ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE: politics

UK Commits to Less Welfare, More Warfare

<a href="http://theantimedia.org/team/michaela/" target="_blank">Michaela Whitton</a> 
July 16, 2015
(<a href="http://theantimedia.org/" target="_blank">ANTIMEDIA</a>) What’s that noise? It’s the U.K. drums of war beating.
Less than a week after George Osborne’s emergency budget declared a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/11/uk-young-fairness-george-osborne-budget" target="_blank">war on young people</a>, Britain suddenly has enough funds to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33358267" target="_blank">re-consider</a> a bombing campaign in Syria.
David Cameron visited U.K. drone base RAF Waddington on Monday, backing up his <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33500006" target="_blank">commitment</a> to spend more on drones, spy planes, and special forces—which, according to the latest terror hysteria, is “<a href="http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/David-Cameron-visits-RAF-Waddington-say-Britain/story-26890665-detail/story.html" target="_blank">vital in keeping us safe</a>.”
The use of British drones began in Afghanistan in 2007.  More recently, drones and Tornado jets carried out over <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-secretary-thanks-uk-military-personnel-tackling-isil" target="_blank">70 strikes</a> against Islamic State militants in Iraq, also providing support for the Iraqi army and Kurdish Peshmerga forces. So far in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/21/uk-to-fly-military-drones-over-syria">Syria</a>, U.K.  drones have been limited to a surveillance role.
“As Prime Minister, I will always put the national security of our country first. That’s why it is right that we spend 2% of our GDP on defence because this investment helps to keep us safe. It has only been possible because of the difficult decisions we have made to ensure a strong and secure economy.” David Cameron <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/12/spend-more-on-drones-chiefs-told_n_7781446.html" target="_blank">said</a> on Monday.
Let that sink in.
The difficult decisions he is referring to must be the £12 billion worth of welfare cuts, literally hounding Britain’s poor to <a href="http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/one-in-five-benefit-related-deaths-involved-sanctions-admits-dwp/" target="_blank">death</a>.
But do not despair, Cameron wants to make sure Britain is safe in a ”<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33500006" target="_blank">very dangerous and unstable world</a>” and is convinced Islamic extremism is at the root of the problem. He plans to make sure Britain has the equipment to deal with the threat at “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33500006" target="_blank">its source</a>.” Oh no—not that old sketch! We are all familiar with Britain’s exemplary record of dealing with threats at the source, namely, the mass destruction in <a href="http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/03/23/isis-the-unintended-consequences-of-the-us-led-war-on-iraq/" target="_blank">Iraq</a>, <a href="http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/libya-where-humanitarian-intervention-turned-into-its-exact-opposite" target="_blank">Libya</a> and <a href="http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-britain-spent-40bn-suffering-humiliating-defeat-in-afghanistan-while-trying-to-impress-the-us" target="_blank">Afghanistan</a>.
A <a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR446/RAND_RR446.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> produced by the RAND corporation clearly outlines that aerial interventions do nothing to stop terrorist organisations and are more likely to escalate conflict. Since when does dropping bombs make the world a safer place? The hypocrisy of Britain contemplating air strikes on Syria while <a href="http://theantimedia.org/middle-east-burns-business-usual-uk-arms-trade/" target="_blank">arming</a> countries like Saudi Arabia—the largest exporter of extremist ideology and mercenary fighters in the region—is mind blowing.
In messy, cruel wars that have no regard for civilian casualties, the West could be  engaging in diplomacy and humanitarian aid, working towards alleviating suffering on a longer term scale. Instead, the aim seems to be to get the public to buy the idea that dropping bombs on other sovereign countries will protect U.K. citizens from “terror.”
<hr />
This article (<a href="http://theantimedia.org/uk-commits-to-less-welfare-more-warfare" target="_blank">UK Commits to Less Welfare, More Warfare</a>) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a> license with attribution to the author and <a href="http://theantimedia.org" target="_blank">theAntiMedia.org</a>. Tune in! <a href="http://ucy.tv/Default.aspx?PID=124&amp;T=Anti-Media%20Radio%22%20target=%22_blank" target="_blank">Anti-Media Radio</a> airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: <a href="mailto:edits@theantimedia.org">edits@theantimedia.org</a>.
<a href="https://twitter.com/TheAntiMedia1" data-show-count="false" data-size="large">Follow @TheAntiMedia1</a>
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa UK Commits to Less Welfare, More Warfare

Michaela Whitton July 16, 2015 (ANTIMEDIA) What’s that noise? It’s the U.K. drums of war beating. Less than a week after George Osborne’s emergency budget declared a war on young people, Britain suddenly has enough funds to re-consider a bombing camp…

Pizza Employee Takes Smoke Break and Saves Kidnapped Child

<a href="https://twitter.com/thesmgibson" target="_blank">SM Gibson</a> 
July 16, 2015
(<a href="http://www.theantimedia.org" target="_blank">ANTIMEDIA</a>) On July 9th, Courtney Best was clocked in for her shift at Papa Murphy’s Pizza in Corpus Christi, Texas when she felt the itch that smokers know all to well. Little did the 26-year-old know at the time, her sudden urge for this particular cigarette was about to save a child’s life.
Typically, when Courtney needed to satisfy her nicotine cravings at work, she would step out back for a quick smoke, but for some reason, on this day, she decided to light-up out front.
“I stepped outside, I was standing by the trashcan, and I seen a white car pull up, and I just happen to take my phone with me, cause we don’t look at our phones at work, and I looked down and I saw ‘white Dodge Avenger Amber Alert,’ and I was like, ‘Nah, that’s not him,'” <a href="http://www.kristv.com/story/29516418/pizza-shop-employee-helps-rescue-kidnapped-child" target="_blank">Courtney told KRIS TV</a> in Corpus Christi. “The man was walking across the parking lot looking at me … cause I was the only person out here, with the little boy and the little boy looked scared and I was like no, that’s not him.”
The Amber Alert was issued for 7-year-old Nicolas Gomez who had been <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-pizza-shop-employee-helps-police-track-down-kidnapping-suspect/" target="_blank">abducted</a> the day before in nearby Alice, Tx.
As Courtney watched the pair walk into a neighboring dollar store, her gut told her that she had to do something. “My stomach started knotting up, so I was like, ahh, I’m gonna go, I’m gonna check and see,” Courtney said.
Thinking on her feet, Courtney ran to her car and nonchalantly drove past the vehicle that the man and the young boy had emerged from. As she got a clear view of the license plate number, she confirmed that it was a match.
In disbelief, Courtney immediately picked up her cell phone and dialed 911. By this time though, the man and his victim were already back in the white Dodge and were driving away.
“And I’m on the phone with 911 and I tell her, look, the plates match up, he’s turning left on Staples but I’m gonna follow him.”
Luckily, police officers caught up to the suspect and he was <a href="http://www.caller.com/news/local-news/crime/amber-alert-police-search-for-missing-alice-boy-suspect" target="_blank">arrested</a> on a $100,000 kidnapping warrant obtained by detectives.
Nicolas is now back with his mother in Alice and 29-year-old Channing Eloy Galbraith is being held at Jim Wells County Jail on charges related to kidnapping.
As for Courtney, she admitted that she never paid much attention to Amber Alerts before, but now <a href="http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-pizza-worker-takes-smoke-break-and-saves-kidnapped-child/ar-AAcV3VE" target="_blank">states</a> that she will definitely be on high alert the next time her phone signals a missing child.
<a title="KRISTV.com | Continuous News Coverage | Corpus Christi" href="http://www.kristv.com">KRISTV.com | Continuous News Coverage | Corpus Christi</a>
<hr />
This article (<a href="http://www.theantimedia.org/pizza-employee-takes-smoke-break-and-saves-kidnapped-child" target="_blank">Pizza Employee Takes Smoke Break and Saves Kidnapped Child</a>) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a> license with attribution to the author and <a href="http://theantimedia.org" target="_blank">theAntiMedia.org</a>. Tune in! <a href="http://ucy.tv/Default.aspx?PID=124&amp;T=Anti-Media%20Radio%22%20target=%22_blank" target="_blank">Anti-Media Radio</a> airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: <a href="mailto:edits@theantimedia.org">edits@theantimedia.org</a>.
<a href="https://twitter.com/TheAntiMedia1" data-show-count="false" data-size="large">Follow @TheAntiMedia1</a>
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa Pizza Employee Takes Smoke Break and Saves Kidnapped Child

SM Gibson July 16, 2015 (ANTIMEDIA) On July 9th, Courtney Best was clocked in for her shift at Papa Murphy’s Pizza in Corpus Christi, Texas when she felt the itch that smokers know all to well. Little did the 26-year-old know at the time, her sudden …

City Cuts All Ties With 5 Big Banks Over Corruption Charges

<a href="http://www.occupy.com/author/matt-stannard/" target="_blank">Matt Stannard</a> 
July 15, 2015
(<a href="http://www.occupy.com/" target="_blank">OCCUPY.COM</a>) It’s hard being a big private bank these days. Ongoing awareness of the <a href="http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/06/goldman-sachs-doesnt-have-clean-hands-in-greece-crisis/" target="_blank">role that Goldman Sachs played in the Greek debt crisis</a>; that Greek voters <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/greek-feferendum-no-vote-why-young-people" target="_blank">said no</a> to Europe’s harsh austerity demands; <a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideas/big-ideas/dirty-deals" target="_blank">recent revelations</a> of unreasonably high fees and interest rates for lending to municipalities, and the role of <a href="http://www.occupy.com/article/material-responsibility-what-banks-did-baltimore">big banks in the Baltimore crisis</a> and <a href="http://www.occupy.com/article/detroits-bankruptcy-plan-adjustment-latest-giveaway-big-banks">Detroit bankruptcy</a> all suggest that irresponsible finance ruins millions of lives.
And then there are the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/business/dealbook/5-big-banks-to-pay-billions-and-plead-guilty-in-currency-and-interest-rate-cases.html?_r=0" target="_blank">six banks</a> that manipulated exchange rates between euros and dollars and manipulated LIBOR, which sets the “benchmark” for what banks charge one another.
In May, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS Group AG pled guilty to felonies. Swiss Bank had cooperated with authorities early on, and was ultimately not charged. The banks face collective fines of a little over $5 billion – paltry in relation to the money they handle and the money they manipulated. But while big banks continue to ruin communities and personal lives with light impunity, in some cases the people are fighting back.
Santa Cruz Stands Up
In California, Santa Cruz County Supervisor Ryan Coonery has written books on capitalism and is a founder of Next Space Coworking, a company specializing in shared workspace. He’s no revolutionary, nor an enemy of the free market. He doesn’t throw bricks. But when the U.S. Department of Justice announced on May 20 that most of the wrongdoer banks were pleading guilty to felonies, Coonery prioritized local over global, and working people over corporate profits.
Spurred by a growing interest among many in Santa Cruz for economic reform, Coonery <a href="http://sccounty01.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/BDS/Govstream2/Bdsvdata/non_legacy_2.0/agendas/2015/20150609-659/PDF/029-1.pdf" target="_blank">requested</a> that the board “not do new business for a period of five years with Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS as specified, and further direct that the County unwind existing relationships with these five banks to the greatest extent feasible.”
According to <a href="http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/where-is-the-money-going/santa-cruz-county-slashes-business-with-five-big-felonious-banks-150707?news=856899%5D" target="_blank">commentator Ken Broder</a>, Coonery was specifically reacting to the way the banks had been found to have “messed with hundreds of billions of dollars a day in transactions for five years, right through the financial meltdown… The banks made untold billions using a private electronic chatroom to manipulate the spot market’s exchange rate between euros and dollars.”
From the beginning, the crux of the move was symbolic. “We currently don’t use these banks for our day to day banking and if that contract comes up in the next five years, these banks would be excluded from applying,” Coonery told me recently. Although Santa Cruz has purchased “commercial paper” (short-term unsecured promissory notes) from some of the banks, “the County Treasurer under this new policy will no longer do so,” he explained.
Local sustainable economic activity is important to Coonery, who said he’ll still scrutinize the banks even after the five-year ban ends. “I still have a preference to investing our funds locally,” he added.
“I sponsored a policy when I was the Mayor of Santa Cruz to have the City put its money in local financial institutions to spur the economy. However, if these banks have cleaned up their act and not committed more crimes, they can be considered for our investment pool again.”
Amanda Robinson, vice chair of the Santa Cruz County Democratic Party, was also instrumental in making the Supervisors’ decision happen. Once people started talking about it, she said, the community realized it was a no-brainer – and by passing the measure 5-0, Santa Cruz sent a clear message that the county is in control of its money.
“The Supervisors can make a strong point and show disapproval with our dollars,” she said. “We will no longer put up with unethical and illegal banking practices. I hope other cities and counties will follow our lead and remove their monies from banks that don’t benefit local communities.”
While Robinson is happy the decision has gotten <a href="http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-news/santa-cruz-local-news/6718-rebuild-the-art-banks-for-nothing.html" target="_blank">national publicity</a>, she believes the conversation shouldn’t end with the supervisors’ action. Like Coonery, she wants local investment.
“We are all aware of the benefits that investing with local banks can have for a community,” Robinson said, and “It would also be nice to see other ‘bad banks’ added to [the] list, i.e. Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Bank of America.”
The Power of Local Politics
Why not envision that? Supervisors play a uniquely powerful role in local affairs, and now they might be a cornerstone for the coming pushback by municipal governments against big banks. Supervisors aren’t bound by separation of powers concerns like those that characterize federal and state government. In <a href="http://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0" target="_blank">California and elsewhere</a>, “the Board of Supervisors is both the legislative and the executive authority of the county. It also has quasi-judicial authorities.”
Combine that with a strong mandate from citizens and you have a county ready to fight. “I’m very lucky to represent a community that very much believes in standing up for what is right,” Coonery said, “even if it is against very powerful interests.” He has also read the <a href="http://rooseveltinstitute.org/policy-and-ideas/big-ideas/dirty-deals" target="_blank">reports</a> about banks’ unreasonably high service fees and interest rates that have sparked so much investigative interest of late – and says his eyes are now wide open. “I’ve just become aware of these efforts and am looking at what we can implement in Santa Cruz County,” he said.
In the meantime, banishing the banks is a small but important step. More important than the actual financial ripple caused by Santa Cruz’s decision might be what it’s able to show other municipalities considering similar action. Activists should learn about the power and structure of their counties’ supervisory boards. They have all the power except judicial power.
The enthusiasm propelling Santa Cruz reflects a broader realization: that firm local actions are part of a larger, growing vision to retake public control in a world that increasingly seems wholly colonized by capital. Mark Karlin of Buzzflash/Truthout <a href="http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/santa-cruz-county-won-t-do-business-with-big-banks-that-act-like-crooks" target="_blank">points out</a> that in the long-term, “the current banking system needs to be completely restructured…[and] the creation of public banks across the U.S., based on the model in North Dakota, is a more desirable long-term goal – but for the moment, governmental entities severing their ties to Wall Street would be a salutary step.”
Amanda Robinson agrees. “We have to start somewhere,” she said.
<hr />
This article (<a title="City Cuts All Ties With 5 Big Banks Over Corruption Charges" href="http://theantimedia.org/city-cuts-all-ties-with-5-big-banks-over-corruption-charges/">City Cuts All Ties With 5 Big Banks Over Corruption Charges</a>) originally appeared on <a href="http://www.occupy.com/article/we-dont-need-your-dirty-business-santa-cruz-washes-its-hands-felon-banks/" target="_blank">occupy.com</a> and was used with permission. Tune in! The <a href="http://ucy.tv/Default.aspx?PID=124&T=Anti-Media%20Radio" target="_blank">Anti-Media radio show</a> airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos: <a href="mailto:edits@theantimedia.org" target="_blank">edits@theantimedia.org</a>.
Matt Stannard is Policy Director for Commonomics USA and is on the Board of the Public Banking Institute.
<a href="https://twitter.com/TheAntiMedia1" data-show-count="false" data-size="large">Follow @TheAntiMedia1</a>
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa City Cuts All Ties With 5 Big Banks Over Corruption Charges

Matt Stannard July 15, 2015 (OCCUPY.COM) It’s hard being a big private bank these days. Ongoing awareness of the role that Goldman Sachs played in the Greek debt crisis; that Greek voters said no to Europe’s harsh austerity demands; recent revelation…

UK Government Wants to Ban WhatsApp and All Other Encrypted Communications

The U.K. government is eager to expand already extensive spying powers to ban iMessage, Whatsapp, and Snapchat because the government cannot bypass their encryption features. The proposed ban was added to a revived version of a previously repealed British surveillance bill.
Cameron first indicated his advocacy of the ban following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January, justifying it by <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance-plans-9973035.html" target="_blank">asking</a>—without a hint of embarrassment—“In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which […] we cannot read?” He quickly answered his own question: “‘<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter" target="_blank">No, we must not</a>.’”
Cameron’s suggestion was part of a larger push to revive the sweeping Communications Data Bill, which detractors commonly refer to as the “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/27/security-services-investigatory-powers-bill" target="_blank">Snooper’s Charter.</a>”
By May, the government <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/27/security-services-investigatory-powers-bill" target="_blank">had announced</a> it would introduce an investigatory powers bill that extended the powers granted in the Communications Data Bill and strengthened the government’s ability to engage in bulk data collection. The Home Office <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/27/security-services-investigatory-powers-bill" target="_blank">claimed</a> it would “better equip law enforcement and intelligence agencies to meet their key operational requirements” by allowing them to monitor communications more invasively.
Now, the bill is <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter" target="_blank">pushing forward</a>. It includes a provision to ban WhatsApp, iMessage, and Snapchat “to stop people from sending any form of encrypted messages.” The bill also requires internet companies to keep full records of all communications on their platforms. This includes Facebook and Google, which would be required to hand over whatever information the government wants, when it wants it.
In arguing in favor of the expanded powers, Cameron <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter" target="_blank">said</a>, “We have always been able, on the authority of the Home Secretary, to sign a warrant and intercept a phone call, a <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter#" target="_blank">mobile phone</a> call or other media communications.” <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32958632" target="_blank">According to Big Brother Watch</a>, British police file a request for communications data every two minutes. Their requests are granted 96% of the time by the Home Office, a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/06/fisa-court-nsa-spying-opinion-reject-request" target="_blank">rate almost as high</a> as that of American “rubber stamp” FISA courts. Like Cameron, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/16/fbi-director-attacks-tech-companies-encryption" target="_blank">American officials have criticized encryption</a> as a danger to national security.
By banning all forms of communication exempt from government surveillance, the U.K. government is straddling a dangerous line between “national security,” as it claims to bolster, and the basic privacy rights of its citizens. Many would argue it has long since crossed that line, as intensive surveillance measures have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/7671046.stm" target="_blank">been in place for years</a>. Cameron <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/590061/WhatsApp-UK-Ban-Weeks-Snoopers-Charter" target="_blank">pontificated</a> this week that “…the question we must ask ourselves is whether, as technology develops, we are content to leave a safe space – a new means of communication – for terrorists to communicate with each other.”
Not everyone in the U.K. agrees with the prime minister’s privacy-versus-security dichotomy. “We take no issue with the use of intrusive surveillance powers per se – targeted surveillance can play an important part in preventing and detecting serious crime,” said Liberty, a human rights and civil liberties advocacy group in the U.K. “But the current regime just doesn’t provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that such surveillance is conducted lawfully, and in a necessary and proportionate way.”
Former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who helped to block the previous version of the Communications Data Bill when he was in office, echoed a similar sentiment about the impending new policy.
“It’s not harmless. It would be a new and dramatic shift in the relationship between the state and the individual,” he said.
“People who blithely say they are happy for their communications to be open to scrutiny because they have ‘nothing to hide’ have failed to grasp something fundamental about open democratic societies: We do not make ourselves safer by making ourselves less free.”
Conservatives in Parliament are expected to pass the bill (<a href="http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/10/whatsapp-snapchat-and-imessage-could-be-banned-under-new-laws-5289099/" target="_blank">previously killed by liberal Democrats</a> in the previous administration) with enforcement as early as 2016, even as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/uk-governments-surveillance-plans-could-put-citizens-and-entire-internet-at-risk-argue-leading-computing-experts-10373940.html" target="_blank">computing experts warn</a> the policies may enable the very terrorists they are intended to thwart.
<hr />
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa UK Government Wants to Ban WhatsApp and All Other Encrypted Communications

Jeb Bush Proves He Has No F*cking Clue About US Economics

Jeb Bush, one of the leading Republican candidates for the presidency, is in the news again—and not in a good way. During a meeting with the editorial board of the New Hampshire Union Leader, he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/08/jeb-bush-people-need-to-work-longer-hours-means-they-need-full-time-not-part-time-work/" target="_blank">reportedly</a> said the following:
“My aspiration for the country — and I believe we can achieve it — is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see…Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.”
There are so many delusional statements in this paragraph that one is hard-pressed to know how to make sense of it. First, the problem is not the productivity of the American workforce. The <a href="http://www.bls.gov/bls/productivity.htm" target="_blank">BLS</a> (Bureau of Labor Statistics) says that “Labor productivity measures output per hour of labor.” According to the chart below, the United States has the <a href="http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/industry-and-services/oecd-compendium-of-productivity-indicators-2015_pdtvy-2015-en#page23" target="_blank">third highest productive work force</a> among similarly advanced countries. Only Norway and Luxembourg have a more productive workforce than the U.S. among OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries.
<a href="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OECD_Productivity.jpg"><img alt="OECD_Productivity" class=" size-medium wp-image-18865 alignright" height="204" src="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OECD_Productivity-300x204.jpg" width="300" /></a>If the American workforce is third in productivity among advanced economies, more productivity will not to solve the ills—<a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/" target="_blank">wage stagnation</a> being the biggest one—that beset the American workforce.
Second, the decline in workforce participation (labor force participation rate) is not the problem that Jeb Bush and the <a href="https://www.gop.com/rnc-statement-on-june-2015-jobs-report/?" target="_blank">Republicans</a> want to make it out to be. As the chart below shows, labor force participation peaked in April 2000 at 67.3% and has been declining ever since. In June of 2015, it stood at 62.6%. If the decline was due to poor economic policies on the part of President Obama, then Jeb Bush must explain why it declined under the policies of his brother, President George W. Bush as well.
<a href="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Labor-Participation.jpg"><img alt="Labor Participation" class=" size-medium wp-image-18866 alignleft" height="196" src="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Labor-Participation-300x196.jpg" width="300" /></a>The majority of economists who analyzed the the problem of declining labor force participation found the cause to be structural and not in the control of a certain person or a certain institution. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/" target="_blank">FactCheck.org</a> suggested three reasons for the decline:
“1) The aging of baby boomers. A lower percentage of older Americans choose to work than those who are middle-aged. And so as baby boomers approach retirement age, it lowers the labor force participation rate.
2) A decline in working women. The labor force participation rate for men has been declining since the 1950s. But for a couple decades, a rapid rise in working women more than offset that dip. Women’s labor force participation exploded from nearly 34 percent in 1950 to its peak of 60 percent in 1999. But since then, women’s participation rate has been ‘displaying a pattern of slow decline.’
3) More young people are going to college. As BLS noted, ‘Because students are less likely to participate in the labor force, increases in school attendance at the secondary and college levels and, especially, increases in school attendance during the summer, significantly reduce the labor force participation rate of youths.”
All three reasons for the decline in labor force participation are outside the control of Jeb Bush or any other Republican or Democratic candidate running for office. These are structural problems that cannot be solved by adopting one policy over another.
If the U.S. workforce is productive and the declining labor force participation rate is not reversible through government action, then what is the cause for the income stagnation that Jeb Bush correctly identifies?
The chart below shows the relationship between compensation (wages and benefits) and productivity in the U.S. since 1948. Between 1948 and 1973, hourly compensation tracked improvement in worker productivity. The productivity trace line increased in an almost equal amount to the compensation and wage trace line. Basically, as U.S. workers became more productive, they received a compensation that is somewhat in line with the improvement in productivity. In other words, corporations were willing to share more of their profits that came by way of productivity with their workers.
<a href="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/productivity_compensation.jpg"><img alt="productivity_compensation" class=" size-medium wp-image-18867 alignleft" height="187" src="http://theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/productivity_compensation-300x187.jpg" width="300" /></a>In contrast, from 1973 to 2013, worker productivity increased by 74.4%%, but compensation increased by only 9.2%. Put differently, compensation and productivity diverged from each other. This has had a very damaging effect on the wage <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/" target="_blank">growth of 90% of Americans</a>. Due to changes in the taxation system and the trading system (corporate trade agreements), American corporations were no longer sharing the fruits of productivity with the working class and were either <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-companies-are-stashing-2-1-trillion-overseas-to-avoid-taxes" target="_blank">moving profits overseas</a> or passing on the profits to CEOs with massive compensation packages. The <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/" target="_blank">CEO-to-worker compensation ratio</a> increased from 20:1 in the early 1970s to 303.4:1 in 2014.
The American working class is one of the most productive in the world. Increasing its productivity will not help improve its stagnant income as long as the profits from it accrue overwhelmingly to corporations. Many would argue that corporations should be incentivized—through the tax system and corporate trade agreements—to share rising rates of productivity with the workers, as they were between 1947 and 1979. These were the years of shared prosperity that made the United States the envy of the world.
<hr />
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa Jeb Bush Proves He Has No F*cking Clue About US Economics

Why Reviving Glass-Steagall Won’t Stop Megabanks from Destroying the Economy AGAIN

Senators Elizabeth Warren and John McCain have revived a bill to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which would mandate the ostensible protection offered by a clear partition between commercial and investment banks.
Enacted in 1933 after the crash of 1929, <a href="https://archive.org/stream/FullTextTheGlass-steagallActA.k.a.TheBankingActOf1933/1933_01248_djvu.txt" target="_blank">Glass-Steagall</a> was partially repealed in 1999 by the <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-106publ102/html/PLAW-106publ102.htm" target="_blank">Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act</a> (GLB)—which led to the persistent perception that GLB caused the financial crisis of 2008-2009. As Greece faces grinding austerity and China’s markets crumble, Glass-Steagall seems to be the prudent, logical course—or does it?
Traditional banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that allow deposits and grant loans would be prohibited from riskier investment practices like derivatives speculation, hedge funds, and the like. Any affiliation of traditional banks with companies that engage in high-risk investment would likewise be forbidden under the <a href="http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/Glass_Steagall_Act_of_2015.pdf" target="_blank">21st Century Glass-Steagall Act</a>.
“Despite the progress we’ve made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten our economy,” explained Warren in a statement. “The biggest banks are collectively much larger than they were before the crisis, and they continue to engage in dangerous practices that could once again crash our economy.”
According to Public Citizen, Glass-Steagall’s <a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/pressroomredirect.cfm?ID=5584" target="_blank">broad support</a> not only includes “numerous scholars and bankers,” but has also garnered the favorable attention of several high-profile figures. In addition to Warren and McCain, Senators Angus King and Maria Cantwell are co-sponsoring the proposed legislation. Over 700,000 citizens’ signatures calling for the return of regulation are indicative of extensive public approval. Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley also support a return to more cautious banking, but perhaps most noteworthy in the list of prominent supporters are John Reed and Sanford Weill—the creators of Citigroup.
“These veteran bankers understand from experience that mixing these businesses defied prudent management,” noted Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate for the Congress Watch division of Public Citizen.
Though advocates tend to view regulatory reinstatement akin to a panacea, the bill’s own fact sheet cautions it, alone, will not end “Too Big to Fail” banks. What it can do is move “the financial institutions in the right direction by making them smaller and safer.” These downsized banks “will not be able to rely on federal depository insurance as a safety-net for their high-risk activities. Although some financial institutions might be large, they would no longer be intertwined with depository banks, reducing the implicit government guarantee of bailout.”
Impassioned pleas to reapply Glass-Steagall’s regulated dividing line have been ongoing since the market took a nosedive in 2008—matched every step of the way by vociferous opposition.
On November 12, 2012—the exact date of the thirteenth anniversary of the GLB’s repeal of Glass-Steagall—Forbes published a scathing <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/" target="_blank">critique</a> of bank regulation proponents. Though emphatically pro-capitalist from beginning to end, the op-ed contains several crucial points that necessitate consideration. It states:
“There is zero evidence [that GLB] unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagall’s restrictions. Even President Obama has recently recognized that ‘there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.”
The article explains that FDIC-insured, traditional banks were not affected in the collapse by any stipulations that Glass-Steagall would have otherwise prevented, adding that “[t]heir problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securities—investments they had always been free to engage in. GLB didn’t cause the financial crisis . . . “
With this factual context—and considering the overwhelming desire to rein in fear with a quick fix—21st Century Glass-Steagall might as well be the garden hose attempting to put out a three-alarm fire.
As usual, the government is offering the comfort of a familiar name—instead of an actual solution ahead of possible disaster.
<hr />
-- Delivered by <a href="http://feed43.com/">Feed43</a> service

media politics usa Why Reviving Glass-Steagall Won’t Stop Megabanks from Destroying the Economy AGAIN