Mediaboss Marketing

Whenever anyone proposes a policy that would benefit ordinary Americans, we are met with the repetitive chorus of How are we going to pay for it?

Medicare for All? Green New Deal? Universal housing? Universal childcare and preschool? Universal food? Tuition-free higher education? Student and medical debt cancellation? A jobs Guarantee? A living wage? Paid parental leave? Paid sick leave? Expanded Social Security? Universal Basic Income? High-speed rail? Free public transportation? National free wi-fi?

How are we going to pay for it? It is often asserted more as an aggressive statement to shut down the idea, than as a genuine question seeking information, even though many of these policies have been enacted elsewhere. The question seems to be a fear-based, greed-based ideological hammer.

During the economic downturn and expected global recession coming with the COVID-19 pandemic, the US government and Federal Reserve Bank are considering, or already implementing: slashing interest rates; lower tax rates; tax deferrals; bank, airline, cruise, and other corporate bailouts; huge loans; equity stakes; dramatically increased financial liquidity; direct payments to Americans; forcing companies to produce certain items under the Defense Production Act; tapping the Strategic National Stockpile; activating the National Guard; a 60-day pause on foreclosures and evictions; prohibiting substantial price hikes; free testing for the coronavirus; and so on. Trillions of dollars will be spent. We also see federal, state, and local governments ordering the shutting down of travel, many businesses, schools, parks, and most other non-essential activities and events to slow the spread of COVID-19, while rolling back regulations on corporations.

Interestingly, no one is defending, let alone praising, the so-called free market, no one is championing libertarian laissez-faire ideas, no one is demanding small government, no one is attacking public health and social welfare programs, and, to be sure, no one is asking how we will pay for it. Instead, massive government involvement and intervention in the economy is steamrolling ahead at a remarkably quick pace and, seemingly, everyone wants a piece of the action.

American ideology regarding the free market, being self-made, self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and individualism has largely been mythology and hypocrisy. Crises tend to make that abundantly clear. And, for what it is worth, Horatio Alger, the original rags-to-riches success story, was fictional.

Even without a crisis, the question How are we going to pay for it? is typically unasked when it comes to the bloated military budget and the military-industrial complex, American imperialist wars, the drone program, the CIA, NSA, ICE, prisons and detention centers, both public and private, and other aspects of the coercive apparatus of the state. We also do not ask How are we going to pay for it? when it comes to the billions of corporate welfare dollars and other forms of wealthfare the US regularly doles out to the affluent. Likewise when the Republicans cut taxes on the wealthy, when Trump runs trillion dollar budget deficits, or when the Republicans balloon our national debt to over $23 trillion or about $70,000 in debt foreachAmerican.

It has never been about whether the US could afford a progressive program; it has always been about whether the elite wanted to or were forced to fund it. It is an issue of political will, apparently, not economic means.

And these are just the financial costs. How do we pay for what has been lost, what has been squandered, what has been ruined beyond repair, who and what has gone extinct that we will never recover? How do we pay for the unnecessary suffering, the shortened and lost lives, the productivity and creativity squandered, the shattered dreams, the tears shed? How do we pay for what could have been, but never was nor will be?

If there is one thing history teaches us, Naomi Klein, author ofThe Shock Doctrinereminds us, its that moments of shock are profoundly volatile. We either lose a whole lot of ground, get fleeced by elites, and pay the price for decades, or we win progressive victories that seemed impossible just a few weeks earlier. Which path will we choose now?

In the meantime, socialism for the rich remains normalized, while socialism for the majority remains demonized. But heres the thing: we will either have democratic socialism or we will continue to socialize suffering. If we do not choose wisely, we will surely pay for it.

then let us make a small request. AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

More here:
We will either have democratic socialism or we will continue to socialize suffering - AlterNet

As the race for the democratic nomination progresses, candidates former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) continue to go head-to-head to make a lasting impression on the American public.

As of the last democratic primary on March 17, Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, had a total of 914 delegates compared to Bidens 1,217. Biden has had a recent resurgence of popularity and with the mathematical data considered, a win appears inevitable because he has secured more than half the delegates needed for the nomination.

Although this reality leaves Sanders in the dust scrambling for any remaining delegates, it begs the question of how socialism would function if it was implemented in the United States.

Americans have become increasingly divided on the idea of socialism and whether or not it would be a beneficial system to implement in the country.

As of last year, according to Gallup, a striking 43% of U.S. adults support socialism, a statistic that has drastically risen from a 1942 Roper/Fortune survey which showed only 25% siding with socialistic views at the time.

Although these numbers have spiked upward, Americans have failed to realize the true implications that a country based on a socialist system brings.

Sanders has voiced overwhelming support of the Nordic Model, a system that uses both social welfare and economic methods and is employed by Scandinavian countries. The Nordic Model still interworks some aspects of capitalism, but it's true economic efficiency is called into question when examined closer.

Sweden, for example, achieved peak economic success when the country was boosted by a capitalist economy and was one of the richest countries in the world between 1870 and 1950 as a result.

These numbers have now plummeted since the 1960s, when Sweden began to redistribute wealth through major taxation. In Sweden, the income tax rate is an astounding 57.2%, while the United States sits at an income tax rate of a mere 37%, according to tradingecomonics.com. And it is not just the infamous 1% that have to pay these taxes in the Nordic countries.

In the wise words of Margret Thatcher, former British prime minister, The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Transforming the economy in the U.S. would be no simple task not just economically, but also culturally.

American culture is characterized by the freedom of choice and individualism; however, the very nature of socialism is based on conformity and common cause.

As Americans, we pride ourselves on personal achievement. If the government were to step in and guarantee consistent support, the incentive to be diligent would be eradicated. A modern example of socialism at its worst is found in Venezuela, where the inflation rate was 19,906 % in 2019. Medicine and water are scarce, and hunger and crime are rampant.

So, the rallying cry of millennials who impatiently chant feel the Bern should have to wait a little longer for housing for all, Medicare for all and college for all in the U.S.

Read more from the original source:
Take five minutes: Rethinking Socialism before the 2020 election - The Slate Online

By Oscar Grenfell 9 April 2020

At an online lecture organised by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality last Tuesday, leading WSWS writer Nick Beams exposed the bankrupt politics of Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left, documenting their role in seeking to subordinate the working class to the capitalist political establishment amid growing social opposition.

The event was the third in a series of online lectures delivered by Beams under the title Capitalisms war on society: Why you need to fight for socialism. The speaker stressed that the differentiation from the pseudo-left was not separate from the struggle for socialism, but was at the cutting edge of defining the independent interests and tasks of the working class.

The lecture was well-received by an audience of over 190 people. Participants included workers, students and young people from most Australian states and territories, along with international attendees from Sri Lanka, New Zealand, the Philippines and a number of other countries.

A video of the lecture by Beams

Beams began by explaining that the coronavirus pandemic had triggered the greatest crisis of the capitalist system seen in our lifetimes, opening up a period of political radicalisation and socialist revolution.

The decisive question, the speaker said, was arming the emerging movement of the international working class with the lessons of history and the socialist and internationalist program of the Trotskyist movement developed in a struggle against all forms of national-opportunism.

Beams explained that the key issue is this: the working class cannot overthrow the bourgeoisie if it remains politically and ideologically subordinated to it. This required a political offensive against all those tendencies that sought to prevent the working class from striking out on an independent path, including the pseudo-left.

This had been demonstrated by the experience of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The fight waged by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks and other tendencies that supported the liberal Russian bourgeoisie played the decisive role in politically preparing the conquest of power by the working class.

The coming to office in Greece of Syriza, the Coalition of the Radical Left, in 2015 was a confirmation of the same truth in the negative. Syriza won elections by appealing to mass hostility to the austerity measures that had led to the collapse in support for PASOK, the countrys social democratic party.

Syriza immediately formed a coalition government with the Independent Greeks, an extreme right-wing nationalist formation. Within six weeks, it was imposing sweeping cuts to social services.

Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left internationally had hailed Syriza as a model to be emulated. In May, 2015, Beams stated, Socialist Alternative had declared that Syriza cannot be transformed into an austerity party, even as it was clear that the organisation was committed to carrying out the demands of European finance capital.

Syrizas betrayal, and Socialist Alternatives support for it, were a product of the class character of both organisations, Beams explained.

This was also evident in Socialist Alternatives support for US regime-change operations, including the CIA-instigated civil war in Syria. Leading Socialist Alternative member Corey Oakley had infamously declared in 2012 that it was necessary to end knee-jerk anti-imperialism, i.e., to dispense with opposition to the predatory wars waged by the major powers.

Hand in hand with its pro-imperialist standpoint, Socialist Alternative had refused to defend Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who is currently imprisoned in Britain and faces extradition to the US, where he would be jailed for life for exposing American war crimes.

In 2012, Socialist Alternative had lent succor to the attempts to frame Assange on bogus allegations of sexual misconduct. The organisation declared that he should go to Sweden, where the allegations were concocted, to answer the charges. It is now clear that the warnings of WikiLeaks and the WSWS that the attempt to extradite Assange to Sweden was a pretext to carry out his forced rendition to the US were entirely accurate. For years afterwards, the organisation had not mentioned the WikiLeaks founder.

Only last year, following his illegal expulsion from the Ecuadorian Embassy and arrest by British police, did Socialist Alternative publish a handful of articles condemning the attempt to railroad Assange to a US prison. However, the organisation did not repudiate its previous attack on him and boycotted all events held in his defence.

Beams explained that these positions were inextricably tied to Socialist Alternatives attempts to subordinate the working class to Labor, a party of big business, and the unions, which have suppressed every major social and industrial struggle of the past four decades.

Pointing to the relevance of these issues in the present coronavirus crisis, Beams noted that Socialist Alternative had enthusiastically welcomed the installation of Sally McManus as secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 2017. A year later, Socialist Alternative wrote that McManus ascension had been greeted as a breath of fresh air by many unionists, declaring that she had struck a defiant tone in contrast to her grey predecessors.

McManus is currently collaborating with the Liberal-National Coalition government on a daily basis, as it responds to the pandemic by providing billions of dollars to the major corporations that are laying off thousands of workers.

Beams explained: It is necessary to deal not only with the McManuses of the world but even more importantly with tendencies within the pseudo-left that work to prop them up.

He concluded by declaring: The immune system of the working class is developed above all through the theoretical political struggle conducted by the revolutionary party, basing itself on the great strategic lessons of struggle for socialism going back more than a century.

There is only one party which conducts such a struggle, the SEP and the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). I urge that you apply to join it tonight.

The lecture prompted a series of questions. One attendee asked the SEP to elaborate on its role in the events surrounding the coming to power of Syriza in Greece.

Beams explained that the WSWS and the ICFI had been alone in warning that Syriza would inevitably betray the working class, as a result of its history as an unprincipled amalgamation of various Stalinist and reformist tendencies, and its pro-capitalist program.

Others noted that Socialist Alternative occasionally criticises union officials. Did this, some asked, invalidate Beams analysis. In reply, he said that the pseudo-left organisations would sometimes condemn the actions of particular union bureaucrats. But they insisted that workers had to remain trapped within these thoroughly corporatised organisations.

All of them rejected the position of the ICFI, which was that the globalisation of production had rendered the nationalist and reformist program of the unions completely bankrupt. The unions had been transformed into open instruments of big business, necessitating the creation of genuine organisations of struggle, including independent rank and file committees.

Some participants asked why it was that Socialist Alternative played the role that it did. Beams said that like other pseudo-left organisations, they were descended from groups that had broken from the Fourth International amid the post-World War Two boom of global capitalism, rejecting its insistence on the revolutionary role of the working class.

The pseudo-left, Beams stated, spoke for affluent sections of the upper middle-class in academia, the public sector and the union officialdom, whose wealth had increased as a result of soaring share values. They had a material stake in defending the status quo by preventing the working class from turning to a genuine socialist perspective, and sought to advance their own interests through various forms of identity politics based on gender, race and sexual orientation.

Throughout the meeting, a small group of individuals, clearly opposed to Beams exposure of Socialist Alternative, sought to disrupt the event, playing music while he was speaking and shouting incoherently. The unsuccessful attempt to block the discussion underscored the pseudo-lefts concern over the growing support won by the SEP, and its inability to respond with substantive political arguments.

Next Tuesdays lecture will be on the role of identity politics. The fifth meeting will feature an interview and discussion with SEP (US) Presidential candidate Joseph Kishore. The details will be posted on the WSWS and on social media over the coming days.

Featured statements on the coronavirus pandemic

Donate today.

';var pos = Math.floor($('#content > p').length / 2);$('#content > p').slice(pos,pos+1).before(html); };

Follow this link:
At IYSSE (Australia) online lecture, Nick Beams exposes Socialist Alternative and the pseudo-left - World Socialist Web Site

Lawrence W. Reed, a resident of Newnan, is president emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education. He writes about exceptional people, including many from his book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction. He can be reached at lreed@fee.org.

A socialist regime in China covers up a virus outbreak in its early weeks, lying about the nature and spread of the pathogen and jailing health professionals who try to warn the world.

In response to the virus once it gets here, the government shuts down the economy. Socialists then blame capitalism!

Thats the ridiculous response were hearing from state worshipers. They are using the crisis to stuff laws with pet projects and unrelated spending and expand the size of the state permanently.

One magazine writer even claimed that the pandemic proves the need to socialize health care and take over utilities. Illness in the land? Seize the power companies! Make doctors and nurses state employees!

This is not only stupid, illogical, opportunistic and exploitative, its just plain wrong morally and economically.

Bernie Sanders claims that the pandemic is proof we have too many competing insurance companies. Replace them, he says, with just one big politicized one in Washington. He admits he neither knows nor cares how many trillions of dollars that might cost. Thats precisely the attitude my rat terriers take regarding their vet bills.

Capitalism cant handle crisis, claimed a local person in this paper. As evidence, he cited the Great Depression and the Great Recession.

But the Great Depression was caused by easy money and cheap interest rates from the Fed, which produced a bubble that burst in 1929 when the Fed jacked rates back up.

President Hoover, whom the writer claimed was for limited government, choked off trade with record-high tariffs and then doubled the income tax. FDR prolonged the Depression by at least six years, a claim borne out by the words of his own Treasury Secretary in 1939. You can read all about it here: https://tinyurl.com/uqo43mh.

And the Great Recession was caused by another bout of easy money from the Fed and government policy of jawboning banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldnt pay them back.

No doubt that extraordinary moments require extraordinary responses, even from the government. Some temporary measures to combat an invasive virus is a matter of national defense, the most legitimate purpose of government and the one that socialists are usually the most reluctant to support.

If the pandemic truly argues for a short-term boost in government spending, lets remember that near-record, bipartisan peacetime deficits in a booming economy (mostly for stuff socialists favor and demand more of) put us in a terrible financial position to afford it.

The federal government deserves not more power, money and cult-like worship, but the harshest calumny for its hopeless financial mismanagement.

Lets pause and appreciate that its capitalism and the private sectoreven in a crisisthat bails out the government every day of the week. Where would the government be if there wasnt a private sector to pay its taxes and buy its burgeoning debt? How much could it spend if private people and businesses didnt earn it in the first place?

We should be naturally suspicious of any ideology that requires a deadly, worldwide pandemic to make its case superficially viable, if only for the short-term. Dont fall for it.

****

Lawrence W. Reed, a resident of Newnan, is president emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education. He writes about exceptional people, including many from his book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction. He can be reached at lreed@fee.org.

Read more:
Socialism: A virus worse than the one from Wuhan - Newnan Times-Herald

Ironically, just as the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders has suspended his presidential campaign in the United States, many of his policy proposals are becoming necessary around the world.

Social-distancing measures to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic have disrupted production and household income streams alike. But the effectiveness of social distancing could be undermined by workers who lack proper health insurance, adequate sick pay, unemployment compensation, or other forms of income support or savings. These individuals will feel that they have no choice but to keep working, despite the health risks. Universal health insurance looks like the inevitable outcome, even in the US, where Sanders, virtually alone among national politicians, has advocated it for decades.

At the same time, the originalsupply and demand shocks to labor and household consumption, respectively from the COVID-19 crisis are being reinforced by the breakdown of global, national, regional, and local supply chains. And all of these real-economy shocks are causing disruptions in the financial system, too.

Under these conditions, central banks have a critical role to play in preventing disorderly financial markets from adding to the strain felt by non-financial companies and households. At a minimum, central banks must step in toensureample liquidity in key markets, including those for government debt, commercial paper, and key asset-backed securities such as residential and commercial mortgages.

But, equally important, central banks must ensure that liquidity for households and corporations does not dry up because of self-fulfilling, fear-driven withdrawals. Where appropriate, they can providemonetary financingfor fiscal stimulus (helicopter money), so that governments that otherwise might be constrained by sovereign-bond markets do not have their hands tied.

That said, central banks are not the appropriate institutions to address business-revenue shortfalls and the risk of corporate insolvencies, or household-income disruptions and the associated problems in servicing mortgage, consumer, and student debt. True, central banks can carry some of the load temporarily, by purchasing high-yield corporate debt and low-grade commercial paper. But the big job of preventing an economic disaster invariably rests with fiscal authorities.

In the case of the COVID-19 crisis, public funding and mandates are needed to ensure that everyone can get tested expeditiously for the coronavirus. Global cooperation can play an important role here, given the imperfectly synchronized nature of national outbreaks. But, ultimately, all coronavirus-related treatment (including hospitalization) will need to be covered by the state, and only national governments can marshal funding on that scale.

Likewise, the state will also need to provide full compensation for workers who lose income as a result of the crisis. To maintain aggregate demand, governments could introduce a temporary universal basic income, whereby every adult receives a periodic cash transfer for as long as the crisis lasts. Even the US under President Donald Trump has blundered toward this obvious palliative measure, by including in its recent $2.1 trillion rescue package a disbursement of $1,200 for every adult earning less than $75,000 per year.

But even with government-provided income support, companies are still likely to experience dramatic revenue shortfalls, owing to crisis-related disruptions to the labor force, domestic and external demand, and supply chains at all levels. Here, the state could step in as a buyer of last resort, or it could provide credit or credit guarantees to financially distressed companies. Such credit could be converted into equity, either immediately or once the crisis is over, in the form of non-voting preference shares, thereby impeding the slide into a centrally planned economy.

There should be no restrictions on eligibility for the various forms of financial support outlined here. Large corporations are just as likely as small- and medium-size enterprises, the self-employed, or gig workers to be affected by the demand shortfall and supply-chains disruptions. And though they may be able to tide themselves over for a while owing to their superior access to bank lending and debt markets they cannot hold out forever. Given thebuild-upof non-financial corporate debt before the pandemic, we could easily see a wave of corporate defaults and insolvencies in the absence of state intervention.

Banks and non-bank financial intermediaries did not start the crisis this time, but they will inevitably become a part of it and will also become candidates for state rescues and bailouts as the asset side of their balance sheets deteriorates. And command methods familiar from wartime market economies and centrally planned economies think of Trumps invocation of the Defense Production Act to force General Motors and 3M to produce critical supplies could well outlive the crisis.

Finally, the new socialism will also have an international dimension. Italy, for example, will need support from the European Central Bank or the European Stability Mechanism, or else through the issuance of eurozone coronavirus bonds. Among emerging and developing economies, external debt markets are already constraining the ability of many to provide fiscal support. Addressing these limitations with more foreign aid from advanced economies including a targeted increase in the International Monetary Funds Special Drawing Rights would be the morally correct and economically sound response.

As the trajectory of the COVID-19 crisis indicates, capitalist market economies will have to give way, at least temporarily, to an improvised form of socialism aimed at restoring income flows for households and revenue flows for companies. We will then see whether the consequences of this experiment with socialism last well beyond the end of the pandemic.

Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citigroup, is a visiting professor at Columbia University.This content is Project Syndicate, 2020, and is here with permission.

Originally posted here:
Willem Buiter explains why COVID-19 has made comprehensive state intervention in the economy both necessary and urgent - Interest.co.nz