Money in politics only has the power we concede to it. As long as we only support candidates with TV Commericals, direct mail efforts, and extensive social media campaigns, money will have power. If we only support candidates with extensive paid staff and plush headquarters, money will rule. But what if we changed our view of what constitutes a credible candidate? Suppose we decided that anyone with the money for TV and radio commericals was bought and paid for? What if we immediately eliminated them from our consideration. Read below the fold...
We've recently seen the results of a settlement in the Ukraine, and a live debate has been proposed for Thailand. Below is a discussion of a similar proposal in Venezuela. While "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war," it's not clear that such events can resolve what are, in the end, crises of legitimacy. "All dreaded it, all sought to avert it…. And the war came." I'd welcome counter-examples.
Paul Jay of the Real News Network interviews Miguel Tinker-Salas, professor of History and Latin American studies at Pomona College in Claremont, California, and Alexander Main of CEPR:
Right now it reads:
II. Election Reform
4. Public Campaign Financing
5. Paper Ballots Counted in Public
6. Compulsory Voting
I'm wondering if I've got the wrong level of abstraction, here. Maybe something more like this: Read below the fold...
WaPo grabs some tidbits from the Clinton Library document dump:
1) Hillary Clinton said an individual mandate would be too risky
Clinton said in a 1993 meeting with Democratic lawmakers that an individual health insurance mandate would send "shock waves" through the American public.
That, I assume, was what the incredibly slow -- and lethal -- implementation of ObamaCare was designed to avoid. Read below the fold...
Here's the existing wording:
I. Stop the Bleeding
- A living wage
- Medicare for all
- Tax the rich
I wonder if we might toughen up compliance by adding some numbers in there. Something like: Read below the fold...
I don't think the American left has retreated. Rather I think you have a lot of organizations that portray themselves as "liberal", leftist is a term they have always fled from, whose leaderships and tribal memberships have embraced the corporatist agenda. Or perhaps I should say re-embraced it, and its current kleptocratic form. Read below the fold...
This excellent post at Macrobusiness -- an Australian finance blog -- puts it all together:
Bow to Davos Man, your homeless overlord
Economist Adam Smith wrote famously in 1776 that:
A merchant, it has been said very properly, is not necessarily a citizen of any particular country.
Over 200 years later, the head of Gillette, Al Zeien, espoused a similar view.
A global company views the world as a single country. We know that Argentina and France are different, but we treat them the same.
These quotes both highlight the global capitalist drive to accumulate profit in any market. But there is a difference between the two. Smith focuses on an economy in which capital flows between nations. Zeien alludes to an internationalism of capitalism into a singular global system that has occurred since the 1970s.
It is this very shift in capitalist accumulation that has created a new, transnational capitalist class. The formation of this class has evolved from the opening up of national economies and global integration since the Thatcher and Reagan era. Capital has become more mobile. This means that class formation is less and less tied to a particular nation-state or territory.
The transnational capitalist class is a global ruling class. It is a ruling class because it controls the levers of an emergent transnational apparatus and global decision-making. It is a new hegemonic bloc of various economic and political actors from both the global North and South, which has come out of the new conditions of global capitalism.
Well put and concise. Read below the fold...
Robert Parry writes in “Cheering a ‘Democratic’ Coup in Ukraine”:
There was always a measure of hypocrisy but Official Washington used to at least pretend to stand for “democracy,” rather than taking such obvious pleasure in destabilizing elected governments, encouraging riots, overturning constitutional systems and then praising violent putsches.Read below the fold...