Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sticking the Public With the Bill for the Bankers’ Crisis
My city feels like a crime scene and the criminals are all melting into the night, fleeing the scene. No, I’m not talking about the kids in black who smashed windows and burned cop cars on Saturday.
I’m talking about the heads of state who, on Sunday night, smashed social safety nets and burned good jobs in the middle of a recession. Faced with the effects of a crisis created by the world's wealthiest and most privileged strata, they decided to stick the poorest and most vulnerable people in their countries with the bill.
How else can we interpret the G20’s final communiqué, which includes not even a measly tax on banks or financial transactions, yet instructs governments to slash their deficits in half by 2013. This is a huge and shocking cut, and we should be very clear who will pay the price: students who will see their public educations further deteriorate as their fees go up; pensioners who will lose hard earned benefits; public sector workers whose jobs will be eliminated. And the list goes on. These types of cuts have already begun in many G20 countries including Canada, and they are about to get a lot worse. For instance, reducing the projected 2010 deficit in the U.S. by half, in the absence of a sizeable tax increase, would mean a whopping $780-billion cut.
They are happening for a simple reason. When the G20 met in the London in 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the leaders failed to band together to regulate the financial sector so that this type of crisis would never happen again. All we got was empty rhetoric, and an agreement to put trillions of dollars in public monies on the table to shore up the banks around the world. Meanwhile the U.S. government did little to keep people in their homes and jobs, so in addition to hemorrhaging public money to save the banks, the tax base collapsed, creating an entirely predictable debt and deficit crisis.
At this weekend’s summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper convinced his fellow leaders that it simply wouldn’t be fair to punish those banks that behaved well and did not create the crisis (despite the fact that Canada’s highly protected banks are consistently profitable and could easily absorb a tax). Yet, somehow, these leaders had no such concerns about fairness when they decided to punish blameless individuals for a crisis created by derivative traders and absentee regulators.
Last week, the Globe and Mail ran a fascinating article about the origins of the G20. It turns out the entire concept was conceived in a meeting back in 1999 between then Finance Minister Paul Martin and his U.S. counterpart Lawrence Summers (itself interesting since Summers was, at that time playing a central role in creating the conditions for this financial crisis, allowing a wave of bank consolidation and refusing to regulate derivatives).
The two men wanted to expand the G7, but only to countries they considered strategic and safe. They needed to make a list but apparently they didn’t have paper handy. So, according to reporters John Ibbitson and Tara Perkins, “the two men grabbed a brown manila envelope, put it on the table between them, and began sketching the framework of a new world order.” Thus was born the G20.
The story is a good reminder that history is shaped by human decisions, not natural laws. Summers and Martin changed the world with the decisions they scrawled on the back on that envelope. But there is nothing to say that citizens of G20 countries need to take orders from this handpicked club.
Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan “We won’t pay for your crisis.” And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls.
Many are calling for a financial transaction tax that would slow down hot money and raise new money for social programs and climate change. Others are calling for steep taxes on polluters that would underwrite the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change and moving away from fossil fuels. And ending losing wars is always a good cost saver.
The G20 is an ad-hoc institution with none of the legitimacy of the United Nations. Since it just tried to stick us with a huge bill for a crisis most of us had no hand in creating, I say we take a cue from Martin and Summers. Flip it over, and write on the back of the envelope: Return to sender.
(Note: This article was updated at 15:33 on 6/28/10.)
88 Comments so far
Show AllThat is the agenda of G20 - to kill all social benefits that people have fought for and won, such as free public education, pensions, Medicare and Medicaid, unionization. They pick on children, the elderly, the sick and hard-working people in order to protect the uber wealthy and the banks. They also want to attack family farms in Europe to make the world safe for agribusiness.
By the way, New York State is slated to lose $1 billion in Medicaid funds. Our nothingburger governor and legislators never fight to get back a fair share of the high Federal taxes we pay in. They support this brand of "health care reform" so we can bail out banks and continue our perpetual war racket. Any tax on the Wall Street trades or on the rich is also out of the realm of possibility for these flunkies.
Joe
During the same month he increased spending on the Ir-Af-Pak occupation, Obama's dialogue at the G20 meeting included a commitment to reducing the US Govt. deficit by no later than 2013.
The only logical conclusion we can draw from Obama's actions is that American workers will be paying higher taxes and getting less in return.
Generally it is considered "immoral" to take advantage of the vulnerable (the elderly, the children, the sick, etc...). But under capitalism, it is the efficient capitalist who goes after the low-hanging fruit (making the most amount of money with the least amount of cost), the low-hanging fruit often being the vulnerable. And when a capitalist does this, particularly through the use of a corporation, it is not considered "immoral" but is simply "amoral," which sounds so morally neutral and thus above board. That's a nice trick.
Actually, being and acting amorally is worse than immorally. Amorality is a characteristic of sociopaths and psychopaths. Immorality is a condition nearly everyone sinks to occasionally, even though it's generally fairly harmless to society as a whole. Cheating on a spouse, lying about something in one's personal life, etc. The amorality of capitalism as it's actually practiced is the reason it's being seen more and more as a sociopathic economic system. And Klein describes such a system very well. Summers, Geithner and their entourage, all hand-picked by Obama the great progressive hope, are poster boys of amorality. They've made this society a petri dish for sociopaths.
"Amorality is a characteristic of sociopaths and psychopaths." -- Ephraim
I agree with your analysis!
"Actually, being and acting amorally is worse than immorally. Amorality is a characteristic of sociopaths and psychopaths."
I'd agree, but I am afraid that the majority of the people in the US would not. When I discuss these issues with US adults who are somewhere in the middle politically and intellectually they often claim to believe that businesses acting amorally are just doing what they are supposed to do and that all is right with the world.
That shows how much they've integrated the sociopathic values of capitalism, mainly because they're incapable of seeing how grotesquely destructive it is. Or, which is more likely, they're living in total denial, even when evidence of capitalism's world-wrecking character is abundant, if anyone cares to look. The middle-of-the-roaders you mention refuse to look at reality, preferring instead to cling to storybook notions of "amoral business leaders" as some neutral species, refusing to recognize its deep pathology. They've internalized that pathology, then, and recast it as normal, which explains a lot of why we're in this miserable mess today that capitalism has caused. If most people deny its real nature, then there's no possibility of revolt, revolution is permanently delayed or denied, because the amoral capitalist machine is allowed to just keep the wrecking ball in perpetual motion. Perpetual war, perpetual thievery by the banksters and other "business leaders," which we always have to bail them out of, reward them for their crimes, disasters like BP's in the Gulf, which we'll pick up the tab for as well, and on and on. These centrists are the amoral enablers of amoral, endlessly destructive capitalism. And Obama is the embodiment of their corrupt "values."
These centrists are the amoral enablers of amoral, endlessly destructive capitalism. And Obama is the embodiment of their corrupt "values."
No argument from me.
Ephraim and Kivals, capitalism or at least the US-based one, is also responsible for keeping people from thinking that they can overcome corporate hostile takeover. Trying to find a small business to work for isn't easy for most Americans given that those businesses easily fold their tents and concede to corporate takeovers. The disaster capitalism in this country conditions the electorate into feeling great about trashing ethics and collective thinking. You would surprised to see how the average Joe and Jane still fall for the lie that socialism and even regulated capitalism is somehow bad for business despite evidence to the contrary in other countries. Their subscription to "ownership society", "too big to fail", "socialism is evil", etc... The way disaster capitalism legalizes what would otherwise be immoral makes me think that we are actually seeing a toxic miss of amorality and immorality. Fighting through this disaster capitalist system is tough because it is very difficult to see who can be corrected and who cannot be corrected. Only trial and error on a case by case basis throughout our lives will give us the answers and then some.
redistribution of a larger and larger percentage of the money supply to fewer and fewer people
leaving less for the rest of us.... is the sole cause of the present "trying economic times"
redistribution of a greater percentage of the money supply back to the rest of us is the only solution that will solve
only governments can do this
austerity measures are to insure that those with all the money get to keep, and that less and less goes to the rest of us
this will worsen the "economic crisis"
When Ronny Raygun took office in 1981 8% of income went to the top 1%. Today more than 24% of income goes to the top 1%.
In 1970 corporations paid 29% of US income taxes. In 2009 they paid less than 6% and within a decade they will pay none.
thanks
raydelcamino
"Sticking the Public With the Bill for the Bankers’ Crisis" - Naomi Klein
She's right, as usual. Well put, too - both short and comprehensive.
For more in-depth analysis, try economist Michael Hudson - "Europe's Fiscal Dystopia: the "New Austerity" Road":
http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson06252010.html
Hudson's about the only one consistently pointing to how the insane trick of Compound Interest by mathematical necessity leads to bankruptcies - through money issued as debt (by central banks), which is increasing at a rate that never can be repaid, as the debt always exceeds the available money-supply.
The result is a financial game of musical chairs, with the music stopping every 50 years or so. Then the banks "shake the money-tree" and harvest all the smaller investors' funds, making everyone but themselves poor and in need of getting back on the rat-race mouse-wheel.
This time, though, the game's run out of floor-space - chairs or no chairs - as we've exceeded the carrying capacity of Earth's biosphere. Now the game's about running all the time around in mouse-wheel circles - music or no music - 'cause there aren't any more chairs available for a breather.
The "austerity" game's about keeping everyone running. No pause to think about why. That's the purpose.
www.themoneymasters.com
From an old economics major, thanks for the tip....it's a great site.
Corporatism marches on. The 30 yr old Class war is nearing it's conclusion folks and we lost. Welcome to Reagan world a shining city on the hill for the top 2% and down below the rest of us fighting it out for whatever crumbs fall from the plates of our new Lords above. What these PIGS are doing is devaluing everyone else's labor but they're own and most of them do NOTHING AT ALL.
The wide acceptance of the idea of "private property" is due to most people feeling that to some degree such a legal construct, such a protected right, is utilitarian -- provides the greatest good for the greatest number. But what happens when those with large amounts of property rewrite the rules so that they can accumulate ever greater proportions of the property, which clearly is not utilitarian? Then not only is redistribution of weatlh in order, but the power of the property rich and their servants to write the rules should be removed or at least severely restricted. These are quite simple conclusions that I would think would be reached by the great majority of the citizens if they were aware of and focused on the problem (not distracted) and given accurate information. That is why it is so important for the oligarchs to hide their actions in secrecy and with disinformation and to provide all manner of distractions for the population.
Kivals, I don't know how we are going to accomplish this in a society that puts rugged individualism over collective thinking. Just yesterday, I got into a nasty fight with someone who still believes that the Chamber of Commerce and the NFIM are "defending" small businesses when in fact they're defending the big corporations. He also believes that the housing crisis occurred because of high estate taxes and "poor troublemakers". I even proved to him that collective thinking and socialism is what is keeping small businesses from failing miserably throughout Europe despite the damaging effect of the Euro along with Washington and Wall $treet meddling with their governments. He still dismisses it and blames socialism for getting in the way just like he blamed socialism for losing his small business 5 years ago even after telling me that the bigger predator company was somehow making him feel "strong and too tough to be defeated". He still thinks that someday he'll be as "rich" as Donald Trump and own a fortress even as he is now in his 11th month of being unemployed, bankrupt, and about to be evicted for failure to pay his mortgage. Just like the Democrats "boldly" and shamelessly shilling for the elites, this poor guy does the same thinking that he'll be some big shot ready to "fly" like Peter Pan and be "rich" as Donald Trump. This "ownership society" and "too big to fail" is what I think has made it too easy for the oligarchs to win against their conditioned "servants".
If the individual that you described is in any way representative of the populace, then the odds against righting the ship are truly astronomical. I must confess that I pretty much gave up on the US when Reagan was elected and lost the little hope I had left at the Bush coup in 2000. I have only kept up with politics since then because I wanted to do what little I could to try to keep the US from taking the rest of the human race down with it as it slides into a miserable fascist sinkhole of cruelty, poverty, ignorance, and despair. But now I am beginning to fear for the future of the whole human race, as the US-based corporatist oligarchs, with their like-minded allies, are ever more busily weaving their deadly webs around the entire planet.
I hear ya, kivals, and share your despair. We clearly learned next to nothing from 8 years of the very worst leadership this country's ever seen, since we continue the exact same policies year after year. No matter the evidence, the preponderant majority of Americans are just too conditioned against considering any real alternative to capitalism, and folks like us and Jennifer, and many others here, are in as small a minority as ever. The age of endless disasters, sponsored by our capitalist leadership class, is upon us, and I see no way out because a huge majority refuses to consider anything that might truly challenge the controlling paradigm. The criminals will just keep getting voted back into power, paid for by their money masters.
Jennifer & Kivals:
I have had a few conversations resembling the one Jennifer described in her post. I lived in the Midwest, in Nebraska, for a number of years, and I currently live in NYC. I hate to tell you that I have talked to people I know here in NYC who blame poor people for the housing crisis, etc. They sort of listen when I try to explain, and I can explain the crisis and the underlying events that caused it. But, their eyes glaze over very quickly and they start fidgeting. Quite frankly, some conversations boggle the mind. Sometimes, I think they don't even care that they don't know.
Today, I passed the BP station in my neighborhood, and cars were waiting in line. I shamed a few of them as I walked past, reminding them of the Gulf.
I do think if a general strike could be organized, the strike might possibly make a dent in the system.
Those who cant fight back are the easiest to kick, and many of those who do the kicking can find themselves in the same position after missing a paycheck or two, ironic isn't it? Some of middle class and almost poor are the biggest promoters of class-ism. The red states of the deep south epitomize this group-think. They'd marginalize each other in a heartbeat. You can see this in their church when a person, who is doing fairly well, falls on hard times and can no longer tithe; they are often shunned. Either that, or condescendingly made a 'ward' of the church. After all, God no longer favors him or her as He once did. Pity those who have fallen from grace.
"are ever more busily weaving their deadly webs around the entire planet."
That was the same fear I had when I was out of this country. It was great taking a vacation from this country but given the higher costs of living in those countries and that haunting feeling that those of us leaving are being followed, I decided to stick back to the US and fight out the last of what I think we could hold onto before even that slipped through our fingers. Other countries maybe doing better than us because of their long term safety nets and more dedicated electorates who think collectively and are sensitive about their pols cheating them out. However, my biggest fear more than money or just getting used to something totally new is that even though some of us could leave and warn other nations to help them withstand the storm, some of us might just have to stay back and get to the source to control the flow of the poison from Washington. Looking at other nations suffering because some of their governments have started caving in somewhat or big time to US-based capitalism, I feel that I must stay and join those who want to battle it out on the home front. I don't know what difference applying what I learned from other nations to save a few small business will make but, well, I don't know what to say at this point.
My Father told us 40 years ago that mankind had taken 4000 years to get to a 40 hour work week but the elites would take that aback in 4 years, it was call Reganism![the Chicago school of economics by Milton Friedman]
The G20 concludes by taking away the rest of the earned economic rights of average person! He always said that a depression was a justified correction for the elites, discipline for the lower classes! Just a recyle of the old time music!Class and racial warfare march on!
"Return to sender"-- Elvis Presley, the king would have loved it. Hell he came out with the song, and I still have the single. Anybody in Memphis wanna buy it? Oh, and as to that envelope as the king would have done we could put on there "address unknown. . ."
AD
Great article. The thing about a lot of transaction taxes, for Wall Street, banks, etc. is that they can be very small and easily quantified due to the computer-based systems used. But they would add up very fast and slow down "churning for profit" which is what the brokers do.
When banks have gone bust in my city, after the weekend, there's a new name on the door and business as usual, often w/most of the same employees. When a mom and pop outfit goes broke, a "For Rent" sign goes up and the scraps of the business are sold off.
I think this is like the federal gov't. A new team shows up with a new name but really it's business as usual.
Perhaps wishful thinking, but the G20's decision seems unsustainable. Economic demand is being eliminated, undermining hope of an economic recovery. Substituted for production is financial exchange, a market in abstractions. Constituent of GDP, when able to expand infinitely because unentropic, "growth" can be infinite at infinitely accelerating velocity. However, producing no tangible product, it is useless, revealing the falseness of GDP as an economic measure.
Transferring wealth from tangibles (public goods) to intangibles (financial exchanges), the overall standard of living of humanity will decline into a new feudalism. Memory of the French Revolution being embedded in popular culture, along with Marxism, unlike after the fall or Rome, an undemocratic empire for many preceding centuries, my suspicion is politicians in democracies are going to be tossed out on a regular basis over the next several years.
When the "lost decade" in Japan led to the defeat of the humorously named Liberal Democratic Party--which is neither liberal nor democratic--the traditionally politically more active populace in Europe and America are likely to respond in the same way, and more quickly, to the same economic situation. In my thinking, the only question is how the "democratic" representatives of the people became so disassociated from the people.
That's easy, money.
Nice play of words on several points!
That's it: The end game of the long generational class war that's been going on since many of us were children and before some of you were even born. Most Americans ignored it the entire time, figuring that as long as they could get enough credit to inhabit the fantasy world of the Hologram, everything would end up as hunky-dory as the stupid sitcoms most of us became addicted to in our childhoods.
But now there is no more credit. Only "austerities." And a final rigged push to transfer the rest of the available wealth into the hands of the very few.
I heard Naomi on Democracy Now this morning--she said the price tag for police security for this was 2 billion! Congratulations, Canadian taxpayers, that's one hell of a bill you are footing, in order to make sure the banksters were able to plot against us in peace.
The banksters figure now, that's it. The class war is over, and they won. But in the immortal words of Bluto from Animal House: Nothing is over until we decide it is! Time for counter offesives and the opening of new fronts.
Briggs Seekins
briggsseekins.wordpress.com
Survival today is a serious challenge and will become increasingly so. Families are fracturing under the downward economic pressures. Society is dissembling. We are in a process of collapse. Hardships, expected and unexpected are appearing in rapid succession. People are ignorant and fearful and will support anyone with a good story and a hollow solution. People will herd like sheep in fearful conformity. Freedom is being surrendered on the cheap. Is there any value in saving stupidity?
I have one hope for the deficit reduction.
No, I have no hope that it will entail cuts to the corporate scammers.
But I do hope that the suffering inflicted on the masses will induce them to get off their docile asses.
They need to sniff the Zyklon gas before they will fight for their lives.
From scribbling on the back of an envelope to a $1-billion bill to put on a meeting, and not even paid for by those attending the meeting, of course.
What a deal! What a country! Like they couldn't just meet up in a Holiday Inn or, for old-tyme style, in a typical mobster mansion in the Adirondacks or something, in secret? Al Capone and Meyer Lansky et all must be rolling over in their graves with envy.
And so I paraphrase "I could'a been a contenda!" with "I could'a been a banka!
These assholes could have had there stupid ass meeting online for $9.99. Instead, they had to parade their arrogance in front of the rest of us to show who has the muscle and who can waste billions while billions starve.
The G20 protests analyzed
After a weekend of burning cop cars, smashed windows, hundreds of arrests and a one billion dollar price tag, many are wondering exactly what the hell people were protesting about? It can be a little confusing at first glance when literally hundreds of thousands of people marched around the downtown core of Toronto displaying an eclectic mix of banners and slogans. Marxists, Socialists, Green Peace, the Ontario Labour Congress, People Against Poverty and dozens of other groups all marched hand in hand with seemingly differing messages. However all of these groups were united in at least one common goal; the G20 governments must place the public interest above those of the corporate driven, private agenda.
It’s a lofty goal and one that has been losing ground for the last 50 years. Under the auspices of ‘security’ and ‘economic austerity’, governments from around the world have continued to increase taxes while whittling away at our societies social and environmental safety nets. The U.S. now spends over 50% of its tax revenues on the military and security forces when no existential threat to the country exists. Prisons are being built and filled at a record pace. Our dependence on a rapidly disappearing supply of fossil fuels is virtually ignored while alternative sources of energy remain under funded. Our media has replaced informative news worthy stories with infotainment and the public continues to slide deeper into an ignorant apathy that is by far the greatest threat to democracy in the 21st century.
These are just some of the reasons that frustrated citizens of a historically peaceful country came out in droves to protest another colossal waste of taxpayer money while their worlds crumble around them. Poverty, the environment, an end to all wars or the dismantling of the corporate state were simply absent from the G20 leaders agenda when they met in Toronto. Instead it was a meeting of minds, each with their own private sponsors behind the scenes, who were urging them to strengthen the private sector globally at the expense of the bottom 99% of the citizenry. After all, did you hear any leader cry out for an increase in taxes for the banks, oil companies or other predatory multinationals? Did you hear any leader demand a massive cut to military expenditures? Or how about any leader addressing the imminent danger of global warming, fossil fuel consumption or even the current BP nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico? Instead we heard more of the same rhetoric about how we must all commit to reducing the deficits and national debts. This is simply code for saying that the general populace must be taxed to save the private sector even if it means slashing public benefits even more.
Many of the protestors were not really sure of the solution to their problems such as where the money would come from or how we can elect a government that truly represents the public sector, but all of the protestors knew that status quo is far more frightening that any threat posed by radical suicide bombers in faraway places or the dire warnings of an economic meltdown. Unfortunately the politicians ignored the protests from the two hundred thousand protestors on the weekend as they have ignored the millions of protestors before them. Instead rhetoric, a very private corporate agenda and arrogance ruled the day.
This is a really insightful post. "... it was a meeting of minds, each with their own private sponsors behind the scenes, who were urging them to strengthen the private sector globally at the expense of the bottom 99% of the citizenry....we heard more of the same rhetoric about how we must all commit to reducing the deficits and national debts. This is simply code for saying that the general populace must be taxed to save the private sector even if it means slashing public benefits even more."
You are exactly right; this is what this austerity rubbish is all about, not about trying to fulfill the 'demands of the market,' that are not even being made (and frankly, who cares if they do demand it; the FIRE sector produces nothing of value unless you admire weapons of mass destruction, and its time to stop making things so ridiculously easy for them).
We are all in for a very scary time, and these 'fiscally responsible' cuts will affect most of us in horrible ways. Not only that, but cutting the already tattered Social Safety Mosquito Net will cost many people here their lives.
The reason I am posting this reply is to draw attention to a research article published last Fri in the British Medical Journal, that I have not seen mentioned ANYWHERE by the U.S. press or anyone in Washington, either; if you live here, you will have to dig this one out. It is titled, "Budget crises, health, and social welfare programmes," in which the authors (David Stuckler, researcher; Sanjay Basu, physician;, Martin McKee, professor of European public health) looked at available data on government social welfare spending vs. mortality from selected causes in 15 European countries for a total of 25 years!
Yes, this is a VERY large data set. They found out that countries that deviated from their own average amount of social spending (per year) by reducing spending, had significantly more deaths; conversely, those that deviated from their own average by increasing spending had significantly fewer deaths! They also found out that a difference in spending of only $100 US dollars per capita makes a significant difference in mortality rate; from the paper: "The models constructed show that each additional $100 increase in social welfare spending has been associated with a 1.19% drop in all-cause mortality. Crucially, our findings were specific to social welfare spending; there was no observable protective effect associated with general government spending, which is understandable since military, prison, or similar spending would not be expected to have a visible public health effect." Similarly, an increase of spending of the same size was associated with a decrease of 1.2% in heart disease deaths, and a 2.8% decrease in alcohol-related deaths.
The wealthier countries generally comprised the group of low-death-rate countries, so what if this is a general wealth effect? The data argue that it is not. From the paper: "As in previous research, we found that higher GDP was indeed associated with lower mortality (each $100 increase in GDP was significantly associated with a 0.11% fall in all cause mortality). However, we also found that a comparable rise in social welfare spending was associated with over a sevenfold greater reduction in mortality than a similar magnitude rise in GDP (0.80% v 0.11%). Furthermore, when we adjusted for social welfare spending, the association of GDP with lower mortality was cut by about two thirds (from 0.28% to 0.11%). This means that the potential health benefits of increased wealth crucially depend not just on increasing income but on what fraction goes into social welfare spending from governments."
The low-death-rate countries also spend more on average in their national health care systems, so was that the reason for the findings? Again, probably not: "Table 3 shows that social spending was significantly correlated with mortality from diseases related to social circumstances (such as alcohol related deaths), but healthcare spending was not. Thus, although increases in social welfare spending overall are associated with reduced mortality from these conditions, the effect is due to spending on areas other than health. Future research should look at the effect of different types of social spending (employment versus housing for example). For now, this result indicates that some aspects of population health are more sensitive, in the short term, to spending on social support than on health care, although a caveat is necessary as these countries have not experienced changes in healthcare funding of the scale that might be expected to affect health." Please read those last 25 words again; it is not possible to know if reducing social spending is more dangerous to people than reducing health care spending BECAUSE NONE OF THE EURO COUNTRIES IN THE STUDY HAVE CUT HEALTHCARE ENOUGH FOR US TO FIND OUT!!! Think about what this study and its trends mean for those of us in the US< who have no broad national healthcare system at all! I hope everyone will read the original article at http://www.bmj.com/. You need to sign in and create a username & password to access the article, but it is totally free. Alternatively, there is a Reuters London short summary here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65N6PS20100624.
In all the G20 the Corporation has all but replaced the electorate as the true "deciders" of who will Rule and on who's behalf. While some might argue that this has always been the case, they have never been so open and overt about it. In the depression the Government rightfully feared the awakening masses which is why they created Social Security and pensions and other such Social Programs.
It interesting that in THIS economic Crisis they fear that same Public so little they announce that these Social programs are the very things they are going to cut.
The Financial Industry, the speculators and Corporations can crash and burn economies at will. They alone determine "The Winners and the losers". The Politicians wanting the GOOD LIFE (large homes a college education for all their children, servants and a high "net worth) WILL follow their dictates. To truly get a Government OF the people, the Corporate and Capitalist model has to be abandoned.
"...The Financial Industry, the speculators and Corporations can crash and burn economies at will...."
You hit the nail on the head. It IS a complex system. And it is all linked to money. 'Follow the money'.
For comprehensive insight into the abominable scheme check out:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
and
THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY"
>>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549 <<<
The G20 meeting has the wealthy whistling by the graveyard as they attempt to " rein in " the deep worldwide recession by emphasizing the fears of inflation. What a joke! The worry is deflation, everywhere, except for the rich who are out bargain-hunting with our money. The real estate bubble is spreading worldwide faster than STDs and will be much worse for our collective health. The idea of killing a vampire appeals to children of all ages but it is the stuff of profitable fiction. This is the G20 solution writ large: economic fiction and fear mixed in equal parts by the MSM. The real truth is that deflationary pressures will allow the rich to steal the natural resources of the 2nd and 3rd tier economies by dampening demand. This is the new " take it or leave it " option to capture/steal wealth. Applied across the worldwide spectrum it will hammer all individuals and enrich corporations and certain influence peddlers who will pick and choose winners/losers based on their compliance to outrageous monetary blackmail. The rich are insanely focused and truely insane. P.S. Please view the interview of Medea Benjamin on Democracy Now this weekend. Her trouble with Canadian authorities tells me that Border Security is all about keeping us here as political and economic prisoners: they hold us up and steal our last assets before we're allowed to leave our own country. The Fascists/Nazis were great teachers, afterall.
It does take awhile for it to sink in, doesn't it?
There has been a global financial coup d'état.
It is a fait accompli. We are pas de bol.
If we are not prepared to get all bloodied up over this, what's the point in being angry about it? When governments and their armies and the media are bought and paid for, by what means do "we the people" assert our agenda? Democracy is a sweet idea, but as a reality, until the rabble in Toronto is able to scare anybody, it is passè de mode.
Brilliant article as usual Miss Klein.
So whether we like it or not, this "new world order," it is, in-fact here, and anyone who doubts its existence, I do hope you are enjoying your cake, topped with layers of delectable fascist icing.
You see, the "world's wealthiest," these rapacious, evil, evil bastards, they don't give a tinkers dam about “We the People.” No longer do “we” have any say in the matter.
Also. please keep in mind that the Constitution, it ladies and gentleman is merely "a dam piece of paper."
The pertinent question that remains, where do we go from here? How do we break through this phony left-right, disaster capitalistic paradigm we reside, which is ruining "America." Remember that place? Or was it all just an illusion?
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
~President Thomas Jefferson, letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin (1802)
Re: Jefferson quote: great until the last 5 words. That is the problem with christian western civilization, which has infected the world: an insane religious racism that creates sociopaths that feel they have the right to conquer anything and anybody.
Had we taken the time to learn from the Native Americans and striven to combine the best of both worlds, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in today.
"Already, workers, pensioners and students have taken to the streets against austerity measures in Italy, Germany, France, Spain and Greece, often marching under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis." And they have plenty of suggestions for how to raise revenues to meet their respective budget shortfalls. "
They don't just take them to the streets. They discuss these issues all the time with the same dedication that the cornfed American electorate discusses ball games, stupid celebrities, and war heroes. The only US demonstrations that get full blown coverage are NRA nuts, anti-abortion nuts, Tea Partiers, pro-war hawks, religious bigots, and the rest of the Far Looney "Right" whose goal is to sell out and finish bleeding this country to death. In case some of you haven't been to Europe, I noticed that most young people there don't get hooked to iPods and stupid celebrity shows compared to the young in this country that have been conditioned into doing so. My relatives there and their friends were astonished that I was one of those less ignorant young Americans out there but I had to explain to them the difficulty of being like them at heart what with all the persecution hell from the lame brain Limbaugh dittoheads and the Obamabots warped up in their macho-egotistical mindset and/or apologizing for the status quo trying to sugarcoat it with words like "practical", "moderate", "pragmatic", etc...
P.S.: My relatives in Europe and their friends I met like this site and wished that most Americans would be like most people here. Maybe 50-100 years from now, there might just be an America that will know better than to subscribe to "too big to fail" or "we have to be practical and concede" stupidities. Until then, disaster capitalism is here to stay in the US and all I can tell these other nations is get out of the way while you still can before you're dragged into the US's black hole.
We dont have 50 - 100 years. If the human race doesnt make radical changes now we will likely slide into a Dark Age. Between resource depletion, global ecological degradation and climate change, we are in serious trouble. The combination of overpopulation AND overconsumption have caught up with us: it's either now or never.
The overconsumption part I can agree with. The overpopulation part is still debatable. The planet's population could be 1 billion and we would still be facing these problems. Yes, population will have to be addressed at and I think that there are humane ways of getting that done as well. I just don't like the way the neomalthusians and the upper class misuse population numbers as an excuse to prevent their economic policies from being known as the real culprits responsible for this mess.
I'm sure that's been the plan all along.
The questions are
1)What are we going to do about it?
2)How can we prevent the same kind of aggregation of wealth and power from ever occuring again?
One part of it might be a prolonged, extensive refusal to buy affiliated products and a prolonged refusal to work or to work well for their interests. I am not talking about a simple boycott, nor likely something that can be done absolutely. But the investments that these guys buy and sell all ultimately depend on someone's paying retain cash for at some point somewhere along the line. At that point, the entire chain of transactions depends on someone victim having to pony up to pay for the whole thing. Insofar as possible, one should avoid this.
Good article by Klein, and so many good posts by commondreamers, and I thank you all for commenting. Besides talking and writing about it and demonstrating at these ruling-elite meetings, and for some, getting arrested, beaten, or even killed, how are we going to turn the tide in our favor, stopping this theft of everything we've worked for?
Is it time for all working people, to organize--not for a demonstration, but to shut down commerce--shut down business--including farm labor--until countries can't function, due to a general strike of the workers. There are more of us than there are of them.
"Take to the streets, withhold your labor." (peacefully)
You don't even have to go out in the street. Stay home, fraternize with friends, work in the garden, read a book, etc. But nobody, with the exception of certain professions: doctors, nurses, etc, goes to work. No airline pilots either. Ask the United Airlines pilots what the bankruptcy court judge did to their pensions.
This type of action (the general strike) requires a great deal of sacrifice and hardship, but nothing was ever won without being hard fought for. What others before us have done, in order to give us a decent standard of living, we must continue with the struggle to retake what the capitalist class is taking away from us to enrich their insatiable desire for more wealth--more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime.
Another call for a general strike. This comes up periodically, and maybe 1% even know what it means or is remotely interested. I'm totally supportive, and have been for about 30 years, but try getting that 99% to pay attention to an argument for having a general strike. It'll be like explaining the complexities of quantum physics to a kindergarten class.
I hear you Ephraim, and feel likewise. I think we've tried everything else so far, starting with the biggest anti-war demonstrations in human history in 2002, and we have gotten nowhere from it. If somebody has a better plan, I'm willing to listen.
A lot of folks are organizing and grouping together in their respective communities for sustainable living, and "getting off the grid." This is commendable, and will eventually become a necessity for survival, but even these types of systems are vulnerable, if the ruling-elite decide to interfere.
When Raygun fired the air traffic controllers, I spoke and wrote about a general strike until the PATCO workers were reinstated and made whole, and some of my fellow co-workers called me a commie. ???