Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

woensdag 30 december 2020

Elites Warning Against $2000 Stimulus Checks

 

Economist Behind 2008 Financial Crash Among Elites Warning Against $2000 Stimulus Checks

78% of Americans support the proposed $2,000 stimulus check, but that hasn’t stopped the Washington Post, New York Times, and a cadre of DC economic elites from sounding the alarm against the measure.

December 30th, 2020

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary, Chief Economist of the World Bank, Director of the National Economic Council, and President of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers has warned against any implementation of a $2,000 COVID relief check.

Writing in business publication Bloomberg, the 66-year-old economist insisted that the proposal, which has drawn support from figures as diverse as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, was a “big mistake,” as it would likely “overheat the economy.” He noted that he did support strengthening social safety nets and other spending measures, but maintained that $2,000 was too much. “There is no good economic argument for the $2,000 checks,” he confidently concluded.

Yet there are many reasons not to treat Summers as an infallible economic sage. Chief among them is his (major) role in causing the 2008 financial crisis that devastated the United States and much of the rest of the world.

During his time in the Department of the Treasury under President Clinton, Summers successfully lobbied for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a 60-year-old piece of legislation that separated commercial banking from the wild west of investment banking, insulating Americans’ savings from the dangerous world of venture capitalism. He also pushed for increased deregulation of the finance system in general, setting the stage for an inevitable collapse. A paid consultant to Citigroup and other financial behemoths, he also later opposed efforts to break up the “too big to fail” banks after the crisis.

This is perhaps not even Summers’ most notorious moment, however. In 2000, the Governor of California Gray Davis (D), reached out to the then-Treasury Secretary for advice, suspecting that energy giant Enron was toying with the state’s energy supply for profit, greatly increasing electricity prices even while power outages surged. Summers reportedly scoffed at his suspicions, patiently explaining that California’s main problem was over-regulation and that he should allow Enron to operate more freely. One year later, Davis’s suspicions were confirmed as Enron went bankrupt in a massive scandal that exposed the company as a Ponzi scheme.

Summers has always been a passionate believer in the magic of the free-market. While at the World Bank, he imposed austerity and trickle-down economics on a myriad of poor countries, while also infamously promoting the export of toxic waste from rich countries onto poor countries in Africa on economic grounds, suggesting that poor people’s lives were worth less than those of the rich. “The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that,” he wrote.

Summers also resigned from his position as President of Harvard in 2006 after a vote of no confidence from the university’s faculty. This came in the wake of him attacking African-American professor Cornel West, claiming that his rap album was an “embarrassment” to the university. It appeared that the faculty found Summers’ comments that women were inherently inferior in science and engineering, thus explaining the lack of female graduates and staff in those fields, to be more of an embarrassment, however. No doubt the wild financial risks he took with Harvard’s endowment — blunders estimated to have cost the university $1.8 billion — did not help his cause, either.

Summers is not the only one in corporate media sounding the alarm about giving money to poor people. The Washington Post was so strongly against the idea that its board rushed out an editorial insisting that it was a “bad idea” pushed for political reasons, not economic ones, claiming that all it would achieve would be to “blow nearly half a trillion taxpayer dollars.” Meanwhile, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warned that the checks would be “divisive,” and that their economics “aren’t very good.” What “divisive” means in this context appears unclear, as a recent poll showed that 78% of Americans support the $2,000 checks. 57% “strongly support” them, while only 7% “strongly oppose” them.

The cost of the project, estimated by detractors at around $464 billion, is less than one-quarter of what the billionaire class has increased its wealth by in 2020. At the same time as the super-rich have been getting richer, however, ordinary Americans have been suffering. A September report noted that 56 million had been forced to use a food bank at some point, while 51 million Americans were made unemployed by July. A poll released Monday found that Americans rated 2020 to be the worst year in modern history. A $2,000 check at the end of it might have made some difference in their outlook, but if Summers has anything to do with it, that will not be coming their way at all.

Feature photo | Former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers attends the meeting with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang during China Development Forum 2017 at Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, March 20, 2017 in Beijing. Etienne Oliveau | Pool via AP

Alan MacLeod is a Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent. He has also contributed to Fairness and Accuracy in ReportingThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin MagazineCommon Dreams the American Herald Tribune and The Canary.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/economist-warns-2000-stimulus-checks-big-mistake/273973/#.X-yvzQT5EWc.twitter


Grading Trump on Foreign Policy

 

Grading Trump on Foreign Policy

  

Huge Military Budgets, Covert Operations, Drones and Assassinations—but hey, at least he didn’t start another major war

By any objective measure, Donald Trump has been one of the worst presidents in American history.

His administration exacerbated inequalities, fomented social divisions, encouraged nativist and white supremacist groups, gutted environmental protections, mishandled the Covid-19 crisis, and tarnished the office of the presidency in a way that no president ever has or probably ever will.

On foreign policy, Trump’s legacy is just as bad as in every other area.

His administration shamefully (1) pulled out of the Iran nuclear agreement and Paris climate change accords, (2) expanded the drone war, (3) dropped the mother of all bombs on Afghanistan, (4) loosened restrictions on air strikes in the Middle East, causing a spike in civilian casualties, (5) pardoned a Navy Seal (Eddie Gallagher) who posed with the mutilated body of an Islamic state captive and four Blackwater mercenaries who killed seventeen civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, (6) supported right-wing coups in Bolivia and Venezuela, (7) restored the cruel Cold War policy towards Cuba, (8) unveiled more than 3,900 sanctions actions including against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a blatant attempt to protect U.S. government officials, (9) expanded arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which totaled $3.35 billion in 2018, (10) vetoed measures to end U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen, (11) unfroze military aid to Egypt despite the massive human rights abuses of General Fatah-al-Sissi, and (12) pulled out of the Inter-Nuclear Forces (INF) arms control treaty with Russia on spurious pretexts.

In one respect, though, Trump may have been better than most of his predecessors—he did not start any major new wars.

Also on the positive side, Trump (1) withdrew troops and took some steps to end the Afghanistan War, (2) raised questions about the purpose of NATO, (3) cut funding for Pakistan because it subsidized the Taliban, (4) pushed for cuts to the African military command (AFRICOM), (5) withdrew U.S. troops from Somalia, and (6) made efforts at diplomatic engagement with North Korea and Russia, which did not sit well with the traditional foreign policy establishment.

Record Military Budgets

Trump was different from all other presidents in his candor: He openly advocated for the U.S. to “take the oil” from Middle-Eastern countries, and when asked about whether Russian leader Vladimir Putin had ever killed anybody, responded: “What, you think we’re so innocent.”

During the 2020 election campaign, Trump said that all Pentagon leaders “want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

However, in 2020 Trump signed off on a $721.5 billion Pentagon budget—the largest in its history—and military spending totals of around $934 billion.

His first three defense secretaries had deep ties to military defense contractors and his fourth, Christopher Miller, served as a Special Forces assassin in Afghanistan and Iraq.[1]

For 2018, Trump approved more than $55.6 billion in foreign weapons sales, compared to $33.6 billion in foreign military sales in fiscal 2016, the last year of the Obama administration.

Most disturbing of all, perhaps, was Trump’s attempt to institutionalize a culture of military worship that is characteristic of fascist states.

In a book by former family friend Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, Trump is said to have wanted his inauguration to look more like Pyongyang than Washington.

“I want tanks and choppers. Make it look like North Korea,” he said, according to the author.

Beyond the parades, Trump also regularly speaks in front of military equipment, using fighter planes, ships and ground vehicles as backdrops. The F-35 is a standard part of his rally speeches.

Fake Dove

Before he became president, Trump never took any principled stands on foreign policy. As a youth, he had attended the New York Military Academy but gained a deferment from the Vietnam-era draft on medical grounds by claiming that he had bone spurs. Trump said that he was against the Vietnam War, which he called “ridiculous,” but also said that he never attended any protests, as he “had better things to do.”

When asked about his favorite historical figures, Trump cited Theodore Roosevelt, General Douglas MacArthur, and General George S. Patton, who were all rabid war hawks. He told the New York Times during the 2016 presidential campaign that “if we had Douglas MacArthur today or if we had George Patton today and if we had a president that would let them do their thing you wouldn’t have ISIS, okay?”

Trump paradoxically tried to capitalize on a mood of disillusionment with “forever wars” by invoking the name America First, which harked back to a major right-wing antiwar organization of the 1930s, and criticized rivals like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton for supporting the Iraq War.

Trump’s insincerity was reflected in his choice of Zalmay Khalilzadto introduce him at one of his major foreign policy campaign speeches during the 2016 campaign.

A chief planner of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Khalilzad served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005) and Iraq (2005-2007) and was part of the Project for a New American Century, a group of neoconservatives who pushed for the war in Iraq.

The choice of Khalilzad foreshadowed his appointment of Bush-era retreads and foreign policy hawks like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to top foreign policy posts.

Trump and his vice president, Mike Pence, were especially close to Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater, who offered to build Trump a private covert action army.

According to a New York Times investigation, Prince helped recruit former American and British spies for secretive intelligence-gathering operationsthat included infiltrating Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda. These actions exemplify how the adoption of illiberal methods overseas helped to compromise democracy at home during the Trump years.

“As Supportive as any President:” Trump and Israel

During the 2020 election, Trump was favored by Israelis by almost 45 percentage points. He had been “as supportive of Israel as any president since 1945,” one analyst wrote.

In 2018, Congress codified into law an Obama-era memorandum of understanding for defense aid to Israel in which the U.S. committed to providing Israel $38 billion over ten years—the largest-ever defense-related transfer to Israel. Trump supplemented this aid with $705 million in support for Israeli missile defense systems

In December 2017, Trump extended official U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which struck a blow against the Palestinians who want to establish East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

When a new U.S. embassy was unveiled six months later, Israeli soldiers killed dozens of Palestinian protesters on the Gaza border.

In 2019, Trump signed a presidential proclamation affording recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which had been seized from Syria following the 1967 six-day war. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also signed a declaration that the “establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”

In a final gratuitous gift to the right-wing Netanyahu government, Pompeo in November visited the annexed Golan Heights and a settlement in the occupied West Bank. These moves, unprecedented for a sitting Secretary of State, were designed to legitimate Israeli claims to these territories while emphasizing how little the U.S. is interested in Palestinian statehood or basic rights.

Trump and Russia

During the 2016 campaign, Trump brought some hope for better relations between the U.S and Russia which had deteriorated during President Obama’s second term. However, Trump was mercilessly attacked when he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and accused of being a Russian agent, without foundation.

The Russophobic climate pushed Trump to adopt a hard-line policy that extended the new Cold War. In 2019, the Trump administration pulled out of the INF agreement and insinuated that it would not renew the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), another nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires in 2021.

Trump also extended economic sanctions directed against Russia, in some instances in response to accusations that had not been verified, such as Russia’s alleged poisoning of ex-military intelligence officer Sergei Skirpal, which was never established.

Trump angered Russia further by providing lethal military aid—including Javelin antitank rocket launchers—to Ukraine, which was fighting a dirty war in its eastern provinces against Russian proxies, and by participating in military training activities with the Ukrainians, such as the September 2017 Rapid Trident air exercise and the October 2018 Clear Sky exercise.

Some 13,000 people have been killed in the war in Eastern Ukraine, the majority by the Ukrainian military, which includes neo-Nazi battalions.

If Trump was a Russian agent, he certainly did not act like one.

Intermarium and the Move Away from Old Europe

This past summer, Trump rankled the foreign policy establishment when he announced the withdrawal of 12,000 U.S. troops from Germany.

However, one thousand of those troops were redeployed to Poland as part of a new defense cooperation agreement signed in August 2020 on the anniversary of the victory of Poland in the Polish-Soviet war of 1920.

The new troops in Poland added to the 4,500 that were previously deployed by President Barack Obama following the 2014 Western-backed coup d’état in Ukraine and the Russian takeover of Crimea.

They reflected a strategic shift of U.S. administrations moving the core of NATO from Paris and Bonn—what Donald Rumsfeld famously termed “old Europe”—to the East, as part of an aggressive drive to control former parts of the Soviet Union and Central Asia.

As CAM reported, a central goal was to resurrect the Intermarium—a geopolitical concept originating in the post-World War I era that envisages an alliance of countries reaching from the Baltic Sea over the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea that would serve as an alternative power bloc between Germany and Russia.

In March 2018, Poland signed a $4.75 billion deal to purchase U.S. Patriot missile defense systems from Raytheon, the largest arms procurement deal in Polish history.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov told Sputnik News that the Patriot deployments were “part of a U.S. plot to surround Russia with missile defense systems under the pretext of mythical threats to security.”

These comments epitomize how Trump’s military buildups and expansion of arms sales in Eastern Europe were helping to inflame tensions with Russia as part of the new Cold War.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2020/12/30/grading-trump-on-foreign-policy/



Ecosystem Destruction Fueled the Pandemic

 

 

Ecosystem Destruction Fueled the Pandemic. Pollution 

Has Made It Worse.

On December 30, 2019, an urgent email circulated on the internet, in which the Wuhan Municipal Health Committee noted the treatment of multiple patients with “pneumonia of unknown cause.” Since then, researchers have identified antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in blood and spit samples in the United States, France and Italy, suggesting human exposure to the virus may have occurred well before that first cluster in Wuhan, China. Scientists have a long road ahead in pinpointing the exact conditions under which COVID-19 originated. But the job is underway.

The World Health Organization and a Lancet COVID-19 Commission are in the midst of attempting to trace COVID’s origin story to determine how public health officials might prevent pandemics of similar proportions in the future. In the meantime, epidemiologists agree that humans most likely got the virus from bats, through a transfer linked to the same changes in land use that contribute to the climate crisis.

Carlos Zambrana-Torrelio is the associate vice president for conservation at the EcoHealth Alliance. As he explained during a talk on biodiversity loss and COVID-19 in April, over 400 diseases have jumped from other animals to humans in the past 60 years, an estimated 65 percent of which have been linked to ecosystem loss through processes like deforestation and an increase in agricultural practices. “We are getting more encounters with animals and therefore we get more viruses coming from these animals to us,” Zambrana-Torrelio said. Other zoonotic viruses, including MERS, H1N1 and HIV, followed a similar course.


“Bat viruses spill into humans; they don’t climb into us,” the author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic, David Quammen wrote in December for The New York Times. As the public grows familiar with COVID’s original hosts, people shouldn’t harbor animosity toward bats or other animals, he wrote, explaining how extractive processes like hunting bats for meat or collecting bat excrement for fertilizer is what tends to initiate the “spillage” of viruses. In his piece, Quammen emphasizes that the viral transfer did not occur because a bat simply “flew into Wuhan and bit a poor man on the toe.”

Neither should individual people tied into extractive livelihoods that sustain them necessarily be held to blame for the ecosystem changes they’re caught in. “Disease happens because of natural and unnatural selection,” University of Minnesota professor of veterinary population medicine Dominic Travis said during a panel in May. With each degree of latitude moving toward the equator, the diversity of microorganisms, flora and fauna increases, which means human encroachment on these ecosystems provides increased opportunities for viral transmission. Concerns about hunting and poaching are valid, Travis said, but cracking down on specific locations where the probability of disease transfer is heightened masks the larger driving forces of global capitalism. “Locally, you have markets based on food security,” Travis said. “But then we’ve got this scalability issue as well. We’ve got these global trade routes where these products are transferred.”

Such was the case with the 1998 Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia, spurred in part by an increased demand for pork. As rainforests were burned and cleared to make way for new agricultural land, fruit bats that lived among the canopies were left without fruit to feed on, forcing them into orchards elsewhere. Somewhere in that process, on account of the sudden close proximity, pigs living around the orchards picked up Nipah, possibly by consuming fallen fruit that bats had nibbled on. Once it was known that livestock were getting sick, pig farmers prepared their animals even more rapidly for markets to minimize potential economic loss in case the animals got sick and died. Of the 265 people who contracted Nipah during the outbreak, 105 died as a result of the virus. Other Nipah virus outbreaks have since been detected in Singapore and the Philippines, as well as repeated outbreaks in Bangladesh and India, where the mean fatality rate is 75 percent.

With the COVID-19 vaccination rollout underway, the question of how to prevent future pandemics looms large. Some scholars focus on the benefits of international aid, such as USAID’s Biodiversity Conservation and Forestry Program. “At an annual cost of $9.6 billion, direct forest-protection payments to outcompete deforestation economically could achieve a 40 percent reduction in areas at highest risk for virus spillover,” 17 international scholars co-wrote in a July article in the journal Science. The scholars also point to strengthening wildlife enforcement networks and minimizing disease spillover by testing wildlife, humans and livestock for known pathogens in rural areas more frequently.

Other scholars have emphasized that mitigating the current pandemic and preventing future ones must entail a shift in political philosophy — refocusing policy to bring about degrowth, debt cancellation and the precarious conditions in which agricultural laborers work. Iowa State University professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, Rob Wallace, for instance, has written for Truthout that investing in healthy soil and clean water could minimize the rift between economy and ecology that leads pathogens to spring up in unexpected pastures. “On the world stage, we must end the unequal ecological exchange between the Global North and South,” Wallace wrote.

Whereas a virus like SARS-CoV-2 may have once “burned out” relatively quickly in a healthy forest ecosystem, Wallace suggested in Monthly Review, “Ecosystems in which such ‘wild’ viruses were in part controlled by the complexities of the tropical forest are being drastically streamlined by capital-led deforestation and, at the other end of the peri urban development, by deficits in public health and environmental sanitation.” When left to live in an environment undisturbed by humans, pathogens have fewer opportunities to encounter their ideal host species, Wallace explained, so they often die out on their own.

As of this writing, over 82 million people have active COVID cases across the globe, and over 1.7 million people have died from the disease, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 dashboard. The results of public health research suggest the staggering COVID numbers — particularly the fatalities — could have been prevented by policies and regulations that prioritize the health of human ecosystems.

A Harvard analysis of data from 3,080 U.S. counties shows that a small increase in long-term exposure to polluted air leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rates, such that if Manhattan had taken measures to lower its level of particulate matter by a single microgram per cubic meter over the past 20 years, 248 fewer people may have died from COVID-19 in that borough. Ongoing wildfires in the Western U.S., linked to rising average temperatures as a result of climate change, may also increase the risk of COVID. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that wildfire smoke can irritate lungs, cause inflammation, affect the immune system and “make you more prone to lung infections, including SARS-CoV-2.”

Meanwhile, on December 7, the Trump administration rejected Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists’ recommendations to lower the soot standard, The Washington Post reported. According to EPA scientists, lowering the standard to between eight and 10 micrograms per cubic meter could save up to 34,600 liveseach year — a disproportionate number of which would likely be people of color. White people breathe 17 percent less air pollution than what is caused by their own consumption, in comparison with Black and Latinx people, who consume 56 and 63 percent more, respectively, than what they themselves are responsible for emitting. The disparity is due, in part, to drastically different concentrations of air pollution at places of residence, but the causes behind the findings are a subject of ongoing analysis. “This flies in the face of good science and good public health. It is outrageous,” Dominique Browning, co-founder and the head of Moms Clean Air Force told The Washington Post.

Much remains to be researched regarding the impact of pollution and other environmental malaise on COVID outcomes. A Danish study now under peer review suggests exposure to the “forever chemical” PFAS may increase the likelihood of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms twofold. The CDC recently issued a statement that high PFAS levels in the blood may also lessen COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, noting however that “more research is needed.” Ostensibly, the dozens of Trump-era environmental rollbacks — including loosened restrictions on the transport and discharge of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the release of wastewater from coal-burning power plants — could be further worsening COVID’s wrath through dynamics upon which researchers have yet to design studies.

As is the case with the climate crisis, all countries are not created equal in their culpability in and failure to respond to the COVID crisis, nor now, in their access to the vaccine. As Georgetown Professor of Global Health Emily Mendenhall has written in The Lancet, “Recognising failures of wealthy countries is imperative as we think about where global knowledge and power sit within fields like global health.”

https://truthout.org/articles/ecosystem-destruction-fueled-the-pandemic-pollution-has-made-it-worse/?fbclid=IwAR3j6AeuyiiQyF_7uf4LCW7bDgnT_dIuUT6jp0Qdwg5NH7CUXatoYmPqheM



Dr Hysterische Zionistische Haat

  Richard @ricwe123 That moment when Israeli police officers decided it would be a good idea to attack the Christian funeral procession of P...