US Presidential Elections: More countries are destroyed by their own politicians than by foreign armies - editorial

Montesquieu,

“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.”, said  Montesquieu, (Charles Louis de Secondat)  (1689-1755), a  famous French political philosopher who lived during the European "Age of Enlightenment".

In fact, putting this in the context of the US Constitution and the intended way America is supposed to function, it follows,“Congress makes the laws, the president carries them out, judges decide controversies, and the citizens may be penalized only by a jury of their peers”,

Unfortunately, in reality, this is not how the US functions as a political entity anymore.

America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons controlling the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, large corporations, and that force wields political power through the political establishment.

Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the political elites its major accomplices.

As to the economy : “Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed."

"The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most.” said Lawrence Katz, Harvard University economist, already back in 2010.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once noted that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”  Indeed, democracy is a very fragile political system that can sometimes fail the very people it is designed to serve.

American president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined it as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” He would turnover in his grave if he saw how his Republican party defines the functions of Government today.

But democracy is at its worst when an oligarchy takes control of a country’s institutions and imposes its own agenda. Such is the case, unfortunately, in today’s United States. Money interests, not the sovereign people, control the political system; they control the corporate media system, they control the U.S. Supreme Court and much of the judicial system and, one can even argue that they control a large chunk of the academic system.

The U. S. economy, like most industrial economies, is an open economy. This means that goods and services can be exported and imported while facing a minimum of border taxes and other barriers to international trade. For a quarter of a century now, it has also meant that the U. S. economy is part of the economic globalization model.

The later goes much further than free trade: it means that corporations and banks can move their capital, technology and production plants around the world in search of the greatest profit and the best investment environment. Many economists believe that this globalization model has been pushed too far and has become a major cause of economic stagnation in the industrial economies.

In an open economy, keynesian-type stimulus policies of deficit government spending or of tax reduction do not work properly, essentially because stimulus policies of this type are the equivalent of heating a house in winter with the windows and doors wide open. The new deficit spending may help the world economy, since much of the new spending ends up abroad, but the domestic multiplier effect of such spending can be very low. This means that such an economic stimulus in an open economy may not be as effective in stimulating economic activity as hoped and, in some circumstances, it can do more harm than good.

Nevertheless, many politicians (and some economists cling to the old idea that lowering taxes for the rich when the government is in deficit or new non-infrastructure government deficit spending can stimulate the economy.

 This obviously does not work, at least not if the new deficit spending is not focused domestically. Spending deficit money in Afghanistan or in Iraq doesn’t much stimulate the U.S. economy!

What works in an open economy are policies geared toward changing relative prices in order to encourage domestic production and employment. First of all, a lowering of the real exchange rate can encourage net exports and stimulate domestic production and employment, provided the government does not sustain excessive domestic absorption through unproductive large deficits.

Another approach to move relative prices in favor of domestic production and employment is to use the tax system accordingly. Presently, many American corporations are hardly taxed at all on their profits when they operate abroad. Some appropriate taxation of these profits can encourage repatriation of capital and support additional domestic investments. It may be argued that the American political system is not flexible enough to allow for the use of tax policies to encourage domestic production and employment. If so, this would be another indication that the current state of the political system in the U. S. is inimical to economic progress.

The results of the present day US economic policies are everywhere to be seen. The United States has reached levels of inequality in wealth and income that used to be seen only in some backyard third-world countries.

Specifically, therefore, when it comes to politics, it is also in the best interest of any country to avoid giving power to idiots, ignoramuses, incompetents, devious and delusional characters or to demagogues. If not, watch out.

The records show — More countries are destroyed by their own politicians rather than by foreign armies.

Donald Trump’s claim to be an enemy of 'rule-by-inside-deal' is counter intuitive. His career and fortune have been as participant and beneficiary in the process by which government grants privileges to some and inflicts burdens on others. Crony capitalism is the air he breathes, the only sea in which he swims, his second nature. His recipe for “fixing” America, he tells us, is to appoint “the best people”—he names some of his fellow crony capitalists—to exercise even more unaccountable power and to do so with “unbelievable speed.” He assures the voter that, this time, it will be to “make America great again.” Sure, tell us another one Mr.Trump.

Hillary Clinton's approach is to "improve on the system" as she says. She's also embracing the label of "insider," declaring that she knows "what it takes to get things done". With Hillary it is probably the word "insider" which worries most Americans,specially those who believe that the US political system is rotten to the core.

Bernie Sanders's call for a political revolution is at the center of his political appeal. Progressives don't just love him because his policy proposals are more left wing than Hillary's. They love the fact that he calls America's political and economic system by what it is: corrupt.

America's choice for President in November 2016 will either be as significant as the declaration of independence on July 4, 1776, or the final chapter in the systematic destruction of the American Democracy..
.

EU-Digest

Nigeria: Environmental Concerns: Dutch Royal Shell proves test case for oil majors’ -- by William Wallis and Anjli Raval

Royal Dutch Shell’s environmental record will come under renewed fire on Wednesday in two cases that will test the ability of aggrieved communities in Nigeria to use UK courts to hold the company to account.

Shell’s Nigeria subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC), is the largest onshore producer in the Niger Delta, where millions of barrels have been spilled — in accidents and as a result of criminal interference — since oil was first discovered in 1956.

In many instances — including in the two cases being brought to the high court in London by solicitors Leigh Day on behalf of the affected communities of Ogale and Bille — the spills have yet to be properly cleaned up. Shell says that in both cases sabotage and oil theft was a likely cause.

Lawyers at Leigh Day said their action would contribute to establishing whether oil spill litigation “goes international”. They would also seek to compel the company to clean up the affected areas immediately and compensate villagers for the impact on their lives in the wake of last year’s £55m payout by Shell for a similar Nigerian case brought by the Bodo community, also handled by Leigh Day.

Wednesday’s hearing is a procedural one in which Leigh Day will begin to make the case for why a UK court should have jurisdiction over Shell’s Nigeria subsidiary. Similar cases brought against SPDC and other oil companies in Nigeria have tended to languish for years, even decades.

“No one is going to mess around in the Nigerian courts if they can get remedy in the UK,” said Daniel Leader, lead solicitor in one of the cases.

In the past, the World Wildlife Fund has said that amount of oil spilled in Nigeria over the decades has been equivalent to an Exxon Valdez disaster every year for half a century. It claims the Niger Delta is one of the top five polluted places on earth. 

Read more Shell proves test case for oil majors’ environmental records - FT.com

e Top Lobbyist for Drug Makers Threads a Thicket of Outrage - by Robert Pear

Few
lobbyists have walked into the kind of political inferno that greeted
Stephen J. Ubl when he became the top pitchman for the pharmaceutical
industry.

Mr.
Ubl, the 47-year-old president and chief executive of the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, took charge in
November, as the Obama administration, presidential candidates, members
of Congress, consumer groups, health insurance companies and doctors were criticizing the prescription drug industry for charging prices they saw as exorbitant and excessive.

The anger has only grown worse.

“Enough is enough,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the firebrand Democratic presidential candidate, wrote on Twitter on Thursday. “Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies can no longer be allowed to rip off American patients.”

That anger is just one of the challenges facing Mr. Ubl.

The
pharmaceutical and health products industry spent more on federal
lobbying than any other industry in  015, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks money in politics. 

Within that sector, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America led the list, with $18.4 million in spending on a wide range of
health, trade and patent issues. Mr. Ubl’s lobbying powerhouse has
members that include giants like Amgen, Eli Lilly, Johnson &
Johnson, Merck and Pfizer.

The
group reported total expenses of nearly $208 million in 2014, the most
recent available filing with the Internal Revenue Service. Its 170
employees work at its headquarters here, as well as in nine offices in
the United States and others in Tokyo and Dubai.

Some
of that money is used to cultivate strategic relationships through
grants to doctor organizations and nonprofit advocacy groups
representing patients with specific diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and arthritis. And the organization multiplies its influence through more than 30 lobbying, consulting, communications and law firms.

But
public outrage over drug prices is boiling. John C. Rother, who leads
the Campaign for Sustainable RPricing, backed by consumer, labor and
physician groups, said Mr. Ubl was in an impossible position.

“The
issue is prices,” Mr. Rother said, and the lobby for drug makers, like
other trade associations, “can’t do much on prices without getting into
trouble under the antitrust laws.” Any efforts to control or suggest
prices raise antitrust concerns, federal officials say.

Mr.
Ubl (pronounced YOU-bul) said the drug lobby had been effective at
beating back proposals like allowing the government to negotiate drug
prices or import medicines from Canada. But, he said, it has not been as
good at formulating and advancing a positive agenda. He hopes to change
that.

Brand-name
drug companies and manufacturers of lower-cost generic drugs have
historically been rivals. But Mr. Ubl said he wanted the government to
speed the approval of generic drugs and approve more of them, reducing a
backlog of generic drug applications. Increased competition, he said,
would help hold down prices — and could perhaps avoid another outcry
like the one over Daraprim, a drug to treat a life-threatening parasitic
infection.

Turing
Pharmaceuticals, a start-up founded by a former hedge fund manager,
Martin Shkreli, acquired Daraprim last year and immediately increased the price to $750 a tablet, from $13.50.

Note EU-Digest: Many Americans who have family members or friends living abroad and need prescription drugs are often having them buy the exact similar prescription drugs as those being sold in America in Europe at often less than 10% of the US listed price. 

In one particular case, a person who required eye drops to keep his Glaucoma pressure under control had a family friend buy the eye drops, which in America would have cost him $200.00   (same brand name and quality) for approximately $10.00 in Europe . This is not only scandalous, but also complete highway robbery.  

Read more: Pharmaceutical Industry Ripoff: Top Lobbyist for Drug Makers Threads a Thicket of Outrage - The New York Times

Greece: Migrant crisis: Greece needs EU help to avoid chaos, says Merkel

Austria and several Balkan countries have introduced restrictions stranding migrants in Greece.

Mrs Merkel said EU nations had not battled to keep Greece in the euro just to leave it "in the lurch".

She also defended her decision to open German borders to migrants, despite a resulting slump in her popularity.

More than one million people arrived to claim asylum last year, sparking opposition within her governing coalition  and a rise in far-right extremism.

But speaking on Germany's ARD television, Mrs Merkel said she had no "Plan B" and would not change course, rejecting a proposed limit on migration.

In the coming weeks she faces a major test when voters go to the polls in three German states.

On Greece she said: "Do you seriously believe that all the euro states that last year fought all the way to keep Greece in the eurozone, and we were the strictest, can one year later allow Greece to, in a way, plunge into chaos?"

Greece is the main entry point for migrants arriving in Europe, and was infuriated after a group of countries led by Austria installed controls.

It recalled its ambassador to Austria after the group held talks but did not invite Greece.

A key meeting is scheduled on 7 March between EU members and Turkey and a further summit due later that month.

Read more: Migrant crisis: Greece needs EU help to avoid chaos, says Merkel - BBC News

European Unity: The only plan B for Europe is rebuilding power for change - by Lorenzo Marsili

Europeans today are caught between a failing and undemocratic EU and equally failing and undemocratic national states. As Yanis Varoufakis prepares to launch a new movement for the democratisation of the EU, what’s the way out of the impasse?

There is no need to believe, with George Soros, that the EU is on the verge of collapse to believe that it is on the verge of irrelevance. Becoming little more than a dysfunctional common market shunned by its citizens and promoting tensions and antagonisms between states and between people.There is no Plan A for Europe. Mild adjustments to the status quo - the Juncker investment plan, the youth guarantee, additional fiscal leeway of a few decimals points or a banking union already surpassed by history - are unable to seriously address the historical challenges banging at our doors each day.

Plans for increased integration of parts of the European Union get regularly touted. There are some grounds to being diffident of such plans. Any deepening of integration risks in fact reinforcing the undemocratic nature of a Union of financial rules deprived of democratic accountability.

At the same time there is no viable national Plan B either. There is no space for political emancipation through a more or less harmonious abandonment of the European Union. The sirens of nationalism - be they on the right or on the left - sing a song of destitution and disempowerment.

Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to states or to institutions. Too often is this forgotten. Popular sovereignty is not going to be recuperated by the construction of micro-nations barricading and barking against flows of people and of capital but ultimately at the mercy of decisions taken elsewhere. There is no return to the golden age of the Bretton Woods agreements, when financial capital could be trapped within national boundaries for an emancipatory vision of “capitalism in one country”. Today, national boundaries can only trap refugees escaping war. Their invocation plays squarely into the hands of the far-right.

Recent years have marked a watershed in a post-1989 world-view characterised by talk of the end of history and of a third way of non-conflictual management. This is evident in the return of a political rhetoric that dares put into question the fundamentals of our economic and democratic system - from Sanders to Corbyn via Spain and Portugal. While, less promisingly, it is equally evident in the rise of a new far-right in Hungary, Croatia, Poland, and France.

One thing is for sure. This is no longer the time for the status quo. And that means relinquishing despondency and melancholy and rebuilding the ambition for root-and-branch change - at all levels.

We need to stop portraying the EU as an all-powerful behemoth impeding any real change at national level. 

This rhetoric is false and only benefits supporters of the status quo. What we lack is the capacity for articulating and promoting a new vision for all those policies over which national sovereignty makes sense. Ambitious plans for income redistribution, fighting privations and the protection of the commons, fair integration of migrants, tax justice, fair and free access to education for all, and more. In this sense, the campaign of Bernie Sanders is inspiring. 

Failure to achieve progressive national policies is not due to the EU. It is due to the incapacity of the progressive field to win popular consent. I have much sympathy for Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Oskar Lafontaine, and other old left leaders who met recently in Paris to expound a Plan B for Europe. But I often feel their attacks on the EU have more to do with justifying their political failure nationally than opening up a new field of action for their countries.

At the European level, ambition means returning Europe to being the place where we can regain power to define all that is no longer possible at the national level. Not because the EU impedes it, but because on certain issues medium-sized nations no longer have a say.

Europe is the only space large enough to be able to rein in the rule of financial capital, forcefully addressing the scandal of 62 people in control of half of global wealth. It is the only space where it will be possible to free Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and provide a new technological infrastructure free of surveillance. Where a new ecological understanding of development can be fostered and forced on the rest of the world through commercial treaties based on climate justice and not competition to the bottom. Or, again, where we can nurture a multipolar alternative to US militarism and the rising nationalisms - often with an ethnic basis - of many emerging powers.

United We stand Divided  We Fall

It is the capacity to decide through political struggle how to tackle systemic and historical issues such as these that popular sovereignty should really be about.

Until today European parties have failed to articulate and organise a convincing way out of our multiple crises. National parties have hidden behind unpronounceable acronyms at the European level - who knows the meaning of GUE/NGL? - creating umbrella-groups where they individually maintain their feeble autonomy and collectively maintain their tragic impotence.

A genuine multi-level political force  - and not necessarily a political party as traditionally understood - is long overdue. A transnational coordination summing up the plurality of national forces into a single and recognisable European political actor capable of campaigning and organising over all those issues that require European-level action. 

We have an example of this multi-level dynamic – albeit limited at the national level – in Spain. Where a clearly Catalan force such as the list headed by Ada Colau participates, at state level, in a political project that is able to act as a national political subject in its own right.

Rebuilding power for change ultimately means rebuilding ambition and innovating political practices. Beyond sterile arguments over the benefits of an independent nation-state or of a united Europe, what we should really be talking about is how to organise to transform both.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Business Startups are moving to Amsterdam, but should you? - by Eliz D'Agostin

A couple of months ago our CEO Boris was interviewed by Tech City News, an UK publisher, to talk about why Amsterdam and The Netherlands became such a hype place for startups.

The topic has been explored a number of times, as cities in Europe furiously compete for the title of tech capital of the continent. While London and Berlin are considered top of the pile, when companies like Tesla, Uber and Netflix decided to base their European operations in Amsterdam, things changed.

There are many reasons why the Dutch city is attractive for business. There is a whole raft of insightful articles outlining  the environmental, political and even historical conditions that sparkled such a tech driven scene in the country and specially in the capital.

The city has been labelled Europe’s West Coast startup capital and Forbes went so far to say Amsterdam is a genuine alternative to Silicon Valley.

This superlatives have come about thanks to initiatives like StartupDelta, an important program that stimulates the startup environment in the city and connects companies with investor and talents.

The “Start-up Visa” is also a big facilitator to bring startups to the city. It is a new type of visa that allows entrepreneurs to apply for a one year resident permit to develop their ideas in the country.

Another great initiative is StartupAmsterdam – a public/private scheme that joined forces with the government to improve the benefits and incentives for startups to come to Amsterdam – with the aim of catapulting the city into the top three startups hubs in Europe.

While big multi-nationals have been lured to the city, there’s an ever-growing list of home-grown startups to emerge including Booking.com, TomTom and of course, The Next Web that help the city attract investment and professionals from all over the world.

The Next Web itself has more than 20 different nationalities – most of which now call Amsterdam home.

But what does the city have to offer  all these immigrants and internal migrants moving to the city? We asked around the office what people thought about living in the Venice of the North.

“Rent in Amsterdam isn’t cheap, it takes up a lot of your paycheck. But you can do a lot with what is left. You can buy so much more with your money and if you decide to stay for good, the government helps you out with the costs of buying a property, for example. That makes the choice of staying a lot easier.”

“As a “digital nomad”, I love that Amsterdam is a relatively affordable international city with lots of history and culture. I’m not a fan of all of the bureaucracy (who is?) and having to pay for public libraries/museums.ousing is extortionate. However, there’s this great “don’t care” attitude here compared with elsewhere. Coming from the UK where social class and where you went to school is still a huge deal, it’s super nice and inspiring.”

"everyone speaks English"

Read more: Startups are moving to Amsterdam, but should you?

Fear:: There Is A Far Better Way To Combat Fear Than With Yoga Or Pills: Trust - by RM

Don't let fear capture your life

Often in discussions with friends and  family the issue of fear, related to something, either from a personal problem or an outside source, will come up.
. 
If you come to think about it-there probably hasn't gone a day by in your life that there was not some kind of fear creeping into your mind.

We’re not talking about the "good" and instinctive kind of fears which alerts your whole body and pumps up your adrenaline. The one which indicates impending danger and moves you into action to protect the ones you love.

No, it is the other kind .  Where does this often nagging and irrational fear originate? And how do you keep those fears from taking a  permanent place in your life?

Wouldn’t our life's existence be wonderful without fear? Some even wonder why a God that loves us so much would even allow fear to infiltrate into our minds?

Maybe it is good to remember that God does not cause fear, but that society, the environment around us, causes fear and this fear is further nourished by Evil spirits. Yes, fear exists and can quickly work itself into our lives.

However, we can resist the emotionally disturbing grip of fear by fixing our minds on God.

God has made it clear in so many ways that He didn’t give us the spirit of fear, as illustrated in 2 Timothy 1:7: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind”

So where does fear come from then? Psalm 112:7 says, “He will not be afraid of evil tidings; His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” . Fear is the opposite of trust. Therefore, a heart that is resolutely and faithfully trusting in God will not fear “evil tidings.” 1John 4:18 explains, ” There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love”. Torment is associated with Evil Spirits, as we see in 2 Corinthians 12:7: “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of the Evil one, to torment me”. Since fear involves torment, and the Evil Spirit utilizes torment, what should we, as believers, do with the fear that we experience?

Fear can be useful by the fact that it highlights areas in our lives we have not fully surrendered to God. For example, if we are fearful about our finances, and consequently don’t help or take care of others, with far greater need than ours, as the Word has commanded.

Fear is useful in pointing out that we should trust God to provide and also have to provide to others. By trusting God to provide for us financially, we will also be able to put trust in our faith and begin giving to others in obedience to Him.   He who sacrificed his life for us on the cross to set us free of  all fears.

So  if you are struggling with fear, pray about it and  turn to Scripture to seek what God says about it. Turn your situation of fearfulness into an opportunity to trust God more. Fearful about a relationship? Put that relationship in the hands of God. Fearful about a major career decision? Seek God’s will for your professional life, instead of your own. Fearful about providing for your family? Matthew 6:26 points out, “Look at the birds. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for your heavenly Father feeds them. And aren’t you far more valuable to him than they are?”. God says we are not to be fearful. Remember that we are to trust and can commit every aspect of our lives to God who loves us.

Bottom-line: After recognizing fear in our lives, we must take every fearful thought captive, discover the root of the problem causing the fear, and pray to see what God’s Word says about our particular fear.

You can trust that God will use any circumstance for His glory to bring us restoration, and that includes victory over fear.

Almere-Digest