08 May 09 - SpicaBooks.Com/Eat_The_Rich.html

Copyright 1999-2009 by Andrew Homer - EconomiX - Webmeister StarHeart Web Designs

Large Bullet Everything you wanted to know about GATT, NAFTA, and the FTAA, but were afraid to ask.

  • Power corrupts
  • Absolute power corrupts absolutely
  • Power is never relinquished
  • Power must be taken

The top 10% of income earners in the United States now owns 70% of the wealth, and the wealthiest 1% owns more than the bottom 95%, according to the Federal Reserve. In 2005, the top 300,000 Americans enjoyed about the same share of the nation's income -- 21.8% -- as the bottom 150 million. New York is an especially bleak case study. The top fifth of earners in Manhattan now makes 52 times what the lowest fifth makes -- $365,826 annually compared with $7,047 -- roughly comparable to income disparity in Namibia.

Meanwhile, the ratio of average CEO to worker pay in the U.S. shot up from 301-to-1 to 431-to-1 in 2004. The average CEO now earns substantially more in one day than the average worker earns all year. Adding insult to injury, taxpayers actually give tax breaks to corporations for those salaries, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Vulture Funds Getting Rich Off of Jubilee

Large Bullet Where's your hemp paper ballot when you need one?

Michael Jordan makes more money from Nike annually than all of the Nike factory workers in Malaysia combined.

"Those who control the world's largest market get to write the rules. That is as it always has been." - Lester Thurow

Large Bullet "A corporation cannot be ethical; its only responsibility is to turn a profit." - Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate

CorpWatch

World inequality rises

"Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, Why the Poor Are Poor--And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!" by Tim Harford

"Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything" by Steven Levitt

Large Bullet "Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Story of Economic Discovery" by David Warsh

"The (Mis)behavior of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin And Reward" by Benoit Mandelbrot & Richard Hudson

"Corporate Predators : The Hunt for Mega-Profits and the Attack on Democracy"

by Russell Mokhiber & Robert Weissman.

"Corporation Nation" by Charles Derber.

Large Bullet "Spectres of Capitalism" by Samir Amin & Shane Mage.

Globalism and Federalism

Houston Principles

Corporate Watch

The U.S. population consumes its entire weight in oil every week! As of 18 Jan 2000, the mean income for the American family is $71,600.

Large Bullet One Company, One World?

Grazing

Large Bullet Mergers

Monsanto

Large Bullet Poor

Rep Rev

Large Bullet Welfare

FrankenFood

Large Bullet World Trade Organization

WTO 2

Large Bullet Davos Conference

Imagine a powerful corporation "renting" a WTO Member nation to pursue its special interests — and kill a trade-based development policy — behind closed doors in Geneva to the detriment of tens of thousands of people's livelihoods and the rented country’s own economic and security interests.

"What laws for the rich??"

- from the 2-2-00 Law & Order TV show

Wait, There Actually Is a Bridge in Brooklyn You Can Sell Me?

by Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted 23 July 2007

In these weird times of privatization fever, selling off bridges, toll roads and airports is no longer considered preposterous -- for the billionaires who can afford them it's good business.

Will Rogers sometimes tucked little moral messages into his one-liners. For example: "I'd rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the one who sold it."

The gullibility of anyone who thinks it's possible to buy the Brooklyn Bridge is an old punch line, but today the joke is on us. In these weird times of privatization fever, buying bridges is no longer considered preposterous, and old Will would be appalled by the crass morals of both the sellers and the buyers in these increasingly common transactions.

The Brooklyn span has yet to be sold off, but similar public assets all across the country have been, and many more are up for grabs -- an estimated $100 billion worth of highways, bridges, airports, and other public properties could be transferred into corporate hands in just the next two years. Among those already gone or actively being considered for privatization are Chicago's Skyway commuter route, the city's entire downtown parking system, and Midway Airport; in Indiana, three major throughways (a 157-mile toll road across the state, a new Illiana Expressway, and a section of the I-69 NAFTA highway) and the state lottery; Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway and Dulles Greenway; the 537-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike and Philadelphia International Airport; New York's Tappan Zee Bridge; a vast 4,000-mile network of toll roads across Texas; Colorado's Northwest Parkway; Alabama's Foley Beach Expressway bridge; the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel; and, in New Jersey, the NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, and Atlantic City Expressway.

What's at work here is a convergence of gutless politicians, right-wing ideological fantasizers, conniving investment bankers, and raw corporate greed. What has drawn them together is the incandescent, transformative, blinding, neon-green force that rules American society: money.

A deliberate defunding

Let's start with the lack of money. Since the 1980s, national, state, and local politicos of both parties have abjectly failed to meet their responsibility to maintain our country's essential transportation infrastructure. They've had the political backbone of slugs, unwilling to speak an obvious truth: It takes tax revenues to have a first class public system. But forget first-class -- our roads, bridges, airports, and other systems have been allowed to deteriorate even as traffic has steadily increased, so American transportation isn't even second class. In this same time span, our "leaders" have squandered trillions of dollars from our public treasury on special tax breaks for corporations and the rich, as well as on senseless wars and boondoggles, while letting the basics of government service slide. Now we're at a crisis point. The federal highway system (established by that wild-eyed, tax-and-spend liberal, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1956), is the chief national source of money for building and repairing roads, bridges, and mass transit systems. It is financed by an excise tax that has stood at 18.4 cents on a gallon of gasoline since 1993. Today, that's only about 6% of what it costs for a gallon of regular gasoline -- down from the 10% rate of taxation that Ike and Congress established when the fund was created.

In 2005, when Congress was about to replenish the dwindling trust fund with an increase of 4 cents per gallon, George W killed the hike with a veto threat. As a result, a fund with a $23 billion surplus when Bush came into office will be broke when he leaves, running a deficit of nearly $2 billion in 2009 and $8 billion the next year.

If you're an antigovernment, privatization zealot (like Bush and his top Transportation Department appointees), those are joyous numbers, for they mean that state and local officials are more vulnerable than ever to your pitch that public assets are better placed in corporate hands. For years, such corporate-funded, right-wing think tanks as the Reason Foundation have dreamed of the moment when they could impose their ideology on the public -- and here it is.

"Trust us," they're cooing into the ears of governors, mayors, and other officials who are looking at massive transportation needs, yet are too shackled to money interests even to mouth the words "tax increase." These sirens of corporatization sing softly, "We have the perfect, painless solution. All you have to do is to turn over that toll road (either by sale or long-term lease) to GlobalGigantica, Inc., which will pay a pretty penny for it. You'll get money for your public treasury, you'll lose your migraine headache, the magic of free enterprise will deliver greater efficiency and lower costs, and an adoring public will shower you with rose petals, hosannas, and votes."

Such rosy nonsense is now official U.S. policy. Last year, the Department of Transportation produced a plan known as the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion, which really should be called the Strategy to Induce Corporatization. Under this scheme, DOT officials are actively working as proselytizers of privatization, aggressively pushing states to pass laws that help corporations take over chunks of their public transportation infrastructure. To move this ideological surge along, DOT has drafted sample legislation for states to rubber-stamp, and more than 20 states have passed such laws.

Washington is also throwing public money behind this push. The 2005 highway bill conveniently changed the law so that corporations -- not just governments -- can now raise tax-exempt funds and get special subsidies for privatized projects. As a congressional staffer confided to reporters for Mother Jones magazine, "It's a very, very sweet deal."

The corporate players

Public infrastructure -- long considered the stodgiest of investments -- suddenly has a financial allure surpassing anything since the California Gold Rush, with corporate powers from all over the globe hustling to get pieces of the action. Consider the transactions of June 29, 2006. On this single day:

A consortium of two international corporations -- the Spanish construction giant Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte (Cintra) and the Australian conglomerate Macquarie Infrastructure Group (MIG) -- inked a $3.8-billon deal to run the Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years.

A partnership between Spain's Cintra and a Texas-based conglomerate, Zachry Construction got state approval on a $1.3-billion deal giving it a 50-year lease to build and operate a 40-mile toll road running south from Austin.

Australian toll-road operator Transurban signed a $611-million deal to gain control of the Pocahontas Parkway in Richmond, Virginia's capital city. Why are corporations laying down such sums to run toll roads? Because these are high-fat sugar bombs with whipped cream dollops and sprinkles on top.

First, the corporate owners get monopolistic control of prime routes of travel. This provides a steady (and steadily increasing) flow of tens of thousands of captive customers every day. The corporations have a guaranteed cash flow that's literally driven to them!

Second -- and this is the biggest factor of all -- private owners get to raise toll rates. Elected officials are wary of hiking tolls because of the political backlash they can suffer, and the better pols actually give a damn about keeping costs affordable for regular people. But corporations are not subject to the electorate and thus have no qualms about stiffing the public (think of Big Oil's price gouging, ever-rising bank and credit-card fees, cereal companies that charge more for less, Enron's manipulation of energy markets, etc.).

When the hucksters tout the advantages of privatization, it's this political immunity that they highlight. Corporations, they exult, are able to amass private investment funds to build or repair roads because they are free to raise tolls. Robert Poole, a privatizing zealot at the Reason Foundation, even tries to turn such monopoly profiteering into a virtue, gushing that corporations "depoliticize the tolling decision." I'll say -- We the People are conveniently removed from any decision-making role!

In 2005, when Cintra-MIG paid $1.8 billion for a 99-year lease to run the Chicago Skyway, the $2 toll to drive the 8-mile road immediately jumped by 25% and is scheduled to be $5 within a decade. That's $10 a day for just one short stretch of your commute. Similarly, last year's Cintra-MIG deal to take over the Indiana Toll Road came with a neat doubling of the tolls, plus allowing the consortium to raise rates every year after 2010 by 2% or the rate of inflation -- whichever is higher.

When corporations and their political enablers first push a privatization scheme on a state or city, they invariably claim that it will be in the public interest because "everyone knows" that corporations are more efficient than government. Ah, yes, we've seen the "efficiencies" of the Halliburtons, the big HMOs, and that ilk.

The reality is that the corporate operator not only has to cover the fixed costs of operating a road system, but it also must satisfy its shareholders with ever-expanding profits, cover the exorbitant pay levels of its top executives, and add in the enormous overhead of its own bureaucracy, including its marble headquarters, advertising budget, lobbyists, and so forth. What's "efficient" about these deals is that corporate operators can freely raise our tolls to cover their inherent inefficiencies.

Third, if a free-wheeling ability to jack up tolls is not enough to fatten the investors' bottom line, corporations receive two other advantages that the privatizers don't like to mention. The new operators receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, and instead of staffing the system with full-time public employees getting decent wages and benefits, these private operators shift to low-wage, parttimeworkers with no benefits. So taxpayers subsidize the conversion to "free enterprise," and the reward to the community is worse jobs than it had before. What a deal!

Fourth, the profits are astronomical. As a Wisconsin transportation official reminds us, "The private sector's legal responsibility to its shareholders is to make money -- profit is their purpose. [Privatization] is all about money." And lots of it. Business Week magazine notes that Cintra-MIG's investment in the Indiana Toll Road "could break even in year 15 of the 75-year lease, on the way to reaping as much as $21 billion in profits." In sum, the state of Indiana got $3.8 billion in exchange for inflicting much higher tolls on its citizens, thus producing $21 billion in profits that will benefit a handful of foreign investors rather than the Indiana people.

Banks always get theirs

The big investment banks and capital funds have sniffed the fecund possibilities of enormous fees and profits to be had in this game, and they are pushing their way into it with the exuberance of bank robbers tunneling into an unguarded vault. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, the Carlyle Group, and others are not only raking in fees as financial advisors to both the sellers and buyers of these assets, but also piling up cash from wealthy investors to put into infrastructure deals.

Wait. Doesn't the dual role of advisor and investor pose conflicts of interest? Of course! Mother Jones reports that while Goldman Sachs was advising Indiana officials on selling rights to the state's toll road, it didn't mention that it was also putting together a private infrastructure investment fund to get part of the action, meaning Goldman had a financial interest in getting Indiana to sell the roads as cheaply as possible. You see, in deals this big, the first thing that bankers do is to drag ethical considerations into a back room and strangle them.

A Morgan Stanley banker estimates that around the world, some 30 special funds are now amassing a total of $500 billion in capital to buy U.S. public assets. At the same time, bankers are roaming from statehouse to statehouse to persuade officials to sell. Mark Florian, a Goldman Sachs executive who has become Wall Street's happy huckster of privatization deals, says
he has personally visited top officials in more than 35 states to "help spur the market."

Laissez-faire ideologues are not bothered either by conflicts of interest or by any concerns about the public interest. They view our roads, airports, and such strictly as commodities that should be put on the market for the enrichment of wealthy investors. As Florian puts it, "There's a lot of value trapped in these assets."

A raw deal

For those of us without the wealth to profit from privatization, this is a mighty rocky road to travel. Instead of providing universal public service, our prime transportation routes will be priced at what the market will bear. Working stiffs, small businesses (from truckers to mail services), and others -- the majority -- will be economically burdened or forced onto clogged side roads.

We'll also be giving up any semblance of democratic control, ceding decision making over fundamentally public matters to selfinterested private executives cloistered inside board rooms. With long-term leases, decisions about major repairs or expansion 10, 20, or 30 years from now will rest not on public need, but on what will make the most profit for the shareholders. The corporation can refuse to add lanes, can raise tolls to do so, or can even sell its lease to another party that might choose to cover its cost of purchase by lowering the quality of service.

What we're losing here is the whole idea of public purpose. This is our commonly shared infrastructure we're talking about, and it's more valuable than money. For example, privatizers estimate that the magnificent Golden Gate Bridge is worth $3.4 billion to investors. But that's its price -- not its value. That bridge embodies community identity, history, aesthetics, unity, service, and purpose.

These are the people's assets -- belonging not just to all of us here today, but to those who went before and to all those yet to come. Politicians need to know that these are not "theirs" to sell, that no one can "own" our public assets as their private property. By politicians, I mean Democrats as well as Bushites. It's Democrats who're running the fire sales in Chicago, it was a Democrat -- Rep. Chaka Fattah -- who ran for mayor of Philadelphia on a plan to privatize the city's airport (he lost), and it's Democratic Governor Jon Corzine (a former CEO of Goldman Sachs) who has pushed the sale of New Jersey's major highways.

This abandonment of the public trust and the common good is a leadership issue of Rooseveltian proportions, yet no one running for president has made a peep about it. If they did, they'd tap into a rich reserve of public resentment against the rip-off deals, the profiteering, and the very principle of selling what is ours. Where are the Rooseveltian Democrats who'll stand up to the profiteers and rally the people to reclaim and reinvest in our public infrastructure? We can't wait on the pols to come to us. Check our Do Something box in this issue ... and go to them.

http://www.alternet.org/story/57254/?page=1

Insurance Group to Launch Ads Against Right to Sue

March 20, 2001 By Karen Pallarito

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The American Association of Health Plans (AAHP), the largest organization representing health insurance companies, is gearing up for a major television campaign aimed at convincing key lawmakers that suing health plans is not the way to resolve the nation's healthcare disputes.

Building on results of a new physician poll, AAHP will air a 30-second spot suggesting that letting independent doctors decide what is best for patients through an external review process is the answer, not expanding patients' right to sue health plans. The ad is slated to air sometime in the next week.

AAHP expects to spend $1 million on advertising and grassroots activities, including the TV spot, during this phase of its campaign, according to AAHP spokesman Phil Blando.

The ad will air "in Washington and those markets where lawmakers are going to be central to solving the debate," he said.

One of the AAHP's target markets is Chicago, home to the American Medical Association (AMA), the Chicago Tribune reported Tuesday. The AMA - at loggerheads with the AAHP over this issue--has lobbied vigorously to win support for a stringent patient's bill of rights.

AAHP's latest effort to turn the debate away from the right to sue builds on results of a survey of 400 doctors nationwide conducted for the association by Ayers, McHenry & Associates. Seventy-five percent of physicians in the poll said that they preferred an appeals process as the best way for patients to resolve disputes with their health plans.

"Some politicians think the best way to resolve healthcare disputes is more lawsuits," the television spot begins. "But a new national survey says three out of four doctors disagree."

The spot urges consumers to call their member of Congress and "ask them if they're protecting you or the trial lawyers."

In testimony on Capitol Hill last Thursday, the AMA stuck to its guns on the liability issue.

"It simply isn't fair to grant a shield of immunity to health plans--a shield not given to any other person or business entity," AMA Trustee Dr. Donald J. Palmisano told the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.

Based on the heated exchange that took place among members of that subcommittee, an imminent resolution of the 6-year-old debate seems unlikely.

Large Bullet They Shoot Humanitarians Don't They?
10/28/99

HANOVER, N.H. (AP) --
Republican presidential hopefuls discussed abortion, health care and taxes Thursday night in a generally polite campaign debate spiced by jabs directed by Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer at the absent front-runner, George W. Bush.

The GOP event was interrupted briefly when an unidentified woman rose to demand a cut in military spending to benefit health care and education. Moderators swiftly regained control of the proceedings.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."
- Albert Einstein

Large Bullet How America Got Rich

And how it is going to get even richer
by Walter Russell Mead, Worth Magazine

That we're rich there's no disputing. Just consider some numbers. Earlier this year (1999), Forbes reported that the U.S. has more than 200 billionaires; even in 1997, according to the Bank of America, there were 11 million millionaires, and this group was growing by 300 per month. More than 31 million people live in the 9.7 million households that have annual incomes greater than $100,000.

American households own more than $39 trillion worth of financial assets. Combined real-estate holdings are worth $9.5 trillion, secured by $3.8 trillion in mortgages. The total value of all stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange stands at $10 trillion. In 1997, Americans paid $733 billion in taxes (total earnings: $5 trillion) -- or more than the gross national product of the world's 83 poorest countries combined.

And the wealth-creating machine that is America -- the greatest the world has seen, clearly -- doesn't seem to be slowing down. Since 1990, U.S. gross domestic product has risen from $5.6 trillion a year to $8.7 trillion, an increase greater than the combined GDP of the world's poorest 113 countries. Last year, U.S. consumers -- less than 5 percent of the world's population -- were responsible for almost half the total growth in worldwide demand. The historic run-up in the stock market that began in October 1990 has seen the Dow Jones Industrial Average rise from about 3,000 to over 11,000, and that increase has added an estimated $9 trillion to the worth of America's companies.

Contrasting numbers from other parts of the world highlight our wealth. According to World Bank figures, 81 percent of the world's population have an income that would
qualify for food stamps in the United States. Some 1.3 billion people live on incomes of less than a dollar a day. The 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa, minus South Africa, have a total population of 571 million and a combined GDP of $198 billion -- or about the gross state product of Virginia.

Our guy Gramm, our man Moore and the myth of powerlessness
by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN -- First, a salute to Sen. Phil Gramm, who's been trying hard for the title of Meanest Man in the United States and now just may have earned it.

Gramm is blocking legislation that would restore food stamps for elderly legal immigrants, one of the nastiest parts of welfare deform. This harsh and unseemly provision has provoked widespread criticism and is causing elderly legal immigrants to flock to overburdened food banks. There was widespread bipartisan agreement that the provision had to go -- 71 senators are pushing Majority Leader Trent Lott for a vote on it -- but Gramm is single-handedly holding it up.

You may think that action alone earns Gramm the Meanest Man title, but what really puts him in contention is his rationale for cutting off food stamps to old, poor, legal immigrants. Follow this carefully:

"The 1996 reform was a critically important step toward getting families out of the welfare trap," Gramm said in an April 20 news release. "Reversing the 1996 reform would constitute a new personal tragedy inflicted on the most vulnerable people among us."

You see? If we were to restore food stamps to sick, 85-year-old legal immigrants who worked all their lives it would be a new personal tragedy for them, throwing them right back into the welfare trap instead of letting them get right out there and compete for jobs, thus making them happier and better people. Phil is doing this to them `for their own good.'

Texas has 121,000 legal immigrants who had been receiving food stamps before they were cut off last year. Gramm said that restoring the food stamps would be "onerous and destructive." Gov. George Dubya Bush is finding it somewhat onerous himself, since he had to come up with $18 million in state money to cover disabled children and the elderly who are sick. He supports restoring the food stamps. Restoring food stamps nationwide for 935,000 legal immigrants would cost $818 million, a tiny part of the $55 billion appropriation for the Department of Agriculture that includes a proposal sponsored by Gramm to spend $43 million on research to eradicate fire ants.

On a more cheerful note, Michael Moore's delightful documentary `The Big One' is now playing in local theaters. Moore, who made the whacky documentary `Roger Me' a few years ago, made this film about his book tour promoting his jolly jeremiad `Downsize This!' Wherever he went, Moore stopped to visit local folks who had just been downsized, and he tried to talk to the corporate honchos responsible. The result is one of those rare films with a working person's point of view and is a blow for Bubbas everywhere.

Moore doesn't take much seriously; he wants to change the name of the U.S.A. to "The Big One" and our national anthem to `We Will Rock You.' But he does care about working-class folks getting stiffed by international corporations awash in profits. His interview with Nike CEO Phil Knight is priceless.

"Don't you care that there are 12-year-olds working for 40 cents an hour in your factories in Indonesia?"

"They're 14."

Many people, including Knight, have undertaken to explain to Moore that he just doesn't understand the imperatives of economic globalization. If he understood, you see, he wouldn't be troubled by downsizing because, you see, even though the international corporations are hugely profitable, they must remain `competitive,' you see? And anyway, it's all inevitable because of economic globalization.

In fact, of all the bull that's being sold about economics these days, the myth that nothing can be done about economic globalization is the silliest -- and one of the most pernicious. Linda McQuaig's excellent new book, `The Cult of Impotence: Selling the Myth of Powerlessness in the Global Economy' (Viking), takes a close look at this amazing con job. She recounts an exchange between an economics professor and a journalist who finally inquires plaintively: "Is there some way we can stop this? Is there nothing we can do to avoid this dark future?"

The economist snaps, "That question reflects the thinking of the machine age."

McQuaig advises: "Hold it. Let's play that again slowly. This line is more subversive than it first appears. [He] is saying it's not just that we can't change things, `but we can't even think about the possibility of changing things' : to do so is to engage in old-style thinking. So, it's not just that we're powerless to stop being pushed over the edge of the cliff in the new global world order. But even to try to prevent ourselves from being pushed over the cliff is a sign of regressive thinking. The new way of thinking . . . requires an acceptance of powerlessness, resignation to a world without solutions -- a world of inaction and helplessness."

The myth of the inevitability of economic globalization is based largely on the work of Milton Friedman, and easily the most underreported story of our time is that the current economy proves Friedman flatly wrong. You probably would have heard something about this if the media weren't awfully busy reporting on Monica Lewinsky.

Large Bullet Rational Nexus

by Peggy Prince

This "rational nexus" thing makes my blood run cold. I had never heard of it before and would like more info. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I have a few thoughts on this anyway, so please grant me your indulgence.

This concept makes me think of the re-legalization of slavery. I know that if Clinton hadn't pushed for the increase in the minimum wage that triggered a discussion by the Republicans on whether a "minimum wage" was a good idea at all, their desire to abolish it, we probably would have no minimum wage, now. They still might achieve their goal in the future. The Greens "living wage" proposal is all the more important now.

Slave labor is practiced in many parts of the world and seems to be growing in popularity. Corporations, through NAFTA and GATT, have driven wages through the floor and from Burma where the oil corporations force whole villages to work for nothing, to Mexico where the maquiladora workers live in squalid cardboard carton cities outside the factory gates, to America where prisoners are forced to produce goods for corporations at slave wages...the examples are endless. We are in a major mess.

To see the Supreme Court codify the superiority of the rich and the concept that the rich (a very small percent of the population) have created a NEED for the poor is, to me, obscene. I guess it's always been that way, as I think about it, but to acknowlege it in the Supreme Court is like repealing emancipation.

If we take a look at the last "tax reform" bill that was passed and touted as a great thing for the other 98% of us, we see that the rich were nodding and winking at each other the whole time, 'cause they knew that it was REALLY a boon for them. The Republicrats love to talk about how people should be able to keep more of their "hard-earned" money, but in fact, the cut in the capital gains tax (money made on speculation in the stock market etc., not earned by any stretch of the imagination) was a huge bonus for the rich.

Anyway, I'm sure you get my point, and I hope this "rational nexus" stuff gets exposed for what it really is. "The poor will always be with us", gee we better make sure of it, say the rich.

Peggy Prince, LANLaction@aol.com

"You see, here we're all equal, it's just that some are more equal than others." - Animal Farm

Large Bullet The Globalized Economy
(or else)

by Antonin Rusek 29 August 1999
Copyright © 1999 Nando Media & Scripps Howard News Service

America is entering an unprecedented ninth year of economic expansion. The name of the game is global economy.

In America, this new world of globalization resulted in fast-growing productivity and also fast-growing affluence, permeating all segments of society.

The first duty of the American government is to ensure the prosperity of the American people. In today's world, this means full and unconditional global engagement aimed at the preservation and expansion of the global economy. This, however, brings new and unfamiliar challenges.

Almost everybody in the world benefits from the global economy. But people seldom look only at their own well-being. Modern communication and mass media bring the image of an American affluence to the world's masses - masses who do not see their own progress, but see they are falling behind America, in relative terms.

Moreover, the global economy brings "global culture" and "global values" - practically speaking, American culture and values. But this change undermines fabrics of many societies around the world. Change is often perceived as discomforting - even if the majority eventually benefit. But if change is perceived as destructive, it brings about a reaction aimed at the perceived "perpetrator" - the United States.

Finally, the advent of the global economy reduces the ability of states to act as engines of growth and facilitators of economic development and equality. States are weakened and ruling elites are displaced from their traditional functions. That opens the space for a semi-criminalization of political activities. Such a state is almost the ideal base for transnational crime and terrorist syndicates which target the biggest beneficiary of the global economy - the United States.

As the global economy encompasses more of the world, one may expect these processes to intensify. That means both greater affluence in the U.S., and greater instability in the rest of the world. The biggest beneficiary of globalization, the United States, is likely to become the target of all who feel dissatisfied with the new world.

In the foreseeable future, no one will challenge us in a traditional manner. We are the strongest and the most technologically advanced. Challenges will come from a different direction. Non-state and non-military actors will attack both the global economy and global American engagement.

All spectrums of methods will be employed, from disrupting computer networks and related economic activities to terrorist acts employing biological, chemical and perhaps nuclear agents against American targets. This will occur both inside and outside U.S. territory. The aim is to destroy the global economy and force the U.S. to withdraw from the world.

The United States should respond decisively by destroying the attacker.

The problem is what to do next. To prevent the repetition - whether attacks on the U.S. and global economy are undertaken with a connivance of semi-criminalized states or by non-state agents ignoring a weak state authority - the United States would have to take over the administration and internal security of territories from which the attacks were launched, to restore effective state authority.

But the U.S. lacks resources to do this on the requisite scale - especially if Russia, China or India become involved. Then we will be the subject of repeated attacks and eventually be forced to give up and retreat into isolation.

Defeat is totally unacceptable. The global economy and its benefits are our manifest destiny for the 21st century. But to fulfill its destiny, the U.S. must deal with situations the global economy and its associated changes create for others.

We have to preserve and strengthen our ability to deal with individual challenges swiftly, decisively and by using military means. But what we really need is a new policy.

We have to aim at strengthening states around the world - even if such stronger states could become our competitors in the future. We can deal with organized, state-based challenges. It is the amorphous, non-state "asymmetric" attack that is the biggest danger and challenge in the near future.

But the policy shift is only a part of the solution. Given the fact that it is the process of globalization that weakens traditional states and facilitates non-state asymmetric challenges, the real goal is to formulate and execute policies which will strengthen states and advance globalization simultaneously. And this is the biggest challenge of the near future.


Antonin Rusek is an associate professor of economics at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, PA.

Large BulletProgressive Links


New York Times Books@barnesandnoble.com

_