Friday, June 24, 2016

Britain Riding the Tectonic Plates [feedly]

Interesting commentary from a member of the Rodrik school.....

Britain Riding the Tectonic Plates
http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/24/06/2016/britain-riding-tectonic-plates


Britain Riding the Tectonic Plates

David Held - 24th June 2016
Britain Riding the Tectonic Plates

GP's General Editor David Held on the shifting plates underpinning Britain's decision to leave the European Union.

The referendum was lost some time ago. At its most superficial it was lost because the EU failed to give Cameron enough to take back from the negotiating table in the form of plausible and sustainable gains for the UK in the EU. It was lost because the Labour leadership catastrophically failed to join a unified platform until the last few days of the campaign and failed to communicate to its electorate a coherent and plausible narrative of the EU and its future. It was lost because of the years of austerity policies championed by Cameron and Osborne which have left peoples' living standards suppressed and many marginalised. It was lost because it became a referendum about immigration and peoples' fears, the latter worked on and stirred by right wing politicians from the Conservatives and UKIP projecting these fears into false utopias of an independent Britain, independently wealthy. And it was lost because these fears of the unknown and the other played into the voting preferences of older generations.

Underneath all of this there are deeper trends which make the referendum appear mere epiphenomena of more structural shifts. The EU has suffered a calamitous disjuncture between its political capacities and its economic and social challenges. While the Euro radically enhanced economic interdependence across Europe this process outstripped the governing abilities of the European Union in its current form. Caught between the proclamation of Europe and the sectional interests of its leading countries, the EU has staggered from crisis to crisis revealing its deeper structural and democratic fault lines. The EU has been an elite project, with key decisions taken behind closed doors between its leading powers, and all too often at a vast difference from European peoples, who have felt aggrieved, alienated, and disconnected.

Yet, further beneath the surface there are other powerful processes. Global cities like London have become centre points of the world economy and its multiple financial and commercial interests. These cities have risen in the last 30-40 years to become hugely successful metropolises able to accommodate diversity, rapid change, and an international vision of their place in the world. Such global cities are hubs connected to other global cities which have directly benefited from globalisation in the last few decades. In these hubs all boats could rise together. But the other side of this success is that these great cities have tended to accelerate away from the land masses in which they are embedded. They have more in common with each other than many of the rural and urban areas in their hinterlands.

And this too reflects deeper shifts. The postwar era was built on an understanding of the horrors and catastrophes that could be unleashed when states go it alone in an international order without constraints. The international institutions developed in the postwar years, along with their counterpart in the European Union, in order to prevent another great war, keep European conflict at bay, and create the conditions for prosperity in a relatively open and liberal order. This postwar institutional settlement was enormously successful for many decades. But now the very conditions that created that success are no longer sustainable as power shifts from the North to South and West to East. Global interdependence has outstripped the capacity of the postwar institutions to manage it and this is leaving a legacy of disruption, crises, and runaway global challenges, including ever wider income and wealth inequalities.

The referendum is at the centre of these shifting plates. It is the crack which can become a chasm in the postwar order. Accordingly, we enter a new era which has radical uncertainty at its centre and resembles in some respects a return to a disorderly world of states relentlessly pursuing their own interests. We know what often comes next.

 

David Held is Master of University College, Durham, and Professor of Politics and International Relations at Durham University. He is also a Director of Polity Press and General Editor of Global Policy journal.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Capitalism Corrupts the Inclusive Market Mechanism

Good example of how class-less thinking leads to serious confusion about "democracy".  Classless thinking on globalization can lead right back to 1914!



Capitalism Corrupts the Inclusive Market Mechanism

23 JUNE 2016
by Guest author

panthera logoMarkus Schuller, founder of Panthera Solutions

The Brexit debate in the United Kingdom shows that archaic drivers of our societies can emerge again, even in the cradle of democracy. The opponents in this fight are not the UK vs Brussels, but the disenfranchised vs the elite. And even this only represents the outcome of false premises and their validating concepts. As former Labor Party minister Tony Benn put it"This country and the world have been run by rich and powerful men from the beginning of time."

The development of capitalism from the 18th century through to the 20th saw radical and sometimes rapid change not just in technologies and production processes, with the invention of the steam engine or mass production, for example, but also in philosophical and political concepts. The humanist project of the liberation of the individual was strengthened during the Enlightenment, but a new idea emerged too, that the whole of society could improve – social progress. The political translation of this included the fight for universal suffrage, human rights, minority rights, etc. The attitudes and actions that flowed from this were not always coherent with the ambitions they exemplified. Remember the euphoric belief in technology before WWI or the social/national questions during the second half of the 19th century in several monarchies and empires.

Despite all the upheavals the transition to the modern industrial age entailed, the process also produced stabilising social phenomena through the self-empowerment of the individual, such as labour unions or the new property-owning, entrepreneurial middle class. Twin phenomena were at work again, this time economic and political rather than philosophical and political.  The mass consumerism the new economy that would allow the new socioeconomic system to emerge and flourish depended on a widened participation of the individual in both the economy and society. It was only through this widened participation that narratives like the American Dream could manifest themselves – the prototype of social mobility driven by an inclusive market mechanism.

Society benefitted from increased social mobility not least because of the stark contrast it presented with anachronistic injustices like slavery, discrimination against women, oppression of ethnic or religious minorities, and inequalities of income and wealth. This in turn benefitted the economy by expanding the consumer base, for instance through increased labour market participation by women throughout the 20th century.

In short, social mobility was a necessary condition for political and economic self-empowerment of individuals, combined with an inclusive market mechanism that allowed them to live this self-empowerment in many different ways. And this remains the case today. Through social mobility, an inclusive market mechanism and equality of opportunities enable the best in our societies to get a chance to make it to the top. At the same time, the best are forced to compete responsibly for the best solutions of the problems of our times on a level playing field.

Here, the "false premises and their validating concepts" becomes visible. In the early 1980s, when Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan began to increase the competitiveness of their economies for the upcoming globalization on the basis of the theories of the Chicago School, their reforms were labeled as liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation. The claim was that this trinity would strengthen the individual in their societies and the competitiveness of their economies. The "victory" of capitalism over communism in 1989 reinforced the reform agenda. The interpretation of capitalism that dominated this agenda however shows a lack of congruence with an inclusive market mechanism. As Noam Chomsky said in September 2015): "Progress requires puncturing the bubble of inevitability: austerity, for instance, is a policy decision undertaken by the designers fortheir own purposes. US capitalism also benefits from ideological obfuscation: despite its association with free markets, capitalism is shot through with subsidies for some of the most powerful private actors."

The game plan that would play out as globalisation was designed in Bretton Woods in 1944 and through GATT in 1947. Since the 1980s, the dynamics of this process has led to a massive reduction of extreme poverty worldwide, especially since the economic convergence of emerging markets gained momentum in the 1990s. In parallel, those dynamics damaged the social cohesion of developed economies as productivity gains and participation through gainful work became decoupled, while employees were tamed by increasing their consumption not through higher income in return for their productivity gains, but by getting into debt. Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher: "You may not be able to get a wage increase, but you can get a loan."

This development led to a weakening of the inclusive market mechanism through an oligopolisation of market-based allocation processes and a plutocratically-biased political decision making process.

This development also led to a weakening of equality of opportunities through a disintegration of the middle class and its stabilising factors like democratic participation or solidarity movements like labour unions.

Altogether it led to a weakening of social mobility in our societies. And a return to business as usual as described by Tony Benn. The debate is not about political ideologies and their partisan views on whether more public or private sector dominance is better.  The question is how to make sure our societies stay competitive in an evidence-based, innovation-driven search for democratically legitimized solutions for the challenges of our times.

Useful links

This article is based on Kapitalismus gefährdet Marktmechanismus by Markus Schuller

The economic consequences of Brexit OECD Insights

OECD Centre for Opportunity and Equality (COPE)


John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

As More Low-Income Renters Struggle, Federal Subsidies Favor Well-Off Homeowners [feedly]

As More Low-Income Renters Struggle, Federal Subsidies Favor Well-Off Homeowners
http://www.cbpp.org/blog/as-more-low-income-renters-struggle-federal-subsidies-favor-well-off-homeowners


The number of Americans struggling to afford their rent has risen sharply in recent years, with low-income renters bearing the biggest cost burdens, a new report from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies finds.  But most federal housing spending goes to higher-income homeowners with little need for help, as our updated chart book explains.


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Supreme Court immigration decision means millions of workers will be deprived of crucial labor protections [feedly]

Supreme Court immigration decision means millions of workers will be deprived of crucial labor protections
http://www.epi.org/blog/supreme-court-immigration-decision-workers-deprived-of-labor-protections/

This morning the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in United States v. Texas, the State of Texas's challenge to the most significant of the executive immigration actions—known as the DAPA and DACA+ initiatives—which were announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014. The Court was deadlocked in a 4-4 tie, which results in the Fifth Circuit's decision being upheld, which had affirmed the District Court's preliminary injunction that prevented the president from moving forward with DAPA and DACA+.

At issue in U.S. v. Texas was the president's authority to defer the deportation of unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, if the parents have resided in the United States for at least five years, and are not an enforcement priority for deportation. This is known as DAPA—Deferred Action for the Parents of Americans and Legal Permanent Residents. The president also would have updated and expanded DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative (in place since 2012), which to date has provided deferred action to over 700,000 people who entered the country as minors without authorization. Combined, over five million people are eligible for DAPA, DACA, and expanded DACA (sometimes referred to as DACA+), out of a total unauthorized immigrant population of 11 million.

Since implementation of the DAPA and DACA+ initiatives has been prevented, millions of unauthorized immigrants will not be eligible to apply for and obtain an employment authorization document from the Department of Homeland Security that allows them to work legally. This means that millions of workers will continue to lack access to basic labor standards and employment law protections—a terrible outcome for both unauthorized immigrants and American workers.

Read more


 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Thursday, June 23, 2016

What to Look for in House GOP Tax Plan [feedly]

----
What to Look for in House GOP Tax Plan
// Center on Budget: Comprehensive News Feed

When Speaker Paul Ryan releases the House GOP tax plan tomorrow, a key question is whether it's closer to the plan from presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump or to a very different one from then-Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp in 2014, the last time the House GOP presented a comprehensive tax reform plan. 

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

Will Congress protect retired coal miners? [feedly]

----
Will Congress protect retired coal miners?
// Coal Tattoo

Photo by DYLAN LOVAN / AP — United Mine Workers of America president Cecil Roberts speaks to about 4,000 retired members at the Lexington Center in Lexington, Ky., last Tuesday. Roberts urged members to push for legislation that would protect pensions and health care benefits for retirees that have been put in jeopardy due to a downturn in the coal industry.

There's been a growing public push for Congress to take action on legislation to rescue the troubled health-care and pension funds that provide for tens of thousands of retired United Mine Workers and their families across our nation's coalfields.

Last week, the UMWA held a huge rally in Lexington to try to drum up more support for the bipartisan legislation. As the Associated Press recounted:

United Mine Workers president Cecil Roberts told the gathering in Lexington of about 4,000 members from seven states that miners spent their lives working in dangerous places to provide the nation's electricity and steel. The miners, some of whom arrived in wheelchairs, don't deserve having their benefits put in jeopardy, Roberts said.

"What do they want these people to do, get out of their wheelchairs and go back to the mines?" Roberts remarked after the rally.

(The AP, for reasons passing understanding, felt compelled to comment in its report that, Cecil Roberts "is popular among the union membership for his fiery oratorical style.")

That rally followed a series of Senate floor speeches last month by Democrats, calling for action on the bill, and a letter by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and others urging Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (whose role in blocking the measure was documented by the Washington Post) to act on the legislation prior to the summer recess.

In West Virginia, Republican Rep. David McKinley has been a strong supporter of the bill, and just yesterday, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., delivered a floor speech on the issue:

We've had more about this legislation previously here, and a more detailed Coal Tattoo explanation of the problem here.

The Lexington Herald-Leader commented earlier this month:

The proposed fix, which has supporters in both parties, is to tap fees the coal industry pays for leasing rights and cleaning up abandoned mine sites and the interest, some of which already go to the miners' health fund. If those sources fall short, the Treasury (taxpayers) would make up the difference — an option reviled by conservatives as a "bailout" for organized labor and a dangerous precedent.

McConnell excels at pro-miner rhetoric. But what the pensioners, widows and coalfield communities need from him now is a clear answer.

They need to know what, if anything, he intends to do to preserve the pension and health benefits they were promised. And they need to know without delay.

In March, the UMWA's Roberts told a Senate committee:

… Today, there is a looming health-care tragedy unfolding in the coalfields, with potentially devastating human effects. In many cases, the loss of health-care benefits will be a matter of life and death. In all cases, it will be a financial disaster that the retired miners, who live on very meager pensions, will not be able to bear.

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed

A Shameless Deception in Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Replacement Plan [feedly]

----
A Shameless Deception in Paul Ryan's Obamacare Replacement Plan
// Economist's View

Republicans sabotage government programs, then complain they don't work:

A shameless deception in Paul Ryan's Obamacare replacement plan, by By Stephen Stromberg: ... Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) released an Obamacare replacement plan on Wednesday that, among other things, complains that the ACA leaves people out. ... Then it blames the gap on "Obamacare's poor design and incentives."

This is an outrageous distortion. The coverage gap ... is the direct result of anti-Obamacare hysteria in Ryan's party.

After the ACA passed, the Supreme Court ruled that the Medicaid expansion must be optional for states. The terms were so good for state leaders — the federal government promised to pay nearly the whole cost to cover lots of vulnerable people — it seemed inconceivable that any of them would refuse to expand Medicaid... But this thinking did not account for the anti-Obamacare tantrum... Nineteen states have refused to expand Medicaid in rote Republican opposition to the ACA. ...

Republicans ... could have simply expanded Medicaid in their states... Or Republicans in Congress could have agreed to extend eligibility for marketplace subsidies downward, solving this gross and unnecessary inequity without requiring the states to do a thing. ...

Republicans chose not only to create the gap, but also to keep it in place. Their continued inaction hurts low-income people in those 19 states. And Ryan has the nerve to complain about it — even to use it as evidence that the ACA is fatally flawed. ...

----

Shared via my feedly newsfeed