A Cruel Hoax: The Political Economy Of Anti-immigration

• by: Richard D. Wolff

Richard D. Wolff

02-28-2025 ~ Deporting immigrants may deliver electoral wins to politicians if voters have been sufficiently cultivated by years of demonizing and scapegoating them. For its victims, the cruelties involved are horrific. Yet such deportation makes little sense economically. It represents a nationally self-destructive program based on a faulty grasp of immigration economics. What once “made America great” (at least for the majority white population) were its successive waves of immigrants. What underscored the American economy’s strength was its ability to absorb and integrate those waves despite frictions among them: a genuinely productive melting pot. My American schooling through my PhD stressed such points.

What then reversed such a positive understanding of immigration? What converted immigration instead into an urgent danger to American greatness? What lets Trump pose as “protecting” us by sharply reducing immigration and massively deporting immigrants? (By “immigrants” I mean the vast majority of people who are poor and join the working class at low levels of pay. Foreign-born U.S. residents comprise about 14 percent of the total population or roughly 46 million. About 12 million of them are undocumented.)

Answers to such questions lie in the political economy of immigration. Yet those answers and the political economy that generates them are stunningly absent from popular debates and consciousness. The Republican party’s recent years of anti-immigration rhetoric plus the immigrant deportation policies in place across the last three presidencies illustrate that absence. Many politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties support deportation as the necessary response to the “costly invasions” of immigrants (often equated to criminals). Yet evidence for this demonization program has been very scarce. Its proponents seem largely ignorant of the actual economics of immigration.

Most immigrants coming to the United States are young adults. The young can best manage migration’s hardships and dangers. They can most readily fill the hardest jobs at the lowest pay that their desperate and vulnerable circumstances force on them. The undocumented among them are the most vulnerable. They dare not complain to the police or other government officials when employers take advantage of them and abuse them. Immigrants often send portions of their wages (“remittances”) back to the countries they left. Remittances help care for children, the elderly, and others who remained there and partially compensate those countries of origin for losing their emigrants’ productivity. Read more

Trump’s Plan For Gaza Would Make Colonial Plunder Great Again

• by: C.J. Polychroniou

James K. Boyce – Photo by Matthew Cavanaugh

02-27-2025 ~ In an interview, economist James K. Boyce discusses the relationship between war and economics, and how Trump’s talk of taking over Gaza and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is similar to the U.S. dispossession of Native Americans.

Can economics fuel conflict and war? Absolutely, and history is full of such examples. But economics can also pave the way to lasting peace, according to progressive economist James K. Boyce.

In the interview that follows, professor Boyce discusses the economics of war and the role that economics can play in peacemaking, including in places like Ukraine and Gaza, although he acknowledges that daunting challenges lie ahead for these two war-torn areas of the world. As for U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza, Boyce puts it side by side with the disposition of Native Americans in the United States.

James K. Boyce is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a senior fellow of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI). He is the author of Investing in Peace: Aid and Conditionality after Civil Warsand editor of Peace and the Public Purse: Economic Policies for Postwar Statebuilding and Economic Policy for Building Peace: The Lessons of El Salvador.He received the 2024 Global Inequality Research Award and the 2017 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought. This interview is based on his seven-part video series released by the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

C. J. Polychroniou: Conflicts across the world have surged since 2020, making this one of the most violent periods since the end of the Cold War. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have been most visible in the news, but there have been dozens of other conflicts, too. What lessons can we draw from history about the economics of war, the topic of your recent video series from the Institute for New Economic Thinking? How about if we start with the wars of conquest during the era of colonialism?

James K. Boyce: Economics is not just about mutually beneficial exchanges entered into by mutually consenting adults, though you could be forgiven for thinking so if your only acquaintance with the subject was a typical textbook. Real-world economics also is about coercive relationships in which one side benefits and the other loses. Such interactions—which can be grouped under the general rubric of plunder—involve not only outright force but also the manipulation of governments and markets, often occurring in the grey area between what is legal and what is not.

The colonial wars of conquest were a particularly naked example of plunder. Slavery, the appropriation of lands and minerals, and the monopolization of commerce were common features of the time, thinly cloaked, if at all, by the pretense of a “civilizing” mission. But it would be wrong to imagine that plunder disappeared with the end of formal colonial rule. It remains a ubiquitous feature of the world economy, now sometimes cloaked by the veneer of “modernization” or “development.” Because plunder is inherently antagonistic—it pits the plunderers against the those whose resources and livelihoods are plundered—it can and often does morph into violence and war. Read more

How Can The Study Of Hierarchy/Heterarchy Influence The Future?

• by: Carole Crumley

Carole Crumley

02-27-2025 ~ How new information changes theories.

Hierarchies are a familiar form of human organization where individuals and groups of high social status are ranked above others and make decisions. Some examples are an oligarchy, a small group of committed individuals (sharing religion, wealth, etc.); an absolute monarchy that controls all the levers of power; and an activity that requires a clear chain of command (armies and firefighters) for a rapid and coordinated effort. Another form of human organization is a heterarchy, where individual and group status is based on behavior, values, and the willingness to work for the common good; decisions are taken cooperatively. (An earlier version of this article originally appeared as an entry for Heterarchy in the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1) Examples of heterarchy are elected national assemblies, unions and guilds, or a group activity whose leaders have the requisite knowledge for the required tasks.

These are bare-bones characterizations—a continuum—rather than a one-or-the-other condition; sociopolitical governance is usually a mix, with strict rules for certain purposes and more flexible rules for others. Taken together, the two terms aid the examination of all sociopolitical systems and the study of how decisions are mediated and change over time.

A Traditional View of Social Complexity
Since archaeology’s founding as a discipline in the 19th century, most interpretations have assumed a linear progression from small, early, and “simple” societies to those that were more populous, appeared later in time, and were “complex.” Such a definition of complex (having more administrative levels) is in contrast to the definition of complexity in nonlinear systems (more richly networked). Political systems were assumed to have greater stability the more they tended toward tiered hierarchies of power.

In 1962, the American cultural anthropologist Elman Service introduced a framework classifying evolutionary stages of social and political organization into four categories: band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. He focused on the managerial benefits of the theory, which posits that chiefdoms arose due to the advantages of centralized leadership and culminated in the formation of states. In this model, leaders offer tangible benefits to their followers who consolidate the leader’s power and support the expansion of bureaucratic organizations.

Since Service formulated this model of complexity in human societies, dissatisfaction with both the model and the underlying assumption has grown considerably. Scholars2 have complained about the definition of these categories; the lack of clear evidence in the archaeological record; the failure of much archaeological data to fit a cultural evolutionary model; and the objectionable and persistent association with racism and colonialism. Most egregious is the assumption that ancient peoples and contemporary non-state groups are somehow less intelligent and creative than citizens of nation-states. This has played directly into Eurocentric convictions that conquest and colonial takeover were a favor to “backward” peoples. Today, scholars realize that throughout the course of human history, there were many different forms of self-governance.

The root problem has been the definition of complexity. Service understood complexity as many levels of governance, each subordinate to the one above (tiered). Heterarchies have many links (networked) of shifting importance over time. A tiered administrative system describes the formal organization of states but, even in states, the social scaffolding is better revealed when governance is seen as a network, with both official entities (departments) and unofficial ones (groups and individuals who can fulfill various functions). Read more

The Coming Age Of Border Changes?

• by: John P. Ruehl

John P. Ruehl – Independent Media Institute

02-25-2025 ~ Trump’s remarks on annexing territory and recognizing Russian and Israeli territorial gains may align with his geopolitical ambitions, but the disruption to longstanding norms of fixed borders sets a risky precedent.

Amid ongoing discussions over Donald Trump’s plans for trying to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and Israel, the U.S. president has maintained steady pressure on NATO allies for months. After his 2024 election victory, Trump again raised the prospect of annexing the Danish territory of Greenland, having first done so in 2019. Once dismissed as outlandish, his renewed push against a key ally sent shockwaves through Europe and the international community.

Trump also declared his intent to make Canada the 51st state in November 2024 and has continued reiterating his stance. Violent conflict between the two nations occurred until the mid-19th century, but aggressive annexation today appears unthinkable due to the logistical challenges, deep ties, and friendly relations between the U.S. and Canada.

Yet Trump has doubled down, with additional remarks about seizing the Panama Canal and Gaza raising further concerns that the world’s most powerful country is seriously entertaining territorial expansion.

Trump’s motivations—whether a trade tactic against Canada, securing greater military rights in Greenland, or other reasons—remain unclear. Still, Washington’s expansionist policy pivot coincides with fast-moving negotiations with Russia to try to end the war in Ukraine, likely by ceding land to Moscow.

Meanwhile, Israel is considering its own border consolidation, including potentially permanent expulsions of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, and formalizing its annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights. Once dismissed as political theater, Trump’s actions now seem part of broader efforts to reshape the discourse on borders, risking ushering in an unpredictable era of renewed territorial conflicts.

Following World War II, the international community largely resisted border changes, even in the context of decolonization, in fear of spreading instability, secession, and conquest. The 1975 Helsinki Accords, in turn, cemented Europe’s postwar borders, discouraging violent changes while allowing for peaceful and mutually agreed adjustments.

Optimists hoped that this model would hold after the Cold War. Germany’s reunification in 1990 was followed by Czechoslovakia’s amicable split in 1992, and Western territorial disputes had by then been reduced to legal battles, as part of a multilateral, institutional approach to conflict resolution that was expected to spread into Eastern Europe and beyond. Read more

Exploring Ancient Understandings Of Meteorites In Archaic Societies

• by: Andrew Califf

Andrew Califf – Independent Media Institute

02-25-2025 ~ Five times a day, approximately one-fourth of the world’s population turns toward Mecca to bow their heads in prayer. The Kaaba at the center of this global genuflection has a cornerstone that some speculate is a meteor.

Meteoritic artifacts appear as early as the dawn of Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period, approximately 4,500 years ago. Archaeological teams in the 1920s reported that beads from the Gerzeh cemetery in northern Egypt had very high concentrations of nickel, typical of meteoritic iron. These are the earliest analyzed artifacts, and modern metal testing technologies mean that chemists can now identify and catalog the presence of meteoritic iron in archaeological collections across Eurasia. Since 2013, this has led to many discoveries reframing the prominence of extraterrestrial resources in the archaeological record, including identifying that King Tutankhamun’s dagger was crafted from a meteor.

Experts believe this opulent weapon was a gift to the boy king’s grandfather Amenhotep III around 1300 BCE, from the king of the Mitanni region, based on the Amarna tablets. This high-status gift is one of the many ways meteoritic iron was revered by ancient civilizations. One of the earliest Egyptian hieroglyphics for iron seems to be derived from a longer phrase translating to: “iron from the sky.”

This word has cosmological connotations associated with the Egyptian belief that the sky was an iron pot or tub filled with water, and bits of it fell to the Earth in the form of meteorites.

“We have evidence for the idea that the sky was a dome made of iron in a few different civilizations,” explains Victoria Almansa-Villatoro, the Egyptologist who analyzed the hieroglyphic for iron (and sky), during an interview. “If all of these civilizations had this idea and they are so spread apart, it is possible that the idea goes way back in time, maybe before writing was invented.”

Almansa-Villatoro emphasizes tracing any common meanings or beliefs linking such cultures is purely speculation. Contemporaneously to the Mitanni, it is believed the Hittites used meteoritic iron by 3,000 to 2,000 BCE as one iron dagger excavated in Alaca Höyük in modern-day Turkey was made from a meteor and dated to 2,500 BCE. Iron pendants from Umm el-Marra in Syria and an iron axe from Ugarit in Lebanon are other key examples of hammered meteoritic iron. Read more

Sri Lanka’s New Government Struggles To Increase Public Investment Amid IMF Constraints

• by: Shiran Illanperuma

02-26-2025 ~ The maiden budget by Sri Lanka’s new government reflects the limitations of austerity and the need to reinstill confidence in ideas of investment-led growth and industrialisation.

On 17 February 2025, Sri Lanka’s Anura Kumara Dissanayake delivered his maiden budget speech. Dissanayake, who is both president and finance minister, stated that the budget was based on principles of productive growth, active public engagement, and equitable distribution.

This much-anticipated budget is the first since the country held presidential and parliamentary elections in late 2024 during which voters rejected the mainstream ruling parties and placed their hopes in National People’s Power (NPP). The latter is a relatively new political formation consisting of various civil society groups and anchored by its core party the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP).

While Sri Lanka has elected a new president and government, its policy space remains restricted by its 17th support package from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was entered into by the preceding government. In a panel discussion held a few days after his budget speech, Dissanayake conceded, ‘Our economy is running on conditions. There is no economic independence or sovereignty – it is under probation and being monitored’. This is a stark admission from Dissanayake, whose government has so far backed down from its campaign promise of renegotiating the unfavourable debt restructuring agreement brokered by the IMF. Read more