socialist-economics

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

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19475/afl-cio_backs_dakota_access_pipeline_and_the_family_supporting_jobs_it_prov

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.

KATE ARONOFF [1]

--

John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show

7-9 AM Weekdays, Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Stream,

Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.

Check out Socialist Economics.

Check out The EPIC Radio website

_______________________________________________
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

7-9 AM Weekdays, Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Stream,

Check out Socialist Economics.

Check out The EPIC Radio website

_______________________________________________
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

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

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
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19475/afl-cio_backs_dakota_access_pipeline_and_the_family_supporting_jobs_it_prov
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.

KATE ARONOFF [1]

--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Stream,
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.
Check out Socialist Economics.
Check out The EPIC Radio website
_______________________________________________
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

7-9 AM Weekdays, Eastern Panhandle Independent Community (EPIC) Radio Stream,

Check out Socialist Economics.

Check out The EPIC Radio website

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

The End of U.S.-Led Economic Globalisation? [feedly]

The End of U.S.-Led Economic Globalisation?
http://triplecrisis.com/the-end-of-u-s-led-economic-globalisation/

Jayati Ghosh

There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America, Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the European Union.

President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. …We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US.

However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to back the deal.

Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.

The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade—rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.

But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January 2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality. Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.

But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.

Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations, and

For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.

This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.

There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established players.

The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.

All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal" treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors, rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.

If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize of all.

So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.

Originally published in the Frontline.

-- via my feedly newsfeed