Month: April 2023

In The New Human Rights Movement – Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, Peter Joseph wrote: “Today the US leads the world in terms of both economic influence and military force, endlessly pushing the neoliberal values of “free trade” as a root priority. The incentives that are at play in the US war economy is like a philosophical crusade, it has been deemed an imperative of Western business-political leaders to ensure that people comply with what is in effect the new global religion – a religion that invariably prioritizes commerce over everything else, with human rights increasingly subordinated to business rights. When one understands how the rules of trade, property, and exchange have become the determining mechanisms of society, decoupling focus from actual life-supporting means and factors of social trust, the dehumanized, conflicted-ridden nature of the modern world begins to make a lot more sense.

Given this ethic, educations is simply another product to be bought and sold and little more. The US government allocates roughly 2 percent of its annual budge to education. This is in stark contrast to the 20 percent of its annual budget to military, suggesting war is more beneficial to the nation’s leaders than an educated population.” New Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz questions the double standard of Republican party: “558 people has been murdered in school, who cared about the cost? What about the kids? No hearings for them! Three hundred thirty thousand kids experience gun violence in this country, the number one killer of school age children in this country is gun violence.”

Just see Who REALLY Won the War in Afghanistan. This list is just a drop on the bucket. The list of who got super rich off the war is longer than any of us can fathom. The incentives are at play in the US war economy – this is a structure issue as well as a moral issue. Edward Snowden says “When exposing a crime is treated as committing a crime, you are being ruled by criminals”. What blows our mind is that killing innocent Iraqi civilians can be swept under the rug without any consequences but leaking publishing information about can get you jailed for multiple years, as in the case of Julian Assange who is a hero to expose the corruption. We thankful to these people who take the time to defend society’s true freedom. The fact that the most powerful country of the world feel so threatened by a man like Julian Assange speaks of itself. ‘The object of power is power. The object of torture is torture.’ -1984, Orwell.

In The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality Paperback – November 3, 2020 Katharina Pistor, a legal scholar demonstrates how the rights of capital have been entrenched in the international legal system, opening a thoughtful discussion about the treaties on capital flows and privileges that need to be rewritten. The book explains how, behind closed doors in the offices of private attorneys, capital is created―and why this little-known activity is one of the biggest reasons for the widening wealth gap between the holders of capital and everybody else. The book explains the various ways that debt, complex financial products, and other assets are selectively coded to protect and reproduce private wealth. This provocative book paints a troubling portrait of the pervasive global nature of the code, the people who shape it, and the governments that enforce it. The author argues that almost everything that we call wealth is ultimately a human construction based in law and subject to review and change. What is the point of endlessly arguing about the ineffable logic of economics if that logic largely emerges from the fabric of law? Much more likely those laws are merely another political landscape upon which the endless struggle between the powerful and the rest plays out. And as such, they are changeable – and with that change, outcomes will be different. Moreover, this discussion is morally necessary because it is ultimately the power of the state – as the representative of the people – which is being used to enforce the claims of wealth among its citizens. A powerful new way of thinking about one of the most pernicious problems of our time.

Today people almost take for granted big corporate money in American politics. Not only can congresspeople trade stocks, they can insider trade without repercussions. It’s absurd. But it started with the Powell memo. The Corporate “Heist” of the United States Government Began With this Memo in 1971. Lewis Powell was a corporate attorney from Virginia who was asked by his friend at the US Chamber of Commerce to write a secret strategy memorandum for the chamber in 1971. Two months later, Richard Nixon nominated him to the Supreme Court of the United States, where he served a number of years. The memo became a rallying cry among corporate executives for how to reassert corporate dominance over the American economy and its government, which it had lost during the era of the New Deal. The memo openly stated that corporations should punish their political enemies and should seek political power through both the law and politics. It encouraged challenges to what it saw as left-wing activities by people such as Ralph Nader and US academics. By 1978, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable defeated pro-labor law reforms through a filibuster by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, which signaled the demise of organized labor as a significant opponent of organized money.

Economist Robert Reich wrote in Worse Memo in American History: Wealthy individuals also accounted for a growing share. In 1980, the richest one-hundredth of 1% of Americans provided 10% of contributions to federal elections. By 2012, they provided 40%. Although Republicans mostly benefited from a few large donors and Democrats from a much larger number of small donors (more on this to come), both political parties transformed themselves from state and local organizations that channeled the views of members upward into giant fundraising machines that sucked in money from the top.

Senator Joe Manchin has been Congress’ largest recipient of money from natural gas pipeline companies. He just reciprocated by gaining Senate support for the Mountain Valley pipeline in West Virginia and expedited approval for pipelines nationwide. Senator Kyrsten Sinema is among Congress’s largest recipients of money from the private-equity industry. She just reciprocated by preserving private-equity’s tax loophole in the Inflation Reduction Act.

In a interview on political economic laws, Mark Karlin, Managing Editor of Buzzflash on Truthout, asked: Playing the role of devil’s advocate, despite the planned evolution of a pro-corporate majority on the Supreme Court, one of their most significant rulings in the past few years, Citizens United, was not able to buy them the 2012 presidential election. Was this a fluke, or are changing demographics starting to counterbalance, at least on some key occasions, the insidious influence of big money?

Thom Hartmann, an political commentator views it this way: “I think it’s both. First, the selection allowed them to calibrate their systems for future elections. I mean, when you think of what an incredibly bad candidate Mitt Romney was – a predatory banker who was born a millionaire and couldn’t even pull decent approval ratings numbers in the state where he had been governor – what should shock and horrify all of us is that he was able to get, ironically, 47 percent of the vote. You have virtually every Republican member of the House of Representatives who voted for Paul Ryan’s budget – which would have decimated the middle class, voucherized Medicare and dropped Mitt Romney’s tax rate to zero – and enough of them, with billionaire support, were able to get elected but they held the House. I see these as very dangerous and, frankly, frightening trends. And not only will they be back, but it’s already begun.”

Look at this group of multi-millionaire and billionaire CEOs who, along with a few shill former politicians, have started this multi-million-dollar AstroTurf “fix the debt” group. We didn’t see the end; we just saw the very beginning. Unless we amend the Constitution to say that corporations are not people and that money is not speech, America will soon become a full-blown oligarchy.

It is interesting how the term philanthropy, defined as “the desire to promote the welfare of others,” has become associated almost exclusively with the wealthy; a badge worn to show how they “give back” to the community. Yet, rarely is the question of why there is the need to give back considered from the standpoint of market dynamics itself. While there is indeed growing global concern about increasing inequality, existing poverty, and so on little real effort is being made to counter the problem from the standpoint of altering the social structure to correct what are clearly systemic problems inherent in or society. In fact, philanthropy appears to be the only practice to redistribute wealth that isn’t met head-on with great disdain by the prevailing intelligentsia, especially in America. Even quite basic traditional platforms, such as increased taxation of the rich, are routinely met with contempt by gatekeeper of the capitalist religion. In the words of conservative Forbes contributor Jeffery Dorfman, “Income Redistribution’s Logical Conclusion Is Communism…. once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.” This kind of anti-social dogma is nothing new, prominently set in motion in the early to mid-twentieth century when the threat of communism was putting capitalist hegemony at risk. The long-term consequence has been a reactionary Western culture that sees any direct government action toward economic equality, especially if it inconveniences the wealthy, as little more than a move toward bureaucratic tyranny.

While all charity is admirable, once it becomes institutionalized and funded to the extent seen by organizations such as the Gates Foundation, it turns into something different, with extended social ramifications. These elite charities are true, large-scale institutions with power, engaging in lobbying, transnational partnerships, political policy alignments, and so on. Where and how the George Soroses and Bill Gateses of the world mobilize money can have powerful effects on industry, politics, culture, academia, scientific research, national policy, and the like. In the case of Gates, his foundation is “undeniably, the most powerful an influential global health charity in history,” in the words of health-law professor Lawrence Gostin. What critics rightfully point out is that, regardless of good intention, unaccountable, singular private power in global health affairs poses serious problems, in the same way autocratic dictatorships pose serious problems for democracy and liberty. Any organization with the power to actually affect the lives of millions of people needs transparency, accountability, and a democratic presence. Thee private institutions have little to non.

What we have is the rise of a new breed of pseudo-egalitarian capitalists. They generate their great wealth by way of often ruthless competitive behavior in the private sector, arguably promoting the very mechanisms that have led to the vast structural violence and extensive poverty existing on Earth to begin with. They then turn around and offer their charity as the solution to the problems created by the very system that rewards them. Once again, this has nothing to do with intent. It is about an underlying hypocrisy that bypasses and obscures the real problem-solving focus desperately needed to further human-rights justice. That focus can only be structural.

At the same time, this institutionalization of philanthropy also serves to placate the public, giving a caring face to those who have often extracted such great wealth at the cost of others’ well-being. In the words of activist Slavoj Zizek, “Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation.” There is a deep psychological need in those of great wealth to feel that their exceptionalism is justified. They naturally wish not only to ensure everyone believes they deserve what they have, but also to justify it to themselves. An example of this is the “Giving Pledge” project it is very difficult not to view the entire project as a PR stunt for the upper 0.1 percent. There is no transparency, so the public might never know whether a person gave or not.

For those who do follow through, there are prominent tax incentives, specifically in the United States. Since donations to charity and philanthropic foundations allow for reduced tax liability for the rich, giving money away often becomes an act of strategic self-interest. Very often, the rich simply set up their own foundations and move money through them via tax loopholes. Estate taxes are interesting as they relate to the rich only. In the US when wealthy people die, s In 2023, the federal estate tax ranges from rates of 18% to 40% and generally only applies to assets over $12.92 million. The rich work around this tax in various ways, with charitable foundations forming the most common means. A study done by the Tax Policy Center in 2003 found that “the estate tax encourage charitable giving at death by allowing a deduction for charitable bequests” and “also encourages giving during life.” The Congressional Budge Office corroborated this finding and added that during life, this same class would also reduce giving by up to 11 percent.

With globalization wealth inequality explode to a level never seen before. Disparity is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is a problem challenging our great cities, sprawling suburbs and rural heartland.  Asian Americans are among the fastest growing group in US. But Why income inequality is growing at the fastest rate among Asian Americans. According to Pew Research Center, the median household income for Asian American households was $85,800 in 2019, slightly higher than the total U.S. median household income. Burmese Americans, however, bring in a household income of $44,400, about half of the median income for Asians in the United States. It’s an example of the widening income inequality within the Asian American community. Aggregate economic data often overshadows poverty experienced by many Asian Americans. Even in Taiwan, one of the most well-to-do and democratic politics in Asian regions, the Housing Affordability Crisis is closely related to Government Policy Actions in Taiwan.

In June 2020, US House Speaker Pelosi appointed the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth. The Committee was suppose to develop solutions to the key economic issue of our time: the yawning prosperity gap between wealthy Americans and everyone else. America is more unequal today than it has ever been, and far more unequal than other developed nations. Great wealth disparities slow our economy, poison our politics and offend our moral sensibilities. The Committee was dissolved in January 2023 at the start of the 118th Congress, is not fair and justice one of the most pressing issues of our time? With government cutting social welfare, Assisted-living homes are rejecting Medicaid and evicting seniors. How to balance business interest with humanitarian and needs is something our government needs to address.

The Maker Versus the Takers: What Jesus Really Said About Social Justice and Economics Paperback – August 23, 2022 by Jerry Bowyer (Author). Jesus definitely wants His followers to be compassionate and generous, He had no problem with those who accumulate wealth honestly, by hard work or even shrewd investments, enjoying the fruits of their efforts. Rather His issue is with those in positions of power who prosper by exploiting the less fortunate. As the author puts it, “What you will see is Jesus confronting the takers of wealth, not the makers of it”. Jesus never said anything negative about wealth or rich people when preaching in Galilee, which was characterized by numerous moderately prosperous tradespeople and small family farms, what today we would call “small businesses.” It was only in Judea, and especially Jerusalem, where a powerful ruling class exploited the people for their own profit, that He had harsh things to say to the rich.