In 1964, the average hourly wage in the US was about $3, which was also the cost of a barrel of oil. Fifty years later, in 2014, the average hourly wage in the US is about $19, and a barrel of oil costs over $100. This represents a loss in income of 81%, in real terms (of course, the US government obfuscates this with their bogus CPI, which strips out energy).
btw, minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25, and $7.25 in 2014...an increase of 5.8x, vs. 38x for oil...a loss of 85% in real terms.
Looking at other indicators, like gold and silver, is instructive: in 1964, an ounce of silver was worth $1.29, and today about $20, a 15-fold increase, while gold was set officially at $35 then, and today is $1315, a 38-fold increase. So, in 1964, an average worker was getting 2.3 ounces of silver an hour, and today just one, a 57% loss in purchasing power. For gold, a worker might need to work 12 hours for an ounce of the yellow stuff, and now would need to work 69 hours, an 83% loss in buying power (btw, this tells me that silver may be undervalued relative to gold or oil).
To have the same lifestyle that a factory worker in 1964 had, earning $6k per year, based on my ratio below using oil as the standard for quality of life, requires $200k today. In other words, an average worker who earned $6k in 1964 was earning 2000 barrels of oil annually, to earn 2000 barrels a year now would require $200k, assuming $100 per barrel (the price Friday was $115, so in actuality, it may be even higher to reach that same standard). One of the only reasons American workers and others in developed countries hadn't 'noticed' that things have gotten much worse is that both spouses have been working for the most part, and hours worked per worker are also up (many are 'forced overtime'), often with no benefits, vacation or pensions, plus families are having fewer kids, and having them later in life (from 3.5 births per woman in 1964 to less than 2 today in the US).
Unfortunately, we have had a redistribution system for the past 6+ years in the US and more or less all countries, and it is going upward, to those that have the most already, courtesy of effectively free money for big banks and their cronies, which erodes the earning/purchasing power of the rest (i.e., the victory of capital over labor). Start paying everyone in gold or silver, or just end limitless money printing, and we may see some re-establishment of balance, but the elephant in the room is, of course, the end of cheap energy that had fueled middle-class lifestyles for the past 50-70 years. That is all over now.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Terrorism vs. Genocide
Despite the cliches about a struggle for territory, the conflict in the Middle East has always been about demographics. There are more Palestinian Arabs than ethnic Jews in 'Greater Israel', and this is seen as a threat to the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, which can be either Jewish or democratic, but not both, until this 'problem' is rectified. The Israeli solution is to encourage immigration of more Jews to Israel, while simultaneously doing all it can to decrease the population of non-Jews within the borders of the area it wants to control. The only ways to achieve this are to force them to leave, which has not worked, or to exterminate them. The methods Israel has available are starvation or direct killing with guns or bombs. The latter is politically unacceptable (for now), at least on a large scale. On the other side, the goal of Hamas is to win the demographic struggle through higher birthrates and through frightening Jews abroad into not immigrating to Israel; this strategy is working so far, which is why the rocket attacks continue...they well know that the rockets are ineffective in killing.
So, basically, we have Hamas using 'terrorism' in the true sense of the word...using violence or the threat of it, to change the behavior of large groups of people. On the other side, we have what can best be described as 'genocide', the attempt to exterminate large groups of people through violence, starvation, or disease.
So, basically, we have Hamas using 'terrorism' in the true sense of the word...using violence or the threat of it, to change the behavior of large groups of people. On the other side, we have what can best be described as 'genocide', the attempt to exterminate large groups of people through violence, starvation, or disease.
Israel has no right to exist...no nation has!
We hear often in the Israeli talking points that 'Israel has a right to exist,' and 'Israel has a right to defend herself,' which sound quite reasonable when phrased in that manner. But let us examine what that is really saying. What is being done, in a subtle manner, is to give rights normally associated with people and transfer it to an abstract state apparatus, which really only exists because people believe it does. In the second quote, it becomes less subtle that the intent is to assign human qualities to an abstraction that is neither human, nor in this case even humane; of course, the female gender is always used, in a clumsy, but effective, attempt to reinforce the victimhood of the Israeli state, which is arguably its raison d'etre. I ascribe all rights as arising from individuals and not from groups; to say otherwise would imply that some individuals would have more rights than others, by virtue of belonging to one or more groups. This sort of group-think is partly responsible for the catastrophe that is unfolding in Israel/Palestine, a catastrophe not only for the Arabs, but for the Jews as well, and all of humanity. On a personal note, I am deeply saddened by a group using the suffering of a group of people 65-70 years ago as justification for another genocide, one carried out with my forced financial support, and done partly in my name and that of my ancestors. Particularly since members of my family are survivors of genocide, I do feel that I thus have a duty to speak out when I see the same scenario unfolding again, even though some of these same members of my family and their descendants now would see me as a traitor.
Anyway, I don't expect to convince very many people with my ideas, but I have only my ideas to offer. We should all be working on constructive 'solutions' to this seemingly intractible problem, since if we do not work actively on moving toward a solution that respects life on all sides, then we are part of the problem, and must share in the blame someday by our children, who will surely ask what we did to stop genocide. I hope against hope to somehow play some small role in moving things in a direction that will not dehumanize us all, one that will hopefully prevent the 'human' race from going down a path that could conceivably lead in the not-to-distant future to its own extinction.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Some Reflections on Genocide
Liquidating the Ghetto
In the film The Pianist, one part of the film shows the Warsaw ghetto, which has been emptied of most of its inhabitants and now is under siege. The last holdouts continue a brave, but quixotic, resistance against the Nazi onslaught - taking pot-shots with their handguns at Wehrmacht soldiers equipped with mortars and other heavy artillery; they are no match for the German forces, and slowly, but surely, the last Jews of the Ghetto are wiped out. I'm sure the newsreel for the next day back in Berlin must have trumpeted something to the effect of 'Last Remaining Warsaw Terrorists Neutralized'.
How did that come to pass? How did the Jews allow themselves to be corralled into ghettos, which were then easily 'liquidated'? If they had only resisted initially! They could have put up some real resistance! Maybe it would have been futile, but maybe they could have at least held out until help arrived? Unfortunately, there was no help on the way, as no foreign government cared at all about the Ghetto Jews, and most were only too happy for them to perish. After the war, governments and publics feigned shock at learning what had befallen the Jews of Europe; even the German public claimed they did not know, and the sad truth is that this may have been true, but only because they, just as the rest of the world, had had their eyes closed.
Apartheid....
Fast-forward to the 1980's in South Africa. The Apartheid government has been fighting an armed insurgency with all the dirty tricks it could come up with. Blacks are restricted to Bantustan 'homelands', unless they have a permit to work in the cities. When HIV came on the scene, prostitutes in Johannesburg and elsewhere with the virus are paid to provide free sex at hostels to black miners living there; when the men return to visit their home villages for their twice-annual leave, they bring a few coins - and the virus - home to their wives. In 1995, after the regime has been forced to cede power, and after Nelson Mandela assumes the presidency, it is revealed that the previous government had been working to develop a virus that would kill only blacks. God only knows what other plans they had been working on. Why did these plans not come to fruition? How did the majority population avert genocide? Was it the tireless efforts of well-meaning Western governments? No, it was not. Quite simply, it is the steadfast refusal of the ANC and other groups to lay down and die. It is the mass mobilization of their members in demonstrations that convince the white majority that their best chance for survival in South Africa was cooperation with the blacks. Mind you, these are not peaceful demonstrations, for the most part, but might have been better characterized as part of a violent insurrection. Of course, the ANC and their brothers-in-arms are demonized as terrorists, not just in South Africa, but in the West; in fact, Nelson Mandela remains on the US terrorism watch list, and needs special permission to visit, until 2008.
...and Worse
Four weeks before Nelson Mandela is inaugurated as President of South Africa, another dark chapter in the history of the species begins. On April 6,1994, the presidents of Rwanda and of Burundi are killed when the airplane carrying them is shot down. By the next day, the Rwandan government begins to exhort the majority Hutus to exterminate the 'cockroaches', by which they mean the minority Tutsis. The massacres begin immediately, with the active participation of the Rwandan military, as well as government civil servants and even Catholic priests and other clergy; the only reliable safe-havens in the entire genocide are Muslim neighborhoods and mosques. The response from the international community is to put their fingers in their collective ears. The US is totally unwilling to get involved, due to President Clinton's fears that US casualties could reflect badly on him. Shockingly, France continues to back the Rwandan 'government', due to fears that the Tutsi would harm the status of the French language, as many of their leaders are - quel horreur - Anglophones. Over the next 100 days, a million people are slaughtered, mostly hacked to death by ordinary Hutu villagers wielding machetes imported for that very purpose a few months before. The silence from the international community is deafening.
Another Ghetto
Let us jump forward to 2008. Former US President Jimmy Carter has scorn heaped on him by Likudniks on both sides of the Atlantic for his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The Israeli government and its powerful allies in the US are not amused by his factual descriptions of the situation in which Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are unable to travel freely between their villages, unable to work in Israel, and unable to travel abroad. As the year progresses, food and fuel become scarce in Gaza, due to Israel's displeasure with the government they had chosen back in January, 2006. The situation there deteriorates, with water and medical supplies running out for the 1.4 million inhabitants inside the barbed wire, mainly refugees from all over what is now Israel; the UN warns of an impending humanitarian catastrophe, with disease from lack of clean water being high on the list of concerns. The desperate population dig tunnels under the fences on the Egyptian side, through which food and other supplies, as well as small arms, are brought. Meanwhile, homemade rockets are being stockpiled by various groups within Gaza, in preparation for whatever comes next. On November the 4th, the very day of the US election, after 5 months with no rockets fired into or out of Gaza, Israeli troops launch a raid into Gaza, killing several 'resistance fighters' (a.k.a. terrrorists) who were digging a tunnel. Apparently in response, numerous rockets begin to be fired from Gaza in the general direction of Israeli towns; the rockets have no guidance, and most land in the desert; a few hit settled areas, but no-one is killed. This goes on for several weeks. However, an election is looming in Israel, and the ruling party is in trouble for seeming 'too soft' on the Palestinians; the rocket fire is a PR nightmare for them. Something must be done to hold onto power. It's a no-brainer. Killing some Palestinians always gets a few votes; launching massive airstrikes would bring in votes by the ballot-boxfull! And the surveys of the Israeli public bear this out, sadly, aside from Israeli Arabs, who are being harassed by intelligence officers and accused of being traitors for their 'disloyalty'. And the situation unfolds...
So, what can we conclude from these four examples of genocide or attempted genocide? Here are some of my conclusions:
1. Apartheid inevitably leads to genocide.
2. The international community must not ignore human rights violations and other warning signs of an impending genocide.
3. Non-violence may be an effective tactic in expelling a small occupying force, but is ineffective at stopping genocide. However, resisting extermination or deracination is often portrayed as 'terrorism', which is an effective technique to further dehumanize the victims, and thus make it more acceptable that they be slaughtered.
In the film The Pianist, one part of the film shows the Warsaw ghetto, which has been emptied of most of its inhabitants and now is under siege. The last holdouts continue a brave, but quixotic, resistance against the Nazi onslaught - taking pot-shots with their handguns at Wehrmacht soldiers equipped with mortars and other heavy artillery; they are no match for the German forces, and slowly, but surely, the last Jews of the Ghetto are wiped out. I'm sure the newsreel for the next day back in Berlin must have trumpeted something to the effect of 'Last Remaining Warsaw Terrorists Neutralized'.
How did that come to pass? How did the Jews allow themselves to be corralled into ghettos, which were then easily 'liquidated'? If they had only resisted initially! They could have put up some real resistance! Maybe it would have been futile, but maybe they could have at least held out until help arrived? Unfortunately, there was no help on the way, as no foreign government cared at all about the Ghetto Jews, and most were only too happy for them to perish. After the war, governments and publics feigned shock at learning what had befallen the Jews of Europe; even the German public claimed they did not know, and the sad truth is that this may have been true, but only because they, just as the rest of the world, had had their eyes closed.
Apartheid....
Fast-forward to the 1980's in South Africa. The Apartheid government has been fighting an armed insurgency with all the dirty tricks it could come up with. Blacks are restricted to Bantustan 'homelands', unless they have a permit to work in the cities. When HIV came on the scene, prostitutes in Johannesburg and elsewhere with the virus are paid to provide free sex at hostels to black miners living there; when the men return to visit their home villages for their twice-annual leave, they bring a few coins - and the virus - home to their wives. In 1995, after the regime has been forced to cede power, and after Nelson Mandela assumes the presidency, it is revealed that the previous government had been working to develop a virus that would kill only blacks. God only knows what other plans they had been working on. Why did these plans not come to fruition? How did the majority population avert genocide? Was it the tireless efforts of well-meaning Western governments? No, it was not. Quite simply, it is the steadfast refusal of the ANC and other groups to lay down and die. It is the mass mobilization of their members in demonstrations that convince the white majority that their best chance for survival in South Africa was cooperation with the blacks. Mind you, these are not peaceful demonstrations, for the most part, but might have been better characterized as part of a violent insurrection. Of course, the ANC and their brothers-in-arms are demonized as terrorists, not just in South Africa, but in the West; in fact, Nelson Mandela remains on the US terrorism watch list, and needs special permission to visit, until 2008.
...and Worse
Four weeks before Nelson Mandela is inaugurated as President of South Africa, another dark chapter in the history of the species begins. On April 6,1994, the presidents of Rwanda and of Burundi are killed when the airplane carrying them is shot down. By the next day, the Rwandan government begins to exhort the majority Hutus to exterminate the 'cockroaches', by which they mean the minority Tutsis. The massacres begin immediately, with the active participation of the Rwandan military, as well as government civil servants and even Catholic priests and other clergy; the only reliable safe-havens in the entire genocide are Muslim neighborhoods and mosques. The response from the international community is to put their fingers in their collective ears. The US is totally unwilling to get involved, due to President Clinton's fears that US casualties could reflect badly on him. Shockingly, France continues to back the Rwandan 'government', due to fears that the Tutsi would harm the status of the French language, as many of their leaders are - quel horreur - Anglophones. Over the next 100 days, a million people are slaughtered, mostly hacked to death by ordinary Hutu villagers wielding machetes imported for that very purpose a few months before. The silence from the international community is deafening.
Another Ghetto
Let us jump forward to 2008. Former US President Jimmy Carter has scorn heaped on him by Likudniks on both sides of the Atlantic for his book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. The Israeli government and its powerful allies in the US are not amused by his factual descriptions of the situation in which Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are unable to travel freely between their villages, unable to work in Israel, and unable to travel abroad. As the year progresses, food and fuel become scarce in Gaza, due to Israel's displeasure with the government they had chosen back in January, 2006. The situation there deteriorates, with water and medical supplies running out for the 1.4 million inhabitants inside the barbed wire, mainly refugees from all over what is now Israel; the UN warns of an impending humanitarian catastrophe, with disease from lack of clean water being high on the list of concerns. The desperate population dig tunnels under the fences on the Egyptian side, through which food and other supplies, as well as small arms, are brought. Meanwhile, homemade rockets are being stockpiled by various groups within Gaza, in preparation for whatever comes next. On November the 4th, the very day of the US election, after 5 months with no rockets fired into or out of Gaza, Israeli troops launch a raid into Gaza, killing several 'resistance fighters' (a.k.a. terrrorists) who were digging a tunnel. Apparently in response, numerous rockets begin to be fired from Gaza in the general direction of Israeli towns; the rockets have no guidance, and most land in the desert; a few hit settled areas, but no-one is killed. This goes on for several weeks. However, an election is looming in Israel, and the ruling party is in trouble for seeming 'too soft' on the Palestinians; the rocket fire is a PR nightmare for them. Something must be done to hold onto power. It's a no-brainer. Killing some Palestinians always gets a few votes; launching massive airstrikes would bring in votes by the ballot-boxfull! And the surveys of the Israeli public bear this out, sadly, aside from Israeli Arabs, who are being harassed by intelligence officers and accused of being traitors for their 'disloyalty'. And the situation unfolds...
So, what can we conclude from these four examples of genocide or attempted genocide? Here are some of my conclusions:
1. Apartheid inevitably leads to genocide.
2. The international community must not ignore human rights violations and other warning signs of an impending genocide.
3. Non-violence may be an effective tactic in expelling a small occupying force, but is ineffective at stopping genocide. However, resisting extermination or deracination is often portrayed as 'terrorism', which is an effective technique to further dehumanize the victims, and thus make it more acceptable that they be slaughtered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)