Cheers, Europe … it was nice knowing you!

Auf wiedersehen, adios, arrivederci, au revoir, vaarwel. That is what the British people, by a small margin, have decided to say to the European Union this evening (NYT). Following in the footsteps of nativist movements across the world, England will now stand alone, leaving the rest of Europe to find a way to live in harmony under one currency and free trade zone. It was a stunning victory for the right-wing group that sponsored the vote, not only sending shock waves across Europe and the globe, but causing the Pound to tumble like Road Runner over the cliff after another failed plan to snatch his nemesis.  

Like the nomination of Donald Trump as the GOP presidential candidate, it appears to show a new fascist tide rising across parts of the Western world, where anger over economic disparity has been planted firmly at the footstep of growing transnational migration and the immigrants looking for a better life at the core of the neoliberal economic juggernaut. Nigel Farage, the leader of the Independent Party largely responsible for the victory, proclaimed, “Dare to dream that the dawn is breaking on an independent United Kingdom.”

As the first of the 28-member bloc to leave, it is still unclear what effect it will have on the EU, though it is worth noting that England never accepted the Euro as their currency, and were thus not as closely aligned with the economic policies of Germany and France as the rest of the member countries. On the other hand, as a key player in the financial and banking industries of Europe, one imagines it will cause even further consternation as the European Union attempts to confront its failures over the past decade and a half to live up to its early promise.

More troubling is the anti-immigrant “populism” that is spreading like a Ziska plague across Europe and America and what it means for our collective future. The real culprits at the heart of the declining economic prosperity of all but the richest Westerners have dodged the proverbial bullet of the 2007-08 Financial Crisis so far and seem to have effectively used their political surrogates to create an alternative narrative that resonates with the people. The first rule of colonialism was divide and conquer and that still seems to be among the most effective strategies to keep an increasingly squeezed middle and working class at bay as their quality of life continues to decline.

Whether it can last in the long term is an interesting question, particularly with the model of economic prosperity, equality and opportunity the countries of Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark continue to provide to the rest of the Western nations, who conveniently ignore the data in lieu of tired old tales of neoliberal hegemony and its many beneficiaries. The election of Francois Hollande and the run of Bernie Sanders certainly provide some hope of a progressive “spring” that can restore some semblance of reason to the debate about our collective future, but it appears the reactionary policies of ressentiment are winning out with substantially more frequency at the present. 

The 1% Have Now Surpassed the 99% in Wealth

Yes, that’s right. A report from Oxfam found that the top 1% of the world’s earners now has the combined wealth of the bottom 99%. Even worse, the richest 62 individuals in the world have as much wealth as half of the people on the globe combined. This trend has been ongoing since the 80s, but has accelerated dramatically in recent years. 

Free market advocates would argue that these individuals deserve the money they’ve earned and invest it in the economy to make us all better off. But that is inaccurate, as the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few tends to lead to riskier investment behavior, dramatic waste and conspicuous consumption in cars, housing, fashion and the like, which have high profit margins but where there are fewer employees. 

Ben Southland of the Adam Smith Institute is among the critics of the report, claiming: “"More meaningful measures show greater equality. Those in the middle and bottom of the world income distribution have all got pay rises of around 40% between 1988-2008. Global inequality of life expectancy and height are narrowing too—showing better nutrition and better healthcare where it matters most. What we should care about is the welfare of the poor, not the wealth of the rich.” While I agree we should care about the welfare of the poor, this is highly correlated with the share of global wealth in the hands of the few.

It’s not a complicated argument, either. The more money amassed by the few, the less there is for the rest of us. Other economic booms have involved wealth creation, but more equally distributed across the population. That is no longer the case and many in the West actually have net-negative wealth, given their outstanding debt obligations. This is the result of relatively flat wages for the average worker, higher unemployment rates, inflation that is higher than reported by the official measures and increasing debt (particularly student loan balances).

So is there a solution to this problem? Of course there is! It involves returning to more progressive tax policy, expanding the earned income tax credit, putting limits on executive compensation, breaking up the big banks and expanding the “living wage” movement across the country and then globe. Workers have been increasing productivity over the past 30 years and profits have steadily risen (except during economic downturns), but the fruits of those increases have increasingly gone into the hands of the few. At the global level, we could take inspiration from the Nordic countries that not only have a higher average standard of living with high taxes and “big government” but higher life expectancy, higher happiness rates and, surprisingly to Americans, more income mobility. Addressing global poverty in the developing and underdeveloped worlds should begin with forgiveness of foreign debt and an end to the demands of “liberating” markets for foreign capital and competition.

If you are wondering whether you are among the lucky few, it takes $68,800 in savings to hit the top 10 percent and $760,000 to make that top 1 percent.

Hollywood's China Censors

Interesting short piece on the ways Hollywood is altering their blockbuster films to ensure they can get past the Chinese censors, as they continue to infiltrate the mainstream China market: NPR. It was bad enough when the CIA was redacting Zero Dark Thirty, but this is taking things to a whole new level. After years of portraying our political enemies in a negative light, it appears globalization has turned Hollywood from its traditional Americanized ideological commitments to commerce full stop. 

Europe Militarize Against Immigration (More Sanguine on Gay Marriage)

In an escalation over the continued influx of immigrants into European countries, the European Union decided Monday to militarize their efforts in the Mediterranean Sea (WP). This year, over 1,800 immigrants have already been killed in the burgeoning crisis surrounding smuggler vessels crossing the sea with immigrants from Africa and the Middle East (along with those coming in from Eastern Europe, the Balkans and other poorer countries across the three continents). It is the latest parry in the attempt to stem the tide of foreigners entering the countries; clearly the result of both globalization and the failure of neoliberal policies over the past 25 years to “lift all boats” (metaphor intended).

The dramatic acceleration in global commerce and exchange has had many positive impacts across the globe, in the arts, in science, in medicine and, in a more limited way, in democracy. One of the biggest promises of neoliberal ideology, however, that global trade and free markets would improve the economic situation of more and more people across the globe has failed to materialize. After years of promises, going back as far as the 70s (or even 50s, if we look at Modernisation Theory and its promise that investment in education would create a thriving middle class across the globe), many countries have started to reject these calls to open their markets completely to foreign trade and commerce. Argentina is just one example, but we can also find similar trends in four countries that have grown rapidly over the past 30 years – South Korea, India, Brazil and China. In fact we can add Russia to the list (rounding out the BRIC countries), showing how maintaining some barriers to imports, strategic investment by the government and the cultivation of local comparative advantages can help a country to go more rapidly and move from underdeveloped to developing or even developed (as in the case of South Korea).

There are still people leaving those countries for opportunities abroad, but not on the scale of the countries who have suffered the most from the policies of market liberation and government retrenchment. We have experienced the result in the United States since the 1800s, with immigrants coming to America for a chance at a better life, but it is a more recent trend across much of Europe (England has dealt with huge immigrant populations from its Pax Brittania days). More and more of the people in the Global South have simply decided to pack their bags and move to the richer countries, knowing they can have a better life there.

This has put a huge strain on Europe for at least four related reasons: 1. In countries like Germany, immigrants are eligible for social services from the moment they arrive, 2. Economic strains in increased competition for jobs, 3. The cultural challenges it provides to the more homogenous populations of European countries, and 4. The challenges to education that emerge as a result of that increased cultural diversity. The responses have varied from country to country, but it is clear that the problem is only growing more dire as time goes on. We have seen conservative and ultra-nationalist political parties gain seats in parliaments across Europe, a push toward a more conservative leadership (neoliberal or even neoconservative), efforts to curb the expression of culture in schools and in public, violence against ethnic and religious minorities and now the push to militarize the efforts to stop immigrants from arriving at their borders. It is the uglier face of globalization and a problem that will only amplify until inequality within and across countries is truly addressed.

On the more positive side, Ireland looks set to become the first country in Europe to democratically ratify gay marriage. Citizens of the once religiously conservative country, where homosexuality was illegal until 1993 and divorce until 1997, could provide further proof that one form of diversity is becoming more widely accepted across the Western world. Ireland would not be the only country in Europe with marriage equality, of course. It came to the Netherlands, in 2001, Belgium, in 2003, Spain and Portugal, in 2005; Norway, Sweden, and Iceland, in 2010; Denmark, in 2012; France, in 2013; and it goes into effect in Finland in 2017. Since 2013, it has been legal in most of the United Kingdom, though not in Northern Ireland. And so one of the greatest challenges across the globe today continues – how people with different cultural values and beliefs can find ways to exist in the same place without resorting to violence and hatred.

Je Suis Charlie

Immigration Reform Specifics

Obama has, as expected, announced his plans to unilaterally alter the nature of immigration in the country, allowing approximately 5 million current “illegal” residents to stay. The GOP is, of course, apoplectic and many Democrats are unhappy as well, with some upset he didn’t do it before this disastrous election and others wondering why he is doing it at all. But what does the bill entail? You can read a pretty good summary here or here, or check out the charts below. What we can arguably say is that this is long overdue. This country was built by immigrants who often came with nothing and made something of themselves. Just because the latest round of immigrants look different than those original Europeans doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have that same right to succeed. On the other hand, the bill also appears to try to do more to stem the tide of new immigrants, which probably makes sense given our current relatively high unemployment and economic malaise.

Why is there no Ebola cure?

Ebola was first discovered all the way back in 1976 and has been part of the public imaginary since the publication of The Hot Zone by Richard Preston in 1994. There have been 26 outbreaks so far, with the largest until now costing 224 deaths (of 425 infections) in Uganda in 2000-1. We are obviously currently experiencing the deadliest outbreak in the history of disease ravaging Western Africa as usual, but spreading to Spain and the U.S., already counting 9,286 incidents and 4,597 fatalities. Yet in those nearly four decades, no drug has been approved to treat the horrifyingly deadly hemorrhagic disease. Why?

The answer is both obvious and rather disturbing – profit margins. Pharmaceutical companies deciding where to spend their research and development funding generally look at the potential for future revenue streams. And curing or treating diseases in the Global South (developing and underdeveloped countries in Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of South America) is just not as profitable as palliatives for Western diseases and conditions or, at the extreme, making up things like “General Anxiety Disorder” and “Restless Leg Syndrome” so they can sell even more treatment. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry made a rather disturbing discovery in the late 70s – it is substantially more profitable to treat the symptoms of a condition (palliative) than to actually cure diseases. And thus the explosion of anti-depressants, EDD drugs a decade later, ADHD treatment (essentially speed) and the like.  New diseases? Just not as profitable, including new more potent antibiotics to treat the growing strains of drug-resistant microbes. And while the government has partially or wholly funded many of the most important patents in the industry for the past 50 years, they appear to have little power to actually influence what the companies do or how much they ultimately charge for the drugs they do create that actually save lives.

Diseases that strike the poorer countries thus receive almost no attention at all. Beyond Ebola, malaria and tuberculosis (which kill a combined 2 million people a year) receive less attention than high cholesterol, Chagas, dengue and other “neglected tropical diseases (which affect a billion people and kill as many as 500k) have 10 marketed drugs of the over 15,000 that came to market between 75 and today. And the same is the case in the West, with more drugs targeted toward the middle and upper class, male over female treatment, and white over minority conditions. One could argue that this is the natural way that the market works, but is it a just, or even intelligent, approach to healthcare?

Diseases like Ebola bring this issue into the public eye and arguably provide an opportunity for a broader debate about the pharmaceutical industry and its priorities and near monopoly over life on the planet. Unfortunately, in the contemporary media moment, we are more likely to hear the Obama administration somehow blamed for the minor outbreak (and, given sufficient time, maybe for the disease itself (as a young Muslim visiting Africa)).  But forgoing the bigger issue for a moment, what can be done to stem a disease that could kill millions? Do we simply accept that a pandemic could ravage human populations not only in the poorest countries but across the globe? Do we hope the CDC can control the growing dangers of rare diseases showing up inside our borders, given the continued expansion of globalization? Or can national government or international bodies find a way to push companies to find a cure? Two possibilities exist to address this troubling situation: 1. Subsidize research into potential cures or 2. Create a competition. It turns out, the later is the better option, as long as the competition is perceived as fair and the rewards are large enough to create sufficient incentive. (The New Yorker).

Let’s hope the U.S. government and global bodies start to create these incentive programs, not only for Ebola but for all of the biggest healtcare issues facing humanity today. Don’t hold your breath … or maybe, do!

Anti-Semitism in Europe on the Rise!

With the ongoing tensions in Gaza, it is little surprise that attitudes toward Israel, and by extension Jews, would be on the rise. But it appears as if the problems go well beyond the rather calamitous death toll differentials between the Jews and Palestinians in the present unrest (1,650 Gazans, 63 Israeli soldiers and three Israeli civilians, according to NPR.  Slate reports that recent surveys indicate a rising tide of an anti-Semitism across Europe, from Hungary to France to Germany. And this is backed by political and social trends, including the attacking of Jewish-owned stores during a July 20^th pro-Gaza demonstration, the attack on a central Paris synagogue and protesters chanting “gas the Jews” and “kill the Jews.” In Germany, demonstrators chanted ““Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone” during a protest on July 17 and last week explosives were thrown at a synagogue in western German. Anti-Semitic graffiti has appeared across Rome and hate speech reports are up dramatically in Britain, as well. This comes on the top of the rise in ultra-nationalist parties using anti-Semitic and anti-Immigrant rhetoric to win elections, as in France, Greece and Hungary.

Many blame the growing Muslim population for the problem, but it appears to transcend those trends alone. A recent survey by the ADL found that 24 percent of the French and 21 percent of Germans harbor some anti-Semitic attitudes and that 60 percent of the hate mail received in the latter came from well-educated Germans. Beyond this, we have the killing of three children and a teacher at a Jewish school in Toulouse in 2012 and the attack of the Brussels’ Jewish Museum this past May. And there is also the growing anti-Semitism flooding the Internet chat room and comments pages, just as it so often does in the U.S.

Some will blame the actions of Israel and claim that condemnation of Israel and hatred of Jews are two different things, and they clearly are, but the two often seem to coalesce into narratives and discourses that have plagued Europe from its very conception. The reality is that Israel often serves as a nice scapegoat for anti-Semitic rhetoric and a cloak by which politicians and activists can code their language to play on longstanding biases against Jews in general. The troubling trend seems likely to only worsen as time goes on, unless something can be done to counteract it. What that would entail is hard to envision? In fact, it appears to be part of the larger trend whereby countries growing more diverse, inside and beyond Europe, reaffirm their traditional national identity by condemning the “other,” often using it for conservative political gains. We certainly see this in the U.S., with successful attacks on “illegal immigrants,” “gays” and even “feminists,” as a hearkening to a mythic past, where everyone was happy with a white male dominated society. But given the long history of violence against Jews, this seems like a more acute problem that could soon manifest itself in widespread violence and further victories for right-wing groups. Just as the American left so often teeters the line between anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish rhetoric, we see similar trends across Europe today, highlighting the necessity of renewed vigilance in seeking out and fighting every attempt to reaffirm the hatred and bigotry of the past – and its long list of casualties.

Global & U.S. Wealth by the Numbers

The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, in terms of GDP, but it's dramatic inequality leaves it behind others in median income -- with Australia's $219,505 far surpassing the U.S. measly $45,000 (according to the just-released Credit Suisse 2013 Global Wealth Report). Global wealth overall reached an all-time high of $241 trillion, up about five percent from last year. If all the money in the world were spread evenly among the world's population, each person would have an astounding $51,600 Here is a map of what it would look like if countries' GDP were spread out evenly among their populations.

Global inequality, however, remains high. The richest 10 percent of people in the world hold 86 percent of the world's wealth and the top 0.7 percent own 41 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom half of adults own one percent of the world's wealth, with more than two thirds of people worth less than $10,000.

Tip of the pyramid, showing about 10,000 people have more than $50 million.

About half of those people live in the US.

Percentage of millionaires by country -- the U.S. does well there!

Over the past year, the U.S. made greater gains in wealth than any other country; though it has done little to address the persistent poverty, stagnant wages or unemployment/underemployment issues.

* Charts courtesy of Mother Jones.