tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11758285593736760092024-03-05T13:31:50.703+01:00blogGus - Thoughts from Gus HagelbergMugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-37007907162691106242013-11-24T23:09:00.001+01:002013-11-24T23:12:32.839+01:00Naomi Klein and Systemic ChangeIn the October 29, 2013 issue of the New Statesmen, Naomi Klein published the article “<a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt" target="_blank">How science is telling us all to revolt</a>”. She writes that more and more scientists are recognizing that continual growth and profit maximization, innate to capitalism, are encouraging climate destruction. They see civil disobedience as a powerful tool to fight for a system change.<br />
I agree but at the same time I long for more positive alternatives and I see serious limits in the potential of civil disobedience and public protest.<br />
Civil disobedience is extremely important and protest has been and will remain a vital form for people to express their grievances and formulate their demands. In order to create and test the alternatives and to build support at all levels of society, however, we need to look for additional channels, additional tools.<br />
What could these tools look like? One way is to create a mechanism to measure to what extent corporations, non-profits and even government agencies work towards the common good. Let us citizens create a manifest of demands, a set of best practice against which companies and other organizations are measured. In an international, democratic process we can formulate this list of standards based on universal values found in the Geneva Convention and constitutions around the world. These include human dignity, cooperation, sustainability, social justice and democracy.<br />
A company can then be put to the test. How do they measure up? Make the results public and understandable. Make it easy to compare the results of Costco and Whole Foods or Sacramento and Albany. By creating this clear set of standards companies know what is expected of them. They don’t have to fear that each year another set of standards will appear out of nowhere, forcing them to go through another expensive and time-consuming reorganization of internal processes.<br />
With this kind of scorecard in their hands consumers can choose the more ethical product and further stakeholders can better judge the impact of a particular company.<br />
Certainly this is a wildly different approach than civil disobedience. They both, however, share the goal of systemic change. <br />
An international movement called the Economy for the Common Good has begun the journey of creating the value-based standards and has created a tool to measure companies and to hold them accountable to ethic, environmental and human rights principles.<br />
Learn more at www.economy-for-the-common-good.orgMugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-86598467505935604402013-10-26T12:12:00.004+02:002013-11-03T11:09:40.939+01:00<h2>
Patagonia’s founder says the true bottom line is “doing good” </h2>
Yvon Chouinard, the founder of the outdoor clothing company, Patagonia, wrote in his book "Our mission statement says nothing about making a profit. In fact Malinda and I consider our bottom line to be the amount of good that the business has accomplished over the year. [...] Our intent is to remain a closely held private company, so we can continue to focus on our bottom line, doing good." (Let My People Go Surfing, Yvon Chouinard, Penguin Books, 2006, p. 160, 164)<br />
<br />
A new movement called the "Economy for the Common Good" has been gaining momentum in Europe and can help transform Chouinard's business principle into an instrument to encourage businesses across the globe to refocus towards doing good.<br />
<br />
What is meant by "common" and by "good" within this context? Who belongs to the "common" and what is the "good"? The Economy for the Common Good (ECG) addresses these questions and has created a tool to help businesses across the globe live up to Chouinard’s ideal.<br />
<br />
The stakeholder theory of business ethics provides us with an answer to the first part of the question: who belongs to "common"? Stakeholders are the various groups impacted by a company. It can be the customer who buys a product or the supplier of the material. A successful business looks after the needs of each stakeholder group. If the customer is not satisfied, the business will likely fail. At the same time, if the local community in which a business operates is adversely affected, it can also be detrimental to success. According to a more broad interpretation of the stakeholder model, the following five groups are impacted: suppliers, investors, employees/owners, customers/partners, and society/environment.<br />
<br />
For the answer to the "good" part of the equation we simply need to turn to the constitutions found in most democratic societies. Certain values are enshrined in these constitutions and should be applied to the business world. In an open, democratic process the ECG has distilled these values into five areas: human dignity, cooperation, sustainability, justice and democracy/transparency.<br />
<br />
Using these values as a guideline, businesses create a so-called Common Good Balance Sheet in which they measure their company’s impact in 17 different areas. These 17 indicators, clearly illustrated in the Common Good Matrix, range from ethical supply chain management to environmental impact to just income distribution.<br />
<br />
Through a process of peer evaluation and/or external audit, a company produces a Common Good Report and receives points based on how they impact their stakeholders. The point system and the audits ensure the validity of the score and the resulting Common Good Balance Sheet gives an understandable, transparent, comprehensive picture of how well a company is serving the common good. The point system makes it possible for customers, investors, suppliers and the general public to immediately judge the social and environmental impact of large and small companies across all branches of business.<br />
<br />
The Common Good Balance Sheet is a 2nd generation corporate social responsibility (CSR) instrument, designed to encourage companies to move away from the goal of profit maximization and towards “doing good”.<br />
<br />
Learn more at www.economy-for-the-common-good.org<br />
<br />
- Gus HagelbergMugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-77029947985273020132013-07-13T16:39:00.001+02:002013-07-13T16:40:15.764+02:00An Activist for the Common GoodWithout seeming pretentious I can safely call myself an “Activist for the Common Good”. Certainly I’m not the only one out there who proclaims to carry such a title. I bet there’s a bunch of us out there unbeknownst to each other. To tell the truth, I don’t even have a badge or a membership card proving my status. I am the real McCoy, though, and here’s why.<br />
I am a volunteer and activist for the movement “Economy for the Common Good”. Wow! Cool, huh. Bet you’re jealous. Sure there are peace activists out there, human rights activists, environmental activists. They’re are all over the place. But have you ever met a Common Good activist before?<br />
OK, as they say in German “Spass beiseite” which translates roughly to “let us now place the fun part aside and get down to some serious business”. For about 6 months now I’ve been involved in this Common Good thing and I think it’s pretty cool. Why? Well for one I like working for the Common Good. You might say “no shit”, don’t we all? My answer is, sure. That’s the second fun part about it. There’s a ton of support out there and when I tell people about it they mostly say something like “that sounds like a groovy idea”.<br />
The goal of the movement is to put the public good, the environment and human dignity at the forefront of all economic activity and thus replacing the mantra of profit maximization with all of its disastrous consequences. Business and the public sector must work toward bettering the lives of humans across the planet, protecting the environmental, improving social justice and promoting democracy. Again, some may think “no brainer, dude”. That’s what we all want. But how do we get there? How can we convince CEO’s that short-term profit and shareholder value are not where its at?<br />
One way is to mobilize the people, create issue campaigns, pressure politicians or fight for legislative change. While these activities are extremely important and can be effective, we want to go a different path. We want to change the system from within. We want to start a process of reevaluating what is really important for business owners, for employees, for civil servants and for all stakeholders in general.<br />
Am I going to be happy and motivated working for a company that is chiefly interested in maximizing their profits, growing ever larger and wiping out competition? Is that what the Generation Y is looking for? Asking pointed questions about one’s own company can set off a transformative, powerful process. Questions like these need to be asked:<br />
<ul>
<li>Is our supply chain environmentally and ethically sound?</li>
<li>Do we examine social and ecological aspects when choosing financial services?</li>
<li>Are the products we produce serving humankind or the environment?</li>
<li>What is the income disparity within our company?</li>
<li>What are we doing to discourage discrimination?</li>
</ul>
The Economy for the Common Good (ECG) has developed a system of value indicators used to measure a company’s performance. Is a company democratically organized? Are all employees paid a living wage? Is there gender equality and is the environment being protected?<br />
Each of the 17 indicators has a maximum score and taken together add up to a maximum of 1000 points. With this simple, clear, understandable information, public officials, customers, clients and other stakeholders can immediately judge the performance of individual companies. Although an ECG report is mandatory, this “score card” makes it feasible for people to judge business behavior. Other tools for judging a companies social and environmental behavior require only a report and it is totally unrealistic to expect consumers to read reports before choosing which product to buy.<br />
On the one hand, the ECG gives consumers and other stakeholders a tool to better judge the ethical, environmental and human rights standards being upheld by a particular company. On the other hand, the ECG provides companies with a tool to improve internal organizational issues, employee motivation, quality, and long-term stability. Moreover, it gives companies the ability to communicate to their customers exactly which steps they are taking to become a Common Good Business.<br />
In the end, that is what has motivated me to become actively involved in this international, grass-roots movement for humane and sustainable economy. A network of local support groups is growing day by day. If there is not a group in your area already then you can start your own. Check out our website for more information at www.economy-for-the-common-good.org.<br />
Gus Hagelberg<br />
July, 2013<br />
Tübingen, GermanyMugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-14813032913550619082012-08-31T17:59:00.001+02:002012-08-31T17:59:43.089+02:00William Black on the Banking CrisisBill Moyers<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">April 3, 2009<br />BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.<br />For months now, revelations of the wholesale greed and blatant transgressions of Wall Street have reminded us that "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One." In fact, the man you're about to meet wrote a book with just that title. It was based upon his experience as a tough regulator during one of the darkest chapters in our financial history: the savings and loan scandal in the late 1980s.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: These numbers as large as they are, vastly understate the problem of fraud.<br />BILL MOYERS: Bill Black was in New York this week for a conference at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice where scholars and journalists gathered to ask the question, "How do they get away with it?" Well, no one has asked that question more often than Bill Black.<br />The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating — after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named — he sent a memo that read, in part, "get Black — kill him dead." Metaphorically, of course. Of course.<br />Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname "banksters."<br />Bill Black, welcome to the Journal.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you.<br />BILL MOYERS: I was taken with your candor at the conference here in New York to hear you say that this crisis we're going through, this economic and financial meltdown is driven by fraud. What's your definition of fraud?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, "I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value." And as a result, there's no more effective acid against trust than fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that's what we have.<br />BILL MOYERS: In your book, you make it clear that calculated dishonesty by people in charge is at the heart of most large corporate failures and scandals, including, of course, the S&L, but is that true? Is that what you're saying here, that it was in the boardrooms and the CEO offices where this fraud began?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.<br />BILL MOYERS: How did they do it? What do you mean?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, the way that you do it is to make really bad loans, because they pay better. Then you grow extremely rapidly, in other words, you're a Ponzi-like scheme. And the third thing you do is we call it leverage. That just means borrowing a lot of money, and the combination creates a situation where you have guaranteed record profits in the early years. That makes you rich, through the bonuses that modern executive compensation has produced. It also makes it inevitable that there's going to be a disaster down the road.<br />BILL MOYERS: So you're suggesting, saying that CEOs of some of these banks and mortgage firms in order to increase their own personal income, deliberately set out to make bad loans?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.<br />BILL MOYERS: How do they get away with it? I mean, what about their own checks and balances in the company? What about their accounting divisions?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: All of those checks and balances report to the CEO, so if the CEO goes bad, all of the checks and balances are easily overcome. And the art form is not simply to defeat those internal controls, but to suborn them, to turn them into your greatest allies. And the bonus programs are exactly how you do that.<br />BILL MOYERS: If I wanted to go looking for the parties to this, with a good bird dog, where would you send me?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that's exactly what hasn't happened. We haven't looked, all right? The Bush Administration essentially got rid of regulation, so if nobody was looking, you were able to do this with impunity and that's exactly what happened. Where would you look? You'd look at the specialty lenders. The lenders that did almost all of their work in the sub-prime and what's called Alt-A, liars' loans.<br />BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Liars' loans--<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars' loans.<br />BILL MOYERS: Why did they call them liars' loans?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they were liars' loans.<br />BILL MOYERS: And they knew it?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: They knew it. They knew that they were frauds.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Liars' loans mean that we don't check. You tell us what your income is. You tell us what your job is. You tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you. We won't check on any of those things. And by the way, you get a better deal if you inflate your income and your job history and your assets.<br />BILL MOYERS: You think they really said that to borrowers?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: We know that they said that to borrowers. In fact, they were also called, in the trade, ninja loans.<br />BILL MOYERS: Ninja?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yeah, because no income verification, no job verification, no asset verification.<br />BILL MOYERS: You're talking about significant American companies.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Huge! One company produced as many losses as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.<br />BILL MOYERS: Which company?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: IndyMac specialized in making liars' loans. In 2006 alone, it sold $80 billion dollars of liars' loans to other companies. $80 billion.<br />BILL MOYERS: And was this happening exclusively in this sub-prime mortgage business?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: No, and that's a big part of the story as well. Even prime loans began to have non-verification. Even Ronald Reagan, you know, said, "Trust, but verify." They just gutted the verification process. We know that will produce enormous fraud, under economic theory, criminology theory, and two thousand years of life experience.<br />BILL MOYERS: Is it possible that these complex instruments were deliberately created so swindlers could exploit them?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, absolutely. This stuff, the exotic stuff that you're talking about was created out of things like liars' loans, that were known to be extraordinarily bad. And now it was getting triple-A ratings. Now a triple-A rating is supposed to mean there is zero credit risk. So you take something that not only has significant, it has crushing risk. That's why it's toxic. And you create this fiction that it has zero risk. That itself, of course, is a fraudulent exercise. And again, there was nobody looking, during the Bush years. So finally, only a year ago, we started to have a Congressional investigation of some of these rating agencies, and it's scandalous what came out. What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."<br />BILL MOYERS: So if your assumption is correct, your evidence is sound, the bank, the lending company, created a fraud. And the ratings agency that is supposed to test the value of these assets knowingly entered into the fraud. Both parties are committing fraud by intention.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right, and the investment banker that — we call it pooling — puts together these bad mortgages, these liars' loans, and creates the toxic waste of these derivatives. All of them do that. And then they sell it to the world and the world just thinks because it has a triple-A rating it must actually be safe. Well, instead, there are 60 and 80 percent losses on these things, because of course they, in reality, are toxic waste.<br />BILL MOYERS: You're describing what Bernie Madoff did to a limited number of people. But you're saying it's systemic, a systemic Ponzi scheme.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Oh, Bernie was a piker. He doesn't even get into the front ranks of a Ponzi scheme...<br />BILL MOYERS: But you're saying our system became a Ponzi scheme.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Our system...<br />BILL MOYERS: Our financial system...<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Became a Ponzi scheme. Everybody was buying a pig in the poke. But they were buying a pig in the poke with a pretty pink ribbon, and the pink ribbon said, "Triple-A."<br />BILL MOYERS: Is there a law against liars' loans?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not directly, but there, of course, many laws against fraud, and liars' loans are fraudulent.<br />BILL MOYERS: Because...<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they're not going to be repaid and because they had false representations. They involve deceit, which is the essence of fraud.<br />BILL MOYERS: Why is it so hard to prosecute? Why hasn't anyone been brought to justice over this?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because they didn't even begin to investigate the major lenders until the market had actually collapsed, which is completely contrary to what we did successfully in the Savings and Loan crisis, right? Even while the institutions were reporting they were the most profitable savings and loan in America, we knew they were frauds. And we were moving to close them down. Here, the Justice Department, even though it very appropriately warned, in 2004, that there was an epidemic...<br />BILL MOYERS: Who did?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn't let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.<br />BILL MOYERS: You talk about the Bush administration. Of course, there's that famous photograph of some of the regulators in 2003, who come to a press conference with a chainsaw suggesting that they're going to slash, cut business loose from regulation, right?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, they succeeded. And in that picture, by the way, the other — three of the other guys with pruning shears are the...<br />BILL MOYERS: That's right.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: They're the trade representatives. They're the lobbyists for the bankers. And everybody's grinning. The government's working together with the industry to destroy regulation. Well, we now know what happens when you destroy regulation. You get the biggest financial calamity of anybody under the age of 80.<br />BILL MOYERS: But I can point you to statements by Larry Summers, who was then Bill Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury, or the other Clinton Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin. I can point you to suspects in both parties, right?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: There were two really big things, under the Clinton administration. One, they got rid of the law that came out of the real-world disasters of the Great Depression. We learned a lot of things in the Great Depression. And one is we had to separate what's called commercial banking from investment banking. That's the Glass-Steagall law. But we thought we were much smarter, supposedly. So we got rid of that law, and that was bipartisan. And the other thing is we passed a law, because there was a very good regulator, Brooksley Born, that everybody should know about and probably doesn't. She tried to do the right thing to regulate one of these exotic derivatives that you're talking about. We call them C.D.F.S. And Summers, Rubin, and Phil Gramm came together to say not only will we block this particular regulation. We will pass a law that says you can't regulate. And it's this type of derivative that is most involved in the AIG scandal. AIG all by itself, cost the same as the entire Savings and Loan debacle.<br />BILL MOYERS: What did AIG contribute? What did they do wrong?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: They made bad loans. Their type of loan was to sell a guarantee, right? And they charged a lot of fees up front. So, they booked a lot of income. Paid enormous bonuses. The bonuses we're thinking about now, they're much smaller than these bonuses that were also the product of accounting fraud. And they got very, very rich. But, of course, then they had guaranteed this toxic waste. These liars' loans. Well, we've just gone through why those toxic waste, those liars' loans, are going to have enormous losses. And so, you have to pay the guarantee on those enormous losses. And you go bankrupt. Except that you don't in the modern world, because you've come to the United States, and the taxpayers play the fool. Under Secretary Geithner and under Secretary Paulson before him... we took $5 billion dollars, for example, in U.S. taxpayer money. And sent it to a huge Swiss Bank called UBS. At the same time that that bank was defrauding the taxpayers of America. And we were bringing a criminal case against them. We eventually get them to pay a $780 million fine, but wait, we gave them $5 billion. So, the taxpayers of America paid the fine of a Swiss Bank. And why are we bailing out somebody who that is defrauding us?<br />BILL MOYERS: And why...<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: How mad is this?<br />BILL MOYERS: What is your explanation for why the bankers who created this mess are still calling the shots?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, that, especially after what's just happened at G.M., that's... it's scandalous.<br />BILL MOYERS: Why are they firing the president of G.M. and not firing the head of all these banks that are involved?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: There are two reasons. One, they're much closer to the bankers. These are people from the banking industry. And they have a lot more sympathy. In fact, they're outright hostile to autoworkers, as you can see. They want to bash all of their contracts. But when they get to banking, they say, ‘contracts, sacred.' But the other element of your question is we don't want to change the bankers, because if we do, if we put honest people in, who didn't cause the problem, their first job would be to find the scope of the problem. And that would destroy the cover up.<br />BILL MOYERS: The cover up?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Sure. The cover up.<br />BILL MOYERS: That's a serious charge.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Of course.<br />BILL MOYERS: Who's covering up?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Geithner is charging, is covering up. Just like Paulson did before him. Geithner is publicly saying that it's going to take $2 trillion — a trillion is a thousand billion — $2 trillion taxpayer dollars to deal with this problem. But they're allowing all the banks to report that they're not only solvent, but fully capitalized. Both statements can't be true. It can't be that they need $2 trillion, because they have masses losses, and that they're fine.<br />These are all people who have failed. Paulson failed, Geithner failed. They were all promoted because they failed, not because...<br />BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, Geithner has, was one of our nation's top regulators, during the entire subprime scandal, that I just described. He took absolutely no effective action. He gave no warning. He did nothing in response to the FBI warning that there was an epidemic of fraud. All this pig in the poke stuff happened under him. So, in his phrase about legacy assets. Well he's a failed legacy regulator.<br />BILL MOYERS: But he denies that he was a regulator. Let me show you some of his testimony before Congress. Take a look at this.<br />TIMOTHY GEITHNER:I've never been a regulator, for better or worse. And I think you're right to say that we have to be very skeptical that regulation can solve all of these problems. We have parts of our system that are overwhelmed by regulation.<br />Overwhelmed by regulation! It wasn't the absence of regulation that was the problem, it was despite the presence of regulation you've got huge risks that build up.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, he may be right that he never regulated, but his job was to regulate. That was his mission statement.<br />BILL MOYERS: As?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: As president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is responsible for regulating most of the largest bank holding companies in America. And he's completely wrong that we had too much regulation in some of these areas. I mean, he gives no details, obviously. But that's just plain wrong.<br />BILL MOYERS: How is this happening? I mean why is it happening?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Until you get the facts, it's harder to blow all this up. And, of course, the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts.<br />BILL MOYERS: What facts?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: The facts about how bad the condition of the banks is. So, as long as I keep the old CEO who caused the problems, is he going to go vigorously around finding the problems? Finding the frauds?<br />BILL MOYERS: You--<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Taking away people's bonuses?<br />BILL MOYERS: To hear you say this is unusual because you supported Barack Obama, during the campaign. But you're seeming disillusioned now.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they're refusing to obey the law.<br />BILL MOYERS: In other words, they could have closed these banks without nationalizing them?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, you do a receivership. No one -- Ronald Reagan did receiverships. Nobody called it nationalization.<br />BILL MOYERS: And that's a law?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's the law.<br />BILL MOYERS: So, Paulson could have done this? Geithner could do this?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Not could. Was mandated--<br />BILL MOYERS: By the law.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: By the law.<br />BILL MOYERS: This law, you're talking about.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.<br />BILL MOYERS: What the reason they give for not doing it?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: They ignore it. And nobody calls them on it.<br />BILL MOYERS: Well, where's Congress? Where's the press? Where--<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, where's the Pecora investigation?<br />BILL MOYERS: The what?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: The Pecora investigation. The Great Depression, we said, "Hey, we have to learn the facts. What caused this disaster, so that we can take steps, like pass the Glass-Steagall law, that will prevent future disasters?" Where's our investigation?<br />What would happen if after a plane crashes, we said, "Oh, we don't want to look in the past. We want to be forward looking. Many people might have been, you know, we don't want to pass blame. No. We have a nonpartisan, skilled inquiry. We spend lots of money on, get really bright people. And we find out, to the best of our ability, what caused every single major plane crash in America. And because of that, aviation has an extraordinarily good safety record. We ought to follow the same policies in the financial sphere. We have to find out what caused the disasters, or we will keep reliving them. And here, we've got a double tragedy. It isn't just that we are failing to learn from the mistakes of the past. We're failing to learn from the successes of the past.<br />BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: In the Savings and Loan debacle, we developed excellent ways for dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with the failed institutions. And for 15 years after the Savings and Loan crisis, didn't matter which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the Japanese, "You ought to do things the way we did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it worked really well. Instead you're covering up the bank losses, because you know, you say you need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the people to create confidence. And it doesn't work. You will cause your recession to continue and continue." And the Japanese call it the lost decade. That was the result. So, now we get in trouble, and what do we do? We adopt the Japanese approach of lying about the assets. And you know what? It's working just as well as it did in Japan.<br />BILL MOYERS: Yeah. Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely.<br />BILL MOYERS: You are.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Absolutely, because they are scared to death. All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, "We just can't let the big banks fail." That's wrong.<br />BILL MOYERS: But what might happen, at this point, if in fact they keep from us the true health of the banks?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Well, then the banks will, as they did in Japan, either stay enormously weak, or Treasury will be forced to increasingly absurd giveaways of taxpayer money. We've seen how horrific AIG -- and remember, they kept secrets from everyone.<br />BILL MOYERS: A.I.G. did?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: What we're doing with -- no, Treasury and both administrations. The Bush administration and now the Obama administration kept secret from us what was being done with AIG. AIG was being used secretly to bail out favored banks like UBS and like Goldman Sachs. Secretary Paulson's firm, that he had come from being CEO. It got the largest amount of money. $12.9 billion. And they didn't want us to know that. And it was only Congressional pressure, and not Congressional pressure, by the way, on Geithner, but Congressional pressure on AIG.<br />Where Congress said, "We will not give you a single penny more unless we know who received the money." And, you know, when he was Treasury Secretary, Paulson created a recommendation group to tell Treasury what they ought to do with AIG. And he put Goldman Sachs on it.<br />BILL MOYERS: Even though Goldman Sachs had a big vested stake.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive stake. And even though he had just been CEO of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. Now, in most stages in American history, that would be a scandal of such proportions that he wouldn't be allowed in civilized society.<br />BILL MOYERS: Yeah, like a conflict of interest, it seems.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Massive conflict of interests.<br />BILL MOYERS: So, how did he get away with it?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: I don't know whether we've lost our capability of outrage. Or whether the cover up has been so successful that people just don't have the facts to react to it.<br />BILL MOYERS: Who's going to get the facts?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: We need some chairmen or chairwomen--<br />BILL MOYERS: In Congress.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: --in Congress, to hold the necessary hearings. And we can blast this out. But if you leave the failed CEOs in place, it isn't just that they're terrible business people, though they are. It isn't just that they lack integrity, though they do. Because they were engaged in these frauds. But they're not going to disclose the truth about the assets.<br />BILL MOYERS: And we have to know that, in order to know what?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: To know everything. To know who committed the frauds. Whose bonuses we should recover. How much the assets are worth. How much they should be sold for. Is the bank insolvent, such that we should resolve it in this way? It's the predicate, right? You need to know the facts to make intelligent decisions. And they're deliberately leaving in place the people that caused the problem, because they don't want the facts. And this is not new. The Reagan Administration's central priority, at all times, during the Savings and Loan crisis, was covering up the losses.<br />BILL MOYERS: So, you're saying that people in power, political power, and financial power, act in concert when their own behinds are in the ringer, right?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: That's right. And it's particularly a crisis that brings this out, because then the class of the banker says, "You've got to keep the information away from the public or everything will collapse. If they understand how bad it is, they'll run for the exits."<br />BILL MOYERS: Yeah, and this week in New York, at this conference, you described this as more than a financial crisis. You called it a moral crisis.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Yes.<br />BILL MOYERS: Why?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Because it is a fundamental lack of integrity. But also because, if you look back at crises, an economist who is also a presidential appointee, as a regulator in the Savings and Loan industry, right here in New York, Larry White, wrote a book about the Savings and Loan crisis. And he said, you know, one of the most interesting questions is why so few people engaged in fraud? Because objectively, you could have gotten away with it. But only about ten percent of the CEOs, engaged in fraud. So, 90 percent of them were restrained by ethics and integrity. So, far more than law or by F.B.I. agents, it's our integrity that often prevents the greatest abuses. And what we had in this crisis, instead of the Savings and Loan, is the most elite institutions in America engaging or facilitating fraud.<br />BILL MOYERS: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker's income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right.<br />BILL MOYERS: It was relatively a handful of people.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don't prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it's what saves capitalism. "Honest purveyors prosper" is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn't need to happen at all.<br />BILL MOYERS: When you wake in the middle of the night, thinking about your work, what do you make of that? What do you tell yourself?<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: There's a saying that we took great comfort in. It's actually by the Dutch, who were fighting this impossible war for independence against what was then the most powerful nation in the world, Spain. And their motto was, "It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere."<br />Now, going forward, get rid of the people that have caused the problems. That's a pretty straightforward thing, as well. Why would we keep CEOs and CFOs and other senior officers, that caused the problems? That's facially nuts. That's our current system.<br />So stop that current system. We're hiding the losses, instead of trying to find out the real losses. Stop that, because you need good information to make good decisions, right? Follow what works instead of what's failed. Start appointing people who have records of success, instead of records of failure. That would be another nice place to start. There are lots of things we can do. Even today, as late as it is. Even though they've had a terrible start to the administration. They could change, and they could change within weeks. And by the way, the folks who are the better regulators, they paid their taxes. So, you can get them through the vetting process a lot quicker.<br />BILL MOYERS: William Black, thank you very much for being with me on the Journal.<br />WILLIAM K. BLACK: Thank you so much. </span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-62288217881825343572010-11-29T15:55:00.002+01:002010-11-29T15:59:54.287+01:00Popular ProtestPerhaps some of you have heard about all the protests going on in Germany, France and England this Fall. Recently English students stormed Tory headquarters protesting austerity measures like increased tuition. Last week tens of thousands of Germans managed to delay a train delivering radioactive waste to a nuclear dump near Gorleben, a small down just West of the former Iron Curtain. For three days the major news networks were filled with reports of people hanging themselves from ropes above train tracks or tying themselves with chains to rails and roads. The train travelled from La Hague, France and into Germany where it met hundreds protestors filling the streets, train stations and even climbing on the tracks to delay the train’s progress. The radioactive waste had to be transferred on to trucks for the last few miles. At a street intersection just short of the final destination Greenpeace activists blocked the road with a vehicle disguised as a beer delivery truck. They retrofitted the truck and bolted it to the asphalt. Activists sunk themselves into drying concrete.<br />In Stuttgart, Germany citizens have been going to the streets week for week to protest the construction of an underground railway station. For months there have been weekly rallies with upwards of 80,000 people. Demonstrations this size have not been seen in this conservative southern German town for decades. Opposition to the construction plans have arisen because of the questionable benefits to public transportation and the immense costs, upwards of 5 billion Euros or almost $7 billion.<br />In France this Fall there were massive, country-wide demonstrations against the proposed increase of the retirement age from 60 to 62 (in Germany it has been increased from 65 to 67). The French protests were not only aimed at the increased age of retirement. As in Stuttgart, Gorleben and London, the protests reflect a general frustration among the public that they are being ignored by a class of political leaders interested only in serving their most persistent and powerful constituencies. Despite the danger of hanging my neck out the window, I might suggest that the Tea Party in the US garners much of it’s support from similar frustrations.<br />Why does the public feel alienated from the political process? Probably because they are. The lack of public participation in the political process in the US is much worse than in Germany or France. In these countries the election process is not dominated by million-dollar television spots paid for by private donations. In Germany, for example, each party is given equal amount of time for television commercials. Campaigning is limited to only a few months and you do not need a war chest of many millions of dollars to get elected. I furthermore see the majority-rule system in the US as extremely undemocratic. In the states only the voters who voted for the majority candidate are represented in parliament. Everyone else is left out in the cold. In Germany a party needs only 5% of the popular vote to gain seats in local or national parliaments. Elections on Tuesdays and having to physically register to vote are further factors making democratic participation more difficult in the US.<br />Even though it is easier to vote and find representation in places like Germany and France, large sections of the population feel disenfranchised. When the German government recently decided to extend the life of the countries nuclear power plants, it was obvious that lobbyists from the plant’s operators had influenced decision making. More than 60% of the public opposes these extensions. The multi-billion dollar train station construction in Stuttgart is also opposed by a vast majority of the population. Some claim that real estate investors have been central in pushing the project despite public opposition.<br />Of course it’s nothing new that plutocracy to a large extent best defines US and European systems. The wave of protests in Europe this Fall are a sign that people’s voices are being heard. The lack of violence during the protests in Germany are a positive sign that voices of protest will not drown out by images of stone-throwing youth. Such images serve only to feed prejudices and belittle serious public concerns.<br />The protests in Stuttgart surrounding the train project “Stuttgart 21” have been so successful that the government and industry interests have been forced to sit together with citizen interests groups to hammer out a compromise. The weekly meetings are aired live on television and the internet. This is an example of moving decision-making from the closed-doors of parliament onto the open-doors of public debate.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-83571939838923306472010-10-06T11:01:00.008+02:002010-10-08T09:30:51.534+02:00Digital Publishing: Solutions for Content ProvidersNewspaper, magazine and book publishers are presented today with challenges to their core business model. Revenue from readers and advertisers is in decline and the opportunities for shoring up these losses are slow in coming. The vast majority of daily newspapers in the US and Europe provide their content online without charge and internet access is available in over 80% of all households. Free web content is, in affect, stealing subscriptions away from the very publishers providing the content. In the US the decline of the newspaper industry has taken on momentous proportions. On average half as many journalists are employed in the US today compared to 1990. Declining readership automatically leads to a decline in advertising revenue. In addition, the readers who tend to move from paid print media to free online media belong to the younger generations, groups particularly attractive to advertisers. Although advertisers are moving more and more to the online market, the vast majority of revenue generated through advertising remains in print. The online market has not been able to generate the levels of revenue commonplace in the print market. According to Jack Shafer in his 2006 article on slate.com, a newspaper gets about one-tenth or one-twentieth the advertising revenue for an online reader as it does for a print reader.<br /><br />This article is designed to sum up the present market situation for content providers, make some predictions about the future and present various solutions for maintaining subscription and advertising revenue.<br /><br />Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, said in August, 2009 “Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalising [sic] its ability to produce good reporting”. He continued by saying that his news sources, including the Times and The Sun in the UK, and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post in the US, would soon begin charging for online content. The New York Times has also announced that it will severely limit access to free news on its website from January, 2011. These radical, yet bold moves could signal a major change in the newspaper industry and a last-ditch effort to regain revenue. According to Richard Pérez-Pená (New York Times, January 20th, 2010), “Starting in January 2011, a visitor to NYTimes.com will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge”.<br /><br />While the newspaper industry is suffering the most from the decline of readership and ad revenue, the future of the magazine and book industry is also far from certain. A new generation of tablet PC’s like Apple’s iPad are causing quite a stir among industry analysts. If tablet PCs turn out to be what they promise and present such an enjoyable reading experience, consumers may begin shifting to digital magazines and books. As can be seen in the music industry over the past ten years, new technologies, including iTunes and mp3 players, can have a far-reaching effects on revenue models. The overwhelming majority of revenue from music sales today comes from online services. The film industry is also presently going through a revolution due to the rapid rise in online sales. Blockbuster, the market leader in video rentals, has recently declared bankruptcy, largely due to competition from online and mail-in services like NetFlix. The illegal distribution of movies over the internet, moreover, will certainly influence box office and rental sales. New technological innovations and changing consumer behavior may also encourage magazine and book readers to migrate to digital reading devices.<br /><br />As can clearly be seen, content publishers need to react to changing conditions. We can assume that newspapers will soon discontinue or severely limit free web news. Book publishers will increase marketing efforts in electronic publishing. Magazines will begin offering online, interactive versions of their magazines. Is that enough, however, to help newspapers regain levels of revenue previously gained through ads and subscriptions? Publishers need to create new business models that serve the needs of the new digital generation. High quality journalism has its price. Some may argue that newspapers and magazines used to be over-inflated institutions with too much power. It can hardly be of doubt, however, that newspapers and magazines play a vital role in a democratic society. They help form public opinion and thus must remain diverse and independent. Although there is a myriad of so-called bloggers out there reporting and writing news articles, the “blogosphere” can not be a replacement for professional journalism. Many European countries guarantee the continuation of independent news through state-sponsored public television and radio. The dominance of private media outlets in the US should encourage people to look more closely at the European model.<br /><br />How, then, should media publishers respond to the threat to their traditional business model? First, they need to move away from free online content. High quality journalists cost money and that money has to somehow be earned. It’s a risky situation and no media outlet wants to be the first to shut down free access to their website. People are worried that if they limit access their readers will just click over to the next free website. This will drastically reduce website visits, leading to a reduction in advertising revenue. Newspapers will also lose access to readers and publishers ability to communicate with them. If, however, major outlets like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal set the stage for subscriber-only web news, it will make it easier for other to follow in their tracks. The loyalty of readers to their local newspaper should also not be underestimated. Web users will always find free news content, but if their favorite local newspaper is no longer available they may well feel inclined to pay.<br /><br />The second response publishers need to take is to look carefully at their customer’s behavior. What are they willing to pay for? How much are they willing to pay? What type of information are they looking for that goes beyond simply a digital version of the printed publication? Over the past years consumers have grown used to getting information for free. It will take some work to convince readers that quality journalism is worth paying for. According to a survey by the Nielsen Group in February, 2010 of 27,000 consumers across 52 countries, 40% of consumers are willing to pay for newspaper content online. That rather optimistic figure is, however, somewhat dampend by a big ‘if’. Nielsen also found that 70% of the people surveyed would only pay for online news if it was better than that which they currently get for free. That can be interpreted to mean that consumers will avoid paying as long as possible. As long as they see opportunities to get the information they are looking for for free and as long as the quality is ok, they will be hesitant to pay. Publishers are then in a situation where they have to compete with multiple content providers. They need to create content that is superior to the competition. The fact that free content is not going to go away quickly makes it difficult to compete. If one farmer (farmer A) is offering slightly blemished apples for free and farmer B is offering perfect apples for 2 dollars a kilo, few will refuse the free ones. F armer B can, though, appeal to the consumers conscience by mentioning that farmer A stole his apples (assuming this is the case). Farmer B could also sell a few apples if she proves that her’s are organic and the other guy’s are not. Established newspaper and magazine publishers have the resources, experience and understanding of the market to make that bold move and begin offering excellent digital content. Many consumers will recognize the superior quality and be willing to pay.<br /><br />In judging consumers willingness to pay for online content it is necessary to look at recent software and hardware developments. The readiness of consumers across the globe to pay for services online has grown drastically over the past ten years. Platforms like eBay, Amazon and iTunes have proven that people are willing to pay online. ECommerce today plays a central role in business activities. One reason for the success of online systems like eBay and iTunes is the ease of use and this is key to the success of paid news content. The astronomical increase in sales of music, Apps, movies and now books at Apple’s iTunes Store is a sign of the willingness for users to pay for online content. Apple’s easy-to-use, click-and-pay system has been very successful and has lowered the psychological barriers to paying online. People do not want to have to register separately each time they go shopping. Systems like PayPal have also made online payments much easier.<br /><br />Another aspect is the amount of products available at one source. If someone is looking for used goods or bargains on new goods they hardly need to look further than eBay or Amazon. A music or film enthusiast can be pretty certain that by visiting Apple’s iTunes she will find what she’s looking for. This does, unfortunately, speak for centralized services and is not particularly conducive to anti-trust policies. There is justified critique that Apple, for example, has become too powerful in the music sales industry. Perhaps future open source platforms can successfully deal with these concerns. Nonetheless, consumers do respond positively to a single software solution that addresses all of their needs. It would be terribly time-consuming and discouraging if one had to visit multiple websites in order to find the best offer for a certain album. If newspapers, magazines and books were also available on such a popular platform, it would significantly increase consumers willingness to pay for such digital media.<br /><br />Aside from software, attractive hardware is also key to judging consumer’s inclination to pay for online content. Despite the fact that computers and the internet have become so ubiquitous, we still prefer holding our newspaper in our hands and reading it at the dinning room table with a cup of coffee. Few people actually prefer reading a book on their laptop. What about tablet PCs? Are they going to change our reading habits? Is the hype about Apple’s new iPad just a hype or do people really enjoy reading “For Whom the Bell Tolls” on that nifty, little device? It is too early to tell where the development of improved “eReaders” will lead and how consumers will react. The chance that it will encourage people to read digital material, however, is significant and thus should encourage publishers to invest in the development of digital content.<br /><br />A third step publishers can take to react to the new landscape in their industry is to cooperate with online platforms or create their own. The German Spiegel magazine is now available as a subscription only “App” for the iPhone and iPad. The New York Times also offers a commercial App which provides a more user-friendly version of their daily paper for mobile readers. Apple recently added books to it’s iTunes Store and is apparently planning to present a newspaper subscription platform for the iPhone and iPad (“Apple to announce subscription plan for newspapers”, John Boudreau, Sept. 14, 2010, San Jose Mercury News). Apple wants to take a 30% cut of the subscription fee and 40% cut of the advertising revenue. To what extent the newspapers will have access to the subscriber’s information remains a contentious issue.<br /><br />The New York Times has announced the creation of Press Engine, a platform designed to help publishers deliver their content to digital readers like Apple’s iPad. This system differs from Apple’s planned newspaper publishing through the iTunes Store in that the publishers will be able to control their own advertising and subscriptions. The U.K.’s Daily Telegraph and the Dallas Morning News are among the early adopters who plan to contribute to Press Engine.<br /><br />Google is also rumored to be preparing its own version of a subscription platform for news content. Googles Newspass would provide a system allowing publishers to charge readers for content.<br /><br />The German company, Neofonie, is planning an alternative platform. It is also the producer of the tablet WePad. The Bertelsmann Direct Group und Grüner+Jahr will launch it’s own digital publishing platform called “Pubbles” at this year’s Frankfurt Book Fair in October.<br /><br />The fourth, and perhaps most difficult, measure publishers need to take is to increasingly invest in developing new concepts for digital content. It is not sufficient to simply put a pdf Version of a newspaper online and expect readers to jump at the offer. The digital generation has become quite sophisticated and has high expectations. Moreover, as mentioned above, there needs to be a tangible increase in the quality of the content to encourage consumers to pay. Digital publishing opens an entirely new mix of possibilities in interacting with readers and consumers. Digital media has a set of issues that differentiate it from printed media. Print media has been, of course, limited to ink on paper. Now, with publishing solutions for the internet, iPads and high-resolution smart phones, publishers can utilize video, audio, 3D and animations to engage new readers. These technologies also offer new opportunities for advertisers to communicate their message.<br /><br />One major aspect now available to the publishing industry is video content. Not only can advertisers utilize this medium, more importantly news, analysis or text book content can integrate video material to enhance the message. We will increasingly see a merging of print, audio and film. Up until now television has not been able to integrate text and print media has not been able to integrate video and film. Just imagine the possibilities if the New York Times could utilize video technology just as successfully as ABC or CNN.<br /><br />The possibilities for improving upon the format for transmitting news and books continues from there. Text books on iPads could include interactive quizzes, physics simulations or virtual chemistry experiments. Digital newspapers can offer expandable images, audio clips and interactive, 3D animations to their readers. The creation of this content obviously is costly. Many assets, however, are already available at the publishing houses and need only be converted and integrated. By simply viewing some of the websites of major newspapers it is, moreover, apparent that publishers are already investing in the development of multimedia content. Up until now, though, they have been giving it away for free.<br /><br />Taking a closer look at developments in the text book industry also helps gain more insight into the choices publishers need to make. In early 2010 a consortium of educational publishers, including McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Kaplan teamed up with the company ScrollMotion to begin producing textbooks for the iPad. Other eReaders like the Kindle were seen by the group as insufficient for the needs of students. Evan Schnittman of Bloomsbury Publishing names three types of reading which need to be addressed when creating digital material; extractive reading, immersive reading and pedagogic reading. Extractive reading, for example looking up synonyms or definitions in a dictionary, is conducive to digital media and already widespread as can be seen by the success of Wikipedia. Fast and expansive search machines make reference work on the computer much easier than paging through a stack of encyclopedias on your desk. Immersive reading refers to reading books, journals or extensive articles. eBooks are addressing this market and tablet readers are serving these needs. The third type of reading, pedagogic reading, represents the greatest challenge for content producers, school book publishers in particular. Pedagogic readers are, for example, studying a chemistry textbook in preparation for mid-term exams. Serving this group of readers has proven to be elusive. Of course, students avidly use the internet to prepare for exams or to do research for a report. School book publishers, however, are confronted with the daunting task of moving material into the digital world. Could tablet PCs like the iPad be the solution to moving digital material into the classroom?<br /><br />In order to save their business model, newspaper publishers will need to develop new concepts for regaining lost ground due to free internet news. Magazine and book publishers also need to react to changing technologies and reader’s habits and increasingly invest in digital publishing.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">References</span></span><br /><br />“Zeitungen rüsten sich für digitale Zukunft”, Sept. 22, 2010, Schwäbisches Tagblatt<br /><br />“The Times to Charge for Frequent Access to Its Web Site”, January 20th, 2010, Richard Pérez-Pená, New York Times<br /><br />“A Textbook Solution”, Elizabeth Weil, Sept. 16, 2010, New York Times<br /><br />iPad and Education, http://www.apple.com/education/ipad/<br /><br />“Apple to announce subscription plan for newspapers”, John Boudreau, Sept. 14, 2010, San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16075454?nclick_check=1)<br /><br />“Changing Models: A Global Perspective on Paying for Content Online”, Nic Covey, February 16, 2010, nielsenwire, (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/changing-models-a-global-perspective-on-paying-for-content-online/)<br /><br />“War’s das?”, October, 2009, Kurt W. Zimmermann, NZZ Folio<br /><br />“Murdoch signals end of free news”, August 6, 2009, bbc news, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8186701.stm<br /><br />“Moving into multiple business models, Outlook for Newspaper Publishing in the Digital Age”, 2009, PriceWaterhouseCoopers<br /><br />“Google’s Newspass: Is the King of Free About to Help News Providers Get Paid?”, David Carr, June 20, 2010, New York Times<br /><br />“Chronicle of the Newspaper Death Foretold, The newspaper industry knew it was doomed 30 years ago”, Jack Shafer, November 30, 2006, www.slate.comMugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-59997178493570469472010-05-11T08:00:00.004+02:002010-05-11T08:21:30.278+02:00Corporate Control in the USA friend recently sent me a link to an article by Chris Hedges "Why the Enlightened Liberal Class Is Complicit in the Country's Downward Spiral" (http://www.alternet.org/story/146711/why_the_enlightened_liberal_class_is_complicit_in_the_country%27s_downward_spiral?page=entire). For me the title is a bit misleading. It sounds like Hedges wants to blame the liberals for not getting off their asses and fighting for change. More important for me was the clear statement about the role of private, for-profit companies in running the country and its foreign affairs. Jeremy Scahill has done a great job of revealing the fact that private companies have almost taken over running the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. At home in the US, though, it's even worse. From school books to the secret service to oil rigs, the public sector with it's regulatory function has withdrawn to the sidelines. Amazingly and thankfully Social Security was saved from the tsunami of privatization.<br /><br />Hedges presents a very thoughtful, concise statement about the state of affairs in the US. What are the ramifications of some of his statements? I mean we've been hearing about this for quite a while now but it's always kind of erie when I'm reminded of it. Gore Vidal said in an interview not too long ago that he sees the US moving towards fascism. It makes me kind of scared to think that private companies are running the show. Especially the secret service. You used to kind of have a bit of faith that government agencies are generally going to watch out for citizens rights (at least to a certain extent). But where is the country headed if you have for-profit companies patrolling the streets and happy to pick up some person they feel like calling a terrorist and sending him off to Guantanamo? Does that not mean that our personal freedom is being held hostage by some jerk CEO who just wants to cash in more government contracts?Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-70287561347805467842010-04-28T18:35:00.002+02:002010-04-28T18:40:07.605+02:00Letter to the Editor - Germany Army in AfghanistanThis week my letter to the editor of the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung was published.<br /><br />In short I am criticizing the article written by Stefan Kornelius on April 4, 2010 in which he argues that the German Bundeswehr should be given full support in their efforts in Afghanistan. All of the debate in Germany regarding Germany's role in Afghanistan serves to weaken the German army. I argue that it's crazy to say that the German parliament and public should not criticize the Bundeswehr's role. It's part of a democratic society to constantly examine a countries foreign affairs.<br /><br />Here's my letter:<br /><br />Die afghanische Falle, Stefan Kornelius, SZ, 16.4.10<br /><br />Der Beitrag von Stefan Kornelius zur Lage der Bundeswehr in Afghanistan: Die Bundeswehr benötigt sämtliche Freiheiten in Afghanistan, um ihre Arbeit Fach- und Sachgerecht durchzuführen. Die Einmischung der Bundespolitik und, noch schlimmer, die öffentliche Meinung, hindert und gefährdet die Soldaten. Was hätte einen solchen Vorschlag für Konsequenzen? Soll die Bundeswehr frei von allen Einschränkungen eines demokratischen Staates agieren können? Nein, die Einsätze der Bundeswehr müssen einer kritischen Debate unterzogen werden. Die Bundesregierung ist dazu verpflichtet ihre Mandate ständig zu überprüfen. Die Öffentlichkeit muss gehört werden. Schliesslich sind es die Söhne und Töchter der Bundesbürger, die dort ihr Leben riskieren. Noch wichtiger wäre es, auf die Afghanen zu horchen, die seit Jahrzehnten von angeblichen "friedlichen, Einsätzen" verschiedener Armeen leiden.<br /><br />Mich wundert es, dass solche Meinungen in der Süddeutschen Zeitung gedruckt werden. Die einfache, populistische Argumentation von Kornelius gehört nicht in einer seriösen Zeitung.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-22233833805799765362010-02-01T09:06:00.002+01:002010-02-01T09:07:02.814+01:00Can I eat my iPad?It’s funny sometimes what sort of information gets thrown at you on the Internet. It was Wednesday afternoon and I began reading an article in the Nation magazine about the budget crisis in California. The situation sounds bad, real bad. I’m from California and I know that the place has gone through hard times before. The sense of urgency and distress in the article, however, was new to me. The tax base is basically crumbling away and the state legislature can’t do a thing about it. The term Prop 13 was mentioned numerous times, and not in a very good way. I grew up in a nice suburb of LA and Howard Jarvis and his Prop 13 were household names, names that put a twinkle in my parents eye. In 1978 state voters passed the initiative that limited property tax rates. My parents profited for decades by having an extremely low property tax. The state as a whole, however, has suffered because of the missing tax revenues. One lesser known part of the initiative was that the legislature could pass tax increases only with a two-thirds majority. Tax reductions, on the other hand, could be passed with a simple majority. The obvious result is that California has been decreasing taxes for ages, but has failed to increase taxes. Of course Californians are creative and innovative and figured out other ways of increasing state revenue. The infamous bond initiatives are one tool. Californians are presented at every election with a list of bond initiative which allow the state to borrow more money to fund education, health, or whatever.<br />Today in California the situation is critical. Community hospitals are closing, judges are donating parts of their salaries to help keep the courts open, public schools are in shambles. The government, though, is unable to respond. It reminds me of the inability of the Italian government to pass any laws because of the complex coalition of small political parties. In her Nation article (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100208/abramsky) from January 21, 2010, Sasha Abramsky notes how there is a Mad Max feeling in many neighborhoods. The public sector is dysfunctional. The government simply doesn’t work. The place is going (or has gone?) broke. Hopefully my fellow Californians are not planning on having the federal government bail them out. Obama just announced an across-the-board spending freeze (of course military spending is excluded) and received enthusiastic applause from both sides of the aisle.<br />How can this be in the land of Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Michael Jackson and Joan Kroc? There are so many rich people in this state. There is, still, a strong middle class, a thriving agriculture industry and, unfortunately, a massive military industry. The potential tax revenues from the film industry alone must be enough to save hundreds of community hospitals.<br />Now comes the funny part. After reading that article I felt a sudden excitement as I remembered that Apple Computer was having a “Special Event” in San Francisco. I quickly clicked over to apple.com and with rushing adrenaline read, gazed, watched and drooled over the newest technical wonder from Cupertino, the iPad. Only four letters and only a piece of aluminum with a glass cover and a bunch of tiny electronics inside. Not much? Well it’s enough to get my blood pumpin’ and I bet I’m not alone. Will this thin rectangular thing manage to come close to the mania that surrounded the introduction of the iPhone in 2007? I don’t know, but I’m pretty darn certain that it will stuff Steve Job’s coffers so full of cash that he won’t have any room to carry his new iPad. Am I a cynique? Am I deriding the ingenuity and innovation that makes America great?<br />Yes, I am. It’s just crazy. The state is going broke, the industry is reeling in the profits and the legislature is unable or unwilling to respond. What about the voters? Why are they not up in arms? Don’t they care about their schools, their fire departments, their bridges, their drinking water? The apathy is certainly running at an all time high. With so much inaction, incompetence and corruption in politics who can blame them? Is that the whole story though? Or is their a hidden story beneath all that adrenaline pumping through my blood when I await Apple’s next technological messiah? Are we all so busy shopping, are we all so consumed with our consumption that we don’t even consider standing up and saying “Stop. This is enough!”? Karl Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses. I think there is a lot of truth to that but today he would have to add the iPad to his list of opiates.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-40906497211310679472010-01-06T22:25:00.002+01:002010-01-06T22:34:40.552+01:00The US Role in poverty and warThe journalist and activist Allan Nairn was interviewed today, Jan. 6th, 2010, by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/6/stream). I wanted to pass this information on because Nairn has some radical and impressive ideas which I think need to be heard. <br /><br />Nairn says: "I think Obama should be remembered as a great man because of the blow he struck against white racism”. “But once he became president…Obama became a murderer and a terrorist, because the US has a machine that spans the globe, that has the capacity to kill, and Obama has kept it set on kill. He could have flipped the switch and turned it off…but he chose not to do so.” He continues, “In fact, as far as one can tell, Obama seems to have killed more civilians during his first year than Bush did in his first year, and maybe even than Bush killed in his final year.”Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-78523343018801002122009-12-02T08:42:00.004+01:002009-12-02T08:54:15.957+01:00Joan Walsh on Obama's Speech "Yes, it's Obama's war now"Joan Walsh wrote on salon.com an article about Obama's Afghanistan speech. While she may have made some interesting points I felt she missed a central issue: How should the Left (peace movement) react? What can be done to stop the madness in Afghanistan? I made a few recommendations (see below).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Joan Walsch on Obama's Speech "Yes, it's Obama's war now"</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-style:italic;">An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame</span></span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I may be the only person in the United States who was trying to wait for President Obama's Afghanistan speech to make up my mind about his war plans. Of course, I mostly failed at that. Sure, all of Obama's options are bad, but still, few decisions seem as clear-cut as this one. Escalation is hard to see as an exit strategy. Obama has no clear path to "victory." We are likely to waste more lives than we save. I thought that was true before Obama's big speech, and I still think it now, afterwards.</span><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2009/12/01/afghanistan_speech/index.html">read the rest of her article here...</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Reactions from the Left</span><br />I'm afraid I'm missing something in your article. You ask towards the end, "What's an Obama supporter to do?". Your answer was only to comment that Obama is just fulfilling his campaign promise and then you go on to complain about Dick Cheney.<br />If we on the left want to develop an anti-war strategy we must go way beyond that. Anyways, we all know that Obama promised to escalate in Afghanistan and we all know that Cheney is a disaster.<br />Here's then my answer to what the left needs to do:<br />1. Report on the war atrocities in Afghanistan: From civilian deaths, to destruction of infrastructure, to the craziness of invading a sovereign nation.<br />2. Report on the Karzai Government: The Karzai government is a form of legitimization of the US/NATO presence in Afghanistan. The West says Karzai wants us there, so we stay. Who is this guy, where does he come from, what is his government about. If the public were better informed about the total corruption and the total lack of internal political legitimization for Karzai, they might rethink their support of the War. Keep reminding people that Karzai's brother is the biggest Opium dealer in the country. Before the war less than 10% of global opium came from Afghanistan. Now it's over 80%. Is the US in Afghanistan in order to help it become the world's largest opium producer?<br />3. Look at the history. Britain failed in Afghanistan, Russia failed. Why should the US succeed. What right does the US/NATO have anyway to invade a sovereign nation.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-36029633975395974532009-11-15T15:42:00.004+01:002009-11-15T16:03:28.050+01:00Why is Germany in Afghanistan and why don't they want to get out?I’ve been pondering this question for quite a while now and decided to make a list of reasons why German is in Afghanistan. This is a collection of reasons I have run in to. I will try to extend or abbreviate the list periodically and would be happy to hear views from others.<br /><br />1. Germany felt obligated to support the US after 9/11 and as a NATO partner. According to NATO bylaws Germany was, perhaps, obligated to join the US in Afghanistan. If this is true, though, how could Germany have avoided joining in on the Iraq War? <br /><br />2. Germany felt obligated to support the US because the US “saved” Germany from Nazism. (Whether the Germans actually wanted to be saved is another issue.)<br /><br />3. Germany wants to be a global military player. (Heard this from Tobias Pflüger.)<br /><br />4. Germany wants to help fight terrorism. This has become an issue of national security. The former German Defense Minister, Peter Struck (member of the left of center Social Democratic Party (SPD)) said in a press conference on Dec. 5th, 2002 that the “Deutsche Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt” (“German freedom must be defended in the Hindu Kush”).<br /><br />5. Germany wants to “save” the Afghans from the brutal rule of the Taliban.<br /><br />6. Germany wants to save the women of Afghanistan from the evil Taliban.<br /><br />7. As good Christians, Germans are obligated to help the oppressed. We can not turn a blind eye to those in danger. It’s our Christian calling to help our neighbors. (Heard this argument recently for the first time from a friend. I can imagine that it plays a role.)<br /><br />8. Economic factors. German companies benefit from the war. (I don’t have any figures on this. Tobias Pflüger said he doesn’t play a big role. The German postal company DHL has, from what I’ve heard, profited from this war.) Of course all the German producers of weapons, military-related equipment, security-related equipment, various services used in war regions, etc. are directly profiting from the war.<br /><br />9. Institutional factors. The Bundeswehr has become established in Afghanistan. Generals are making their careers there. Military leaders are digging into the trenches. There is always the institutional self-legitimization involved. Chomsky talks a lot about this.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-87091062720364435242009-11-08T14:46:00.001+01:002009-11-08T14:47:21.170+01:00Overproduction and UnemploymentI’ve often asked myself why a modern industrial country is not able to get rid of unemployment. A terribly naive question some might proclaim. There just aren’t enough jobs out there to employ the population. That may well be true. In tough times cutbacks are necessary. Sales go down, layoffs are the result. You don’t need to be an economist to understand that. Even the government can’t create enough jobs to keep the masses employed. The tax base isn’t there. So full employment is pie in the sky?<br />Not necessarily. Let’s take the pie as an example. The not-in-the-sky-pie is divided up into 1 million pieces, each piece representing one job in a given country. There are 1 million jobs available but 2 million able bodied adults looking for work. Either we have 50% unemployment or we simply divide the pie differently. No longer does each person get an entire piece of the pie, rather they get only half a piece. Immediately we have 0% unemployment. Each person no longer has to work 40 hours a week but only 20 hours. We have more time to take care of our children.<br />Could this work? Could it be integrated into the “Grundeinkommen” proposals being discussed in Germany? Of course we don’t need to be so draconian to call for halving the work week. Unemployment rates in Western countries today hover somewhere between 4 and 8%. By reducing the average work week by 10 to 20% we should easily be able to wipe out unemployment. The German auto manufacturer VW installed the 4 day work week a few years ago in order to avoid layoffs. That equals a 20% percent reduction in the work force. This model has worked for VW. Why not try it out on a national scale?<br />Admittedly it is a radical and unconventional proposal. Admittedly I have not yet looked into the feasibility of such a move. What would the financial ramifications be? What would the effects be on the general wage scale? Perhaps we could find some answers by looking at the present program by the German government called “Kurzarbeit”.<br />Presently, German companies in financial trouble in which job cuts are being considered can implement “Kurzarbeit” or “shortened working time”. The goal of this federally funded program is to prevent job cuts. Basically employees work about one day a week less and are paid 20% less wages for a predefined period of time. The reduced pay is offset by a government subsidy. In the end an employee works say 20% less, is paid, however, only about 5% less. It’s designed as a way of helping a company get through difficult times without having to fire employees. During the current crisis large companies like Daimler and Siemens have taken advantage of this program. The German government has extended the program into 2010.<br />The logic behind “Kurzarbeit” is that the government will, in the end, save money because fewer people will become unemployed. The government is helping companies rescue threatened jobs and at the same time protected the coffers at the unemployment agencies.<br />So why not extend this program to a general policy where the government subsidizes companies which reduce the work week and thus create more jobs? We would immediately see drastic reductions in unemployment. Working people would, moreover, be much happier, healthier and more productive if they had more free time.<br />Think of all the possibilities for our society if people had more free time. Programs could be set up which encourage people to volunteer their time for community projects, non-profit organizations, local schools, etc.<br />Many aspects of the labor market reforms of the past ten years in Germany contradict the above-proposed policy. Germany has gone through a litany of changes in its social and educational system over the past years designed to increase the the size of the working population. Why would Germany conduct a reform which results in more individuals competing for a limited amount of jobs available? <br />It was, funny enough, the coalition government under Chancellor Schröder with the labor-oriented SPD and environmentalist Green Party that pushed a series of initiatives through the parliament between 1998 and 2005 designed to “modernize” the education system and reign in overspending in social services. The program came to be known as “Agenda 2000” and the reforms of unemployment benefits and social welfare are best known as “Hartz 4”. The center-left coalition passed reforms that conservative governments of the past could only have dreamed of. Social benefits were reduced, conditions for the unemployed were worsened and the financial belt was tightened on higher education.<br />The SPD and Greens were successful with their far-reaching reforms in part because a large enough percentage of the population was convinced that it was necessary in order to make German businesses competitive on the global market. They argued that it was necessary to reduce labor costs in order to halt the flow of jobs to cheaper foreign competitors and to discourage German businesses from closing domestic production facilities. Lower labor costs or lose jobs, that was the mantra of the labor reforms. People fell for the neoliberal myth.<br />Slowly, I think, people are realizing that it didn’t help. German companies continued to move jobs to cheaper labor regions like the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland. While walking through the Hewlett Packard offices in Böblingen, Germany these days, one is hard pressed to find a German computer programmer. The German division of the company almost completely relies on Indian technicians. Domestic manufacturing jobs continue to decline, despite the reforms.<br />Part of the labor market reforms served to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Another aspect tightened the rules for unemployed individuals, forcing them to accept jobs previously seen as unacceptable based on pay, location or qualification. Increasing the age of retirement saves the government millions simply because they don’t have to pay benefits to all those 65 and 66 year olds out there and those folks also pay into the pot for two more years. The other side effect, and the reform’s legitimization, was that there would be more workers available. Tightening up the terms of receiving unemployment also served to get people back on the labor market.<br />The issue I would like to discuss here is that of over production and unemployment. One effect of Schröder’s reforms was to increase the number of people in the labor market. They increased the age of retirement and decreased the number of years in higher education. Why would this be beneficial to Germany? There already is high unemployment. Why would one want to increase the potential number of workers? From a capitalist’s point of view, many would argue, unemployment is necessary. The bargaining power of business is much higher if they can choose between a multitude of desperate job seekers. If there was full employment, the employees would be able to bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. With the sword of Damocles hanging over the worker’s head in an environment of high unemployment, he hardly will feel motivated to demand higher wages.<br />Another issue that recently came up a long walk with a friend was that of overproduction. In our high tech, automated, efficient society way too much is being produced. Though only a wild estimate, I would guess that today’s working population could reduce their work load to 50% and Germany would have no problem producing all the goods and services it needed. How many jobs are involved in producing things that soon end up in the trash? What would happen if we started building cars that lasted 25 instead of 10 years? What would happen if we forbid the production and sales of military products? All those bombs produced in Germany are a senseless waste of time. Why build something that is designed only to destroy itself and other things and people along with it?Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-54250337423636309502009-11-08T14:46:00.000+01:002009-11-08T14:47:11.104+01:00Overproduction and UnemploymentI’ve often asked myself why a modern industrial country is not able to get rid of unemployment. A terribly naive question some might proclaim. There just aren’t enough jobs out there to employ the population. That may well be true. In tough times cutbacks are necessary. Sales go down, layoffs are the result. You don’t need to be an economist to understand that. Even the government can’t create enough jobs to keep the masses employed. The tax base isn’t there. So full employment is pie in the sky?<br />Not necessarily. Let’s take the pie as an example. The not-in-the-sky-pie is divided up into 1 million pieces, each piece representing one job in a given country. There are 1 million jobs available but 2 million able bodied adults looking for work. Either we have 50% unemployment or we simply divide the pie differently. No longer does each person get an entire piece of the pie, rather they get only half a piece. Immediately we have 0% unemployment. Each person no longer has to work 40 hours a week but only 20 hours. We have more time to take care of our children.<br />Could this work? Could it be integrated into the “Grundeinkommen” proposals being discussed in Germany? Of course we don’t need to be so draconian to call for halving the work week. Unemployment rates in Western countries today hover somewhere between 4 and 8%. By reducing the average work week by 10 to 20% we should easily be able to wipe out unemployment. The German auto manufacturer VW installed the 4 day work week a few years ago in order to avoid layoffs. That equals a 20% percent reduction in the work force. This model has worked for VW. Why not try it out on a national scale?<br />Admittedly it is a radical and unconventional proposal. Admittedly I have not yet looked into the feasibility of such a move. What would the financial ramifications be? What would the effects be on the general wage scale? Perhaps we could find some answers by looking at the present program by the German government called “Kurzarbeit”.<br />Presently, German companies in financial trouble in which job cuts are being considered can implement “Kurzarbeit” or “shortened working time”. The goal of this federally funded program is to prevent job cuts. Basically employees work about one day a week less and are paid 20% less wages for a predefined period of time. The reduced pay is offset by a government subsidy. In the end an employee works say 20% less, is paid, however, only about 5% less. It’s designed as a way of helping a company get through difficult times without having to fire employees. During the current crisis large companies like Daimler and Siemens have taken advantage of this program. The German government has extended the program into 2010.<br />The logic behind “Kurzarbeit” is that the government will, in the end, save money because fewer people will become unemployed. The government is helping companies rescue threatened jobs and at the same time protected the coffers at the unemployment agencies.<br />So why not extend this program to a general policy where the government subsidizes companies which reduce the work week and thus create more jobs? We would immediately see drastic reductions in unemployment. Working people would, moreover, be much happier, healthier and more productive if they had more free time.<br />Think of all the possibilities for our society if people had more free time. Programs could be set up which encourage people to volunteer their time for community projects, non-profit organizations, local schools, etc.<br />Many aspects of the labor market reforms of the past ten years in Germany contradict the above-proposed policy. Germany has gone through a litany of changes in its social and educational system over the past years designed to increase the the size of the working population. Why would Germany conduct a reform which results in more individuals competing for a limited amount of jobs available? <br />It was, funny enough, the coalition government under Chancellor Schröder with the labor-oriented SPD and environmentalist Green Party that pushed a series of initiatives through the parliament between 1998 and 2005 designed to “modernize” the education system and reign in overspending in social services. The program came to be known as “Agenda 2000” and the reforms of unemployment benefits and social welfare are best known as “Hartz 4”. The center-left coalition passed reforms that conservative governments of the past could only have dreamed of. Social benefits were reduced, conditions for the unemployed were worsened and the financial belt was tightened on higher education.<br />The SPD and Greens were successful with their far-reaching reforms in part because a large enough percentage of the population was convinced that it was necessary in order to make German businesses competitive on the global market. They argued that it was necessary to reduce labor costs in order to halt the flow of jobs to cheaper foreign competitors and to discourage German businesses from closing domestic production facilities. Lower labor costs or lose jobs, that was the mantra of the labor reforms. People fell for the neoliberal myth.<br />Slowly, I think, people are realizing that it didn’t help. German companies continued to move jobs to cheaper labor regions like the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland. While walking through the Hewlett Packard offices in Böblingen, Germany these days, one is hard pressed to find a German computer programmer. The German division of the company almost completely relies on Indian technicians. Domestic manufacturing jobs continue to decline, despite the reforms.<br />Part of the labor market reforms served to increase the age of retirement from 65 to 67. Another aspect tightened the rules for unemployed individuals, forcing them to accept jobs previously seen as unacceptable based on pay, location or qualification. Increasing the age of retirement saves the government millions simply because they don’t have to pay benefits to all those 65 and 66 year olds out there and those folks also pay into the pot for two more years. The other side effect, and the reform’s legitimization, was that there would be more workers available. Tightening up the terms of receiving unemployment also served to get people back on the labor market.<br />The issue I would like to discuss here is that of over production and unemployment. One effect of Schröder’s reforms was to increase the number of people in the labor market. They increased the age of retirement and decreased the number of years in higher education. Why would this be beneficial to Germany? There already is high unemployment. Why would one want to increase the potential number of workers? From a capitalist’s point of view, many would argue, unemployment is necessary. The bargaining power of business is much higher if they can choose between a multitude of desperate job seekers. If there was full employment, the employees would be able to bargain for higher wages and better working conditions. With the sword of Damocles hanging over the worker’s head in an environment of high unemployment, he hardly will feel motivated to demand higher wages.<br />Another issue that recently came up a long walk with a friend was that of overproduction. In our high tech, automated, efficient society way too much is being produced. Though only a wild estimate, I would guess that today’s working population could reduce their work load to 50% and Germany would have no problem producing all the goods and services it needed. How many jobs are involved in producing things that soon end up in the trash? What would happen if we started building cars that lasted 25 instead of 10 years? What would happen if we forbid the production and sales of military products? All those bombs produced in Germany are a senseless waste of time. Why build something that is designed only to destroy itself and other things and people along with it?Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-67255965511641264992009-11-08T14:21:00.000+01:002009-11-08T14:24:11.658+01:00The Costs of EmpireOn August 30th, 2009 Bob McChesney from Media Matters interviewed Christoph Hedges, author of Empire of Illusion. The topic was empire, the US empire in particular. I wanted to sum up the interview a bit.<br />Hedges argues that a central facit of the US Empire is the increasingly powerful oligarchy within the country. The effects of oligarchical rule are not part of the public discourse. The costs of maintaining an oligarchy are tremendous. One key aspect of this is the situation on the labor market.<br />The ruling elite continually strive to keep labor costs down. US jobs lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA are now moving to China. Mexican workers earning 90 cents an hour are being replaced my Chinese prison labor earning 10 cents an hour<br />“Jobless Recovery” is a term being thrown around these days. It’s a recovery for Wall Street, nor for workers.<br />Unemployment in the US is running around 20%. The official figure is about 10% but the true numbers of unemployed are hidden. Reagan removed 1.5 million from unemployment statistics by defining military personel as employed. Clinton took off 5 million by creating service jobs which are under the poverty line and by removing people who have given up looking for work.<br />A rapacious oligarchy controls society. The top 1% of the population controls more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. That’s a short sentence that says a hell of a lot. Reading it one might say “wow, that’s bad” or just skim over it as just another doomsday statement. Assuming it’s true, however, serves us basically with the definition of oligarchic rule. If it’s true it also means that democracy is impossible in the US. How in the world could we have political democracy if we live in a system where a tiny majority economically controls 90% of the country?<br />We have allowed these people to hijack our country in the name of corporations who have no national loyalty.<br />Being competitive in labor today means that American workers have to be competitive with prison labor in China, those are the folks being paid 20 cents an hour.<br />The squandering of American labor to sustain the financial oligarchy and investment houses has a tremendous cost to the country. One part of this is that there will not be the resources to assist the growing class of disenfranchised. The percentage of the disenfranchised population is increasing. These people are not able to fulfill their roles in a healthy society. They are not able to pay taxes, partake in the labor force, general maintain a functioning society. By transferring jobs outside of the country the backbone of society, ie. the workers, is degenerating. What happens when the spine begins to degenerate? You get a slipped disc and that hurts and is debilitating. What happens if you either the health care system is so screwed up that you can’t get an operation? You remain unemployed and are a burdon on society. A society can only take so of a load before it collapses.<br />We are destroying the American labor force through high levels of unemployment, poverty working conditions, and the exporting of jobs. This is all done to maintain and strengthen the oligarchy.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-16142172482658895332009-09-14T22:25:00.003+02:002009-09-14T22:31:03.590+02:00Just Ramblin' On<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyz3L_t5E7CaoF1Fey5IwdaQDGOqIHuPDRo88CfLavYi1kISDKBvukfEvvFGpdPVtLzKM3VCsTGBjK8vF3MS0ewInLb1j9mwkhwK7XAna_vUtOTu2ioOspcylnjG29_kohXkmDdktCS90/s1600-h/P1070621_2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyz3L_t5E7CaoF1Fey5IwdaQDGOqIHuPDRo88CfLavYi1kISDKBvukfEvvFGpdPVtLzKM3VCsTGBjK8vF3MS0ewInLb1j9mwkhwK7XAna_vUtOTu2ioOspcylnjG29_kohXkmDdktCS90/s400/P1070621_2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5381423125856068978" border="0" /></a><br />It’s pretty late now and probably a bad time to write something. That’s life, though. The days go by so quickly, I hardly manage to get the most important stuff done, get distracted by stuff like emails and Facebook posts, and then I don’t get around to doing what I had planned. So it’s almost 10 pm and I went through all the steps of distraction and now am doing what I had planned to do. Writing.<br />Before I get to the actual task of writing I would like to dwell on this issue of distractions for a bit. What are my favorite distractions: my MacBook, that’s a big one. Not only is the actual box distractive because it simply looks so elegant. It’s all those pictures and words that keep appearing on the screen when I keep clicking on those colorful buttons all over the place. Email, news, iPhoto, Flex programming, you name it. On my last vacation in France for two weeks I didn’t have access to a computer and, amazingly enough, I survived.<br />Other big distractions include the refrigerator, the cupboard with chips and chocolate or the television. I guess a distraction is a distraction when it’s something I didn’t plan to do, keeps me from doing what I had wanted to do (or should have done) and is generally not particularly healthy. If the assumed distraction is healthy then, perhaps, it’s not a distraction at all. What if the distraction actually makes me happy? Can that be considered a distraction?<br />These are all very complicated and deeply philosophical questions. This span of this article will not allow for a comprehensive look at the phenomenon of distraction. I must say, though, that simply writing these few sentences have helped me discover yet another form of distraction. Writing. Yes writing about distractions is seriously distracting me from what I had planned to write about. More than that. It has even served to make me forget what I wanted to write about.<br />Think. Think.<br />Yes, that was it, I had wanted to write about the global repercussions of thirty years of disaster capitalism on the life of the average American. No wonder I let myself so easily be distracted.<br />Hm, the clock is ticking and it’s approaching 10pm. My eye lids are getting heavy. The dark red Italian wine is taking its toll and the warmth of my bed is lulling me in.<br />So, back to the main topic - capitalism. Yes, capitalism sucks. Well, to more precise, “free-market”, laissez-faire, neoliberal, deregulated, friedmanian capitalism is a real pain in the ass. And no, I did not just start thinking about that after watching Michael Moore’s new movie. I haven’t even seen his new movie. I haven’t even seen his not so new movie before this one - you know about the health industry. I’ve been questioning the virtue of capitalism for a while longer. I think the first time was when I was about 7 and my Dad was telling me about his rich father. I don’t think my Dad liked his Dad too much. But anyway, he was saying that he doesn’t believe it takes real brains to get rich. The “real brains” think is paraphrasing. My Dad rather frowned upon such no-nonsense colloquial language. He thought it was important to try to maintain a rather sophisticated level of speech. I don’t mean to say he was stuck up or anything. He just thought it was important to use proper English and to not sound like an idiot.<br />Anyways, he did say that about getting rich. I interpret this statement of his to come from his general criticism of the unequal and unjust accumulation of wealth. How I dealt with those words when I was seven is hard to say. They did stick with me though and, in some way, at some point in my life, made me think twice about capitalism.<br />Capitalism - that’s such a mouth full. I almost feel awkward saying it (I mean writing it). It sounds almost silly saying “I think capitalism is very problematic”. When I say it in German it sounds much better. Perhaps when I say it in English I’m reminded of the total lack of critique in the system I grew up in.<br />Have any of you read Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”. If not, please do. Very recommendable.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-80307448034924738982009-08-17T00:38:00.001+02:002009-08-17T00:40:02.535+02:00Progress and it's Consequences<span style="font-family: verdana;">We humans pride ourselves on progress. We’ve progressed from cavemen to kings, from hunter-gatherers to genetic engineers. We can build rockets that fly to the moon, cars that purr like cats and iPods that sing in our ears. There’s no doubt we’ve come a long way (babe). Though I often question the virtue of progress, I guess I wouldn’t voluntarily go back to the trials and tribulations of life in the Middle Ages.</span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">In school we were taught about all the advances mankind has made over the centuries. We told of the glorious inventions of the industrial age and the huge technological steps made in the early 20th century. Seldom we were, or do we ask how all this progress is possible. If I were to take a wild guess I would say that the vast majority of what we consider progress was only possible because of war, slavery, brutality, oppression and plain old cruelty.</span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">It’s a hypothesis I am not prepared to examine in depth for I’d have to take six months off of work (hey, what a great idea), but it is certainly worthy of a few moments thought. Of course there have been inventions that came through good hard work by individual scientists in their laboratories. As far as I know da Vinci didn’t have a team of slaves doing all his thinking for him. Just think about the role slaves played in history: Egyptian pyramids, railroad to the American West Coast, Roman cities.</span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">What about war? How often has “progress” been used as an excuse the legitimize war? How often have we heard the statement “We have to fight this battle to preserve the American way of life”?</span><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">Taking these ideas into consideration serves only to increase my distaste of the concept of advancement.</span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-53936703586825949652009-04-24T17:58:00.004+02:002009-04-24T18:11:43.534+02:00Confessions of a War Resister - Matthis Chiroux<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Matthis Chiroux and the entire war resistance won a great victory on April 20, 2009. Matthis, who refused deployment on the grounds that, among many other things, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are illegal and violate international law, was </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 16px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">awarded a general discharge for his refusal to activate as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse; line-height: 16px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Matthis stood up to the monster and won. It's a sign of hope in a crazy system.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="http://matthisresists.us/?p=137"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Read Matthis' complete confession here</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. It is rather long but I highly recommend you read the entire article. The honesty is moving and unique.</span></div>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-43252706588682368622009-04-22T17:40:00.004+02:002009-04-22T17:46:45.817+02:00System critique and social movementsIn the interview published in the German “taz” newspaper on April 18th, 2009 with Klaus Werner-Lobo, specific topics about strategies for social movements were addressed. Werner-Lobo argues that it is not enough for individuals to express their political will through conscientious shopping. Compared with the power of the political elite the potential of environmentally- and socially-friendly consumption is very limited. I’ve had the feeling for a while now that the environmental movement, for example, has relied much too strongly on encouraging consumers to adjust their shopping behavior. It’s as if we could change the world and stop global warming by buying organic vegetables and driving hybrid cars.<br />Popular movements designed at defeating systemic injustice are the answer. As Werner-Lobo notes, it has always been a minority of well informed and well organized individuals who have managed to create a more just world (e.g. black liberation, women’s movement, worker’s rights). It is vital to identify the injustice in our system and to speak out against it. Education is of the highest priority.<br />Werner-Lobo also addresses the question of why the protests against the financial crisis have been so small. He argues that the public can’t really identify the problem. We have been convinced that we are all in the same boat (with the bankers). To mix up the system would be sawing off the branch we sit on. We need to address the fact that only a few have profited from the excesses of the past 20 years. They have profited at the expense of the majority, not to mention the environment.<br />The following interview with the author Klaus Werner-Lobo was published in the German newspaper “taz” on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 (<a href="http://www.taz.de/1/leben/koepfe/artikel/1/die-elite-missbraucht-das-system/">http://www.taz.de/1/leben/koepfe/artikel/1/die-elite-missbraucht-das-system/</a>)<br /><br />"Die Elite missbraucht das System"<br /><br />Der taz-Kongress ist eröffnet: Teilnehmer, Clown und Kapitalismuskritiker Klaus Werner-Lobo sagt: Ökologisch und sozial shoppen reicht nicht mehr. Wir brauchen eine solidarische Ökonomie.<br /><br />taz: Herr Werner-Lobo, für den Spiegel gehören Sie zu den zehn wichtigsten Menschen, die die Antiglobalisierungsbewegung mit repräsentieren. Schmeichelt Ihnen das?<br /><br />Klaus Werner-Lobo: Das ist ja völlig übertrieben, wenn ich in eine Reihe mit Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein und Michael Moore gestellt werde. Mein Buch war erfolgreich, ja. Aber vor allem bin ich nicht glücklich mit dem Begriff Globalisierungsgegner.<br /><br />Kein gutes Label?<br /><br />Erstens will ich mehr Globalisierung. Wir leben in einer globalisierten Welt, das ist eine Tatsache, da kann man dagegen sein oder dafür, das ist völlig belanglos. Ich will eine Globalisierung von Menschenrechten, von Sozialrechten, von Umweltschutz, überhaupt von Demokratie, von Rechtsstaatlichkeit.<br /><br />Ist das nicht etwas, worin wir uns alle einig sind?<br /><br />Nein. Die Profiteure der neoliberalen Globalisierung verhindern dies mit allen Mitteln. Die Globalisierung, die wir erleben, ist kein Naturereignis, sondern eine von Regierungen und Konzernen vorangetriebene Globalisierung des Kapitalismus.<br /><br />Viele Länder haben von der Globalisierung profitiert, die asiatischen Tigerstaaten beispielsweise, oder?<br /><br />Das kann man nicht so sagen. Die soziale Ungleichheit ist in den meisten dieser Länder ebenfalls gestiegen. Die meisten dieser Länder sind, gemessen an ihren Ressourcen, extrem reich, aber die Profite haben die Eliten eingefahren.<br /><br />Investoren wandern weiter, wenn sie in einem Land Restriktionen unterworfen werden.<br /><br />Das ist genau das, was ja passiert. Konzerne drohen, in ein anderes Land zu gehen, bekommen sie keine guten Bedingungen. China wollte vor zwei Jahren die Sozialstandards erhöhen, die ohnehin kaum existierenden Gewerkschaftsrechte verbessern, worauf Konzernverbände gesagt haben, wenn ihr das tut, dann siedeln wir ab in die Nachbarländer.<br /><br />Liegt das nicht eigentlich in der Verantwortung der Konsumenten in den westlichen Industrieländern?<br /><br />Nein, denn das käme einer Privatisierung von Verantwortung und der Absage an politische Gestaltungsmacht gleich. Verantwortung steigt mit dem Einfluss, und der Einfluss der Konsumenten ist im Vergleich zu den ökonomischen und politischen Eliten extrem gering.<br /><br />Wie trostlos!<br /><br />Ich wills nicht kleinreden, und ich bin selbstverständlich auch dafür, dass man so ökologisch, so regional, so sozialverträglich, so fairtrade wie möglich einkauft, aber wenn wir das pragmatisch betrachten, hat das relativ wenig Potenzial. Eigentlich geht es um den Systemfehler.<br />Anzeige<br /><br />Der wie beschaffen ist?<br /><br />Dass das derzeitige Wirtschaftssystem fast nur den Reichen nutzt. Da nützt es wenig, wenn ich jetzt meinen Kaffee oder mein T-Shirt aus fairer Produktion kaufe. Ich glaube, das Potenzial ökologischen und fairen Handels liegt eher darin, dass man sagt, dass das überhaupt das oberste Wirtschaftsprinzip sein sollte.<br /><br />Das heißt?<br /><br />Man müsste den profitgesteurten Kapitalismus durch ein Fairtradeprinzip, durch solidarische Ökonomie ersetzen.<br /><br />Das mag plausibel sein - aber das schafft doch keiner.<br /><br />Das dachte man auch im Mittelalter, zu Zeiten von Feudalismus, Diktatur und Sklaverei. Es war immer eine gut informierte und gut organisierte Minderheit, die etwas zum Besseren verändert hat. Also wenn wir sagen würden, wir können eh nichts ändern, dann gäbe es heute keine Demokratie, keine Gewerkschaftsrechte, keine Frauenrechte, keinen Umweltschutz, keine Schwulenrechte.<br /><br />Kampf nützt?<br /><br />Natürlich, und es fängt immer mit wenigen an, übrigens auch jetzt erfolgreich. Was die Welthandelsorganisation WTO in den letzten Jahren an Wahnsinnigkeiten geplant hat, davon ist ja das meiste verhindert worden. Denken wir an das multilaterale Investitionsabkommen, das es Konzernen ermöglicht hätte, einzelne Länder anzuklagen, wenn die höhere Sozial- und Umwelweltstandards einführen - das wurde gekippt.<br /><br />Durch wen?<br /><br />Von größtenteils 18- bis 25-Jährigen, die in Organisationen wie Attac oder in Gewerkschaften aktiv sind und sich und andere informiert haben.<br /><br />Wie macht man denn aus dieser Minderheit mal eine Mehrheit?<br /><br />Optimistisch würde ich sagen, dass die Möglichkeiten gewachsen sind, auch durch das Internet. Das Wichtigste ist Bildung. Wobei man sehen muss, dass die kapitalistischen Eliten auch die Bildungssysteme für ihre Zwecke missbrauchen und privatisieren wollen. Gerade in der Krise bräuchten wir riesige Konjunkturprogramme für Bildung, wie Barack Obama sie vorschlägt, aber unsere Regierungen wollen da offenbar nicht recht investieren.<br /><br />Warum fallen die Proteste gegen die Finanzkrise so schwächlich aus?<br /><br />Ein Grund könnte sein, dass die Leute das Gefühl haben, keinen klaren Feind und kein klares Ziel zu haben, weil uns die Banken und die Rentenprivatisierung de facto fast alle zu kleinen Finanzspekulanten gemacht haben.<br /><br />Oder geht es vielen Menschen noch zu gut, als dass sie protestierten?<br /><br />Ich bin mir da nicht sicher. Es gibt das Potenzial einer grundsätzlichen Systemkritik in der Bevölkerung, aber ich glaube, die Leute haben das Gefühl, dass sie ja irgendwie selbst schuld sind an der ganzen Misere. In den letzten 30 Jahren ist es der herrschenden Elite gelungen, den Leuten das Gefühl zu geben, dass alle eigentlich im gleichen Boot säßen. Ignoriert wird nur, dass wenige an dieser Finanzkrise wahnsinnig verdient haben.<br /><br />Können wir heute überhaupt noch mit gutem Gewissen konsumieren?<br /><br />Es geht nicht darum, ob wir ein gutes Gewissen haben - es geht darum, dass wir rational denken. Wir müssen uns gemeinsam an einer Neugestaltung von Demokratie und Gesellschaft beteiligen, und das lösen wir nicht, indem wir Gewissensforschung betreiben.<br /><br />Wie denn?<br /><br />Indem wir überlegen, was im System falsch ist, wenn wir als Gesellschaft die Fluglinien hoch subventionieren und die Umwelt- und die sozialen Kosten externalisieren. Und dann muss ich die politisch Verantwortlichen dafür zur Verantwortung ziehen. Und nicht den kleinen Mann, die kleine Frau, jene, die womöglich Hartz-IV-Empfänger sind und sich endlich mal leisten können, für 29 Euro nach Mallorca zu fliegen.<br /><br />Gelegentlich schlüpfen Sie in ein Clownskostüm. Warum machen Sie das?<br /><br />Humor hat sehr viel subversives Potenzial, er ist das beste Mittel gegen die Angst vor den Mächtigen. Schon im Mittelalter war der Narr der Einzige, der den König kritisieren durfte.<br /><br />Wie verstehen Sie denn als Clown Wahrheit in der Gegenwart?<br /><br />Der Clown ist das Sinnbild der Imperfektion, des Scheiterns, und das ist zutiefst menschlich. Diese Menschlichkeit gilt es der Scheinperfektion der großen Ideologien, der Marken und Shoppingcenter entgegenzustellen. Der Clown ist die Anti-Gewalt.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-7971220170177073062009-04-22T17:30:00.002+02:002009-04-22T17:32:31.291+02:00SerengetiThis blog entry differs strongly from my previous ones. It’s personal, not political. It’s also humorous so you may want to read it even if you didn’t know my father.<br />I came upon this letter recently, more than 10 years after it was written and 9 years after his death. I just had to giggle reading this story. He did have a strange sense of humor and I think mine is not that different.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Email written by my father, Carlos Hagelberg, on Friday, Aug. 1st, 1997 to my brother John</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Serengeti</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> Let us look at the Serengeti Plain. A herd of elephants is being led by the dominant male to water. In that watermelon sized brain rests the wisdom of the ages. He knows every spot of water within a thousand miles. They come upon a dry riverbed and he leads them to a low spot where he digs a hole and down one foot is water. The herd is saved. Now we see storm clouds gathering and a few drops fall on the cracked mud. Presently a flash flood of mud pushing a thicket of debris comes upon them and a lake is formed. The elephants now grown to a hundred play, no, frolic in the muddy water. We see a baby's trunk above the water with mother watching over. The elephants leave and then the big cats, the gazelles, wildebeests, and wart hogs and all arrive in turn. There is no hunting, no fighting, no competition, just drinking. And the last to come is the regal giraffe. He seems to want to avoid wetting his feet. He stands close to the edge and spreads his legs so they and the ground form an equilateral triangle. Even then he must kink his knees a little to get his snout in the water.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> One is struck by the ease with which the elephant can drink and the difficulty facing the giraffe</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> Can something be done? Being an engineer and the consummate problem solver, I have designed a twenty gallon elevated water trough. It stands eight feet, four and three quarters of an inch high and is filled by a small electric pump, powered by a photovoltaic solar panel. At the base of the stand is a small basin which collects the overflow water and is one foot above the ground. It will serve mammals of lesser stance including man. One hundred of these units will be required, strategically placed throughout the plain. They can be manufactured for $489.00 each. I see no way to fund this project but to go to the people. I have therefor created a nonprofit foundation called "Save the Giraffe". I am very dedicated to this project and have decided to volunteer as its director for a fee of one dollar per year. I will supervise the construction, testing, delivery and installation of these units. In addition, I will determine appropriate sites and obtain the necessary permits from the local governmens. Five Land Rovers with a crew of twenty will be required to determine the sites and perform the installations. The entire project will require 18 months and cost $246,000.00. I see no insurmountable problems and the appeal to save the giraffe is undeniable.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> The urgency of this action must be apparent to all, so get out your checkbooks. Make your contributions payable to "Save the Giraffe Foundation" 3129 Via La Selva, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274.</span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-9594383461161974942009-04-14T22:31:00.002+02:002009-04-14T22:34:20.916+02:00Bill Moyers interviews William BlackOn April 3, 2009 Bill Moyers interviewed William K. Black, author and professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Black has been speaking and writing about the banking crisis and asks the question “How did they get away with it?”. As the depth of the banking crisis unfolds people justifiably are asking how could such a thing happen? Why did the media not report on this, why didn’t Congress intervene? Some might say it’s a naive question. Noam Chomsky might say it’s obviously just another piece of the propaganda puzzle. Other’s, like the global NGO attac, might cry out and remind us that they’ve been talking about the dangers of a deregulated financial sector for years. Paul Krugman convincingly argues that the neocons have been scheming for at least 30 years to install the very regulation-free, profit-oriented, anti-social system that we have today.<br />William K. Black has a somewhat different approach. He charges that the banker class is struggling to maintain a coverup. They don’t want the public to know that the banks are insolvent. Obama has also chosen to follow this disingenuous story. According to Black the banker class is scared stiff that if the public found out the truth about the situation of the banks, there would be a run on the banks. Although this may be true, Black says, deposit insurance is sufficient to prevent the system from collapsing.<br />Black goes on to explain that the Obama Administration is in violation of the law regarding bank regulation. After the S&L scandal of the 1980’s the Prompt Corrective Action Law was enacted. This law, which requires the government to take banks with insufficient capitalization into receivership, is simply being ignored by the Obama Administration. The law actually requires the government to shut down many of the banks that have caused so much trouble.<br />One other aspect of Moyer’s interview with Black which I would like to repeat is the idea that the public has to be informed about the present crisis. One hears so often how complicated the banking system is. That’s baloney. You don’t need a masters in economics to realize that the banks are out of control. They are totally deregulated. The consumer is unprotected. The government has to step in and retake it’s role as protectorate of the people.<br />Here you can listen to or read <a href="http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html">Moyer’s interview with William K. Black</a>.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-84301711098523871712009-04-05T23:24:00.002+02:002009-04-05T23:26:59.057+02:00Report from No NATO ProtestsIt was a strange day on the German-French border near Strasburg. I entered the city just a few hours after Barack had shaken hands with Angie and Nicolas on the nearby bridge joining the two countries.. Barack and his 20 some NATO partners walked across the bridge over the Rhine and were greeted by a friendly handshake by the smiling French prime minister, Nicolas Sarkozy. I marched with about 5000 peaceful protestors to the banks of the Rhine and was greeted by a wall of German police. Unlike my compatriot Barack I wasn’t even allowed to step foot on the bridge. No friendly handshakes either. All I got were stone-faced stares from big, green policemen with big, white helmets.<br />It was an eery welcome I received. The bus I was on entered the border town of Kehl around 11 in the morning. The city was like a ghost town. The streets were lined with barricades, police buses were everywhere, small groups of demonstrators began to appear. Even though it was Saturday morning, the stores were all closed, the parking lots empty, the streets occupied only by police cars, police buses and police trucks. It’s a small city with a population of about 30,000 but there wasn’t a soul to be seen. It actually reminded me of the border region (or no-man’s land) between East and West Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall.<br />Our march of about 10,000 peaceniks made it to the Rhine bridge but not one centimeter further. The police blocked our entrance to the bridge and after seeing the dark smoke rising from the French side of the bridge I was certain they were not going to let us cross. As I’ve heard on the news there were violent riots in Strassburg, culminating in a hotel being set on fire. The German news only picked up on the violent protestors. I thinks this is again a lesson to the peace movement that we should not pay attention to how the news media reports on our events. We have to continue the struggle, unite and mobilize.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-22126192397905623902009-04-05T22:59:00.004+02:002009-04-05T23:02:51.423+02:00American Peace Activists in TübingenOn April 1st, 2009 Joseph Gerson and Matthis Chiroux visited Tübingen and spoke in front of an audience of about 40. The following article in the local German paper is a good report on the evening.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Barack Obama ist schließlich nicht Gandhi<br />(3.4.09, Schwäbisches Tagblatt, Tübingen)<br /><br />Zwei Vertreter der amerikanischen Friedensbewegung sprachen in Tübingen über die Militärstrategie der USA<br /><br />Vor ihrem Auftritt beim Protest gegen den Nato-Gipfel am Wochenende erklärten zwei Amerikaner auf Einladung der Linken am Mittwoch in Tübingen ihre Sicht auf die amerikanischen Kriege und die Rolle der Nato.<br /><br />Wir haben die Völker versklavt.“ Matthis Chiroux findet drastische Worte für das amerikanische Vorgehen in Irak und Afghanistan. Der 25-Jährige hat unmittelbare Erfahrung. Er arbeitete fünf Jahre lang in der strategischen Kommunikation des US-Militärs. „Meine Aufgabe war, die Nato als Friedenstruppe zu verkaufen und die Kriege in Irak und Afghanistan als gute Kriege.“<br /><br />Am Mittwochabend war er auf Einladung der Bundestagsabgeordneten Heike Hänsel von der Partei Die Linke zu einem Vortrag im Schlatterhaus gekommen. Ihm zur Seite stand Joseph Gerson, mit 62 Jahren ein in Amerika bekannter Vertreter der Friedensbewegung. Er verzichtete auf so drastische Worte wie Chiroux, sprach aber nicht weniger deutlich.<br /><br />Den Afghanistan-Krieg skizziert er mit wenigen Strichen: Er sei kein Krieg gegen den Terror, den könne Militär gar nicht gewinnen. Es gehe um Rohstoffe und um die alte Strategie, die Ränder des eurasischen Kontinents unter Kontrolle zu bringen. Er beschrieb das komplizierte Machtgefüge, in dem die Taliban nur ein kleines Element seien zwischen Pakistan und Indien.<br /><br />Aus Gersons Sicht wird der nächste Schritt der amerikanischen Regierung sein, in Afghanistan eine neue Regierung aus den Kriegsfürsten, den „War-Lords“, der Region zu bilden. Mit den mehr als 20 000 zusätzlichen Soldaten, die Präsident Obama nun schickt, solle Zeit für diese Umbildung gewonnen werden. Das in Deutschland dominierende Ideal-Bild von Obama teilt Gerson nicht. „Wir haben nicht Martin Luther King gewählt oder Mahatma Gandhi, sondern einen Politiker.“<br /><br />Als Politiker müsse Obama den Druck von links und der Friedensbewegung spüren, um nicht viel zu viel von der Vorgehensweise seines Amtsvorgängers zu übernehmen. Für Gerson ist es zentral, die Konflikte um Rohstoffe zu entschärfen. Um weitere Kriege zu verhindern, dürfe der Wettbewerb um Rohstoffe mit Russland, China und Indien nicht an Schärfe zunehmen.<br /><br />Sein junger Gegenpart Chiroux, mit dem er zusammen auch bei den Veranstaltungen gegen den Nato-Gipfel am Wochenende teilnehmen wird, schätzt den zentralen Antrieb der kriegerischen Interventionen anders ein. Für ihn sind die Kriege rassistische Kriege. Ihm geht das Wort „Sandnigger“ (Sandneger) nicht aus dem Kopf, das er immer wieder als Bezeichnung für Moslems gehört hat. „Nur weil wir einen schwarzen Präsidenten gewählt haben, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass wir keinen rassistischen Krieg führen können.“ Und später: „Erst wenn wir einen Moslem als normalen Menschen akzeptieren und nicht als Terroristen, hat die friedliche Entwicklung eine Chance.“<br /><br />Aus eigener Anschauung weiß er auch, dass die verbreitete Vorstellung, Militär könnte „nation building“ betreiben, also einen Staat aufbauen, falsch sei. Zunächst gehe es einfach um Besatzung. Dann gelte: „Militär baut keine Staaten auf, es zerstört Staaten, notfalls im direkten Nahkampf.“<br /><br />Für die Rolle der Nato fand Chiroux ein Bild aus der Computer-Technik. Amerikanische Militärs nutzten die Nato-Verbündeten genauso wie andere Alliierte für einen „Plug-and-Play-Imperialismus“. Um weltweit die amerikanischen Interessen vertreten zu können, würden die einzelnen Staaten nach Belieben in die Militärstrategie eingebaut.</span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-32792893731126955762009-04-03T10:20:00.006+02:002009-04-04T00:06:08.922+02:00War Resistor André Shepherd in TübingenOn Saturday, March 28th, the local theater house in Tübingen, Germany hosted an evening with the war resistor André Shepherd. The play “My Brother Tom” from the director Bettina Erasmy was performed. The piece depicts two sisters in a reality TV show and their brother suffering the trials of war. A central message of the play was the maddening effects war has on the soldiers and their families. The brother Tom was missing in action and the two sisters entered a reality TV show competition, in order to win the prize of being allowed to join the war and search for their brother. A totally absurd concept which, however, demonstrates how war can make people do stupid and crazy things.<br />After the play the director, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Shepherd">André Shepherd</a>, <a href="http://www.culture-of-peace.org/english/">Henning Zierock from Culture of Peace</a>, some of the actors and I (from the <a href="http://www.tpa-active.com">Tübingen Progressive Americans</a> conducted a panel discussion. About half of the 150 visitors remained for the discussion. André spoke of his decision for deserting from the US Army and how he came to apply for asylum in Germany. There was a lot of interest and support for his case and we discussed just what could be done to assist people who reject war.Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1175828559373676009.post-29422632942878264692009-04-03T09:59:00.005+02:002009-04-03T10:07:11.607+02:00Protesting and the Green New DealJohann Hari made a great statement in his article “Why we need the protests” in The Independant on April 3, 2009 about the G20 and No Nato protests. He argues that the current economic and environmental crises make it totally necessary for the people to go to the streets. Only with strong pressure from the people and a powerful social movement will the governments be persuaded to take action.<br />A Green New Deal is exactly what the world needs right now. From a Keynesian point of view governments need to pump borrowed money into the economy to get it going again. After the economy is healthy again the money needs to be payed back. A Green New Deal would jump start the economy and at the same time help avert the global climate crisis.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Why we need the protests</span><br />Johann Hari: The protesters are the ones we should listen to at this summit<br />The way out of the credit and the climate crunch is the same - a Green New Deal<br />Friday, 3 April 2009<br />When this hinge-point in human history is remembered, there will be far more sympathy for the people who took to the streets and rioted than for the people who stayed silently in their homes. Two global crises have collided, and we have a chance here, now, to solve them both with one mighty heave – but our leaders are letting this opportunity for greatness leach away. The protesters here in London were trying to sound an alarm now, at five minutes to ecological midnight.<br />Many commentators seemed bemused that the protesters focused on the climate crunch as much as the credit crunch. What's it got to do with a G20 meeting on reviving the global economy? Why wave banners saying 'Nature Doesn't Do Bail-Outs' today? Because both crises have their roots in the same ideology – and both have the same solution.<br />We are facing a collapsed economy and a rapidly warming world because an extreme ideology has dominated world affairs for decades. It is the belief that markets aren't just a useful tool in certain circumstances; they are an infallible mechanism for running human affairs. If the economy ebbs, the market will put itself right by punishing wrong-doers. If the climate begins to unravel, business will rectify its own behaviour voluntarily. Now we know how well this market fundamentalism works.<br />...<br />Read the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-protesters-are-the-ones-we-should-listen-to-at-this-summit-1661047.html">complete article from Johann Hari</a>.<br />j.hari@independent.co.uk</span>Mugzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17962013650269140009noreply@blogger.com0