BIDENOMICS: ONLY AN EVOLUTION OF OBAMANOMICS
Meanwhile, they hint at the difference between the vast increase in the wealth of the rich and the experiences of the working class—the economic depression that destroyed tens of millions of jobs and forced millions into poverty, homelessness and hunger—by writing, “The contrast between what has happened to household wealth and what is happening in the wider economy can never have been more stark.”
Biden Admin Tells Struggling Small Businesses To Work More With Amazon
U.S. Commercial Service partners with Big Tech to promote international trade
The federal government is steering small businesses to do more business with Amazon to help them recover from the economic crisis prompted by the pandemic.
The U.S. Commercial Service, a trade promotion agency, is hosting a series of "Go Global" webinars with Amazon in June to teach small businesses to access markets in Singapore and the United Arab Emirates by becoming sellers on the e-commerce behemoth. Some entrepreneurs are crying foul, blaming Amazon as the source of their woes.
Gina Schaefer opened up her first hardware store in Logan Circle, Washington, D.C., in 2003. Alongside her husband, she expanded the business to 13 locally owned hardware stores, employing roughly 300 people in the D.C., Maryland, and Virginia metro areas. She said a retailer like Amazon is the last place to which the federal government should turn to help small businesses.
"The larger Amazon has gotten, the fewer number of independent businesses we have," Schaefer told the Washington Free Beacon. "One by one industries have been picked off by predatory pricing and overlooked government regulations to the point where starting a new business, at least in the retail sector, is nearly impossible."
The agency's webinars with Amazon are designed to get clients for the web giant. The lessons on offer at the June 15 event included helping businesses create Amazon Global Accounts. A follow-up webinar in July will teach entrepreneurs how to not only team up with Amazon but also with U.S. trade authorities.
"We will cover … how to sign up for a [Amazon] Global Seller Account … [and] the role the U.S. Commercial Service plays in providing comprehensive export counseling to support your global business strategy," the event page says. "We'll connect you … to explore free resources and government funding to support your e-Commerce and export-related activities."
In response to Amazon's growing market dominance, small businesses are forming coalitions seeking to leverage anti-trust legislation to ensure that they are not crushed. Schaefer, a member of the Small Business Rising coalition, said the Commercial Service partnership with Amazon will further undermine small businesses as they struggle in the post-lockdown economy to stay independently viable. Like many other small business owners in retail, she supports the idea of Amazon being broken up.
"No one ever envisions that street empty or only populated by a soulless Amazon store. Yet businesses are failing at alarming rates now, in large part to concentrated market power," Schaefer said.
Amazon has maintained close ties with American trade officials over the years. It employed 28 lobbyists working on trade issues in 2020 and 2021 as part of its multimillion-dollar influence operation, according to federal lobbying records. Seven of those lobbyists held high-ranking trade-related positions at the federal government, including at the U.S. Commercial Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, before joining the Silicon Valley giant. Its leadership has also been closely allied to Democrats, with employees contributing more than $2 million to the Biden campaign and 75 percent of its donations going to benefit Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Representatives from the U.S. Commercial Service and Amazon did not respond to requests for comment.
Small business advocates say that the mass closures of mom-and-pop stores during the pandemic require bold steps from lawmakers. Sarah Crozier, of Main Street Alliance, faulted the Biden administration for promoting Amazon rather than cracking down on alleged market manipulations.
"The federal government is critical to help level the playing field for small businesses by improving anti-monopoly protections against giants like Amazon and creating opportunity for small businesses," Crozier said.
Some lawmakers have begun speaking out against Amazon's sway within the administration and on Capitol Hill. Rep. Ralph Norman (R., S.C.) said Amazon has not proven to be a faithful business partner to the third party sellers that populate its website.
"From motor oil to children's clothing, we need to know if the oddly random (and growing) list of Amazon's own products were identified and developed by exploiting sales & product data from its third party sellers. And we need to know why there are countless reports of retaliatory and anti-competitive conduct from Amazon," Norman said. "On multiple fronts, Amazon has given us plenty to be concerned with. Congress needs answers about the rampant reports of harmful and monopolistic behavior from that company."
Credit Suisse report reveals vast increase in global wealth inequality amid pandemic in 2020
The Research Institute of Credit Suisse published its “Global Wealth Report 2021” on Tuesday, showing a substantial worldwide increase in wealth inequality during 2020. The report states, “The repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread rises in wealth inequality in 2020.”
The report admits that this growth in the wealth gap—amid the devastating impact of the public health and economic crisis of 2020—is rooted in the “nature of the policy response” by governments and central banks to the coronavirus pandemic.
Summarizing the impact of these polices, the report states, “Wealth creation in 2020 was largely immune to the challenges facing the world due to the actions taken by governments and central banks to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.”
The report goes on to state that the initial widespread negative impact on GDP and share prices in February and March 2020 was overcome with central bank interest rate reductions and “prompt action” by governments to help financial markets regain confidence and equity markets to reverse their losses by June.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm based in Zurich, which has offices in every major financial center around the world. The organization specializes in “wealth management” services and caters to the needs of the capitalist elite and this, its twelfth annual report, is written to provide strategic advice to its customers.
While the writers and editors do their best not to point directly to the class struggle implications of the data contained in their report, an element of concern is evident about stating too bluntly what has really been going on over the past year.
On the one hand, they state that “the aggregate wealth of those at the top of the wealth pyramid and the resulting rise in the numbers of millionaires and UHNW [ultra-high net worth] individuals ... would be expected to raise wealth inequality.”
Meanwhile, they hint at the difference between the vast increase in the wealth of the rich and the experiences of the working class—the economic depression that destroyed tens of millions of jobs and forced millions into poverty, homelessness and hunger—by writing, “The contrast between what has happened to household wealth and what is happening in the wider economy can never have been more stark.”
Significantly, the report claims that the rise of the stock market and inflation of asset values of the rich “in the second half of 2020 was unforeseen.” The report goes, “These asset price increases have led to major gains in household wealth throughout the world. The net result was that USD 28.7 trillion was added to global household wealth during the year.”
Thus, the Credit Suisse Research Institute reporters do not mention that the central banks have been flooding the financial markets with cash that has funneled enormous sums in one form or another into the “household wealth” of the richest people on the planet. In the US, the Federal Reserve bank has been buying assets at a rate of $120 billion per month.
The report defines net worth or household wealth as “the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts. This corresponds to the balance sheet that a household might draw up, listing the items which are owned, and their net value if sold.”
Among the key statistics reported by Credit Suisse is that the number of millionaires increased worldwide by 5.2 million to a total of 56.1 individuals who possess 45.8 percent of the world’s wealth. With one-third of these new millionaires (1.7 million) residing in the US, 2020 was the first year that more than one percent of the world’s adults were “dollar millionaires.”
A measure of the scale of the increase in economic inequality last year is shown in the statistics presented on the growth in the number and personal assets of what are known as ultra-high net worth individuals (UHNWI), that is individuals with net worth above $50 million. The report says there were 215,030 UHNWIs worldwide in 2020, an increase of 41,410 people, or 23.9 percent, over 2019. More than half of the increase, 21,313 people, were in the US.
Within the UHNWI category are subgroups: 68,010 adults with wealth above $100 million and 5,332 with wealth above $500 million.
Reviewing the bottom wealth quartile, the report states without comment, “We estimate that 2.9 billion individuals—55 percent of all adults in the world—had wealth below USD 10,000 in 2020.”
Analyzing the upper-middle segment, those with wealth between $100,000 to $1 million, the report states this group has “expanded significantly this century, from 208 million to 583 million. They currently own net assets totaling USD 163.9 trillion, or 39.1 percent of global wealth, which is nearly four times their share of the adult population.”
This group plus those in the top quartile, with wealth over $1 million, represent 12.2 percent of the world’s population and they own a staggering 84.9 percent of the world’s total wealth or approximately $355.5 trillion.
The report contains statistics on the distribution of the wealth accumulation of the super-rich in different regions of the world that also highlight the socio-economic inequality within the global capitalist system. For example, while the report hails the worldwide average wealth increase per adult of 6 percent, it glosses over the fact that Africa, India and Latin America experienced a decline in average wealth of -2.1 percent, -6.1 percent and -11.4 percent respectively. The indebtedness of these regions also grew significantly during 2020.
By far the largest wealth accumulation and expansion of wealthy individuals took place in the US. As mentioned above, the US had 39 percent of the world’s new millionaires (1.7 million of the total of 5.2 million) in 2020. There is a class significance to the fact that the US also stands out as the country with the largest death toll from the coronavirus last year. Given that as of December 31, 2020 there were approximately 364,000 coronavirus deaths in the US, this means that for each new millionaire in 2020 there were five people who died of COVID-19 that year.
As unemployment claims surge and mass evictions loom, Louisiana becomes first Democratic-run state to impose early end to federal jobless aid
Last week, Louisiana became the first Democratic-led state to end the $300-a-week federal unemployment supplement, joining 25 Republican-led states that had previously announced the termination of the vital lifeline prior to its September 6 national expiration.
Governor John Bel Edwards did not release a statement after signing HB 183 late Wednesday night, but during the prior week Edwards described the termination of 48,000 jobless Louisianans’ unemployment benefits on July 31 as a reasonable “compromise.” He explained that that he was trying to find a “reasonable balance” between helping the jobless and helping business owners.
Edwards announced that by ending the benefits five weeks early, he had secured an agreement from Republican lawmakers to raise the state’s weekly maximum unemployment benefit by $28, bringing it to $275 a week, beginning in 2022.
Louisiana’s current maximum benefit of $248 a week is one of the lowest in the nation. The $28 increase will still leave jobless workers with next to nothing to survive on, assuming they are able to navigate the state’s broken unemployment system.
This cruel maneuver is driven entirely by the profit interests of the energy, chemical, commercial fishing and agribusiness interests that dominate the state. It is the latest salvo in the bipartisan campaign to eviscerate pandemic-related social programs in order to blackmail workers into accepting low-paying, dangerous work and undermine their increasingly militant demands for wage increases in the face of soaring inflation.
The early termination of the federal unemployment benefit by state governments has been publicly endorsed by the Biden administration, which has affirmed its intention of ending the program nationwide on September 6.
One day after Edwards terminated the jobless benefit in his state, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a sharp and unanticipated surge nationwide in new unemployment claims for the week ending June 12. The DOL reported over 412,000 first-time claims, 37,000 higher than the week prior and nearly twice the pre-pandemic average.
The DOL also reported over 118,000 initial claims through the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) program, driving the combined claims figure to roughly 530,000. The PUA program is being prematurely terminated in over 80 percent of the states that have announced plans to end federal pandemic-related programs early.
In Michigan last week, House lawmakers passed HB 4434, which, as in Louisiana, would prematurely end the federal $300 weekly jobless pay boost. Giving voice to the rapacious demands of Wall Street and big businesses, Republican Representative TC Clements absurdly claimed that eliminating the $300 supplement “doesn’t hurt anybody, it empowers everybody.”
“This is a step that we are taking along with steps this body has taken to get to normal,” he added.
Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, in a statement issued last Wednesday, suggested that the $300 per week federal supplement be used not for those who remain out of work, but instead be turned into an inducement for workers to take jobs under conditions where all pandemic health restrictions and job safety mandates are being lifted even as the more infectious and deadly Delta variant spreads across the US. She suggested the benefit be given through September 4 to those who take a job.
“By deploying this critical federal aid, we can set up our state for success and ensure that Michigan’s families, small businesses and communities emerge stronger than ever from this pandemic,” Whitmer said in her statement.
Later in the week, she announced that she was moving the date to end pandemic social distancing measures forward from July 1 to June 22.
The Biden administration has said nothing about Democratic governors ending federal unemployment payments early. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, in a statement earlier this month, made clear that President Biden would not seek to block Republican governors from ending the payments, telling reporters that the governors “had every right” to end the programs early, i.e., turn down federal funds allocated to provide a measure of relief, however inadequate, for workers devastated by the collapse of employment during the pandemic.
Meanwhile, the White House has not given any indication that Biden will extend the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention eviction moratorium, which is set to expire in less than 10 days, on June 30.
The ending of the moratorium could send millions of people into the streets within a matter of weeks, a recent report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University found. The report estimates that “2.3 million borrowers in forbearance that have yet to resume their mortgage payments” could be affected by the expiration of the moratorium.
Citing census data, the report also concludes that some 6 million households are behind on rent and could be facing eviction at the end of June. The study states further that 4.2 million Americans report it is “very likely or somewhat likely” they will face eviction or foreclosure in the next two months.
Earlier this month, the government reported that the US inflation rate reached a 13-year high of 5 percent in May, while workers have seen their real wages decline by more than 3 percent.
The data contained in the Harvard report confirms that the pandemic has exacerbated the already staggering levels of economic inequality and the social crisis confronting the working class, especially in regards to affordable housing.
Quoting findings from the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index, the study reports that home prices rose by an astonishing 13.2 percent nationally in March of 2021, up from 4.2 percent on average in the first quarter of 2020 and 3.5 percent on average throughout 2019.
The biggest price rises were in Western states, led by Boise, Idaho, which saw a 28 percent jump in home prices. Austin, Texas, and Tacoma, Washington, registered increases of 22–23 percent.
However, increases were observed virtually across the board. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Price Index showed that 85 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas saw double-digit percentage increase in housing prices in the first quarter of 2021.
Soaring consumer prices are eating away at workers’ wages. Citing data from Moody’s Analytics, the Harvard report finds that in 2020, for the fifth year in a row, the median home price was more than four times the median income, jumping from 4.14 in 2019 to 4.37 in 2020.
The report states, “Price ranges in the nation’s 100 largest metros are expected to range as high as 10.9 in San Jose, 9.5 in Honolulu and 9.4 in Los Angeles.”
The report cites a 2019 analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and PolicyMap, which found that “more than a third of all occupied homes in 2017 had structural, plumbing, electrical, heating problems, leaks and/pest infestations.” The total cost of addressing these deficiencies was estimated at $127 billion, or $50 billion less than the $177 billion increase in the wealth of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in 2020.
Prager U Video: Shoplifting Is OUT OF CONTROL in California
True socialism is finally here.
On Prager University's most recent live-stream, hosts Will and Amala react to a man shoplifting at a San Francisco Walgreens while security looks on helplessly. Plus, Jon Stewart surprises Stephen Colbert about the Wuhan leak, and actor Kevin Hart offers his latest thoughts on Cancel Culture. Check out the video below:
Prosecutorial Indiscretion
Progressive district attorneys decline to pursue certain offenses, usurping the legislative role.June 22, 2021Baltimore is not prosecuting shoplifting or drug-possession crimes. Despite recent violent protests and occupations, St. Louis is not pursuing cases for looting and rioting, while Portland isn’t pursuing charges for trespassing. Philadelphia won’t allow prostitution charges. San Francisco is not prosecuting indecent exposure offenses. Chicago declines arrests for thefts of less than $1,000. Did a sudden decision from the Supreme Court invalidate these crimes? Are the police on strike? Are the prosecutors’ offices short-staffed? No: each office is not prosecuting these cases based on the discretion of the city’s chief prosecutor. Unfortunately, these officials misinterpret, misunderstand, and misapply the legal concept of prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutorial discretion historically has been defined as a case-by-case judgment about whether to charge someone with a crime and whether to permit a plea bargain to some agreed-upon sentence or take the case to trial. The discretion is exercised based on consideration of the facts of the case, the characteristics of the defendant, and factors related to the victim. For instance, in an aggravated assault by shooting case, the prosecutor might consider how many shots were fired, the distance between the defendant and the victim, the victim’s preferences for charges and case disposition, whether the victim did anything to provoke the defendant, the defendant’s prior convictions for similar conduct, the strength of the evidence, a defendant’s confession, a defendant’s remorse, mental health issues, and other factors. It requires a fact-intensive, case-specific analysis.
Prosecutorial discretion does not grant prosecutors unfettered authority to negate the legislative process by simply declaring that an entire class of crimes will go unpunished. Prosecutors have not been granted a line-item veto to go through their respective criminal codes and simply cross out the laws that they personally don’t like. Enacting or repealing criminal laws is a legislative task conducted by elected officials. Prosecutors, like police, take an oath and have a duty to enforce the law as written by the legislature and approved by the executive.
Los Angeles district attorney George Gascón has been a leader in disguising the flouting of his duty as prosecutorial discretion. On taking office, Gascón informed his line prosecutors that they would no longer be allowed to prosecute such offenses as drug possession, trespassing, resisting arrest, public intoxication, driving without a license, and other misdemeanors in current California law. Gascón also told his team that they were not allowed to pursue sentencing enhancements in felony cases for gun possession, gang crimes, and “three strikes” offenses for violent criminals.
The experienced line prosecutors working in Los Angeles responded by suing Gascón. The assistant district attorneys pointed out that the duties that Gascon was ordering be ignored are mandated by California law. “The touchstone of prosecutorial discretion is the exercise of case-by-case discretion, which [Gascón’s] special directives expressly, intentionally and undisputedly prohibit,” the lawyer for the line prosecutors stated. “Those directives are thus unlawful.” A Los Angeles court agreed, ruling that Gascón could not order his prosecutors to ignore California laws based upon his own whims. Gascón has vowed to appeal. (Tellingly, Gascón himself has never served as a line prosecutor, where he would have been required to step into the courtroom on cases.)
Gascón is part of the new wave of progressive prosecutors who intentionally distort the concept of prosecutorial discretion. These officials campaigned on a platform of not enforcing the law, without regard to the case-by-case analysis required by the traditional notion of discretion. They act in effect as a super-legislature, bypassing the checks and balances imposed on lawmaking bodies.
This unchecked interpretation of prosecutorial discretion can lead nowhere good. What if a prosecutor declines to pursue rape offenses where the victim and offender are married or in a relationship? Or to ignore child abuse cases? Or hate crimes? Or theft cases where the victim has a net worth of more than $1 million? Or shooting cases where the victim and offender are of different races?
Criminal laws exist for a reason. Prosecutors exist to enforce those laws. Those interested in changing the criminal laws in their state or locality should run for the legislature, not for district attorney. Blanket decisions by prosecutors to invalidate duly enacted criminal laws sets a dangerous precedent.
Photo: erhui1979/iStock
No comments:
Post a Comment