-Link 1:
http://www.helium.com/items/668962-racial-inequality-or-oppression-do-they-truly-exist-in-todays-society (a link about how racial oppression exists among colored people even today in the U.S.)
-Information:
Racial inequality or oppression: Do they truly exist in today's society? by Gary Betts
Racial inequality in the United States is alive and well. White people, whether they believe it or not, still think of themselves as superior to the blacks. This started early in American history with black slaves and has carried on to this day as if it were a genetic flaw. And this notion is only reinforced with todays news. We constantly hear how poorly black children are doing in school compared to whites. How many more blacks live in poverty. How black neighborhoods are the most dangerous places in the U.S.
Just look at the slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Over 1800 people were killed. Thousands were left homeless with no place to go and nothing to eat or drink. Many were trapped in their homes for days. The federal and state governments were pitiful in their response. President Bush stayed on vacation. And the first action he finally took was just to fly over New Orleans. It took days for the National Guard to enter the city. Most of the victims were poor black people.
Then look at the response to the wildfires in southern California this year. The state government followed by the federal government were quick to get into action. Almost a million people were evacuated, but they all had places to go. They were greeted with food, water, and even diapers once they arrived at the shelters. Even the animals were looked after. The Army and National Guard were on the ground within three days. President Bush was on the ground among the burned-out houses in less than a week. Very few were killed. In this case, most of the victims were white people who ranged from well-off to the wealthy.
Take a look at American cities. Detroit, for example, is a city of racial inequality. Attend at Comerica Park to watch the Detroit Tigers play major-league baseball. Most of the patrons are white, while almost all of the food and drink servers are black. Follow Jefferson Av E eastbound from downtown. You will travel through a squalled black area where buildings are boarded up and gas station attendants are protected by bullet-proof glass. Then you will cross over the railway tracks into a white middle-class neighborhood. The houses are neat and tidy with nearby parks. Then the road turns north and becomes Lakeshore Rd. It travels along the Detroit River with huge mansions on the west side of the road. They get an unobstructed view of the river.
Abraham Lincoln, in a debate on September 18, 1858, said, "...there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race..." Here is a man, who is honored by the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, who wanted freedom for the black slaves, but refused to give them equality. That was America in 1858 and that is America in 2007.
-Link 2:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/The-age-of-financial-oppression-pd20100826-8NT5C?opendocument&src=rss (a link about how Europe and the Rest of the world are experiencing financial oppression in the government)
-Information:
The Age of Financial Oppression
Karen MaleyPublished 7:51 AM, 26 Aug 2010 Last update 10:13 AM, 26 Aug 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ireland’s latest credit downgrade has resulted in increased jitters in European bond markets, which will not be helped by a grim warning for all sovereign debt holders from Morgan Stanley.
In a new report, Morgan Stanley analyst Arnaud Marès argues that the sovereign debt crisis is not confined to Europe. “It is a global crisis," he writes, "and it is far from over.”
The report argues that standard debt/GDP ratios are misleading because they only capture part of the government’s liabilities, and omit other government obligations such as unfunded pension liabilities.
In addition, Morgan Stanley argues that it’s more important to measure whether governments can meet their debt servicing obligations. And that means comparing the government’s debt to its revenues. Using this approach, US debt comes in at 358 per cent of government revenues, well above UK (169 per cent), Spain (153 per cent), Ireland (248 per cent) and even Greece (312 per cent).
Morgan Stanley also argues that measuring debt to GDP is essentially a backward measure of accumulated past government deficits. It fails to measure the fiscal challenge that governments face as they struggle with large structural deficits at a time when their populations are rapidly ageing and they’ll have to spend more on health and pensions . “What raises questions about debt sustainability is not so much current debt levels as the additional debt that will accumulate in coming years if policies do not radically change," the note says.
Morgan Stanley says the financial crisis aggravated fiscal woes everywhere “mostly through a permanent shock to tax revenues and through a transfer of liabilities and risk from the private to the public sector, without a commensurate transfer of resources.”
As a result, the financial crisis “has intensified the inherent conflict that exists between bond holders and other government stakeholders that all compete for resources that are finite and, crucially, insufficient to satisfy all their claims”.
Because governments don’t have the resources to meet all their various claims, Morgan Stanley argues they “will impose a loss on some of their stakeholders and have in fact started to do so (across Europe at least). The question is not whether they will renege on their promises, but rather upon which of their promises they will renege, and what form this default will take.”
Morgan Stanley says that “bond holders have been fully sheltered from loss through the Great Recession – so far.” There are some good reasons for this. Governments need to be able to raise funding to finance their spending, and government defaults are extremely destabilising.
But other segments of the population have not been spared a loss in income and wealth from the Great Recession. For instance, taxpayers face prospect of higher taxes, while government employees have been hit by government spending cuts.
Morgan Stanley then raises the crucial question of whether sovereign debt holders will continue to enjoy their privileged position.
It also notes that outright default is not the only way that governments can impose losses on creditors. “Financial oppression” – or giving creditors real rates of return that are either negative or artificially low – can take other forms.
For instance, governments can repay debt in devalued money (through unanticipated inflation). Alternatively, governments can impose tax or regulatory incentives that encourage institutions to buy government debt at uneconomic prices. According to Morgan Stanley, “repaying debt in devalued money is particularly effective when the initial stock of debt is high – as it is now. Distorting prices in the government’s favour is particularly effective when the financing requirement is high – also a situation we face now and for years to come.”
Morgan Stanley points out there have been instances of financial oppression in the past, such as the revoking of gold clauses in bond contracts by the Roosevelt administration in the US in 1934, and the UK government’s move to issue perpetual debt at artificially low yields in 1946-7. “Each took place at a time when conflicting demands on finite government resources were high, and rentiers wielded reduced political power.”
So what political power do bond holders hold at present?
Morgan Stanley says the rapid rise in the age of the median voter in large western European countries “ought to be favourable to bond holders, because bonds are more likely to be held by the old than the young, and policies that would harm bond holders would often also harm the old (inflation, for instance, redistributes wealth from the old to the young).”
But, it points out that older voters also have a considerable claim on the government balance sheet for pension and social security payments and for health insurance. “The more reluctant they are to relinquish these claims, the higher the risk for bond holders.”
Morgan Stanley also argues that increased foreign ownership of bonds “results in lesser alignment of the interest of bond holders with older voters.”
As a result, it reaches a dire conclusion. “Against this background, it seems dangerously optimistic to expect that sovereign debt holders can be continuously and fully sheltered from partaking in the loss of wealth and income that has affected every other group."
It says that while outright sovereign default in the large advanced economies is extremely unlikely, “current yields and break-even inflation rates provide very little protection against the credible threat of financial oppression in any form it might take.”
And, it says, a double dip recession “would cause yet further damage to the governments’ power to tax, pushing them further into negative equity and therefore increasing the risks that debt holders suffer a larger loss eventually."
No comments:
Post a Comment