Posts Tagged ‘war’
Today is the second birthday of the Kassandra Project and we want to share with you, our readers, some great words to listen, just to think that after 70 years these words are still actual, unfortunately.
Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator“, 1940.
For the U.S. government, it is crucial that Americans never forget that our fundamentalist Muslim enemies are continually plotting our violent extinction. While we fearfully monitor the DHS color-coded threat level index, the enemy is bunkered down in caves with antique Soviet AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenade launchers made in the 80’s, and a rudimentary knowledge of how the Internets work.
Supposedly, on 9/11, radical jihadists penetrated America’s air defense system, defied previously accepted notions of aircraft physics and architectural engineering principles, and transformed the FBI and the CIA into an band of clue-dropping Keystone cops. Although 9-11 Commission Report makes for great fictional reading, as long as the “official” narrative is embraced by a majority of the public, the government can justify its murderous and genocidal foreign land-grab policies unabated.
For the most part, Americans have short attention spans and a limited grasp of the intricacies of international geopolitics. Instead of investing the time it takes to research the long term consequences of U.S. instigated regime change (i.e., Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Chile 1973, Iraq 2003), or understanding the impact of black-op destablization operations (including the immeasurable unintended blowback effects), it is easier to just have a bad guy (or people) to hate. The proles need an evil benchmark for comparison in order to define their patriotic decency and morality. For governments, the employment of an existential bogey-man menace (the CIA funded and trained Mujahideen) is extremely effective in building cohesion and support for policies that ultimately jeopardize the national and economic security of the country and violate domestic and international laws.
With the end of the Cold War, a new formula was necessary to sow panic and fear as a means to boost defense spending and to justify future foreign entanglements. The “clash of civilizations” narrative was employed as a divide and conquer strategy using religion and nationalism to spark post 9-11 enmity with the evil jihadist as public enemy #1. The Hegelaian dialectic is invoked to pit the noble and just “Us” versus the evil and diabolical “Them”. The result the perennial war of terror on unsuspecting foreigners and forfeited individual rights and liberties at home. Instead of the red under every bed, we get the neighborhood al Qaeda cell terrorist who is awaiting secret orders from Islamabad to strike the local shopping plaza.
Operation Mockingbird, a CIA program that was used for decades to illegally influence domestic media, is alive and well in 21st century America. Overt and subliminal social conditioning propaganda is beamed into millions of homes and is absorbed into the brains of the great unwashed. The corporate media and intelligence agencies have long worked hand-in-hand to massage and censor information having the potential to undermine Americans blind allegiance to their political masters (and their nefarious agendas). By exerting gate-keeper control over the information that Americans may access, those that oppose the policies and actions of our handlers are kept to a fairly harmless minimum.
The conformity-inducing educational and pharmacological super structure acts as a deterrent to individualism and to those predisposed to authority questioning. A herd mentality is fostered in the government indoctrination centers (schools) which undermines the student’s critical thinking skills. If the environmental forces are not sufficient to suppress the emerging free-thinker, there is a battery of powerful psychotropic drugs to further nullify the victim. In addition to years of fluoride poisoning, daily doses of psycho-stimulants, anti-depressants, mood stabilizers, and other dangerous and harmful chemicals are employed to interdict those that stray too far from the mind control plantation. After 12 years of inadequate instruction by self-interested bureaucrats who promote rigid conformity and blind obedience to the state, the skulls of mush are then turned over to their corporate overlords or a secondary education indoctrination center.
If the media propaganda, miseducation, and chemical lobotomy mix isn’t enough, more severe methods are employed to suppress information sharing, and to punish those engaged in constitutionally protected exercises of free speech. Whether through COINTELRO style group infiltrations, or through direct violent suppression, the message is clear – shut up. The brutal tactics employed by law enforcement officers at the Republican National Convention underscore our handler’s fear of an enlightened citizenry.
The arrest of photographers, journalists, and individuals peacefully assembled documenting the 2008 Republican convention is a sign of a oppressive government that does not tolerate free speech, the 4th Amendment, or individual rights. Thankfully, many brave citizens and journalists (including I-Witness contributors and Democracy Now host Amy Goodman) have documented the government’s illegal activities.
In a deceptively brilliant Orwellian strategy, those that question the government are identified as unpatriotic America loathers, anarchists, or Marxist agitators. The obedient masses operate in the expected knee-jerk fashion. Unable to contain their disgust, they spit and curse at the sounds and political propaganda images beamed into their brains via Fox News and CNN. Why do the protesters hate America so much? Why can’t they just settle down, get a job, and appreciate living in the greatest country that God gave to the Adamic race? Why can’t everyone think, feel, and act just like me?
I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office. –George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
|Joseph E. Stiglitz|
Joseph Eugene “Joe” Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a member of the Columbia University faculty. He is a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal (1979) and the The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (2001). Former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank, he is known for his critical view of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls “free market fundamentalists“) and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In 2000 Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001 he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has held the rank of University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester‘s Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Stiglitz is the most cited economist in the world, as of June 2008.
- Whenever there are “externalities”—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.
- The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government. Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place. 
In the opening remarks for his prize acceptance “Aula Magna” , Stiglitz said:
- “I hope to show that Information Economics represents a fundamental change in the prevailing paradigm within economics. Problems of information are central to understanding not only market economics but also political economy, and in the last section of this lecture, I explore some of the implications of information imperfections for political processes.” Stiglitz, Aula Magna
In an interview, Stiglitz explained further:
- “The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency.” 
Stiglitz resigned a month before his term expired at the World Bank, and left the Bank on January 2000. The Bank’s president, James Wolfensohn, announced Stiglitz’s resignation in November 1999 and also announced that Stiglitz would stay on as “special advisor to the president”, and would chair the search committee for a successor.
- “Joseph E. Stiglitz said today [Nov. 24, 1999] that he would resign as the World Bank’s chief economist after using the position for nearly three years to raise pointed questions about the effectiveness of conventional approaches to helping poor countries”.
In this role, he continued criticism of the IMF, and, by implication, the US Treasury Department. In April 2000, in an article for the New Republic, he wrote on the IMF:
- “They’ll say the IMF is arrogant. They’ll say the IMF doesn’t really listen to the developing countries it is supposed to help. They’ll say the IMF is secretive and insulated from democratic accountability. They’ll say the IMF’s economic ‘remedies’ often make things worse – turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions. And they’ll have a point. I was chief economist at the World Bank from 1996 until last November, during the gravest global economic crisis in a half-century. I saw how the IMF, in tandem with the U.S. Treasury Department, responded. And I was appalled“.
The article was published a week before the annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF and provoked a strong response. It proved too strong for Summers and, yet more lethally, Stiglitz’s protector-of-sorts at the World Bank, Wolfensohn. Wolfensohn had privately empathised with Stiglitz’s views, yet this time Wolfensohn was worried for his second term, which Summers had threatened to veto. Stanley Fisher, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, called a special staff meeting and informed at that gathering that Wolfensohn had agreed to fire Stiglitz. Meanwhile, the Bank’s External Affairs department told the press that Stiglitz had not been fired, his post had merely been abolished (see US Hegemony and the World Bank, pp 222-223, by Wade in 2002, Review of the International Political Economy). 
As food and fuel prices continue to increase the world must look to new patterns of consumption and production
Around the world, protests against soaring food and fuel prices are mounting. The poor – and even the middle classes – are seeing their incomes squeezed as the global economy enters a slowdown. Politicians want to respond to their constituents’ legitimate concerns, but do not know what to do.
In the United States, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain took the easy way out, and supported a suspension of the gasoline tax, at least for the summer. Only Barack Obama stood his ground and rejected the proposal, which would have merely increased demand for gasoline – and thereby offset the effect of the tax cut.
But if Clinton and McCain were wrong, what should be done? One cannot simply ignore the pleas of those who are suffering. In the US, real middle-class incomes have not yet recovered to the levels attained before the last recession in 1991.
When George Bush was elected, he claimed that tax cuts for the rich would cure all the economy’s ailments. The benefits of tax-cut-fuelled growth would trickle down to all – policies that have become fashionable in Europe and elsewhere, but that have failed. Tax cuts were supposed to stimulate savings, but household savings in the US have plummeted to zero. They were supposed to stimulate employment, but labour force participation is lower than in the 1990s. What growth did occur benefited only the few at the top.
Productivity grew, for a while, but it wasn’t because of Wall Street financial innovations. The financial products being created didn’t manage risk; they enhanced risk. They were so non-transparent and complex that neither Wall Street nor the ratings agencies could properly assess them. Meanwhile, the financial sector failed to create products that would help ordinary people manage the risks they faced, including the risks of home ownership. Millions of Americans will likely lose their homes and, with them, their life savings.
At the core of America’s success is technology, symbolised by Silicon Valley. The irony is that the scientists making the advances that enable technology-based growth, and the venture capital firms that finance it were not the ones reaping the biggest rewards in the heyday of the real estate bubble. These real investments are overshadowed by the games that have been absorbing most participants in financial markets.
The world needs to rethink the sources of growth. If the foundations of economic growth lie in advances in science and technology, not in speculation in real estate or financial markets, then tax systems must be realigned. Why should those who make their income by gambling in Wall Street’s casinos be taxed at a lower rate than those who earn their money in other ways? Capital gains should be taxed at least at as high a rate as ordinary income. (Such returns will, in any case, get a substantial benefit because the tax is not imposed until the gain is realised.) In addition, there should be a windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies.
Given the huge increase in inequality in most countries, higher taxes for those who have done well – to help those who have lost ground from globalisation and technological change – are in order, and could also ameliorate the strains imposed by soaring food and energy prices. Countries, like the US, with food stamp programmes, clearly need to increase the value of these subsidies in order to ensure that nutrition standards do not deteriorate. Those countries without such programmes might think about instituting them.
Two factors set off today’s crisis: the Iraq war contributed to the run-up in oil prices, including through increased instability in the Middle East, the low-cost provider of oil, while biofuels have meant that food and energy markets are increasingly integrated. Although the focus on renewable energy sources is welcome, policies that distort food supply are not. America’s subsidies for corn-based ethanol contribute more to the coffers of ethanol producers than they do to curtailing global warming. Huge agriculture subsidies in the US and the European Union have weakened agriculture in the developing world, where too little international assistance was directed at improving agriculture productivity. Development aid for agriculture has fallen from a high of 17% of total aid to just 3% today, with some international donors demanding that fertiliser subsidies be eliminated, making it even more difficult for cash-strapped farmers to compete.
Rich countries must reduce, if not eliminate, distortional agriculture and energy policies, and help those in the poorest countries improve their capacity to produce food. But this is just a start: we have treated our most precious resources – clean water and air – as if they were free. Only new patterns of consumption and production – a new economic model – can address that most fundamental resource problem.
Jun 16 08, 01:54pm
I find your article to be interesting, but how can one correct the problems, using the tools that helped to create them in the first place?
You proclaim a need for a ‘new economic model’ but then base this ‘new model’ on ‘patterns of consumption and production.’ This assumes that equilibrium in food prices and oil prices is possible. If not, then equilibirum’s deviant cousin raises its head – ‘dis-equilibirum.’
Questions that should be asked: Has there ever been an equilibirum in food prices? If so, how can one measure this equilibirum?
Once we do away with the concepts of equilibirum, patterns of consumption and production, only then will we be able to build a new economic model.
Jun 16 08, 02:17pm
‘To start with , rich nations can impose a green tax or consumption tax on the natural resources their citizens consume – things like water, oil, coal, et al. The tax could be used to build a fund that will invest in renewable energy sources (solar/wind et al) in poorer nations.’
That’s oversimplistic. There are plenty of poorer people in your ‘rich’ nations who are already unable to afford fuel and transport. A blanket tax would make life much worse for them, and the rich would just be able to get around it by paying their way out. And there are plenty of ‘poorer nations’ which, in their current state, would be absolutely incapable of handling any energy-systems we gave them simply because they are so badly misgoverned.
We need a more multifaceted approach to the whole problem.
As Stiglitz comments, we need brakes on financial markets.
Then we need more rational ways of distributing food – for example, rather than having luxury out-of-season vegetables grown in Africa and feed Africans on imported Chinese rice, we need Africans feeding themselves.
We also need to step on countries like Zimbabwe where it’s futile to bother growing food because it either gets confiscated or burned.
And we need to get rid of the idea that goods should be built shoddily and frequently replaced. That’s one of the main environmental sins of modern commerce.
And finally, we need to make international aid dependent on the acceptance of proper contraceptive education and use.
The winner of the 2001 Nobel prize for economics was in London last week for a financial conference near Paddington – and was decidedly bearish about the US, British and global economies. Here are edited highlights of his conversation with the Sunday Times