The International Consortium Of Investigative Journalists ~ The ICIJ Offshore Leaks Database

This ICIJ database contains information on more than 785,000 offshore entities that are part of the Panama Papers, the Offshore Leaks, the Bahamas Leaks and the Paradise Papers investigations. The data covers nearly 80 years up to 2016 and links to people and companies in more than 200 countries and territories.

The real value of the database is that it strips away the secrecy that cloaks companies and trusts incorporated in tax havens and exposes the people behind them. This includes, when available, the names of the real owners of those opaque structures. In all, the interactive application reveals more than 720,000 names of people and companies behind secret offshore structures. They come from leaked records and not a standardized corporate registry, so there may be duplicates. In some cases, companies are listed as shareholders for another company or a trust, an arrangement that often helps obscure the flesh-and-blood people behind offshore entities.

[…]

ICIJ is publishing the information in the public interest. While many of the activities carried out through offshore entities are perfectly legal, extensive reporting by ICIJ and its media partners for more than five years has shown that the anonymity granted by the offshore economy facilitates money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and other crimes. Even when it’s legal, transparency advocates argue that the use of an alternative, parallel economy undermines democracy because it benefits a few at the expense of the majority.

Go to: https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/

Alessandro Baricco ~ The Game

• door: Linda Bouws

Alessandro Baricco. Ills. Joseph Sassoon Semah

Alessandro Baricco onderzoekt in The Game, opvolger van zijn zeer succesvolle boek De Barbaren’ [zie video onder artikel], de digitale revolutie en de gevolgen daarvan op onze beschaving. Deze revolutie heeft onze manier van denken en leven voorgoed veranderd. Maar lopen we niet het risico onze menselijkheid te verliezen in het digitale tijdperk? Waar en wanneer begon deze transformatie en waarheen leidt die ons?
Als een archeoloog onderzoekt Baricco de mijlpalen van de revolutie – van internet pioniers tot de uitvinding van de IPhone en Netflix, van het computerspel Space Invaders uit 1978 (de nulwervel van de digitale revolutie) tot kunstmatige intelligentie.

De Game is ontstaan uit de drang naar een leven zonder elite, net zoals de eerste technologische hulpmiddelen werden uitgevonden om de macht te vermalen door hem aan iedereen te geven. Nu heeft iedereen toegang tot elke informatie van de wereld, kan iedereen met iedereen communiceren en ook zijn mening geven, wat vroeger was voorbehouden aan de elite. Dankzij The Game is het monopolie van de elite niet langer onaantastbaar. In The Game zet Alessandro Baricco zich nadrukkelijk af tegen de oude elite die geen zin heeft de nieuwe wereld te begrijpen en zich ver weg houdt van de nieuw realiteit.

Baricco ziet het startpunt van de digitale revolutie in de zeventiger jaren als een digitale opstand tegen de rampzalige beschaving van de twintigste eeuw met zijn twee wereldoorlogen: die tragedie mag nooit worden herhaald. Informatica-ingenieurs, politieke militanten, hippies uit Californië zagen de technologie dan ook vooral als bevrijdingsinstrument, aldus Baricco. De digitale opstand richtte zich op de onbeweeglijkheid en de overmacht van elites door tools te bouwen die de beste bewegingsmarges garandeerden die de elites buiten konden sluiten. Ze braken de macht af en verdeelden die onder mensen.
Het logo van de vrijheidsstrijd werd: mens-toetsenbord-scherm, zowel een fysieke als mentale houding met de bereidheid de wereld via apparaten te benaderen. Apparaten werden een soort protheses, een verlengstuk van de mens.

Barricco markeert de presentatie van de iPhone door Steve Jobs, op 9 januari 2007, als het ontstaan van de Game.
‘In die telefoon – die geen telefoon meer was- was de logische structuur van computerspellen leesbaar (oersoep van de opstand), werd de houding van mens-toetsenbord-scherm geperfectioneerd, stierf het twintigste-eeuwse concept van diepgang, werd de oppervlakkigheid bekrachtigd als huisvesting van het zijn, en voorvoelde men de komst van post-ervaring.’
Voor Baricco is de Game de verzekering tegen de nachtmerrie van de twintigste eeuw: de voorwaarden om zoiets nog eens te laten gebeuren zijn ontmanteld. Maar er gingen ook mooie en waardevolle, unieke dingen ten onder, die we weer opnieuw moeten opbouwen met gebruikmaking van de Game en met zijn idee van design.

De Game heeft weliswaar geen grondwet, geen teksten waarmee ze wordt gelegitimeerd maar er zijn wel ’teksten’ waarin het genetisch erfgoed wordt bewaard, zoals Spacewar, een van de eerste computerspellen (1972), die de volledige genetische code van onze beschaving bevat. In die eerste computerspellen schemerde al de betekenis van computers door, de potenties van het digitale, de voordelen van de houding mens-toetsenbord-scherm, een bepaald idee van mentale architectuur, een idee van snelheid, de zaligverklaring van beweging, en het belang van puntentelling, aldus Baricco.
Maar nu worden ook de tekortkomingen zichtbaar: ten eerste is de Game moeilijk en vereist skills, die niet worden onderwezen. Ten tweede is nu een systeem ontstaan dat heeft geleid tot gigantische machtsconcentraties, die niet minder toegankelijk zijn dan de elites van de twintigste-eeuw. De derde tekortkoming is in het besluit om ‘de geraamte van de wereld’, de grote bolwerken van de twintigste eeuw, intact te laten: de staat, de scholen, de kerken.
Op dit moment hebben we geen oplossingen: het is nog niemand gelukt voor de Game een eigen model te bedenken van economische ontwikkelingen, sociale rechtvaardigheid en verdeling van rijkdom.
De rijken van de Game zijn nog steeds beperkt en rijk op een traditionele manier.

De grondleggers van de Game waren man, wit, Amerikaans en ingenieur/wetenschapper. De Intelligentie van nu is meer gevarieerd: er is behoefte aan vrouwelijke cultuur, aan humanistische kennis, aan een niet-Amerikaans geheugen, aan hedendaagse talenten en aan intelligentie uit de marges. Maar vooral het humanisme is belangrijk voor het voortbestaan van de Game. Mensen hebben behoefte zich mens te blijven voelen, nu men door de Game is gedwongen tot een hoog percentage kunstmatig leven. Kunstmatige intelligentie zal ons nog verder van onszelf afvoeren, dus dat betekent dat de komende honderd jaar niets waardevoller zal zijn dan alles waardoor de mensen zich mens voelen, aldus Baricco.
We moeten de identiteit van het soort bewaren en dat kan alleen als het humanisme de achterstand inloopt en toetreedt tot de Game. De Game moet van niet alleen geproduceerd door mensen, maar zich ontwikkelen naar een tool voor mensen.
We moeten komen tot contemporary humanities als setting van de Game, dan wordt het weer een verhaal van mensen en is de Game levensvatbaar.

Alessandro Baricco ~ The Game. Amsterdam, De Bezige Bij, 2019. ISBN 9789403147802

Linda Bouws – St. Metropool Internationale Kunstprojecten

Sarah Repucci ~ Freedom And The Media: A Downward Spiral

Key Findings:
– Freedom of the media has been deteriorating around the world over the past decade.
– In some of the most influential democracies in the world, populist leaders have overseen concerted attempts to throttle the independence of the media sector.
– While the threats to global media freedom are real and concerning in their own right, their impact on the state of democracy is what makes them truly dangerous.
– Experience has shown, however, that press freedom can rebound from even lengthy stints of repression when given the opportunity. The basic desire for democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, can never be extinguished.

The fundamental right to seek and disseminate information through an independent press is under attack, and part of the assault has come from an unexpected source. Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage. The trend is linked to a global decline in democracy itself: The erosion of press freedom is both a symptom of and a contributor to the breakdown of other democratic institutions and principles, a fact that makes it especially alarming.

According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World data, media freedom has been deteriorating around the world over the past decade, with new forms of repression taking hold in open societies and authoritarian states alike. The trend is most acute in Europe, previously a bastion of well-established freedoms, and in Eurasia and the Middle East, where many of the world’s worst dictatorships are concentrated. If democratic powers cease to support media independence at home and impose no consequences for its restriction abroad, the free press corps could be in danger of virtual extinction.

Experience has shown, however, that press freedom can rebound from even lengthy stints of repression when given the opportunity. The basic desire for democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, can never be extinguished, and it is never too late to renew the demand that these rights be granted in full.

Read more: https://freedomhouse.org/freedom-media-2019

The Embassy Of Good Science

If Democrats Can’t Win The Economic Debate, Trump Will Win In 2020

• by: C.J. Polychroniou

Prof.dr. Robert Pollin

Pundits and economic models predict that if nothing changes in the next two years on the economic front, Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020 by a bigger margin than in 2016. To be sure, the economy is usually the top priority for voters heading into a presidential election, and the U.S. economy appears on paper to be doing well since Trump moved into the White House. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019 (real GDP grew by 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018), and the national unemployment rate is at a low 3.8 percent, with applications for unemployment benefits having declined to a 49-year low.

Nonetheless, while the economy looks strong, the economic condition of most Americans is anything but rosy. And, according to a Federal Reserve’s “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018,” roughly 40 percent of households would not be able to cover a $400 “unexpected expense.”

At the same time, the majority of Americans think that the economic system benefits mostly the wealthy, and want to see the government do something about this situation.

As such, the question is whether Democratic presidential candidates have the vision and the boldness to put structural economic reforms on top of their pre-election campaign. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have already positioned themselves as the ideas candidates for fixing the economy, although Wall Street Democrats will clearly oppose both of them. In the absence of a plan to abolish capitalism, drastic reforms to make it more equitable are a necessary precondition for the economic well-being of the majority of people in the U.S. — reforms that would likely prove to be detrimental to the economic interests of the super-rich, who are intent on accumulating ever higher amounts of wealth. Yet, it is unclear what sort of reforms deserve top priority in today’s U.S. economy. To answer that question, we interviewed Robert Pollin, distinguished professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

C.J. Polychroniou: Bob, the U.S. economy is said to be booming, although Democrats attribute this fact to the policies of the Obama administration. Firstly, is the U.S. economy in such a good shape as it appears to be on paper? Secondly, for how long can the Democrats go on giving credit to Obama for today’s signs of a strong economy?

Robert Pollin: First of all, based on the most standard measure of overall economic performance, the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the U.S. economy has not been booming under Trump. Indeed, over the two full years under Trump, 2017-18, real economic growth (adjusted for inflation) averaged 2.5 percent per year. This is no better than the average for the full eight years since the Great Recession officially ended in 2010. Over the 57-year period prior to the 2008 Great Recession (1950-2007), U.S. real economic growth averaged 3.4 percent per year. The Trump economy obviously hasn’t come close to reaching this long-term average growth trend.

It is true that the official unemployment rate is at a historic low, at 3.8 percent of the labor force. However, let’s also consider a broader official measure of unemployment coming from the U.S. Labor Department, one which includes both the “underemployed” — i.e., people in part-time positions but seeking full-time work — as well as people who have become discouraged from looking for a job due to lack of success. By this measure, the unemployment rate rises to 7.3 percent. If we also add in the roughly 5 million people who have dropped out of the labor market following the Great Recession, that would bring the unemployment rate to 10.3 percent. So while labor market conditions are indeed far better now than they were 10 years ago, as we were just coming out of the Great Recession, there is still a lot of distress among people trying to get jobs, much less good jobs.

The Obama administration, along with the Federal Reserve, does deserve credit for helping to avoid a total financial collapse in 2008 that could have led to a Depression as severe as the 1930s. Who knows where we would be today if, a decade ago, the unemployment rate had risen to, say 25 percent, as it did in the 1930s, versus 10 percent during the Great Recession.

Read more

Noam Chomsky: Trump’s “Economic Boom” Is A Sham

• by: C.J. Polychroniou

Donald Trump ran a campaign — and won the 2016 presidential election — based on unorthodox tactics, whereby he used irrational provocation to defy traditional political norms and make a mockery of established beliefs on both domestic and international issues confronting the United States. Amazingly enough, Trump has continued his instinctual political posturing even as president, dividing the nation and causing severe friction with the traditional allies of the U.S. Yet, his unorthodox tactics and irrational leadership style appear to remain a winning formula as current polls indicate that, unless something dramatic happens, Trump may very well be re-elected in 2020 by an even bigger margin.

How do we make sense of Trump’s continuing popularity? Noam Chomsky, one of the most respected public intellectuals alive, shares his insights on Trump’s actions in the exclusive Truthout interview that follows.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, I want to start by asking you to reflect on Trump’s political posturing and leadership style and explain to us how this apparently “irrational” president continues to enjoy unquestionable support among nearly half of all voters and has managed to turn the GOP into his own fiefdom.
Noam Chomsky: Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is a highly skilled politician, with a good sense of how to gain popular approval, even virtual worship in some circles. His job approval just passed 50 percent for the first time, according to the latest Zogby poll.

He certainly has taken control of the GOP, to quite a remarkable extent. He’s been very successful with his two constituencies: the primary one, wealth and corporate power; and the voting base, relatively affluent fairly generally, including a large bloc of Christian evangelicals, rural whites, farmers, workers who have faith in his promises to bring back jobs, and a collection of others, some not too admirable.

It’s clear why the primary constituency is mostly delighted. Corporate profits are booming. Wealth continues to be concentrated in very few hands. Trump’s administration is lavishing them with gifts, including the tax bill, the main legislative achievement, across-the-board deregulation, and rapidly increasing fossil fuel production. He and McConnell — in many ways the evil genius of the administration — are packing the judiciary with reactionaries, guaranteeing the interests of the corporate sector and private wealth even after these “glory days” are past. They don’t like his trade wars, which are causing disruption of global supply chains, but so far at least that’s outweighed by his dedicated service to their welfare. Read more