Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

maandag 7 maart 2016

Killing The Middle Class

“It’s shameless financial strip-mining”: Les Leopold explains how the 1 percent killed the middle class 

The "pro-business" model of capitalism is broken — and getting worse, author and activist Les Leopold tells Salon 

 
"It's shameless financial strip-mining": Les Leopold explains how the 1 percent killed the middle classJamie Dimon, Donald Trump, David Koch  (Credit: Reuters/Yuri Gripas/AP/Dan Hallman/Evan Agostini)
While the fate of the presidential campaign that talks about the issue more than any other remains uncertain, this much is clear: Despite the general public’s mounting anxiety and awareness, the economic inequality that’s done so much to change American society over the past 40 years has not abated. It may, in fact, be getting worse.
For this reason alone, “Runaway Inequality: An Activist’s Guide to Economic Justice,” the new book from Labor Institute executive director and president Les Leopold, would be worth reading. Thankfully, however, the book has many virtues besides its timeliness. And more than most of the other high-profile books on inequality in recent years, “Runaway Inequality” doesn’t just explain where the U.S. economy went wrong; it also explains how American citizens can organize to get it back on track.
Recently, Salon spoke with Leopold over the phone about the book and economic inequality in general. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
There are a lot of books about inequality out there now, especially in the past five or so years. What does your book bring to the conversation that was otherwise lacking?
I think there were three things that I thought would differ from the ongoing conversation. The first one was that runaway inequality was accelerating. It isn’t just there, it’s growing. The fact that 95 percent of all the new income in the current so-called recovery is going to the top 1 percent is indicative of what’s happening. I don’t think that’s ever happened before in American economic history that I can find. There’s no recovery at the bottom, it just keeps going to the top.
The second one, which I think is even more important, was that I saw runaway inequality as a core issue that linked so many diverse issues. I think it’s kind of funny when someone says, “Well, Bernie Sanders is just interested in inequality or Wall Street. It’s just one issue.” I see it quite differently. I see it as the issue that connects so many other issues, and therefore that leads to the third reason.
I thought that connective tissue could be the basis for building an analysis that could help foster a broad-based progressive-populist movement. That if people could see that their issue silos were actually connected to inequality, it could build bridges amongst various progressive groups that have gotten siloed. Much of the last generation’s worth of progressive action has been within an issue category, be it identity politics or education or housing or environment or so on. There has been a fracturing of what could be a more coherent movement, and I thought “Runaway Inequality,” with its focus on Wall Street and the financialization of the economy, could provide that connective tissue. I didn’t see that anywhere else.
How does your analysis differ from some of the other recent work on inequality?
The slant on Runaway Inequality was different from Piketty and others. There tends to be a story that goes something like this: “American workers kind of got lost in the global shuffle. They don’t have the skills that the more elite people have and we don’t need the manual labor, et cetera. It’s kind of a skill problem, a mismatch between skills and jobs.” I just don’t think that’s true. I think, in fact, the deregulation of the financial system is the driving force of runaway inequality.
I think the way to build a coherent, broad-based populist movement is to focus on runway inequality and Wall Street. That’s what I’m hoping to contribute to.
Why is it that so much of the recovery has gone to those at the top?
That’s the question that takes us to the core analysis. In the late ’70s, roughly, a new economic philosophy really caught hold in both political parties. It originally came from the right, from Milton Friedman and the free marketeers. Academics call it neoliberalism; in the book, we call it the “Better Business Climate.”
It basically was kind of a simple model. Cut taxes, cut regulations, cut back social spending so people will be more eager to find work and be less dependent on the government, and basically undermine the power of labor unions so the economy would run more on market principles and have less inefficiencies in it. There would be more investment and profits, and therefore, all boats would rise. It would lead to kind of a boom economy. That was the theory. I was in graduate school when that was going on, and it was pretty strong, even more liberal economists were sort of giving up on Keynesianism and going in this direction.
What they didn’t teach us and what they never discussed is that it’s one thing to deregulate trucking or airlines or telecommunications, but it’s quite another thing to deregulate the financial sector. When they started deregulating the financial sector, it put in motion something that we refer to as “financial strip mining.” It’s an incredible, insidious process. It started with a lot of corporate raids – we know call them hedge funds, takeovers, private equity companies – financiers who use a little bit of their own money, borrow a huge amount of money, and start buying up companies. In the deregulated atmosphere they bought up thousands of them over time. The debt that was accumulated to do that was basically put on the company. It’s a little bit like if you went out and bought a car with a loan, instead of you paying back the loan the car pays back the loan. That’s what they were doing.
How did this practice change the way those companies were run?
They changed the way the CEOs were paid, so that the CEO acted in behalf of the Wall Street investors. This was really powerful. In 1980, 95 percent of the CEOs’ pay was salary and bonuses, and five percent was stock incentives. Today, it’s virtually reversed. About 85 to 95 percent is stock incentives, and only five percent is salaries and bonuses. So that means the price of the stock is all that matters to the CEO, and of course that’s all that matters to the investors – the hedge funds, the private equity companies. They want to see the stock go up.
It’s a huge change in corporate culture. Now the CEO cares only about raising the stock. What’s the best way to do that? In workshops, we ask working people and community activists this question, and they start talking about, “Well, you’ve got to create a better product, you want to get more market share,” all of the things you would think would lead in that direction. In fact, they did something else.
There was a rule change in 1982, under Reagan. A guy who was the former Head of E.F. Hutton became head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and he changed the rule about companies buying back their own shares. Before 1982, it was virtually illegal to do that because it was considered stock manipulation. When a company buys back its own shares, it reduces the number of share owners, and therefore every share is worth a little bit more. If you do this, all things being equal, you’re going to boost the share and manipulate the price. The free market’s not doing it, you’re doing it. This guy thought, “Well that’s very efficient. Anyway, competition will even all of that out.”
CEOs and their corporate raider Wall Street partners are thinking, “Oh, this is fantastic. Let’s use the company’s money to raise the price of the share, and then we can cash in on our stock incentives. The outside investors can cash in and leave, ‘pump and dump.’ This is great.”
How prevalent have stock buybacks become, and what are the implications of that?
In 1980, about two percent of a company’s profits were used for stock buybacks. By 2007, 75 percent of all corporate profits were used to buy back their own shares. Forget about R&D, forget about workers’ wages, forget about all that kind of stuff. All that matters to a CEO today is raising the prices of the shares through stock buybacks.
Yesterday, I was at a United Steelworkers meeting and they were very concerned about Carrier moving to Mexico. They’re negotiating and they’ve been making concessions and they still can’t get a deal. It’s a really bad situation. Donald Trump has actually been talking about it as well.
The difference between the negotiations, things are $10 million, $20 million, $30 million dollars. So I quickly go to Google and look up United Technologies, which owns Carrier. In October, United Technologies bought back $9 billion of their own shares. So they’re strip mining the company, and they’re using the worker contracts and the moving to Mexico as a way to generate more cash flow so that they can buy back their own shares. This financial strip mining is phenomenal. The net result is, in 1970 the ratio between a top-100 CEO’s pay and an average worker was 45-to-1. Which is a lot if you think about it this way: if an average worker could afford one car, the CEO could afford 45 cars. Or one home versus 45 homes, or one home that’s 45 times the size of an average worker’s home. We just crunched the numbers again for 2014: it’s 844-to-1. You can’t even conceive of how big that gap is, and it’s a direct result of financial strip mining.
That’s what leads to that acceleration. There’s nothing to stop it now. This is just what they do. When they run out of cash flow to buy back their own shares, they go deeper into debt. They’ll go to the debt market and try to get more money and then turn around and buy back their own shares. This has an incredible effect on virtually every other issue.
How so?
I can just give you one example that really galls me, but it says a lot and shows how many different issues are connected. The Obama administration bailed out the auto industry, and it’s great that they did. The industry was going under due to the Wall Street crash and there was no other reason at all at the time. It was a financial crunch that was taking General Motors under. The guy who negotiated that deal, one of the key negotiators for the Obama administration, left and went to a hedge fund. GM built up a cash cushion because it’s doing better now. I think all of the American people, at the very least, hoped that when GM built up its cash reserves it would do what needed to be done, which is build the best, highest quality, most efficient cars they possibly could for the future generations. This is what we all needed. I think that was the hope.
Well, this guy goes to a hedge fund and takes a position, buys a bunch of shares of GM. And what does it do? It demands that instead of that cash going to R&D, that it goes to the investors through stock buybacks. And about three weeks ago, GM also announced a $9 billion stock buyback plan. It’s shameless financial strip-mining. It does nothing whatsoever for society, but it undermines other goals.
What the book then does is show how this process has huge impact on the public sector. This whole Better Business Climate has a direct connection to the rise of the prison population. So we show how issue after issue is deeply connected to this process of financial strip mining and runaway inequality.
Capitalism has never been particularly warm and fuzzy towards workers, but there was a time before this Better Business Climate concept when businesses were seen as part of communities and were perceived as having obligations to society. They weren’t just doing financial strip mining — even if it made economic sense, hypothetically. 
That’s a very good point. Our story kind of starts there. I personally think that this is a transformation of capitalism. Capitalism was still capitalism from World War II to the late 1970s, but the productivity, which is output per worker hour, basically has risen every year except five from 1947 to today. The line just goes up on a 45-degree angle. Average worker wages, taking into account inflation, also grows from 1947 to around 1977. Rose every single year. When we were in grad school, they taught us this was the iron law – that corporations needed to do this. In other words, being more community minded was part of what made a corporation a corporation, and supply and demand led them, if they wanted to keep that productivity going, to pay their workers reasonably well.
The philosophy at that point was basically “retain and reinvest.” CEOs viewed stakeholders as labor, community and their shareholders. It wasn’t that shareholders were somehow in there for the share price over everything else. Once this Better Business Climate model hit, you look at these same two lines and they just split apart. Worker wages actually go down in terms of real buying power. The gap between the two lines today is so large that if worker wages stayed on that productivity line that they taught us was an iron law, which of course they then repealed as soon as I graduated, if the two lines kept going up together the average weekly wage would be double what it is today. That’s how big a gap took place. Something really big changed.
Where else can we see evidence of that change?
You can see the change most clearly if you look at financial sector wages and non-financial sector wages. From 1947 to 1980, the two lines go up together. There was no premium for working on Wall Street. You could work for Chase Manhattan Bank or Manufacturers Hanover or whatever, or General Motors or Ford, and given your general level of skill, education, experience and so on, you’d earn about the same. There was no premium. And then basically the lines split apart again. Financial sector wages go through the roof after deregulation takes hold, so you get a different kind of capitalism.
Piketty, I think, doesn’t really emphasize that. I think very few people have really stressed what a huge change that is – to have the financial sector draw so much money to itself. By 2006, 40 percent of all corporate profits were going to the financial sector. They only have five percent of the workforce, but they’ve got 40 percent of the profits. The strip mining of wealth was being collected there, going from everybody else to them. I think that’s different than the Robber Baron era, where the industrialists were getting a lot of money, but there was a rising standard of living for everybody else. That has stopped.
The average American worker knows about inequality, but they may also wonder why it should matter to them so long as their own standard of living is improving. How do you reach people who think inequality is more of a problem in the abstract than in their daily lives?
Basically there are two competing narratives. “Who cares about inequality if everybody is doing better in America?” and the narrative that’s in the book, which is, “It’s happening at your expense.” We have a couple of chapters that do nothing else but compare the United States to other countries around the world, indicator after indicator after indicator, and just show how far we’ve fallen. We do lead the world in inequality, military spending and number and percent of prisoners. Of all the developed countries, we are second-to-last in child poverty. Romania is the only country behind us.
They did a nice study of seven countries, according to upward mobility, what are the odds that you would be in an income bracket higher than your parents’, and it turned out in the United States it was about 50-50. We were at the bottom of the list. Number one was Denmark, where the odds were seven-to-one that you would do better than your parents. So even upward mobility, our most cherished dream. It goes on and on. Education – in terms of what we pay our teachers, it’s low. The amount of money we invest in 3-year-old and 4-year-old education, we’re near the bottom of the list. An indicator like longevity, we actually showed a decline in comparison to other countries.
So there’s something really going on. Of course, if you were in the top one-percent, this is the greatest country on earth, I’m sure, because you live in your own world. You have your gated community, your private schools, virtually a private healthcare system. You pay very little tax because your money is offshore, and so on. So there’s this breaking apart of America. American exceptionalism, the American dream is sort of collapsing.
How does this financial strip mining impact the public sector?
Two things are very important to realize about this financialization of corporations. The first is that the interest payment on debt is not taxable, just like the interest payment on the mortgage on someone’s home is tax deductible. There was virtually no corporate debt up until about 1980; corporations used their own resources to fund what they needed. Then, through this corporate raiding process debt became the rage and now there’s like $12 trillion in corporate debt. And as corporate debt goes up, tax payments go down.
For example, corporate tax contributions to state and local government have virtually fallen in half since 1980, which puts more pressure on individual tax receipts. But the wealthy have moved so much money offshore that their taxes have also gone down. So we now have, when it comes to state and local government, a perfectly regressive tax system. The top one percent pay about half the tax rate as the bottom 20 percent. As you go down the brackets, the tax rate actually goes up and up –  the actual percentage that people pay gets higher and higher.
And that decline in overall revenue leads to deficits and calls to cut safety net programs.
That leads to a fiscal crisis. You have this great squeeze on the public sector, because you’ve got workers who haven’t had a raise in a generation in terms of real buying power and you’ve got the wealthy not paying their share. We estimate there’s something like $21 trillion offshore, and we’re losing at least $150 billion in tax revenues on money that should be taxed but isn’t. Now you have corporate inversions, which are putting more downward pressure on corporate taxes.
So the people in the middle that are paying most of the taxes are tapped out. They’re easy prey to a politician who says, “We want to cut the public sector. Teachers are getting paid too much, we can’t afford their pensions.”
Why are programs like education such an easy target for spending cuts?
We’ve got a new philosophy that comes with the Better Business Climate, and it’s total individual responsibility — the idea of a Great Society or a New Deal taking care of people goes out the window. If you want a job, go find it. If you’re poor, it’s your fault. If you want to go to school, take out a loan. The idea of the government providing anything is greatly diminished.
Ask yourself when was the last time a politician said, “I want to create more public sector jobs so we can create jobs for inner-city youth, where unemployment is high.” I don’t think there’s a politician in the country that directly would say that anymore, yet that was common in the ’60s and early ’70s because we knew there was a crisis of employment in rural places and inner cities. There were lots of experiments to figure out how to get employment in those areas, and the public sector grew. It was the track of upward mobility for African Americans, especially African American women, that was their ticket into the middle class: public employment.
Since then, the number of government jobs as a percentage of the U.S. population has gone down as the Better Business Climate model took hold. As runaway inequality accelerated, it put more and more pressure on the public sector, and we basically gave up on the idea of a poverty program.

zondag 6 maart 2016

Vluchtelingenstroom 77

Dinsdag 15 maart 2016 figureert Paul Brill, de neoconservatieve buitenlandcolumnist van de Volkskrant, als deskundige in het Amsterdamse centrum voor 'culturele, sociale en politieke kwesties,' De Balie, tijdens een nagesprek over het nieuwste boek van de Amerikaanse journalist/auteur Robert D. Kaplan, getiteld Duister Europa (2016). Over laatst genoemde is ondermeer het volgende bekend: 

Kaplan has been a consultant to the U.S. Army's Special Forces, the United States Marines, and the United States Air Force. He has lectured at military war colleges, the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, major universities, the CIA, and business forums, and has appeared on PBS, NPR, C-SPAN, and Fox News… In 2001, he briefed President Bush.

Gezien Kaplan's populariteit onder Amerikaanse haviken met hun agressieve buitenland-politiek is het interessant te zien hoe De Balie deze bijeenkomst aankondigt:

In zijn nieuwe boek Duister Europa reist Robert Kaplan door Roemenië, Moldavië, Oekraïne, Bulgarije en Hongarije. Het zijn volgens hem de nieuwe brandpunten van de Europese geo- en veiligheidspolitiek. Terwijl de NAVO desintegreert en men druk is met de bestrijding van het islamitisch extremisme in Noord-Afrika en het Midden-Oosten, voert Poetin de druk op dit gebied steeds verder op. In De Balie gaat Kaplan dieper in op de huidige crises in Europa. Wat betekent dit voor huidige bondgenootschappen als de NAVO? Hoe kijkt men vanuit de Verenigde Staten naar Europees leiderschap?

Ondanks het feit dat de NAVO sinds de ontbinding van het Warschau Pact in ledenaantal bijna is verdubbeld en momenteel de Russische Federatie met militaire bases van alle kanten omsingelt, is het tekenend voor de intellectuele corruptie in de polder dat De Balie beweert dat 'de NAVO desintegreert.' Hier is sprake van Koude Oorlogsretoriek in optima forma, en vandaar dat de bejaarde Brill is uitgenodigd om zijn licht te laten schijnen over de bedreiging die Rusland voor de 'vrije wereld' vormt, aldus de propaganda van de mainstream-media, in toenemende mate dienstbaar aan het westers militair-industrieel complex. Hoe groot Brill's paranoïde wereldbeeld is bleek opnieuw in zijn bespreking van Kaplan's boek De wraak van de geografie (2013). De Volkskrant-commentator eindigde met de woorden:

Kaplan heeft gelijk als hij schrijft dat het praktisch ondoenlijk is gebleken om vanuit Azië geheel Europa te veroveren. Maar de Hunnen, Mongolen en Ottomanen dachten er anders over - en het scheelde niet veel of het was hun toch gelukt.

Om het grote gevaar van Rusland en China voor het 'beschaafde Europa' te benadrukken greep Brill terug naar de vijfde, twaalfde en veertiende eeuw, maar verzweeg tegelijkertijd het al ruim vijf eeuwen durende westers kolonialisme en zijn genocidale veroveringen op alle continenten. Brill's houding is het onvermijdelijk gevolg van het onderhuidse racisme dat zo kenmerkend is voor het aloude eurocentrisme, en dat zo helder werd blootgelegd door de gerenommeerde Zweedse journalist/auteur Sven Lindqvist in ondermeer zijn boek Een reis door niemandsland. Hoe de Aboriginals Australië verloren (2007). Over de geëmigreerde of verbannen christelijke Europeanen die de inheemse bevolking van Australië één voor één uitmoordden, schreef Lindqvist:

De meeste blanken waren ervan overtuigd dat de mensen die vermoord waren toch tot een lager ras behoorden, dat tot de ondergang gedoemd was. Hierbij konden ze zich beroepen op de indertijd hoogste autoriteit op het gebied van de biologie: Charles Darwin. Hij beweert in de hoofdstukken 5 en 6 van The Descent of Man (1871) dat de uitroeiing van inheemse volken een natuurlijk evolutionair proces is. Diersoorten hebben elkaar altijd uitgemoord, wilde volken hebben elkaar altijd uitgeroeid, en nu er geciviliseerde volkeren zijn zullen de wilde volken voorgoed worden uitgeroeid: 

'Overal waar de geciviliseerde naties met barbaren in contact komen zal de strijd van korte duur zijn, behalve daar waar een dodelijk klimaat het inheemse ras bijstaat.' Maar zelfs daar kan de inheemse bevolking zich niet zeker voelen van haar zaak: 'In een toekomst, die gerekend in eeuwen niet eens zo erg ver weg is, zullen de geciviliseerde rassen vrijwel zeker overal ter wereld de wilde rassen uitroeien en vervangen.' 

Darwin was hier persoonlijk getuige van geweest — in Argentinië, Tasmanië, Australië — en hij keerde zich hier fel tegen. Maar een onderdeel van zijn ontwikkelingsleer was ook dat men de uitroeiing van inheemse volken niet langer als een misdrijf moest beschouwen maar veeleer als het onvermijdelijke gevolg van natuurlijke processen en zelfs als een voorwaarde voor verdere vooruitgang. Na Darwin was uitroeiing iets waar je je schouders over kon ophalen. Mensen die hier met afschuw op reageerden gaven alleen maar blij van hun ongeschooldheid.

'Niet is onwetenschappelijker,' schreef George Chatterton Hill in Heredity and Selection (1907), 'niets getuigt van een diepere onkunde van de fundamentele wetten van de maatschappelijke ontwikkeling dan de absurde, voor het Britse ras typerende acties tegen de eliminatie van lagere rassen.' De waarheid is dat de Britten 'vanwege hun expliciete expansiedrift genoodzaakt zijn alle lagere rassen die hun in de weg staan te elimineren. Ieder superieur ras uit het verleden heeft dit gedaan of was gedwongen hetzelfde te doen.'

'Indien arbeidskrachten in een kolonie niet zodanig kunnen worden gedisciplineerd dat ze de winsten opbrengen die het moederland mag verwachten,' zo schreef Henry C. Morris in zijn History of Colonisation (1900), 'dan moeten de inboorlingen worden uitgeroeid dan wel gereduceerd tot een aantal dat zich gemakkelijk laat controleren.

Inboorlingen die blijven leven zijn toch alleen maar tot last, schreef de antropoloog George H.L.F. Pitt-Rivers in zijn boek The Clash of Cultures (1927): 'Het inboorlingenprobleem' zou je net zo goed kunnen omschrijven als het probleem dat ontstaat als inheemse mensen niet worden uitgeroeid door de 'zegeningen van de civilisatie' maar overleven met nakomelingen van gemengde afkomst. In Tasmanië is er geen inboorlingenprobleem en in Australië is dat probleem voor de Europese bevolking te verwaarlozen, vanwege de logische verklaring dat er geen Tasmaniërs meer in leven zijn die nog voor problemen kunnen zorgen, en dat de Australische Aborigines hard bezig zijn hen te volgen op weg naar uitsterving.'

Mannen als William Willshire (sheriff van Alice Springs, leefde van 1852-1925. svh) brachten in de praktijk wat deze theoretici verdedigden of zelfs bepleitten. Sinds 1949 noemen we dit 'genocide.' 

Dit is slechts één voorbeeld van de ontelbare genocidale praktijken van de 'blanke' veroveraars die overal ter wereld de lakens uitdeelden en nog steeds uitdelen. Al deze feiten spelen geen rol in de beschouwingen van identiteitsloze witte mannen als de gemankeerde Paul Brill, die ook nog eens worstelt met zijn vermeende 'joodse' achtergrond waarover hij in 1983 schreef:

En dan arriveer je in Israel. Jij zult daar met je eigen afkomst worden geconfronteerd, was me van zeer nabij voorspeld. Maar wat is je afkomst wanneer je joodse vader geheel heeft gecapituleerd voor de bekeringsijver van je katholieke moeder? Nebbisj. Of nog minder: minder dan een halfjood, zoals me eens smalend werd toegevoegd door iemand die zich op latere leeftijd had laten besnijden.

Het opmerkelijke is dat Brill het Amerikaans expansionisme steunt, vooraf en zelfs ook nog achteraf. Zo verklaarde hij dat Bush junior 'zeker niet zo’n enorme ramp, was geweest als men aan het eind van zijn regeerperiode dacht.’ 
http://www.maartenonline.nl/nl/artikel/29428/paul-brill-bush-was-helemaal-niet-zo-n-slechte-president.html 

De Amerikaanse agressie-oorlog met zijn Shock and Awe-geweld tegen de Iraakse bevolking dat is uitgelopen op meer dan een miljoen doden, het land deed uiteenvallen in etnisch gezuiverde regio's en ook nog de opkomst van de terreurgroep ISIS veroorzaakte, is in de racistische ideologie van de Atlanticus Paul Brill 'zeker niet zo'n enorme ramp,' en wel omdat Arabische slachtoffers net zo weinig meetellen als destijds de joden voor de nazi's. Zij zijn voor hem 'bijkomende schade' in de strijd tegen het grote kwaad op aarde. In die visie moeten de westerse oorlogsmisdaden  gezien worden als een 'corrigerende tik,' een 'strafoperatie' dan wel een 'tuchtmaatregel,' tegen 'weerspannige volkeren,’ zoals Brill met fascistisch taalgebrek duidelijk maakte toen hij in de Volkskrant van 7 september 2013 zijn lezers probeerde te overtuigen dat een Amerikaanse 'militaire interventie in Syrië' onvermijdelijk was geworden, omdat 'het een illusie [is] te denken dat het regime-Assad zich op langere termijn kan handhaven. Ook in Israël wint dat inzicht terrein,' hetgeen voor de pro-zionistische Brill een doorslaggevend argument blijft om het geweld van corrigerende tikken, strafoperaties, tuchtmaatregelen en ander massaal NAVO-geweld tegen 'weerspannige volkeren,’ te laten beginnen. Het spreekt voor zich dat daarbij 'collateral damage' zal plaatsvinden onder de burgerbevolking, maar dat is nu eenmaal de prijs die de Arabische bevolking moet betalen om te voorkomen dat het 'vrije westen' moet capituleren voor het kwaad in de wereld. En capituleren doet Brill denken aan de traumatische gebeurtenis uit zijn jeugd nadat zijn 'joodse vader geheel' had 'gecapituleerd voor de bekeringsijver van' zijn 'katholieke moeder' en hij, --allemaal volgens eigen zeggen -- met de existentiële vraag werd geconfronteerd: 'wat is je afkomst'? En dus moeten in naam van de vooruitgang anderen worden opgeofferd, zo toont de westerse geschiedenis vanaf 1492. Brill's betogen laten zien dat Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' nog steeds een genocidale politiek rechtvaardigen. En daarom treedt Paul Brill in De Balie op, om in het kader van Kaplan's 'Duister Europa' te spreken over 'de nieuwe hotzones van de Europese veiligheidspolitiek,' te weten 'Roemenië, Moldavië, Oekraïne, Bulgarije en Hongarije.' 

George Orwell maakte in zijn roman 1984 (1949) duidelijk dat in elk totalitair systeem boven alles geldt:

Oorlog is vrede
Vrijheid is slavernij
Onwetendheid is kracht

En dus heet in de Newspeak van de kongsi die Henk Hofland de 'politiek-literaire elite' in de 
polder betitelt, het expansionisme van het NAVO-bondgenootschap 'de Europese veiligheidspolitiek,' nu 'Poetin de druk op' Europa 'steeds verder op[voert].'

Het 'debat' in mainstream-Nederland is dermate gepolitiseerd dat elke serieuze tegenstem op dit moment eruit gefilterd kan worden, elke kritische stem gemarginaliseerd. Het grote probleem is dat in een klein land de praatjesmakers in politiek en media alles door een ideologische bril bekijken. En zoals bekend dwingt elke ideologie, inclusief het neoliberale consumentisme, in een mal. Het individu wordt gemanipuleerd en zo nodig geforceerd om zich te gedragen als een massamens met geconditioneerde reflexen. De politiek maakt de mens tot een object, een sjabloon van de heersende ideologie. Het huidige systeem mag weliswaar het individualisme verheerlijken, tegelijkertijd dwingt  het 't conformisme af. Godzijdank bestaat er een ontsnappingsweg via internet. 

De Balie zal nooit iemand als bijvoorbeeld de Amerikaanse hoogleraar Henry Giroux naar voren schuiven, auteur van ondermeer The Violence of Organized Forgetting (City Lights, 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism (Routledge, 2015) en samen met Brad Evans Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle (City Lights, 2015).  Op de kritische Amerikaanse website Truthout van donderdag 3 maart 2016 zette Giroux het volgende uiteen:

In the current age of free-market frenzy, privatization, commodification and deregulation, Americans are no longer bound by or interested in historical memory, connecting narratives or modes of thinking that allow them to translate private troubles into broader systemic considerations. As Irving Howe once noted, 'the rhetoric of apocalypse haunts the air' accompanied by a relentless spectacle that flattens time, disconnects events, obsesses with the moment and leaves no traces of the past, resistance or previous totalitarian dangers. The United States has become a privatized 'culture of the immediate,' in the words of Zygmunt Bauman and Carlo Bordoni: It is a society in which the past is erased and the future appears ominous. And as scholar Wendy Brown has noted in Undoing the Demos, under the rule of neoliberalism, the dissolution of historical and public memory 'cauterizes democracy's more radical expressions.'

Particularly now, in the era of Donald Trump, US politics denotes an age of forgetting civil rights, full inclusion and the promise of democracy. There is a divorce between thought and its historical determinants, a severance of events both from each other and the conditions that produce them. The growing acceptance of state violence, even its normalization, can be found in repeated statements by Trump, the leading Republican Party presidential candidate, who has voiced his support for torture, mass deportations, internment camps and beating up protesters, and embraced what Umberto Eco once called a cult of 'action for action's sake' — a term Eco associated with fascism. Ominously, Trump's campaign of violence has attracted a commanding number of followers, including the anti-Semitic and former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke, and other white supremacists. But a death-dealing state can operate in less spectacular but in no less lethal ways. Cost-cutting negligence, malfeasance, omissions, and the withholding of social protections and civil rights can also inflict untold suffering.

The recent crisis over the poisoning of the water supply in Flint, Michigan, and the ways in which it has been taken up by many analysts in the mainstream media provide a classic example of how public issues have been emptied of any substance and divorced from historical understanding. This is a politics that fails to offer a comprehensive mode of analysis, one that refuses to link what is wrongly viewed as an isolated issue to a broader set of social, political and economic factors. Under such circumstances shared dangers are isolated and collapse into either insulated acts of governmental incompetence, a case of misguided bureaucratic ineptitude or unfortunate acts of individual misconduct, and other narratives of depoliticized disconnection. In this instance, there is more at work than flawed arguments or conceptual straitjackets. There is also a refusal to address a neoliberal politics in which state violence is used to hurt, abuse and humiliate those populations who are vulnerable, powerless and considered disposable. In Flint, the unimaginable has become imaginable as 8,657 children under 6 years of age have been subjected to potential lead poisoning. Flint provides a tragic example of what happens to a society when democracy begins to disappear and is surpassed by a state remade in the image of the corporation.

A more appropriate way to analyze the water crisis in Flint is to examine it within wider contexts of power and politics, addressing it as a form of domestic terrorism - or what Mark LeVine has called in a different context a 'necropolitics of the oppressed.' This is a form of systemic terror and violence instituted intentionally by different levels of government against populations at home in order to realize economic gains and achieve political benefits through practices that range from assassination, extortion, incarceration, violence and intimidation to coercion of a civilian population. Angela Davis details much of this violence in her new book Freedom Is a Constant Struggle.

De wijze waarop de politieke en financiële elite in Washington en op Wall Street het imperium besturen demonstreert hoe gelijk de zwarte Franstalige dichter Aimé Césaire had toen hij in 1955 in zijn essaybundel Discourse on Colonialism (1955) wees hoe de uitbuiting en repressie:

prove that colonization, I repeat, dehumanizes even the most civilized man, that colonial enterprise, colonial conquest, which is based on contempt for the native and justified by that contempt, inevitably tends to change him who undertakes it, that the colonizer, who in order to ease his conscience gets into the habit of seeing the other man as an animal, accustoms himself to treating him like an animal, and tends objectively to transform himself into an animal… They thought they were only slaughtering Indians, or Hindus, or South Sea Islanders, or Africans. They have in fact overthrown, one after another, the ramparts behind which European civilization could have developed freely. 

De wreedheid, waaronder de gekoloniseerde mens eeuwenlang gebukt ging, raakt op den duur geïnternaliseerd en maakt uiteindelijk in psychologisch opzicht de wreedheid tegen de eigen bevolking mogelijk. Zodra het ondenkbare eenmaal in de praktijk is gebracht, bestaan er geen psychologische barrières meer. Henry Giroux schrijft in dit verband onder de kop 'Connecting the Dots: From Katrina to Flint':

At first glance, the dual tragedies that engulfed New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina and the water contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, appear to have little in common. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's failure to govern, the world was awash in shocking images of thousands of poor people, mostly Black, stranded on rooftops, isolated on dry roads with no food or packed into the New Orleans Superdome desperate for food, medical help and a place to sleep. Even more troubling were images of the bloated bodies of the dead, some floating in the flood waters, others decomposing on the streets for days and others left to die in their homes and apartments.

Flint, Michigan, also represents this different order of terrorism and tragedy. Whereas Katrina unleashed images of dead bodies uncollected on porches, in hospitals, in nursing homes and in collapsed houses in New Orleans, Flint unleashed inconceivable reports that thousands of children had been subjected to lead poisoning because of austerity measures sanctioned by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and imposed by Ed Kurtz, the then-unelected emergency manager of Flint. The poor Black populations of both New Orleans and Flint share the experience of disenfranchisement, and of potential exclusion from the institutional decisions that drastically affect peoples' lives. They live the consequences of neoliberal policies that relegate them to zones of abandonment elevated beyond the sphere of democratic governance and accountability. Both populations suffer from a machinery of domestic terrorism in which state violence was waged upon precarious populations considered unknowable, ungovernable, unworthy and devoid of human rights. Such populations have become all too frequent in the United States and suffer from what Richard Sennett has called a 'specter of uselessness,' one that renders disposable those individuals and groups who are most vulnerable to exploitation, expulsion and state violence.

In New Orleans, state violence took the form of a refusal by the Bush administration to invest financially in infrastructure designed to protect against floods, a decision that was as much about saving money as it was about allegiance to a violent, racist logic, cloaked in the discourse of austerity and willfully indifferent to the needs of the powerless and underserved in Black communities. In Flint, austerity as a weapon of race and class warfare played out in a similar way. With the imposition of unelected emergency managers in 2011, democratically elected officials were displaced in predominantly Black cities such as Detroit and Flint and rendered powerless to influence important policy decisions and their implementation. The recent deployment of emergency managers reflects the frontline shock troops of casino capitalism who represent a new mode of authoritarian rule wrapped in the discourse of financial exigency. As the editors of Third Coast Conspiracy observe:

For more than [a] decade now, Michigan governors have been appointing so-called 'emergency managers' (EMs) to run school districts and cities for which a 'state of financial emergency" has been declared. These unelected administrators rule by fiat — they can override local elected officials, break union contracts, and sell off public assets and privatize public functions at will. It's not incidental that the vast majority of the people who have lived under emergency management are black. Flint, whose population was 55.6% black as of the2010 census(in a state whose population is 14.2% black overall), was under emergency management from December 2011 to April 2015. [Moreover] it was during that period that the decision was made to stop purchasing water from Detroit and start drawing water directly from the Flint River.

Rather than invest in cities such as Flint and Detroit, Governor Snyder decided to downsize the budgets of these predominantly Black cities. For instance, according to a Socialist Worker article by Dorian Bon, in Detroit, "Snyder's appointed manager decided to push Detroit into bankruptcy ... and gain the necessary legal footing to obliterate pensions, social assistance, public schools and other bottom-line city structures." In Flint, emergency manager Kurtz followed the austerity playbook to downsize Flint's budget and put into play a water crisis of devastating proportions. Under the claim of fiscal responsibility, a succession of emergency managers succeeded in privatizing parks and garbage collection, and in conjunction with the Snyder administration aggressively pushed to privatize the water supply. Claire McClinton, a Flint resident, summed up the larger political issue well. She told Democracy Now!: 'And that's the untold story about the problem we have here. We don't have just a water problem. We've got a democracy problem. We've got a dictatorship problem. We've got a problem of being stripped of our democracy as we've known it over the years.' 


The backdrop to the Flint water crisis is the restructuring of the global economy, the deindustrialization of manufacturing cities like Flint and the departure of the auto industry, all of which greatly reduced the city's revenues. Yet, these oft-repeated events only constitute part of the story. As Jacob Lederman points out, Flint's ongoing economic and environmental crisis is the consequence of years of destructive free-market reforms.

According to the Michigan Municipal League, between 2003-2013, Flint lost close to $60 million in revenue sharing from the state, tied to the sales tax, which increased over the same decade. During this period, the city cut its police force in half while violent crime doubled, from 12.2 per 1000 people in 2003, to 23.4 in 2011. Such a loss of revenue is larger than the entire 2015 Flint general fund budget. In fact, cuts to Michigan cities like Flint and Detroit have occurred as state authorities raided so-called statutory revenue sharing funds to balance their own budgets and pay for cuts in business taxes. Unlike "constitutional" revenue sharing in Michigan, state authorities could divert these resources at their discretion. It is estimated that between 2003-2013 the state withheld over $6 billion from Michigan cities. And cuts to revenue sharing increased in line with the state's political turn.

These policy changes and reforms provided a rationale for the apostles of neoliberalism to use calamitous budget deficits of their own design to impose severe austerity policies, gut public funding and cut benefits for autoworkers. As General Motors relocated jobs to the South in order to increase its profits, its workforce in Flint went from 80,000 in the 1970s to its current number of 8,000. These festering economic conditions were worsened under the Snyder administration, which was hell-bent on imposing its neoliberal game plan on Michigan, with the worse effects being visited on cities inhabited largely by poor Black people and immigrants. Under strict austerity measures imposed by the Snyder administration, public services were reduced and poverty ballooned to over 40 percent of the population. Meanwhile, schools deteriorated (with many closing), grocery stores vanished and entire neighborhoods fell into disrepair.

Through the rubric of a financial crisis, intensified by neoliberal policies aimed at destroying any vestige of the social contract and a civic culture, the Snyder administration appointed a series of emergency managers to undermine and sidestep democratic governance in a number of cities, including Flint. In this instance, a criminal economy produced in Flint an egregious form of environmental racism that was part of a broader neoliberal rationality designed to punish poor and underserved Black communities while diverting resources to the financial coffers of the rich and corporations. What emerged from such neoliberal slash-and-burn policies was a politics that transformed cities such as Flint into zones of social and economic abandonment. Michael Moore sums up the practice at work in Flint succinctly:

When Governor Snyder took office in 2011, one of the first things he did was to get a multi-billion-dollar tax break passed by the Republican legislature for the wealthy and for corporations. But with less tax revenues, that meant he had to start cutting costs. So, many things — schools, pensions, welfare, safe drinking water — were slashed. Then he invoked an executive privilege to take over cities (all of them majority black) by firing the mayors and city councils whom the local people had elected, and installing his cronies to act as "dictators" over these cities. Their mission? Cut services to save money so he could give the rich even more breaks. That's where the idea of switching Flint to river water came from. To save $15 million! It was easy. Suspend democracy. Cut taxes for the rich. Make the poor drink toxic river water. And everybody's happy. Except those who were poisoned in the process. All 102,000 of them. In the richest country in the world.

In spite of the dire consequences of such practices, Snyder's appointed officials proceeded to promote neoliberal economic policies that exacerbated Flint's crumbling infrastructure, its high levels of violence, and its corroding and underfunded public school system. Similar policies followed in Detroit, where the schools were so bad that teachers and students reported conditions frankly impossible to imagine. For instance, Wisdom Morales, a student at one of Detroit's public schools, told journalist Amy Goodman, 'I've gotten used to seeing rats everywhere. I've gotten used to seeing the dead bugs.... I want to be able to go to school and not have to worry about being bitten by mice, being knocked out by the gases, being cold in the rooms.' In a New York Times article, titled 'Crumbling, Destitute Schools Threaten Detroit's Recovery,' Julie Bosman further highlights the rancid conditions of Detroit's destitute schools:

In Kathy Aaron's decrepit public school, the heat fills the air with a moldy, rancid odor. Cockroaches, some three inches long, scuttle about until they are squashed by a student who volunteers for the task. Water drips from a leaky roof onto the gymnasium floor. 'We have rodents out in the middle of the day,' said Ms. Aaron, a teacher of 18 years. 'Like they're coming to class.' Detroit's public schools are a daily shock to the senses, run down after years of neglect and mismanagement, while failing academically and teetering on the edge of financial collapse.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35080-poisoned-city-flint-and-the-specter-of-domestic-terrorism




Ondertussen gaan elk jaar opnieuw vele honderden miljarden naar het Amerikaanse oorlogsgeweld en de voorbereidingen van nieuwe oorlogen; meer dan de helft van het besteedbare federale budget vloeit naar het militair-industrieel complex, en de Amerikaanse Deep State trekt het Europa van 'Geen Jorwert zonder Brussel' met zich mee dezelfde heilloze weg op, daarbij geholpen door de fanatieke anti-Poetin mainstream-media. De pedante betweters in de polder, die zelfs de opkomst van Pim Fortuyn niet voorzagen, zien al helemaal niet wat in alle openheid precies voor hun ogen gebeurt. Geen enkele praatjesmaker van de Nederlandse mainstream-media is in staat het volgende te beschrijven:  

The American state’s murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington’s crimes. Today the Europeans are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington’s wars.  The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.

In the article by Mattea Kramer where he points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, medical centers, and people’s homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as 'collateral damage.'

If there is any outcry from Washington’s European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals, it is too muted to be heard in the US.

As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit the worst war crimes.  A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition underUS and international law.  The candidate proclaims that “torture works” — as if that is a justification — despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say anything in order to stop the torture.  Most of those tortured in the “war on terror” have proven to have been innocents. They don’t know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands without endangering innocents.

Washington’s use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool understands that violence creates terrorists.  Washington hasn’t even the intelligence of fools.

The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the strict prohibition by the US Constitution.  Washington’s lawlessness toward others now extends to the American people themselves.

The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens.

Wie schrijven dit? Wel, geen revolutionaire radicalen, maar gerespecteerde Amerikaanse burgers die hun sporen verdiend hebben, te weten 

  1. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

  1. Mattea Kramer formerly served as NPP’s lead researcher and research director, covering such topics as federal spending and tax policy, federal health care programs, Social Security, and military and homeland security funding. Mattea is the lead author of NPP’s book A People’s Guide to the Federal Budget and her writing has been published in the Washington Post, the Guardian, the Nation, the Christian Science Monitor, and Mother Jones. She has also served as a commentator for media outlets ranging from MSNBC to Los Angeles public radio. She holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics from Amherst College and a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from Harvard.

Kortom, de Amerikaanse voormalige staatssecretaris van Financiën onder Reagan, en de voormalige Directeur Onderzoek van de National Priorities Project, dat in 2014

was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of our pioneering work to track federal spending on the military and promote a U.S. federal budget that represents Americans' priorities, including funding for people's issues such as inequality, unemployment, education, health and the need to build a green economy.

Maar omdat het poldermodel een eufemisme is voor intellectuele corruptie blijft Henk Hoflands 'politiek-literaire elite,' waar geen enkele 'natie zonder [kan]' de NAVO-propaganda net zolang herhalen tot het te laat is. Later meer over mijn corrupte collega's in de journalistiek. En als dit allemaal te pittig voor u is, kunt u altijd nog Paul Brill's Atlantische propaganda gaan beluisteren in De Balie. Hieronder de portretten van De Balie-medewerkers. Valt ook u het op hoe wit ze allen zijn, geen enkele gekleurde medewerker in de multiculturele samenleving, waarin meer dan 20 procent een zogeheten 'allochtoon' is. De meerderheid van de 'medewerkers' is vrouw, maar ook die hebben kennelijk dezelfde mentaliteit als de modale witte Hollandse man. Hoe anders zouden ze De Balie zo 'blank' hebben weten te houden. Spreekt u hen er eens op aan. 

Medewerkers De Balie:

    
Directie


Yoeri Albrecht

directeur
yoeri.albrecht(at)debalie.nl
@YoeriAlbrecht

Jolanda Beyer

zakelijk directeur
jolanda.beyer(at)debalie.nl
@JolandaBeyer

Charlotte Brikkenaar van Dijk

directie-assistent
charlotte.brikkenaarvandijk(at)debalie.nl

    
Programmamakers


 +31 (0)20-5535180

Mirthe Frese

politiek / kunst
mirthe.frese(at)debalie.nl
@MirtheEmily

Absaline Hehakaya
cinema
absaline.hehakaya(at)debalie.nl

Ianthe Mosselman
medewerker redactie
ianthe.mosselman(at)debalie.nl
@Ianth

Marije Ligthart
politiek / europa
marije.ligthart(at)debalie.nl

Thomas van Neerbos

politiek / media
thomas.vanneerbos(at)debalie.nl

Rikkert Seveke
onderwijs
rik.seveke(at)debalie.nl
@RikSeveke

Merlijn Geurts

medewerker redactie
merlijn.geurts(at)debalie.nl

Tim Wagemakers
medewerker redactie
tim.wagemakers(at)debalie.nl
@TimSW

Yannick Servais
algemeen redacteur
yannick.servais(at)debalie.nl

Marek Stolarczyk
assistent cinema
marek.stolarczyk(at)debalie.nl
Stagiairs:
Britt de Bruyn (Cinema)
Uzume Wijnsma (Redactie)
Lily Schim van der Loeff (Redactie)

    
Communicatie & Publiciteit

 communicatie(at)debalie.nl +31 (0)20-5535170

Lotte Kroese
hoofd communicatie
lotte.kroese(at)debalie.nl
@LotKroese

Margot van Oosten
medewerker publiciteit
margot.vanoosten(at)debalie.nl
@margotvoosten

Simcha Goudsmit
Webredactie
simcha.goudsmit(at)debalie.nl

Alleen Carajillo de kat is zwart, maar die kan dan ook niet debatteren.


Carajillo de Debatkat

Joodse lobby gaat het kabinet Jetten redden.

De van origine Israelische extremist Gidi Markuszower, gaat als Nederlands parlementslid de regering Jetten redden. Terwijl in de VS de Jood...