vital ingredient in wall street reform goes missing...

last fall, it was all about the wall: financial bigwigs like former federal reserve chair paul volcker, former citigroup co-CEO john reed, governor of the bank of england, mervyn king, all espoused reestablishing the legal barrier between the derivatives casino that masquerades today as wall street and commercial banks holding insured deposits. it made good sense: the wall goes up in 1933, america becomes the premier financial center for 66 years. the wall comes down in 1999, the financial system collapses exactly 9 years later with the precise characteristics of the massive wall street swindles that occurred in the late 1920s when there was also no wall. but the wall has now gone missing in the current financial reform bill advanced out of the senate banking committee by its chairman, senator christopher dodd. equally noteworthy, the historic 1933 legislation that built the essential wall between flim-flam securities salesmen and aunt tilly’s insured bank account, commonly known as the glass-steagall act, has gone missing itself from the internet. to underscore how extraordinary this is, if you put “glass-steagall act” in the google search box, it brings up 220,000 hits. and, yet, it is next to impossible to find the actual text of the legislation on the internet// pam martens, 03.26.10, counterpunch

giving clubs back to fans...

the labour government is to unveil radical proposals that would give football fans first option to buy their clubs when they were put up for sale and require clubs to hand over a stake of up to 25% to supporters' groups. under the scheme to give fans a stake, supporters' trusts with elected representatives, audited accounts and financial services authority recognition would be responsible for maintaining the link between clubs and their community and ensuring fans are not priced out of the game. the government could, however, face legal challenges from existing owners over the dilution of their shares. it has echoes of the model proposed by the so-called red knights attempting to buy manchester united. wealthy fans will contribute 74.9% of the overall purchase price, but supporters will hold a "golden share" of just over 25%, giving them a blocking stake on any change of ownership and an influential boardroom voice. legal advice is being sought on the idea of a change of ownership at a club triggering a mandatory window for fans to take the opportunity to shape the ownership structure and buy the club at a price set by an external, independent auditor. under the proposals, fans would be free to set up their co-operative style model, shareholding trust or other structure that enabled them to have a say in the club. while the government will reiterate that it has no desire to regulate football directly, the prime minister believes the democratisation of football club ownership taps into wider themes about the "mutualisation" of public services and the need for regulatory reform// owen gibson, 03.28.10, guardian

the spanish anarchists...

chomsky on anarchism and strategy...

very substantial social changes (are) in order, and anarchists ought to be thinking about it. thinking about it doesn't just mean i'd like to have a free and just society; that's not thinking about it. we have to make a distinction if we want to be effective. that's the question: if we want to be effective, we have to make a distinction between what you might call proposals and advocacy. i mean, you can propose that everybody ought to live in peace, love each other, we shouldn't have any hierarchy, everyone should cooperate, and so on. okay? it's a nice proposal, okay for an academic seminar somewhere. advocacy requires more than just proposal. it means setting up your goals (proposal), but also sketching out a path from here to there -- that's advocacy. and the path from here to there almost invariably requires small steps. it requires recognition of social and economic reality as it exists, and ideas about how to build the institutions of the future within the existing society, to quote bakunin, but also to modify the existing society. that means steps have to be taken that accommodate reality, that don't deny it's existence ("since i don't like it, i'm not going to accommodate it"). these are the only ways to be effective// noam chomsky, 03.12.10, reddit blog

why greater equality makes societies stronger...

it is well established that in rich societies the poor have shorter lives and suffer more from almost every social problem. now a groundbreaking book, based on thirty years’ research, takes an important step past this idea. the spirit level shows that there is one common factor that links the healthiest and happiest societies: the degree of equality among their members. not wealth; not resources; not culture, climate, diet, or system of government. furthermore, more-unequal societies are bad for almost everyone within them—the well-off as well as the poor. the remarkable data assembled in the spirit level reveals striking differences, not only among the nations of the first world but even within america’s fifty states. almost every modern social problem—ill-health, violence, lack of community life, teen pregnancy, mental illness—is more likely to occur in a less-equal society. this is why america, by most measures the richest country on earth, has per capita shorter average lifespan, more cases of mental illness, more obesity, and more of its citizens in prison than any other developed nation. wilkinson and pickett lay bare the contradiction between material success and social failure in today’s world, but they do not simply provide a diagnosis of our woes. they offer readers a way toward a new political outlook, shifting from self-interested consumerism to a friendlier, more sustainable society. the spirit level is pioneering in its research, powerful in its revelations, and inspiring in its conclusion: armed with this new understanding of why communities prosper, we have the tools to revitalize our politics and help all our fellow citizens, from the bottom of the ladder to the top//

i will fight for what i believe in until i drop dead... and that's what keeps you alive // barbara castle

...does activism make you happy?

marching in the drizzle against wars in far-off countries, writing letters protesting the government's latest reactionary policy, sitting through interminable meetings that keep sprouting any other business. it may be noble, but political activism is hardly a barrel of laughs. and yet it makes you happier. so find two university psychologists in new research that looks for the first time at the link between political activity and wellbeing. malte klar and tim kasser started by interviewing two sets of around 350 college students, both about their degree of political engagement and their levels of happiness and optimism. both times, they found that those most inclined to go on a demo were also the cheeriest. so there's a link – but can politics actually make a person happier? in the third study, the academics took a bunch of students and divided them up into groups. the first were encouraged to write to the management of the college cafeteria asking for tastier food. the next lot wrote asking the cafe to source local or fairtrade products. they were then tested on their wellbeing, and the group who had involved themselves in the political debate were far and away the strongest on the "vitality" scale: they felt more alive and enriched than those who merely complained about the menu. there are many fascinating aspects to this . first, the activist-students didn't necessarily care about food ethics, but just taking action made them feel better. second, sending a memo is hardly the most engaging political action – and yet it had a big impact on those taking it. third, the study flies in the face of the popular wisdom that happiness resides in creature comforts and relative affluence. perhaps activism gives people a sense of purpose, or of agency or just a chance to hang out with other people. most likely it does all of the above// aditya chakrabortty, 03.02.10, guardian

the robin hood tax...

zero point of systemic collapse...

we will not, especially in the united states, avoid our götterdämmerung. obama, like canada’s prime minister stephen harper and the other heads of the industrialized nations, has proven as craven a tool of the corporate state as george w. bush. our democratic system has been transformed into what the political philosopher sheldon wolin labels inverted totalitarianism. inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. it finds expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. it purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, a free press, parliamentary systems and constitutions while manipulating and corrupting internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens but are ruled by armies of corporate lobbyists in washington, ottawa or other state capitals who author the legislation and get the legislators to pass it. a corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion. mass culture, owned and disseminated by corporations, diverts us with trivia, spectacles and celebrity gossip. in classical totalitarian regimes, such as nazi fascism or soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. “under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true,” wolin writes. “economics dominates politics – and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness”// chris hedges, 02.08.10, adbusters

americaspeaks...

...the best company in britain to work for?

in the depths of what everyone keeps telling us is the deepest financial and economic crisis since the second world war, john lewis plainly has not done badly (operating profit up 20%, if you didn't read the business pages last week). that's partly because it stacks its shelves with goods of a certain quality, and sells them to a certain kind of customer with a certain standard of service... it also has something to do with the reason everyone was cheering so loudly last thursday: unlike other high-street names (unlike most companies, in fact), john lewis is owned by a trust on behalf of its employees, each of whom has a say in its running and a share in its profits. this is britain's largest and most venerable example of worker co-ownership. its avowed purpose is not the making of shedloads of short-term profit to placate a bunch of remote and greedy shareholders, but "the happiness of all its members, through their worthwhile and satisfying employment in a successful business" (that's from the partnership's constitution. it bears re-reading). and at a time when the limits of the more traditional capitalist model of shareholder ownership stand cruelly exposed, john lewis' ongoing success is increasingly prompting all three main political parties to point to it as a possible template – for other companies, for schools, hospitals, even local councils// jon henley, 03.16.10, guardian