USA and China

USA and China. How do they compare economically?
Firstly let’s take a quick glance at the background of the two countries.
Most of us have a reasonably informed knowledge of the last 150 years of USA history from the conclusion of its civil war in 1865 when it agreed, at least in theory, to abandon slavery, through theRoaring Twenties into the Great Depression and subsequently F.D. Roosevelt’s introduction of the New Deal.
USA manufacturing boomed during and after WW2 and since none of these hostilities nor Vietnam War took place on American mainland their economy continued to boom throughout the 20th century. The extent to which it is continuing to boom during the first 2 decades of the 21st century is debatable and worthy of a separate essay.
Unfortunately the history most of us were taught was European centred with a sprinkling of the British Empire’s role around the world but with little Chinese content. Hence a little research was required.
While China never became a colony of any European power it was none the less almost treated like one. When Britain needed funds to finance the growing demand for tea from India it raised these funds by taking opium grown in India and aggressively selling it into China.
Eventually the Chinese decided this was not in the best interest of their people and tried to curtail the importation of the drug. This led to two Opium Wars 1839/42 and 1856/60 fought by China against Britain and France.
China not only lost both these wars but in the ensuing treaties (known as The Unequal Treaties) it lost various coastal territories and was forced to agree to commercial concessions which included the continuation of the importation of opium.
Not surprisingly the colonialist attitude of European countries towards China coupled with droughts and crop failures gave rise to much unrest finally resulting in a rebellion in 1899 led by a number of Chinese martial arts groups, which became known as the Boxer Rebellion.
The Boxers laid siege to an area of Beijing in which there were mainly foreigners and Chinese Christians. The commercial interest in China had grown to such an extent since the Opium Wars that an alliance of eight nations(America, Austro-Hungary, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Russia) provided a force of 20,000 which not only lifted the siege but plundered the city and environs, executed suspected Boxers and government officials who may have supported them and extracted further concessions from China. Some of the conditions in the Boxer Protocol were that foreign troops were entitled to remain and China was required to compensate the eight nations for the “inconvenience” caused by paying them a total of 450 “taels” of silver, in 2018 prices about $10 Billion, over the next 39 years
Eventually the Chinese Qing dynasty was overthrown in 1911 and coincidently for the next 40 years Europe was embroiled in two World Wars and a variety of insurrections among their many colonies. This gave China a free reign to get on with its own troubled domestic affairs. In a civil war the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek (heavily supported by the USA) lost out to Mae Zedong and the Communist Party. This resulted in 1949 in the formation of the People´s Republic of China.
The Nationalist Government which retreated to the Chinese island of Taiwan continued to be recognised by the USA as the o cial government! It took 30 years until 1979 until they finally relented and President Jimmy Carter recognised the communist party government of the People´s Republic of China.
Fast forward to 21st century.
China’s extraordinary growth to become the 2nd largest economy in the world has been remarkable. Population-wise it is 4 times the size of America but more importantly over the last 30 years it has achieved GDP growth of between 6% and 9% compared with between 2% and 3% for the USA. It is only a matter of a couple more years until it easily becomes the world’s largest economy.
Deng Xiaoping who led China from 1978 to 1992 was committed to reforming the economy. His approach can be gauged from the famous comment he made, “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”.
In order to maximise China’s advantage of having a growing abundance of cheap labour who were keen to leave the land and find work they decided 1) to become a low cost production facility for the rest of the world and 2) to offer companies from outside opportunities to set up in China and have access to their massive home market.
The deal was just too good for US companies to pass up, they could smell the increased profits which would come from access to such a huge growing market. Furthermore any mounting pressure for wages increases at home could be avoided by exporting jobs to low waged China. In reality American workers were now competing wage-wise with Chinese workers; there was ever only going to be one winner!
To somehow compensate American workers for their loss of jobs and for their zero real wage increases they would now have available cheap consumer goods from China. Walmart, Target and other companies became “Nationwide Distribution Centres” for Chinese factories.
Foreign companies were allowed, even encouraged, to set up business in China with two conditions,1) they must be in partnership with a Chinese company, be it a state entreprise, a private company or a hybrid combination of both. 2) they must share their technology. In return they had full access to a low paid willing workforce and to the Chinese domestic market.
Importantly the purchasing power of the Chinese market was growing in two ways, population growth and real wage growth, whereas in the US population growth, apart from immigrants, was minimal and more importantly real wages in USA were straight lining. While the purchasing power of US workers wages has stagnated for the last 30 years, real wages in the same period have quadrupled in China. Granted they were starting from a low base, but there’s a certain “feel good factor” when your wages increase year on year.
The current relationship between these two huge trading economies has been likened to a bad marriage without divorce as an option. While the Communist Party still rules the roost there has been a steady growth in new enterprises, some huge infrastructural projects nationally managed, others decentralised to the provinces and many small private companies. Interestingly if one considers capitalism to be a situation in which a small number of people at the top of an organisation control and make decisions regrading how it is run and managed and the large majority of the people work for a weekly wage, then there is a lot capitalist activity in China.
Back to the bad marriage analogy.
Over the years the scales have constantly tipped in favour of one party, China. Not only have they have taken millions of their people out of rural poverty, but they have acquired and developed technology and built up a massive manufacturing base.
America on the other hand have lost their once vibrant manufacturing base, poverty has not been significantly reduced and personal debt levels have ballooned as workers on stagnating wages borrowed to cope with increasing prices.
China is investing heavily in 3rd level eduction whereas every State in the Union bar one (N Dakota) has reduced support for public universities which account for 75% of USgraduates.
It gets worse.
China’s exports to USA have been consistently greater that their imports from the US. In American speak, a very negative trade balance. The imbalance in favour of China in 2018 was $379 Billion, there has never been a balance in USA’s favour since 1987.
The elephant in this dysfunctional family’s living room corner is… What does China do with their huge annual surplus of US dollars? Simple, who needs dollars? The USA. The Communist Party’s People’s Republic of China is currently a massive lender to the USA through its purchase of US Treasuries, known in Europe as Government Bonds. As with many a bad marriage the financial imbalance makes a split between USA and China well nigh impossible.
Trumps idea that America will benefit by the imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports is difficult to understand. A tariff is just another tax on an imported item. For example if an imported $10 shirt ffhas a 25% tari applied it will now cost the American consumer at least $2.50 more. Assuming the importer eventually imports less shirts this will hurt Chinese shirt factories, but will there be such a shortage of shirts as to cause an American company to get into shirt manufacturing? Fairly unlikely since folks who were used to buying the cheap imports are unlikely to pay the much higher cost of a locally make shirt.
The only obvious benefit to the USA is that the $2.50 tariff will generate additional income for the Federal Government. As I understand it the tariffs are China specific so what about the lots of other countries who will be very happy to offer cheap $10 shirts, such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, India etc. etc.
The greatest boost in the 2020 presidential elections that Trump could have would be a military victory; it’s sure not going to happen in Afghanistan; and he won’t take on the Chinese whom he has strongly criticised for their build-up in the South China Sea; hopefully he won’t start a war with Iran which Saudi Arabia is encouraging him to do. So perhaps he’s hoping for a Trade War victory

Posted in Politics, USA | Leave a comment

A New Kitchen for 50 Euro !

I am promoting as widely as possible a Rocket Stove kitchen upgrade.
These 3 stone fires are normal family kitchens
This picture shows how 90% of rural Gambians cook on a daily basis.
1) It uses a lot of wood which has to be gathered on a very regular basis from surrounding forests.
2) It is very smokey since recently cut timber has a fair amount of sap in it.
3) In the 3 month wet season, it gets worse and exposure to the smoke & inhalation of it is greater since the fire is positioned under some kind of shelter from the rains. Lungs and eyes are badly effected by this toxic smoke.
4) The continual gathering of wood and deforestation means going greater distances to collect it and carry it back to their home.
5) A less talked about issue; since cooking is a female responsibility they also have the job of sourcing the wood which exposes them to the not unheard of problem of “being interfered with” while out alone in the forest.

A Rocket Stove positively addresses All of the above issues.
This picture shows such a stove which I built in our garden to prove the theory to myself.
1) It uses at least 80% Less wood.
2) The wood used is twigs and small branches thus avoiding cutting down large branches or whole trees. Gathering time is less and usually closer to the village.
3) Reduction in deforestation
4) There is NO Smoke (there is a tiny amount during the starting of the fire). Fire without smoke is a difficult concept to sell in rural Africa!
5) The temperatures are higher so cooking times are reduced.

Note the brick with the holes upon which the sticks are resting. This is its very secondary purpose, Its main and very critical purpose is to facilitate air being sucked in under the sticks.
As the updraft in the chimney area increases the intake of air increases and since the air comes in under the fire, as it rises up through the flames it is heated and causes the particles immediately above the flames to combust. These particles in a normal fire are the smoke, hence their combustion eliminates the smoke with the added benefit that when they combust the temperature they produce is significantly higher than the temperature of the flame itself !

It’s a no brainer but has been difficult to introduce, a possible lacking of my salesmanship. But this week I made significant progress.
Samba, of Bafaluto village finally took an interest in it.
Part of my problem in the past has been that anything and everything to do with cooking is the women’s responsibility and since building a Rocket Stove means acquiring (or making) bricks and doing very basic cementing, this type of work was not in the domain of the women.
My friend Samba bit the bullet and carefully built this Rocket Stove for his wife. She is delighted with it.

It took a while to convince him that the pot did Not need to be in contact with the flames (as it is in the 3 stone arrangement), but that in fact it needed to be above the flames to get the benefit of the extra heat from the combustion of the particles/smoke.
It’s now the talk of the village. My target this year is to get the Whole village, about 200 families, converted to Rocket Stoves

Diagram of the technology.

Samba is employed on a temporary basis as gardener at Banjul Airport earning 3,000 Dalasis per month, 55 Euro. The family´s stable diet of rice costs at least 1000 Dalasis per month, 19 Euro.
From personal knowledge of The Gambia, this is barely a subsistence wage, therefore I funded the costs of the 52 bricks & a small bag of cement for his Rocket Stove, just under 50 Euro. Great value for money!
Anyone want to treat another family or two to a kitchen upgrade?
Donations can be made via http://www.pingcharity.co.uk website

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Good News bits. One Irish, the other Worldwide

One person´s solution to Irelands housing, lack of housing, crisis.
A former soldier in Ireland has given his three-bedroom home to a young family who were on the waiting list for a new home for seven years.
Paddy Phelan gave up his social housing home to Kieran Ritchie and fiancee Lauren, and their two children who were living in a much smaller home.
Phelan, who lives in Abbeyleix, Co Laois, decided to leave the three-bedroom house he called home for 12 years and downsize to a one bedroom residence as he was “sick of seeing the amount of houses lying idle and families struggling.”
Phelan told The Independent: “I was hearing through the media about families crying out for houses and I was thinking to myself well here I am. I’m in a three-bedroom house and I think the right thing to do would be to downsize to a smaller house.
 
I’ll never forget the look on all their faces and to see how happy the children were. I’m happy for them and I can only wish them well. Please god it would send out a message to other people to consider.”
Phelan is encouraging others who are living in houses with unused bedrooms to consider downsizing, too.
“It’s a crying shame that these houses are lying basically idle,” he said. “People should seriously consider their position and accommodate a family if they can.”
_______________________________________________________
NASA Confirms Earth Is Greener Today Than 20 Years Ago
March 1, 2019
The world is a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and China and India can take a majority of the credit.

A new study from NASA shows that the two countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.
This new insight was made possible by a 20-year-long data record from a NASA instrument (MODIS) orbiting the Earth on two satellites.
There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000s – a 5% increase

“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9% of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation – a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation,” said Chi Chen of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, in Massachusetts, and lead author of the study.
“When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to more leaf growth in northern forests, for instance,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center, and a co-author of the study. “Now, with the MODIS data that lets us understand the phenomenon at really small scales, we see that humans are also contributing.”

Posted in Ireland., Odd Bits | Leave a comment

Little by little changes Are coming.

If you’re stuck for time just jump to the short YouTube at the bottom for a good summary.

Back in 2005/06 few people were paying any attention to the role of tax havens in the looting of poor countries by kleptocrats and their assistants, and tax was a dirty word in most policy circles.
Tax Justice Network travelled extensively and listened to African tax officials regarding their biggest concerns.
1. Tax competition, and the dirty, corrupt tax deals that ministers were signing with big mining companies, in Burkina Faso, in Mali, in Niger, and across all of the world’s poorest countries.
2. Tax audit capacity. The [African revenue officials] were telling us, ‘We get these brilliant bright officials, we train them – and then they go and join the enemy. When we are up against these gigantic companies, we are totally outgunned by their legal teams.’ And of course the accountants too.
3. You might find a junior auditor with only three or four years of experience of complex transfer pricing issues going up against global companies with half a dozen top tax lawyers and accountants in their team. David against Goliath stuff.

How things are slowly changing; in the last week off Feb 2019 The Economist, hardly a left wing publication (major shareholders, Schroder,Investment Mgt. Cadbury owned by Kraft. Rothschild, Banking etc. Agnelli Family “The Kennedys of Italy”.) is running an article about a fairly new body called Tax Inspectors Without Borders (TIWB), a programme backed by the OECD and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) to provide tax assistance to hard-pressed revenue authorities in poorer countries, whose underpaid officials struggle to match the awesome legal and accounting firepower of the world’s multinationals.
This is a vast issue:
IMF research estimates that global profit-shifting by multinationals cheats the world’s treasuries out of around $600 billion a year, while the Tax Justice Network estimates $500 billion annually. Although high-income countries are the biggest losers in absolute terms, it is lower-income countries that are taking the biggest hit in terms of the share of lost revenue – which means that the likely human cost is highest in these places.

Clearly for things to genuinely change it will require international legal and accounting firms (Limited Liability Partnerships) to put “doing the right thing” if not above at least on the same footing as maximising fees and partners income. (Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving or Christmas keeps flashing across my screen).
In addition national governments in the developed world must take a more pro-active role in repatriating stolen billions to the the mainly 3rd world countries from which the funds were stolen. For an up to date account of international kleptomania I recommend.

The almost amusing little YouTube clip.

Posted in Multinationals Activity, Politics, Tax Havens | Leave a comment

Has poverty Really been reduced So much ?

As nations attempted to recover from two devastating world wars within 40 years the good and the great of the victorious countries applied their minds to the myriad problems facing them. The European continent was on its knees, physically, economically and monetarily and in other parts of the globe the levels of poverty in restless colonies was crying out to be addressed.
Firstly, national and international institutions were established to tackle these various challenging issues and to ensure that we did not sleepwalk our way into WW3.
It would be remiss not to recall that after WW1 the League of Nations was established, its goals included “ disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy and improving global welfare.” Very laudable but clearly unachieved goals but to be fair many believe that the seeds of WW2 were planted in the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.
Moving along to the years immediately following the end of WW2, many of the institutions established then are still with us and continue to operate with varying and questionable degrees of success. Those major institutions are United Nations {UN}, International Monetary Fund {IMF}, World Bank {WB} and World Health Organisation {WHO}.
In addition to assist in the orderly transactions of international trade and payments the Gold Standard was agreed upon with the price of gold pegged at $35 an ounce, an arrangement which continued until 1971 when the cost of the US involvement in Vietnam became an major issue for them and eventually everyone else!
In Harry Truman’s inaugural speech, the first ever on television, he raised the issue of world poverty, “more than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery, their food is inadequate, they are victims of disease and their economic life is primitive and stagnant”. As the only member of the Allies to come out of WW2 with its economy booming and with an intact monetary system he confidently continued “we must embark on a brand new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas,,,,,,,,,,,,it must be a worldwide effort for the achievement of peace, plenty and freedom”. If I could add sound to this note I’d stop right now and play the American National Anthem.
Various presidents and other world leaders have echoed these sentiments over the last 60 years. Poverty reduction programs and targets have been set, Millennium Development Goals agreed at UN level and an army of economists and statisticians have produced a tsunami of data to measure progress over the years.
At the first UN Food Summit in 1974 US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger promised “world hunger would be eradicated within a decade”. Well we know that didn’t happen by 1984 and 45 years further on we know it still hasn’t happened.
Fast forward to 2015 when the UN published its Final Report on the Millennium Development Goals in which it boasted that the poverty rate had been halved since 1990. As with most reports and statistics the devil is in the detail which the authors can be fairly sure the majority of readers will not delve into too deeply. Most of the media in the developed world read this as a positive summary, condensed it into a warm and fuzzy headline and then moved on quickly to find a more digestible circulation boosting news piece.
Without getting into nitty gritty figures too much there are 3 main problems with the UN good news report.
1. The majority of poverty reduction was achieved in two areas China primarily, then India and East Asia whose economies had grown as they became the busy workshops producing cheap products for the developed world. EG. China has a world wide distribution network of 8,500 stores {5,400 in USA} provided by Walmart, and that’s only one company’s distribution network.
How about my old favourite? Inditex has 7,300 stores worldwide selling clothes made mainly by women earning peanuts so we can all have cheap disposable fashion. {Zara, Bershka, Massimo Dutti, Pull and Bear, Stradivarius, Oysho, Uterque and Zara Home}. Bangladesh has over 5,000 garment factories employing over 4 million workers who received a huge wage increase of 51% in Dec 2018 taking their monthly wage to $95! As I write this note tens of thousands of them are on strike asking for a liveable wage of at least $160. Working weeks can be 6 days of up to12 hours.

2. The MDGs (Millenium Development Goals), as the name suggests, were drawn up at the turn of the millennium so why was 1990 chosen as the start date to compare progress? Why not the logical date of 2000 or even 1980?

This diagram from the World Bank gives us a clue. 1990 is clearly the date which shows that developing countries were much worse off than in either 1970 or 1980.
Loans and interest in 1970 represented 55% of all debt, by 1980 this was 65% and by 1990 85%, thus leaving only 15% available for imports {often food} and reserves.
This diagram is from a World Bank Report, a later 2010 report shows the 1990 $281Bil figure to have ballooned out to 4 Trillion!! Repayments are $1.5 Bil per day.
Best advice from gurus at IMF and WB has been “tighten your belt”, the people in these most indebted countries cannot even afford a belt!

3. Perhaps the most questionable aspect of the WB, IMF and UN’s claims of success in reducing numbers living in poverty is that they are measuring the numbers living on $1.90 a day. The 2005 figure of $1.25 and eventually $1.50 was again upgraded to $1.90 in 2011 to reflect that one needed $1.90 in 2011 to buy the same basket of goods which could be bought for $1.50 in 2005.
Since most of us have travelled to and experienced life in developing countries we have a realistic idea of just how far $1.90 will take you. While you reflect on that, I’ll cut and paste a Paragraph from The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.”


While the adjoining Chart is from 2005 it gives a general picture of how many in the world have to live on so little. Extensive research I have looked at suggests that at $5.00 a day close to 50% of the world could not experience the kind of life described in the above Article 25.

Posted in Odd Bits, Politics, USA | Leave a comment

A “Little talked about” Tax

Since less than 1% of estates in USA and less than 5% in UK pay any inheritance taxes one would expect that well over 90% of the general population would support having such a tax.
Strangely this does not seem to be the case; I believe that’s due to those with most power in our society (usually those with most money) carefully and cleverly promoting the notion that it is somehow basically an unfair tax involving “double taxation”.
Carnegie, the great Scottish philanthropist had it about right — ‘The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son and tempts him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would.’ A damper on the incentive to work hard? The majority of us have worked over the years because we needed the money, full stop.
If we hadn’t needed the money would we have worked as hard? I doubt if I would have, but I might have had more fun though.
Double Taxation is more an emotive than an accurate term when it is used with regard to Inheritance tax..
When your money is passed on, You will have paid tax on it once and since You´ll be dead you will not pay tax a 2nd time.
When the recipient receives it He/She will pay tax on it for the First time.
However in your life time you will be regularly subjected to double taxation and no big issue is normally made of it. You pay VAT/IVA on everything you buy using funds already taxed. When you fill the car there’s fuel tax, buy a property there’s Stamp duty etc, all instances of real double taxation.
A few other thoughts.
1) Where there are significant funds to inherit the chances are that the potential recipients have already been “ lucky winners in a sperm lottery”, they’ll have had a safe and secure home, a good diet, a good education, good healthcare and a fair range of beneficial life experiences.
2) Where there are a number of siblings is it always fair to split the inheritance equally?
If the kids have all worked diligently but some of them may just have done better, been lucky in their employment or “married well”, do they need as much help as one who, through no apparent fault of their own, has fallen on hard times and is clearly struggling to cope or bring up their own family.. a “a winner versus someone genuinely struggling” situation in which I believe parents should have the cajones to confront. An equal division can be a easy cop out.
Dividing up unearned wealth can also fertile ground for inter-sibling rivalry, and generally the more dosh involved the greater the potential rivalry.
3) In the case of large, probably inherited, land estates, a strong inheritance tax would help to bring that land or at least some of it on to the market and possibly achieve a more equitable distribution of a scarce finite resource.
4) Inheritance taxes are a source of Govt income; if denied this income they will have to make it up by raising current tax levels, eg. income and various other double taxing charges such as VAT, fuel tax etc Also the more collected from Inheritance taxes the less will be the tax burden on the current workers and wealth-creating entrepreneurs.
5) Just because the Very rich, such as Ratcliffe, Branson, Dyson etc can pay a Big Four to hugely minimise their inheritance tax payments is not a reason for doing away with it. I would argue the very opposite, we should legislate to make if much more difficult for them to avoid/evade it.
6) Where one really does not want have the beneficiaries pay any tax on this unearned income it is possible to gift funds to them and providing this is done at least 7 years before the donor falls off the perch there will be no inheritance tax. This kind of legal tax avoidance has the added benefit of getting currently available funds into the hands of recipients when they probably most need it (Mortgages, young families etc) and when they will most likely spend it, thus get it into circulation rather than it sitting, often unproductively but definitely earning low interest in a bank account.
I suspect there are other arguments in favour of Inheritance tax, I just can’t think of them at the moment.

Posted in Odd Bits, Politics | Leave a comment

PS. An opinion on Davos. {A.Chakrobortty, Guardian}

No natural force created this intense unfairness, the growing global inequality in wealth and incomes, the recent Oxfam report graphically highlights it.
The gulf between the super-rich and the rest of us did not gape wide open overnight. Rather, it has been decades in the widening and it was done deliberately.
The UK was the frontline of the war to create greater inequality: in her first two terms as prime minister, Margaret Thatcher “more than halved the top rate of income tax” paid by high earners. She broke the back of the trade unions. Over their 16 years in office, Thatcher and John Major flogged off more public assets than France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia and Canada put together.
Oh, shrug the Davos set, that’s ancient history. It is no such thing. Thatcher may be gone but her ideology keeps on taking cash out of your pay packets.
If workers today got the same share of national income as in the 70s, we would be far better off. According to calculations from the Foundational Economy collective of researchers, a full-time employee now on the median salary of £29,574 would get a pay rise of £5,471.
Meanwhile, FTSE bosses enjoy skyrocketing pay, precisely because bonus schemes give them part-ownership of the big companies they run. So Jeff Fairburn of the housebuilder Persimmon took £47m in 2018 before getting the boot, which works out at £882 for each £1 earned by an average worker at the firm.
Where Thatcher’s shock troops led, the rest of the west more or less followed. Political leaders across the spectrum gave the rich what they wanted. It didn’t matter whether you voted for Tony Blair or David Cameron, Bill Clinton or George W Bush, either way you got Davos man. They cut taxes for top earners and for businesses, they uprooted the public sector to create opportunities for private firms, and they struck trade deals negotiated in secret that gave big corporations as much as they could ever dream of.

Posted in Multinationals Activity, Politics | Leave a comment