More on securing the oligarchy

Posted by on
What are the odds  of an American child earning more as an adult than his or her parents earned at the same age?  Researchers say that rising income inequality explains 70% of the steady decline in absolute mobility from the baby boom generation to the millennials.  Earnings for typical Americans have stagnated while those for the richest Americans have soared.    The remaining 30% is down to slow economic growth.  Barely 2 in 5 men born in the mid-1980s grew up to earn as much, at 30, as their fathers did at 30, according to a group of economists and sociologists from Harvard and the Univ of Calif, Berkeley.  Anything Trump does will not only not improve this situation.  Indeed, his proposed tax changes  would benefit high earners disproportionately.
Meanwhile  new research by Thomas Pickety and Emmanuel Saez shows that the bottom 50% of US income earners only gained 1% in earnings from 1962 to 2014, after adjusting for inflation.  From 1980 to 2014 nearly 70% of income gains went to the top 10%
This is extraordinarily bad for the societal future of the United States.  The political instability that Trump has ushered in, and the lack of anyone of any note on the Democratic side to counter the damage, make the future gloomy.   The idea of the American Dream is not yet dead, but Trump, entertainer of the masses and closet clincher of the oligarchy, will surely not turn things round.
Well, do you think he ever intended to?

Heroin deaths surpass gun homicides for the first time

Posted by on
Opiod deaths passed the 30,000 mark in the US in 2015, an increase of nearly 5000 deaths from 2014. Deaths from drugs like fentanyl rose by 75% from 2014 to 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and for the first time there were more deaths from heroin than from the traditional opiod painkillers, such as hydrocodone and oxycodone.  In the late 2000s, when States tried to crack down on the prescriptions for painkillers , the result was that the supply went underground.  Serious addicts apparently take a combination of illicit drugs, along with alcohol. Opiod addiction can be treated with a substance called naloxone, but it seems it is not sufficiently available to counteract the huge increase in opiod use.  Congress, doing something useful for a change, did pass a bill making $1 billion available to treatment and prevention, but it is thought by many that arrest for the  use of the illicit drugs is standing in the way of reversing the epidemic.  Criminalization and stigma makes people hide up their addiction (statistics from the Washington Post December 9, 2016).
What I would like to know is whether taking these drugs is a sign of genuine physical pain, or whether the problem is, basically, one of joblessness, hopelessness and wanted to utterly tune out, sometimes permanently.  If there is truth in this, it adds a new dimension to the dreadful economic and morale crisis among so many formerly middle class people.

Drain the swamp?

Posted by on
There is nothing wrong with lobbying – it is part of our democratic right to make our point of view heard.  It is quite another matter the way huge lobbying law firms have thrived on the twisting of the system to benefit big corporations, the super-rich, and a variety of seedy foreign interests.   Even I half believed and applauded Trump during the election campaign.  He said he wanted to “drain the swamp ” in Washington DC.  Everyone thought he was referring to the lobbyists, who champion  anti-democratic, crony capitalism,  but is regarded euphemistically, as “free speech”.  In an interview with CBS in June, Trump said he would have “no problem” banning lobbyists and major donors from working in his administration. His turnaround days after his election has been stark.
A tsunami of lobbying is currently consuming the capital, not only proposals to favor rich people and corporations with tax breaks , but stripping away regulations and  angling to get business-friendly officials in key posts.   Meanwhile, at least a half dozen major Washington lobbyists have been formally appointed. Overseeing “energy independence” is Michael Catanzaro, a longtime lobbyist for oil and gas firms including Hess Corp., Noble Energy Inc. and Devon Energy Corp. Mr. Catanzaro also served as an energy adviser to former president George W. Bush’s re-election campaign. Mike McKenna, who is overseeing the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, lobbies on behalf of Southern Co., Dow Chemical Co., and Koch Industries—a firm owned by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who have long funded groups skeptical of climate change. Michael Torrey, who lobbies on behalf of food and agriculture companies, will oversee the agriculture team. Martin Whitmer, who lobbies on behalf of transportation companies including the Association of American Railroads and the National Asphalt Pavement Association, is heading the “transportation and infrastructure” team.
One lobbyist is quoted in the Washington Post as saying  “We are not going to have an administration that has a disgust and dislike for the business community”.  This is a striking comment.  Because the Obama Administration introduced many new regulations does not indicate  a “dislike for the business community”.  These things are designed to offer a level playing field and to protect the ordinary consumer.  They are probably not perfect, but are a sign of a civilised society.  Contrary to first impressions, Trump is welcoming special interest lobbyists, whose proposals, he thinks, will boost the economy.   Unlikely!

Sign of the times

Posted by on

The Oxford English Dictionary picks a word of the year every year.  This year it has chosen “post- truth”, defined as an adjective “relating to or denoting circumstances in which the objective facts are less influential  in shaping public opinion than appeals to the emotions and personal beliefs”.  This obviously relates to Brexit and the American election.  Usually the dictionary teams in the UK and the USA pick different words, but this year they both chose the same word.

Sad, isn’t it?  We were (are) bombarded with stuff that is blatantly misleading, derogatory and untrue, and people believe it because they are ready and willing to believe it, such is the division and anger stalking both countries.

 

 

 

Military aid to Israel

Posted by on

“I support Israel,” says Jeff Jacoby, “which is why I don’t support US aid to Israel. That might seem a non sequitur, but it makes perfect sense. For decades, the traditional pro-Israel view has been that military aid from Washington – now $3.1bn a year – is a vital cornerstone of the US-Israel alliance. But the reality is that Israel has a booming economy today and has no need of American “charity”. The largesse “comes with strings attached”, and might actually be making Israel weaker. The US, for instance, stipulates that Jerusalem (i.e Israel) must spend around 75% of each year’s assistance in America. The aid thus subsidises US defence contractors, rather than helping Israel develop its domestic arms industry. What’s more, numerous Israeli military experts argue that an over-reliance on US-made jets and ever more advanced missile systems is skewing Israel’s defence priorities, preventing it from thinking creatively about ground strategies to tackle the terrorist threat. The aid also enables the US to exert pressure on Israeli decision-making, thus complicating the alliance. Israel is healthy enough to stand on its own two feet, and it should be a matter of pride for it to do so.” (Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe)

US military aid to Israel has nothing to do with Israel’s need or America’s international strategy. It is in the same league as militarising the American police at home. In short, it is a US taxpayer subsidy to the military-industrial complex, now employing huge numbers of people. It is second only in importance to the financial sector in terms of political cosseting. The endless wars in the Middle East –  the war in Yemen being a good example – is being waged with American armaments that make that war possible, while making loads of cash for the arms makers.

Meanwhile, the military needs of Israel are  simple. What is threatening them? There was a minor spill-over from Syria the other day but, basically, no one is going to invade them.  If they had wanted to they would have done so bevore noe.