14 Dec 2018

China’s economic slowdown: The political issues confronting the working class

Nick Beams

Figures released yesterday, showing a marked slowdown in the Chinese economy, highlight the enormous dangers confronting the working class in the US, China and internationally arising from the reckless and dangerous economic war being waged by the Trump administration against Beijing.
According to data from the Chinese government, retail sales grew in November at their slowest pace in 15 years while industrial production rose by the lowest level in almost three years. The Chinese auto market, a key component of retail spending, is on track for its first annual sales decline since the 1990s. Significantly, the effects of the trade war measures of the Trump administration are only now starting to show up in economic data, meaning that growth rates are set to fall further in the coming months, after this year hitting their lowest level since the global financial crisis of 2008–2009.
The China slowdown is part of a global process. Growth in Europe, after rising in 2017, has fallen to its lowest point in four years and Japan has experienced a contraction in the third quarter. These figures expose the fraudulent claim that the global economy had finally “turned the corner” after the deep recession produced by the financial crisis a decade ago.
The response of Trump to the news of the Chinese slowdown underscored that once again the world economy is fracturing in a manner that recalls the disastrous decade of the 1930s that deepened the Great Depression and created the conditions for World War II.
“China has just announced that their economy is growing much slower than anticipated because of our Trade War with them,” he wrote on Twitter. “US is doing very well. China wants to make a big and very comprehensive deal. It could happen, and rather soon!”
From the standpoint of the “America First” perspective of the Trump Administration, the world economy is a kind of zero sum game in which losses incurred by its rivals represent an American gain. But this reactionary viewpoint is contradicted by economic facts. The world economy is not the sum of a series of separate national parts, in which one part gains at the expense of the other, but an ever-more closely integrated whole in which the labour and the economic fate of billions of working people are inextricably bound together.
The reactionary nostrums of economic nationalism produced a disaster in the 1930s. Now they are creating the conditions for an even bigger crisis because the level of economic integration has increased exponentially from what existed more than eight decades ago.
The notion advanced by Trump during his election campaign, and subsequently that the American economy could somehow be decoupled from the world economy and that American workers could benefit by “making America great again” at the expense of its rivals, is being shattered by events. The announcement of mass layoffs in the auto industry and the threat of more to come is but one indication of this economic fact. Another is the turmoil in financial markets produced by the global slowdown and the trade war—the Dow was down by 500 points yesterday on the economic news from China—which threatens to set off an even bigger crisis than that of 2008.
Workers in the United States and in Europe, which has been shaken by the upsurge of class struggle reflected in the “yellow vests” movement, and in all the major capitalist countries are being brought face to face with the fact that they confront a common global enemy—the capitalist system.
Likewise, the deepening economic crisis raises fundamental questions of political perspective for the Chinese working class.
More than 40 years ago, the Chinese Maoist-Stalinist leadership, confronted with the economic dead-end produced by its nationalist dogma of “socialism in one country,” undertook a turn to the capitalist market as the basis for the economic organisation of society.
The prospect was held out that the restoration of capitalism—carried through with a bloody repression of the working class as took place in 1989—would allow China to enjoy a “peaceful rise” and escape the grip of imperialist domination.
But the undoubted economic growth over the past 30 years and the transformation of China into the world’s leading manufacturing centre, has not overcome the great historical problems that have confronted the Chinese masses. On the contrary they have raised these problems to new and even more explosive forms.
The dependence of the fate of the Chinese workers on the world economy and their connection to workers internationally was underscored by the global financial crisis of a decade ago when the Chinese economy plunged and more than 23 million workers lost their jobs virtually overnight.
The regime responded with a vast government investment program and one of the largest expansions of credit in world economic history in order to sustain economic growth and maintain its rule.
But this program, which led to massive housing construction and infrastructure development, has seen debt rise as a proportion of gross domestic product from 143 percent to more than 260 percent today.
Faced with the fact that a continuation of this program would lead inexorably to a financial disaster and the eruption of massive social struggles, the Chinese regime, under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, has sought to provide a new foundation for the economy through the advance of the country’s industrial and technological development—the basis of its “Made in China 2025” program.
This program, however, has run headlong into a conflict with US imperialism which is determined to prevent the economic rise of China and its development of key areas of advanced technology, regarding it as an existential threat to its economic and military predominance.
Washington is determined to counter that prospect by all means necessary, including crashing the Chinese economy, as indicated by Trump’s latest celebratory tweet, and if necessary by military means, reflected in the ongoing and deepening preparations by the US military and intelligence establishment for war. The only policy it will accept is one which turns China into an economic semi-colony of the US.
But the opposition to this imperialist program cannot be based on another nationalist turn or support for the economic, political and military manoeuvres of the regime of billionaire capitalist oligarchs headed by Xi Jinping. A new, independent, political perspective must be advanced grounded on the logic of the class struggle.
There are growing signs of an upsurge of the Chinese working class and these struggles are certain to take more overt forms in the coming period as Chinese workers, like their counterparts in the US and internationally, confront mass layoffs and deepening attacks on social conditions.
Just as the program of economic nationalism is a reactionary dead-end for workers in the US and the other major capitalist countries, it is no less so for the multi-millioned Chinese working class.
Recognition of this economic and political fact of life, which receives daily verification in the events now unfolding, must become the starting point for the advancement of a new political perspective, based on the recognition that there is no way forward within the capitalist profit and nation-state system.
The only viable program for the working class in the US, China, and internationally is socialist internationalism—the common struggle by the world working class to end the outmoded capitalist profit and nation-state system, the source of war and economic devastation, and the building of the International Committee of the Fourth International, the world party of socialist revolution, to lead it.

Thomson Reuters Foundation Reporting Rural Poverty and Agricultural Development Workshop for African Journalists (Funded to Rome, Italy) 2019

Application Deadline: 2nd January 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To Be Taken At (Country):  Rome, Italy

About the Award: In order to ensure the daily issues faced by rural poor people and their communities are acknowledged, it is important that their stories are heard and their voices are amplified.  With funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the specialised UN agency, we will bring together journalists from around the world in Rome to attend IFAD’s event on innovative approaches to inclusive financing for rural transformation.
Being at the conference will allow journalists access to high profile delegates, leading experts in the issues, including IFAD and UN technical experts, as well as a number of small holder farmers who will be invited.
IFAD works with those most affected by poverty, food security, gender inequality, environment and climate change.

Type: Workshop

Eligibility: 
  • An opportunity for journalists from across Africa.
  • Applicants must be full-time journalists or regular contributors to a media organisation. Applicants must be able to demonstrate a commitment to a career in journalism in their country, and should have at least two years’ professional experience and have a good level in spoken and written English.  Facilitators will also speak French.
  • We would also like to see professional evidence of your interest in the field of rural peoples’ issues and development.
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Bursaries would include air travel expenses (economy class), accommodation, local transfers and meals. Please note that you need to check visa requirements and ensure you have the necessary documentation required.  The cost of your visa and any other related costs will be the responsibility of the participant. This arrangement is subject to variation.

Duration of Program: 12 February to 15 February 2019

How to Apply: Please provide the following:  Statment explaining your motivation to attend; your CV or biography; and two examples of your work.

APPLY

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars Programme 2019 for International Researchers (Fully-funded to Canada)

Application Deadline: 5th February 2019

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Canada

About the Award: The Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), a Canadian-based global organization, brings together more than 400 researchers from 16 countries who are pursuing answers to some of the most difficult challenges facing the world. The CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program provides funding and support to help early career researchers build networks and essential skills to position them as leaders and agents of change within academia and beyond.

Fields of Research: In 2019, the eligible programs are:
  • Azrieli Program in Brain, Mind & Consciousness
  • Bio-Inspired Solar Energy
  • Gravity & the Extreme Universe
  • Humans & the Microbiome
  • Molecular Architecture of Life
Type: Research/Grants

Eligibility: 
  • Applicants can be from anywhere in the world, but must hold a PhD (or equivalent) and be within five years of their first full-time academic appointment.
  • Scholars’ research interests must be aligned with the themes of an eligible CIFAR research program.
  • Be available to attend a two-day in-person interview* on June 26-27, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. Travel costs will be covered by CIFAR.
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Program: CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars receive:
  • $100,000 CDN in undesignated research support
  • A two-year appointment to a CIFAR program aligned with their research interests
  • Mentorship from experienced researchers
  • Specialized leadership and communications skills training
Duration of Program: 2 years. The term will begin on September 1, 2018.

How to Apply: Applications are submitted online through CIFAR’s application system and must include three letters of recommendation from at least one faculty member or equivalent and preferably one non-academic leader.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Canadian Institute for Advanced Research

Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Imomoh Scholarship 2019/2020 for African Students

Application Deadline: 15th April 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries included in the SPE African Region list (See in link below)

To be taken at (country): USA

Field of Study: Petroleum Engineering and other related Degrees related to the oil and gas industry. The Gus Archie Scholarship is restricted to first-year petroleum engineering students.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 
  • Must be pursuing a master’s degree in petroleum engineering
  • Must be from a country in the SPE Africa Region
  • Comply with sanction policy (View in link below)
  • Complete the electronic application submission process
Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: USD 2,000

Duration of Scholarship: single payment

How to Apply: 
  • Submit the online application form by noon CDT (UTC-5) on 15 April.
  • You must submit at least one recommendation and documentation for entry exams (if applicable).
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Egbert Imomoh

FAO/Government of Switzerland International Innovation Award for Sustainable Food and Agriculture 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 28th February 2019

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: Agricultural innovation is the process whereby individuals or organizations bring new or existing products, processes or ways of organization into use for the first time in a specific context in order to increase effectiveness, competitiveness,resilience to shocks or environmental sustainability and thereby contribute to food security and nutrition, economic development or sustainable natural resource management. 
The Federal Government of Switzerland is pleased to sponsor an International Innovation Award for Sustainable Food and Agriculture (the Award). FAO has agreed to provide its technical support to the Award for the nomination period 2017-2018.

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: As the award is funded by the Government of Switzerland, the award shall be limited to innovations related to agriculture and pastoral systems only, as per the requirements and technical competencies of the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture. 
In the spirit of United Nations Decade of Family Farming and aligned to the aspirations and goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the candidates should demonstrate the important role of their innovation for the future of sustainable food and agriculture and the improvement of food security and nutrition for all, particularly in the face of increased environmental challenges. The Award specific criteria are as follows :
  • Award for Digitalization and innovation for Sustainable Food Systems (USD 40 000):
    • The innovation must impact more than one level of supply chain from farmers to consumers.
    • The innovation must strengthen the link between farmers and consumers, e.g. through tracking sustainability features of traded food and agriculture products.
  • Award for innovations that empower youth in agriculture and food systems(USD 20 000):
    •  The innovation must strengthen the role of youth (under 35) in agriculture and food systems.
The Award General criteria are as follows:
  • Quality and merit of the innovation
  • Potential benefit, impact and sustainability         
  • Scalability           
  • Value for money 
  1. Eligibility and General rules
  • Both categories of the award consider innovations that have been successfully implemented and validated. The Award is conferred for innovations implemented during the biennium preceding the current one. 
  • Individuals, private companies and institutions responsible for an innovation that has demonstrated particular efficiency and used novel tools, products or services to enhance and promote sustainable food and agriculture can apply.
  • Nomination forms that are incomplete, do not comply with the terms and conditions, or are submitted beyond the deadline, according to the instructions provided, will not be considered.
  • No applicants under the age of 18 will be considered for the Award.
  • The submission of a Nomination Form is free of charge.
  • By submitting a Nomination Form,applicants agree that personal data, especially name and address may be processed, shared, and otherwise used for the purposes and within the context of the Award nominations. The data may also be used to verify the applicants’identity, postal address and telephone number or to otherwise verify the applicants’ eligibility to submit a Nomination Form.
  • If the nomination is made by a private company or institution, the nomination form should be signed and presented by the legal representative and confirmation of his/her authorization to present the nomination should be provided.
Number of Awards: 2

Value of Award: The award is open to individuals,private companies or institutions and comprises two categories:
  • The first prize, USD 40,000, is awarded for excellence in digitization and innovation for sustainable food systems
  • The second prize of USD 20,000 recognises an innovation that empowers youth in agriculture and food systems.
The recipient of the award will also receive a scroll describing his/her achievements and/or an award.
How to Apply: Proposals for nominations should be submitted using the attached Nomination Form by 28 February 2019 to the Secretariat of the Award at the following email address: Innovation-Award@fao.org for endorsement and submission to the Screening Committee.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Britain’s Homeless Crisis

Graham Peebles

Under the suffocating shadow of economic austerity, homelessness in Britain is increasing, poverty and inequality deepening. Since the Conservative party came to power via a coalition government in 2010, then as a minority government in 2015, homelessness has risen exponentially.
Whilst it is impossible to collect precise statistics on homelessness, these widely available figures, which exclude the ‘hidden homeless’, paint a stark picture of the growing crisis: In 2010 1,768 people were recorded as sleeping rough, whilst 48,000 households were living in temporary accommodation. By December 2017, according to A Public Accounts Committee report, there were almost 9,000 rough sleepers, and, The Guardian states, “nearly 76,000 households were living in emergency temporary accommodation such as bed and breakfasts, of which 60,000 were families with children or pregnant mothers” – an increase of 58% on the 2010 figures.
Whilst someone rough sleeping in a doorway is a loud and painful declaration of homelessness, a person is also regarded as homeless if they are staying with family or friends or ‘sofa surfing’ (the ‘hidden homeless’), as well those living in temporary accommodation provided by a local authority. Councils have a legal duty to house certain people – such as pregnant women, parents with dependent children and people considered vulnerable (single people rarely qualify). If, after investigating a case, the council concludes they do not have a legal duty to provide housing, nothing permanent is offered and the temporary accommodation is withdrawn. The only option then is to find somewhere in the private sector, which is becoming increasingly difficult in many parts of the country, including rural towns as well as London and other major cities. Rents (and deposits) are high and landlords are more and more demanding, refusing to rent to people on state benefits, often asking for a guarantor and only offering Assured Shorthold Tenancies (AST).
The Thatcher government introduced AST’s as part of the Housing Act of 1988, prior to which fair rents (as opposed to market rents) and protected tenancies existed, providing a high level of security of tenure. The Thatcher legislation changed all that; AST’s (usually six months) provide virtually no security to the tenant and, in line with the maxim of the market, set no limit on the level of the rent. Consequentially most landlords charge as much as they can get, many do not properly maintain the property, and are within their rights to raise rents and take possession of the property whenever they feel like it. The ending of an AST is now one of the most common causes of homelessness.
Austerity and Homelessness
Those in receipt of state benefits or on a low income can claim housing benefit (HB), which is paid by local authorities to help with rent payments. In 2010, shocked by the national HB bill, the coalition government initiated reforms to the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) for tenants in ‘the deregulated private rented sector’ – the key word here is deregulated. Within broader public spending cuts the policy changes set a cap on the level of housing benefit that can be paid. LHA levels are fixed well below market rents, which results in shortfalls in rent payments leading to arrears, subsequent evictions and homelessness; according to the homeless charity Crisis, “all available evidence points to Local Housing Allowance reforms as a major driver of [the] association between loss of private tenancies and homelessness”
Instead of taking measures to regulate the private housing market and deal with the extortionate rents charged by greedy landlords, the policy penalized the tenant and set in motion a system which, coupled with benefit freezes and the dire lack of social housing, has caused homelessness to grow at an alarming rate; Another example of government incompetence or social hardship by design? If the HB freeze remains in place until 2020 as planned by the government, the charity, Shelter says that “more than a million households, including 375,000 with at least one person in work, could be forced out of their homes.”
The cap on HB is one aspect of the government’s austere economic programme. Through the implementation of economic austerity the Conservative government is waging a violent assault on the poorest members of British society and ripping the heart out of the community. The justification for such brutality is the need to ‘balance the books’, however, the national debt is greater now that is was in 2010, The Office for National Statistics states that “UK government gross debt as of December 2017 was £1.7 trillion – equivalent to 87.7% of gross domestic product (GDP),” – compared to 60% of GDP in 2010. Austerity is an ideological choice not an economic necessity. Financial cuts have been applied in the most severe manner; budgets to local authorities, schools, the NHS (National Health Service), the Police and to the benefit system, among other areas. The consequences are homelessness and widespread economic hardship.
Nationwide food-banks run by the Trussell Trust provided 1.3 million food parcels last year, up 13% on 2016 – before the financial crash in 2008/9 the concept of “food banks” was virtually unknown in Britain. Shelter estimates that more than 130,000 homeless children will be living in temporary accommodation over Christmas, almost 10,000 of who will be in hostels or hotels “where in many cases their family will have been put up in a single room, sharing bathrooms and kitchens with other residents. Overall, 50,000 more children in England, Wales and Scotland are homeless compared with five years ago, a rise of 59%.” The government is doing nothing to alleviate the homeless crisis, on the contrary their policies are fuelling it; Labour MP Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, says the government’s approach to tackling the problem of homelessness has been an “abject failure”.
The right to a home
Homelessness is one of the most destabilizing and painful experiences anyone can go through. It fuels psychological and physiological insecurity, places a person in situations of physical danger, erodes any positive sense of self and causes physical and mental health illness; Crisis records that 46% of homeless people suffer from a mental health illness compared to 25% of the general public; and while this figure is itself extremely high, when asked, a staggering 86% of people who are homeless report suffering from one or other mental health illness. Perhaps unsurprisingly, research shows “that as a person’s housing becomes more stable the rate of serious mental illness decreases.”
Rough sleepers and people begging for money are routinely ignored and treated with disdain, police are instructed to move beggars on and so erase images of social hardship from the gentrified streets – it’s bad for the cities image – and hostile architecture makes even rough sleeping difficult. Shelter relate that the three main reasons for becoming homeless are: “parents, friends or relatives unwilling or unable to continue to accommodate them; relationship breakdown, including domestic violence and loss of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy.” These are causes that anyone could be the victim of, they should not result in homelessness, indeed within a healthy, compassionately organized socio-economic order, homelessness would not exist at all.
Housing, like education and health care, should be safeguarded from the Madness of the Market; limits should be placed on the rents that private landlords can charge, and a nationwide building program of social housing initiated under the stewardship of local councils, not housing associations. At the same time tenancies need to be lengthened, tenants’ rights strengthened, and fair rents re-introduced.
A house or flat is a home, and a home is a basic human right – enshrined as such within that triumph of humanity, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: it is not and should not be regarded as a financial investment. At the root of the ‘housing crisis’ in Britain and elsewhere is the poison of commodification; whether it be a house or a forest, a school playground, library building or a public park, all are regarded in monetary terms, how much is it ‘worth’ – meaning how much is anyone willing to pay for it. The result is the commercialization of all areas of life including housing, and the promotion of an ugly way of life rooted in material greed and financial profit, no matter the impact on people or the natural environment.
This ideologically rooted approach to life is at the heart of many if not all of our problems, including the most pressing issue of the time, the environmental catastrophe. Government policies consistently add fuel to the fires, politicians lack vision and imagination, but it is the socio-economic ideology that underlies and fashions policy that is the problem; the system and the values it promotes need to be fundamentally changed, and a new order introduced that cultivates social justice, cooperation and tolerance.

The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme

Nomi Prins 

As we head into 2019, leaving the chaos of this year behind, a major question remains unanswered when it comes to the state of Main Street, not just here but across the planet. If the global economy really is booming, as many politicians claim, why are leaders and their parties around the world continuing to get booted out of office in such a sweeping fashion?
One obvious answer: the post-Great Recession economic “recovery” was largely reserved for the few who could participate in the rising financial markets of those years, not the majority who continued to work longer hours, sometimes at multiple jobs, to stay afloat. In other words, the good times have left out so many people, like those struggling to keep even a few hundred dollars in their bank accounts to cover an emergency or the 80% of American workers who live paycheck to paycheck.
In today’s global economy, financial security is increasingly the property of the 1%. No surprise, then, that, as a sense of economic instability continued to grow over the past decade, angst turned to anger, a transition that — from the U.S. to the Philippines, Hungary to Brazil, Poland to Mexico — has provoked a plethora of voter upheavals. In the process, a 1930s-style brew of rising nationalism and blaming the “other” — whether that other was an immigrant, a religious group, a country, or the rest of the world — emerged.
This phenomenon offered a series of Trumpian figures, including of course The Donald himself, an opening to ride a wave of “populism” to the heights of the political system. That the backgrounds and records of none of them — whether you’re talking about Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, or Jair Bolsonaro (among others) — reflected the daily concerns of the “common people,” as the classic definition of populism might have it, hardly mattered. Even a billionaire could, it turned out, exploit economic insecurity effectively and use it to rise to ultimate power.
Ironically, as that American master at evoking the fears of apprentices everywhere showed, to assume the highest office in the land was only to begin a process of creating yet more fear and insecurity. Trump’s trade wars, for instance, have typically infused the world with increased anxiety and distrust toward the U.S., even as they thwarted the ability of domestic business leaders and ordinary people to plan for the future. Meanwhile, just under the surface of the reputed good times, the damage to that future only intensified. In other words, the groundwork has already been laid for what could be a frightening transformation, both domestically and globally.
That Old Financial Crisis
To understand how we got here, let’s take a step back. Only a decade ago, the world experienced a genuine global financial crisis, a meltdown of the first order. Economic growth ended; shrinking economies threatened to collapse; countless jobs were cut; homes were foreclosed upon and lives wrecked. For regular people, access to credit suddenly disappeared. No wonder fears rose. No wonder for so many a brighter tomorrow ceased to exist.
The details of just why the Great Recession happened have since been glossed over by time and partisan spin. This September, when the 10th anniversary of the collapse of the global financial services firm Lehman Brothers came around, major business news channels considered whether the world might be at risk of another such crisis. However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more attention to Donald Trump’s latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies. Why? Because such a crisis was so 2008 in a year in which, it was claimed, we were enjoying a first class economic high and edging toward the longest bull-market in Wall Street history. When it came to “boom versus gloom,” boom won hands down.
None of that changed one thing, though: most people still feel left behind both in the U.S. and globally. Thanks to the massive accumulation of wealth by a 1% skilled at gaming the system, the roots of a crisis that didn’t end with the end of the Great Recession have spread across the planet, while the dividing line between the “have-nots” and the “have-a-lots” only sharpened and widened.
Though the media hasn’t been paying much attention to the resulting inequality, the statistics (when you see them) on that ever-widening wealth gap are mind-boggling. According to Inequality.org, for instance, those with at least $30 million in wealth globally had the fastest growth rate of any group between 2016 and 2017. The size of that club rose by 25.5% during those years, to 174,800 members. Or if you really want to grasp what’s been happening, consider that, between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires whose combined wealth was greater than that of the world’s poorest 50% fell from 380 to just eight. And by the way, despite claims by the president that every other country is screwing America, the U.S. leads the pack when it comes to the growth of inequality. As Inequality.org notes, it has “much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1% than any other country.”
That, in part, is due to an institution many in the U.S. normally pay little attention to: the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. It helped spark that increase in wealth disparity domestically and globally by adopting a post-crisis monetary policy in which electronically fabricated money (via a program called quantitative easing, or QE) was offered to banks and corporations at significantly cheaper rates than to ordinary Americans.
Pumped into financial markets, that money sent stock prices soaring, which naturally ballooned the wealth of the small percentage of the population that actually owned stocks. According to economist Stephen Roach, considering the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances, “It is hardly a stretch to conclude that QE exacerbated America’s already severe income disparities.”
Wall Street, Central Banks, and Everyday People
What has since taken place around the world seems right out of the 1930s. At that time, as the world was emerging from the Great Depression, a sense of broad economic security was slow to return. Instead, fascism and other forms of nationalism only gained steam as people turned on the usual cast of politicians, on other countries, and on each other. (If that sounds faintly Trumpian to you, it should.)
In our post-2008 era, people have witnessed trillions of dollars flowing into bank bailouts and other financial subsidies, not just from governments but from the world’s major central banks. Theoretically, private banks, as a result, would have more money and pay less interest to get it. They would then lend that money to Main Street. Businesses, big and small, would tap into those funds and, in turn, produce real economic growth through expansion, hiring sprees, and wage increases. People would then have more dollars in their pockets and, feeling more financially secure, would spend that money driving the economy to new heights — and all, of course, would then be well.
That fairy tale was pitched around the globe. In fact, cheap money also pushed debt to epic levels, while the share prices of banks rose, as did those of all sorts of other firms, to record-shattering heights.
Even in the U.S., however, where a magnificent recovery was supposed to have been in place for years, actual economic growth simply didn’t materialize at the levels promised. At 2% per year, the average growth of the American gross domestic product over the past decade, for instance, has been half the average of 4% before the 2008 crisis. Similar numbers were repeated throughout the developed world and most emerging markets. In the meantime, total global debt hit $247 trillion in the first quarter of 2018. As the Institute of International Finance found, countries were, on average, borrowing about three dollars for every dollar of goods or services created.
Global Consequences
What the Fed (along with central banks from Europe to Japan) ignited, in fact, was a disproportionate rise in the stock and bond markets with the money they created. That capital sought higher and faster returns than could be achieved in crucial infrastructure or social strengthening projects like building roads, high-speed railways, hospitals, or schools.
What followed was anything but fair. As former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen noted four years ago, “It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority.” And, of course, continuing to pour money into the highest levels of the private banking system was anything but a formula for walking that back.
Instead, as more citizens fell behind, a sense of disenfranchisement and bitterness with existing governments only grew. In the U.S., that meant Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, similar discontent was reflected in the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave the European Union (EU), which those who felt economically squeezed to death clearly meant as a slap at both the establishment domestically and EU leaders abroad.
Since then, multiple governments in the European Union, too, have shifted toward the populist right. In Germany, recent elections swung both right and left just six years after, in July 2012, European Central Bank (ECB) head Mario Draghi exuded optimism over the ability of such banks to protect the financial system, the Euro, and generally hold things together.
Like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB went on to manufacture money, adding another $3 trillion to its books that would be deployed to buy bonds from favored countries and companies. That artificial stimulus, too, only increased inequality within and between countries in Europe. Meanwhile, Brexit negotiations remain ruinously divisive, threatening to rip Great Britain apart.
Nor was such a story the captive of the North Atlantic. In Brazil, where left-wing president Dilma Rouseff was ousted from power in 2016, her successor Michel Temer oversaw plummeting economic growth and escalating unemployment. That, in turn, led to the election of that country’s own Donald Trump, nationalistic far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro who won a striking 55.2% of the vote against a backdrop of popular discontent. In true Trumpian style, he is disposed against both the very idea of climate change and multilateral trade agreements.
In Mexico, dissatisfied voters similarly rejected the political known, but by swinging left for the first time in 70 years. New president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO, promised to put the needs of ordinary Mexicans first. However, he has the U.S. — and the whims of Donald Trump and his “great wall” — to contend with, which could hamper those efforts.
As AMLO took office on December 1st, the G20 summit of world leaders was unfolding in Argentina. There, amid a glittering backdrop of power and influence, the trade war between the U.S. and the world’s rising superpower, China, came even more clearly into focus. While its president, Xi Jinping, having fully consolidated power amid a wave of Chinese nationalism, could become his country’s longest serving leader, he faces an international landscape that would have amazed and befuddled Mao Zedong.
Though Trump declared his meeting with Xi a success because the two sides agreed on a 90-day tariff truce, his prompt appointment of an anti-Chinese hardliner, Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations, a tweet in which he referred to himself in superhero fashion as a “Tariff Man,” and news that the U.S. had requested that Canada arrest and extradite an executive of a key Chinese tech company, caused the Dow to take its fourth largest plunge in history and then fluctuate wildly as economic fears of a future “Great Something” rose. More uncertainty and distrust were the true product of that meeting.
In fact, we are now in a world whose key leaders, especially the president of the United States, remain willfully oblivious to its long-term problems, putting policies like deregulation, fake nationalist solutions, and profits for the already grotesquely wealthy ahead of the future lives of the mass of citizens. Consider the yellow-vest protests that have broken out in France, where protestors identifying with left and right political parties are calling for the resignation of neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron. Many of them, from financially starved provincial towns, are angry that their purchasing power has dropped so low they can barely make ends meet.
Ultimately, what transcends geography and geopolitics is an underlying level of economic discontent sparked by twenty-first-century economics and a resulting Grand Canyon-sized global inequality gap that is still widening. Whether the protests go left or right, what continues to lie at the heart of the matter is the way failed policies and stop-gap measures put in place around the world are no longer working, not when it comes to the non-1% anyway. People from Washington to ParisLondon to Beijing, increasingly grasp that their economic circumstances are not getting better and are not likely to in any presently imaginable future, given those now in power.
A Dangerous Recipe
The financial crisis of 2008 initially fostered a policy of bailing out banks with cheap money that went not into Main Street economies but into markets enriching the few. As a result, large numbers of people increasingly felt that they were being left behind and so turned against their leaders and sometimes each other as well.
This situation was then exploited by a set of self-appointed politicians of the people, including a billionaire TV personality who capitalized on an increasingly widespread fear of a future at risk. Their promises of economic prosperity were wrapped in populist platitudes, normally (but not always) of a right-wing sort. Lost in this shift away from previously dominant political parties and the systems that went with them was a true form of populism, which would genuinely put the needs of the majority of people over the elite few, build real things including infrastructure, foster organic wealth distribution, and stabilize economies above financial markets.
In the meantime, what we have is, of course, a recipe for an increasingly unstable and vicious world.

The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported

Patrick Cockburn

The number of people killed by the violence in Yemen has for the first time risen above 3,000 dead in a single month, bringing the total number of fatalities to over 60,000 since the start of 2016. The figure is six times greater than the out-of-date figure of 10,000 dead often cited in the media and by politicians.
“We have recorded 3,068 people killed in November, bringing the total number of Yemenis who have died in the violence to 60,223 since January 2016,” says Andrea Carboni, a researcher on Yemen for the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), formerly based at Sussex University, that studies conflicts and seeks to establish the real casualty level.
The figures do not include the Yemenis who have died through starvation or malnutrition – the country is on the brink of famine, according to the UN – or from illnesses caused by the war such as cholera.
This number of Yemenis dying in the war has been played down by the Saudi and UAE-led coalition, which has active military support from the US, UK and France, and has an interest in minimising the human cost of the conflict. The coalition has been trying since March 2015 to reinstate in power Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, whose government had been overthrown by the rebel Houthi movement in late 2014.
Mr Carboni says that ACLED’s latest figures, which were released on Tuesday, are drawn primarily from information in hundreds of online papers and news sites in Yemen. The possible political bias of these sources is taken into account and different reports are cross-referenced using the most conservative numbers, to arrive at the final number.
ACLED executive director Clionadh Raleigh says: “ACLED’s estimation of Yemen’s direct conflict deaths is far higher than official estimates – and [these are] still underestimated. Fatality numbers are only one approximation of the abject tragedy and terror forced upon Yemenis.”
The 60,223 figure for those killed in the fighting is lower than the total fatalities in Yemen since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began the Saudi intervention in March 2015 because ACLED only began its count at the beginning of 2016.
But the organisation is now also conducting a count of those killed in 2015, whom Mr Carboni says he estimated “to number between 15,000 and 20,000”. This would mean that the overall figure for fatalities as a result of violence over almost four years of war would rise to between 75,000 and 80,000.
The steep increase in the number killed this year is explained by the Saudi and UAE-led assault on the port of Hodeidah on the Red Sea coast which is the main conduit for relief supplies reaching the Yemeni population.
Houthi followers demonstrate to show rejection of an offer by the Saudi-led coalition to pay compensation for victims of an air strike in Saada, Yemen (Reuters)
This has led to a 68 per cent increase in the number killed in the first 11 months of this year, to 28,115, according to ACLED.
The number of those who have already died in Yemen may soon be far surpassed by the number likely to die because of hunger and disease. Some 20 million people are not getting enough to eat – 70 per cent of the population – and for the first time, 250,000 are facing “catastrophe”, according to the UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock, who has recently returned from Yemen.
He said that there has been “a significant, dramatic deterioration” of the humanitarian situation with those Yemenis facing starvation and death being concentrated in the four provinces where the fighting is at its most intense: Hodeidah, Saada, Taiz and Hajja.
A significant change in the conflict in Yemen is that the Saudi role in the war is coming under far greater scrutiny since the murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi team in Istanbul on 2 October. International revulsion over his killing has led to greater focus and criticism of the Saudi-led war in Yemen and the humanitarian calamity it has produced.
At the UN-sponsored talks between the Houthis and the Saudi-backed government being held in Sweden, delegates are discussing the expansion of a shaky truce in Hodeidah. Under this proposal, all troops would withdraw from the city and later from the province, leaving the UN with oversight over an interim administration. The UN envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, said he wanted “to take Hodeidah out of the war” so aid could be delivered.
Another sign of a limited de-escalation of the war came on Tuesday with the Saudi-backed government and the Houthis exchanging lists of some 15,000 prisoners to open the door for a swap agreement. But the talks, set to last until 13 December, have yet to make progress on important differences over a ceasefire at Hodeidah, reopening the Houthi-held airport at the capital Sanaa, and the shoring up of the central bank.
The prisoner swap would take place on 20 January via Sanaa airport in north Yemen and government-held Sayun airport in the south – a process overseen by the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
“We have exchanged more than 7,000 names from each side, including some 200 high-ranking officers,” said Ghaleb Mutlaq, a delegate for the Houthis.
The Trump administration is paying an increasingly high political price at home and abroad for its continued support for the Saudi crown prince and the war in Yemen, which are coming under strong criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
Nevertheless, the administration says it will continue to back the Saudi-led coalition, claiming that this is necessary to combat Iranian influence and Islamic fundamentalists.
“We do believe that support for the coalition is necessary. It sends a wrong message if we discontinue our support,” said Timothy Lenderking, US deputy assistant secretary for Arabian Gulf Affairs at the weekend.
Even so, time appears to be running out for the Saudis and it is becoming clear that their long war may have destroyed Yemen but has failed in it purpose of defeating the Houthis.

Greenland ice sheet melting at an accelerating rate due to global warming

Philip Guelpa

A newly published article in the journal Nature (“Nonlinear rise in Greenland runoff in response to post-industrial Arctic warming,” Trusel et al., 6 December 2018) reports finding that runoff from the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) is accelerating as a result of global warming. The consequences for both sea-level rise and climate change are severe.
Using stratigraphic data from ice cores extending deep into the center of the ice sheet, which document changes in melting and refreezing over time, the researchers found a very high statistical correlation (P<0.01, less than 1 percent probability that the correlation is due to chance) between the ice core data, data from modern satellite observation, air temperature records, and computer modeling of melt rates. By comparing the annual thickness of layers of refrozen meltwater within the ice, as documented in the cores, with modern records, the researchers could extrapolate backwards to reconstruct the annual rate of melting during the period represented in the cores. This method is roughly analogous to the study of past climates using tree rings.
Scientists stand on the edge of a crevasse formed by meltwater flowing across the top of the Greenland Ice Sheet during a WHOI-led expedition in 2007. Credit: Photo by Sarah Das, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Their conclusion is that “the magnitude of recent GrIS melting is exceptional over at least the last 350 years.” And further, that “the initiation of increases in GrIS melting closely follow the onset of industrial-era Arctic warming in the mid-1800s, but that the magnitude of GrIS melting has only recently emerged beyond the range of natural variability.” In other words, human-induced global warming is causing the ice sheet to melt at an unprecedented and increasing rate, at least during the period documented in the cores.
The analysis found “a pronounced 250% to 575% increase in melt intensity over the last 20 years, relative to a pre-industrial baseline period (eighteenth century),” based on two separate cores. “Furthermore, the most recent decade contained in the cores (2004-2013) experienced a more sustained and greater magnitude of melt than any other 10-year period in the ice-core records.” In one of the cores, 2012 was the strongest melt season on record.
Ominously, the data indicate that the correlation between the rise in air temperature and the rate of melting is “nonlinear”—the latter is increasing faster than the former. Consequently, in the future “continued atmospheric warming will lead to rapid increases in GrIS runoff and sea-level contributions”—i.e., the flow of melted water from the icecap into the ocean.
Accelerating rates of ice sheet melting coincide with pronounced decreases in Arctic sea ice, both indications of warming climate. The greater expanses of open water in the Arctic Ocean cause increased absorption of solar radiation (dark water absorbs more heat than white ice), leading to warming of the water and even greater melting of sea ice, resulting in warming of the overlying air. The authors suggest a consequent acceleration of ice sheet melting due to increased air temperatures. This, in turn, causes reduced reflectivity (decreased albedo) and greater solar absorption on the ice sheet’s surface due to puddled meltwater. Together, these processes constitute a vicious circle, increasing the rate of melting on both land and sea. Quantitative changes are rapidly being transformed into qualitative ones, which may soon become irreversible.
The increased flow of fresh water into the North Atlantic as well as the decrease in Arctic sea ice are likely to be at least contributing causes of shifting ocean circulation, known as the summer North Atlantic Oscillation, with potentially dramatic consequences for regional climate. One effect could be the southward deflection of the Gulf Stream. The reduction in warm water flow northward and eastward could, ironically, result in a decrease in temperatures in northeastern North America and Europe, with negative effects such as shorter growing seasons.
Similar recent increases in the rate of ice melting have been documented in Antarctica.
The consequences of sea level rise alone, given the huge amount of water currently stored in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, the two largest reservoirs of frozen water on the planet, would be devastating. Eight of the world’s 10 largest metropolitan areas—Tokyo, Mumbai, New York City, Shanghai, Lagos, Los Angeles, Calcutta, and Buenos Aires—and up to half of the world’s population are vulnerable to sea level rise. Estimates vary widely, depending on a variety of scenarios, but sea levels could potentially increase by several meters in the foreseeable future. The displacement of hundreds of millions of people would dwarf the scale of anything previously experienced. Ultimately, if all the world’s ice sheets were to melt, sea levels could rise on the order of 65 meters (over 200 feet), inundating vast expanses of currently inhabited land.
The data collected from the Greenland ice cores objectively demonstrate the reality of accelerating global warming during the industrial period. Coming shortly after the dire warnings made by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and starkly illustrated by the growing intensity of hurricanes and wild fires around the world in recent years, this study reinforces the overwhelming scientific understanding that climate change is an immediate threat to human civilization.
The feeble and ineffectual measures so far attempted by the bourgeoisie to address climate change do not begin to meet the scale of the problem. The division of the world into rival nation states and the imperious drive to maximize profit under capitalism preclude the level of effort that is required. Only a unified worldwide marshaling of resources, guided by socialist policies, can avert the otherwise inevitable catastrophe.