JonathanHaynes Jonathan Haynes
UK jobless rate hits 8.1%, the highest for 15 years. Youth unemployment at 991,000
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Why the Thames's north and south banks are worlds apart
Australia parliament passes divisive carbon tax
Australia's lower house of parliament has narrowly passed a bill for a controversial carbon tax.
The legislation would force about 500 of the biggest polluters to pay for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit.The tax is central to the government's strategy to combat climate change, but the opposition says it will cause job losses and raise the cost of living.
Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and is one of the biggest per capita greenhouse gas emitters.
"Today is a significant day for Australians and the Australians of the future who want to see a better environment," Prime Minister Julia Gillard said before the vote.
After her Clean Energy Bill 2011 was passed with 74 votes for and 72 against, she hugged colleagues and waved to supporters in the public galleries.
Protests
The victory is an important one for the prime minister, whose popularity with voters in opinion polls has been declining against the opposition.
The bill is unpopular with many Australians. Thousands of people have protested against it, accusing Ms Gillard of lying before last year's election.
Ms Gillard made a pledge during last year's federal election not to introduce a carbon tax.
The proposed tax was drawn up after Ms Gillard failed to win an overall majority in parliament at the polls and had to rely on the support of the Australian Greens.
The carbon tax and a companion bill for A$300m ($298m; £191m) in assistance for the Australian steel industry are expected to pass in the senate with the assistance of the Greens next month.Australia's 500 heaviest polluters will pay A$23 for each tonne of carbon emissions, and households will be compensated through tax cuts or welfare increases for any increased costs.
It will be introduced on 1 July next year, and will then evolve into an emissions trading scheme three years later.
The conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has promised to ditch the tax if he wins office.
@'BBC'
Carbon protesters interrupt Question Time
FACT mix 290: Appleblim
Tracklist:Gas – Zauberberg track 1 (Mille Plateaux)
David Sylvian – The Boy with the Gun (Virgin)
Tangerine Dream – White Eagle (Virgin)
Echo & The Bunnymen – Over the Wall (Peel Sessions)
Human League – The Black Hit of Space (Virgin)
Cocteau Twins – Blue Bell Knoll (4AD)
Model 500 – Pick up the Flow (Metroplex)
Loose Ends – Gonna Make You Mine (Ten Records)
Touch – Without You (bassapella) (Garage Trax)
Hanson & Davis – Tonight (Fresh Records)
52nd Street – Cool as Ice (Factory)
Aphex Twin – a weird looking trivial pursuit style wedge thing (Selected Ambient Works 2, Warp)
Black Light Smoke – Decisions feat. Suavecito – Scissor & Thread
Behling & Simpson – Where the Oh’s (Applepips)
Wedge & Behling – Stairwell (unreleased)
October & Borai – Sticky Fingers (BRSTL 001)
Behling & Simpson – Tape Hiss – (unreleased)
Phat Chex – Git da Funk (unreleased)
Crazy P – Changes (20:20 Vision)
Paul Woolford – Pursuit (Halo Cyan)
Axel Boman – Esteban Peligro (Al Tourettes & Appleblim mix) (Glass Table)
The Fight for 'Real Democracy' at the Heart of Occupy Wall Street
Demonstrations under the banner of Occupy Wall Street resonate with so many people not only because they give voice to a widespread sense of economic injustice but also, and perhaps more important, because they express political grievances and aspirations. As protests have spread from Lower Manhattan to cities and towns across the country, they have made clear that indignation against corporate greed and economic inequality is real and deep. But at least equally important is the protest against the lack -- or failure -- of political representation. It is not so much a question of whether this or that politician, or this or that party, is ineffective or corrupt (although that, too, is true) but whether the representational political system more generally is inadequate. This protest movement could, and perhaps must, transform into a genuine, democratic constituent process.
The political face of the Occupy Wall Street protests comes into view when we situate it alongside the other "encampments" of the past year. Together, they form an emerging cycle of struggles. In many cases, the lines of influence are explicit. Occupy Wall Street takes inspiration from the encampments of central squares in Spain, which began on May 15 and followed the occupation of Cairo's Tahrir Square earlier last spring. To this succession of demonstrations, one should add a series of parallel events, such as the extended protests at the Wisconsin statehouse, the occupation of Syntagma Square in Athens, and the Israeli tent encampments for economic justice. The context of these various protests are very different, of course, and they are not simply iterations of what happened elsewhere. Rather each of these movements has managed to translate a few common elements into their own situation.
In Tahrir Square, the political nature of the encampment and the fact that the protesters could not be represented in any sense by the current regime was obvious. The demand that "Mubarak must go" proved powerful enough to encompass all other issues. In the subsequent encampments of Madrid's Puerta del Sol and Barcelona's Plaça Catalunya, the critique of political representation was more complex. The Spanish protests brought together a wide array of social and economic complaints -- regarding debt, housing, and education, among others -- but their "indignation," which the Spanish press early on identified as their defining affect, was clearly directed at a political system incapable of addressing these issues. Against the pretense of democracy offered by the current representational system, the protesters posed as one of their central slogans, "Democracia real ya," or "Real democracy now."
Occupy Wall Street should be understood, then, as a further development or permutation of these political demands. One obvious and clear message of the protests, of course, is that the bankers and finance industries in no way represent us: What is good for Wall Street is certainly not good for the country (or the world). A more significant failure of representation, though, must be attributed to the politicians and political parties charged with representing the people's interests but in fact more clearly represent the banks and the creditors. Such a recognition leads to a seemingly naive, basic question: Is democracy not supposed to be the rule of the people over the polis -- that is, the entirety of social and economic life? Instead, it seems that politics has become subservient to economic and financial interests.
By insisting on the political nature of the Occupy Wall Street protests we do not mean to cast them merely in terms of the quarrels between Republicans and Democrats, or the fortunes of the Obama administration. If the movement does continue and grow, of course, it may force the White House or Congress to take new action, and it may even become a significant point of contention during the next presidential election cycle. But the Obama and the George W. Bush administrations are both authors of the bank bailouts; the lack of representation highlighted by the protests applies to both parties. In this context, the Spanish call for "real democracy now" sounds both urgent and challenging...
The political face of the Occupy Wall Street protests comes into view when we situate it alongside the other "encampments" of the past year. Together, they form an emerging cycle of struggles. In many cases, the lines of influence are explicit. Occupy Wall Street takes inspiration from the encampments of central squares in Spain, which began on May 15 and followed the occupation of Cairo's Tahrir Square earlier last spring. To this succession of demonstrations, one should add a series of parallel events, such as the extended protests at the Wisconsin statehouse, the occupation of Syntagma Square in Athens, and the Israeli tent encampments for economic justice. The context of these various protests are very different, of course, and they are not simply iterations of what happened elsewhere. Rather each of these movements has managed to translate a few common elements into their own situation.
In Tahrir Square, the political nature of the encampment and the fact that the protesters could not be represented in any sense by the current regime was obvious. The demand that "Mubarak must go" proved powerful enough to encompass all other issues. In the subsequent encampments of Madrid's Puerta del Sol and Barcelona's Plaça Catalunya, the critique of political representation was more complex. The Spanish protests brought together a wide array of social and economic complaints -- regarding debt, housing, and education, among others -- but their "indignation," which the Spanish press early on identified as their defining affect, was clearly directed at a political system incapable of addressing these issues. Against the pretense of democracy offered by the current representational system, the protesters posed as one of their central slogans, "Democracia real ya," or "Real democracy now."
Occupy Wall Street should be understood, then, as a further development or permutation of these political demands. One obvious and clear message of the protests, of course, is that the bankers and finance industries in no way represent us: What is good for Wall Street is certainly not good for the country (or the world). A more significant failure of representation, though, must be attributed to the politicians and political parties charged with representing the people's interests but in fact more clearly represent the banks and the creditors. Such a recognition leads to a seemingly naive, basic question: Is democracy not supposed to be the rule of the people over the polis -- that is, the entirety of social and economic life? Instead, it seems that politics has become subservient to economic and financial interests.
By insisting on the political nature of the Occupy Wall Street protests we do not mean to cast them merely in terms of the quarrels between Republicans and Democrats, or the fortunes of the Obama administration. If the movement does continue and grow, of course, it may force the White House or Congress to take new action, and it may even become a significant point of contention during the next presidential election cycle. But the Obama and the George W. Bush administrations are both authors of the bank bailouts; the lack of representation highlighted by the protests applies to both parties. In this context, the Spanish call for "real democracy now" sounds both urgent and challenging...
Continue reading
When robots die: The existential challenges of human-robot interaction
"When you work with people, you have many, many surprises. You cannot know exactly what the human will do next and many things come up that you didn't expect," says Tapus, associate professor ENSTA-ParisTech, who builds assistive robotics architectures and investigates HRI in therapeutic environments.
Tapus tells of a patient recovering from a stroke who tried to cheat a therapeutic bot during a musical game designed to improve the rehabilitation process. There was no personal gain involved, says Tapus: beyond the satisfaction of outwitting the bot, that is.
"These are things that we couldn't imagine when we designed the system [...] Humans are unpredictable," says Tapus.
For example, young children interacting with the humanoid NAO bot -- a central figure in Tapus' current research -- often instinctively kiss the bot's head, says Tapus. And, if NAO's eyes turn red, the children ask researchers why the bot is upset.
But one elderly woman's relationship with Bandit (a humanoid bot developed by the University of South California's Interaction Lab) provides the most tantalising glimpse into the kind of small, human drama that could be played out hundreds of thousands of times in the future, if robots become more commonplace in our daily lives.
As part of a long-term study of the ways people and bots interact in therapeutic settings, Tapus had Bandit play a musical game with people suffering from dementia. The "Song Discovery" game (loosely based on the television game show "Name That Tune") was specially designed to help dementia patients maintain their attention levels...
Continue reading
Emmet Cole @'Wired'
The Right’s ‘53 Percent’ Solution to Occupy Wall Street
For instance, David Brooks, in his column today, insists that the whole notion of contrasting the interests of the richest 1 percent against everybody else is simply irrelevant:
If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent. This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.Really? Let’s take a look at the income gains of the richest 1 percent over the last three decades, compared to everybody else:
Unfortunately, almost no problem can be productively conceived in this way.
This is an economy that’s incredibly great for the very rich and pretty lousy for everybody else. If you consider this even mildly problematic, you have several responses. You can try to help workers unionize, or restructure the financial industry, or challenge the loopy way we pay CEOs more and more regardless of performance. You can look for even more radical solutions, which some of the protestors favor, though I would not...
Continue reading
Jonathan Chait @'NY Mag'
WFMU WFMU
What. A. Joke. Slate Deems The Stroke's "Is This It" The Best Album of The Last Decade: is.gd/1wea0P
Doug Aitken's Black Mirror, starring Chloë Sevigny
Doug Aitken's video installation Black Mirror, which explores modern life accelerated, and will be showing as part of an exhibition of his work at Victoria Miro gallery in London from 12 October to 12 November 2011
Via
Via
Hamas hails Palestinian prisoners deal
AJELive AJELive
Netanyahu: "wished to thank Egyptian government & security forces for their role in mediation and concluding the deal" aje.me/np9AFF
Netanyahu: "wished to thank Egyptian government & security forces for their role in mediation and concluding the deal" aje.me/np9AFF
Was man accused of post-9/11 anthrax attacks innocent?
Bruce Ivins, an army bio-defence expert, committed suicide in 2008 after learning that murder charges were about to be filed against him in connection with the high-profile terrorist campaign, in which five people were killed and another 17 injured.
But an article published this week in the Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefence highlights several inconsistencies in the forensic evidence against Dr Ivins, raising speculation that the FBI got the wrong man, and then prematurely closed their investigation following his death. The report, co-authored by three scientists, says that detectives failed to properly analyse the dried anthrax spores that were used in the attacks, which took place over several weeks following the September 11 bombings in 2001.
Analysis of the white powder, which was sent through the postal service to news organisations and politicians, showed that it contains unexpected traces of tin. That suggests a high degree of manufacturing skill, contrary to official conclusions that the attacks were part of a relatively-unsophisticated campaign carried out by Dr Ivins alone.
Agency scientists initially described the tin as an "element of interest" in the case, according to internal FBI documents uncovered by The New York Times. Early on in their investigation, they regarded it as a crucial clue which suggested that the anthrax – which had been mailed in envelopes containing the message: "Death to America ... Death to Israel... Allah is great" – had come from a relatively-professional source.
They later dropped that line of inquiry, however, and never mentioned the tin publicly. Following the death of Dr Ivins, who killed himself as the FBI were preparing to indict him, the agency failed to provide any detailed explanation of how the anthrax was manufactured.
The Journal's article will add to speculation that Dr Ivins was innocent of his alleged crime. An eccentric, with a history of erratic behaviour and some circumstantial links to the attacks, sceptics say he made a convenient scapegoat for investigators under pressure to close what became a long-running case.
Dr Ivins had an office near the New Jersey post box where two of the contaminated letters originated, and worked unusually late hours on the nights before they had been sent. He had also spent much of his career studying anthrax and had sometimes referred to a schizophrenic alter ego called "Crazy Bruce."
There was, however, no concrete evidence linking Dr Ivins to the crime. A report published last year by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the FBI did not have enough scientific evidence to produce a conviction, had the case gone to trial.
Among their many criticisms, the authors found that the link between the anthrax used in the attacks and a supply which Dr Ivins kept in his lab was "not as strong" as the agency suggested.
Guy Adams @'The Independent'
Scientists’ Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case
Collateral Damage: Marcus Boon
The culture of copying is intrinsic to all music, argues Marcus Boon. So get over it – copyright buccaneers are roadtesting creative alternatives to obsolete capitalist models.
Goldman Sachs let off paying £10m interest on failed tax avoidance scheme
Britain's tax authorities have given Goldman Sachs an unusual and generous Christmas present, leaked documents reveal. In a secret London meeting last December with the head of Revenue, the wealthy Wall Street banking firm was forgiven £10m interest on a failed tax avoidance scheme.
HM Revenue and Customs sources admit privately that the interest-free deal is "a cock-up" by officials, but refuse to say who was responsible.
Documents leaked to Private Eye magazine and published in full by the Guardian record that Britain's top tax official, HMRC's permanent secretary Dave Hartnett, personally shook hands on a secret settlement last December.
Hartnett is due to be questioned on Wednesday by the Commons public accounts committee. The leaked documents suggest that a previous PAC chairman, Edward Leigh, was misled when he was told it was illegal to reveal details of such cases to parliament.
Leaked legal advice from James Eadie QC, which the Guardian also publishes today, says the opposite. Hartnett has discretion to reveal such facts to the parliamentary watchdog, according to the advice.
Leigh said: "It just underlines the absurd culture of secrecy that still pervades Whitehall."
Hartnett also refused to give the facts about Goldman Sachs to MP Jesse Norman on the Treasury committee last month, claiming disclosure would be illegal. He also refuses to brief ministers on the details.
The £10m Christmas gift for Goldman was the culmination of a prolonged attempt by the US firm to avoid paying national insurance on huge bonuses for its bankers working in London.
The sum was pocket change to Goldman, whose employees received $15.3bn (£9.5bn) in pay and bonuses last year. Its Wall Street head, Lloyd Blankfein, received $68m in 2008 and at the height of Britain's banking crisis 100 London partners set their bonuses at £1m each. This level was considered a mark of restraint.
In the 1990s, Goldman set up a company offshore in the British Virgin Islands. This entity, called Goldman Sachs Services Ltd, supposedly employed all of Goldman's London bankers, who were then "seconded" to work there.
The device appears to have been designed to conceal the size of the bonuses. Judge David Williams said in 2009 that it was "a way of keeping information about the GS accounts and payroll out of the public domain and confidential".
Goldman also begrudged paying its share of UK national insurance on the six-figure bonuses. Court judgments disclose that a typical Goldman bonus to a junior banker was £143,000 in 1998, and £191,000 the following year.
The company, along with 21 investment banks and other firms, purchased blueprints for an avoidance scheme called an employee benefit trust (EBT). The bonuses were indirectly invested into elaborate share option schemes.
It took the Revenue until 2005 to demonstrate in court that these EBTs were merely illegitimate tax avoidance devices. The 21 other firms surrendered, and handed over what they owed.
But Goldman Sachs refused to pay its £30.81m bill. Instead the city firm Freshfields and the tax QC David Goldberg fought tooth and nail on Goldman's behalf through the courts. By 2010, according to a public judgment, the unpaid bill with accumulated interest had mounted to £40m.
According to Revenue lawyers, in the leaked documents, Goldman's tactics were highly obstructive: they "resisted for five more years, raking up every conceivable point in the tribunal, and putting up a 'stooge' witness when Mr Housden [Goldman's tax director] was the obvious person to answer questions".
In April 2010, the bankers lost a key point: a judge threw out the claim that their true employer was in the British Virgin Islands. In July, HMRC's own QC, Malcolm Gammie, gave "broadly positive" advice that the government was in a strong position to get all of its money.
But on 30 November, a high-level HMRC committee handling the most aggressive banks heard troubling news. Their top expert, Hartnett, had met Goldman's tax director, Mike Housden, and as a result "a late submission had come in about a deal on which Dave Hartnett had 'shaken hands' with Goldman Sachs". The government was not going to get its full £40m, but only £30m.
HMRC's lawyers were dismayed. At a meeting a week later, on 8 October, chaired by general counsel Anthony Inglese, "he said he would always want to assist Dave Hartnett, but not if this were 'unconscionable'. He referred to the difficulty all those present at this meeting were having in justifying a settlement without an interest element."
The minutes added: "It was … clear that the proposed settlement gave GS no additional penalty for having resisted for five more years."
At a Treasury committee hearing last month, Hartnett refused to explain any of this to Jesse Norman, a Conservative MP. Hartnett claimed that it would be illegal to reveal any information about the Goldman deal. In fact, according to the leaked documents, HMRC has already received legal advice that says otherwise.
Treasury counsel James Eadie QC advised the HMRC board in 2009 that Hartnett was free to disclose information to parliamentary committees, at his own discretion.
Privately, HMRC sources say that £10m of taxpayers' money was thrown away because of a "technical mistake" by an unidentified official, junior to Hartnett, who misinterpreted the law. They claim that the National Audit Office, which audits HMRC accounts, has accepted the situation.
HMRC said in a statement: "The picture you have been given is incomplete and therefore fundamentally flawed but taxpayer confidentiality prevents us from correcting your story in detail. Dave Hartnett's long career in the tax service has been built on ensuring the right tax is paid by large businesses and individuals alike. HMRC does not do 'sweetheart' deals." Goldman Sachs declined to comment.
David Leigh @'The Guardian'
HM Revenue and Customs sources admit privately that the interest-free deal is "a cock-up" by officials, but refuse to say who was responsible.
Documents leaked to Private Eye magazine and published in full by the Guardian record that Britain's top tax official, HMRC's permanent secretary Dave Hartnett, personally shook hands on a secret settlement last December.
Hartnett is due to be questioned on Wednesday by the Commons public accounts committee. The leaked documents suggest that a previous PAC chairman, Edward Leigh, was misled when he was told it was illegal to reveal details of such cases to parliament.
Leaked legal advice from James Eadie QC, which the Guardian also publishes today, says the opposite. Hartnett has discretion to reveal such facts to the parliamentary watchdog, according to the advice.
Leigh said: "It just underlines the absurd culture of secrecy that still pervades Whitehall."
Hartnett also refused to give the facts about Goldman Sachs to MP Jesse Norman on the Treasury committee last month, claiming disclosure would be illegal. He also refuses to brief ministers on the details.
The £10m Christmas gift for Goldman was the culmination of a prolonged attempt by the US firm to avoid paying national insurance on huge bonuses for its bankers working in London.
The sum was pocket change to Goldman, whose employees received $15.3bn (£9.5bn) in pay and bonuses last year. Its Wall Street head, Lloyd Blankfein, received $68m in 2008 and at the height of Britain's banking crisis 100 London partners set their bonuses at £1m each. This level was considered a mark of restraint.
In the 1990s, Goldman set up a company offshore in the British Virgin Islands. This entity, called Goldman Sachs Services Ltd, supposedly employed all of Goldman's London bankers, who were then "seconded" to work there.
The device appears to have been designed to conceal the size of the bonuses. Judge David Williams said in 2009 that it was "a way of keeping information about the GS accounts and payroll out of the public domain and confidential".
Goldman also begrudged paying its share of UK national insurance on the six-figure bonuses. Court judgments disclose that a typical Goldman bonus to a junior banker was £143,000 in 1998, and £191,000 the following year.
The company, along with 21 investment banks and other firms, purchased blueprints for an avoidance scheme called an employee benefit trust (EBT). The bonuses were indirectly invested into elaborate share option schemes.
It took the Revenue until 2005 to demonstrate in court that these EBTs were merely illegitimate tax avoidance devices. The 21 other firms surrendered, and handed over what they owed.
But Goldman Sachs refused to pay its £30.81m bill. Instead the city firm Freshfields and the tax QC David Goldberg fought tooth and nail on Goldman's behalf through the courts. By 2010, according to a public judgment, the unpaid bill with accumulated interest had mounted to £40m.
According to Revenue lawyers, in the leaked documents, Goldman's tactics were highly obstructive: they "resisted for five more years, raking up every conceivable point in the tribunal, and putting up a 'stooge' witness when Mr Housden [Goldman's tax director] was the obvious person to answer questions".
In April 2010, the bankers lost a key point: a judge threw out the claim that their true employer was in the British Virgin Islands. In July, HMRC's own QC, Malcolm Gammie, gave "broadly positive" advice that the government was in a strong position to get all of its money.
But on 30 November, a high-level HMRC committee handling the most aggressive banks heard troubling news. Their top expert, Hartnett, had met Goldman's tax director, Mike Housden, and as a result "a late submission had come in about a deal on which Dave Hartnett had 'shaken hands' with Goldman Sachs". The government was not going to get its full £40m, but only £30m.
HMRC's lawyers were dismayed. At a meeting a week later, on 8 October, chaired by general counsel Anthony Inglese, "he said he would always want to assist Dave Hartnett, but not if this were 'unconscionable'. He referred to the difficulty all those present at this meeting were having in justifying a settlement without an interest element."
The minutes added: "It was … clear that the proposed settlement gave GS no additional penalty for having resisted for five more years."
At a Treasury committee hearing last month, Hartnett refused to explain any of this to Jesse Norman, a Conservative MP. Hartnett claimed that it would be illegal to reveal any information about the Goldman deal. In fact, according to the leaked documents, HMRC has already received legal advice that says otherwise.
Treasury counsel James Eadie QC advised the HMRC board in 2009 that Hartnett was free to disclose information to parliamentary committees, at his own discretion.
Privately, HMRC sources say that £10m of taxpayers' money was thrown away because of a "technical mistake" by an unidentified official, junior to Hartnett, who misinterpreted the law. They claim that the National Audit Office, which audits HMRC accounts, has accepted the situation.
HMRC said in a statement: "The picture you have been given is incomplete and therefore fundamentally flawed but taxpayer confidentiality prevents us from correcting your story in detail. Dave Hartnett's long career in the tax service has been built on ensuring the right tax is paid by large businesses and individuals alike. HMRC does not do 'sweetheart' deals." Goldman Sachs declined to comment.
David Leigh @'The Guardian'
Nobody's gonna make Herman Cain talk about foreign policy if he doesn't want to
Herman Cain: Tax Poor People’s Food To Finance Massive Tax Break For The Rich
Gawd - the man is SUCH a moron but wouldn't Cain VS Obama in 2012 freak some people out :)
Billy Bragg: Occupy Wall Street and Melancholia of Party Politics
Melancholia descended upon the world this week. The latest movie by Lars von Triers contrasts the personal conflicts of a family with the end of the world as we know it. While two sisters go quietly bonkers, a giant planet appears in the night sky and heads directly towards Earth. Much has been made of the metaphorical references to von Triers own struggles with depression, but, for me, the movie touches on a different horror unfolding before our eyes.
Anyone whose team has, like mine in recent seasons, been involved in a relegation battle since before Christmas, will be familiar with the sense of foreboding that comes with reading the sports pages. Over the past few weeks, I have felt that same sense of dread when tripping through the financial section. Maybe it’s desperation that focuses the imagination, because I couldn’t help but see ‘Melancholia’ as a metaphor for the coming crash.
As the giant planet shatters the Earth in the opening sequence, all I could think of was the bloated financial markets running out of control, smashing into the real world and destroying the hopes and dreams of millions. In the long two hours of film that follow, the market crash metaphor just grew in size as the super planet loomed larger on the horizon. Everyone could see it coming and understood what it meant, but no-one seemed able to work out a response.
For those of us frustrated by the melancholy mood that seems to have gripped the population in the face of the on-coming financial crash, the party conference season won’t have offered much hope. Although Labour’s Ed Miliband began groping toward an alternative to the free market orthodoxy of New Labour – his rather clunky designation of ‘predator’ companies – our three main parties remain chained to a globalisation agenda that is about to go off the edge of an abyss.
At least Chancellor George Osbourne took the opportunity to declare that the free market model was broken and no longer fit for purpose. Of course he didn’t actually say that, but his announcement that the government was going to take responsibility for getting loans to small businesses was an admission that his core beliefs were wrong – the markets don’t always do what is economically and socially beneficial for the country.
While those on the planet free market cling to the notion that the only way to encourage growth is to cut taxes and regulations for entrepreneurs, in the real world we are facing a crisis in demand. The economy isn’t stalling because business people are being constrained by an over-powerful state – quite the opposite. The British state is currently doing all it can, within the Tories own ideological straitjacket, to encourage growth. However, the current financial crises are revealing the lie behind the free market myth that only entrepreneurs create growth, therefore all financial encouragements must be directed solely at them.
We are now seeing that, when it comes to growth, consumer spending is the most important engine. If people don’t have money to spend, then globalisation, a project that relies on quick turn-over and tight profit margins, swiftly grinds to a halt. With prices rising, wages continuing to flat-line and credit becoming scarce, consumers are staying at home.
Even those with money to spend are hanging onto it, spooked by George Osbourne’s recent announcement that he intends to make it harder for employees to challenge their dismissal. Only a Tory politician could claim that he was going to cut unemployment figures by making it easier for bosses to sack people.
We need to change the balance in our economy to ensure that a greater percentage of profits are paid as wages to workers rather than as dividends for shareholders. Yes, investors should expect a return on their money, but since the power of the unions was broken in the 1980s, wages have been seen as little more than a hindrance to the profitability of the stock market. To increase demand, we need to put our economy on a different trajectory.
There was precious little sign that this realisation might be beginning to dawn on our political leaders over the three weeks of the party conferences. Instead, a glimmer of hope appeared with the emergence of opposition to the globalisation project in its heartland. On the day that the Liberal Democrats assembled in Birmingham for their conference, a few thousand protesters marched through downtown Manhattan under the banner ‘Occupy Wall Street’.
By the time Ed Miliband delivered his ‘predator’ speech to the Labour Party conference, OWS had begun to make headlines following the use of pepper spray by the NYPD against passive demonstrators. And when the Prime Minister stood up before his party to make a speech in which he declared equality to be a form of oppression, events on the Brooklyn Bridge had catapulted OWS into the mainstream media. Even President Obama was forced to offer a lukewarm nod of recognition.
Of course there have been some on the Left who have cast scorn on OWS and it’s lack of a list of demands, seeing similarities with the anti-globalisation movement of the past decade, which was unable to translate its anger into an ideology that could be supported by those unable to attend the mass demonstrations. However, the difference between then and now is that anti-globalisation activists sought to challenge the financial sector when it was at its height. For most people, it delivered – unevenly – but many still felt they had better prospects under globalisation.
Now that notion has been challenged by the markets themselves, whose failure has driven many families to the brink of ruin. Public opinion is shifting towards a belief that it is fundamentally unfair to allow those who created the financial crisis to continue to get wealthy while working people struggle to pay their bills.
Is that idea alone capable of motivating a mass movement for a fairer economy? There is always a danger that, just as the nascent Tea Party movement was hijacked by fundamentalist Christians with their book that has all the answers, OWS could be taken over by fundamentalist Marxists, who have their own book that solves all your problems.
In part, the demand for an instantly formulated set of goals reflects a desperate need for right wing news outlets to have evidence that allows them to condemn those gathered in opposition to the status quo. We should not allow our enemies to define the rules by which we are allowed to act. Neo-liberalism is not an ideology, with a programme and list of demands, just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest. OWS has come to challenge that power, by gathering together a bunch of disenfranchised people and empowering them to act together in their own self interest.
The time may come when OWS needs to nail a set of demands to the doors of the New York Stock Exchange, but for now, just the fact that so many people across the United States are willing to take a stand against globalised capitalism is inspiring. It shows that, unlike the poor souls in ‘Melancholia’, we are not resigned to our fate, that, as the bloated financial markets career out of control, we are busy working out a new trajectory for our economy, one that will ensure that such a devastating crash never happens again.
Via
Anyone whose team has, like mine in recent seasons, been involved in a relegation battle since before Christmas, will be familiar with the sense of foreboding that comes with reading the sports pages. Over the past few weeks, I have felt that same sense of dread when tripping through the financial section. Maybe it’s desperation that focuses the imagination, because I couldn’t help but see ‘Melancholia’ as a metaphor for the coming crash.
As the giant planet shatters the Earth in the opening sequence, all I could think of was the bloated financial markets running out of control, smashing into the real world and destroying the hopes and dreams of millions. In the long two hours of film that follow, the market crash metaphor just grew in size as the super planet loomed larger on the horizon. Everyone could see it coming and understood what it meant, but no-one seemed able to work out a response.
For those of us frustrated by the melancholy mood that seems to have gripped the population in the face of the on-coming financial crash, the party conference season won’t have offered much hope. Although Labour’s Ed Miliband began groping toward an alternative to the free market orthodoxy of New Labour – his rather clunky designation of ‘predator’ companies – our three main parties remain chained to a globalisation agenda that is about to go off the edge of an abyss.
At least Chancellor George Osbourne took the opportunity to declare that the free market model was broken and no longer fit for purpose. Of course he didn’t actually say that, but his announcement that the government was going to take responsibility for getting loans to small businesses was an admission that his core beliefs were wrong – the markets don’t always do what is economically and socially beneficial for the country.
While those on the planet free market cling to the notion that the only way to encourage growth is to cut taxes and regulations for entrepreneurs, in the real world we are facing a crisis in demand. The economy isn’t stalling because business people are being constrained by an over-powerful state – quite the opposite. The British state is currently doing all it can, within the Tories own ideological straitjacket, to encourage growth. However, the current financial crises are revealing the lie behind the free market myth that only entrepreneurs create growth, therefore all financial encouragements must be directed solely at them.
We are now seeing that, when it comes to growth, consumer spending is the most important engine. If people don’t have money to spend, then globalisation, a project that relies on quick turn-over and tight profit margins, swiftly grinds to a halt. With prices rising, wages continuing to flat-line and credit becoming scarce, consumers are staying at home.
Even those with money to spend are hanging onto it, spooked by George Osbourne’s recent announcement that he intends to make it harder for employees to challenge their dismissal. Only a Tory politician could claim that he was going to cut unemployment figures by making it easier for bosses to sack people.
We need to change the balance in our economy to ensure that a greater percentage of profits are paid as wages to workers rather than as dividends for shareholders. Yes, investors should expect a return on their money, but since the power of the unions was broken in the 1980s, wages have been seen as little more than a hindrance to the profitability of the stock market. To increase demand, we need to put our economy on a different trajectory.
There was precious little sign that this realisation might be beginning to dawn on our political leaders over the three weeks of the party conferences. Instead, a glimmer of hope appeared with the emergence of opposition to the globalisation project in its heartland. On the day that the Liberal Democrats assembled in Birmingham for their conference, a few thousand protesters marched through downtown Manhattan under the banner ‘Occupy Wall Street’.
By the time Ed Miliband delivered his ‘predator’ speech to the Labour Party conference, OWS had begun to make headlines following the use of pepper spray by the NYPD against passive demonstrators. And when the Prime Minister stood up before his party to make a speech in which he declared equality to be a form of oppression, events on the Brooklyn Bridge had catapulted OWS into the mainstream media. Even President Obama was forced to offer a lukewarm nod of recognition.
Of course there have been some on the Left who have cast scorn on OWS and it’s lack of a list of demands, seeing similarities with the anti-globalisation movement of the past decade, which was unable to translate its anger into an ideology that could be supported by those unable to attend the mass demonstrations. However, the difference between then and now is that anti-globalisation activists sought to challenge the financial sector when it was at its height. For most people, it delivered – unevenly – but many still felt they had better prospects under globalisation.
Now that notion has been challenged by the markets themselves, whose failure has driven many families to the brink of ruin. Public opinion is shifting towards a belief that it is fundamentally unfair to allow those who created the financial crisis to continue to get wealthy while working people struggle to pay their bills.
Is that idea alone capable of motivating a mass movement for a fairer economy? There is always a danger that, just as the nascent Tea Party movement was hijacked by fundamentalist Christians with their book that has all the answers, OWS could be taken over by fundamentalist Marxists, who have their own book that solves all your problems.
In part, the demand for an instantly formulated set of goals reflects a desperate need for right wing news outlets to have evidence that allows them to condemn those gathered in opposition to the status quo. We should not allow our enemies to define the rules by which we are allowed to act. Neo-liberalism is not an ideology, with a programme and list of demands, just a bunch of powerful people doing things in their own self interest. OWS has come to challenge that power, by gathering together a bunch of disenfranchised people and empowering them to act together in their own self interest.
The time may come when OWS needs to nail a set of demands to the doors of the New York Stock Exchange, but for now, just the fact that so many people across the United States are willing to take a stand against globalised capitalism is inspiring. It shows that, unlike the poor souls in ‘Melancholia’, we are not resigned to our fate, that, as the bloated financial markets career out of control, we are busy working out a new trajectory for our economy, one that will ensure that such a devastating crash never happens again.
Via
U.S. Accuses Iranians of Plotting to Kill Saudi Envoy
emptywheel emptywheel
Preet: "We will not let other countries use our soil as our battleground." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Preet: "We will not let other countries use our soil as our battleground." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald
The U.S. Government will not tolerate those who enter other nations to commit assassinations!!!!
The U.S. Government will not tolerate those who enter other nations to commit assassinations!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
