  They’ve also removed food import restrictions. See: List of prior actions – version of 26 June 20 00-2

    Here’s an article that illustrates just how upside-down the World Bank’s current agricultural policies really are: ((http://www.rightingfinance.org/?p=1055))

    And you might like to read about an ongoing campaign to dismantle both the World Bank and the IMF. ((http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/ecology/dismant.htm))

  • The ACLU and Corporate America

    I’m afraid I’m still focused on the presidential campaign.  I didn’t intend to spend so much time on this subject, but it seems the activities of Black Lives Matter and the support they have received from the ‘liberal’ media need some kind of explanation.  The media pretends it’s a question of whether BLM members have a right to be angry about structural racism.  They do, but that’s not the point.  The point is whether it makes sense for progressives to shut down Bernie Sanders.  What can explain this mystery?  A word of warning: we can’t blame all Black Lives Matter activists for this. Apparently some Seattle members of Black Lives Matter were shocked when they learned that Bernie’s speech had been shut down.

    Strangely, the ACLU seems as untroubled by this spectacle as the media.  This organization has been sending emails asking for signatures and donations to fight government surveillance of Black Lives Matter.  They seem unaware that many of us don’t agree with what they are doing.  It turns out that the ACLU does not necessarily represent progressives.  In fact, since the 1970s the ACLU has been a leading advocate for the expansion of constitutional rights for corporations.  Its advocacy of corporate rights has actually served to diminish its human rights gains.((Nace, Ted, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy.  Berret-Koehler Publishers Inc. San Francisco. 2003.))

    But the ACLU is an advocate for minorities, right?  Not necessarily.  Here is an example of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois response to a problem that Chicago’s black youth was trying to address:  The ACLU bypassed black activists and made a back-room deal with  Mayor Rahm Emanuel that has the potential to shut down dialogue on the issue of stop and frisk.  The ACLU was negotiating their own deal secretly while claiming to support the STOP Act that the activists were trying to pass.  The ACLU’s deal will not require the police department to release information about stops, as the STOP Act would have done.  In other words, the ACLU’s deal won’t solve the problem, it will only make things easier for the city.  ((Hayes, Kelly, ACLU of Illinois Sells Out Chicago’s Black Youth. Truthout, 14 Aug. 2015. Available: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32361-aclu-of-illinois-sells-out-chicago-s-black-youth))

    The influence of the ACLU might also explain the curious fact that Black Lives Matter hasn’t shut down any of Hillary Clinton’s speeches.  Maya L. Harris, one of three senior policy advisers to lead the development of an agenda for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, was formerly a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.  From 2008 until she took her current position, she was Vice President for Democracy Rights and Justice at the Ford Foundation.  Prior to joining the ford Foundation, she served as the Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern California.  ((Wikipedia: Maya Harris. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_Harris))

  • Do Black Activists Have a Beef With Bernie Sanders?

    It looks like Bernie Sanders’ campaign has already moved on in responding to Black Lives Matter.  I probably should make it clear that the following is just my opinion.

    On Saturday a group of people belonging to an organization called Black Lives Matter stormed into a Netroots Nation town meeting with the apparent aim of giving Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley heck.  Then on Sunday and Monday, there were ‘thoughtful’ articles asking whether Bernie Sanders can win over the black vote.  Black lives do matter, but in my opinion this story doesn’t add up.  Why the hostility?

    There were black people at the rally.  They weren’t storming around.  They were listening, like everyone else.  On the way out I asked a young black woman what she thought of the rally.  She said she liked his ideas.  She had thought she might vote for Hilary but she was reconsidering.

    When Senator Sanders appeared on stage on Saturday night he was obviously amazed at the size of the crowd.

    “Somebody told me Arizona is a conservative state. Somebody told me the people here have given up on the political process. That’s not what I see here tonight. There’s nothing we can’t accomplish in transforming America!”

    The thing is, the people who told him that Arizona is a conservative state were right.  In certain circles Arizona is conservative.  However, the conservatives were not there on Saturday night. Either that or they couldn’t make themselves heard over the cheering, because more than eleven thousand people liked what they heard.  Here’s the rally from my point of view.

    The Bernie Sanders rally from my point of view
    The rally from my point of view

     

     

     

     

    IMG_0020
    After the rally
  • What does Corporate Profitability Have to do with Prosperity?

    A recent article on stratfor.com focused on the trend toward automation in agriculture, which this writer presents as a positive development.((How Future Farmers Will Use Technology to Improve Agriculture, stratfor.com analysis. May 13, 2015. Available: https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/us-how-future-farmers-will-use-technology-improve-agriculture)) By contrast, John Lanchester’s review of The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies ((Lanchester, John, The Robots Are Coming. London Review of Books, March 5, 2015))discusses some of the not-so-positive effects of global technological advancement. The conclusion I draw after reading both articles is this: planners haven’t begun to seriously consider what might happen when the world’s population passes the 9 billion mark, which it is set do by 2050. This situation leaves us vulnerable to disaster and it has to change.

    It can’t be denied that feeding 9 to 10 billion people will be a challenge in itself, especially when you consider that the planet’s arable land is already in use. Stratfor predicts yields must increase by as much as 25 percent during the next 35 years and this at a time when resources are limited. However, this article makes it clear that the industry is not motivated by the need to feed additional people. It’s motivated by the desire to remain profitable in the face of rising labor costs.

    It’s already obvious at this point that the planning discussion that we really need to have, the one based on the problems of accommodating a growing population, has been diverted by the false necessity of corporate profitability.

    If it seems counter-intuitive to speak of a population explosion in one breath and a labor shortage in the next, it’s because we’re not talking about a shortage of labor per se. We are talking about a shortage of cheap labor. Adding to the sense of urgency is the fact that this shortage can no longer be controlled by U.S. immigration reform. Immigration policy is in Mexico’s ballpark now and the United States will have to take this into account.

    According to Stratfor, the number of undocumented workers in the United States has been decreasing since the turn of the century. Since 2014, the U.S. has been apprehending fewer Mexican migrants and more Central American migrants. The reason: Mexico is following a long-term trend previously experienced by the United States. As the nation’s per capita income rises, the percentage of Mexican agricultural workers will decline. Therefore, it won’t be long before Mexico is competing with the United States for Central American workers.

    A reasonable person might assume that this would lead to increased wages for American farm workers. However, it seems this is precisely what the agricultural industry is trying to avoid through technological innovation. As stingy as this may be, it makes perfect sense as long as GDP is the focus.

    “Labor costs make up 17 percent of total production costs but can reach as high as 50 percent for specific labor-intensive crops such as fruits and vegetables. Similar to what happened in other developed nations, the percentage of farmworkers in the total U.S. work force decreased throughout the 20th century, as per capita income increased.”

    If you’re still not convinced, according to the accompanying chart Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita with the lowest percentage of population employed by agriculture, while Bhutan has the highest number of population employed by agriculture and the lowest GDP per capita.

    But between the lines lie nagging concerns:

    “It was only the influx of cheap labor from Mexico that allowed the United States to avoid a labor crisis in the agricultural sector in the middle of the 20th century. Labor costs have consistently increased since the 1990s, rising 1 percent between October 2013 and October 2014.

    “With labor costs likely to remain high, the agricultural industry in the United States is looking for ways to decrease the costs.

    “Because of slim profit margins, the agricultural sector cannot afford to shoulder the whole burden of developing new robotics technologies to replace workers. However, research in the robotics sector is supported by other industries looking to offset demographic pressures and to lower manufacturing costs. The agricultural sector in the United States (and in other developed nations) will be able to exploit modified technologies to remain competitive and to meet growing demand in the coming years and decades.”

    In my opinion, the main nagging concern in this quote would be the term, ‘demand’, which implies the existence of people who can pay for the products being produced. Hopefully you’ve noticed by now that although population growth was mentioned in the beginning as a justification for automation, it has effectively been taken out of the equation.

    The economists’ view of the world provides encouragement for this sleight of hand. Economists insist that when old jobs disappear, new jobs are created. But the problem with this according to Lanchester, is that economists are very bad at predicting the future. This is due to the fact that they think the lessons of history are already incorporated in the mathematical models. As an example of an historically informed view, Lanchester cites the work of various scholars who have tried to determine whether there are parallels between the delayed effects of the second industrial revolution of 1875 to 1900 and the technological revolution of the 70s. It’s been argued that although in the initial stage computers contributed to productivity, most of the real productivity benefits of the computing revolution took place a few decades ago. In other words, perhaps the negative delayed effects are yet to come.

    But the economic view comes to the rescue again with the argument that since human wants are infinite, the process of supplying them is also infinite. As a matter of fact, this claim can be validated by changes in the U.S. agricultural industry since 1810. The percentage of Americans working in agriculture has steadily declined from 90 percent to less than 2 percent, and we’ve somehow adapted. However this particular transition was helped along by new technologies. I take this to mean that we can’t assume that we will be able to adapt in this case simply because we were able to adapt in the previous one.

    Lanchester cites Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael Osborne who have calculated the effects of computerization on 702 jobs and concluded that in the next two decades 47 percent of employment will fall in the ‘high-risk’ category. It’s not the middle class that’s most threatened this time—it’s the lowest paid workers. As for the top earners, they will do as well as ever.

    At the same time, productivity is slated to go up sharply, meaning the U.S. will become richer. How can this be? The good news is, profitability is actually a better indicator of national wealth than GDP. The bad news is that productivity has been disconnected from wages. This means that the proceeds of profitability are going to capital rather than labor. In the U.S. the typical worker’s productivity has gone up since 1979, but her pay has not. Since 1999 her pay has actually fallen.

    As an example, Apple recently had the most profitable quarter of any company in history: $74.6 billion in turnover, and $18 billion in profit. By contrast, in 1960 the most profitable company in the U.S. was General Motors. “In today’s money, GM made $7.6 billion that year. It also employed 600,000 people.” Apple employs 92,600. In other words, this is an improvement in profitability per worker by 76.65 times.

    And this trend seems destined to continue. Consider the driverless car being developed by Google. Lanchester points out that whatever convenience it might represent, all the money from it will be going to Google, even as an entire economy of drivers is disappearing.

    There is no shortage of people who blithely accept this bleak future. They are people who don’t deny that if this is allowed to continue we might see a new kind a deflation—the kind of deflation caused by people having less money to spend. And they admit that this is bound to have some very bad effects, such as falling prices and even another collapse of home prices. Larry Page, founder and CEO of Google, is one of these people. He admits this process will be highly unpleasant for the majority, but he thinks it will have a good effect eventually, making it easier for everyone to live a comfortable life:

    “…in a capitalist system…the elimination of inefficiency through technology has to be pursued to its logical conclusion.”

    According to Lanchester, Page’s views are not unusual in Silicon Valley and the ‘upper reaches of the overlord class.’ I guess this is one way of dispensing with that troublesome population factor.

    So what are we to do? In Lancaster’s view we must choose between this hyper-capitalist dystopia and a socialist paradise. If we choose the second alternative we would have to begin by changing the form of ownership so that capital doesn’t own and control the robots. Then:

    “We don’t have to work in factories or go down mines or clean toilets or drive long-distance lorries, but we can choreograph and weave and garden and tell stories and invent things and set about creating a new universe of wants.”

    It’s not exactly surprising that few people are talking about the second alternative. I would argue instead that we should start smaller by insisting that the conversation remain centered in reality. We might begin by listing the crucial factors in order of priority and eliminating the false factors.

    Population should be the central factor in planning for the future, not as an excuse for more technological inequality but as an unavoidable reality. And a responsibility. Next, we need to make it clear that population can’t be used on one side of the ledger book as an excuse for automation, and penciled in on the other side as demand. This is funny accounting no matter how you look at it. That is unless the plan is to sell the goods at a profit to those who can afford them and let everyone else starve.

    I do believe this approach has provided clarity already. In the face of looming mass starvation, corporate profitability is a luxury we can’t afford.

    Works reviewed by Lanchester:

    The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee

    Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation by Tyler Cowen

     

     

  • Toward Dialogue With the Church

    A recent article about the Pope’s address to the European parliament poses questions that I think many of us have been asking ourselves. For example, secularists might be asking why it is important for them to move toward dialogue with the Church.

    “The Pontiff wasn’t the most obvious person to deliver hard truths to elected politicians about the rising threats to the democracies they serve, or, as head of the Catholic Church, to convey a blast against global corporations that undermine the democratic process by co-opting institutions, as he resonantly expressed it, to ‘the service of unseen empires.’ Yet standing at the lectern at the center of the plenary chamber, peering through wire-rimmed reading glasses at his script, he did these things and more. The leader of a religion that has created its share of fractures made an eloquent plea for the European Union to rediscover its founding principles of “bridging divisions and fostering peace and fellowship.’” 1

    This attempt is important because questions can’t be answered until they are asked. Some might wonder what is required of them as a participant in this dialogue. I think I’ve answered some of these questions for myself, although there’s much I don’t know about the church, so any errors are unintentional. We each need to find an answer by paying attention to what the Pope is saying.

    Why is the Church Defending Democracy?

    First, the church’s defense of democracy is not a new innovation. The supporting theology has been developed over the last century. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church was published fairly recently but it was preceded by documents dealing with similar issues. The first was Rerum Novarum, the Papal Encyclical of Leo XIII on Capital and Labor, published in 1891.2.

    What Level of Commitment is Required From Us?

    Next you might be wondering about the level of religious commitment required for participation in this dialogue. The Evangelii Gaudium clarifies the part the church is willing to play in the conversation and it also deals with what it requires of other participants. If you are concerned about what is required of you, you would have to read it for yourself, but for what it’s worth I have a few thoughts.

    It’s possible that the requirements are different for the dominant class than for bloggers like me. With the doctrine of solidarity, the Pope addresses society’s leaders. Solidarity urges justice for the working classes in the service of social peace. It’s true that in the past it’s also been a defense against socialist solutions, but in past times of turmoil the political left, which is part of the dominant class, has participated in solidarity. So, from the Church’s point of view this is not a cynical maneuver:

    “The precepts of the sabbatical and jubilee years constitute a kind of social doctrine in miniature[28]. They show how the principles of justice and social solidarity are inspired by the gratuitousness of the salvific event wrought by God, and that they do not have a merely corrective value for practices dominated by selfish interests and objectives, but must rather become, as a prophecy of the future, the normative points of reference to which every generation in Israel must conform if it wishes to be faithful to its God.”((Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium)).

    Being Realistic About Working Class Alternatives

    There are fewer alternatives available to the working class today, and immediate dangers threaten our ability to agree on them.  So in the short-term I think it’s important to at least understand what is being offered by the other participants in the conversation. This brings me to another set of questions unique to women.

    Being Realistic About the Place of Women in Dialogue with the Church

    In view of the importance to women of the reproductive rights issue, I think it’s necessary to offer a rationale for those who are otherwise inclined to consider the church’s proposals as a way forward. (I don’t think it’s likely that the church will change its position on abortion, but more on that later.) The rationale for female participation begins with the Pope’s statement that women should have a greater voice in the church. Critics have said the place of women in the church will not change all that much, but I don’t think this opening should be taken lightly. From what I can tell, the church continues to build on the statements of previous encyclicals. According to Catholic writer and historian Hilaire Belloc, change happens slowly with actual practice following a change in attitude.

    “First comes in every great revolution of European affairs, a spiritual change; next, bred by this, a change in social philosophy and therefore in political arrangement; lastly, the economic change which political rearrangement has rendered possible.”((Belloc, Hilaire. The Crisis of Civilization. New York: Fordham University Press, 1937))

    The Church is Honoring Its Social Responsibilities

    Claims to religious and political authority are always predicated on the ability to fulfill social responsibilities. The church is honoring its responsibilities at this time, while our politicians are doing their best to prove themselves illegitimate.

    I’ve based many of my previous articles on the assumption that the system is not working. I’ve even considered the possibility that it’s unworkable. There’s one way to prove me wrong and that is to make it work. If politicians can’t immediately solve the problems, they can at least begin to move in that direction.

  • Argentina Fights for Its Life

    U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Griesa called a hearing on Friday to discuss the case of Argentina and the vulture funds. In this hearing, Griesa reaffirmed his ruling of June 16 favoring the vulture funds. He also said that Daniel Pollack would continue as mediator. However, he did not clarify what would become of the frozen payments intended for Argentina’s cooperating creditors.

    Argentine lawyer, Jonathan Blackman said that while Argentina is committed to the continuing negotiations, “The republic does not trust the process under (the intervention) of special master Pollack.” This mistrust is a result of Pollack’s statement that Argentina is in default. The act of declaring Argentina in default is quite meaningful in this case; it allows those holding insurance on Argentine debt to profit in the amount of $1 billion.

    All things considered, it is difficult to see how Pollack could make this statement with a straight face. According to Argentina’s president, Cristina Fernandez,

    “The causes of default are listed for the 92.4 percent of bondholders, in the bond, in the contract itself. There is no cause where default is an impossibility to getting paid, because default is not paying. Preventing someone from paying is not default. I told them they will have to invent a new word, and they will have to invent this word.”

    What happened to the money Argentina set aside to pay its bondholders? Judge Thomas Griesa confiscated it! The Argentine government maintains that it is not in default, as it is willing to pay and remains in negotiations with creditors.” ((Griesa: Talks between Argentina and Vultures to Continue, Telesur, August 1, 2014. Avaliable: http://telesurtv.net/english/news/Griesa-Talks-Between-Argentina-and-Vultures-To-Continue-20140801-0045.html))

    In a previous meeting on Wednesday, Argentina invited Elliot Management to join the 2005 and 2010 swaps by which the firm would profit 300 percent, but Elliot Management rejected Argentina’s offer. The enormity of this rejection can only be understood in light of Argentina’s history.

    “To understand the dispute Argentina has with the Vulture Funds, one must go as far back as 1976, when Argentina was governed by a brutal civil-military dictatorship that introduced an aggressive neoliberal economic policy that ended in the severe economic crisis of December 2001.
    In 1976, the dictatorship decided to extend the jurisdiction of foreign courts, a move that technically permitted judgments to be made abroad, thus causing Argentina to lose judicial and economic sovereignty.
    In order to attract foreign capital to Argentina, the Carlos Menem government signed investment and trade agreements with different countries that gave even more power to international tribunals.
    By 2001 Argentina’s economy was in a critical situation. Former President Fernando de la Rua and his then Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo implemented a financial operation called el Mega Canje, the Mega Swap, to ease the country’s economic strain. The proposal came from David Mulford, former Treasury Secretary of the United States. It turned out to be a scam which cost Argentina $55 billion and boosted its foreign debt even further. The scheme contributed to a tragic hike in poverty and triggered Argentina’s 2001-2002 economic, social and political outburst as well as its historic debt default.
    A court case was opened to try those responsible, which include seven major banks, Cavallo, Mulford and de la Rua. Some 69 percent of the bonds that the vulture funds hold come from the scandalous 2001 mega swap.” ((Vulture Fund Rejects Argentina’s Offer Preventing Debt Repayment. Telesure, August 1, 2014. Available: http://telesurtv.net/english/news/Vulture-Fund-Rejects-Argentinas-Offer-Preventing-Debt-Repayment-20140801-0022.html))

     

     

     

  • Argentina: The Supreme Court’s Wicked Decision

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that Argentina must pay hedge funds that refused to compromise on repayment of Argentinean bonds should be all the evidence Americans need that the Supreme Court is out of control. Many were jarred awake by the Roberts Court’s ruling in favor of Citizens United. However, efforts to remedy the problem have been limited to repealing the offending ruling. It’s obvious now that this approach fails to address the structural permissiveness and consequent moral threat of the Supreme Court.

    Subsequently, we’ve seen the McCutcheon ruling, which is the equivalent of a smirk and a wink on the sunny, untroubled face of Justice Roberts, informing us that Citizen’s United was no fluke. This ruling struck down aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two year period to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees combined.

    The Court’s ruling against Argentina and in favor of hedge funds with no scruples about bringing down a sovereign nation should be the final straw, but it’s getting harder these days to drum up good old fashioned moral outrage. The hedge funds have even asked for and received a ruling that allows them to use U.S. courts to force Argentina to disclose the amount and location of its assets. This should be stopped before it goes any further.

    In case anyone is under the impression that Argentina is a deadbeat country, as the sharks would like you to believe, here is some of the history behind Argentina’s debt. After years of dictatorship and shameless colonialist collusion by a series of supposedly democratic leaders, Argentina was left with a crushing debt. The last of these mafioso-supported ‘democrats’ was shown the door by Argentina’s voters when they elected President Néstor Kirchner in 2003. Argentina’s current president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was elected to the presidency in 2007, and reelected in 2011. The Kirchners belong to the Peronist persuasion, associated with Isabel Peron who was deposed by coup d’état in 1976.

    Twelve years ago Argentina defaulted on $100 billion worth of bonds. Even though Argentina’s courts demonstrated the fraudulent origins of the debt, the government restructured its debt twice, in 2005 and 2010, in an effort to meet its obligations. Most of the holders of Argentinean bonds accepted repayment of 30 cents on the dollar. However there were holdouts—‘vulture capitalists’ who bought some of the defaulted debt at a steep discount and now want face value for the bonds plus interest. Shockingly, the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor. It is feared this will have serious consequences, both in the sovereign debt markets and in the future ability of sovereign governments to remain solvent through debt restructuring. The holdouts are New York hedge funds NML Capital LTD, a unit of billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer’s Elliot management Corp, and Aurelius Capital Management.

    They would like you to believe the Argentinean public benefited from this debt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ever since independence 200 years ago, Argentina’s foreign debt has been a source of impoverishment and corruption. Since the first loan negotiated by Rivadavia in 1824 with the British Bank Baring Brothers, the debt was used to enrich Argentinean financiers and allow them to control finances and empty the country of its wealth. The British government donated a statue of British colonialist George Canning to Argentina in 1857 in recognition of the debt.

    Foreign debt has always gone hand in hand with big business. With complicity of nearly every government from Bartolomé Miter and Manuel A. Quintana, to Carlos Menem and Fernando de la Rúa. This created generations of technocrats and bureaucrats who favored banks and international corporations over their own country. Educated at Harvard, Chicago, Oxford or Buenos Aires, they include lobbyists Manual Garcia and Luis Belaustegui; and heads of the banking system, Pedro Pou, Roque Macarrone and Christian Colombo. These characters were administrators of a debt born in 1970s under the military dictatorship.

    This situation became much worse after America’s defeat in Vietnam. Oil prices were rising and petrodollars flooded the world. Banks were offering credit at 3%. This was the birth of Third World debt. By 1981, interest rates had risen to 16%, leading to the bankruptcy of these Third World countries. An alliance of foreign banks and multinationals came to power in Argentina. After seven years of neoliberal policies, the dictatorship left the country with $45 billion in debt. Twenty-three billion of this was owed by multiantionals operating in the country, including Citibank, First Boston, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America, Banco de Italia, Banco de Londres, Banco Espanol, Banco Frances, Deutsche Bank, Banco Rio and Banco Ouilmes, Banco Galica, and many more. Other debtors included Ess, Fiat, IBM, Ford, Mercedes Benz, Swift Pirelli, as well as local groups owned by Perez Companc, Bulgheroni-Brida, Macri, Techint, Fortabat, Pescarmona, Gruneisen, Soldati, Cogasco, Celulosa, and others. The state was saddled with this debt by a bureaucrat of the dictatorship, Domingo Cavallo. He was a ‘super-Minister’ of Finance in the Menem and de la Rúa governments.

    Even though Argentina’s courts ruled that parent companies were responsible for the debts of their subsidiaries, these swindlers made the government responsible for them.

    But the foreign debt was also illegitimate. Much of it was created when the parent companies made loans to their subsidiaries. These loans were internal movements within the companies, but they were assigned to foreign debt. Dollars were bought in Argentina and deposited in the U.S. With this deposit as collateral, you got a loan to purchase more dollars and so on. This is known as ‘bicycling’ funds. Because of the difference in interest rates, participants, mainly the big conglomerates, became wealthy.

    Usury has been another problem. It is estimated that with reasonable interest rates, Argentina’s debt could have been paid by 1988. But there have been no reasonable rates, interest or otherwise. At the end of Alfonsin’s presidency, the foreign debt was close to $54 billion. Then Menem let the creditors decide what they were owed with no debate in the Congress. This ignored the constitution and the ruling of the courts that the debt was fraudulent. Ten years later the debt was $130 billion.

    Lately you’d never guess that the United States has a history of opposition to this type of fraud. In 1898, the Americans invented a concept called the Theory of the Odious Debt. At the end of the Spanish occupation of Cuba, Spanish banks were demanding payment from the Cuban government of loans they had made to the colonial government. The Americans said that if the Cuban people didn’t benefit from these loans, they couldn’t be called public debt. Further, in 1923, a British bank, the Royal Bank of Canada, lent Tinoco, a petty tyrant of Costa Rica, a sum that he used for personal goals. The bank proceeded to demand payment from Costa Rica. In a law suit arbitrated by former President William Howard Taft, it was decided this was a private debt and the public was not responsible.

    The worst of Argentina’s betrayals came from supposed democrats. Social Democrat Raúl Alfonsin promised to defend human rights, but instead took the country into austerity. Carlos Menem claimed to adhere to the policies of the neo-Peronist party. His presidency coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the theory of the ‘End of History’, globalization, and neoliberal democracies in Latin America. It took him only a few days to change his stripes. He immediately cozied up with the conservative minority directed by the former rebel officer Alvaro Alsogaray. His policies were dictated by the United States, the World Bank, and the IMF. Of course, other political leaders and labor leaders jumped ship as well.

    Menem needed a biased Supreme Court to carry out his plans, as well as control of the federal courts. Parliament delegated special powers to him. In one month he had passed his Reform of the State law, which opened up privatizations. Menem controlled inventories with no accompanying balance sheets. For the privatization of Argentina’s two largest companies, YPF and Gas del Estado, large bribes were offered to members of Argentina’s congress, which they happily accepted.

    Argentina’s budget had to be approved by Washington. The convertibility Plan, in which one peso equals one dollar, stopped inflation but ruined industries. Previously, the country had produced 95% of what it consumed. Afterward, it imported garments, meat, dairy, fruit, pasta, etc. After the artificial elimination of inflation, banks lent at 50% per year when rates in the U.S. and Europe were 7%.

    The debt was now irredeemable. Cavallo negotiated with U.S. Secretary Nicholas Brady with the result that state enterprises were purchased with national bonds pegged at 15% of face value, but redeemable at 100%. The country lost more than $30 billion. Whole concerns were sold without debt and the government took responsibility for the layoffs of workers. The main investors were Spanish and French.

    Entei was sold for a fifth of its value to Telefonica and France Telecom, who saddled it with a 6 billion dollar debt.

    Aerolineas Argentinas was profitable and owned 37 planes. The Spanish line Iberia mortgaged them to purchase the business. Then they stripped it of its assets.

    The state water utility was taken over by a European syndicate headed by Suez and Vivendi. The works agreed to were not completed and 800,000 people were left without drinking water. A million were without sewers.

    The worst case was the railroads, which represented a fatal blow to the economy.

    The state paid out subsidies to these privatized concerns and eventually owed the World Bank the $700 million it borrowed to pay for the layoffs and another $700 million in interest. Normally anyone who uses public property belonging to another country has to pay a fee. These companies never paid it, but then they financed all the campaigns, the governments, the coups d’état, and all the public works.

    Then came the liquidation of Argentina’s oil and gas industry, an industry that was said to be a model for the world. In this, Argentina is a unique case. These industries were given up without losing a war.

    Oil was discovered in 1907 in Patagonia. YPF was created in 1923 at the orders of General Mosconi. When YPF was created, it was the first state enterprise in the world. Oil was considered strategic and the sale of fuel, of national interest. If the international price rose, YPF kept the price low, based on its costs rather than the market price.

    Hell hath no fury like Big Oil scorned.

    When YPF was sold, reserves that had been allocated for the next 25 years were valued at the equivalent of 9 months. It was so irregular that Menam had to deal with it personally. An outside company was hired to underestimate the reserves. A year later they appeared in the accounts of the Spanish firm Repsol at their real value.

    Gas del Estado was estimated at $25 billion by Petrobras Company. After being appraised by international consultants it was sold for $2.5 billion. Repsol took control and polluted entire groundwater systems destroying the usefulness of the land in those areas. And Carlos Menam was honored in Washington as the creator of the Argentinean miracle. ((Argentina’s Economic Collapse. Available: http://youtube/VK494Judxvg))And now the U.S. Supreme Court seems intent on finishing the job these hooligans started.

    The Roberts Court has taken possession of an unholy fortress—a constitutional fortress of our own making. If we agree that the problem is the lack of constitutional restraint on justices, it will be clear that caution and wisdom are needed to correct it, but also that something must be done. If we fail to act, we may as well forget about trying to make the world a better place for ordinary people. If we allow Argentina to be brought down by vulture capitalists and our own Supreme Court, we don’t deserve a better place.

  • My Brother’s Keeper and The Letter

    There are several criticisms of the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, but they are not what I want to talk about here. I think the most meaningful part of this discussion is a letter to President Obama voicing concerns about his initiative and signed by 200 black men. Yes, it’s another criticism, but the thing I want to talk about is the signers’ understanding that efforts at reform won’t succeed if black men leave their mothers and sisters and daughters behind. And that is exactly what such programs require them to do.

    The letter’s signers are concerned that President Obama’s initiative for helping men and boys of color lacks a comparable focus on girls and women. To be clear, they don’t want a moratorium on such initiatives, but they think this program ignores the importance of women and girls in their own right—that is, the importance of women and girls to their community. I hope there will be more debate on the supposed benefits of the addition of women to this top-down program for men, but I think the signers have hit on a sound principle that should be emphasized.

    Modern religions tell us that humans are the offspring of fallen Man. On the other hand, I’ve said humans have the potential to be great. However, I wasn’t making a case for the genetic superiority of the species. I meant to say that humans are great when they make their communities work for everyone. Human greatness only becomes visible in a true community.

    Maybe My Brother’s Keeper will have a good effect. I hope it does. But I don’t think trickle-down social schemes will ever bring lasting change. Real change begins in a community and spreads outward from there. I think this letter illustrates that you don’t need help from governments or billionaires to understand that. And in any case, it seems the kind of community these signers imagine is not what the creators of My Brother’s Keeper had in mind.

    Regardless of the immediate effect of this letter, it illustrates a powerful principle. It might just be the start of something great.

  • Putin Requests Dialogue With Kiev

    Previously I said that it was Putin’s turn to respond to Ukraine’s attempts to restore harmony. Recently he has demonstrated his good intentions. He sent a special envoy, Vladimir Lukin, to the region to help facilitate the release of international military observers being held in Slovyansk. He’s also called for dialogue between Kiev and the separatists. ((Ukraine Resumes Operations Against Separatists, Stratfor Global Intelligence. May 2, 2014. Available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/ukraine-resumes-operations-against-separatists))

    According to one analyst, the framework of the Geneva Accord still has the potential to promote peace, in spite of the fact that it appears to have broken down. ((Pro-Russian Separatism Poses a Threat in Eastern Ukraine. Stratfor Global Intelligence, May 1, 2014. available: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/pro-russian-separatism-poses-threat-eastern-ukraine)) The least the West can do at this point is take Putin seriously. It can’t be denied that he has clearly defined Russia’s stake in the region and in this conflict. The degree to which Ukraine and the West are willing to compromise with him will determine the extent of Russian aggression.

  • Justice is a Choice

    I’ve changed my tune on Ukraine. What made the difference? We live in an us-or-them world in which people are eventually forced to take sides. This is not only true of Ukraine. Even if Ukraine is never anything more than a waiting game there will always be places in the world where conflict is possible and where political leaders feel they must protect their interests. Unfortunately, the last four posts illustrate how this can derail the conversation. The us-or-them world won’t change unless we change it, and if we want to change it we have to continue the conversation.

    How does change happen? I’ve begun to think that on a certain level it’s simply a choice. However, before we can choose, the choices must be discovered and described. One of the most basic choices would be peace and prosperity—peace is a choice, not a happy accident. The basis of peace and prosperity is justice. What does justice look like? That remains to be discovered, but we could start by describing what injustice looks like.

    Reformers always base their ideas on historical models. The model for our age was constructed from the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas have even influenced the world’s main religions. The first step in investigating our choices would be to question these ideas and the structure of inequality they have created. I’ve argued that the creation of this structure was no mistake; it was deliberate. Yet every reformer accepts it as a basis for society.

    That discussion could go on for years, but I’m trying to stay with the idea of choice. As an example I’ll use my theory that inequality begins with the subjugation of women. Even though oppression is personal to the oppressed, on a policy level it is impersonal and utilitarian. The oppression of women is the foundation of a particular social and political organization. This may not be very encouraging, but it could also indicate that the oppression of women is not an unchanging, inescapable fact of human existence. It’s part of a specific cultural construct.

    In my opinion it would be a mistake to assume from this that women must change the system single-handedly. I don’t think that’s how it works. While there are plenty of women today who speak out against patriarchy, I suspect that women as a group are no threat to the status quo. What does this say about our culture, or about women…or about change? There have been woman-centered communities in the past. Is human nature different today? How about the female gender? Maybe the world suffers from a lack of female role models and archetypes and we just need a female priesthood and a system of goddess worship. Again, I don’t think so.

    My model is Minoa. Some will object to this on grounds that we don’t have enough information about the way the Minoans lived. However we do have archaeological evidence that they prospered for at least 3,000 years, and their city was never fortified. The adjective normally used to describe Minoan civilization is ‘confident’. By the way, those arguing for a return to goddess worship also admit that they know nothing about it. Yet the same people—the ones I’m familiar with are university professors—accept the idea of human sacrifice.

    Others might object to my using Minoa as a model because I reject goddess worship. Maybe they remember reading somewhere that Minoa did indeed have goddess worship. This requires more discussion as well, but apparently this belief is due to Jane Ellen Harrison’s influence on the interpretation of Minoan artifacts. I intend to discuss this later also, but I’ll say that although Harrison claimed to be revealing ancient Greek religion, her books are categorized today as Hermetic philosophy. Harrison was a colleague of Charles Darwin. And it is no dark conspiracy that our science is hermetic. It’s descended from the Rosicrucians by way of the Royal Society.

    As long as I seem to be making an outline of the conversation, I’ll also mention that Protestant Christianity is heavily influenced by Hermeticism. I once thought that if you found a system with elements of magic and the occult, it must be a pre-Christian, or non-Christian system. That’s not true. Protestantism is indebted to mystical and occult beliefs. In fact, elements of the occult can be found in all religions. The same goes for our form of democracy. For this reason, I would argue that Christianity can’t be excluded from the conversation. In fact, it seems it would be impossible to carry on an American conversation about the past, the present, or the future, without acknowledging the influence of the church.

    But I’ve gone off the track again. I wanted to talk about choice. I’ve said that I don’t think justice is imposed single-handedly on a society by oppressed people, or by anyone else for that matter. I think it’s a choice made at a cultural level. It’s possible that theology would have a place in this process, but I’m afraid our theology has become inseperable from utilitarian elements.

    In support of the idea that people must choose justice, here is an interesting fact about Minoa. The Minoans were aware that their way of life was coming to an end and they didn’t resist. Maybe they understood that if some members of a society choose to take advantage of others just because they are able to do so, the good times are over and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

error: Content is protected !!