Observations on current events

Food:

Anthony Gucciardi: Russia Bans Use and Import of Monsanto's GMO Corn Following Study
"Following the groundbreaking French study that graphically linked the lifetime consumption of Monsanto’s GMO corn in rats to massive tumors and direct organ failure, Russia’s premiere consumers rights organization has suspended both the importation and use of Monsanto’s GMO corn within the nation’s borders. The move may soon be echoed by other nations, who may soon be urged by France to ban Monsanto’s GMOs due to serious health concerns. France, who also recently upheld a key ban on growing GMOs, has been instrumental in alerting the world to the dangers of GMOs and Monsanto’s overall corruption. In the nation’s latest announcement, it was revealed that France’s Agriculture Minister was launching an investigation into the GMO study, ultimately calling for European authorities to ban Monsanto’s GMOs in order to protect citizens in the event that the study was found to be sound..."

Energy vs Clean Air & Water:

Steve Horn: Regulatory Non-Enforcement by Design: Earthworks Shows How The Game Is Played
"Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project published a scathing 124-page report this week, 'Breaking All the Rules: the Crisis in Oil & Gas Regulatory Enforcement.'(PDF) The content of the report is exactly as it sounds. That is, state-level regulatory agencies and officials often aren't doing the jobs taxpayers currently pay them to do and aren't enforcing regulations on active oil and gas wells even when required to under the law. This is both out of neglect and also because they're vastly understaffed and underfunded, meaning they literally don't have the time and/or resources to do proper inspections. And on those rare instances when regulatory agencies and the regulators that work for them do enforce regulations on active oil and gas wells, Earthworks demonstrated that the penalties for breaking the rules are currently so weak that it's merely been deemed a tiny "cost of doing business" by the oil and gas industry..."

Economics:

David Korten: Growth or Equality
"The current political debate in America hints at an unspoken, but profoundly important choice between two radically different visions of the path to prosperity for all.
One vision holds that inequality is an essential and beneficial precondition to unleash the economic growth needed to end poverty and heal the environment. Freeing the rich from taxes and cumbersome regulation will unleash a wave of productive investment, job creation, and prosperity that eventually will trickle down to enrich us all.
The other vision holds that inequality bears a primary responsibility for the political, economic, social, and environmental failures that threaten the future of America and the world. America already has the world’s largest economy and one of the world’s highest per capita income levels. Further growth for growth’s sake is not the answer. Our priority need is to reallocate and redistribute our economic resources to get the outcomes we really want... ...Wall Street interests would have us believe that the best way to deal with the plight of the poor is to bring up the bottom by growing the economy from the top down—the classic claim of trickle-down economics. When wealth and power are concentrated at the top, however, the result is not trickle down. It is a sucking up. Those on the top suck up the wealth and gorge on a spending spree. Those on the bottom suck in their guts, tighten their belts, and fight for survival From 1983 to 2008, total U.S. GDP grew from $6.1 trillion to $13.2 trillion in constant 2005 dollars. Figure 2, below, shows the distribution of the total wealth gain during this period. The wealthiest 5 percent of American households captured 81.7 percent of the gain. The bottom 60 percent of households not only failed to share in the overall increase, they suffered a 7.5 percent loss Current U.S. per capita GDP is $48,100 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. This places us somewhere around seventh in the world, depending on who is counting. We are bested only by countries with comparatively tiny populations (Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Kuwait, Brunei)—four of them with a lot of oil. If distributed equally, U.S. per capita GDP would translate into $192,400 for a family of four. Our economy is already far larger than necessary to provide for needs of all and provide a fair reward for those who make distinctive contributions..."

Energy Policy:

Jim Hightower: Romney's Hamm-handed Energy Policy
"...In a breathtaking surrender of America's energy future to Big Oil profiteers, Romney revives the maniacal fervor of the 'drill, baby, drill' crowd, pushes "fracking" with a vengeance, runs the filthy Keystone XL pipeline right through the heart of America, zeros-out federal tax credits for wind and solar alternatives to oil, and maintains the $4-billion-a-year subsidy for oil corporations — among other giveaways. Then he doubles down on energy stupidity by undoing Teddy Roosevelt's logical decision that our national lands should be under the control of ... well, national policymakers. Instead, capitulating to industry's wildest dream, Romney would cede control over drilling and mining on nationally owned public land to the various states, most of which are run by industry-coddling, corporate-financed politicians. It's like asking a coyote to guard your last lamb chop! Who wrote this 'plan'? Harold Hamm, for one. CEO of Continental Resources, an oil and gas fracking corporation, this Oklahoma billionaire chairs Romney's energy advisory committee. A campaign aide insists that Hamm and other industry executives (who showered Romney with over $10 million in campaign funds in August alone) were allowed to write the policy not as payback, but 'simply to tap their expertise.' Uh-huh. Expertise at serving their own interests, our national interest be damned."

2012 Campaign:

Matt Taibbi: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
"How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill... ...Our collective debt is no ordinary problem: According to Mitt, it's going to burn our children alive. And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a 'turnaround specialist,' a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth..."

Natural Gas vs Water

Jack Healy: For Farms in the West, Oil Wells Are Thirsty Rivals
"A new race for water is rippling through the drought-scorched heartland, pitting farmers against oil and gas interests, driven by new drilling techniques that use powerful streams of water, sand and chemicals to crack the ground and release stores of oil and gas. A single such well can require five million gallons of water, and energy companies are flocking to water auctions, farm ponds, irrigation ditches and municipal fire hydrants to get what they need. That thirst is helping to drive an explosion of oil production here, but it is also complicating the long and emotional struggle over who drinks and who does not in the arid and fast-growing West. Farmers and environmental activists say they are worried that deep-pocketed energy companies will have purchase on increasingly scarce water supplies as they drill deep new wells that use the technique of hydraulic fracturing. And this summer’s record-breaking drought, which dried up wells and ruined crops, has only amplified those concerns..."

Medicare As A Problem, Rather Than A Solution:

Paul Krugman: The Medicare Killers
"...back to the big lie. The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem. Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs. Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it 'will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.' Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies. Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs. I know this flies in the face of free-market dogma, but it’s just a fact. You can see this fact in the history of Medicare Advantage, which is run through private insurers and has consistently had higher costs than traditional Medicare. You can see it from comparisons between Medicaid and private insurance: Medicaid costs much less. And you can see it in international comparisons: The United States has the most privatized health system in the advanced world and, by far, the highest health costs. So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck. Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no. For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the 'doughnut hole' in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees. Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away. The question now is whether voters will understand what’s really going on (which depends to a large extent on whether the news media do their jobs). Mr. Ryan and his party are betting that they can bluster their way through this, pretending that they are the real defenders of Medicare even as they work to kill it. Will they get away with it?"

Economics:

Hendrick Smith: When Capitalists Cared
"...In 1914, not long after the Ford Motor Company came out with the Model T, Ford made the startling announcement that he would pay his workers the unheard-of wage of $5 a day. Not only was it a matter of social justice, Ford wrote, but paying high wages was also smart business. When wages are low, uncertainty dogs the marketplace and growth is weak. But when pay is high and steady, Ford asserted, business is more secure because workers earn enough to become good customers. They can afford to buy Model Ts. This is not to suggest that Ford single-handedly created the American middle class. But he was one of the first business leaders to articulate what economists call 'the virtuous circle of growth': well-paid workers generating consumer demand that in turn promotes business expansion and hiring. Other executives bought his logic, and just as important, strong unions fought for rising pay and good benefits in contracts like the 1950 'Treaty of Detroit' between General Motors and the United Auto Workers. Riding the dynamics of the virtuous circle, America enjoyed its best period of sustained growth in the decades after World War II, from 1945 to 1973, even though income tax rates were far higher than today. It created not only unprecedented middle-class prosperity but also far greater economic equality than today... ...Although productivity increased by 80.1 percent from 1973 to 2011, average wages rose only 4.2 percent and hourly compensation (wages plus benefits) rose only 10 percent over that time, according to government data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute. At the same time, corporate profits were booming. In 2006, the year before the Great Recession began, corporate profits garnered the largest share of national income since 1942, while the share going to wages and salaries sank to the lowest level since 1929. In the recession’s aftermath, corporate profits have bounced back while middle-class incomes have stagnated. Today the prevailing cut-to-the-bone business ethos means that a company like Caterpillar demands a wage freeze and lower health benefits from its workers, while posting record profits. Globalization, including the rise of Asia, and technological innovation can’t explain all or even most of today’s gaping inequality; if they did, we would see in other advanced economies the same hyperconcentration of wealth and the same stagnation of middle-class wages as in the United States. But we don’t. In Germany, still a manufacturing and export powerhouse, average hourly pay has risen five times faster since 1985 than in the United States. The secret of Germany’s success, says Klaus Kleinfeld, who ran the German electrical giant Siemens before taking over the American aluminum company Alcoa in 2008, is 'the social contract: the willingness of business, labor and political leaders to put aside some of their differences and make agreements in the national interests.' In short, German leaders have practiced stakeholder capitalism and followed the century-old wisdom of Henry Ford, while American business and political leaders have dismantled the dynamics of the 'virtuous circle' in pursuit of downsizing, offshoring and short-term profit and big dividends for their investors,'..."