home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
The Wal-Mart Model of Education
Danny Weil on the latest big chapter in the smash and grab saga of neo-liberalism: privatizing Public Schools. Goodbye unions; hello “private contractors”. Now it’s Los Angeles’ turn. But, yes, we can fight back. Weil tells how. First the Swindle, Now the Whitewash. Eamonn Fingleton on how the SEC helped Madoff steal $50 billion and has now covered its tracks. “All I ask is that the poor family I give the cow to promises never to send it to the abattoir.” Meet Lachchu, the man who saves cows. P. Sainath reports from India. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and t-shirts make great presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page
|
Today's Stories September 23, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts September 22, 2009 Franklin C. Spinney The Huge Hole in Gen. McChrystal's Afghan Counterinsurgency Strategy Russell Mokhiber Greg Grandin Nikolas Kozloff John Ross Ron Jacobs Tariq Ali Dave Lindorff Harvey Wasserman Vijay Prashad Kareem Shora Website of the Day September 21, 2009 JoAnn Wypijewski Carl Finamore Uri Avnery Nikolas Kozloff Paul Simpson, M.D. Alan Nasser Ray McGovern Dave Lindorff Lina Thorne Jeb Sprague Website of the Day September 18-20, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Russell Mokhiber Mike Whitney David Michael Green Jonathan Cook Nadia Hijab Mark Weisbrot Michael Winship Michael Leonardi Andy Worthington Fred Gardner David Macaray David Rosen Jason Mark Mike Ferner Farzana Versey Ron Jacobs elin o'Hara slavick Gilad Aztmon David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Lorenzo Wolff Website of the Weekend
September 17, 2009 Joshua Frank Brenda Norrell Robert Weissman Pam Martens Franklin Lamb Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Jed Bickman Alan Farago Website of the Day September 16, 2009 Ray McGovern Stephen Green Andy Worthington Dean Baker Anthony DiMaggio Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Benjamin Dangl Robin Willoughby Eric Walberg James Ridgeway Website of the Day September 15, 2009 Mike Whitney Mutadhar al-Zaidi Marshall Auerback Afshin Rattansi Jonathan Cook Gareth Porter: Dave Lindorff Winslow T. Wheeler Franklin Spinney Karen Korenoski / David Macaray Susie Day Website of the Day September 14, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts M. G. Piety Shamus Cooke Bouthaina Shaaban Alvaro Huerta John Ross Harvey Wasserman Adam Federman Stephen Fleischman Robert Jensen Website of the Day September 11-13, 2009 Alexander Cockburn JoAnn Wypijewski Carl Ginsburg Leonard Peltier Franklin Lamb Benjamin Dangl Mike Whitney John Berger Saul Landau Russell Mokhiber Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Felice Pace Jordan Flaherty Ron Jacobs David Macaray David Correia Robert Bryce Christopher Brauchli Paul Krassner Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 10, 2009 Joshua Frank Dean Baker Brian M. Downing Franklin C. Spinney Andy Worthington Chase Madar Farzana Versey Ronnie Cummins Binoy Kampmark Timothy Lebrón Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 9, 2009 Richard Neville Melissa Checker Nadia Hijab Robert Weissman Jonathan Cook Russell Mokhiber James Ridgeway Richard W. Behan James McEnteer Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day September 8, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Stephen Soldz John Ross Jeff Leys Mike Whitney Ashcroft: Repugnant to the Constitution Shamus Cooke Ellen Brown Norman Solomon Men With Guns: In Kabul and Washington Deepak Tripathi Laray Polk Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 7, 2009 Vicente Navarro Bouthaina Shaaban David Macaray Paul Craig Roberts Jonathan Cook Conn Hallinan Walter Brasch Mark Weisbrot Carl Finamore C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day September 4-6, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Carl Ginsburg Jonathan Cook George Wuerthner Marc Levy Ray McGovern Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Joe Paff Gareth Porter Devin Beaulieu Anthony Papa David Ker Thomson Don Fitz Lee Sustar / Jim Goodman Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Helen Redmond John V. Walsh Charles R. Larson Mark Scaramella David Yearsley Ben Sonnenberg Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend September 3, 2009 Marcus Rediker Ron Jacobs Mike Whitney Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada Saul Landau Anat Matar Tanya Golash-Boza Dave Lindorff Andy Worthington Website of the Day September 2, 2009 John Ross Vijay Prashad Rev. Jim Rigby Joanne Mariner Missy Beattie Soren Ambrose Diane Farsetta Nadia Hijab Shamus Cooke Charles R. Larson Website of the Day September 1, 2009 Jeffrey St. Clair Paul Craig Roberts Mark T. Harris Dean Baker Jeffrey Buchanan Robin Mittenthal Ellen Brown Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day
|
September 23, 2009 The U.S. - China SkirmishThe First Shots of the Trade WarBy SHAMUS COOKE With the G-20 summit approaching, cheerful talk of “international cooperation” fills the White House press-room. These comments carry with them the implication that “free trade” is integral to “cooperation,” a fact made explicit in the last meeting of the G-20. There, in the name of “united action,” world leaders agreed not to install any new protectionist measures. Since then, protectionist measures have flourished. Instead of global cooperation we have its opposite: international tensions are on the rise as trade disputes sharpen. For example, the Obama administration “slapped a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires… and China responded this past weekend by threatening to retaliate against U.S. chickens and auto parts. That followed French President Nicolas Sarkozy's demand on Thursday that Europe impose a carbon tariff on imports from countries that don't follow its cap-and-trade diktats.” (Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2009). The U.S.-China skirmish is especially explosive, since the relationship is central to the functioning of the global economy. China stood silent for years as the U.S. imposed tariffs on various Chinese products, a passiveness that lured Obama into his recent action. China’s quick response sent a strong signal: enough is enough. China’s Commerce Secretary warned that the U.S. tariff "not only violates WTO rules, but also runs against U.S. pledges at the G-20 summits, constitutes an abuse of trade remedy measures, and sets an extremely bad precedent in the current backdrop of a world economy in crisis." One aspect of this “bad precedent” is that the tariff could inspire other U.S. corporations to apply for China-specific protections, perhaps setting off an avalanche of tariffs that China will inevitably respond to. The Wall Street Journal confirms:
If the China-U.S. relationship sours, much of the global economy may spoil with it. Another recent trade spat flared up between U.S.-based Boeing and Europe-housed Airbus. Years ago the U.S. filed a grievance at the World Trade Organization (WTO) claiming that Airbus received unfair subsidies from European governments (Europe’s identical grievance against the U.S. is still pending). A preliminary decision finally announced that Europe is guilty of illegally subsidizing Airbus, with the full implications yet unknown. An immediate outcome of the dispute is the demand from some U.S. congressmen that a multi-billion dollar U.S. military contract be awarded to Boeing instead of Airbus. Politicians are using the nationalistic “buy American” slogan to pressure the government to bless the mega-corporation Boeing with mountains of U.S. tax dollars instead of its European counterpart. If the U.S. government were to freeze Airbus out of the gargantuan U.S. military market, large-scale retaliatory measures would surely be expected. As it stands, the seeds for such a conflict are being planted. Business Week notes:
So not only does Boeing’s billions of dollars enable it to purchase politicians, which is out of the reach of Airbus, but misguided labor leaders are encouraging workers to fight alongside the corporate giant as it battles an international competitor. The same Boeing that threatened to leave the state of Washington for a union-free South has labor leaders singing its praises until the factory doors shut. Workers should not lend their voices in defense of the corporate shareholders that squeeze profits from them; an independent position is needed — less they’re suckered into the corporate “partnerships” preached by CEO’s, politicians, and defunct labor leaders. One way to gain a worker’s perspective on trade is to study history. A simple appraisal of the Great Depression proves an undeniable fact: protectionist measures taken by governments deepened the depression, led to a trade war, and helped fuel the national conflicts that ignited World War II. With this conventional wisdom known by every world leader today, why are protectionist measures on the rise? Why does Obama speak against trade protectionism while at the same time imposing protectionist tariffs? Although free trade is crucial to the functioning of a capitalist economy, the desire for short-term profits sometimes supersedes rational considerations, especially in a recession. Large recessions create huge drops in corporate profit rates. To help maintain profits, corporations force politicians to use tariff walls to exclude foreign competitors. In an earlier article we wrote: ”In normal times, market warfare is kept at bay by such institutions as the World Trade Organization and more importantly the profit-induced cooperation of the rich countries. In times of deep recessions, however, these niceties fly out the windows. The banks and corporations that ultimately control politics in each country demand bailouts and other forms of protection from the cruelty of the once-friendly “free market.” (Will Obama Start the Next Trade War? February 5, 2009). Some U.S. corporations may find that having a seller’s monopoly over the highly valued U.S. market — by imposing tariffs — is more profitable than cooperating with the Chinese. But these U.S. corporations aren’t mom and pop local producers, they’re world exporters. And while they’re making super-profits by blocking Chinese imports, these U.S. companies subsidize their exports abroad by the monopoly profits at home, which is considered “dumping,” causing further retaliatory measures from the Chinese and other countries suffering from the competition. Not only does protectionism create global conflicts, but it also destroys the jobs that some claim it saves. When tariffs cut off imports to the U.S., consumers are forced to buy more expensive products, creating inflation that hurts the economy as a whole. More importantly, when U.S. corporations are shut off from foreign markets via retaliation, job slashing and wage cutting are the inevitable results. It's true that free trade is essentially an agreement between corporate-controlled governments to unleash raw, unbridled competition among the world’s corporations. Such a system deserves zero support since workers are constantly asked to make sacrifices so that the company they work for can survive. Protectionism, on the other hand, equals a breakdown of the global capitalist system, creating a vicious battle between corporations for access to the best markets, rarest raw materials and cheapest labor. As long as the economy is controlled by the super wealthy and produces things only for their profit, neither free trade nor protectionism should be a concern for workers. We cannot afford to link our fate with that of “our” corporations, since the corporations are not ours to begin with. Their profits are raised at our expense by lowering wages, administering frequent layoffs, and reducing benefits. Groveling to politicians to “protect” American corporations is a losing strategy for workers. Instead, workers must demand and fight for living wages and good benefits from their employers. If a company threatens to move to a place where labor is cheap, workers are not powerless. In Latin America workers have developed militant methods to keep jobs in their community: mass protests, strikes, and factory occupations are used interchangeably to assert control over their workplace. As long as workers see themselves in competition with workers in other countries, ALL workers will inevitably be caught up in a race to the bottom. Companies all over the world will tell their workforce that in order for the company to survive foreign competition, the workers will have to accept lower wages and reduced benefits. But if workers begin to forge alliances across borders, then we can all begin to demand that our wages and benefits rise collectively, and the corporations will have no place to go. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action. He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Yellowstone Drift: Spell Albuquerque: Waiting for
Lightning
|