Economics professor blames capitalism for America’s coronavirus crisis

There is no hope for America, as most of its population is so dumbed down by ideology that they end up putting the likes of Trump at the helm. Most of these “educated” Americans cannot even spell Marxism without a spell check and yet they have opinions on it?

Source

http://www.thecollegefix.com

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN – GROVE CITY COLLEGE 

APRIL 3, 2020

A longtime economics professor argues that capitalism is accountable for the shortages, economic downturn, and vast spread of the novel coronavirus in the United States.In a variety of recent public statements, economist Richard Wolff argues that “the catastrophe we are living through was caused by a capitalist system that could not anticipate, plan for, or cope with the coronavirus.”Wolff has been an economics professor for more than 50 years and has taught at Yale and the University of Massachusetts Amherst and is currently a visiting professor at the New School University in New York City. Often described as a “Marxian economist,” Wolff was named in Jacobin magazine as one of the “greats of contemporary Marxian political economy.”

In a March 31 YouTube video titled “Capitalism is making a mess of the coronavirus crisis,” he argued that “private companies have no incentive to produce test kits and store them in a warehouse for years before there’s a crisis. It’s not profitable.”

Wolff told The College Fix that economic systems have a duty to look after public health, something that would have occurred under socialism.

“A socialist system would much more likely have required production of all the needed supplies (tests, ventilators, beds, etc.) and stockpiling them around the country,” he told The Fix via email.

Asked whether China, a prime example of centralized government, had a role in instigating the pandemic, Wolff said that “whatever the Chinese did or did not do, it is the job of all other societies — their private sectors and their governments — to prepare for and cope with viruses that can come from anywhere anytime.”

Continue:

Source

Bernie Sanders may be just what U.S. capitalism needs, says top economist: Don Pittis

History is filled with examples of healthy social democracies born out of extreme inequality

Source

CBC News

Don Pittis

Feb 13, 2020

Vermont senator and Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who has variously referred to himself as a socialist and a democratic socialist — won his party’s New Hampshire primary this week. (Mike Segar/Reuters)

A recent visit to Cuba reminded me that Soviet-style state planning is no way to run a healthy economy.

So it’s safe to say the New Hampshire primary win by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who has variously referred to himself as a socialist and a democratic socialist — is not a request by voters for Cuba’s crumbling buildings and shortages of consumer goods.

Socialism means different things to different people, and for many older North Americans conditioned by years of Cold War rhetoric, it is a trigger word for fears of creeping communism.

While there are plenty of economists who disdain Sanders, others who believe that capitalism is the hands-down winner in making ordinary people rich, healthy and happy are also convinced that right now U.S. capitalism needs someone like him.

Perhaps none have made that clearer than the French bestselling economist Thomas Piketty, currently doing the media rounds in advance of the English version of his newest book, Capital and Ideology.

• Bernie Sanders edges Pete Buttigieg in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary

• ANALYSIS

  Did a ‘socialist’ win New Hampshire? Can anyone but an ‘oligarch’ catch him?

The Nobel Prize-winning Piketty himself was labelled a Marxist by opponents when he made a splash with his 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century that some say accurately foreshadowed the populist win by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Piketty’s case in that book was that unless capitalism was adjusted in favour of the poor, we should expect a nationalist backlash by those who were losing out and blamed global capitalism for all their problems.

After years of state socialism, many buildings in Cuba are crumbling and the most vibrant parts of the economy are places where the free market has been allowed to operate. (Don Pittis/CBC)

To some critics, the movement in favour of Sanders is just a kind of populism from the other side, a sort of anti-Trumpism, to Make America Great by bringing down the evil rich.

The kind of ideology celebrated in books such as Winners Take All, by former New York Times columnist Anand Giridharadas, has become a key part of the U.S. political opposition that supports Sanders.

Sanders ‘not radical’

There are plenty of credible U.S. economists who agree with the need for capitalist reform. But for dry, intellectual analysis of why capitalism needs the kind of metamorphosis that only someone like Sanders can provide, it is hard to find a better source than Piketty.

In advance of the English version of his new book, the economic historian did two fresh interviews this week, one on the business news service Bloomberg, and one by the Financial Times in the tweeted link below.

Financial Times

✔@FT

Thomas Piketty: why we need a radical new wealth tax https://on.ft.com/37iejGS 

Thomas Piketty: why we need a radical new wealth tax

The bestselling French economist talks to the FT’s European economics commentator Martin Sandbu about ideology, capital, and how to make societies fairer with taxes on wealth and inheritance

ft.com

73

6:05 AM – Feb 11, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

56 people are talking about this

“I think, first, that [Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth] Warren and Sanders are not radicals,” said Piketty in response to one interviewer’s question. “They are moderate social democrats by European standards.”

Looked at in historical terms, said the French economist, even by the standards of the U.S. — a country that in another era was the world leader in progressive taxation — raising taxes on the rich from their current low levels is hardly radical. History is filled with examples of ideological shifts away from inequality far short of revolutions that made countries’ economies stronger.

He offers the example of Sweden, which we now think of as a healthy social democracy. But as recently as the early 1900s the country was controlled by a wealthy elite, where only the richest 20 per cent had voting rights and where richer people got a greater number of votes. And he said the new Swedish ideology propelled the change with minimal economic disruption.

Piketty sees a parallel in the United States, where the poor and lower-middle class don’t vote because they know the government will inevitably only represent the better off. Perhaps a new Sanders-led ideology could change that.

‘Broad participation’ needed

Like many other economists, Piketty insists that, as happened in Sweden, sharing wealth more broadly will make the U.S. economy stronger, not weaker, and richer overall. He says the evidence from the past 30 years shows that the low-tax ideology that made the rich richer as a way of boosting the economy is “not convincing.”

“I think the level of inequality we have today is not only unfair but it is also not efficient for the working of the economy,” he said. “We need broad participation by a very large group.”

There is no question that Piketty is himself a socialist. He is also a believer in capitalist economics and sees no conflict between the two. But the type of socialism matters.

• ANALYSIS

  Trump’s too late. Socialism has already arrived in the United States

• ANALYSIS

  Millionaires demand tax reform to combat inequality

In Cuba, years of economic planning means everyone is now literate. Socialized medicine means life spans are equivalent to those in the United States at a tiny fraction of the cost. But it is increasingly clear that the only vigorous parts of the otherwise tattered economy are in places where market forces have been permitted to develop.

There is a palpable feeling of ideological change in the air. Perhaps, as in China, Cuba’s long period of relative equality will act as a platform for a market-based rebirth.

According to the Piketty model of economic history, a social democratic Sanders is also riding a wave of changing national ideology, one that will keep the capitalism motor running while sharing the wealth to make the entire country richer.

Whether a majority of U.S. voters will be comfortable with the kind of ideological shift that Sanders represents is yet to be seen.

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

Don Pittis

Business columnist

Don Pittis was a forest firefighter, and a ranger in Canada’s High Arctic islands. After moving into journalism, he was principal business reporter for Radio Television Hong Kong before the handover to China. He has produced and reported for the CBC in Saskatchewan and Toronto and the BBC in London. He is currently senior producer at CBC’s business unit.

• More by Don Pittis

Portugal has found an antidote to right wing populism

Up yours stupid capitalist Trump mofo supporters. The best nations on the planet are all socialist. The so-called greatest country on the planet cannot come close to what these nations are accomplishing.

Source

scoop.me

by  Kontrast.at

January 15, 2020

Considering the booming economy, dropping unemployment numbers and the return of many once-emigrated young Portuguese citizens, it seems Portugal is on the rise. Facing the policies of socialist Prime Minister António Costa, which include properly supporting the welfare state and investing in the public sector instead of austerity measures, right wing populists don’t stand a chance.

Not too long ago, Portugal stood on the brink of catastrophe: harsh austerity policies and the erosion of labour rights pushed by the conservative government lead to significant rises in poverty and unemployment. The economy dwindled due to the lack of peoples’ spending power.

Today, everything has changed:

“Nowadays, Portugal is considered a prime example among European countries: the economy is booming, unemployment is dropping and investments are rising.”m

What are the reasons for this turnaround? What makes Portugal special when compared to other countries?

Turning point 2015: Famous Lisbon mayor Costa is elected prime minister

The first major change occurred during the general election 2015. This was time when the right wing conservative government dismantled the social welfare state piece by piece, which resulted in a furious population voicing their dissatisfaction in the voting booth – causing the conservatives to lose 11 percent of their previous electoral votes.

Lisbon’s former mayor António Costa, a socialist, won by a landslide and brought in 32 percent for the Partido Socialista after being elected frontrunner a year prior and uniting the entire city of Lisbon during his time as mayor.

At first, Portugal was said to have made a grave mistake

Costa succeeded in uniting the severely split left wing in Portugal, who supported the minority government led by him. At first, observers were pessimistic about the potential of this constellation, predicting a collapse after a few months. Moreover, both the EU and German minister of finances saw a grave mistake in the departure from austerity. „Angela Merkel described the prospect of a radical anti-austerity coalition in Portugal as “very negative”. The president of Portugal went further, calling non-conservative economic policies a “danger to national security” and attempting to keep the old government in power.

Miraculous economic recovery

It’s been more than four years since the socialist party assumed the reins of government. The scepticism of the early days has virtually vanished. The entirety of Europe seems impressed by the success story of António Costa:

The Portuguese economy has been booming for 4 years. 2017 marked the largest national economic growth of the century.

The Portuguese are not only showing the feasibility of socially conscious policies, but demonstrating the significant potential for success.

“The budget deficit has dropped to its lowest ever since the change to a democratic system in 1974 – simply because the government re-established and strengthened the social welfare state, leading to the Portuguese people having more money to spend.”

The socialists raised the once slashed wages and pensions, reintroduced paid vacations and retracted many tax raises, all while raising wealth taxes which affect only the rich parts of the population. The government also introduced a property and real estate tax designed not to target the homes of average citizens. Costa’s socialists also put an end to the catastrophic privatizations that were once instructed by the EU and resulted in selling state assets at absurdly low prices.

“The assumption that one could save the economy by aggressively cutting wages and excessively attacking welfare programs was clearly a misconception”, Costa said about his predecessors.

Social Democrats reach 37 percent in parliamentary elections

Portugal’s swift rise from a nation in shambles to prime example is remarkable. Costa gave hope and pride back to the people after the country was shaken to its foundation by the EU’s austerity programs and the failed previous government.

The newfound optimism also influenced the outcome of the 2019 parliamentary elections

His Socialists (PS) won the parliamentary elections in Portugal with 37 percent – well ahead of the conservative Social Democrats (PSD). They finished second with 28 percent of the vote, Costa won over 4 percent and came first. The number of socialist MPs rose from 86 to 108, with the socialists winning 15 out of 20 constituencies – 8 more than in the 2015 general election.

A nation without right wing populists

In the current political climate, which is full of optimism, the Right cannot get a foothold –patriotism as is claimed by the Left.

“If young Europeans are radicalized in city districts that were economically left behind, we have to answer with social policy measures”, Costa summarized his agenda in an interview with the german newspaper „Spiegel„.

Young Portuguese citizens abroad are being brought back

Nowadays, the political and economic climate under the socialist government is attractive enough to make citizens abroad consider returning to Portugal. When the conservatives were in power, tens of thousands of young citizens – some of whom were very well educated – left the country due to a lack of jobs and perspectives.

“My predecessors caused the greatest wave of emigration ever since the 1960s”, Costa stated.

The economy crashed, almost half of the young Portuguese was unemployed – setting a sad record. Portugal was facing the risk of losing an entire generation.

By now, 2.3 million Portuguese live abroad, but the government led by Costa is set on bringing them back. “This is the only way to combat the demographic decline, revitalize our economy and securing the continued existence of our social welfare programs”, the state secretary responsible says. To ensure this, the government organized programs and created networks abroad. Additionally, temporary tax breaks for returning citizens are planned.

The high rate of unemployment among the general population hovering at 17 percent under conservative rule was reduced by a staggering 10 percent, and it continues to drop.

20 billion Euros are being invested

The remarkable economic growth of the past years is to be only the beginning. Under socialist rule, the economy grew so significantly that the money made is now set to be invested and returned to the general population. Portugal’s government plans to use the rising public sector revenue to transform the nation into a more just and modern one, after the conservatives destabilized the infrastructure.

Costa presented a nation-wide investment proposal and surprised many once again: 20 billion Euros is considered an incredible amount of money for a country the size of Portugal. 60 percent of the funds is to go towards public transportation. The remaining money will be invested in the energy sector and environmental projects.

New subways, new trains

The much-used railway line connecting Lisbon and Porto is to be modernized, urban subway networks are to be expanded and public transportation in rural areas is to be invested in. This will generate new jobs, revitalize the economy and lift public transportation onto a state-of-the-art level. Furthermore, Portugal will become more eco-sensitive in the process. And Portugal did all this with a solid budget – in 2019 it even achieved budget surpluses.

 

Source: Kontrast.at / Creative Commons Lizenz CC BY-SA 4.0

UK votes on Thursday: What you should know in 500 words

Source

http://www.aljazeera.com

Dec 9, 2019

Electorate is deeply divided as UK braces for snap poll called to break political deadlock over Brexit.

From left: Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrats leader [Reuters]

Britons will head to the polls on Thursday, December 12 for a snap general election, which is hoped to end the country’s Brexit impasse.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson‘s Conservative Party and Jeremy Corbyn’s main opposition Labour Party present widely different proposals for solving the political crisis, which continues to rumble on after 52 percent voted to leave the European Union in a June 2016 referendum.

Here is what you need to know:

What’s happening?

INFOGRAPHIC

Infographic: What you need to know about the UK election

Voters in 650 constituencies across the United Kingdom will elect a minister of parliament to the lower chamber House of Commons via the first-past-the-post system.

To win a seat, candidates need more votes than any of their competitors.

A party needs to win 326 seats in order to secure a majority in the House of Commons.

Parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords, is unelected, and rather nominated by some main parties.

If no party achieves a majority, there will be a hung parliament. The party with the largest vote share may form a minority government, seek out support from smaller parties for a “confidence and supply” arrangement, or try to build a formal coalition.

Brexit is the main issue for voters, but a slowing economy, creaking health and social care provision, the unfolding climate crisis, and law and order are among other key concerns.

On polling day, voting opens at 7:00 GMT and ends at 22:00 GMT. Final results are expected to be declared in the early hours of Friday, December 13.

READ MORE

Hard Times: One UK town’s struggle in the age of austerity

Who is expected to win?

A disclaimer to begin: Polling agencies have been wrong before – remember the EU referendum?

But that said, the Conservative Party appears set to win most votes and possibly a majority of seats.

The party is tracking 10 percentage points ahead of its nearest rival, left-wing Labour.

Forty-three percent of voters say they would vote Conservative if an election were held tomorrow, according to a recent YouGov poll.

That could translate into the Conservatives winning 359 seats in the Commons, according to YouGov, compared with 211 for Labour.

Among the smaller parties, the pro-European, centrist Liberal Democrats are predicted to win 14 percent and 13 seats in Parliament. The Scottish National Party (SNP), which only fields candidates for the 59 constituencies in Scotland, is projected to win 43 seats, but only 3 percent of all votes cast.

Where might the vote leave Brexit?

WATCH

26:15

Misinformation, lies and media spin: Inside the UK election

Johnson has promised to “get Brexit done” and pass his withdrawal agreement through Parliament by the end of January if the Conservatives scoop a majority.

However, even if Parliament passes the existing withdrawal agreement by that deadline, a potentially gruelling negotiation over the UK and the EU’s future relationship will begin as the transition period comes into effect.

If Labour wins, it will ask the EU for another Brexit extension to allow time to renegotiate the current withdrawal agreement. Corbyn wants a softer divorce deal based on a new UK-EU customs union and closer EU single market alignment.

Labour’s reworked agreement would be put to a legally-binding second referendum within six months, alongside an option to remain in the EU.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA NEWS

Chris Hedges and Abby Martin: No Way Out Through Elections

Empire Files

https://www.patreon.com/empirefiles

Abby Martin sits down with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges to discuss the ignored reality behind Trump, the bipartisan road from neoliberalism to fascism, how the Democratic elite are an institution of corporate power, and how there’s no way out through the #2020election without destroying the system.

 

AOC: “I don’t want to hear the term free stuff ever again…”

AOC: “I don’t want to hear the term free stuff ever again…”

The Daily Sheeple | Sean Walton

Published on November 27, 2019

Democrats and liberals, particularly some of the more high profiles ones running for president, tend to like the word “free.” Free tuition, courtesy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Free health care, courtesy of Elizabeth Warren.

But Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as the young progressive firebrand she is, is instructing her colleagues and fellow Democrats to start using a new phrase to describe their lofty goals.

“It’s not that we deserve it because it’s a handout,” Ocasio-Cortez explained at a town hall over the weekend. “People like to say, ‘Oh, this is about free stuff.’ This is not about free stuff.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

✔@AOC

Public education, libraries, & infrastructure policies (which we‘ve had before in America and elsewhere in the world!) are not “free stuff.”

They are PUBLIC GOODS.

And they are worth investing in, protecting, & advancing for all society and future generations.

Sincerely,
NY-14 https://twitter.com/freedlander/status/1198760932446539777 …

David Freedlander

✔@freedlander

From yesterday, @aoc had a Green New Deal for public housing townhall in the Bronx. “I don’t want to hear the term free stuff ever again…I am already hearing from some of these neoliberal folks who are trying to flip the script on us.”

57.4K

7:12 AM – Nov 25, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

14.2K people are talking about this

“These are public goods,” she continued. “They’re public goods. So I never want to hear the word or the term ‘free stuff’ ever again … because I’m tired of already hearing some of these neoliberal folks who are trying to, like, flip the script on us.”

She equates Medicare for All and free tuition with libraries and roads, suggesting they should each be easily accessible. In other words, this is just another attempt to push socialism.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple. Send tips to sean.walton@thedailysheeple.com.

Sam Spruce: My Political Considerations Today

Sam Spruce

Nov 17, 2019

Jeremy Corbyn

MY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TODAY

One of the biggest problems in society at the moment seems to be the lack of correct cognitive models of the socioeconomic situation. I am on the internet quite a lot and read people’s comments about money, about billionaires, about poverty, about the failing social services, the benefit system, the failing NHS and very rarely do their ideas about these issues match mine. So I try to explain where some of the problems lie and it is difficult because we don’t even have the language to refer to correct cognitive tokens to talk about the correct relationships between things. Occasionally I attempt to describe some of the underlying issues to create a perspective that enables a different interpretation and understanding about some aspect of all this.

But broadly speaking we are struggling to coordinate our communication to make collective sense of various issues. A simple example would be that people complain that Tesco should pay their taxes as if Tesco is an immoral entity doing harm to the world. Tesco is a fine company and does a lot of good. But I can’t say that because, according to those people who interpret Tesco as doing evil, it puts me on the wrong side in their model of the world. Most people who simply think Tesco is great are generally thinking about it in limited terms and are supporting the economic model in which it exists. The thing about Tesco is it is the emergent manifestation of the underlying socioeconomic interpretations currently in existence in the collective mind of the people operating in the system. In other words Tesco is a successful and productive company in the current dynamics of how we operate. If there is something wrong – and there certainly is – then it is the mechanisms by which we are operating.

Noam Chomsky makes an important observation that many of the world’s most serious problems could be solved by simply abiding by the law. He doesn’t go on to make the point, but I will, that the significant issue is consistency. In other words it doesn’t matter what those laws are, what matters is that they are followed consistently. That way, if things aren’t working out then you can alter the laws. So if you have a plan you have to stick to it. Not ad infinitum but whilst you are enacting the plan you have to stick to it. If it isn’t working out then you don’t breach the plan and carry on because then, when things are not working, you don’t know if it is your breaching of the plans or the plans that are at fault. The approach of attempting to fix the situation by breaching the plans gives rise to that well known frustration that “it is one law for them and another law for us” scenario. Very often those breaking the law in high places perceive what they are doing which breaks the law as acting to prevent the strict adherence to the law creating a negative result. The problem with Tesco is we need more appropriate plans and laws.

So why did the Tories underfund the NHS? It strikes me as most interesting that the Tories did not need to underfund the NHS to achieve the plan to privatise the health service. In fact, it may be the very thing that scuppers their plans. And so it is ironic that their underfunding has at least highlighted that something is wrong in the minds of the population. Whilst the cognitive model of how the NHS operates is not understood by the general public then they perceive it as underfunding and it makes sense for people to agree it needs more funding. It probably doesn’t.

It is the restructuring of the NHS in line with the neoliberal cognitive model that is causing the majority of the problems we see. I will point out that I have just used the term “neoliberal” which is only just floating into the collective cognitive model enough that I can sometimes use it as a cognitive token without having to explain in detail what it is. Without the word “neoliberal” I would need to write an essay on neoliberalism before I could carry on. The restructuring of the NHS from a service provided by the collection of people it serves to a pyramid marketing system to incentivise people to work in the industry for profit in order to render a service we collectively desire is fundamentally self contradictory and cannot work. So, even without underfunding, the NHS would be in crisis because a lot of the money currently supplied from the ‘government’ is paid to independent corporations who are in it for the sole purpose of rendering a profit for shareholders.

Say the NHS transport costs 100 per annum then they put it out to tender and a company offers to provide the transport for 90 then the ‘NHS’ appears to be getting the same service for 10 less than it used to and this is understood to be more economically efficient. Then the private company needs to keep 10 for profit leaving 80 to pay for the transport. The private company is not being bad, these are simply the rules of the system. Now, in simple terms, you get 80% of the transport you once had for 90% of the cost. There are two simple ways that can be employed to render what looks like the same service. One is to not invest in the infrastructure by, for example, not servicing the ambulances as often or not purchasing new ones when they are needed, and the other is to pay the workers less for the same job. The private companies don’t mind because when the system needs investment they simply don’t tender for next year’s contract. They did some work and they gained some profit – that is what they are about. But the whole system begins to collapse.

The American insurance-based health care system costs about six times as much for the same product as the NHS. And it is not even provided for all the population. But for those that get it, the service is of a high quality akin to the service previously supplied by the NHS. The NHS has been restructured to fit the American model. Had the Tories not underfunded it we would see the same degradation but it would have been over a longer time frame. They, presumably with the corrupt disaster capitalism paradigm, perceived the mechanism of underfunding as accelerating the point at which the offer of insurance-based health care would appear to be a solution. They have run up against a very tight line whereby they may have alerted the public to the crime a little too early.

Jeremy Corbyn (as representing the grass roots comprehension and cognitive models) is the only politician to make it clear that, not only does he understand it is the structural changes that are the problem, but has confirmed this interpretation by pointing out that Labour will repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012 because it is the initial and primary point at which the NHS was structurally reorientated to fit the American insurance based model. No amount of increased spending by government would fix the underlying problems that are being introduced under the neoliberal cognitive model of how things work. Obviously immediate benefits would be seen by injecting more cash but the long term disaster would simply be staved off in the short term. It is important to stave off the disaster but it is virtually ineffective with respect to solving the real problem.

We need to change the direction of politics in the UK.

Labour might not solve all our problems but they are turning the ship decisively from the imminent catastrophe and towards a serviceable future.

And whoever thought it was a good idea to ask politicians if they would press the Nuclear Button as a measure of whether we are safe in their hands when the consensus cognitive model is insane enough to interpret our survival as being dependent on the willingness to destroy the world?