UK household debt, excluding mortgages, tops a third of a trillion pounds

Liz Smith

A report, Britain in the Red, paints a devastating picture of the huge increase in households in extreme debt between 2012 and 2015. Commissioned by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the main public-sector union, UNISON, it finds that in 2015 almost half the UK population had some form of unsecured debt.

At the end of 2015, 3.2 million households or 7.6 million people were over-indebted, an increase of 700,000 or 28 percent since 2012. On this basis, nearly one in eight UK households is currently over-indebted. Likewise, 1.6 million households are in “extreme debt.” Overall, 1.2 million low-income households are estimated to be in “extreme problem” debt. This is defined as households who have to pay out more than 40 percent of their gross household income on unsecured debt repayments.

Between 2012 and 2015, total unsecured debt for UK households (which includes credit cards, payday loans and student loans, but not mortgages) rose by £48 billion to £353 billion. Unsecured debt previously peaked at £364 billion in 2008 and fell in the recession. However, the increase since 2012 is in part due to the major extension of student loans.

Consumer credit—i.e., household borrowing, excluding both student loans and mortgages—peaked in 2008 at £230 billion. It fell back to £184 billion in 2012, but had risen again to £212 billion by the end of 2015. Bank of England figures now show consumer credit growing at an annual rate of 10 percent, the highest for over 10 years.

The report points out that many conventional measures may understate the scale of these debts. As a result, the authors instead show interest payments as a share of a household sector “surplus”—that is, the amount that households have left to meet the cost of debt payments, once living costs have been taken into account.

The report finds that interest payments on unsecured borrowing are at an all-time high, and are high relative to other countries.

Britain in the Red reveals that the largest growth of over-indebtedness is among low-income households that are in employment. In 2015, 9 percent of these were “extremely over-indebted,” up from 5 percent in 2014.

The report notes that in 2015, 49 percent of all households had some form of unsecured debt. In total, there were an estimated 13.2 million “debtor households,” containing 31 million people.

A closer look shows that it is the working poor who are the most indebted. The report finds that approximately two thirds of households containing someone in paid employment, excluding self-employment, hold unsecured debts. This number increased significantly between 2012 and 2014 from 3 to 10 percent.

This situation has worsened markedly over the course of the past year for working households with incomes of £30,000 or less. Nearly three quarters (72 percent) of these households hold unsecured debts, and the report finds there has been an increase, from 10 to 14 percent, in the number of these who are over-indebted during the past year.

This increase has occurred in respect to households that are extremely over-indebted (paying out more than 40 percent of their income on debt repayments).

Significantly, over the past year, the age distribution of over-indebtedness amongst lower-income working households has changed. Many more young people are in debt. Households aged between 18 and 25 years now make up 20 percent of all over-indebted lower-income working households—compared to half this level a year ago.

Student loan debt has grown from £15 billion in 2004 to £86 billion at the end of 2015. This massive growth can be accounted for by the increase in fees from £3,290 to £9,000 in 2012 (making the UK the second most expensive country in the world for university education). The report points out this has had little impact on consumer debts, as interest rates are lower and do not have to be repaid until earnings are over £21,000. Despite this, nearly three quarters of full-time students have unsecured debt, rising in the last year from 8 to 13 percent.

Another finding is that many of the over-indebted can no longer afford to buy homes. The report notes that the percentage of over-indebted, lower-income, working households living in mortgaged accommodation appears to have significantly reduced in the past year—falling by one-third. In contrast, the percentages of these households living in either social or private rented accommodation have doubled.

Retired households are less likely to have any unsecured debts, the report finding that “In 2012, only 6 percent of retired households holding unsecured debts were over-indebted.” It notes that this “increased only marginally to 7 percent in 2014, but by 2015 was 17 percent. There has also been a considerable increase in the past year in the percentage of these households which are extremely over-indebted.”

The Financial Times noted that social inequality, and attendant indebtedness, is set to increase in the immediate period ahead. “The sharp fall in sterling since the vote to leave the EU [European Union] is expected to push up inflation, bringing a renewed squeeze on real wages in the absence of meaningful pay increases,” it warned.

Britain in the Red calls for a raise in wages and the removal of the public-sector pay cap, as well as increase in infrastructure spending. TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said, “Families can’t continue relying on credit cards and loans to get by. But with the average wage still worth £40 [a week] less than before the 2008 crash, lots of families have little choice.

“Higher wages must be at the heart of the government’s economic plan. We need a return to proper year-on-year pay rises and a higher national minimum wage,” added O’Grady.

Owen Jones, the self-styled “left” author and journalist, responded with a piece in the Guardian entitled, “Too many people face unmanageable debt. The cure is trade unions.”

He wrote, “[T]he positive case for trade unionism cannot just be left to politicians: it needs to be made by all of us. It needs to be put in a language that resonates with the millions of non-unionised workers, and particularly for younger people for whom the very notion of trade unionism seems culturally alien. Personal debt is a blight in modern Britain—and trade unionism is one of its cures.”

The trade unions are not part of the solution to this crisis for working people, but a major cause of it. The reality is that, for decades, not just since the onset of the economic crisis, the unions have not lifted a finger to mobilise the working class against a massive onslaught on wages, jobs and conditions. This is why workers have abandoned the unions in droves and that for a whole generation of young workers the unions are indeed “alien.”

The unions have stepped up their collaboration with the ruling elite since the financial crash of 2008, as more than 1 million jobs in the public sector have been destroyed, and services run down or terminated. With union complicity, a pay freeze was imposed across the public sector, and changes made to pension provisions adversely affecting those retiring for years to come.

Growing perplexity as central bankers confront permanent stagnation

Nick Beams

This year’s meeting of central bankers held at Jackson Hole, Wyoming last weekend represented something of a turning point in the response of financial authorities to the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008 and the resulting, ongoing stagnation of the world economy.

It was marked by ever-growing perplexity over monetary policy accompanied by the acknowledgement there is not going to be a recovery, after which there can be a return to “normal” central bank measures. This follows eight years of ultra-low and even negative interest rates and the pumping of trillions of dollars into the global financial system.

As the Financial Times put it: “The message from the meetings in Jackson Hole was clear: there is no winding back the clock to the pre-crisis world of central banking.”

In her keynote address delivered last Friday, US Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen explained that measures previously regarded as unconventional were now part of the Fed’s “tool kit.” She said she did not expect interest rates to return to the average level of 7 percent between 1965 and 2000 and forecast a rate of 3 percent in the long run.

Her assessment reflects the belief that the so-called neutral rate, which neither stimulates nor suppresses economic activity, is much lower than in the past because of the decline in the growth potential of the US economy.

Adam Posen, a former Bank of England policy advisor and president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said even this target was too optimistic. “The fact that we are nowhere near to the 300 let alone 400 basis points that you would normally need is disturbing,” he said.

The concern over the Fed’s base rate is motivated by the fear that in the event of a recession it will already be so low that it will not be possible to make a cut large enough to stimulate the economy.

Ethan Harris, head of global economics at Bank of America, warned that the current business cycle was “particularly dangerous.” Economies were late in the cycle, meaning that another recession is due, yet the interest rates set by central banks “are all close to zero and they are starting to lose the expectations war with inflation.”

The ongoing use of the measures adopted over the past eight years was a persistent theme in the reports and discussions at the meeting.

In her speech, Yellen offered the reassurance that, while additional tools may be needed, even if average interest rates remain lower than in the past, “I believe that monetary policy will, under most conditions, be able to respond effectively.”

That assumption is increasingly being called into question. Benoit Coeuré, a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank, claimed that while unconventional measures had supported output and inflation, they had been taken on the assumption that they would be transient “because monetary stimulus would help counter the cyclical forces depressing the real equilibrium rate.” But in the absence of other measures to stimulate the economy, “unconventional measures may have to be deployed more frequently.” However, this would come with complications and “rising side effects, for instance on financial stability.”

Coeuré wants European governments to undertake more intensive “structural reforms” aimed at attacking the social and employment conditions of the working class. “What we have seen since 2007 is half-baked and half-hearted structural reforms,” he stated.

The failure of the measures adopted by central banks—investment levels, labour productivity, growth rates and inflation remain at historic lows—has prompted calls for governments to take action on the fiscal front, particularly through the development of infrastructure projects. While such measures were not on the agenda at the Jackson Hole meeting, they are under discussion both within banking and financial circles.

In its report on the meeting, Reuters noted that while fiscal policy was not formally discussed “it was a steady part of the dialogue as policymakers thought through policies for a post-crisis world.” One of the “central worries” was that “households and businesses have become so cautious and set in their outlooks—expecting little growth and little inflation—that they do not respond in the expected ways to the efforts central banks have made.”

In a lunchtime address, Princeton University economist Christopher Sims said fiscal policy could replace “ineffective monetary policy” at near zero rates. It required deficits aimed at generating inflation and should not be financed by taxes or spending cuts.

The governor of the Bank of Mexico, Agustin Carstens, said that coming out of the discussion was the sense that “monetary policy activism has run its course” and that other branches of government had to step forward.

Dallas Fed president Robert Kaplan said that central bankers were increasingly talking about “the need for fiscal policy and other economic tools beyond monetary policy.”

The calls for fiscal action are being expressed more broadly. The London-based Telegraph carried a report at the weekend noting that “Keynes is in fashion once more.” It cited remarks by Bank of America investment strategist Michael Hartnett calling for a “more strategic mix of fiscal and monetary policy.” He said voters were demanding a more populist set of solutions after austerity.

However, there are a number of fundamental reasons why such stimulatory measures cannot and will not be carried out, at least not to any significant extent.

Keynesian measures, based on government spending initiatives aimed at countering economic stagnation in the US during the 1930s, were based on the relative strength of US capitalism and its industrial capacity. It was this, Leon Trotsky noted at the time, which permitted Roosevelt his “experiments.” Moreover, they did not produce lasting growth, with the US economy plunging rapidly in 1937.

Eighty years on, the situation has markedly changed, with US capitalism no longer the overwhelming industrial power it once was and where profit accumulation is increasingly dependent on financial speculation and parasitism.

Stimulus measures would require cooperation and coordination between the major powers. Such agreements were made in 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the financial meltdown, but they largely went by the board in less than a year. All governments support stimulus measures in theory, so long as they are carried out by someone else. The US, for example, has for some years called on Germany to provide greater stimulus, not least in the hope that this will provide greater markets for American exports.

However, the German ruling economic and financial elites were hit hard by the 2008 crisis, which they see as being the responsibility of the US. As a result, they are not inclined to take measures they regard as weakening their financial position vis-a-vis the US and other economic rivals.

Then there is the question of the financial markets. The quantitative easing policies of the past eight years have created a speculative bubble where the price of sovereign bonds has risen so high that some $13 trillion worth are now trading at negative yields (the two move in an inverse relationship to each other). Any major boost to the real economy would bring a rise in inflation and interest rates, threatening major losses for financial speculators potentially running into trillions of dollars.

Moreover, austerity is not simply an economic program but a class policy. It is directed to ensuring the suppression of the working class through low wages and worsening conditions. Any real economic revival would certainly bring about a resurgence of struggles for higher wages and improved conditions as workers sought to recover the losses in income and living standards inflicted over the past decade. The return of such struggles would have a major impact on the financial system, since the record levels of share markets have been based, not least, on the ever-increasing suppression of living standards for the overwhelming majority of the working class.

Divisions grow over British withdrawal from the European Union

Robert Stevens

British Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May has called a Wednesday Cabinet meeting at her country residence, Chequers, to hold crisis talks over Britain’s withdraw from the European Union (EU).

This comes amid reports that May has ruled out a parliamentary vote on “Brexit”—the majority Leave vote recorded in June’s referendum on British membership of the European Union (EU)—before formally triggering withdrawal from the bloc. Heads of government departments are to submit plans to “make Brexit work” at the Cabinet meeting.

The decision has reignited divisions with the ruling elite over the economic and political implications of triggering Article 50, the clause that officially begins the process of negotiations on withdrawal.

Remaining within the EU was the favoured position of the majority of the bourgeoisie and the majority of big business. Upwards of 480 MPs of the 650 in Parliament are opposed to EU withdrawal, while the House of Lords also favour EU membership by an overwhelming majority. A parliamentary vote could block or at least stall the start of negotiations.

The issue of Brexit is at the centre of the ongoing coup against Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn by his right-wing Blairite opponents. The main aim of the coup plotters, working in conjunction with the UK and US intelligence services, is to refashion the Labour Party as an opponent of Brexit.

Owen Smith, the right’s challenger to Corbyn for the Labour leadership, has said he will do everything he can to prevent a Brexit, including holding a second referendum. Corbyn ruled out a further ballot, saying only that he will fight for the best possible terms for British withdrawal.

On Saturday, Lord O’Donnell, head of the Civil Service between 2005 and 2011, stated his opposition to “rushing” into Article 50 and said Brexit was not inevitable. Much depended on “what happens to public opinion and whether the EU changes,” he said. “It might be that the broader, more loosely aligned group is something that the UK is happy being a member of.”

His remarks were condemned by Steve Baker, the Tory MP who chaired the pro-Brexit Conservatives for Britain group before the referendum. “Any official working to oppose our exit from the EU should be summarily fired,” he insisted. “If necessary, emergency legislation should be passed to make it possible.”

A Downing Street source told the Daily Telegraph that May “has been absolutely clear that the British public have voted and now she will get on with delivering Brexit.” The article noted, “May consulted Government lawyers who have told the Prime Minister she has the executive power to invoke Article 50 on her own.”

This elicited an equally furious response from pro-Remain figures. Barry Gardiner, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for international trade, Europe, energy and climate change, said May’s move to trigger article 50 “without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate … would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch.”

A pro-EU, cross-party alliance of former ministers issued a call on May to secure the “best possible relationship” with the EU after Brexit. The new Open Britain movement, which is to launch on Friday, is the continuation of the official Remain campaign in the referendum, and includes Tory MP Anna Soubry and Labour’s Pat McFadden. It has stated that while it will not argue for a second referendum, it wants to make the “positive and patriotic case” for a close alliance with the EU.

It is reported that a number of ministers, including Chancellor Philip Hammond, are also seeking to ensure that the UK retains access to the European Single Market for the financial sector and car industry in any Brexit deal.

The Sunday Times reported, “Hammond has privately insisted that ‘everything is on the table’ and Treasury officials believe access to the single market for the financial services industry should be the top priority. But senior government sources say [David] Davis, [Liam] Fox [the ministers appointed to lead Brexit planning] and May’s closest adviser, Nick Timothy, believe Britain will have to leave the single market to fulfil her pledge to impose border controls.”

Davis and Fox are both in favour of May triggering Article 50 in early January.

The Tory eurosceptic wing is stepping up demands for May to set red lines on immigration controls. Andrew Bridgen, who was the first Conservative MP to demand the resignation of May’s predecessor, David Cameron, told theSunday Times, “The prime minister is going to have to say something to her backbenchers. She’s got to elaborate on what she means by ‘Brexit means Brexit.’ We need some red meat.”

Leading Tory Brexit campaigner Iain Duncan Smith called on the government to impose a US-style “Green Card” scheme for those seeking to work in the UK, which he said would “guarantee British jobs for British workers.”

He highlighted the Universal Job Match scheme that he had introduced as work and pensions secretary. This matches details of those unemployed in a particular location and their skill level with existing jobs. The focus should be on “lower-skilled” employment, he suggested. By making the unemployed take up such jobs, the government would be able to restrict migration from the EU.

Following the Cabinet meeting, May will travel to China to attend the G20 meeting of world leaders. A spokesperson said she would use the chance “to highlight the wealth of opportunities that will arise from Brexit” and allow them to discuss “mutually beneficial trade relationships in the future.”

The content of these “wealth of opportunities” for the global corporations was mapped out by the Sun, owned by the pro-Brexit media oligarch Rupert Murdoch.

Its editorial denounced calls by EU leaders for closer integration in the wake of the UK referendum result, stating: “It is crucial Chancellor Philip Hammond now secures our medium and long-term fortunes.” Hammond’s upcoming Autumn Statement must “slash corporation tax” and other taxes, it demanded.

But divisions within the British bourgeoisie over Brexit are developing against the backdrop of increasingly febrile relations within the EU itself.

The Sunday Times reported: “German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other leaders privately agreed last week that Britain would have to leave the single market if it wants any restrictions on free movement. May is understood to have made it clear to Merkel during a recent visit to Berlin that she would not be able to accept free movement.”

The Brexit vote was a manifestation of the fracturing of the EU along national lines and deepens the crisis of the ruling elite continent wide. Last week, Merkel toured European capitals, meeting with 15 of the EU’s 27 national leaders. This was in preparation for the first meeting of EU heads since Brexit, which will take place without British participation, on September 16 in Bratislava.

Speaking in Warsaw, Merkel warned ominously, “Brexit is not just any event. It is a deep break in the EU’s history of integration, and so it is important to find a careful answer. We must face the consequences [of Brexit] and consider the future of the EU.”

On Sunday, Merkel’s vice-chancellor and Social Democratic Party chair, Sigmar Gabriel, warned that negotiations on withdrawal must be made as tough as possible for the UK to discourage other countries from following its lead and stop the EU going “down the drain.”

“If we organise Brexit in the wrong way, then we’ll be in deep trouble,” he said, “so now we need to make sure that we don’t allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility.”

One-third of US counties will have only one Obamacare plan in 2017

Kate Randall

A new analysis projects that nearly a third of US counties and five entire states will likely have only a single insurer offering health plans on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace next year. The data highlights the impact of the mass exodus of high-profile private insurance companies from the exchanges set up under the program popularly known as Obamacare.

It is also the latest demonstration that President Obama’s signature domestic program, far from providing near-universal, high-quality health care for Americans, is offering sharply limited coverage in large parts of the country, and that the for-profit private insurance companies are calling the shots when it comes to quality and price.

Preliminary data analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) of ACA marketplaces at the request of the Wall Street Journal indicates there might be just one option for coverage in 31 percent of counties and only two in another 31 percent in 2017. These figures are sharply up from the current year, when 7 percent of counties had one insurer and 29 percent had two.

These figures are the direct result of the pullout of the top three private insurers—UnitedHealth, Humana and Aetna—from the Obamacare market. Citing falling profits, the insurance giants are in large part jumping ship, leaving large areas of the country with just one or two plans to choose from.

As these companies pull out of the ACA, many of those remaining are requesting—and will likely be granted—double-digit premium increases for their offerings. According to Healthcare.gov, 12.7 million people enrolled in Obamacare plans in 2016. Those choosing to enroll in 2017 will find fewer plans to choose from, higher premiums, higher out-of pocket costs, and narrower provider networks.

Kaiser cautions that because only premium changes are posted on the Healthcare.gov web site, and not the premiums of new insurers entering the exchanges, it is likely that more is known about those companies exiting the market than is known of any new entrants. Complete information on plans and premiums is not typically made public until shortly before the beginning of the open enrollment period on November 1.

Despite these limitations, however, it is clear that the choices for consumers will be sharply reduced next year. Rural and Southern regions will be particularly hard hit. Kaiser estimates that the proportion of counties with a single marketplace insurer will increase from 7 percent (225 counties) in 2016, to 31 percent (974 counties)—nearly a third—in 2017.

About 60 percent of counties could have two or fewer marketplace insurers in 2017. The analysis cites the exit of UnitedHealth as the main reason for the increase in single-insurer counties, as the company was the second insurer in many rural areas.

Counties with a single ACA insurer are concentrated in a handful of states this year. These include Wyoming (100 percent of counties with one insurer), West Virginia (82 percent), Utah (69 percent), South Carolina (63 percent), and Nevada (59 percent). Given the data presently available, four additional states are likely to have only one ACA insurer in all counties: Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Six other states will see staggering increases in the percentage of counties in 2017 with only one ACA insurer compared to 2016:

• Arizona: 87 percent of counties in 2017 compared to none in 2016

• Mississippi: 80 percent vs. 0 percent

• Missouri: 85 percent vs. 2 percent

• Florida: 73 percent vs. 0 percent

• North Carolina: 90 percent vs. 23 percent

• Tennessee: 60 percent vs. 0 percent

Given what is currently known, one county—Pinal County, near Phoenix, Arizona—stands at risk of having no insurer at all on their marketplace in 2017. Pinal is the third most populous county in the state, with about 400,000 residents. Aetna has announced it is pulling out of the county, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona has plans to pull out in 2017.

Under Obamacare “individual mandate,” individuals and families without insurance through their employer or a government program such as Medicare or Medicaid are required to obtain insurance or pay a tax penalty. As of the 2010 census, Pinal County median household income stood at $51,310, making many people there eligible for the modest subsidies that are available for low and middle-income people to purchase ACA coverage.

But if no plans exist, and another insurer cannot be convinced to enter the county market, Pinal residents will be out of luck. They would only have the much more expensive option of buying private insurance off the exchange. While they would likely receive a “hardship” exemption from having coverage, they would remain uninsured and would face large out-of-pocket expenses for routine medical care, and economic devastation if they were hit with a catastrophic medical event.

Nearly four years after the Affordable Care Act began operation the scheme is increasingly viewed as a disaster, even by its proponents. At the ACA’s inception, it was argued that competition in the market would keep prices low and the market robust, as insurers vied for customers on the exchanges.

But it has not worked out this way in practice. About 27 million Americans still do not have insurance. Many younger, healthier people have decided to gamble on not obtaining insurance, paying the ACA tax penalty and hoping that they don’t have a medical emergency. This leaves a sicker pool of individuals who are more expensive to insure.

Because it is more costly than expected to insure the less healthy 12.7 million people who have signed up, the insurers are raising premiums and out-of pocket costs. Most of the least-expensive and therefore most inferior “bronze” plans come with deductibles in excess of $5,000 and more, which must be paid before any coverage except that deemed “essential” by the ACA kicks in.

Insurers are also increasingly narrowing provider networks, meaning that people are forced to switch doctors and hospitals. When premium hikes and coverage reductions do not adequately increase the insurers’ bottom line, they are pulling out of the market altogether, leading to the present situation where in one-third of counties people have only one substandard choice.

The present state of affairs exposes the pro-corporate, anti-working class character of Obamacare as a whole. From its inception it was aimed at slashing costs for the government and corporations while boosting profits for the health care industry by reducing benefits and rationing care for working people.

The socioeconomic basis of identity politics: Inequality and the rise of an African American elite

David Walsh

Judging by many accounts in the media and from the statements of leading US politicians, race is a central issue in the 2016 elections.

At a point when the American people are more tolerant in their social views than at any previous time in history, they are informed on a daily basis that the US seethes with racial and ethnic hatreds, along with violent misogyny and homophobia.

The Democratic Party, supported by all of the various left-liberal and pseudo-left trends, is particularly aggressive and vociferous on this score. Identity politics, the self-centered, upper-middle-class obsession with race, gender and sexual identity, has become one of that party’s principal pillars.

As opposed to earlier periods, today the question of race is not associated with civil rights, with a major program of social reform, with improvements in the social conditions of the working class as a whole and certainly not with socialism. The debate on race is largely built around demands for the allocation of greater economic resources to sections of the black petty bourgeoisie. There is a marked and noticeable absence of democratic demands and sentiments within the leadership of these upper-middle-class movements.

The character of the present campaigns, including the narrow and vicious tone of much of the rhetoric about race, can be explained if one examines a singular fact: the sharp growth of social inequality within the African American population.

The data suggests that while African Americans still play a very limited role at the heights of the corporate hierarchy, there is a highly significant and influential section that has benefited enormously over the past several decades. These people live in another universe and are deeply estranged from the broad layers of the black working-class population, which has suffered continual impoverishment.

From the administration of Richard Nixon onward, US ruling-class policy has been to cultivate a black upper-middle class that would be loyal to the status quo. In return, this layer abandoned any connection to mass struggle, social protest and opposition to capitalism. This helps explain why there is no leading African American figure, in any field, who today speaks for and to the broad masses of the people.

The facts and figures are striking.

Nielsen, the global information and measurement company, produced a report in 2015, “Increasingly Affluent, Educated and Diverse,” which “focused specifically on a segment of African-Americans who are often overlooked, those with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more. Their size and influence is growing faster than non-Hispanic Whites across all income segments above $60,000.” (The data comes from the US Census, American Community Survey, 2014.)

In fact, black households earning more than $75,000 are the fastest growing income group in the country. According to Nielsen, “In the years from 2005-2013, the income bracket with the largest increase for Black households occurred in the number of households earning over $200,000, with an increase of 138 percent, compared to an increase of 74 percent for the total population.”

In 1960, around the time E. Franklin Frazier wrote his pioneering work, The Black Bourgeoisie, there were an estimated 25 black millionaires in the US. That number has grown 1,400 times. Today there are an estimated 35,000 black millionaires.

The concentration of wealth among African Americans is extreme. According to the Pew Research Study, 35 percent of black households have negative or no net worth. Another 15 percent have less than $6,000 in total household worth. Nearly 7 million of the total of 14 million black households have little or nothing.

Commentator Antonio Moore in the Huffington Post this past May noted that the wealth difference between an American black household in the top 1 percent and the average black household was several times larger than that among comparable white households.

“[T]he median net worth of the few black households in the top 1 percent was $1.2 million dollars, while according to the Census, median net worth for all black households was about $6,000 in total. A black family in the 1 percent is worth a staggering 200 times that of an average black family. If black America were a country, we would be among the most wealth stratified in the world.”

“Income segregation,” i.e., the tendency of people to live in either poor or affluent neighborhoods, has increased sharply among black families since 1970. “Segregation by income among black families was lower than among white families in 1970, but grew four times as much between 1970 and 2009. By 2009, income segregation among black families was 65 percent greater than among white families.” (Residential Segregation by Income, 1970-2009, by Kendra Bischoff of Cornell University and Sean F. Reardon of Stanford)

According to the Washington Post in 2013, the black middle class, measured by the number of families earning at least $100,000 a year, has grown fivefold in the past 50 years. About one in 10 black households are now in that income category. Between 1970 and 1990, the percentage of black physicians, lawyers and engineers doubled. From 1990 to 2013, there was a 30 percent increase in the proportion of black managers and executives and a 38 percent increase in the proportion of black lawyers and engineers.

Decades of “black capitalism” and affirmative action have benefited a narrow but still substantial layer of the African American population. This is the social element that is most aggressively pursuing wealth and economic advantage today. It cannot be mere coincidence that the central figure in the University of Missouri protests in November 2015, hunger striker Jonathan Butler, came from this milieu. His father, Eric Butler, is executive vice president for marketing and sales at Union Pacific Corp. and raked in $2.9 million in total compensation in 2015.

Importantly, African Americans have gained virtual parity with whites in the professional upper echelons. By 2004, blacks with a doctorate had a median income of $74,207, slightly higher than the median income of whites with doctoral degrees ($73,993). (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education)

As a recent report (“Closing the Race Gap: Alleviating Young African American Unemployment Through Education”) argued, “African Americans and whites have nearly equal probabilities of employment at high degrees of education.”

What are the implications of this relative parity?

The obsession with race and gender involves the striving for privileges by a layer of black and female professionals, determined to carve out careers and incomes—under conditions of an intensely competitive “marketplace”—at the expense of their white or male counterparts. The shrillness and falsity of the current campaigns on race and sexual violence has much to do with the need, in the face of the fact that there is no significant racial or gender pay gap for these already affluent layers, to leverage past crimes and injustice, and exaggerate the present conditions, to justify continued or greater privileges. This is a bitter conflict taking place within the richest 5 to 10 percent (approximately $190,000 to $130,000 in annual income) of the population.

There is nothing “progressive” or “left-wing” about these campaigns and conflicts. Whether or not the president of the United States is a man or woman or the CEO of a bank or major corporation is white or black is of no possible interest to the working class. E. Franklin Frazier noted half a century ago that black business and political interests had “exploited the Negro masses as ruthlessly as have whites.”

Socialists reject racialist politics in whatever form it appears. In the context of the 2016 elections, this means repudiating the racialist and nationalist filth promulgated by both the Democrats and Republicans and all those who orbit around bourgeois politics. The election campaign of the Socialist Equality Party alone represents the independent political and historical interests of the working class.

Government of Malaysia International Scholarships (MIS) at Malaysian Universities 2017/2018

Brief description: The Malaysian Government is offering international scholarships for students from any part of the world to study for Masters and PhD degree in Malaysian public and private Universities 2017/2018.

Application Deadline:  15th September, 2016

Accepted Subject Areas? Field of studies is in the following priority areas:

• Science and Engineering
• Agriculture and Fisheries
• Economics and Islamic Finance
• Information and Communication Technology
• Biotechnology
• Biosecurity and Food Safety
• Infrastructure and Utility
• Environmental Studies
• Health not including nursing, medicine, clinical pharmacy.

Candidates may choose any related course within the field/areas mentioned above

About Scholarship: The Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS) is an initiative by the Malaysian Government to attract the best brain from around the world to pursue advanced academic studies in Malaysia. This scholarship aims to support Malaysian Government’s effort to attract, motivate and retain talented human capital from abroad.

Talented international students with excellent academic records and outstanding co-curricular backgrounds are welcomed to apply for this scholarship and further their studies in any selected and well-established Malaysian public and private universities.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not specified

Scholarship Types: Ph.D, Masters degree

By what Criteria is Selection Made?

Applications will be considered according to the following selection criteria:-

• High-level academic achievement
• The quality of the research proposal and its potential contribution towards advancement of technology and human well-being.
• Excellent communication, writing and reading skills in English Language

Who is eligible to apply? To be eligible for Malaysia International Scholarship (MIS), applicants must fit the following criteria:-

1. Not be more than 40 years (Postgraduate) and 45 years (Post-doctoral) of age during application..
2. Obtained a minimum of Second Class Upper (Honours) or a CGPA of 3.5/4.0 at Bachelor Degree Level for Masters Degree applicants and for PhD candidates must possess CGPA 3.5/4.0 or very good result at Masters degree level in a similar field of intended PhD study. In addition, for post-doctoral programme, the selection will be evaluated based on the number of books produced, refereed/non refereed journals, portfolio and patent copyright. The Post-Doctoral candidate must have excellent reputation in research and possesses knowledge related to the research to be carried out.
3. Took one of the following English Language Proficiency Test not more than two years before the date of application. The list of tests and minimum scores required:
   1. IELTS Academic Test with a score of at least 6.5; or
   2. TOEFL paper-based test with a score of at least 580 or computer-based test with a score of at least 230 or internet-based test with a score at least 92.
4. In excellent health condition and certified by a Certified Doctor/Medical Professional. The cost of medical examination is to be borne by the applicants.
5. Wrote a proposal that is relevant to the needs and interests of Malaysia (research-based programme only).
6. Has applied for and gained admission to postgraduate and post-doctoral studies in Malaysia (conditional letters of offer will be accepted at the time of application or has a confirmation of acceptance or affiliation with the universities in Malaysia).

How Many Scholarships are available? Several

What are the benefits? Each scholarship consists of:-

• Air tickets from recipient’s capital city to Malaysia
• An approved tuition fees
• Monthly maintenance allowance
• Annual grant for books and internal travel
• Medical / Health Insurance
• Installation and Termination grant
• Thesis allowance
• Visa

How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the programme of study

Eligible Countries: Any country – for international Students

To be taken at: Public and Private Universities in Malaysia

• · Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM)
• · Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
• · Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM)
• · Universiti Malaya (UM)
• · Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)
• · Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM/IIUM)
• · Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
• · Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
• · Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)
• · Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTEM)
• · Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM)
• · Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
• · Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT)
• · Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS)
• · Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP)
• · Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)
• · Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UNIMAP)
• · Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UNISZA)
• · Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM)
• · Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK)
• · Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP)
• · Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN)
• · Multimedia University (MMU)
• · International Centre For Education In Islamic Finance (INCEIF)

Visit Scholarship webpage for details. Click on Application on the navigation bar to apply

Offered annually? Yes

Sponsors: Malaysian Government

Notes: It is the responsibility of the scholarship holders to confirm admission to the university.

• It is the responsibility of successful candidates to apply for and meet the requirements for the issuing of an appropriate entry visa including medical examination.
• The offer of the scholarship does not guarantee the granting of a visa.
• Scholarship holders must maintain satisfactory progress and good standing as stipulated by their host university and degree programme, or the scholarship will be withdrawn.

The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine

Nauman Sadiq

In order to understand the hype surrounding the phenomena of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, we need to understand the prevailing global economic order and its prognosis. What the pragmatic economists forecasted about the free market capitalism has turned out to be true; whether we like it or not. A kind of global economic entropy has set into motion. The money is flowing from the area of high monetary density to the area of low monetary density.

The rise of the BRICS countries in the 21^st century is the proof of this trend. BRICS are growing economically because the labor in developing economies is cheap; labor laws and rights are virtually nonexistent; expenses on creating a safe and healthy work environment are minimal; regulatory framework is lax; taxes are low; and in the nutshell, windfalls for the multinational corporations are huge.

Thus, BRICS are threatening the global economic monopoly of the Western capitalist bloc: that is, North America and Western Europe. Here we need to understand the difference between the manufacturing sector and the services sector. The manufacturing sector is the backbone of the economy; one cannot create a manufacturing base overnight. It is founded on hard assets: we need raw materials; production equipment; transport and power infrastructure; and last but not the least, a technically-educated labor force. It takes decades to build and sustain a manufacturing base. But the services sector, like the Western financial institutions, can be built and dismantled in a relatively short period of time.

If we take a cursory look at the economy of the Western capitalist bloc, it has still retained some of its high-tech manufacturing base, but it is losing fast to the cheaper and equally robust manufacturing base of the developing BRICS nations. Everything is made in China these days, except for hi-tech microprocessors, software, a few internet giants, some pharmaceutical products, the Big Oil and the all-important military hardware and the defense production industry.

Apart from that, the entire economy of the Western capitalist bloc is based on financial institutions: the behemoth investment banks, like JP Morgan chase, total assets $2359 billion (market capitalization: 187 billion); Citigroup, total assets $1865 billion (Market Capitalization: 141 billion); Bank of America, total assets $2210 billion (Market Capitalization: 133 billion); Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs; BNP Paribas and Axa Group (France), Deutsche Bank and Allianz Group (Germany), Barclays and HSBC (UK).

After establishing the fact that the Western economy is dependent mostly on its financial services sector, we need to understand its implications. Like I have said earlier, that it takes time to build a manufacturing base, but it is relatively easy to build and dismantle an economy based on financial services. What if Tamim bin Hammad Al Thani (the ruler of Qatar) decides tomorrow to withdraw his shares from Barclays and put them in some Organization of Islamic Conference-sponsored bank in accordance with Sharia?

What if all the Arab sheikhs of Gulf countries withdraw their petro-dollars from the Western financial institutions; can the fragile financial services based Western economies sustain such a loss of investments? In April this year the Saudi finance minister threatened that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in Treasury securities and other assets if Congress passed a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Bear in mind, however, that $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the US, if we add its investment in Western Europe, and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf’s investment in North America and Western Europe. Similarly, according to a July 2014 New York Post report the Chinese entrepreneurs have deposited $1.4 trillion in the Western banks between 2002 to 2014; and the Russian oligarchs are the runner-ups with $800 billion.

Notwithstanding, we need to look for comparative advantages and disadvantages here. If the vulnerable economy is their biggest weakness, what are the biggest strengths of the Western powers? The biggest strength of the Western capitalist bloc is its military might. We have to give credit to the Western hawks they did which nobody else in the world had the courage to do: that is, they privatized their defense production industry. And as we know, that privately-owned enterprises are more innovative, efficient and in this particular case, lethal. Regardless, having power is one thing and using that power to achieve certain economically desirable goals is another.

The Western liberal democracies are not autocracies; they are answerable to their electorates for their deeds and misdeeds. And much to the dismay of pragmatic Machiavellian ruling elites, the ordinary citizens find it hard to get over their antediluvian moral prejudices. In order to overcome this ethical dilemma, the Western political establishments wanted a moral pretext to do what they wanted to do on pragmatic economic grounds. That’s when 9/11 took place: a blessing in disguise for the Western political establishments, because the pretext of “war on terror” gave them a carte blanche to invade and occupy any oil-rich country in the Middle East and North Africa region.

It is unsurprising then that the first casualty of the so-called “war on terror,” after Afghanistan, has been Iraq which holds 150 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves and has the capacity to reach 5 million barrels of daily oil production, second only to Saudi Arabia with its more than 10 million barrels of daily oil production and 265 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves.

In order to bring home the significance of Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few rough stats from the OPEC data: after Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq each holds 150 billion barrels and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day; while UAE and Kuwait each holds 100 billion barrels and produces 3 million barrels per day; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf together hold more than half of world’s 1500 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves.

No wonder then 35,000 United States’ Marines have currently been deployed in their numerous military bases and air-craft carriers in the Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

Making A Killing In Yemen

Eresh Omar Jamal


While the slaughter of Yemenis continues, the world remains silent in response to their screams. Why is that? Has the world lost its senses, especially to feel the sufferings of the tormented? In an alleged effort to defeat the Houthi rebels, a coalition of Arab states led by Saudi Arabia, supported by the United States and the United Kingdom have been bombarding Yemen, already one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world, with air-strikes since March 2015, sending it literally back to the stone-age.

The war has triggered a major humanitarian crisis. Since the air-strikes began, “food prices [in Yemen] have gone up 60 percent, leaving 14 million people across the country classified as ‘food insecure’ (Yemen’s children die from bombs, bullets, hunger, ABC News, August 23).” According to figures provided in the New York Times, “the war has killed more than 6,500 people, displaced more than 2.5 million others and pushed one of the world’s poorest countries from deprivation to devastation (“America Is Complicit in the Carnage in Yemen”, August 17).” Other reports have shown these figures to be much higher. Meanwhile, the United Nations has blamed the coalition for at least 60 percent of deaths and injuries to children last year, warning along with human rights groups, that the coalition may have been “commissioning international war crimes” (Saudi-led coalition could be committing ‘international crimes’ bombing civilians in Yemen, UN warns, The Independent, March 19).

At a press briefing at the United Nations on June 29, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International revealed that, “Unlawful air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have killed and maimed hundreds of children in Yemen and damaged dozens of schools, but the coalition strong-armed the Secretary-General in an attempt to escape scrutiny.” That is, to have Saudi Arabia removed from the UN’s list of shame. The Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself after being bullied said, “There has been fierce reaction to my decision to temporarily remove the Saudi-led Coalition countries from the report’s annex. This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make. The report describes horrors no child should have to face.”

Yet, the media, and especially the western media, continues to keep mum. Why? Well, one explanation may be that because the coalition consists of those allied with the West, the western media does not want to report on the alleged war crimes that they may have committed. Another reason for such deafening silence, however, may be because most of the killings are actually being committed using weapons supplied by the West.

According to the Washington Post, the US has sold the Saudis a total of USD 20 billion in weapons over the last one year. Britain too has sold close to USD 4 billion worth of weapons to the Saudis. The Obama administration, despite aggressively lobbying for greater gun control in the US, “has discreetly brokered and authorised the sale of more arms to foreign governments than any other US president since World War II”, according to Owen B. McCormack. During the first five years of his tenure alone, “new agreements under the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Sales programme — the largest channel for US arms exports — totalled over USD 169 billion,” exceeding the amount authorised during the entire tenure of his predecessor by almost USD 30 billion.

And, of course, the main recipient of American made weapons has been Saudi Arabia — “almost 10 percent of US arms exports” while 9 percent went “to the United Arab Emirates, an ally of Riyadh in the Yemen war (“Such a long silence on Yemen,” The Hindu, August 22).” According to Congressional Research Service, even as early as 2010, the Obama administration authorised the sale of a whopping USD 90.4 billion worth of arms to the Saudis. And according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “arms imports to Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states increased 71 percent from 2005-2009 to 2010-2014, accounting for 54 percent of imports to the Middle East in the latter period. Saudi Arabia rose to become the second largest importer of major weapons worldwide in 2010-2014, increasing the volume of its arms imports four times compared to 2005-2009.”

Not surprisingly, many of these weapons are being used to devastating effect in Yemen according to the likes of Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and Amnesty International, including the British made cluster bombs, even though the weapon was banned in conflict decades ago because of their catastrophic effects on civilians (“British-made cluster bomb found in Yemeni village targeted by Saudi-led coalition”, The Independent, May 23).

And so it goes, with innocent Yemenis being torn to shreds by the most horrific of weapons out there, the Lords of War continue to make windfall profits. Fortunately for them, the media’s silence guarantees that there is no significant pressure to end the supply of weapons to maim and kill a bunch of poor people here and there. After all, how else will the demand for these weapons keep up with their massive supply? As the fictional character in the movie Lord of War, Yuri Orlov said, “where there’s a will, there’s a weapon”. And the “coalition of the willing”, whether it be to go to war in Iraq, or for the destruction of Yemen, have been more than ready to oblige to the will of western arms manufacturers. For the Yemenis, however, the horrors of having these weapons used on them are, unfortunately, very real. As should be our shame for failing to genuinely care for the lives of innocent men, women and children, despite repeatedly saying otherwise, as evident from our remorseless silence in the face of their desperate screams.

Banning Burkinis: The Politics Of Beachwear

Eresh Omar Jamal

“For as long as women have gone to the beach to try to enjoy themselves, it seems, people have followed them there to pester them about their clothes.”

Selina Cheng, Quartz, Aug 24, 2016

Revolutions are often sparked by folly driven ideas about regulating human behaviour.  Banning the worship of symbols renders them more sacred than not; prohibiting certain items that would otherwise be embraced with general enthusiasm adds unintended zest.

Women have never been allowed much truck when it comes to fashion, even in areas of life where relaxation has been assumed.  The beach as place of relaxation became, in time, a place of police and religious control.  Sand, the sea, and titillation; permitting women a certain freedom of wear was all too much.  Those in the United States of the pre-First World War era, for instance, faced the ubiquitous tape measurer and expulsion for revealing too much leg, and much else besides.

Even after the slaughter of millions of human beings on the Western front between 1914 and 1918, with millions more perishing to Spanish influenza, a tired globe might well have given up on such urgent strictures on clothing.  The onset of global Depression, and collapsing markets, may well have encouraged people to throw in the towel and relax amidst the ruins.  Not in the US, with California’s Redondo Beach Ordinance in 1933 prohibiting swimsuits shorter than three inches.

The reaction in France to the burkini, a claimed hotchpotch attempt to navigate the injunctions and directives of the Quran, while feeding off the supposed permissiveness of a Western society, has become a trigger-active minefield.  This is the flipside of Talibanised thinking, where fashion police move around and punish detractors for not abiding by the set code.  The more imaginative censors may well have had visions of sexed up Jihadists, feminised svelte terrorists keen to undermine a state not merely with purpose but appearance.

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls had a very clear reading about women rushing around in their newly made burkinis, nothing less, he suggested, as revolution in dress tampering with the normal order of things. “It’s the translation of a political project for a counter-society based on women’s enslavement.”

The humble burkini, in other words, was a battering ram against the secular idea, not to mention notions of gender equality (for one member of the National Assembly of France, a “gender prison” no less!) and national security. Never mind that in appearance it looks awfully much like an adjusted wetsuit.

Cannes Mayor David Linsard was one of the first out of the blocks, insisting that clothing restrictions be introduced in the Riviera city.  Those not abiding by the ban face fines up to 38 euros.  Ange-Pierre Vivon from Corsica followed suit.  “Islamist fundamentalists,” he trumpeted, “have no business” on the island.

All this was too dramatic for Aheda Zanetti, the Australian designer behind the outfit, who was perplexed from the start at the zealous reaction from French authorities. “My first reaction is… Oh my God, it is just a swimsuit, for God’s sake.” Perhaps Zanetti was being genuine in her puzzlement, though it has been a masterstroke of free marketing.  Naturally, items of clothing can themselves become symbolic reference points, the mote in the eye of some institutions keen to stamp out a form of behaviour.  Not that they necessarily know how to do so.

For Zanetti, the matter has been unnecessarily complicated by politically dirty hands and overly paranoid minds.  Choice is assumed on the part of the wearer. “Its symbolising freedom, healthy living, confidence; it’s symbolising a choice [these women] make.”  It hides the new mothers conscious of their post-natal figures; it conceals those concerned that they might be cooked to a pilchard before the summer sun.

Not so, insist such figures as journalist Hala Arafa, who sees direct links between fashion and fundamentalism.  “The fashion worn in the 21st century reflects the progress of (women’s rights)… The clothes worn by Muslim fundamentalist women are based on seventh century beliefs.”

Arafa goes even further, insisting that the burkini itself promotes a “rape ideology,” an excuse for men to behave badly by “linking a woman’s honour” to her clothing.  This excuse has certain historical truck, though the issue of a fashion ban smacks of the very policing and linking of honour to clothing (in this case, forced adoption of a code) that should be avoided regarding women.

Gradually, the mines are going off in this debate, niggling the beasts of censorship.  For one, various social experiments are being conducted.  The group Trollstation, which entertains itself with gauging public reaction to such matters as the burkini, decided to conduct a simulated experiment on a British beach.

The designated “police officer” garnered some reaction from individuals after telling, as part of the prank, a burkini wearer to remove the outfit. “She’s obviously a Muslim… You cannot discriminate against her religion,” tooted a lady who rushed to rescue the damsel as guinea pig.  “You cannot do that.”

So the tendency continues; woman wears an outfit either provocative in its skimpiness or provocative in its conservativeness. Authorities beset by ideology intervene.  The idea of control is never far away.  Nor is the morally obsessed tape measurer and politically charged censor.  Beaches as bastions of freedom?  Forget it.