Sunday, September 25, 2016

Berenstein: The new rules of the road: a progressive approach to globalization. [feedly]

The new rules of the road: a progressive approach to globalization.

Jared Bernstein

http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-new-rules-of-the-road-a-progressive-approach-to-globalization/

For the last few months, Lori Wallach (the director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch) and I have been working on what we think of as new "rules of the road" for global trade. I've highlighted some of these ideas already in these parts, and a recent summary of our agenda just ran in The American Prospect; here's a link to the full white paper.

The intro to the white paper (below) explains our motivation, but it's really very simple. Like everything else, trade and globalization have upsides and downsides. They create winners and losers. They boost the supply chain of goods and services, holding down price growth, but that also shows up as real wage stagnation and job losses for significant groups of workers.

Unfortunately, both the trade debate and trade negotiations have long been co-opted by multinational corporate interests at the expense of workers and consumers both here and abroad. Fortunately, this election season has finally elevated that reality. The days when elites, both here and elsewhere, could ignore those who perceive themselves as hurt (on net) by globalization are hopefully gone, if not for good, than for a number of years.

That leaves a hole. Trump fills it with nostalgia for a period when America was less exposed to global trade, immigrant flows, and non-whites. Such nostalgia may appeal to certain voters, but that America isn't coming back (nor, for the record, would I want it to). What should fill the gap? Read on:

The emergence of trade as a top election issue shows that the economic and social costs imposed by our current trade policy model have reached a tipping point. For purveyors of the status quo, this is a crisis, as the inherent inequities in their approach to trade have finally surfaced. For those of us who have long recognized such inequities, the current moment presents an opportunity to craft a new model, a new set of "rules of the road." Far from trying to set back the clock on globalization, it is only through this new, far more inclusive, non-corporate-centric approach that we can rebuild American support for expanded trade.

This will not occur by continuing to assert that, despite their experiences, those who perceive themselves and their communities as having been hurt by exposure to the forces of globalization are just plain wrong. Or that the next trade agreement will be the one that fixes everything. Or by offering the increasingly large portion of the population who find themselves on the losing side of the current rules some temporary adjustment assistance.

It will only change if we change the content of our trade agreements and, in turn, the process by which we negotiate them. The "new rules of the road" must reflect the economic realities and needs of a much broader group of stakeholders. Crucially, to achieve such rules will require much greater transparency and inclusiveness in the policymaking process, helping to ensure that the resulting substantive rules represent the needs of the majority. This memo focuses on the substantive and procedural changes needed to realize these goals.

Globalization will surely proceed apace. Neither Donald Trump, Brexit voters, nor anyone else can put that toothpaste back in the tube. Nor should they. It is through expanded trade that we seek new markets for U.S. products, expand the supply of goods and services, and provide emerging countries with opportunities to grow by trading with wealthy countries.

But trade and contemporary free trade agreements (FTAs) are far from synonymous. The recent U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) report on the "likely impacts" of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) underscores that these agreements are not mainly about cutting tariffs to expand trade nor about jobs, growth, and incomes here in the United States. Rather, they're about setting expansive rules that determine who wins and who loses.

For years, those advocating for the "winners" that have been able to capture the negotiating process essentially said to those hurt by the resulting agreements: "Don't worry, this will be great for you too. And, hey, if it isn't, we will make it all better with adjustment assistance and some training." The hollowness of these false promises is finally evident to the broad electorate. The rules must be written for all the cars on the road, not just the Lamborghinis.

Our new framework starts from the premise that the current "trade" agreement process has been co-opted by corporate interests whose goal is to establish binding, enforceable global rules that protect their investments and profits. This corporate capture comes at the expense of both peoples' rights to democratically govern their own affairs and the ability of sovereign governments to effectively enforce worker, consumer, and environmental safeguards.

What follows describes a new set of rules of the road, one that puts the economic needs of working families at its core while excising corporate, protectionist influences from the rules. Achieving such inclusive policies will require a new policymaking process to replace the current system of opaque negotiations, a system heavily influenced by hundreds of official corporate trade advisors while the Fast Track process limits Congress' role and the public is largely shut out.

Continue here…


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Links for 08-25-16 [feedly]

----
Links for 08-25-16
// Economist's View

Fed, Eager to Show It's Listening, Welcomes Protesters - NYTimesNitpicking on nominal GDP targeting - John Quiggin Whom Do the Federal Reserve Bank Boards Serve? - FRB Richmond What the Fed Chief's Next Message Should Be - Bloomberg View China's Ever More Mysterious Tourism Numbers - Brad Setser Smoothing economic shocks in the Eurozone - VoxEU Alpha Banks, Beta Banks, and negative rates - Nick Rowe How Much Slack is Left in US Labor Markets? - Tim Taylor The Infrastructure Investment Debate - EconoSpeak Truthful lies - Stumbling and Mumbling Why Corbyn's Brexit campaign matters - mainly macro Balancing bias and variance in behavioral studies - Bank Underground
----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

Latin America’s Commodity Bust? Not Exactly [feedly]

----
Latin America's Commodity Bust? Not Exactly
// CEPR Feed

David Rosnick
NACLA Report on the Americas, Volume 48, Issue 3, September 19, 2016

Read More ...

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

Friday, September 23, 2016

Re: [CCDS Members]AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the “Family Supporting Jobs” It Provides

The Bakken oil field reached peak production in December 2014 at 1.26 million barrels a day.
Production (actually depletion) is now down to 942,000 barrels a day.
So where will the oil for the pipeline come from?
 
Per Fagereng
 
From: John Case
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: [CCDS Members]AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the "Family Supporting Jobs" It Provides
 
Its above my pay grade to judge whether TRUMKA should have been involved directly. However I cannot imagine a building trades local that can buy into boycotting a 4500 worker job at  union rates. I also don't buy equating a pipeline with a concentration camp. For those feet-firmly-planted-in-mid-air folks who have forgotten to look down: this IS an overwhelmingly capitalist economy. That is an objective reality that does not get willed away by command. That means that virtually EVERYONE must obtain the means of life from commodities, all of which have a price. Labor too: the business of unions in a commodity economy is a STRUGGLE, first, to sell labor at a FAIR price; second, failing the first, to expand public goods. There are many other issues besides money in the labor movement, but money (the only way to obtain the means of life) is ALWAYS,  both historically and in present time,  fundamental, and almost always, the first consideration before all others. Socialists and others in the labor movement who are tempted to indulge in questions "more fundamental" than money may be "right" in some moral, or philosophical, longer range historical, or even scientific context. But if they have no traction in the real economy, if they are disconnected from the daily struggle to obtain the means of life, and a fairer division of wealth in an economy where wealth -- and poverty -- are defined by access, or lack of it, to commodities, the other questions have great difficulty winning sustained change. Dr King's steady evolution and concentration on linking  the concrete moral and class aspects of the struggle for equality and against segregation and racism are a near perfect demonstration of this principle.
 
I agree with JB that the right approach is to address BOTH sides of the economic issues involved in DAPL.
 
First: the Sioux Nation reservations in the Dakotas are among the most impoverished communities in the nation. Staggering unemployment, and all the curses of unending economic depression. They have, or should have, by treaty the right to accept or refuse the pipeline across their land, or to leverage that right to lift up their community as well.
 
Perhaps for the Sioux nation, in this conflict, there is NO price -- say a million dollars per resident, or its equivalent, like what coal miners are owed from the coal operators -- that would trump the existential cultural and environmental issues.  But I would like to see that assumption tested. Because therein lies a path to common ground with the building trades, who are in it solely for the money, and who are perfectly capable of understanding compensation. And I don't see many other paths to common ground when that number of jobs is at stake.
 
Second, if the workers are supposed to fall on their swords, or if the project is ultimately cancelled due to political pressure, they and their ought to to be compensated. I have little sympathy for demands that social problems be solved simply by YOU losing YOUR job, while I keep MINE. I believe that approach generates MORE not LESS division. Pay the losers if you want grease the path to the promised land.
 
If the pipeline fails or is stopped, the Native peoples will be no richer, except in spirit, perhaps. The building trades workers will lose their jobs. Since there were no material gains, and lots of losses, all can say they shutdown a Bakken shale oil pipeline and helped save the planet, or preserved sacred ground, or forestalled the risk of a dangerous pipeline leak.  But each day will bring for all a return to scrounging for work, to get money and the means of life. The pipeline, assuming it is being built in response to real expected demand for the oil, will cross some other land.  The risks of a dangerous or deadly pipeline leak, such as occurred near Charleston, WV, and  in Ontario, CA, and Lynchburg, Va, justify high standards and high rewards for those who assume the risk. But the risks of dire poverty will kill most long before the dangerous leak happens.
 
There is some similarity between this conflict and those over trade and TPP. Trade, globalization and technology have eviscerated the mid-20th Century middle class in the United States, and the hard-won, established forms of labor organization as well. Their combined effect means that there will be no return to that era, ever.
 
Manufacturing, mining and construction that develops here will be increasingly high-tech and mostly run by robots. (Unless our nation becomes partitioned into developed and undeveloped regions [little Pakistans]-- we become Latin America instead of they becoming us!). Any restoration of rising economic justice and political equality will be arise on very different economic and social foundations than existed in between the Great Wars, or in the Cold War. There is no stopping trade and globalization while commodities as the means of life rules. Some think defeat of a trade agreement will slow down trade. It won't. Other paths and protections for the global circulation of commodities, capital, and labor (refugees?) will be found. Even world wars would only cause a pause. Even climate change will accelerate, not retard, globalization.
 
What's the similarity? Pay the Losers! It's the only remedy to the damage done by the commodity system, no matter how regulated. Its the only way to turn losers into winners. Social Democracies in Europe like Denmark (Bernie's Socialism model) figured this out a long time ago. You can build an economy around Trade (like Denmark) as long  as you pay and retrain the losers (an inevitable consequence of the re-divisions of labor generated by trade),and tax the trade to expand public goods.
 
A pipeline is not a trade transaction. It's infrastructure driven by supply and demand in global energy markets but regulated, insufficiently,  by the Federal government. Arbitrary shutdowns of supply will obviously pressure price increases. Increases in the price of energy roughly drive equal or greater increases in the economy-wide costs of production. The seismic political reaction to any substantial rise in energy costs should not be underestimated -- not necessarily, or even probably, a positive or progressive reaction. The energy sector of capital, due to its strategic role,  is historically among the most powerful and politically influential. At the same time the energy giants' overarching power is one of the best reason to rewrite the charters of too big to fail corporations, and submit them to much greater public oversight. If that were done, guaranteeing a Pay The Losers policy would be much easier wherever change demands people change jobs or occupations.
 
 
 
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:15 PM, John Christensen <jbc4re@yahoo.com> wrote:
I tend to sympathize with Gary on this but was unaware of any HRC blame towards the miners for the sins of strip mining, mountain top removal, or failed sludge ponds etc.. Please unlighten us to that so that we may remind her of this gross misplacement of blame.  Plenty of blame to go around though, we can start with the AFL-CIO and president Trumka.  It makes no sense at all for him to get involved in this fight, instead he should be organizing and retraining pipeline workers to thrive in the new GREEN economy.
 
John Christensen
Active solar advocate
Retired MEBA


On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:50 PM, Gary Hicks <hicksgary6770@yahoo.com> wrote:


John
 
Keeping focused solely on money, in supposed pursuit of unity between construction workers and native peoples is an inadequate focus. It doesn't take into account the existence and violations of land treaty rights and especially sacred spaces therein. There are scores of these treaties between the federal government and native peoples. Some of them enacted when the birth of trade unions were " a blink in their mother's eye". They are no less sacred than trade union contracts, and certainly  no less daily violated. There have been both Matewans and Wounded Knees. There has been strip mining in Appalachia and XL pipelining in the Dakotas.
 
Furthermore DAPL and whatever arrangements exist for unionized construction workers..... are there arrangements for job training and employment for peoples whose unemployment rates eclipse those of even African Americans? What and where and who to contact? I have to be curious about the mine worker President of the AFL-CIO who can be so gratuitous with other people's lands when his own Mineworkers Union has difficulty resisting strip mining and its resultant loss of community and economy, whom his favored presidential candidate blames on the miners!
 
If it isn't being done already, it might be helpful for AFL-CIO labor staff to contact the ( forget the name!) specialized college on native peoples land and law, and seek out collaboration on DAPL and other current...as well as forthcoming ... matters.
 
Gary
 


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:37 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

via Portside


I am a supporter of the Standing Rock protest in this sense: Any project exploiting the Sioux Dakota reservations and peoples should both respect the treaty obligations to Native American peoples, AND PAY THEM A VERY HEFTY SUM in exchange for any access rights to the land of one of the poorest and most exploited populations in the Americas.

That said, the article below makes me want to puke. How outrageous, it shouts, for AFL President Trumka, or the building trades reps on the AFL-CIO executive council to give a care about 4500 pipeline jobs paying a truly living wage!
 
No doubt, In These Times polemicists, so free with their advice on how social problems would just vaporize if SOMEONE ELSE LOSES THEIR JOB, would gladly give up their own jobs to stop the pipeline! I think not!
 
There is no path to unity in this article. And unity is the only path to any POSITIVE outcome. Pipeline workers, and Native Peoples, BOTH need $37$ our jobs! Common ground can be found if the focus stays on money!
 
However  demands to shutdown pipelines, or coal, or factories, or anything else WITHOUT PAYING THE LOSERS, without care for the families and lives dependent on these industries is just a prescription for division, a bigger Trump vote, and another step on the road to fascism--the ultimate price paid for such divisions.



AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the "Family Supporting Jobs" It Provides

Portside Date:
September 18, 2016
Author:
Kate Aronoff
Date of Source:
Saturday, September 17, 2016
In These Times
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) came out this week in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which was delayed last week by an order from the Obama administration—a decision that itself stemmed from months of protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux.
 
In a statement, Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, said, "We believe that community involvement in decisions about constructing and locating pipelines is important and necessary, particularly in sensitive situations like those involving places of significance to Native Americas."
 
But it "is fundamentally unfair," he added, "to hold union members' livelihoods and their families' financial security hostage to endless delay. The Dakota Access Pipeline is providing over 4,500 high-quality, family supporting jobs.
 
"(Trying) to make climate policy by attacking individual construction projects is neither effective nor fair to the workers involved. The AFL-CIO calls on the Obama Administration to allow construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue."
 
It's an open secret in labor that North America's Building Trades Unions—including many that represent pipeline workers—have an at-times dominating presence within the federation's 56-union membership. Pipeline jobs are well-paying union construction gigs, and workers on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) can make some $37 an hour plus benefits. As one DAPL worker and Laborers International Union member told The Des Moines Register, "You've got to make that money when you can make it."
 
But an old blue-green mantra says, "there are no jobs on a dead planet." The parts of organized labor that have taken that phrase to heart are far from unified around Trumka's DAPL backing—even within the AFL-CIO. National Nurses United (NNU) has had members on the ground at Standing Rock protests and others around the country have participated in a national day of action.
 
"Nurses understand the need for quality jobs while also taking strong action to address the climate crisis and respecting the sovereign rights of First Nation people," said RoseAnn DeMoro, NNU's executive director and a national vice president of the AFL-CIO.
 
In response to the federation's endorsement, DeMoro cited the work of economist Robert Pollin, who found that spending on renewable energy creates approximately three times as many jobs as the same spending on maintaining the fossil fuel sector.
 
NNU isn't alone. As protests swelled this month, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) released a statement in support of the Standing Rock Sioux, stating that "CWA stands with all working people as they struggle for dignity, respect and justice in the workplace and in their communities."
 
Unions like the Amalgamated Transit Union and the United Electrical Workers have each issued similar statements supporting protests against the pipeline, and calling on the Obama administration to step in and block the project permanently.
 
For those who follow labor and the environment, however, the above unions might be familiar names. Many were vocal advocates for a stronger climate deal in Paris, and sent members to COP21 at the end of last year. They were also those most vehemently opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline, and all supported Bernie Sanders' primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. While friendly to progressives, these unions have tended to have a relatively limited impact on bigger unions, like the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
 
According to Sean Sweeney, though, this small group of unions might now be gaining strength. "Progressive unions are becoming a more coherent force," he told In These Times.
 
Sweeney helped found a project called Trade Unions for Energy Democracy, which works with unions around the world on climate change and the transition away from fossil fuels, including the National Education Association and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32BJ in the United States. He also runs the International Program for Labor, Climate and the Environment at City University of New York's Murphy Institute.
 
"It could be said that it's just the same old gang making the same old noise, but for health unions and transport unions to go up against the building trades and their powerful message and equally powerful determination to win ... that was a bit of a cultural shift in the labor movement," he said, referencing the fights against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. "That suggests that it's going to continue."
 
Sweeney mentioned, too, that it wasn't until much later in the fight around Keystone XL that even progressive unions came out against it. "A lot of these unions," he added, "know a lot more about energy and pollution and climate change than they did before."
 
Between Trumka's DAPL endorsement and the Fraternal Order of Police's endorsement of Donald Trump for president, this week has shown a stark divide between parts of American labor and today's social movements. Progressive unions face an uphill battle on many issues, within and outside of organized labor. The question now—on the Dakota Access Pipeline—is whether today's "Keystone moment" can break new ground in the jobs versus environment debate.
 
 
--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV
 
The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
  visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/hicksgary6770%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: hicksgary6770@yahoo.com




 
--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV
 
The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.


_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
   visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/phantom%40hevanet.com

You are subscribed as: phantom@hevanet.com

Thursday, September 22, 2016

The Clean Power Plan’s Day in Court [feedly]

----
The Clean Power Plan's Day in Court
// Dollars & Sense Blog

 

By Elizabeth A. Stanton

Cross-posted from the author's blog, lizstantonconsulting.com and at our sister blog Triple Crisis

In one week, the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals will begin hearing oral arguments regarding the Clean Power Plan—that's the Environmental Protection Agency's rule limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants that the Supreme Court put on hold in February. In staying the rule, the Supreme Court flagged concerns that EPA had failed to take the rule's economic impacts into account. The 27 states challenging the rule have focused their arguments instead on its legal niceties claiming that the federal government is overstepping its authority.

Of the 27 states suing the EPA, 21 have already achieved their 2024 emission reduction targets and 18 have enacted policies that put them on track to reach their 2030 targets. Reuters quotes EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy as saying, "We are seeing reductions earlier than we ever expected. It's a great sign that the market has already shifted and people are invested in the newer technologies, even while we are in litigation." Economics are driving large-scale adoption of wind and solar generation around the country at the same time that low natural gas prices mean less reliance on coal-fired generators.

Carbon emission are falling and will continue to fall in the electric sector—without help from federal climate regulation. But in the absence of a strong national climate policy these reductions will not cut emissions quickly enough for the United States to play its essential role in keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. It is no exaggeration to say that the decisions made by the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court will set a precedent for federal regulation of carbon pollution that will have long lasting impacts felt around the world.

The quality of public debate sparked by the Clean Power Plan's day in court will benefit from a grounding in facts not just about climate change and the U.S. role in changing the composition of our global atmosphere, but also in the legal issues at the core of the challenge to and stay of the rule. Here's some recommended reading to that end:

·        A helpful blog piece from the Institute for Policy Integrity explaining the challenge in the context of U.S. law and history

·        A brief history lesson from the Law360 website describing the U.S. legal decisions that paved the way for the Clean Power Plan

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

RE: [CCDS Members] AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the “Family Supporting Jobs” It Provides

I typically do not get involved into these discussions but since I have decided to I somewhat agree with John Case in his great oration. He understands this better than I will try at this time since we are fighting a local enemy who wants to eliminate our lives. I will say this that President Trumka is responsible to respond or support approximately 12 million workers and 57 International Presidents. He has 57 direct bosses. I believe that he is a true fighter and defends this issue and others with dignity and respect. The Building Trades, which I am from, are not just into it for the money but they fight every day to put food on their table, take care of their kids and spouse while many times spend many days on the road doing such. I have done so myself and would not trade my experience for the world. The true enemy in this issue is the greedy oil and gas companies. I appreciate John and JB and hope they continue to keep me informed and educated until the time comes for us to report to our maker.

 

 

From: John Case [mailto:jcase4218@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 6:11 AM
To: John Christensen <jbc4re@yahoo.com>
Cc: Gary Hicks <hicksgary6770@yahoo.com>; Socialist Economics <socialist-economics@googlegroups.com>; Blogger Socialist Economics <jcase4218.lightanddark@blogger.com>; CCDS-Members <members@lists.cc-ds.org>; Eastern Panhandle Central Labor Council, Ken Collinson <uaw1590pres@yahoo.com>; Kenny Perdue <kperdue@wvaflcio.org>
Subject: Re: [CCDS Members] AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the "Family Supporting Jobs" It Provides

 

Its above my pay grade to judge whether TRUMKA should have been involved directly. However I cannot imagine a building trades local that can buy into boycotting a 4500 worker job at  union rates. I also don't buy equating a pipeline with a concentration camp. For those feet-firmly-planted-in-mid-air folks who have forgotten to look down: this IS an overwhelmingly capitalist economy. That is an objective reality that does not get willed away by command. That means that virtually EVERYONE must obtain the means of life from commodities, all of which have a price. Labor too: the business of unions in a commodity economy is a STRUGGLE, first, to sell labor at a FAIR price; second, failing the first, to expand public goods. There are many other issues besides money in the labor movement, but money (the only way to obtain the means of life) is ALWAYS,  both historically and in present time,  fundamental, and almost always, the first consideration before all others. Socialists and others in the labor movement who are tempted to indulge in questions "more fundamental" than money may be "right" in some moral, or philosophical, longer range historical, or even scientific context. But if they have no traction in the real economy, if they are disconnected from the daily struggle to obtain the means of life, and a fairer division of wealth in an economy where wealth -- and poverty -- are defined by access, or lack of it, to commodities, the other questions have great difficulty winning sustained change. Dr King's steady evolution and concentration on linking  the concrete moral and class aspects of the struggle for equality and against segregation and racism are a near perfect demonstration of this principle.

 

I agree with JB that the right approach is to address BOTH sides of the economic issues involved in DAPL. 

 

First: the Sioux Nation reservations in the Dakotas are among the most impoverished communities in the nation. Staggering unemployment, and all the curses of unending economic depression. They have, or should have, by treaty the right to accept or refuse the pipeline across their land, or to leverage that right to lift up their community as well. 

 

Perhaps for the Sioux nation, in this conflict, there is NO price -- say a million dollars per resident, or its equivalent, like what coal miners are owed from the coal operators -- that would trump the existential cultural and environmental issues.  But I would like to see that assumption tested. Because therein lies a path to common ground with the building trades, who are in it solely for the money, and who are perfectly capable of understanding compensation. And I don't see many other paths to common ground when that number of jobs is at stake. 

 

Second, if the workers are supposed to fall on their swords, or if the project is ultimately cancelled due to political pressure, they and their ought to to be compensated. I have little sympathy for demands that social problems be solved simply by YOU losing YOUR job, while I keep MINE. I believe that approach generates MORE not LESS division. Pay the losers if you want grease the path to the promised land.

 

If the pipeline fails or is stopped, the Native peoples will be no richer, except in spirit, perhaps. The building trades workers will lose their jobs. Since there were no material gains, and lots of losses, all can say they shutdown a Bakken shale oil pipeline and helped save the planet, or preserved sacred ground, or forestalled the risk of a dangerous pipeline leak.  But each day will bring for all a return to scrounging for work, to get money and the means of life. The pipeline, assuming it is being built in response to real expected demand for the oil, will cross some other land.  The risks of a dangerous or deadly pipeline leak, such as occurred near Charleston, WV, and  in Ontario, CA, and Lynchburg, Va, justify high standards and high rewards for those who assume the risk. But the risks of dire poverty will kill most long before the dangerous leak happens. 

 

There is some similarity between this conflict and those over trade and TPP. Trade, globalization and technology have eviscerated the mid-20th Century middle class in the United States, and the hard-won, established forms of labor organization as well. Their combined effect means that there will be no return to that era, ever.

 

Manufacturing, mining and construction that develops here will be increasingly high-tech and mostly run by robots. (Unless our nation becomes partitioned into developed and undeveloped regions [little Pakistans]-- we become Latin America instead of they becoming us!). Any restoration of rising economic justice and political equality will be arise on very different economic and social foundations than existed in between the Great Wars, or in the Cold War. There is no stopping trade and globalization while commodities as the means of life rules. Some think defeat of a trade agreement will slow down trade. It won't. Other paths and protections for the global circulation of commodities, capital, and labor (refugees?) will be found. Even world wars would only cause a pause. Even climate change will accelerate, not retard, globalization. 

 

What's the similarity? Pay the Losers! It's the only remedy to the damage done by the commodity system, no matter how regulated. Its the only way to turn losers into winners. Social Democracies in Europe like Denmark (Bernie's Socialism model) figured this out a long time ago. You can build an economy around Trade (like Denmark) as long  as you pay and retrain the losers (an inevitable consequence of the re-divisions of labor generated by trade),and tax the trade to expand public goods.

 

A pipeline is not a trade transaction. It's infrastructure driven by supply and demand in global energy markets but regulated, insufficiently,  by the Federal government. Arbitrary shutdowns of supply will obviously pressure price increases. Increases in the price of energy roughly drive equal or greater increases in the economy-wide costs of production. The seismic political reaction to any substantial rise in energy costs should not be underestimated -- not necessarily, or even probably, a positive or progressive reaction. The energy sector of capital, due to its strategic role,  is historically among the most powerful and politically influential. At the same time the energy giants' overarching power is one of the best reason to rewrite the charters of too big to fail corporations, and submit them to much greater public oversight. If that were done, guaranteeing a Pay The Losers policy would be much easier wherever change demands people change jobs or occupations.

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:15 PM, John Christensen <jbc4re@yahoo.com> wrote:

I tend to sympathize with Gary on this but was unaware of any HRC blame towards the miners for the sins of strip mining, mountain top removal, or failed sludge ponds etc.. Please unlighten us to that so that we may remind her of this gross misplacement of blame.  Plenty of blame to go around though, we can start with the AFL-CIO and president Trumka.  It makes no sense at all for him to get involved in this fight, instead he should be organizing and retraining pipeline workers to thrive in the new GREEN economy.

 

John Christensen
Active solar advocate
Retired MEBA

 

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 2:50 PM, Gary Hicks <hicksgary6770@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

John

 

Keeping focused solely on money, in supposed pursuit of unity between construction workers and native peoples is an inadequate focus. It doesn't take into account the existence and violations of land treaty rights and especially sacred spaces therein. There are scores of these treaties between the federal government and native peoples. Some of them enacted when the birth of trade unions were " a blink in their mother's eye". They are no less sacred than trade union contracts, and certainly  no less daily violated. There have been both Matewans and Wounded Knees. There has been strip mining in Appalachia and XL pipelining in the Dakotas. 

 

Furthermore DAPL and whatever arrangements exist for unionized construction workers..... are there arrangements for job training and employment for peoples whose unemployment rates eclipse those of even African Americans? What and where and who to contact? I have to be curious about the mine worker President of the AFL-CIO who can be so gratuitous with other people's lands when his own Mineworkers Union has difficulty resisting strip mining and its resultant loss of community and economy, whom his favored presidential candidate blames on the miners! 

 

If it isn't being done already, it might be helpful for AFL-CIO labor staff to contact the ( forget the name!) specialized college on native peoples land and law, and seek out collaboration on DAPL and other current...as well as forthcoming ... matters.

 

Gary

 

 

Sent from my iPhone


On Sep 21, 2016, at 3:37 AM, John Case <jcase4218@gmail.com> wrote:

via Portside

 

I am a supporter of the Standing Rock protest in this sense: Any project exploiting the Sioux Dakota reservations and peoples should both respect the treaty obligations to Native American peoples, AND PAY THEM A VERY HEFTY SUM in exchange for any access rights to the land of one of the poorest and most exploited populations in the Americas.

 

That said, the article below makes me want to puke. How outrageous, it shouts, for AFL President Trumka, or the building trades reps on the AFL-CIO executive council to give a care about 4500 pipeline jobs paying a truly living wage! 

 

No doubt, In These Times polemicists, so free with their advice on how social problems would just vaporize if SOMEONE ELSE LOSES THEIR JOB, would gladly give up their own jobs to stop the pipeline! I think not!

 

There is no path to unity in this article. And unity is the only path to any POSITIVE outcome. Pipeline workers, and Native Peoples, BOTH need $37$ our jobs! Common ground can be found if the focus stays on money! 

 

However  demands to shutdown pipelines, or coal, or factories, or anything else WITHOUT PAYING THE LOSERS, without care for the families and lives dependent on these industries is just a prescription for division, a bigger Trump vote, and another step on the road to fascism--the ultimate price paid for such divisions.

 

AFL-CIO Backs Dakota Access Pipeline and the "Family Supporting Jobs" It Provides

Portside Date: 

September 18, 2016

Author: 

Kate Aronoff

Date of Source: 

Saturday, September 17, 2016

In These Times

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) came out this week in support of the Dakota Access Pipeline, the construction of which was delayed last week by an order from the Obama administration—a decision that itself stemmed from months of protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux.

 

In a statement, Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, said, "We believe that community involvement in decisions about constructing and locating pipelines is important and necessary, particularly in sensitive situations like those involving places of significance to Native Americas."

 

But it "is fundamentally unfair," he added, "to hold union members' livelihoods and their families' financial security hostage to endless delay. The Dakota Access Pipeline is providing over 4,500 high-quality, family supporting jobs.

 

"(Trying) to make climate policy by attacking individual construction projects is neither effective nor fair to the workers involved. The AFL-CIO calls on the Obama Administration to allow construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue."

 

It's an open secret in labor that North America's Building Trades Unions—including many that represent pipeline workers—have an at-times dominating presence within the federation's 56-union membership. Pipeline jobs are well-paying union construction gigs, and workers on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) can make some $37 an hour plus benefits. As one DAPL worker and Laborers International Union member told The Des Moines Register, "You've got to make that money when you can make it."

 

But an old blue-green mantra says, "there are no jobs on a dead planet." The parts of organized labor that have taken that phrase to heart are far from unified around Trumka's DAPL backing—even within the AFL-CIO. National Nurses United (NNU) has had members on the ground at Standing Rock protests and others around the country have participated in a national day of action.

 

"Nurses understand the need for quality jobs while also taking strong action to address the climate crisis and respecting the sovereign rights of First Nation people," said RoseAnn DeMoro, NNU's executive director and a national vice president of the AFL-CIO.

 

In response to the federation's endorsement, DeMoro cited the work of economist Robert Pollin, who found that spending on renewable energy creates approximately three times as many jobs as the same spending on maintaining the fossil fuel sector.

 

NNU isn't alone. As protests swelled this month, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) released a statement in support of the Standing Rock Sioux, stating that "CWA stands with all working people as they struggle for dignity, respect and justice in the workplace and in their communities."

 

Unions like the Amalgamated Transit Union and the United Electrical Workers have each issued similar statements supporting protests against the pipeline, and calling on the Obama administration to step in and block the project permanently.

 

For those who follow labor and the environment, however, the above unions might be familiar names. Many were vocal advocates for a stronger climate deal in Paris, and sent members to COP21 at the end of last year. They were also those most vehemently opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline, and all supported Bernie Sanders' primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. While friendly to progressives, these unions have tended to have a relatively limited impact on bigger unions, like the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

 

According to Sean Sweeney, though, this small group of unions might now be gaining strength. "Progressive unions are becoming a more coherent force," he told In These Times.

 

Sweeney helped found a project called Trade Unions for Energy Democracy, which works with unions around the world on climate change and the transition away from fossil fuels, including the National Education Association and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 32BJ in the United States. He also runs the International Program for Labor, Climate and the Environment at City University of New York's Murphy Institute.

 

"It could be said that it's just the same old gang making the same old noise, but for health unions and transport unions to go up against the building trades and their powerful message and equally powerful determination to win ... that was a bit of a cultural shift in the labor movement," he said, referencing the fights against the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. "That suggests that it's going to continue."

 

Sweeney mentioned, too, that it wasn't until much later in the fight around Keystone XL that even progressive unions came out against it. "A lot of these unions," he added, "know a lot more about energy and pollution and climate change than they did before."

 

Between Trumka's DAPL endorsement and the Fraternal Order of Police's endorsement of Donald Trump for president, this week has shown a stark divide between parts of American labor and today's social movements. Progressive unions face an uphill battle on many issues, within and outside of organized labor. The question now—on the Dakota Access Pipeline—is whether today's "Keystone moment" can break new ground in the jobs versus environment debate.

 

 

--

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

 

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

_______________________________________________
CCDS Members mailing list

CCDS website: http://www.cc-ds.org

CCDS welcomes and encourages the full participation of our members in
this list serve. It is intended for discussion of issues of concern to
our organization and its members, for building our community, for
respectfully expressing our different points of view, all in keeping
with our commitment to building a democratic and socialist society. To
those ends, free and honest discussion of issues and ideas is
encouraged. However, personal attacks on named individuals, carrying on
old vendettas, excessive posts and, especially, statements that are
racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and/or anti-working class are not
appropriate.

Repeated failure to respect those principles of discussion
may result in exclusion from the list.
Please respect each other and our organization.

Any member of the list who objects to a posting on the list or the
behavior of a particular member should send email describing his or her
concerns to members-owner@lists.cc-ds.org

Post: Members@lists.cc-ds.org
List info and archives: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/members
To Unsubscribe, send email to:
Members-unsubscribe@lists.cc-ds.org
To Unsubscribe, change your email address, your password or your preferences:
  visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/members/hicksgary6770%40yahoo.com

You are subscribed as: hicksgary6770@yahoo.com

 



 

--

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

 

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Latin America’s Commodity Bust? Not Exactly [feedly]

Latin America's Commodity Bust? Not Exactly
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/latin-america-s-commodity-bust-not-exactly

David Rosnick
NACLA Report on the Americas, Volume 48, Issue 3, September 19, 2016

Between 1998 and 2011, the price of goods and services exported by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) grew much more rapidly than the price of goods and services imported by these same countries. Because of this, in 2011, countries in the region could trade the same exports for some 50 percent more in imports. The economic impact of this change in terms-of-trade (TOT) was notable: real income of the LAC countries grew some 8.4 percent.

This period coincided with a resurgence of growth across much of the region. However, the data suggests that countries across LAC met demand for non-export goods by increasing imports. That is, much of the terms-of-trade windfall was either saved or spent on imports rather than increasing domestic demand for local products. Favorable trade shocks have contributed very little to growth in LAC countries — perhaps one-quarter of one percentage point additional annual growth over the period, according to research carried out by the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Read the rest of the article here at NACLA Report on the Americas.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed