Andre Damon

On Thursday, the Brookings Institution published a report documenting the sharp growth of social inequality in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States. The report’s findings are of vast significance in three respects.

First, the report documents the immense scale of social inequality and the rapidity with which it is growing, even in cities that are supposedly economic success stories.
Secondly, it shows the crushing growth of poverty and economic distress in these cities.
Thirdly, it implies that these conditions are not the result of a passing economic slowdown, but are rather embedded in the economic system and have become permanent facts of life.

According to the study, across the US, a household in the 95th percentile of income earners—that is, at the bottom of the top five percent—in 2012 had an income nine times greater than the a household in the 20th percentile—that is, at the top of the bottom fifth of income earners. But major cities had a much higher level of income inequality. The ratio was 18.8 for Atlanta, 16.6 for San Francisco, 15.7 for Miami, 15.3 for Boston and 13.3 for Washington DC.

The report documents the massive decline in working class incomes that took place between 2007 and 2012. For example, in Indianapolis—hit by a wave of industrial plant closures—the income of a typical household in the 20th percentile fell by $5,800, or more than a quarter, to $16,883. In Jacksonville, Florida the income of a household in this bracket fell by $7,800, or 30 percent, to $17,411.

“A city where the rich are very rich, and the poor very poor, is likely to face many difficulties,” the report states. “It may struggle to maintain mixed-income school environments that produce better outcomes for low-income kids. It may have too narrow a tax base from which to sustainably raise the revenues necessary for essential city services. And it may fail to produce housing and neighborhoods accessible to middle-class workers and families...”

This describes the great majority of American cities and amounts to an admission that the present social order holds no prospect for decent housing, health care or education for the great majority of city dwellers.

More »

Stephen Lendman

An anti-government protester mans a barricade in Kiev.

A previous article discussed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and fascist opposition leaders agreeing on terms to end street violence. They suggest unconditional surrender.

Events are so fluid it's hard knowing for sure what's coming until they play out. They're unlikely to any time soon. Ukraine is an ongoing story. Strings are pulled in Washington and key EU capitals. Protest leaders are Western puppets. Disparate street elements have ideas of their own.

Yanukovych agreed to hold early presidential and parliamentary election. He'll reinstate Ukraine's 2004 constitution. He'll form a national unity government. These were key protester demands. Parliament approved unconditional amnesty for all detainees facing potential prosecution for street crime violence. Martial law won't be imposed. Or a state of emergency. In return, both sides agreed to refrain from violence. Reports said it continued sporadically in Kiev and other cities.

Disparate elements want more. They want Yanukovych replaced now. They want elections earlier than he proposed. They want new government as soon as possible. They want their will imposed unilaterally. They want Yanukovych tried for crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Obama represents predatory Western interests. He wants Ukraine colonized. He wants its resources controlled. He wants them plundered. He wants ordinary Ukrainians exploited. He wants Ukraine made part of NATO. He wants all former Russian republics under US control. His policies risk confrontation with Moscow. Expect Putin to take so much and no more. He won't sacrifice vital Russian interests for Washington. The struggle for Ukraine's soul continues. It remains to be seen how things play out.

More »

Paul Craig Roberts

Economic theory teaches that free price and profit movements ensure that capitalism produces the greatest welfare for the greatest number. Losses indicate economic activities where costs exceed the value of production, thus investment in these activities is curtailed. Profits indicate economic activities where the value of output exceeds its cost, thus investment increases. Prices indicate the relative scarcity and value of inputs and outputs, thus serving to organize production most efficiently.

This theory doesn’t work when the US government socializes cost and privatizes profits as it has been doing with the Federal Reserve’s support of “banks too big to fail” and when a handful of financial institutions have concentrated much economic activity.

Subsidized “private” banks are no different from the former publicly subsidized socialized industries of Great Britain, France, Italy, and the former communist countries. The banks have imposed the costs of their incompetence, greed, and corruption on taxpayers. Indeed, the socialized firms in England and France were more efficiently run and never threatened the national economies, much less the entire world, with ruin as do the private US “banks too big to fail.” The English, French, and communists never had to print $1,000 billion dollars annually to save a handful of corrupt and incompetent financial enterprises.

This only happens in “free market capitalism” where the capitalists, with the approval of the corrupt US Supreme Court can purchase the government, which represents them and not the electorate. Thus, the taxation and money creation powers of government are used to support a few financial institutions at the expense of the rest of the country. This is what is meant by “markets are self-regulating.”

More »