“There’s Anger Building Out There” – One Man’s Message To Davos Elites

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

One man went to Davos and dared to say what Pepe Escobar thought no one would – that “it’s the inequality, stupid.”

Amid all the back-slapping exuberance of record high global stock markets and record high global net worth, John McDonnell, the U.K. opposition Labour Party’s spokesman on finance, came to the World Economic Forum in Davos with an uncomfortable message for the global elite…

“I just warn the Davos establishment: There’s an anger building out there that you need to recognize and deal with,”

As Bloomberg reports, most delegates in Davos have adopted an upbeat tone this week — reflected in the optimism of top bankers at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG who told Bloomberg they see a continuation in a global boom in dealmaking.

But as McDonnell warns, there’s an “avalanche of discontent” out there among the masses.

But in the Swiss resort, “there’s almost a sense of euphoria, it is extraordinary, and I think there’s a sense of complacency.”

McDonnell’s warning carries weight because he would be chancellor of the exchequer if Labour came to power — something investors are preparing for.

“Out there, beyond the Davos compound, many people — we saw it in the Oxfam report — feel the markets have been rigged against them, not for them,” McDonnell said.

“When they’re told we’re coming out of that recession, growth is returning and they don’t feel they’re participating in the benefits of that growth, that’s when people become really alienated and angry.”

Bloomberg reports that McDonnell then laid out a recipe for regaining the trust of the masses, including:

• Paying workers a “real living wage” and allowing them to share in the profits of the companies they work for.


• Recognizing trade unions and appointing workers to company boards.


• A new “Hippocratic oath” for accountancy firms to tackle tax avoidance rather than encourage it.


• The rich and those in power should publish their income tax returns.


• A “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions that would be used to fund public services and international development programs.

With the support of the far left fringes of Labour, both McDonnell and Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn have firmed up their grip over the party, appointing allies to the party’s National Executive Committee in recent months after fending of an attempted coup by moderate lawmakers in 2016.

“There has to be a radical new agenda where people share in the growth, share in the wealth, share in the benefits as the economic cycle turns,” McDonnell said. “I think there’s an avalanche out there of discontent and resentment and alienation if we don’t address these issues.”

Still, as Pepe Escobar previously noted, this year’s Davos theme was “Resilient Dynamism.” As a definition of the current woes of turbo-capitalism, a five-year-old in a favela, or slum, in Rio could come up with something more meaningful. 

But then, Davos is a one-trick pony. “Resilience” remains a euphemism for the ever-expanding markets and low pay for workers syndrome. In a nutshell, globalization driven by huge multinational corporations.

We should scrap “Resilience” as the name of their game is “Inequality.” Davos, of course, does not do “inequality.” 

In a study released by UC Berkeley, the wealth of the top 1% of Americans accrued by 11.6% in 2010, while for the other 99% it was a mere 0.2%. This is what is at the heart of hardcore neoliberalism and capitalist.

Davos should be discussing how a key segment of elites concocted the Wall Street-provoked financial crash. That was only ‘virtual’ business, but it was not ‘virtual’ national governments that had to intervene afterward to pick up the bill and bail out the banks.

No, I am afraid “Resilient Dynamism” will not do for Davos. But it is a good definition of China. While European and American elites accrue their capital to contain Beijing’s advance in Africa and Asia, China’s interventionism is of the business kind. It is a case of building roads, not wars.

Still, the question Davos refuses to ask remains: Why is it easier to imagine the total destruction of mankind, from nuclear war to a climate catastrophe, than to work on changing the system of relations spawned by capitalism? 

Stay tuned for that one.

Would You Hire Someone Who Gets 218 Days off a Year? You Already Have

(ANTIMEDIA) Washington, D.C. — Know of any jobs that pay $174,000 a year, plus benefits, for only working 147 out 365 days? You may laugh off the notion, but in fact, the answer is yes, you do. Because that’s what your elected House representatives make, and the number 147 is how many days they’re actually working during a congressional session.

According to an official calendar posted by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the United States House of Representatives will have 218 days off in 2017. Members of the Senate, who earn the same salary as their congressional counterparts, put in a bit more time, but the difference is marginal at best.

In fact, members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate get the entire month of August off. Yes, you read that correctly, Americans. The people you’re electing to represent you get a solid month-long vacation each year. More than that, technically, as the calendar shows congressmen are out of session from July 29 until September 4.

Some members of Congress, however, feel they deserve more. One such individual is the outgoing representative from Utah, Jason Chaffetz. He recently told The Hill that he believes congressmen should receive an additional $2,500 a month stipend for housing.

Claiming the pay bump would allow him and other members of Congress to “have your spouse join you here” in Washington, D.C., Chaffetz added that if he “wasn’t buying as many airline tickets” to fly back home to see his family, if would be far less expensive to serve as an official of the United States government.

To be clear, Chaffetz is suggesting that taxpayers should collectively dole out an additional $30,000 a year per lawmaker. This, if it came to pass, would mean an additional $16 million in taxes annually for Americans.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo

In Surprise Move, Trump Turns to Neutrality to Push Peace Between Israel, Palestine

February 3, 2017   |   Alice Salles

(ANTIMEDIA) While on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump disappointed many supporters of Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the Republican nominee “placed the burden of a peace deal firmly with Israel” alone, Haaretz reported. “A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal – whether or not Israel’s willing to sacrifice certain things,” Trump said.

Despite the faux pas, Trump continued to profess his commitment to Israel, promising to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and going as far as to claim he would be Israel’s “closest friend” if he won the presidency. But perhaps one of his most talked about comments regarding Israel involved settlements.

Asked during a Daily Mail interview last May whether he thought settlement building should be stopped, Trump answered:

“No, I don’t think it is, because I think Israel should have – they really have to keep going. They have to keep moving forward.”

Because of this statement, it was a surprise to many when the Trump White House issued a statement Thursday claiming the Israeli settlement construction was unhelpful to peace.

“The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years,” the statement reads, appearing to refer to the many instances in the past 50 years when U.S. presidents have objected to Israel’s settlement expansion.

“While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace,” the statement continues, “the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal.”

Instead of positioning the administration in favor of more settlements, the White House simply closed the statement by asserting that “[t]he Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions.”

Dubious in nature, the statement seems to suggest that the advancement of settlements might not be positive if the goal is peace; it also suggests that the settlements themselves do not represent an impediment to peace. Nevertheless, the statement also suggests that Trump believes the “ultimate deal” is a peace agreement, making it clear the current administration hopes the Israeli government won’t take steps “that could hurt the prospects of such a deal.”

Despite the statement’s contents, some believe the Trump White House seems to make a weaker case against the advancement of settlements when compared to former administrations.

In response to the comments, groups of Israeli settlers downplayed Trump’s comments, the Associated Press reported. Instead of worrying about Trump’s concerns, they look forward to the U.S. president’s upcoming meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister. Meanwhile, Husam Zomlot, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, praised the statement for going “in the right direction.” Nevertheless, Zomlot said, “we need more than words to protect the two-state solution, otherwise we will find nothing to talk about when President Trump” finally discloses his policies on the conflict between the two nations.

This article (In Surprise Move, Trump Turns to Neutrality to Push Peace Between Israel, Palestine) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alice Salles and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

How 8 Men Have Become Richer Than Half of the Entire World’s Population

January 18, 2017   |   Shaun Bradley

(ANTIMEDIA) Research and advocacy group Oxfam International released a new report on Monday that outlines the latest developments in global economic inequality. Unfortunately, the results validate previous concerns that these massive imbalances would only accelerate. The number of people who control more wealth than the poorest 50% went from 62 to 8 in just one year. With half the world’s net worth now in such few hands, it should be easier than ever to bring awareness to this ongoing trend — but finding a solution is far more complicated.

Oxfam used Forbes’ list of billionaires and new information from Credit Suisse to reach their conclusion. The eight individuals named are Bill Gates; Amancio Ortega, founder of fashion house Inditex; Warren Buffett; Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim Helu; Jeff Bezos; Mark Zuckerberg; Oracle’s Larry Ellison; and Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York.

Although many people with resources like these have made tremendous contributions to society, the question of how obligated they are to contribute to the common good still remains. After all, their fortunes have the potential to completely reshape the world for the better, but the problem arises when government dictates how much should be taxed and where that money will go. The public sector’s track record of wasting and mismanaging funds is unmatched and can only be rationalized by the economically illiterate. In an ideal world, bureaucrats would be fiscally responsible and impervious to corruption, but reality is never so utopian.

The rapid consolidation of wealth by so few showcases who the current government policies have benefited most. Artificially low interest rates and money printing, which have sent stock markets soaring for nearly eight years, have only helped solidify the elite’s hold on the financial world. They can borrow money for next to nothing and buy up huge stakes in companies, all while enjoying profits courtesy of the Federal Reserve’s stimulus programs.

Government regulations may stem from good intentions, but they can easily create a dragnet that ends up targeting those they were intended to help. While normal people are losing their jobs, seeing rent skyrocket and health care costs explode, the State has been propping up those it really serves.

In the report, Oxfam vaguely lays the blame at the feet of corporations:

“Businesses are the lifeblood of a market economy, and when they work to the benefit of everyone they are vital to building fair and prosperous societies. But when corporations increasingly work for the rich, the benefits of economic growth are denied to those who need them most. In pursuit of delivering high returns to those at the top, corporations are driven to squeeze their workers and producers ever harder – and to avoid paying taxes which would benefit everyone, and the poorest people in particular.”

Since the financial crisis began, the 1% has been scapegoated continuously, but complaining about an abstract hierarchy won’t help the millions of people living on less than $2 a day. If substantial changes are going to be made, the focus needs to be on finding hard evidence of tax evasion and unethical business practices on an individual level rather than demonizing anyone with substantial wealth. Verifiable information is what sways public opinion, just like the Panama Papers did by taking the first step in exposing some of the world’s richest people for utilizing tax havens and loopholes to avoid being held responsible. Instead of indiscriminately blaming all those who have achieved success, reports like this could act as a blueprint to help put names and faces to those anonymous adversaries who have avoided accountability.

In this age of information, the opportunity to seek individual justice lays with every journalist and activist. When people group others into left-right, rich-poor, or privileged-oppressed, for example, the uniqueness of each individual experience is lost. The inequality seen across the planet is heartbreaking, and any person with a shred of empathy should want to help. Unfortunately, the solution is rarely State intervention. The tool used to remedy this situation must come from grassroots origins. As government’s management of resources demonstrates, there is no other viable alternative. By inspiring others to take action voluntarily, we can build a foundation that doesn’t rely on the threat of violence and use of force for progress.

---

This article (How 8 Men Have Become Richer Than Half of the Entire World’s Population) by Shaun Bradley is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Shaun Bradley and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.