Published: Monday 19 November 2012
“At the end of September, however, a group of just 40 people demonstrated that small numbers are no barrier to successful nonviolent action by blockading the entrance of one of the most significant military bases in Australia over two days.”

 

It would be fair to say the anti-war movement in Australia has been struggling, particularly since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. When governments decided to go to war despite the largest demonstrations the world has ever seen, many people declared the situation hopeless and simply gave up. Coupled with the rise of online activism, getting people to actively resist war in an embodied way has been a great challenge. At the end of September, however, a group of just 40 people demonstrated that small numbers are no barrier to successful nonviolent action by blockading the entrance of one of the most significant military bases in Australia over two days.

Organizers had planned a five-day convergence at the Swan Island military base in southern Victoria from September 23 to 27. The first day was spent making banners for visual impact, getting to know one another and learning about the latest developments in the war in Afghanistan — as well as how this particular base contributes to the war there.

The entire next day was spent in trainings, from theory in the morning to blockading tactics in the afternoon. An arrest workshop was also run to answer questions people might have about the process or about legal implications. All of this combined provided the tools to reduce people’s fears, particularly for first-timers. After dark, the children led us on a lantern walk to the gates of the base, where they read the words of the Afghan Peace Volunteers: “We wish to live without wars” and “Love is how we ask for peace.”

On the third day we rose early and took up position at the gate. Police emerged from the shadows, but only 10 to 15 in number. With 40 of us, about 15 of whom were prepared to risk arrest, we thought we stood a good chance of holding the space for longer than we had in previous years.

The first round of cars appeared around 6 a.m. ...

Published: Sunday 14 October 2012
“Financial leaders and influential policymakers have also identified the importance of investment in infrastructure and technology transfer in order to boost sustainable growth in developing economies.”

Developing countries – ­relegated to the sidelines of the West-led postwar expansion – have emerged as the saving grace of the global economy against a backdrop of calls for a new economic model that can ease the ravages of globalization and address the lack of confidence in market-based systems.

Indeed, supporting economic growth in developing countries in a way that expands domestic productivity and stimulates global demand has been a core message at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) underway in Tokyo this week.

Financial leaders and influential policymakers have also identified the importance of investment in infrastructure and technology transfer in order to boost sustainable growth in developing economies.

“The envisaged global superhighway has not realized enough growth in the world,” said IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, pointing out that economic expansion is currently being recorded mostly in developing countries.

Speaking at a discussion on globalization here, Lagarde says the key economic challenge today is the trend of decreasing job opportunities for youth, suggesting that nations can help each other in meeting these challenges.

“I fear an intergenerational conflict if our financial model leaves increasing debt for the younger generation,” she warned.

Western economies in particular have been hit with massive unemployment among the younger generation. Unemployment rates are as high as 50 percent in countries such as Spain and Greece, both dealing with severe austerity plans imposed by global financial lending institutions.

But Asia, by contrast, has been recording expansion. China, Asia’s growth engine, has shown an average annual 10 percent GDP growth over the past decade and is now the world’s second largest economy.

Published: Thursday 14 June 2012
“Of all the hypocritical hype resonating through the rhetoric of these Republicans, none is more damaging than the myth of free market and the jive about private-sector job creators.”

Late this summer, August 27-30, the world will once again be treated to the spectacle of a Republic National Convention.  It's only fitting that this one will be held in Tampa, Florida, the state that made it possible for George W. Bush to steal the election in 2000.  The convention is a sure bet to be a theater of the absurd, but this year the candidate it anoints and the speeches that sing his praises will highlight the hypocrisy of the new Grand Old Party like never before.

Of all the hypocritical hype resonating through the rhetoric of these Republicans, none is more damaging than the myth of free market and the jive about private-sector job creators.  A vibrant economy operating without state intervention or regulation is one of the most pernicious, pervasive, and persistent myths in contemporary American politics.

Today even in the aftermath of the wild-assed, credit-crazed, derivative-driven, deliriously leveraged bubble economy that finally triggered the financial meltdown in 2008 – even after the near-collapse of the global economy and the Great Recession that followed (and still lingers), few Republican leaders dare to say a kind word about the need for state regulation or tax reform, and Democrats too often concede in practice what they dare not renounce in principle.  In fact, there is not a country in the world, never has been and never will be, where the economy operates in a political-administrative or legal vacuum.  Which is to say, there is no such thing as a free market or a pure market economy.

Nothing even close.  And while it's true that the state plays a smaller role in some economies than in others, the United States is in no sense exemplary except by one measure:  hypocrisy.

For proof, we can turn to no less an authority than Niall Ferguson, a self-confessed true believer in Adam Smith's "invisible hand".  Earlier this ...

Published: Tuesday 31 January 2012
“Consumers and investors are doing increasingly well but job insecurity is on the rise, inequality is widening, communities are becoming less stable, and climate change is worsening.”

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos a few days ago, said the “critical risks” facing the American economy this year were a worsening of Europe’s chronic sovereign debt crisis and a rise in tensions with Iran that could stoke global oil prices.

What about jobs and wages here at home?

As the Commerce Department reported Friday, the U.S. economy grew 2.8 percent between October and December – the fastest pace in 18 months and the first time growth exceeded 2 percent all year. Many bigger American companies have been reporting strong profits in recent months. GE and Lockheed Martin closed the year with record order backlogs.

Yet the percent of working-age Americans in jobs isn’t much different than what it was three years ago. Yes, America now produces more than it did when the recession began. But it does so with 6 million fewer workers.

Average after-tax incomes adjusted for inflation are moving up a bit. (They increased at an annual rate of .8 percent in the last three months of 2011 after falling 1.9 percent in prior three-month period. For all of 2011, incomes fell .1 percent.)

But beware averages. Shaquille O’Neal and I have an average height of six feet. Exclude Mitt Romney’s $20 million last year — along with everyone else securely in the top 1 percent — and the incomes of most Americans are continuing to slip.

Consumer spending picked up slightly in the fourth quarter mainly because consumers drew down their savings. Obviously, this can’t last.

Meanwhile, government is spending less on schools, roads, bridges, parks, defense, and social services. Government spending at all levels dropped at an annual rate of 4.6 percent in the last quarter – and that’s likely to continue.

Some economists worry this drop is a drag on the economy. But it also means fewer public goods ...

Published: Friday 7 October 2011
Much will depend on the uncertainties – often underestimated – brought about by future political change in China.

The United States is going through difficult times. Its post-2008 recovery has slowed, and some observers fear that Europe’s financial problems could tip the American and world economy into a second recession.

American politics, moreover, remains gridlocked over budgetary issues, and compromise will be even more difficult on the eve of the 2012 election, when Republicans hope that economic problems will help them unseat President Barack Obama. In these circumstances, many are predicting America’s decline, especially relative to China.

"Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Joseph Nye, click here."

And it’s not just pundits who think so. A recent Pew poll found that in 15 of 22 countries surveyed, most people believe that China either will replace or has replaced America as “the world’s leading superpower.” In Britain, those putting China on top rose to 47%, from 34% in 2009. Similar trends are evident in Germany, Spain, and France. Indeed, the poll found more pessimistic views of the US among our oldest and closest allies than in Latin America, Japan, Turkey, and Eastern Europe. But even Americans are divided equally about whether China will replace the US as a global superpower.

Such sentiments reflect the slow growth and fiscal problems that followed the 2008 financial crisis, but they are not historically unprecedented. Americans have a long history of incorrectly estimating their power. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, after Sputnik, many thought that the Soviets might get the better of America; in the 1980’s, it was the Japanese. Now it is the Chinese. But, with America’s debt on a path to equaling its national income in a ...

Syndicate content
Make your voice heard.
Write for NationofChange
The National Security Agency Part I - Shifting Historical Context Context One: It is 1971 and the...
Blog Two: Deadly Arguments--The Role of Guns There are few issues in U.S. society that are as...
So far, the biggest revelation of the NSA spying story is…that anyone actually thinks this story is...
Concluding Remarks This blog has introduced the major tool that underlies all of the arguments we...
The records of our phone calls being entered into computers at the NSA is a typical Patriot Act...
Last month, I argued why "America Must Intervene In Syria, Despite Lack of National Security...
In the wake of the Skagit River bridge collapse, which thankfully did not result in any deaths,...
Blog One: TAF--The Toulmin Argumentation Framework In 1958, the distinguished historian and...
At a recent DNC fundraiser 56- year old LGBTQ advocate Ellen Sturt heckled Michelle Obama  to ask...
Neal Boortz Part I - Some Background Information My wife and I have family in Barcelona, Spain,...
We information renegades have been fighting for free information and an open net free of censorship...
Breaking the Tyranny of “Either/Or Thinking” While I certainly do not believe that all...
What our presidents tell our young people In this season of college graduations, let us pause to...
A Native American boy asked his grandfather, “What do you think about the world today?...
As a linguist studying politics, I usually refrain from sharing any of my politic views in my...