They throw us out of our homes but we get ice cream

If there were any doubt that gentrification has come to my corner of Brooklyn, that was put to rest last weekend with the appearance of an ice cream truck. An ice cream truck painted with the logo and red color of The Economist. Yes, it was just as this reads. Free scoops of ice cream were being given out as a young woman with a clipboard was attempting to get people to sign up for subscriptions to The Economist.

Not that there had been any reason to harbor illusions about gentrification — the glass-walled, high-priced high rises sprouting like mushrooms after a rainstorm are merely the most obvious of multiple signs. The neighborhood where I live, Greenpoint, is notable as a Polish enclave, although a sliver along the East River was mainly populated by Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and artists two decades ago. In short, a place for people needing a (relatively) cheap (by New York City standards) place to live and which still possessed a working waterfront.

A march for Alex Nieto in San Francisco (photo via Justice for Alex Nieto website)

A march for Alex Nieto in San Francisco (photo via Justice for Alex Nieto website)

Not really the sort of folks who might be expected to read one of the two main flagships of the British finance industry. To watch, or participate in, an art parade, sure. That is the sort of procession one used to see. Or Mr. Softee, a local franchise with ice cream trucks (of the traditional sort) that played a jingle, over and over again, that had a way of getting inside your head, although not necessarily in a good way. One summer a Mr. Softee truck seemed permanently stationed on my block, leading me to write a poem on the uses of Mr. Softee’s ice cream other than eating and even as a talisman against an invasion of space aliens. As I said, the jingle has a way of getting inside your head.

But no matter how bizarre the sight of an Economist ice cream truck, there is nothing actually funny about gentrification. Not even a Financial Times ice cream truck in pink (although perhaps a little too close to the color of Pepto-Bismol for comfort there) would be funny. Systematic evictions, the wholescale removal of peoples, the wiping out of alternative cultures and the imposition of the soul-deadening dullness of consumerist corporate monoculture has become a global phenomenon.

Rent laws don’t help if your home can be torn down

This has accelerated to where not simply buildings are being emptied out, but entire complexes. In Silicon Valley, a San Jose apartment complex with 216 units is being demolished to make way for a luxury high-rise. The hundreds of residents there are protected from higher rents by local rent-control laws. But that law has a rather big loophole — the rent-controlled buildings can be torn down, and the residents kicked into the street with no recourse and no right to a replacement apartment. The San Francisco Bay Area as a whole lost more than 50 percent of its affordable housing between 2000 and 2013.

Gentrification literally kills — symbolized by the tragic death of Alex Nieto in San Francisco’s Mission District. A story brought to a wider audience in an essay by Rebecca Solnit, Mr. Nieto was a long-time resident of the Mission who was shot by police for being Latino in a local park — targeted because gentrifying techies, new to the neighborhood, decided Mr. Nieto was a threat and called the police, a tragic ending that was set in motion when a techie thought it amusing that his dog was menacing Mr. Nieto as he ate on a bench.

The Mission, as is well known, has long been a Latin American enclave. What is happening there, and in so many other neighborhoods in so many other cities, is no accident. Gentrification is a deliberate process. Gentrification frequently means the replacement of a people, particularly the poor members of a people, with others of a lighter skin complexion. A corporatized, sanitized and usurped version of the culture of the replaced people is left behind as a draw for the “adventurous” who move in and as a product to be exploited by chain-store mangers who wish to cater to the newcomers.

Gentrification is part of the process whereby people are expected, and socialized, to become passive consumers. Instead of community spaces, indoors and outdoors, where we can explore our own creativity, breath new life into traditional cultural forms, create new cultural traditions and build social scenes unmediated by money and commercial interests, a mass culture is substituted, a corporate-created and -controlled commercial product spoon-fed to consumers carefully designed to avoid challenging the dominant ideas imposed by corporate elites.

Dictatorships of favored industries

There are interests at work here. The technology industry has a stranglehold on San Francisco, for example, its techies with their frat-boy culture rapidly bidding up housing prices and making the city unaffordable for those who made it the culturally distinct place it has long been. New York City is a dictatorship of the real estate and financial industries; the process of gentrification there has progressed through a mayor who snarls and can’t be bothered to hide his hatred for most of the people who live there (Rudy Giuliani), a mayor who covered himself with a technocratic veneer (Michael Bloomberg) and a mayor fond of empty talk but who is the Barack Obama of New York (Bill de Blasio). They follow in the footsteps of Ed Koch, who showed his humanitarian streak when he declared, “If you can’t afford New York, move!”

Despite the reasoning of a federal judge who two years ago overturned a San Francisco ordinance designed to slow down speculation in housing that accelerates exorbitant rises in rents, those rents do not rise without human intervention. Not a single county in the U.S. has enough affordable housing for all its low-income residents, according to a report issued by the Urban Institute, which also reports that only 28 adequate and affordable units are available for every 100 renter households in the U.S. with incomes at or below 30 percent of their local median income.

The trend of rents taking up a bigger portion of income, although accelerating in recent years, is a long-term trend — one study found that rents have risen close to double the rate of inflation since 1938, and the prices of new houses at an even higher rate. Gentrification and the rising rents that accompany it are found around the world, from Vancouver to London to Berlin to Istanbul to Melbourne.

Just as markets are nothing more than the aggregate interests of the biggest industrialists and financiers, allowing the “market” to determine housing policies means that the richest developers will decide who gets to live where. The vision of former New York City Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg (enforced through policies kept in place by Mayor de Blasio) is of Manhattan and adjoining areas of Brooklyn becoming a gated city for the wealthy, with the rest of us allowed in to work and then leave. The most profitable projects for developers are luxury housing for millionaires and billionaires — interests coincide. Even when a local government makes a tepid attempt, under public pressure, to ameliorate the harshness of housing conditions, such as with San Francisco, it is swamped by the tidal pull of market forces.

This global phenomenon derives from a top-down global system, capitalism, under which housing is a commodity for private profit instead of a basic human right. A free scoop of ice cream really doesn’t compensate losing the ability to keep a roof over your head.

CETA’s specter of corporate dictatorship still haunts Canada, EU

The most tepid of blows for democracy was struck this week when the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, reversed himself and declared that the parliaments of the EU member states will vote on the “free trade” deal with Canada after all. Only a week earlier, President Juncker had dismissed the idea of any democratic input, insisting that the deal would be unilaterally approved by EU ministers.

The earlier intended diktat was no aberration, and the hasty reversal is much more a cosmetic exercise in public relations than a new-found respect for public opinion. The public has been excluded from the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union from the start. There are reasons for that, centering on CETA being indistinguishable from the various “free trade” deals under way and, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, one that goes beyond even the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Juncker first said on June 28 that there was no need for ratification by European parliaments — although he graciously conceded that EU governments  could “scrutinize” the CETA text. The problem, he said, was that “allowing national parliaments to have a say in the agreement will paralyze the process and put the bloc’s credibility at stake,” reported Deutsche Welle. Well, we can’t have messy democracy get in the way of corporate wish lists, can we?

Ottawa from the McKenzie Bridge (photo by Siqbal)

Ottawa from the McKenzie Bridge (photo by Siqbal)

Deutsche Welle reported on July 5 that Germany and France had insisted parliamentary votes be taken, with the German economy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, saying publicly that President Juncker’s comment was “incredibly stupid” and “would stoke opposition to other free trade deals.” No opposition to CETA here; merely discomfort that the lack of democracy had become too blatant. So it would be unrealistic to expect the Bundestag or any other parliamentary body to vote in the interest of their citizens without much more popular pressure being applied.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Canadian government is putting a happy face on what will be a longer process than expected, saying the European reversal was “expected.” International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has has gone so far as to declare CETA a “gold-plated trade deal.” The government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has followed a path very similar to that of U.S. President Barack Obama, quickly making a couple of easy gestures, such as installing a gender-equal cabinet, but allowing almost all of Stephen Harper’s draconian laws to stay in place. Pushing for CETA’s passage, despite its being negotiated in secret by the Harper régime, is consistent with that path.

Consultation process is window-dressing

The European Commission’s antipathy to democracy is also par for the course. The EU trade office, the European Commission Directorate General for Trade, set up a process of public consultation, but seems to have not paid any attention to it. A spokesman for the watchdog group Corporate Europe Observatory said of this window-dressing “consultation”:

“The Commission is not really serious about its own consultation. It’s more about image than substance. … I think those who chose to respond to the Commission’s consultation are being ridiculed.”

The “consultation” that counted during negotiations was that of multi-national corporations. As is standard with “free trade” agreements, laws and regulations that protect health, workplace standards and the environment will be considered barriers to trade, and ordered removed by secret tribunals with no accountability. Here again we have a farce. Following the conclusion of CETA negotiations, the German and French governments wanted changes made to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that enables corporations to challenge governments (but not the other way around).

Grand Place, Brussels (photo by Wouter Hagens)

Grand Place, Brussels (photo by Wouter Hagens)

Did Berlin and Paris suddenly decide that ceding their sovereignty to secret tribunals, in which corporate lawyers who specialize in representing multi-national corporations sit in judgment, was maybe a bad idea? Not really. This was, like the entire process, a public relations problem. So instead of the traditional three-member tribunal picked from a roster created by an established corporate-aligned arbitration body, as is the case with complaints filed under NAFTA rules, CETA would have its own 15-member permanent tribunal. And, as an added bonus, there will even be an appeals tribunal. But who will sit on these two bodies? None other than the same corporate lawyers who would otherwise hear such cases.

Here’s the relevant passage, buried deep in the CETA text, at Article 8.26:

“The Members of the Tribunal … shall have demonstrated expertise in public international law. It is desirable that they have expertise in particular, in international investment law, in international trade law and the resolution of disputes arising under international investment or international trade agreements.”

Building on NAFTA’s anti-democratic principles

No different from the qualifications deemed necessary in existing “free trade” agreements or those proposed in the Trans-Pacific and Transatlantic partnerships. The wording guarantees that corporate lawyers or academics who specialize in existing tribunals and who have adopted the mindsets of their clients will adjudicate these decisions — in other words, a steady stream of decisions elevating the right of a corporation to make the maximum possible profit above all other human considerations. This dynamic has to led to NAFTA becoming a lose-lose-lose proposition for working people in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and CETA will accelerate this trend.

A report on the ramifications of CETA, prepared by Maude Barlow, says:

“With CETA and TTIP, for the first time, subnational governments (municipalities, provinces and states) will be subject to local procurement commitments that bar them from favouring local companies and local economic development. According to an analysis from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, this will substantially restrict the vast majority of local governments in North America and Europe from using public spending as a catalyst for achieving other societal goals — from creating good jobs, to supporting local farmers, to addressing the climate crisis.”

Regulations would be “harmonized,” meaning reduced to the lowest level of protection that can be found, and likely lower than that. Ms. Barlow writes:

“CETA commits to a process whereby any differences in regulations between Europe and Canada, be they labour rights, environmental protection standards, food safety rules or tax laws, could be considered an obstacle to trade and suppressed. Both parties agree to share information of contemplated or proposed future regulations with one another even before they share them with their own elected parliaments in order to ensure they are not trade distorting. That means the other party could make changes to a piece of legislation before it has been seen by its own elected officials or the public.”

Pressure will be brought to bear to privatize water systems and other public utilities, and pharmaceutical prices for Canadians will rise significantly — costing as much as C$1.6 billion per year. As is customary with “free trade” agreements, there are no limitations on who or what constitutes an “investor.” The rights of corporations are delineated over hundreds of pages, but the chapters that deal with labor, health, safety and environmental standards use the usual provisional language. For example, in Chapter 21.7, “The Parties endeavour to cooperate and to share information on a voluntary basis in the area of non-food product safety.” When it comes to corporate demands, however, “must” and “shall” are the words used.

CETA, like its cousins TTP and TTIP, would cement into place the right of multi-national corporations to dictate to governments without any democratic input. This would be irreversible. Worse, the approval of CETA would provide fresh momentum for TPP and TTIP. We have no time to waste.

Brexit will only count if everybody leaves the EU

Britain can leave the European Union, but it would remain just as tied to capitalist markets as before. The decision to leave the EU is not a decision to leave the world capitalist system, or even disengage from Europe, and thus is not a decision that will lead to any additional “independence” or “sovereignty” outside of proponents’ imaginations.

What has been unleashed is the nationalism and xenophobia of right-wing “populism” — those on the Left celebrating a blow against elites might pause for thought. Yes, voting in defiance of what elites told them to do played its part in favor of a British exit from the EU, but nationalism, scapegoating of immigrants, and convincing people at the mercy of corporate power that less regulation is in their interest were dominant.

It is the far Right that been given a shot in the arm from Brexit — from the National Front in France and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands to the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and the hard right within the Conservative Party. The Labour Party’s Blairites have also been emboldened, as the parliamentary coup against Jeremy Corbyn illustrates.

Sunset near Tromsø, Norway (photo by Moyan Brenn)

Sunset near Tromsø, Norway (photo by Moyan Brenn)

By no means is the above survey meant as any defense of the EU. It is a neoliberal project from top to bottom, an anti-democratic exercise in raw corporate power to strip Europeans of the gains and protections hard won over two generations. The EU has a similar function to the North American Free Trade Agreement on the other side of the Atlantic. European capitalists desire the ability to challenge the United States for economic supremacy, but cannot do so without the combined clout of a united continent. This wish underlies the anti-democratic push to steadily tighten the EU, including mandatory national budget benchmarks that require cutting social safety nets and forcing policies designed to break down solidarity among wage earners across borders by imposing harsher competition through imposed austerity.

So we should be celebrating anything that weakens the EU, yes? Perhaps. If this were the first blow to a visibly crumbling edifice, then surely yes. If there were a continental Left with a clear alternative vision to corporate globalization, then emphatically yes. But neither of these conditions are in force, so a more cautious response is called for. What is really needed is the destruction of the EU, for all countries to leave it, not only one.

Britain leaving by itself will lead to far less of a change than Brexit proponents hope, and not necessarily for the better. This is so because the conditions of capitalist competition will remain untouched.

Norway and Switzerland are out but are really in

Brexit proponents point to Norway and Switzerland as models of countries outside the EU but which retain trading access. But what those countries have is the responsibilities of EU membership without having any say.

Norway has the closer relationship of the two. Norway (along with Iceland and the micro-state of Lichtenstein) is part of the European Economic Area, essentially an agreement tightly binding those three countries to the EU. The EEA has been described as a “transmission belt” whereby the EU ensures that the EEA countries adopt EU laws as the price for being a part of the “free trade” area of the EU. That is a one-way transmission. Norway has no say in the creation of any EU laws and regulations.

The EEA treaty calls for Norwegian consultation, but Norway is not represented in any EU body. The agreement allows Norway to “suspend” any EU law that is disliked, but Norway has done so only once. By contrast, Norway’s parliament has approved EU legislation 287 times, most of them unanimously. This loss of sovereignty does not seem to be an issue for Norway’s political leaders. A 2012 Norwegian review of EEA membership concludes:

“This raises democratic problems. Norway is not represented in decision-making processes that have direct consequences for Norway, and neither do we have any significant influence on them. … [O]ur form of association with the EU dampens political engagement and debate in Norway and makes it difficult to monitor the government and hold it accountable for its European policy.”

The chair of the review committee noted that “There is no upside for Norwegian politicians to engage in European policy. … Because politicians are not interested in European policies, the media are not interested, and lack of media interest reinforces the lack of politicians’ interest.”

The minister of European Affairs in the current Conservative Party-led Norwegian government, Elisabeth Aspaker, confirms government ease with adaptation to EU law. Norway, in fact, has committed to voluntarily contribute €2.8 billion in aid to poorer EU countries for the period 2014 to 2021. In an interview with EurActiv, Minister Aspaker said:

“[W]e believe this is in our interest to improve social and economic cohesion in Europe. If Europe is doing well, Norway will also be doing well. If Europe is doing poorly or is destabilised, this will have a negative impact on Norway and the Norwegian economy. So this is why we believe we should involve ourselves beyond what is required under the EEA agreement.”

Switzerland has a separate agreement with the EU that is essentially a “free trade” agreement. Switzerland has a little bit of room to not adopt EU laws, but some of its goods are blocked from export to EU countries as a result. Switzerland, however, is under pressure to do as the EU dictates, and not only does Berne not have representation, it lacks even the toothless consultation that Oslo has.

Britain will still pay but have no say

Will Britain really be free of transfers to Brussels as the “Leave” campaign, dominated by the Tory right and UKIP, loudly claimed before the referendum? Their immediate back-tracking on that, and on their implied promise of significantly reduced immigration, provides an important clue. The Centre for European Reform, a neoliberal think tank that declares itself in favor of European integration, in a nonetheless sober analysis declares that Britain would pay a substantial amount to retain its access to European markets. In its report, “Outsiders on the inside: Swiss and Norwegian lessons for the UK,” the Centre writes:

“Britain would also have to pay a financial price, as well as a political price, for retaining access to the single market. As a relatively rich country, it would presumably be expected to pay special contributions to EU cohesion and aid programmes on a similar basis [as] the Norwegians and Swiss do. Currently, Norway contributes €340m a year to the EU. If multiplied by 12 for Britain’s much larger population, that rate would imply a contribution for the UK of just over €4 billion, or nearly half its current net contribution to the EU budget as a full member. That is a lot to pay for associate status of the club.”

It is possible to grumble that the foregoing is a product of a pro-EU perspective, but doing so would ignore that Britain’s firm place in the world capitalist system, geographical location and trading patterns dictate that it retain its commercial access to Europe. A post-Brexit Britain’s remittances to Brussels might be larger than even that postulated by the Centre for European Reform. An Open Europe analysis calculates that Norway’s net contribution to the EU works out to €107 per person, while Britain’s current contribution is €139 per person. It may not be realistic to expect a future British contribution to be substantially less than Norway’s.

Sea defenses on the South Coast near Winchelsea, England (photo by Atelier Joly)

Sea defenses on the South Coast near Winchelsea, England (photo by Atelier Joly)

Furthermore, the Open Europe analysis notes that gross immigration to Britain is significantly less than that of Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. Those countries each must accept the free flow of people (along with goods, services and capital) the same as any EU member. The scare tactics of UKIP and the Tory right were simply that, tactics. And the promise by Brexit proponents of the return of an golden age and the scare tactics of Brexit opponents that financial armeggedon would be at hand? A separate Open Europe report finds the most likely range of change to British GDP would be within minus 0.8 percent to plus 0.6 percent by 2030.

Not much of a change. The high end of that modest range assumes that Britain adopts “unilateral liberalisation” with all its major trading partners because “free trade” offers the “greatest benefit,” the Open Europe report asserts. But studies purporting to demonstrate the benefits of “free trade” agreements tend to wildly overstate their case through specious assumptions. These often start with models that assume liberalization can not cause or worsen employment, capital flight or trade imbalances, and that capital and labor will smoothly shift to new productive uses under seamless market forces.

Thus groups like the Peterson Institute invariably come up with rosy projections for “free trade” agreements, including fantasy figures for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership that ignore the reality of job losses and resulting downward drag on wages. So it is perhaps not a surprise that the rosiest prediction here is for Britain to throw itself wide open to world markets, as if Britain wasn’t already one of the most de-regulated countries in the global North.

There are lies and then there are damned lies

A different sort of lack of realism pervaded the Brexit campaign, and their avowed desire to remain in the European single market surely has something to do with their rapid backtracking. Boris Johnson, a leading spokesperson for Brexit, certainly was far more cautious in his post-vote June 26 column in The Telegraph than during the campaign. He claimed, in the face of all evidence, that immigration fears were not a campaign factor, that the British economy is “outstandingly strong” and “nothing changes” except for a goodbye to European bureaucracy. Seldom do we see so much undisguised lying in a single article.

The response from the other side of the English Channel is illuminating. A commentary in Der Spiegel, undoubtedly reflecting official thinking in Germany, concludes by declaring, “The British have chosen out, and now they must face the consequences,” given with a favorable reference to hard-line Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. The Guardian, quoting an assortment of European diplomats, provided this report:

“ ‘It is a pipe dream,’ said [one] EU diplomat. ‘You cannot have full access to the single market and not accept its rules. If we gave that kind of deal to the UK, then why not to Australia or New Zealand. It would be a free-for-all.’

A second EU diplomat said: ‘There are no preferences, there are principles and the principle is no pick and choose.’

The diplomat stressed that participating in the single market meant accepting EU rules, including the jurisdiction of the European court of justice, monitoring by the European commission and accepting the primacy of EU law over national law — conditions that will be anathema to leave advocates who campaigned on the mantra ‘take back control.’ ”

No wonder no Tory seems eager to start negotiations. Perhaps “more of the same but with less say” will not meet the expectations of those who voted for a British exit from the EU. Certainly, corporate ideology has done its job well of convincing some that corporations abandoning communities isn’t the fault of the corporations leaving nor the capitalism that rewards those abandonments. Consider this passage in The New York Times on June 28, quoting a blue-collar worker in an English city that voted heavily to leave:

“ ‘All the industries, everything, has gone,’ said Michael Wake, 55, forklift operator, gesturing toward Roker Beach, once black from the soot of the shipyards. ‘We were powerful, strong. But Brussels and the government, they’ve taken it all away.’ ”

Of course, the ceaseless competitive pressure of capitalism, ever ready to move to the place with the lowest wages and weakest regulations, is responsible for the hollowing out of Sunderland, England, and so many industrial cities like it. Britain adhering to EU rules on unrestricted mobility of capital as the price of retaining its European trade links will have exactly zero effect on that dynamic, and British entry into “free trade” agreements like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or similar deals will accelerate it. Governments sign such agreements, true, but they are acting under compulsion of powerful industrialists and financiers within and without their borders, conceding ever more sovereignty to multi-national capital as the price of remaining “competitive.”

The EU is a bonanza for multi-national corporations and an autocratic disaster for working people across Europe. But one country leaving and agreeing to the same terms as an “outsider” will effect no change whatsoever. An exit from capitalism is what the world needs, not from this or that capitalist treaty.

Regulation of financial industry is history if Trade In Services Agreement passes

The most secret of the international “free trade” agreements being negotiated around the world is the Trade In Services Agreement, which also might be the most draconian yet. If TISA were to go into effect, regulation of the financial industry would be effectively prohibited, privatizations would be accelerated and social security systems would potentially be at risk of privatization or elimination.

The Trade In Services Agreement is multi-national corporations’ backup plan in case the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are not brought to fruition. It is being promoted as the right to hire the accountant or engineer of your choice, but in reality is intended to enable the financial industry to run roughshod over countries around the world.

Protest against the Trade In Services Agreement

Protest against the Trade In Services Agreement

TISA is being negotiated in secret by 50 countries, with the unaccountable European Commission representing the 28 EU countries. Among the other countries negotiating are Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States.

Earlier leaks have revealed that Internet privacy and net neutrality would become things of the past under TISA. European rules on privacy, much stronger than those found in the United States, for example, would be eliminated. Further, any rule that in any way mandates local content or provides any advantage to a local technology would also be illegal, locking in the dominance of a handful of U.S. Internet companies.

The latest snapshot of the ongoing TISA negotiations is provided by WikiLeaks, which released several chapters on May 25.

Say goodbye to your retirement

Among the portions of TISA published by WikiLeaks in its latest publication is the financial services annex. Articles 1 and 2 of the annex are unchanged from an earlier leak in 2014 — there are no limits on what constitutes covered “financial services.” Article 2 specifically references central banks, social security systems and public retirement systems. It is unclear how these would be affected, but it is possible that TISA could be interpreted to mean that no public or other democratic check would be allowed on central banks and that public systems such as Social Security might be judged to be illegally “competing” with private financial enterprises.

Financiers around the world would dearly love to get their hands on social security systems, a privatization that would lead to disaster, as has already been the case with Chile, also a TISA participant. Chileans retiring in 2005 received less than half of what they would have received had they been in the old government system.

Some of the provisions in TISA’s financial services annex includes:

  • Requirements that countries must conform their laws to the annex’s text (the U.S. and EU are proposing the most draconian language) (annex Article 3).
  • A prohibition on “buy local” rules for government agencies (Article 7).
  • Prohibitions on any limitations on foreign financial firms’ activities (Articles 9 and 12).
  • Bans on restrictions on the transfer of any data collected, including across borders (Article 10).
  • Prohibitions of any restrictions on the size, expansion or entry of financial companies and a ban on new regulations, including a specific ban on any law that separates commercial and investment banking, such as the equivalent of the U.S. Glass-Steagall Act. Only one country, Peru, opposes this. (Article 14).
  • A provision that purports to allow protection for bank depositors and insurance policy holders, but immediately negates that protection by declaring such duties “shall not be used as a means of avoiding the Party’s commitments or obligations under the Agreement” (Article 16).
  • The standard language on dispute settlement: “A Panel for disputes on prudential issues and other financial matters shall have all the necessary expertise relevant to the specific financial service under dispute.” The effect of that rule would be that lawyers who represent financiers would sit in judgment of financial companies’ challenges to regulations and laws (Article 19)
  • A requirement that any government that offers financial products through its postal service lessen the quality of its products so that those are no better than what private corporations offer. It is possible this measure could also threaten social security systems on the basis that such public services compete against financial companies. (Article 21).

Rules designed to force privatizations

Some of those article numbers have changed since the earlier financial services annex leak; one change is the disappearance of an article that would have required countries to “eliminate … or reduce [the] scope” of state enterprises. But that may be because there is a chapter with more stealthy language devoted to the topic: The TISA annex on state-owned enterprises.

The annex on state-owned enterprises would restrict their operations, requiring they be operated like a private business and prohibiting them from “buying local.” Furthermore, governments would be required to publish a list of state-owned enterprises, with no limit on what information must be provided if a corporation asks. Article 7 of this annex would enable any single government to demand new negotiations to further limit state-owned enterprises, which would give the U.S. the ability to directly attack other countries’ state sectors or to demand privatizations in countries seeking to join TISA.

Jane Kelsey, a University of Auckland law professor who has long studied “free trade” agreements, notes that these TISA provisions are modeled on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She writes:

“The goal was always to create precedent-setting rules that could target China, although the US also had other countries’ SOEs in its sights – the state-managed Vietnamese economy, various countries’ sovereign wealth funds, and once Japan joined, Japan Post’s banking, insurance and delivery services. All the other countries were reluctant to concede the need for such a chapter and the talks went around in circles for several years. Eventually the US had its way.”

The substitution of language unambiguously requiring elimination or shrinkage of state-owned enterprises with less obvious language may be a public-relations exercise, so that the specter of forced privatizations will not be so apparent.

Domestic regulations in the cross hairs

Another portion of TISA that has been published by WikiLeaks is the annex on domestic regulation. This annex is so far reaching that it would actually eliminate the ability of governments to regulate big-box retailers. This is one of the goals of corporate lobbyists, a WikiLeaks commentary points out. Referring to a U.S. business group, the commentary says:

“The National Retail Federation not only wants TiSA to ensure their members can enter overseas markets but to ease regulations ‘including store size restrictions and hours of operation that, while not necessarily discriminatory, affect the ability of large-scale retailing to achieve operating efficiencies.’ The National Retail Federation is therefore claiming that a proper role for the public servants negotiating TiSA is to deregulate store size and hours of operation so that large corporations can achieve ‘operating efficiencies’ and operate ‘relatively free of government regulation’ – completely disregarding the public benefit in regulations that foster livable neighbors and reasonable hours of work.”

In other words, behemoths indifferent to the lives of its employees, like Wal-Mart, would have an even freer hand.

Blockupy 2013: Securing the European Central Bank (photo by Blogotron)

Blockupy 2013: Securing the European Central Bank (photo by Blogotron)

The annex on domestic regulation would also require governments to publish in advance any intention to alter or implement regulations so that corporations can be given time to be “alerted that their trade interests might be affected.” The ability of a government to quickly issue a regulation in response to a disaster would be severely curtailed. Environmental rules, even requiring performance bonds as insurance against, for example, oil spills, would be at risk of being declared unfair “burdens.” The WikiLeaks commentary says:

“This draconian ‘necessity test’ would create wide scope for regulations to be challenged. For example, the public consultation processes that are required for urban development are about ensuring development is acceptable to the community rather than ‘ensuring the quality’ of construction services. They would fail the necessity test as more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service. Environmental bonds that mining and pipeline companies are required to post in case of spills and other environmental disasters are another licensing requirement that would not meet the test of being necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”

New Zealand has gone so far as to propose a rule that might eliminate standards for teachers and for protection against toxic waste. Wellington proposes that regulations in all areas be “no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service”:

“Under New Zealand’s proposals, qualifications for teachers in both public and private schools, hospital standards, and licenses for toxic waste disposal are just some of the regulations that would have be reduced to the very low standard of being no more burdensome than necessary.”

You’re not allowed to know what’s in it

Secrecy protocols for handling TISA documents are in place, similar to those of the Trans-Pacific and Transatlantic agreements. These protocols include these requirements:

“[D]ocuments may be provided only to (1) government officials, or (2) persons outside government who participate in that government’s domestic consultation process and who have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents.”

What that means in practice is that only the corporate lobbyists and executives on whose behalf these “free trade” agreements are being negotiated can see them. Consider that 605 corporate representatives had access to the Trans-Pacific Partnership text as “advisers” while it was being negotiated, with the public and even members of parliaments and Congress blocked from access. Or that the public-interest group Corporate Europe Observatory, upon successfully petitioning to receive documents from the European Commission, found that that of 127 closed meetings preparing for the Transatlantic Partnership talks, at least 119 were with large corporations and their lobbyists.

Perusing government trade office Web sites for useful information on TISA (or any other “free trade” agreement) is a fruitless exercise. To provide two typical specimens, the European Commission claims that “The EU will use this opportunity to push for further progress towards a high-quality agreement that will support jobs and growth of a modern services sector in Europe” and the Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade asserts that “TiSA is an opportunity to address barriers to international trade in services that are impeding the expansion of Australia’s services exports.”

The same sort of nonsense that we hear about other secret agreements. The economic health of Australia, or any other country, is not likely to be dependent on sending more financial planners overseas. What reads as bland bureaucratic text will be interpreted not in ordinary courts with at least some democratic checks, but by unaccountable and unappealable secret arbitration panels in which corporate lawyers alternate between representing multi-national corporations and sitting in judgment of corporate complaints against governments.

Let’s conclude with some sanity. Almost 1,800 local authorities have declared themselves opposed to the various “free trade” agreements being hammered out, including TISA. The “Local Authorities and the New Generation of Free Trade Agreements” conference in Barcelona, attended by municipal and regional governments and civil society groups, concluded with a declaration against TISA, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. In part, the declaration says:

“We are deeply concerned that these treaties will put at risk our capacity to legislate and use public funds (including public procurement), severely damaging our task to aid people in basic issues such as: housing, health, environment, social services, education, local economic development or food safety. We are also alarmed about the fact that these pacts will jeopardise democratic principles by substantially reducing political scope and constraining public choices.”

That is the very goal of “free trade” agreements. TISA, like its evil cousins TPP, TTIP and CETA, are a direct threat to what democracy is left to us. It promises a corporate dictatorship that in theory raises the level of corporations to the level of national governments but in reality raises them above governments because only corporations have the right to sue, with corporate “rights” to guaranteed profits trumping all other human considerations. We ignore these naked power grabs at our collective peril.

Has the IMF renounced neoliberalism? Well, not really.

Sound the alarms! Could the International Monetary Fund be reconsidering neoliberalism? Sadly, no, once we actually read the short document “Neoliberalism: Oversold?

The title certainly does grab our attention, and on the very first page, there is this highlighted passage: “Instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality, in turn jeopardizing durable expansion.”

Ah, but disappointment quickly sets in while reading the first paragraph, which purports to hold up Pinochet-era Chile as model “widely emulated across the globe,” including a mention of Chicago School godfather Milton Friedman proclaiming Chile an “economic miracle” in 1982. The actual record is not mentioned, nor is the little matter of military dictator Augusto Pinochet’s wave of terror that killed, imprisoned, tortured and imprisoned tens of thousands mentioned. Details in the eyes of the IMF, we presume.

The institution of neoliberalism in Chile, 1973: La Moneda, the presidential palace, is bombed (photo by Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile)

The institution of neoliberalism in Chile, 1973: La Moneda, the presidential palace, is bombed (photo by Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile)

In reality, Chile’s poverty rate skyrocketed to 40 percent under Pinochet, while real wages had declined by a third and one-third of Chileans were unemployed during the last years of the dictatorship. Unemployment figures do not include the many urban Chileans who worked as “car minders” earning small tips from waving orange rags at motorists pulling into parking spaces and taking the motorists’ coins to insert into parking meters, which Pinochet’s planning minister, a Friedman disciple, declared to be “a good living.” Lavish subsidies were given to large corporations, public spending was slashed and the social security system was privatized. The privatized social security system was so bad for Chilean working people that someone retiring in 2005 received less than half of what he or she would have received had they been in the old government system.

Let us not forget the humanity of those whose lives were crushed by Pinochet and Friedman.

Pinochet's soldiers show what they think of literature (photo from CIA Freedom of Information Act via Wikimedia Commons)

Pinochet’s soldiers show what they think of literature (photo from CIA Freedom of Information Act via Wikimedia Commons)

Back to the IMF paper, which defines neoliberalism blandly as “deregulation” and “a smaller role for the state.” A far better definition of neoliberalism is provided by Henry Giroux:

“As an ideology, it construes profit-making as the essence of democracy, consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and an irrational belief in the market to solve all problems and serve as a model for structuring all social relations.”

The authors of the IMF paper gingerly work themselves up to some mild critiques, lamenting that “The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries” and that “The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent.” Furthermore, the odds of an economic crash are raised, among other problems:

“Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand—and thus worsen employment and unemployment. … [I]n practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of [gross domestic product] increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini measure of income inequality.”

Decades of stagnant wages, hollowing out of manufacturing bases and steadily increasing inequality, augmented by unsustainable stock-market bubbles and capped by eight years and counting of economic downturn and stagnation, and that is the best the IMF can do? The paper concludes with this passage: “Policymakers, and institutions like the IMF that advise them, must be guided not by faith, but by evidence of what has worked.”

The belief in neoliberalism and austerity, or supply-side economics, or Reaganism, or Thatcherism (whatever we want to call it) has always been based on faith, at least on the part of some of those who promote it. For many other financiers and industrialists, it surely is the case is they knew just what was going to happen and cheered it all the way because they were going to benefit handsomely. Economics may be the dismal science, but dismal though classical economics is, it is far more art than science, as in the art of fleecing.

Millions for the boss, cuts for you

More is never enough. By now we really don’t need yet another statement of inequality, but here goes anyway: The average ratio of chief executive pay to employee pay has reached 335-to-1 in the United States.

And some of the highest paid CEOs were at the companies that stash the most money in overseas tax havens. Among the giant corporations that comprise the Standard & Poor’s 500, the 25 at the companies with the most unrepatriated profits hauled in 79 percent more than other S&P 500 chief executive officers, reports the AFL-CIO union federation’s Paywatch 2016 report. Just 10 corporations — Apple, Pfizer, Microsoft, General Electric, IBM, Merck, Cisco Systems, Johnson & Johnson, Exxon Mobil, and Hewlett-Packard successor HP Inc.  — are believed to be holding about $948 billion in accounts outside the reach of tax authorities.

Being at the top of the corporate pyramid certainly pays — the average S&P 500 chief executive officer hauled in $12.4 million in 2015, while the average non-supervisory worker earned $36,875. That average worker would have to work 335 hours to earn what the CEO makes in one hour. For a worker earning the federal minimum wage, the pay ratio is 819-to-1.

CEO-to-worker ratioThe Paywatch 2016 report illustrated this stark inequality with the example of Mondelez International Inc., where Chief Executive Officer Irene Rosenfeld earned close to $20 million last year, or 534 times the average worker’s pay. At the same time, Mondelez asked workers at a Nabisco cookie and cracker plant in Chicago to take a permanent 60 percent cut in wages and benefits, or their jobs would be moved to Mexico. As nobody could agree to such conditions, hundreds of people were laid off. Ms. Rosenfeld, incidentally, received a $7 million raise for her troubles, likely comparable to the combined pay of the laid-off workers.

Lest we fret that Mondelez may be undergoing tough times, please don’t lose any sleep — the company reported net income of $7.3 billion in 2015 and $15 billion for the past five years. Nor should sleep be lost worrying about Mondelez’s tax “burden” as it paid all of $49 million in U.S. taxes in 2015. That’s a tax rate of less than one percent.

That company is not unique, of course. Workers at Verizon Communications Inc. have been on strike since April 13 as Verizon seeks to move call-center jobs overseas, outsource instillation work to low-wage, non-unionized contractors, and reduce benefits. Verizon wants to stick it to its workers despite racking up $45 billion in net income over the past five years, at the same time paid no taxes and has stashed $1.3 billion in offshore accounts.

Avoiding taxes has become an art form for U.S. corporations, especially those who operate as multi-nationals. Dodging taxes is simply another “capitalist innovation,” and so common that a single small building in the Cayman Islands (where the corporate tax rate is zero percent) is the registered address for almost 19,000 corporations. Tax dodging also means higher pay for top executives — yet another corporate subsidy.

tax burden chartThis goes beyond simple unfairness, although corporate tax collection in the U.S. has declined drastically, falling from about one-third of U.S. government tax receipts in the 1950s to 10 percent in 2015; it was as low as 6.6 percent in 2009. Nor is it simply that less taxes collected reduces the ability of governments to effectively provide an adequate social safety net. Higher taxes actually lead to more jobs. Countries that provide more subsidies toward services that are complementary to work — such as child care, elder care and transportation — have higher workforce participation rates. Yes, contrary to orthodox economics, higher rates of taxation lead to more employment.

Let’s not reduce all this to simply greed. The relentless competition endemic to capitalism mandates that corporations engage in an endless race to the bottom. “Grow or die” is an inescapable mandate — if you don’t grow, your competitor will and put you out of business.

That’s a war that working people can never win. Class warfare rages hotter than ever, but there is only one class that is waging it.

We all pay for low wages

When you are paid starvation wages, it’s up to public-assistance programs to make up the difference. That government assistance, costing treasuries billions of dollars per year, is part of the high cost of low wages.

Raising the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour would save an estimated $17 billion per year for U.S. taxpayers, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. The EPI’s study, “Balancing paychecks and public assistance,” found that, not surprisingly, low wages equal government help. A majority of United Statesians who earn less than $10 an hour receive public assistance, either directly or through a family member.

The study’s author, David Cooper, examined participation in eight federal and state means-tested programs for low-income families — the earned income tax credit; the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (what used to be known as food stamps); the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly known as WIC; Section 8 housing vouchers; Medicaid; and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and its state and local equivalents.

Protestors outside a McDonald's in Minneapolis demand a $15 hourly wage and paid sick days (photo by Fibonacci Blue)

Protestors outside a McDonald’s in Minneapolis demand a $15 hourly wage and paid sick days (photo by Fibonacci Blue)

Working people with low wages use these programs heavily. One-third of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients are full-time workers and one-half of WIC recipients are full-time workers.

Contrary to right-wing propaganda, most recipients of public assistance work, a large number of them full time. The EPI study reports:

  • Among families or individuals receiving public assistance, two-thirds (67 percent) work or are members of working families (families in which at least one adult works). When focusing on non-elderly recipient families and individuals under age 65, this percentage is 72 percent.
  • About 69 percent of all public-assistance benefits received by non-elderly families or individuals go to those who work.
  • About 47 percent of all working recipients of public assistance work full time (at least 1,990 hours per year).

Nearly $53 billion of public-assistance money is paid annually to people who work full time, the EPI study reports. And, full- or part-time, money going to working people is concentrated in specific industries. More than half goes to workers in three sectors: educational, health and social services; arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services; and retail trade.

Privatizing profits, socializing costs

Although not addressed in the EPI study, a big conclusion to be drawn from this data is that these billions of dollars of public-assistance money constitutes a massive subsidy of business. Often highly profitable businesses. Take War-Mart, for example. Wal-Mart reported net income of $14.7 billion for 2015 and nearly $80 billion for its last five fiscal years. Yet the company pays it employees so little that employees organize food drives for themselves while it dodges billions of dollars of taxes and receives further billions of dollars in government subsidies.

Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, the U.S. minimum wage peaked in 1968 when the then $1.60 rate would be worth $10.95 in 2016 money. So although that peak total is itself low, the federal minimum wage has lost more than one-third of its value.

Or, to put this in another perspective, one of the demands of the March on Washington in 1963 was a minimum wage of $2 an hour. Adjusted for inflation, $2 an hour in 1963 would be worth $15.56 today. So today’s activists demanding a $15 minimum wage are simply asking for the same thing that was asked a half-century ago. Nothing outlandish.

It is no secret that wages have badly lagged productivity, nowhere more in the global North than in the United States. Wages for U.S. workers have fallen behind productivity gains since the 1970s, to the point that the average U.S. household receives $18,000 per year less than it would had wages kept pace. Canadian households are about $10,000 behind. Differentials between wages and productivity are also found, albeit in less drastic form, across Europe and in Japan.

We can’t order a return to Keynesianism

So what conclusion should we draw from all this? Unfortunately, the EPI study concludes with what can only be termed weak-tea liberalism. Wishing for a return to Keynesianism, the author writes:

“[W]e can raise wages by eliminating the lower subminimum wage for for tipped workers, updating overtime protections, strengthening workers’ ability to organize and negotiate with employers collectively, improving enforcement of labor laws, providing undocumented immigrant workers a path to citizenship, and ensuring monetary policy prioritizes full employment.”

There is nothing wrong with any of these prescriptions. Such reforms would be quite welcome. But these goals can not simply be conjured into existence. Nobody decreed we shall now have neoliberalism and nobody can decree we shall now go back to Keynesianism. We haven’t gotten to the disastrous state we are in by accident or simply because of the personal decisions of corporate executives and financiers.

Rather, the neoliberalism we experience today is the logical result of capitalist development; “logical” in the sense that the relentless scramble to survive competition eventually closed the brief window when rising wages were tolerated and government investment encouraged. The Keynesian policies of the mid-20th century were a product of a specific set of circumstances that no longer exist and can’t be replicated.

Intensified competition over private profits, and that “markets” should determine social outcomes, inexorably leads to a consolidation in which industries are dominated by a handful of giant corporations, and those corporations gain decisive power over governments and relentlessly reduce overhead (especially wages and benefits) in a scramble for survival.

Fighting back is surely what working people around the world need to do. But restoring a “golden age” of capitalism that never really existed (and definitely didn’t if you were a woman confined by limited options or an African-American facing officially sanctioned discrimination and/or state-endorsed terrorism) is a quixotic goal. Better to drive our energies into creating a better world, one in which the economy is geared toward human need rather than private profit.