Interest Rate Cuts Now Could Help Workers. But That’s Not Who The Fed Serves.

• by: C.J. Polychroniou

Prof.dr. Gerald Epstein

08-26-2024 ~ Progressive economist Gerald Epstein says the Fed is more sensitive to the needs of the wealthy few than the rest of us.

The Federal Reserve hasn’t changed interest rates since July of last year, after 11 hikes between March 2022 and July 2023 in the hope that higher borrowing costs would slow down consumer and business demand so inflation rates would drop. It kept the benchmark interest rate unchanged in its latest meeting ending July 31, 2024, but Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said that the first rate cut in four years “could be on the table” in September. Nonetheless, the Fed has faced criticism for its refusal to lower rates, though inflation rates have moved steadily lower. By tightening monetary policy, the Fed hurts consumers’ financial lives and even increases unemployment. So why has the Fed been so reluctant to cut interest rates?

The main reason, argues renowned progressive economist Gerald Epstein in the exclusive interview for Truthout that follows, is because the Fed is “more sensitive to the needs of the wealthy few than the rest of us.” As such, the Fed’s claim that it is an independent government agency is a complete myth. Epstein is professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and author of the recently published book Busting the Bankers’ Club: Finance for the Rest of Us (University of California Press, 2024). Read more

The Profound Implications Of The 2024 US Election

• by: Alexandra Boutri & C.J. Polychroniou

08-24-2024 ~ This election is indeed unlike any other in modern history because American voters are so polarized that the threat of civil breakdown is real.

Since U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris took the reins from President Joe Biden, the presidential race has tightened in key battle states as the momentum has shifted in Democrats’ favor. Why do so many people say that the 2024 presidential race is pivotal for the future of democracy? And what would a Kamala Harris foreign policy look like with regard to the transatlantic relationship, Ukraine’s war effort, China, and Gaza?

Political scientist and political economist C. J Polychroniou tackles these questions in an interview with the French-Greek independent journalist Alexandra Boutri. Unlike many radicals who won’t support the Democratic ticket if Harris does not change her policy on Israel, Polychroniou thinks that the 2024 presidential election has great implications beyond Gaza.

Alexandra Boutri: For the next couple of months or so, U.S. elections will be under the spotlight. It has been argued that because of Trump’s embrace of authoritarianism, the 2024 presidential election is pivotal for the future of U.S. democracy, critically consequential to Washington’s European allies, and potentially transformative for today’s geopolitical realities. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris also differ radically when it comes to climate change, immigration, and the economy. They are also quite apart across a broad range of issues related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Do you agree then with the view of many people who say 2024 is the most important election of their lives?

C. J. Polychroniou: The 2024 U.S. presidential election is enormously important for many of the reasons you cited, although we shouldn’t be oblivious of the fact that parochialism is what drives most American voters. That said, this election is indeed unlike any other in modern history also because American voters are so polarized that the threat of civil breakdown is real. In fact, I believe that Trump is already laying the groundwork for rejecting the election result if he loses. This is why he calls Democrats’ replacement of Biden a “coup” and even “a violent overthrow” of a president. And back in March, he said that there will be a “bloodbath” if he loses the November election. Obviously, there is something very wrong with the contemporary political culture in the U.S. I mean, compare what is happening in the U.S. to Britain’s political culture where civility is still the name of the game. Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak not only conceded defeat and congratulated Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, for his party’s victory, but took responsibility for the Tory party’s worst defeat in history. Read more

Will Bangladesh Be Another Egypt?

• by: Vijay Prashad

08-24-2024 ~ The day after former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left Dhaka, I was on the phone with a friend who had spent some time on the streets that day. He told me about the atmosphere in Dhaka, how people with little previous political experience had joined in the large protests alongside the students—who seemed to be leading the agitation. I asked him about the political infrastructure of the students and about their political orientation. He said that the protests seemed well-organized and that the students had escalated their demands from an end to certain quotas for government jobs to an end to the government of Sheikh Hasina. Even hours before she left the country, it did not seem that this would be the outcome. Everyone, he told me, had anticipated more violence from the government.

These protests in Bangladesh this year are not unique. They are part of a cycle of protests that started at least a decade ago, with the issues (an end to the quotas, better treatment of students, less government repression) being similar. These are not simple protests around simple demands that can be easily addressed. The demands—such as quotas—return Bangladesh to what the elite has tried desperately to repress: the ugly history of the country’s origins. The quotas are for freedom fighters who risked life and limb to battle the Pakistani military in 1971 and who won independence for Bangladesh. While it is true that such quotas should not be sustained over generations, it is also true that the issue of the quota is caught up partly with the problems of employment for educated, young people, and partly with the reassertion of the Islamist forces in Bangladesh who had been compromised by their association with the Pakistani violence. After the 2018 anti-quota movement, Sheikh Hasina’s government decided to cancel the system. The decision went to the courts. The High Court argued that the quotas had to be reinstated, but the Supreme Court—in June 2024—decided that the quotas would not be fully reinstated, but only partly (7 percent for freedom fighters’ children, and not 30 percent). This was the spur for a renewed protest movement. It targeted Sheikh Hasina’s government rather than the courts. Read more

How Artificial Intelligence Challenges The Concept Of Authorship

• by: Leslie Alan Horvitz

Leslie Alan Horvitz
Photo: lesliehorvitz.com

08-21-2024 ~ If AI creates the content, who owns the work? Answering this complex question is crucial to understanding the legal and ethical implications of AI-generated content.

Producing art and text using computers is not new. It has been happening since the 1970s. What is new is that computers are acting independently—without programmers providing any input; the computer program generates the work, even if programmers have set the parameters.

Not only are computers acting more independently but the quality of the content being generated has also increased. How this content is used has changed, too, and it may not always be created with the best motives. This is the new frontier of artificial intelligence or AI.

Coursera, a for-profit open online course provider, stated, “Artificial intelligence is the theory and development of computer systems capable of performing tasks that historically required human intelligence, such as recognizing speech, making decisions, and identifying patterns. AI is an umbrella term encompassing various technologies, including machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing.” Read more

Defeating The Fascists Is The First Order Of Business

• by: C.J. Polychroniou

C.J. Polychroniou

08-21-2024 ~ In the moral and political struggle to create a future with alternative possibilities, we need to build a united front. Radicalism can co-exist with pragmatic progressivism.

As we approach the 2024 presidential election, we are constantly told that this election is pivotal for the future of democracy. This may be so because a second Trump presidency would most likely be far more dangerous than the first. It would be foolish indeed not to take seriously when Trump says things like “We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.” And we already know what he plans to do with the administrative state: demolish it and replace it with MAGA loyalists. As for his energy policies, ways to cut grocery and mortgage costs, and his strategy to deal with the climate crisis, they can all be summarized with one simple slogan: “Drill, baby, drill.” Consequently, it is imperative that we defeat Trump in November. But as Bernie Sanders said just last week, “it is not the only task for our progressive movement.”

Indeed, there are so many things that need to be done in the hope that we can end predatory plutocracy, lessen the inequities of 21^st century capitalism, counter militarism, and reinvent U.S. democracy. On the first day of the National Democratic Convention, all the speakers highlighted with passion the need to defeat Trump in order to protect democracy and the interests of average people. Joe Biden himself told the crowd that democracy prevailed under his watch and now must be preserved.

However, as one would expect from a mainstream political party, the Harris-Walz campaign is not offering an alternative vision for the future, one that would recapture the true essence of democracy. There is a lot of rhetoric about “joy,” “freedom,” and “a better future,” but Harris’s economic plan mirrors many of Biden’s economic initiatives though in an expanded format, such as her ideas for addressing the housing crisis. Read more

The Status Of Europe’s Autonomous Movements

• by: John P. Ruehl

John P. Ruehl – Source: Independent Media Institute

08-20-2024 ~ While the EU plays a dominant role in managing autonomous and separatist movements in member states, non-EU countries have their own rules, and can be more vulnerable to outside interference.

Spanish officials reassuringly heralded a “new era” for the country after May 2024 elections. Catalonian pro-independence parties had lost the parliamentary majority that had enabled them to govern their region since 2015, and for the first time in decades, had failed to secure a majority of seats in regional parliament. Spain’s ruling Socialists meanwhile managed to emerge as Catalonia’s largest party.

Madrid’s political focus on Catalonia has intensified since 2017. After holding what was deemed by Spanish authorities an illegal independence referendum, Catalonia’s president and other officials fled to Belgium, prompting a diplomatic crisis. Spain then imposed direct rule over the region, with the EU backing the decision and citing the need for constitutional approval for referendums. In the aftermath, local support for Catalonia’s independence declined, offering Madrid a way in.

Spain’s separatist and autonomous movements are among Europe’s most well-known, and its management of them is watched closely across the continent. Many other European nations, particularly in larger countries, have autonomous movements seeking devolution, self-government, or outright independence. The perceived failure of the EU, international diplomacy, and integration efforts to resolve these issues has led countries to maintain their own policies. Although few movements are considered serious threats, attempts to assert themselves often provoke direct interventions by national governments—when these governments have the capacity to do so. Read more