Category: Economy
The evidence keeps pouring in: Capitalism just isn’t working
| August 25, 2015 | 12:40 pm | Analysis, Economy, political struggle | Comments closed

The Evidence Keeps Pouring In: Capitalism Just Isn’t Working
Published on
Monday, August 24, 2015
by Common Dreams

Paul Buchheit
62 Comments

(Photo: Jonny White/cc/flickr)

To followers of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan, and to all the business
people who despise government, ‘community’ is a form of ‘communism.’
Even taking the train is too communal for them. Americans have been
led to believe that only individuals matter, that every person should
fend for him/herself, that “winner-take-all” is the ultimate goal,
and that the winners have no responsibility to others.

To the capitalist, everything is a potential market. Education,
health care, even the right to water. But with every market failure
it becomes more clear that basic human rights can’t be bought and
sold like cars and cell phones. The pursuit of profit, when essential
needs are part of the product, means that not everyone will be able
to pay the price. Some will be denied those essential needs.

Common Dreams needs you today!

Global Failures

Capitalism hasn’t been able to control runaway global inequality. For
every $1.00 owned by the world’s richest 1% in 2011, they now own
$1.27. They own almost half the world’s wealth. Just 70 of them own
as much as 3.5 billion people.

Capitalism has not been able — or willing — to control the “race to
the bottom” caused by “free trade,” as mid-level jobs continue to be
transferred to low-wage countries.

Nor has capitalism been able to control global environmental
degradation, with trillions in subsidies going to polluters that
don’t even pay their taxes, and with corporations ignoring any
semblance of social responsibility as they seek ways to profit from
global warming.

Job Creation Failures I

With or without globalization, middle-class jobs are disappearing,
even higher-end positions in financial analysis, medical diagnosis,
legal assistance, and journalism. Artificial intelligence is making
this happen. Millions of Americans have had a role in the great
American productivity behind this technological takeover, but
capitalism allows only an elite few of us to reap the disproportional
profits.

Reports of job recovery are based on low-income jobs, many of them
part-time. Layoffs are cutting into the military and technology.
Gallup discounted Wall Street’s job-creating ability. As noted by
former Wall Street Journal Associate Editor Paul Craig Roberts, the
US rate of unemployment is 23 percent when long-term discouraged
job-seekers are included. That’s close to the unemployment rate of
the Great Depression.

Job Creation Failures II

Closely related to employment woes is the collapse of corporate
investment in new product R&D, from 40 cents per dollar in the 1970s
to 10 cents now. CEOs are choosing instead to spend almost all of
their profits on buybacks and dividends to enrich investors.

Health Care Failures

The capitalist profit motive allows the cost of a hepatitis pill that
costs $10 in Egypt to sell for $1,000 in the United States, and the
cost of a blood test to range from $10 to $10,000 in two California
hospitals (a 100,000% markup at the second hospital).

Patent abuse is one of the factors making this possible.
Pharmaceutical companies can tweak a drug with a minor change to
create a “brand new” drug with a new patent.

Another health-related scam that affects most of us is bottled water.
According to Food & Water Watch, about half of it is filtered tap
water with fancy names, as evidenced in one case by an actual “tap
water” label on a company’s product. Yet with the demise of community
water fountains, and the barrage of advertising for “safe and pure”
drinking water, unsuspecting Americans pay dearly: for the price we
pay for a bottle of water we would be able to fill up that bottle a
thousand times with tap water.

Housing Failures

Because of the “invisible hand” of the free market, in just 35 years
the investment wealth of the super-rich has gone from 15% of
middle-class housing to almost 200% of middle-class housing.

Education Failures

A remarkable story of privatization failure is told in the story of
charter schools in Florida, where Jeb Bush still holds dear to his
delusions of free-market educational success.

That’s just one example. In general, charters are riddled with fraud
and identified with a lack of transparency that leads to even more
fraud. Since 2001 nearly 2,500 charter schools have been forced to
close their doors, leaving over a quarter-million schoolchildren
between one bad business decision and the next. A report from PR
Watch summarizes the billions of dollars spent on charters without
accountability to the public.

Disposable Americans

Chris Hedges wrote: “Human life is of no concern to corporate
capitalists. The suffering of the Greeks, like the suffering of
ordinary Americans, is very good for the profit margins of financial
institutions such as Goldman Sachs.”

People become meaningless in a successful capitalist system.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut
Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational
websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and
the editor and main author of “American Wars: Illusions and
Realities” (Clarity Press). He can be reached at
paul@UsAgainstGreed.org.

Traitor vs. Patriot

Traitor vs. patriot

 

By James Thompson

 

Much has been made in the right wing, bourgeois media, about who is a traitor and who is a patriot in the United States today. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other bourgeois cheerleaders connect the dots by declaring that communists/socialists are traitors and the right wing fringe of the GOP are patriots.

 

Before we examine this proposition, it is important to clarify the definition of the terms.

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a traitor as:

 

“a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. : a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy”

 

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a patriot as:

 

“a person who loves and strongly supports or fights for his or her country”

 

The bourgeois media sidesteps these definitions when identifying traitors or patriots. They also failed to clarify who constitutes a “country.”

 

When examining these concepts, it is important to keep in mind that a “country” is composed of its residents. In the United States, the populace is composed of very diverse groups who have different interests. There are many ethnic groups in the United States to include Anglos, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and many others. People also belong to various socio-economic strata to include bourgeois and proletarians, in other words owners of the means of production and workers. Another way to put it is wealthy and poor.

 

Some people have drawn attention to the fact that the 1% owns the vast majority of the wealth in the United States and the rest is divided among the 99%. Many people have pointed to the vast inequality in personal wealth in the United States.

 

When examining the concepts of traitor and patriot, it is important to keep in mind which socio-economic sector of the population to which the individual is loyal. It is also important to consider the policies advocated by the individual in question and how these policies apply to the interests of the various sectors of the population.

 

For example, Sen. Ted Cruz, who just announced his candidacy for the position of President of the United States, has taken very strong positions from the starting line. He has made clear that he favors shutting down the US government, especially the IRS. He has also taken an uncompromising anti-immigrant stance, even though he, himself, is an immigrant. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

 

Let us examine Sen. Cruz in terms of the traitor/patriot dialectic.

 

What would it mean to the people of the United States if the federal government was shut down? It would mean that all social programs to include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Affairs, Federal Bureau of prisons, Federal Aviation Administration to include air traffic controllers, federal highway programs, public health service, the military, Bureau of Indian affairs, to nothing for the executive branch of the government, legislative branch and judiciary. Also, the border patrol would be shut down. This element of his policies is particularly contradictory. In other words, Sen. Cruz advocates chaos. It should be remembered that the IRS is the agency that provides the funding which makes it possible for this country to function as a sovereign nation.

 

Most working people with any understanding of the functioning of the United States easily understand that the eradication of the federal government would result in extraordinary hardship for workers and their families. Meanwhile, the people in the 1% would benefit tremendously from the eradication of the federal government. It would mean lower taxes and lower labor costs. For the working class, the eradication of the federal government would mean lower wages and lower social benefit programs. In other words, only the wealthy would be able to afford education for their children, only the wealthy would be able to afford healthcare, the criminal justice system would be reduced and travel would become very difficult or impossible if one was not extremely wealthy. Discrimination against immigrants also benefits the 1% because both immigrant and citizen workers can be manipulated to accept lower wages

 

So, Sen. Cruz’ positions would clearly define him as a patriot to the 1% and a traitor to the 99%.

 

Conversely, for example, Sen. Bernie Sanders who advocates an expansion of social programs and a reduction in the inequality of income could be considered a traitor to the 1% and a patriot to the 99%.

 

In the coming elections, it will be important for people to ask themselves the question “Which side are you on?” and vote accordingly.

WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THE VICTORY OF SOCIALISM OVER CAPITALISM?
| March 22, 2015 | 10:19 pm | Analysis, Economy, political struggle, V.I. Lenin | Comments closed
By A. ShawLenin
“In the last analysis, productivity of labour is the most important, the principal thing for the victory of the new social system. Capitalism created a productivity of labour unknown under serfdom. Capitalism can be utterly vanquished, and will be utterly vanquished by socialism creating a new and much higher productivity of labour. This is a very difficult matter and must take a long time, but it has been started, and that is the main thing,” Lenin wrote.
On June 28, 1919, Lenin wrote and published “A Great Beginning” in which he mentioned the most important thing for the victory of socialism over capitalism. See  Collected Works, Volume 29, pp. 408-34
 The most important thing for the victory of socialism over capitalism is creating a new and much higher productivity of labour in favor of socialism.
Let’s look at how most “renowned” Leftist scholars deal, with what Lenin says, is the  most important thing.
Some  “renowned” Leftist scholars classify labor productivity as the least important thing.
Many  “renowned” Leftist scholars classify labor productivity as neither the most important thing, nor the least important.
But most of the “renowned” scholars don’t even mention labor productivity as the most important or least important thing.
During the Great Depression, surveys suggest labor productivity rose significantly in the USSR while labor productivity plunged in the USA where factories and stores closed.
“This [the victory of socialist productivity over cappie productivity] is a very difficult matter and must take a long time,” Lenin wrote. The battle over productivity is difficult chiefly because it is external and internal. Externally, the productivity of a socialist country competes against the productivity of capitalist countries. Internally, the productivity of the capitalist sector of a socialist country competes against the non-capitalist sector in the same socialist country. Thus, a socialist country may win internally while it loses externally and vice versa.
The socialist victory “must take a long time.” Lenin wrote.  Perhaps, a thousand years unless capitalism collapses.
“But it [the battle over productivity] has been started, and that is the main thing,” Lenin wrote.
 Aristotle says starting a task is half of the task.
Written: June 28, 1919
Source: Collected Works, Volume 29, pp. 408-34
Communist Party: “How to Defeat Austerity right across Europe?”
| March 22, 2015 | 7:16 pm | Analysis, Communist Party Britain, Economy, political struggle | Comments closed

Africa/Global: Falling Short on Climate Finance
| March 10, 2015 | 7:42 pm | Africa, Analysis, Climate Change, Economy, International, political struggle | Comments closed

AfricaFocus Bulletin
March 10, 2015 (150310)
(Reposted from sources cited below)

Editor’s Note

Africa, the continent with warming deviating most rapidly from
“normal” conditions, could see climate change adaptation costs rise
to US$50 billion per year by 2050, even assuming international
efforts keep global warming below 2 degrees C this century,
according to a new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
report.

For a version of this Bulletin in html format, more suitable for
printing, go to http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1503.php, and
click on “format for print or mobile.”

To share this on Facebook, click on
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http://www.africafocus.org/docs15/clim1503.php

This AfricaFocus Bulletin contains the press release and excerpts
from the Executive Summary of the new UNEP report Africa’s
Adaptation Gap 2: Bridging the Gap – mobilizing sources.

The report contains updated data on the expected cost of adapting to
climate change under different scenarios for global warming, for the
time horizons of 2020, 2050, and 2100. Key messages include the fact
that Africa is already the continent where climate is already
deviating from normal more rapidly than any other continent.

Projections for impact rise enormously even if global warming is
held to less than 2 degrees C, and even more so if efforts to slow
global warming are insufficient to make that goal. This means that
the most important action to be taken is to limit the damage by
“deep global emission reductions.” Even if this is done, the costs
of adaptation will rise rapidly, requiring action to find new
sources of funding at national, continental, and global levels.

The report suggests a continent-wide levy (transaction tax) on four
sectors: extractive industries, financial and banking transactions,
international trade, and tourism. It also highlights the imperative
for national tax systems to be made more effective, including
minimizing reductions in the tax base from illicit financial flows.

For additional background on the current gap in international
climate finance, see the Feb. 26 article by Brookings Instution
analysts Martin Stadelmann and Timmons Roberts. They note that the
UN has issued a “clarification note” admitting that their estimate
of current levels of annual total North-South climate financing of
$40-175 billion is almost certainly closer to the lower than the
upper end of that range. See http://tinyurl.com/m9zo2pz

For talking points and previous AfricaFocus Bulletins on climate
change and the environment, visit
http://www.africafocus.org/envexp.php

Of related interest:
March 9 Guardian article by Bill McKibben
http://tinyurl.com/p2qg3we

“Pressure is growing. A relentless climate movement is starting to
win big, unprecedented victories around the world, victories which
are quickly reshaping the consensus view.”

++++++++++++++++++++++end editor’s note+++++++++++++++++

Costs of Climate Change Adaptation Expected to Rise Far Beyond
Africa’s Coping Capacity Even if Warming Kept Below 2 degrees C

Climate adaptation costs for Africa could soar to reach US $50
billion annually by mid-century.

United Nations Environment Programme

http://tinyurl.com/kb3llqg

Cairo, 4 March 2015 – Africa, the continent with warming deviating
most rapidly from “normal” conditions, could see climate change
adaptation costs rise to US$50 billion per year by 2050, even
assuming international efforts keep global warming below 2 degrees C
this century, according to a new United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) report.

Released at the 15th African Ministerial Conference on the
Environment (AMCEN), Africa’s Adaptation Gap builds on UNEP’s
Emissions Gap Report 2014, which showed that the world is not
currently headed in the right direction for holding global warming
below 2 degrees C. This latest Africa Adaptation Gap report also
builds on UNEP’s Global Adaptation Gap Report 2014, which found that
adaptation costs in all developing countries together could climb as
high as US$250-500 billion per year by 2050.

Produced in collaboration with Climate Analytics and the African
Climate Finance Hub, the report says deep global emissions
reductions are the best way to head off Africa’s crippling
adaptation costs. It also finds that the continent’s domestic
resources are insufficient to respond to projected impacts, but
would be important to complement international funding for African
countries – including meeting the Cancun climate finance commitments
by 2020.

“The accelerating rate of climate change poses great adaptation
challenges, of which we have been well forewarned,” said UN Under-
Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. “The
best insurance against the many potential negative impacts of
climate change is ambitious global mitigation action in the long-
run, combined with large-scale and rapidly increasing funding for
adaptation. Investing in resilience and adaptation as an integral
part of national development planning can develop resilience to
future climate change impacts.”

Africa’s looming climate crisis

Africa is the continent where a rapidly changing climate is expected
to deviate earlier than across any other continent from “normal”
changes, making adaptation a matter of urgency, the report says.

Warming projections under medium scenarios indicate that extensive
areas of Africa will exceed 2 degrees C by the last two decades of
this century relative to the late 20th century mean annual
temperature. Under a high warming pathway, temperatures could exceed
2 degrees C by mid-century across much of Africa and reach between 3
degrees C and 6 degrees C by the end of the century. This would have
a severe impact on agricultural production, food security, human
health and water availability.

In a 4 degrees C world, projections for Africa suggest sea levels
could rise faster than the global average and reach 80cm above
current levels by 2100 along the Indian and Atlantic Ocean
coastlines, with particularly high numbers of people at risk to
flooding in the coastal cities of Mozambique, Tanzania, Cameroon,
Egypt, Senegal and Morocco.

“This is not just a question of money; millions of people and their
livelihoods are at stake,” said Binilith Mahenge, President of AMCEN
and Tanzania’s Minister of State for Environment. “Africa’s
population will be at an increasing risk of undernourishment due to
increasing food demand and the detrimental effects of climate change
on agriculture on the continent. Global warming of 2 degrees C would
put over 50 per cent of the African continent’s population at risk
of undernourishment. Yet, the IPCC showed that without additional
mitigation we are heading to 4 degrees C of warming.”

“Rising to the challenge and addressing the systemic harm that
climate change may cause in Africa, thus undermining the post-2015
sustainable development agenda, warrants leaving no stone unturned
in exploring opportunities for supporting adaptation actions and
measures in Africa,” he added.

Closing the funding gap

The report explores the extent to which African nations can
contribute to closing the adaptation gap – especially in the area of
identifying the resources that will be needed.

The evidence suggests that African countries – such as Ghana,
Ethiopia and South Africa – are already committing some resources of
their own to adaptation efforts. Country-case studies in the report
suggest that by 2029/2030, under moderately optimistic growth
scenarios, Ghana could for example – based on hypothetical scenarios
– commit US$233 million to adaptation financing, Ethiopia US$248
million, South Africa US$961 million and Togo US$18.2 million.
However, international funding will be required to bridge the
growing adaptation gap even if African nations commit to ways to
increase domestic sources. Current levels of international finance,
through bilateral and multilateral sources, are not sufficient.

“Because of the magnitude of the challenge, further examination of
the potential and the feasibility of mobilizing untapped
international, regional and domestic sources should be explored
further,” said Mr Steiner.

Scaling up international climate finance under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) may lead to sufficient funding
for adaptation, but even in that case, implementation can only reach
its full potential if complemented by comprehensive and effective
national and regional policy planning, capacity-building and
governance.

The promotion of an effective enabling framework for private sector
participation in adaptation activities would also be a key
contributor to closing the funding gap, the report finds.

For more information please contact: Michael Logan, News and Media
Officer, UNEP, michael.logan@unep.org, +254 725 939 620

**********************************************

Africa’s Adaptation Gap 2

Technical Report: Bridging the Gap – Mobilising Sources

Executive Summary

Climate change represents a clear and present danger to the
development prospects of Africa. African countries are going to have
to adapt to protect their peoples from the harsh impacts of climate
change and to ensure that they are not derailed from their current
development pathways.

Developed country Parties to the Climate Convention committed to
“assist the developing country Parties that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs
of adaptation to those adverse effects.” (UNFCCC Articles 4.3 and
4.4)

The first edition of Africa’s Adaptation Gap Technical report
(AAGr1) in 2013 provided an overview of the most relevant impacts of
climate change in different sectors across Africa, as well as cost
estimates for adaptation.

This report (2015 AAGr2) is directed towards exploring the extent to
which African countries can contribute to closing the adaptation
gap, in order to better understand the gap in the resources that
will be needed and, thereby, the likely extent to which
international climate finance must be urgently raised, leveraged and
deployed in service of Africa’s pressing adaptation needs.

Given the increasing severity of the adaptation challenge posed by
climate change to Africa, no stone should be left unturned in
looking for solutions for closing the adaptation gap, for two major
reasons: firstly, the case for international solutions is even
stronger if national and regional options are considered and
evaluated; secondly, it is in the interest of African nations and
their stakeholders at all levels to hedge against the possibility
that the funding provided through the Green Climate Fund and other
channels is insufficient or ineffective.

Building on the report’s findings, and relating to the current
negotiations towards the post-2015 agreement context under the
UNFCCC, African policymakers may consider the three following
findings:

1.  The best insurance against potentially catastrophic impacts of
climate change and unmanageable adaptation and (residual) damage
costs in Africa is effective and ambitious mitigation action that
leads to deep global emission reductions;

2.  Cancun climate finance commitments need to be met by 2020, the
historical imbalance between adaptation and mitigation in the
allocation of resources needs to be corrected, and ease of access
(‘modalities’) for African countries needs to be improved. Adequate
(large-scale, rapidly increasing) and predictable funding must be
mobilised for the subsequent periods;

3.  The potential for – and the feasibility of – mobilising untapped
international, regional and domestic sources should be explored
further.

An update on climate impacts shows increased urgency

*  Africa is beginning to experience annual-mean temperatures higher
than any locally experienced in history. This is already happening
in Central Africa and is projected to cover the entire continent in
the next two to three decades; earlier across Africa than any other
continent.

*  Warming projections under medium scenarios indicate that, by the
last two decades of this century, extensive areas of Africa will
exceed 2 degrees C relative to the late 20th century mean annual
temperature. Under a high warming pathway (“over 4 degrees C
world”), that exceedance could occur by mid-century across much of
Africa and reach between 3 degrees C and 6 degrees C by the end of
the century.

*  Combined with changes in water availability, for example, this
will likely have a severe impact on agriculture. 97% of sub- Saharan
agricultural systems are rain-fed, and 60% of the labour force
relies on agriculture.

*  Sea level rise is generally higher along Africa’s coastlines than
the global average, particularly along the Indian and Atlantic
Oceans. Sea levels are projected to rise at least 40cm above 2000 by
2100 in a below-2 degrees C scenario (close to 1.5 degrees C), and
to 80cm in an over 4-degrees C scenario (compared to roughly 70cm
globally). There are chances it could be much worse, with a 15%
chance of 100cm sea-level rise above 2000 by 2100 and a considerable
5% chance of a rise exceeding 130 cm by 2100.

*  Particularly high numbers of people are at risk of flooding in
the coastal cities of Mozambique, Tanzania, Cameroon, Egypt, Senegal
and Morocco.

Estimated adaptation costs point to a very rapid divergence between
globally low and high warming scenarios

*  The first Africa’s adaptation gap report (2013) stressed already
that past (global) emissions commit Africa to adaptation costs of
USD 7-15 billion/year by 2020.

*  This second report estimates that adaptation costs could rise to
about USD50bn/year 2 by 2050 for a scenario holding warming below 2
degrees C.

*  The estimated costs double to about USD100bn/year by 2050 for a
scenario reaching over 4 degrees C by 2100.

*  In the longer term, and relative to Africa’s (growing) GDP,
adaptation costs could rise to as much as 6% of African GDP by 2100
in an over 4 °C world, but in a below 2 °C world, these would be
less than 1% of GDP.

Adaptation cannot prevent all damages: residual damages will always
remain and are large

*  In a more general sense, the IPCC’s recent Fifth Assessment
Report (AR5) noted that even after implementation of potential
adaptation options, residual risks remain for many sectors in
Africa.

*  This, second Africa Adaptation Gap report confirms this in a more
specific sense: even if all cost-effective adaptation is realised,
Africa will still suffer large “residual” damages, which are
estimated to be double the adaptation costs in the period 2030-2050.

*  Africa and the international community will need to find ways to
cope with these residual damages, under any scenario of global
mitigation and local adaptation efforts. Current international
funding falls short and must be scaled up rapidly

*  The climate change challenge exceeds the capacity of the African
continent to respond to projected damages and impacts through
domestic resources, even if the base to raise additional funding is
broadened. Scaled-up international support for African countries is
therefore critical.

*  Current levels of international funding are not sufficient. So
far, while difficult to estimate, roughly USD$1-2bn a year is
flowing to Africa for adaptation, through a variety of sources.

*  A steep increase in adaptation funding from developed to
developing countries would contribute significantly to closing the
adaptation-funding gap. Therefore, increased adaptation funding
disbursements – in line with the USD100-billion target as agreed by
the Parties at the UNFCCC conferences in Copenhagen in 2009 and
Cancun in 2010 – could result in bridging the deepening adaptation
gap by 2020.

*  Such disbursements subsequently need to continue to grow rapidly
to keep pace with warming, and most rapidly if global mitigation
fails to put the world on a pathway to hold warming below 1.5 and 2
degrees C by 2100.

*  Recent positive developments in the operationalisation of the
Green Climate Fund are of critical importance for adaptation
financing in Africa. The GCF initial capitalisation was completed in
December 2014, with pledges amounting to around USD10.2bn. The GCF
Board has decided that 50% of its portfolio should be allocated to
adaptation and, in turn, that 50% should go to particularly
vulnerable developing countries including Least Developed Countries
(LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Africa.

The report’s approach: African case studies on adaptation

This report has taken the approach of exploring the additional
options and opportunities that may exist in Africa through four
country case studies – representing a reasonably diverse sample of
the great variety of countries and economies to be found within
Africa (Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa and Togo).

*  Each of these case studies explores aspects of the adaptation
response and, in particular, the scope for domestic adaptation
financing, in terms of the increased domestic adaptation resources
that could be generated through economic growth and tax reform,
through adaptation-specific taxes and fees, and through regulation
and market-making aimed at eliciting greater private investment.

*  The conceptually-simple calculations this report presents are
primarily intended to be illustrative of the limits and potential
for adaptation financing from domestic sources in a context where
strong growth is assumed and tax reforms are successfully achieved.

*  The evidence suggests that African countries are already
committing some resources of their own to adaptation efforts and
that there are opportunities for doing more that can be considered
and debated across the continent, with lessons to learn and share.

Options for sources of adaptation funds – international, national,
continental

As the report shows, there are a lot of adaptation options, measures
and sources that countries can mobilise and implement from the
national level to the international level to limit the deepening of
the adaptation gap under any level of global mitigation. The report
assesses:

*  Options at the international level – scaling up countries’
commitments and channelling through the Green Climate Fund and other
channels

*  Options at the national level – resources from national budget

*  Options at the continental level – levies

To address the multiple challenges of adaptation in Africa, there
will be no single solution that solves all the funding and
implementation issues African countries face. Addressing these
challenges will require the deployment of measures at the
international, continental and national levels.

A levy on transactions to pay for adaptation?

This report assesses, amongst other complementary options, the
potential effects of a levy applied on transactions.

Building upon similar international experiences in both developed
and developing countries, and political as well as economic
analyses, a levy on transactions in Africa is explored in four
sectors: extractive industries, financial and banking transactions
(including remittances), international trade and transportation
(including exports) and tourism. The estimated revenue shows that
even if such regional revenues were generated by the application of
these levies, however, adaptation costs would exceed the
revenue generation capacity as early as 2020.

Current and projected adaptation costs for Africa far exceed average
climate finance over the 2010-2012 period. Addressing this urgent
lack of funding will require the deployment of complementary
measures at the international, continental and national levels. Even
if for example a levy were regionally applied on transactions to
raise revenue for adaptation costs which would already exceed the
revenue generation capacity by 2020. Only a steep increase in
adaptation funding from developed to developing countries will
contribute to closing the adaptation-funding gap in Africa.

*****************************************************

AfricaFocus Bulletin is an independent electronic publication
providing reposted commentary and analysis on African issues, with a
particular focus on U.S. and international policies. AfricaFocus
Bulletin is edited by William Minter.

AfricaFocus Bulletin can be reached at africafocus@igc.org. Please
write to this address to subscribe or unsubscribe to the bulletin,
or to suggest material for inclusion. For more information about
reposted material, please contact directly the original source
mentioned. For a full archive and other resources, see
http://www.africafocus.org

Wake Up America!
| March 7, 2015 | 10:04 pm | Analysis, Economy, National | Comments closed

The Real Unemployment Rate: In 20% Of American Families, Everyone Is Unemployed

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Michael Snyder of The American Dream blog, According to shocking new numbers that were just released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20 percent of American families do not have a single person that is working.  So when someone tries to tell you that the unemployment rate in the United States is about 7 percent, you should just laugh.  One-fifth of the families in the entire country do not have a single member with a job.  That is absolutely astonishing.  How can a family survive if nobody is making any money?  Well, the answer to that question is actually quite easy.  There is a reason why government dependence has reached epidemic levels in the United States.  Without enough jobs, tens of millions of additional Americans have been forced to reach out to the government for help.  At this point, if you can believe it, the number of Americans getting money or benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million. When I was growing up, it seemed like anyone that was willing to work hard could find a good paying job.  But now that has all changed.  At this point, 20 percent of all the families in the entire country do not have a single member that has a job.  That includes fathers, mothers and children.  The following is how CNSNews.com broke down the numbers… A family, as defined by the BLS, is a group of two or more people who live together and who are related by birth, adoption or marriage. In 2013, there were 80,445,000 families in the United States and in 16,127,000—or 20 percent–no one had a job. To be honest, these really are Great Depression-type numbers.  But over the years “unemployment” has been redefined so many times that it doesn’t mean the same thing that it once did.  The government tells us that the official unemployment rate is about 7 percent, but that number is almost meaningless at this point. A number that I find much more useful is the employment-population ratio.  According to the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row… Employment Population Ratio 2014 That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job. When people can’t take care of themselves, it becomes necessary for the government to take care of them.  And what we have seen in recent years is government dependence soar to unprecedented levels.  In fact, welfare spending and entitlement payments now make up 69 percent of the entire federal budget.  For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “18 Stats That Prove That Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels“. And what is even more frightening is that more families are falling out of the middle class every single day.  As a recent CNN article explained, approximately one-third of all U.S. households are living “hand-to-mouth”.  In other words, they are constantly living on the edge of financial disaster… About one-third of American households live “hand-to-mouth,” meaning that they spend all their paychecks. But what surprised the study authors is that 66% of these families are middle class, with a median income of $41,000. While they don’t have liquid assets, such as savings accounts or mutual fund holdings, they do have homes and retirement accounts, with a median net worth of $41,000. “We don’t expect them to be living paycheck to paycheck,” said Greg Kaplan, study co-author and assistant professor of economics at Princeton University. The American Dream is rapidly becoming an American nightmare. When I was growing up, I lived in a pretty typical middle class neighborhood.  Everyone had a nice home, a couple of cars and could go on vacation during the summer.  I don’t remember ever hearing of anyone using food stamps or going to a food bank.  In fact, I can’t even remember anyone having a parent that was unemployed.  If someone did leave a job, it was usually quite easy to find another one. But today, the middle class is being ripped to shreds and according to one new report there are 49 million Americans that are dealing with food insecurity in 2014. How can anyone not see what is happening to us?  America is in the midst of a long-term economic decline, but the mainstream media and most of our politicians seem to think that things are better than ever.  They continue to try to convince us that “business as usual” is the right path to take. But one-fifth of the families in the entire nation are already totally unemployed. At what point will we finally admit that what we are doing right now is simply not working? 30 percent of all families unemployed? 40 percent? 50 percent? If we stay on the road that we are on now, things are going to continue to get worse.  Millions more jobs will be shipped overseas, millions more jobs will be replaced by technology and crippling government regulations will kill millions more jobs.  The middle class will continue to shrink and government dependence will continue to rise. Most people just want to work hard, put food on the table, pay their mortgages and provide a nice life for their families. But the percentage of Americans that are successfully able to do that just keeps getting smaller. Wake up America.
Houston Socialist Movement: Rally against Republicans!

You can view the videos of the Rally against Republicans held on 2/28/2015 in Houston which was organized by the Houston Socialist Movement at the following links:

http://youtu.be/eH5gteUx_HQ

 

http://youtu.be/dQZmH5LH-ug

 

http://youtu.be/55MI956srIc

 

http://youtu.be/SugVZPSzoJE

 

http://youtu.be/NeqoRM8X2d4

 

http://youtu.be/HekqSmY0QHw

 

http://youtu.be/CKpvEzZOm-Q