Mediaboss Marketing

These high prices are caused by high fuel costs it presently costs more to transport goods than to produce them and high fuel costs are the result of the Ukraine War. Present inflation is the result of the COVID crisis.

Millions of Americans were suddenly and unexpectedly without income, and drastic measures were taken to stave off collapse and deprivation.

Two trillion-plus dollars were released into the economy to save lives, and everyone knew this would cause inflation in the intermediate run, and so it has. This largesse unfortunately fell equally upon the worthy and unworthy, which was the cost of taking responsive measures to meet a devastating crisis. Many who didnt need it and many who didnt deserve it received payments, but millions of families and businesses were saved from disruption and ruin by this release of money, and nobody had a better idea. So all this talk of socialism is, again, just so much political hooey. Whos to blame for the worldwide pandemic? Whos to blame for the war in Ukraine? Pick a culprit.

I saw old Biden on C-span last night at some event. He was able to deliver a coherent commentary, integrating an understanding of domestic, foreign and economic policy extemporaneously, without lying, without teleprompter, without blaming anyone, and without once mentioning himself; something that would have been impossible for Putins ex-boyfriend. Incidentally, I saw where Q-anon has proclaimed 45 The Son of Man. Ill bet he lapped that up like liquid Big Mac.

See original here:
Socialist policies not the cause of inflation | Letters to the Editor | thebrunswicknews.com - Brunswick News

Last Thursday, the International Monetary Fund spooked the markets and surprised the commentariat by chiding the U.K. Conservative government for fiscal irresponsibility. The shock was palpable. For the IMF to criticize the government of a major Western economy was a little like the janitor scolding the landlord for putting the buildings assessed value at risk. That sense of a reversal of the usual order of things was all the sharper because, lest we forget, it was Britains Tories, under Margaret Thatchers steely leadership, who wrote the book on fiscal probity as the bedrock of neoliberalism. The IMF spent more than four decades inflicting that orthodoxy upon hapless governments the world over.

As if in a bid to amplify the stir it knew it would make, the IMFs communiqu went so far as to censure the British government for introducing large tax cuts (now partially canceled after the IMF intervention), because they would mainly benefit high-income earners and likely increase inequality. Tories loyal to Britains beleaguered new prime minister, Liz Truss; Americas feistier Republicans; international economic pundits; and even some of my comrades on the left were briefly united by a common puzzlement: Since when did the IMF oppose greater inequality? One would be hard-pressed to identify a single IMF structural adjustment programask Argentina, South Korea, Ireland, or Greece (where I was once a finance minister who had to negotiate with the IMF) about the strings attached to its loansthat had not increased inequality. Had the funds hard-nosed bureaucrats enjoyed a road-to-Damascus moment?

Yoni Appelbaum: A plea for a rapid resolution of the Brexit

Three theories have surfaced about the IMFs motives for opposing the U.K.s tax cuts for the wealthy. One is that the IMF board feared that the fund would struggle to raise sufficient money were London subsequently to request a bailout. Another theory, voiced by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, is that the IMF now understood it ought to show evenhandedness in its dealings with countries rich and poor. When theres a crisis situation or policies that are manifestly irresponsible, its kind of natural for the IMF to take some kind of note, Summers told the Financial Times, adding, I dont think the IMF should distinguish between its rich country shareholders and its emerging market shareholders.

A third theory followed the Pauline-conversion rationale, suggesting that the IMFs statement damning the Truss governments giveaways to the ultra-rich could mark a sea change in the Washington-based institution. According to this view, the IMF was realizing that to save the international liberal order from the various authoritarian populists ascendant in the worldsuch as Donald Trump, Giorgia Meloni, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbn, Narendra Modi, and Jair Bolsonaroit must shift its mission in a more social-democratic direction.

Though interesting hypotheses, none of these explanations engages with the reality to which the IMF was responding with last weeks surprising statement. The notion that London will go cap in hand for a bailout too big for the IMF to deliver is absurd. Britain is a wealthy country that borrows exclusively in a currency printed by the Bank of England. If worse came to worst, the Bank of England could raise interest rates to as much as 6 percent to stabilize sterling and the money markets. An interest rate at that level would certainly demolish the U.K.s economic model of the past 40 years, but it would be the choice over an IMF bailout every time.

And I have firsthand experience that contradicts the theory that the IMF has only now, for the first time, decided to confront a G7 country whose policies it deems to be threatening global financial stability. In my negotiations as Greeces finance minister with the IMF in 2015, the funds top officials were openly scathing about the German governments rejection of a full restructure plan for Greeces public debt; they accused Berlin of undermining Europes, and by extension the worlds, financial stability.

Janet Yellen: Economic growth is essential. So is resilience.

A year later, in a telephone conversation among senior IMF staff published by WikiLeaks, its European chief told a colleague that the IMF should confront the German chancellor and say, Mrs. Merkel, you face a question. You have to think about what is more costly: to go ahead without the IMF or to pick the debt relief that we think Greece needs in order to keep us on board. So much for the second theory, that the IMF now ought to start acting toward Western governments the way it does to developing countries.

This brings us to the third, and most interesting, of the three explanations: that to save the global liberal order from right-wing populism, the IMF is turning social-democratic, woke evenas some British Tories accuse it of doing. The truth, I fear, is less heroic. What happened last week is simply that the IMF panicked. Along with other smart people in the U.S. government and at the Federal Reserve, its officials feared that the U.K. was about to do to the United States and the rest of the G7 what Greece had done to the euro zone in 2010: trigger an uncontrollable financial domino effect.

In the days preceding the Truss governments minibudget statement, the $24 trillion U.S. Treasuries market, whose health decides whether global capitalism breathes or chokes, had already entered what one financial analyst called a vortex of volatility not seen since the crash of 2008 or the first days of the pandemic. The yield on the U.S. governments benchmark 10-year bond has risen sharply from 3.2 percent to more than 4 percent. Worse, a large number of investors had recently stayed away from an auction of new U.S. debt. Nothing scares those in authority more than the specter of a buyers strike in the U.S. bond markets.

To steady the investors nerves, officials came out in strength with reassuring messages. Neel Kashkari, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve president, summed up the spirit thus: We are all united in our job to get inflation back down to 2 percent, and we are committed to doing what we need to do in order to make that happen. This was the moment when the U.K. government chose to announce Britains most expansionary fiscal policy since 1972.

American officials were not the only ones to fret. Days before the London governments so-called fiscal event, the European Systemic Risk Boarda body established by the European Union after the 200809 crisishad issued its first-ever general warning, in effect confirming that Europes financial markets had fallen into the volatility vortex that originated in the United States. Europes electricity providers were being bankrupted by commitments to future orders at exorbitant prices, Germanys mighty manufacturing industry was shutting down because of natural-gas shortages, and public and private debt was climbing fast.

An extra financial shock from the U.K. had the potential to cause huge spillover effects across Europe and beyond. If the U.S. subprime market could push French and German banks over a cliff in 200809, this latest shock wave from the Anglosphere could do similar damage, especially if it rocked the U.S. Treasuries market.

In the face of this mounting transatlantic storm, the IMFs decision to step in was unsurprising. The only remaining puzzle is why the IMF pointed to the inequality-causing effects of the Truss governments tax cuts for the ultra-rich. Although force of circumstance has changed something significant, I doubt this spells the demise of the IMFs neoliberal instincts. Much more likely is this: The IMF realized that the post-2008 inequality-generating policies it helped enforce have plunged North Atlantic capitalism into a state of gilded stagnation that is now unstable, and it feared that the volatility vortex would worsen on news of measures that would create even greater inequality. If the IMF has begun to dislike inequality, it is only because the IMF sees inequality as a proxy for systemic instability.

Read: Giving Germany the middle finger

After the 2008 financial collapse, the U.S. and the EU adopted a policy of socialism for bankers and austerity for the working and middle classes. This ended up sabotaging the dynamism of North Atlantic capitalism. Austerity shrank public expenditure precisely when private expenditure was collapsing; this sped up the decline of both private and public spendingin other words, aggregate demand in the economy. At the same time, quantitative easing by the central banks channeled rivers of money to Big Finance, which passed it on to Big Business, which, faced with that low aggregate demand, used it to buy back their own shares and other unproductive assets.

The personal wealth of a few skyrocketed, the wages of the majority stagnated, investment crumbled, interest rates tanked, and states and corporations became addicted to free money. Then, as the pandemic lockdowns stifled supply and furlough schemes boosted demand, inflation returned. This forced central banks to choose between acquiescing to rising prices and blowing up the corporate and state zombies they had nurtured for more than a decade. They chose the former.

All of a sudden, though, the IMF saw the liberal establishments lost capacity to stabilize capitalism reflected in rising economic inequality. So the last thing the markets needed, the funds technocrats realized, was more socialism for the wealthy. But it would take a feat of wishful thinking to interpret the IMFs panic-driven reaction as a sincere conversion to economic redistribution and social democracy. A warning against an act of elite self-harm was the extent of it.

Link:
Since When Does the IMF Care About Inequality? - The Atlantic

Esta entrada tambin est disponible en: Espaol

The European Parliaments political action group ECR Eurolat announced the holding, for the second consecutive year, of the Iberosphere Summit, a transatlantic meeting in defense of democratic values and freedom in the Western Hemisphere.

The meeting, whose leader is Hermann Tertsch, MEP for the Spanish conservative party VOX, will take place in Madrid on October 10-11 and will be attended by leaders and political figures from multiple Spanish-speaking countries.

Among them will be Colombian senator Mara Fernanda Cabal, Venezuelan leader Mara Corina Machado, Spanish VOX deputies Jorge Buxad, Ivn Espinosa de los Monteros and Roco Monasterio, American senator Ana Mara Rodrguez, politician and former candidate for the presidency of Chile, Jos Antonio Kast, Brazilian diplomat Ernesto Arajo, Cuban writer Zo Valds, persecuted by the communist dictatorship.

The purpose of both the ECR Eurolat and the Summit is to build an alliance of democratic forces defending freedom and Western values in Ibero-America and Europe, and will discuss left-wing totalitarian governments.

This European-Ibero-American alliance aims to help consolidate a common defense of values and institutions in both Europe and Ibero-America, to forge solid synergies of cooperation and ideologicalcommon defense of values and institutions of both Europe and Ibero-America, forge solid synergies of cooperation and ideological body, as well as content for the cultural battle that takes place around the world, but especially in the Ibero-American subcontinent, explained the deputy Tertsch in the official announcement.

During the first day, the guests will discuss the economic, political and environmental consequences of narco-communism, and its tendency to come to power through terrorism and lead the country to a constituent process, as happened in Venezuela and Chile.

They will also address the issue of education and mass indoctrination, part of the culture war promoted by the left with the purpose of destroying democracies.

The second day will be devoted to reflecting on the resurgence of democracy after the collapse of communist regimes in Europe and its rebirth in Latin American nations. Leaders from both sides of the Atlantic will discuss the advance of common enemies China and Russia throughout the region.

In addition, they will present ideas on how to confront the extreme left-wing narratives and policies that seek to take Latin America down the road to communism, as well as possible solutions for countries subjected to these regimes, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.

The closing speech will be given by the president of VOX, Spanish conservative leader Santiago Abascal.

Toms Lugo, journalist and writer. Born in Venezuela and graduated in Social Communication. Has written for international media outlets. Currently living in Colombia // Toms Lugo, periodista y articulista. Nacido en Venezuela y graduado en Comunicacin Social. Ha escrito para medios internacionales. Actualmente reside en Colombia.

Original post:
Conservative Leaders Gather at Second Iberosphere Summit to Discuss Threat of Socialism - El American

The effect that more than three hundred dedicated socialists in one room can have on morale can not be overstated.

The fight for a socialist world can feel demoralizing, frustrating, and often isolating. Theres no point in denying that progress in this struggle more closely resembles the outline of a mountain range rather than a straight line. But attending Socialist Alternatives 2022 summer school just outside of St. Louis, Missouri this Labor Day weekend was a remarkably energizing experience for myself and hundreds of other Socialist Alternative members who came from across the country and, in some cases, from around the world.

This summer was the first time since the beginning of COVID that members of the entire national organization were able to meet in person. The weekend-long event was centered around discussing Marxist theory, the history of the workers movement, and the tasks for today. That so many people were willing to fly in or spend an entire day on the road for an event like this is a testament to the seriousness and energy of our organization. Indeed, a vast swath of attendees had been members of the organization for less than six months. For some, this was the first major national event they had ever attended as a member of the organization.

The event opened with a series of discussions on our global perspectives, with a number of members of our international, the International Socialist Alternative (ISA), having flown in to discuss and elaborate on the struggles taking place in their home countries. As an organization with members in all corners of the globe, it is vital that we remain informed and actively engaged with world events, and having access to socialist organizers with first-hand experience in the constantly developing fights cropping up globally is crucial to keeping us true to our internationalist roots. Pairing these international perspectives with the following days discussions on U.S. perspectives did a lot to strengthen and clarify the links between the work we do here and the work we do on a global scale.

Each day was dense with opportunities for political development and consolidation. Sessions were held on everything from the Amazon union fight to the student movement to the Sri Lankan uprising. We even discussed theoretical topics like dialectical materialism and the fundamentals of Marxist economics.

Equally important to the more formal educational seminars was the mingling and bonding that took place both inside and outside them. From the moment I stepped off of the plane in St. Louis, I was learning names and getting to know people with a genuine interest in fighting for the international working class. Its one thing to have an abstract sense of your organization at large in your mind; its another thing entirely to see it with your own eyes. Its intimidating at first, undoubtedly, but everyone was there for the same reason: to sharpen their politics, and to connect the struggle in their hometown to the struggle in yours.

Despite having spent the weekend digging deep into a vast array of very serious topics, I left St. Louis with a heightened sense of optimism for the continuation of our fight for socialism. The mood throughout the whole weekend was unmistakably positive, with excited conversations about the state of the movement and in-depth discussions of history, theory, and action echoing down the halls of the convention center. Each session ended with the takeaway that while the world can look bleak at a glance, there are huge opportunities on the horizon our task is to assess the situation and take action. Thats precisely why everyone in that room was there: rather than sinking into apathy at the current state of the world, we took to our feet for the world we know we can win.

Read the original:
ISA in Action || United States: Socialist Alternative Summer School ISA - International Socialist

The treacherous lure of the Establishment has indeed been a constant problem for Labour leaders from Ramsay MacDonald and Hugh Gaitskell to Sir Keir Starmer. Roy Jenkins, who narrowly failed to get the top job, was almost a caricature in this respect. All of them could talk the talk but were ultimately less interested in socialism than in social climbing.

So perhaps it's unsurprising that Murray doesnt come up with an answer to the titular question. (Neither did Engels, by the way. He steered clear of those abominable drawing-rooms and focused instead on strike action in London's East End.) Murray's title is somewhat misleading anyway. More a memoir than a work of analysis, his book provides an often anecdotal account of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as seen from the inside. A lifelong communist and veteran of the Stop the War coalition, Murray was unexpectedly seconded to Corbyns office by the trade union Unite to help counteract daily sabotage by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party and media.

In fact, two more immediate questions run through the book: is Labour a fit and proper vehicle for the pursuit of socialism, and can equality, social justice and ecological balance ever be attained via institutions like the British parliament?

A hundred years ago, in the aftermath of the Bolshevik uprising, the Labour Party made a deliberate ideological choice not to agitate for revolution but instead to take the long and winding parliamentary road to socialism.

This ambivalent century-old legacy provided the context for Murrays previous book,The Fall and Rise of the British Left, which was written at a time of peak Corbynism, following Labours unexpectedly strong showing at the 2017 general election. It told the story of a radical politician overhauling the historically conservative Labour Party. Published in the autumn of 2019, the book was, as the author himself admits, a spectacularly mistimed work, since the left in question was then teetering on the brink of a precipitous fall.

Is Socialism Possible in Britain?attempts to look at what went wrong and why Corbynism failed. Quite rightly, it points a finger of blame at the PLP, which fought Corbyn from the outset, displaying scant regard for his election by the wider party membership. The MPs' antipathy to Corbyn was based on Blairite opposition to his campaigning against imperialist wars, his disregard for neoliberal economic orthodoxies (including austerity) and, above all, his willingness to champion concepts often ignored by mainstream politics, such as public ownership and tax increases on business and the rich.

Yet Murray also candidly assesses the leaderships mistakes, in particular its botched response to the anti-Semitism controversy and its dithering over Britains relationship with the European Union. The "Brexit blunder", as he calls it, alienated Labour leave-voters in the north of England's so-called "red wall" seats by appearing to disrespect the outcome of the 2016 referendum, and therefore missed an opportunity to re-frame the question to Corbyn's advantage. By the summer of 2017, according to Murray, most Remainers had set their sights no higher than securing a soft Brexit that would have left Britain aligned with the EU single market. Had the Corbyn leadership, still riding high after its June election triumph, backed Theresa Mays deal, it might have put the issue to bed by the time of the next general election at which Labour would have trounced the Tories with its alternative vision for a post-Brexit Britain.

It's hard not to agree with Murray that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party was dramatically overstated for political reasons by Corbyn's opponents. Yet he doesnt deny that there were grounds for concern. Anti-Semitism did resurface within the Party but not more so, perhaps less so, than elsewhere in the rest of British society, often as a result of misdirected opposition to Israels apartheid against Palestinians. Yetthe leaderships response to toxic attitudes was belated and inadequate. However, it is worth pointing out that similar attitudes are routinely expressed in the columns of theDaily MailandDaily Telegraph, both of which claimed that Corbyn himself was anti-Semitic a ludicrous suggestion given his lifelong fight against all forms of racism.

Undeniably one of the causes of Labours declining support in Englands post-industrial regions is a basic historical fact: the industrial communities that gave rise to the Labour movement no longer exist. In other words, socialism may no longer be possible in Britain, if it ever was, through the agency of the Labour Party. Corbynism is now receding in the rear-view mirror of politics. Yet the social conditions that it addressed, from inequality and corruption to war and climate change, loom larger than ever given the bankruptcy of neo-liberal economics and that is why a similar movement, the next attempt to make socialism possible in Britain, will no doubt come along soon.

Read more:
Andrew Murray: Is Socialism Possible in Britain? review - what went wrong and why Corbynism failed - The Arts Desk