The Case of Spain
by VICENTE NAVARRO

Olli Rehn, typical of the technocratic vermin doing the dirty work for the world plutocracy. These people are not the cure but the disease.

The Vice President of the European Commission, Olli Rehn, in charge of Economic and Monetary Affairs is becoming the most unpopular Commissioner in Spain. He emphasizes over and over again that labor market rigidities are causing the high unemployment in Spain. Labor rigidities is a polite way of accusing the Spanish trade unions for the high rate of unemployment that exists in Spain. Indeed, labor rigidities are supposed to mean that, because the unions have been able to get job security for some workers, employers have it too difficult to fire them. This supposed rigidity has not stopped them, however, from firing nearly 4 million workers out of the whole labor force of 16 million). According to Olli Rehn, employers should have it even easier to get rid of workers. The more workers they can fire, the more workers they will hire.

This position also appears in large sectors of academia, although using a different narrative. They divide the labor market between the “insiders” (those who have a job due to the power of the unions, primarily male adults), and the “outsiders,” (those excluded from the labor market, i.e. the unemployed, youth and women,) due to the rigidities. And they present the first responsible for the unemployment of the second. This position has achieved the category of dogma, not only in the European Commission, but also in the other two components of the Troika, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank. In Spain, such position has become part of the conventional wisdom, reproduced by major economic policy research centers, such as FEDEA, funded by the major banks and large corporations of that country.

The intention of this insiders (adult men) verses outsiders (youth and women) position is to divide the working population, indicating that job security is a “threat” to both youth and women’s employment prospects. And a result of the pressure exercised by the Troika over the Spanish governments, both the one led by the social democrat José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and the other one, the Conservative party led by Mariano Rajoy, have been eliminating job protection and permanent fixed contracts. And as a result, unemployment has exploded. It already reaches 27%.  And among the unemployed youth, 57%. Employers have been firing and firing, with very little hiring in return. The outcome of eliminating the so-called rigidities has been the largest unemployment ever.

The Problem is Not in the Labor Market

The evidence is overwhelming that the major cause of unemployment in Spain has very little to do with the supposed rigidities of the labor market. European countries with greater job protections than Spain have less unemployment. Many Northern European countries, where trade unions have consistently had a stronger role and influence over the state than in Spain, have lower unemployment figures and higher occupational rates. Unemployment rates in Sweden (8%), Norway (3.2%), Finland (7.7%) and Iceland (6%) are markedly lower than the EU average (with the EU-27 at 10.5% and EU-15 at 10.6%), and much, much lower than Spain’s (27%). Actually, one of the reasons for the low unemployment in Germany (usually presented as a model for other countries in the EU) is because of “work sharing” rather than firing workers; work sharing that has been established at the workplace as a result of the power of the trade unions in Germany.

Why Spain (and the EU) Has Higher Unemployment than in the US

The evolution of unemployment in the EU and Spain as compared with the US is another case used in support of the argument that Spanish unemployment is a result of labor market rigidities. It is constantly said that the US has lower unemployment than the EU average and Spain because of greater US labor market flexibility. In other words, it is assumed that unemployment is lower in the US because it is easier to fire workers in the US than in the EU (including Spain). If that is the case, then how can it be explained that the U.S. unemployment was higher than the average of the countries that later on became the EU-15 for the majority of years in the post-World War II period, even as the U.S. labor market was already more ‘flexible’ than those of the countries that would eventually form the EU-15? In fact, unemployment in the EU only started to overtake the US unemployment rate when preparations to establish the Euro were underway, as the governing institutions of the euro set controlling inflation as a top priority rather than job creation.

The True Cause of Unemployment: Macroeconomic Policies Pushed by the Troika, including Commissioner Olli Rehn

Higher unemployment in the EU is due, in large part, to the system of governance of the euro, a system of governance that starkly contrasts with that of the dollar. The mechanisms governing the euro reveal the clear domination of financial actors over the economic life of Europe, a practically absolute and suffocating domination with no comparable model elsewhere. For American progressives, accustomed to criticizing (for good reasons) the Federal Reserve Board, it may come as a surprise that the Feds, under Bernanke,  are far to the left of the European Central Bank (ECB), the most right wing and independent central bank in existence today. Actually, the ECB is not even a Central Bank: it is a lobby for banking (very close to German banking community, the center of European financial capital). The formation of the Euro system (See “The Causes and Consequences of the Euro”, published in Publico in Spanish, July 2012) was indeed a triumph of neoliberal ideology; it weakened states and forced them to weaken the European social model, a model that ensured social protections for workers.  One can simply peruse the published statements and documents of the European Central Bank (ECB), of the European Commission, of the International Monetary Fund or of the Bank of Spain to gain a quick and clear view of what these financial institutions are proposing as solutions to the high levels of unemployment in Spain. Ostensibly, their proposals disempower the working class even further, reducing the system to even greater levels of human and social suffering. These three Troika institutions, whose officers generally enjoy the highest pay and best job stability in the European labor market, continue to callously impose cuts, including curtailing unemployment insurance on unemployed populations with minimal resources. Aided and abetted by academics and economic think tanks in well financed institutions that enjoy the same lifestyle and privileges, the individuals behind these institutions proceed with an aggressiveness and class hostility that manifests itself in how these establishments have been treating the popular classes of the countries of the EU. What used to be called the class war is obvious and clear. The control of inflation requires, according to the ECB and to the European Commission to weaken labor as much as possible. And they are achieving what they have always wanted.

Meanwhile the evidence shows clearly that the US has a lower unemployment rate than the Eurozone because there is a federal government with a US Central Bank (the Federal Reserve Board or FRB) with the goal of stimulative economic growth through creation of employment, besides controlling inflation. The agenda of the FRB, led by Mr. Bernanke, is indeed very different than the one pursued by the ECB, led by Mr. Draghi and, before him, by Mr. Trichet.

The poverty Underlying the Physical and Social Infrastructure in Spain

Another significant factor contributing to Spain’s high unemployment is the slow production of jobs, due in part, to the enormous poverty of social and physical infrastructure. This poverty stems from the tremendous poverty of state resources (whether central, regional or local). The figures sadly speak for themselves. Spain is one of the Eurozone countries with the lowest state revenues, lowest public employment and least developed public services (as documented in my book the Underdevelopment of Social Spain, 2006, in Spanish). These conditions are the result of an enormous regression in fiscal policies, conditions similar to those suffered in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, countries that are in even greater crises  than in Spain (For more on the crises in the peripheral countries, see “Why Does the Crisis in Spain Remain Unresolved and What Can be Done About It”, published in System in Spanish, July 2012).

The argument put forward by the ECB, the European Commission and the IMF that the Spanish State has spent too much, far above its possibility, is also false and it is easy to show it. Spain has the lowest public expenditures per capita in the EU 15, and it was so when the crisis started in 2007. The rapid growth of its public deficit had nothing to do with overspending but rather with an enormous decline of revenues due to high unemployment and reduction of economic activity (facilitated by the enormous cuts of public expenditures and investments pushed by Olli Rehn, the Troika, and co.). What we are witnessing in Europe is the control of the institutions of governance of the Commission and of the ECB by economists of neoliberal persuasion (close to the Tea Party in its mentality) that are achieving what they want: i.e., to weaken labor.

Vicente Navarro is a Professor of Public Policy at Pompeu Fabra University, Spain and Johns Hopkins University.

This article was originally published by the Social Europe Journal.

Abrams

By Tom Carter, wsws.org

Floyd Abrams’ July 31 letter to the New York Times praising the Bradley Manning verdict underscores the degree to which what was once the liberal intelligentsia has abandoned any serious defense of democratic rights.

Abrams famously served as one of the lawyers for the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case (1971), establishing a certain reputation at the time as a defender of free speech and freedom of the press. In the intervening decades Abrams has shifted far to the right, together with an entire layer of once-liberal professionals, intellectuals, and academics. Abrams now writes in support of the conviction of Bradley Manning on espionage charges, which constitutes a monumental assault on those basic principles he once defended.

In his letter, published on the Times front page, Abrams begins by asserting that the young soldier is guilty: “Pfc. Bradley Manning’s conduct in providing WikiLeaks with more than 700,000 confidential government documents undoubtedly violated some provisions of federal law, as his pleas of guilty to some of the charges and Col. Denise R. Lind’s rulings as to others make plain,” Abrams wrote. The rest of Abrams’ letter is dedicated to a celebration of Manning’s acquittal on the “aiding the enemy” charge, which carried a possible death sentence.

“Colonel Lind’s brave decision — it is nothing less than that — rejecting the government’s misguided efforts to convict Private Manning of violating military law in ‘aiding the enemy’ is worthy of special commendation,” Abrams wrote. A conviction on the “aiding the enemy” charge, according to Abrams, “would have imperiled a good deal of invaluable journalism.”

As an initial matter, contrary to Abrams’ assertions, Manning’s guilty pleas—extracted through torture, a rigged trial, and the Obama administration’s pursuit of a charge carrying the death penalty—do not signify anything.

More importantly, absent from Abrams’ letter is any mention of the content of Manning’s disclosures, which included evidence of war crimes, systematic deceit and lying by successive American administrations, and globe-spanning conspiracies to violate domestic and international law. In the US, the political establishment—with the aid of the media and figures such as Abrams—has sought to prevent a discussion of the criminality revealed by Manning by focusing instead on whether Manning himself violated any laws.

Manning’s conviction represents the first time in American history that a government whistleblower has been convicted in a full trial on espionage charges. Under the Obama administration’s logic, Manning committed “espionage” against the United States because he leaked classified documents “having knowledge that intelligence published on the internet is accessible to the enemy.”

There is no allegation that Manning turned over the documents to any foreign government or political entity in particular, or that he was paid anything or sought to benefit personally from the disclosures. His only motive was to serve the public interest by exposing crimes. Nevertheless, according to the Obama administration’s theory, if a document is designated as “classified” and its contents are leaked to the public—no matter what the content of the document is—then the leaker is guilty of “espionage” because the document can be accessed online by Al Qaeda. This new and reactionary theory constitutes a frontal assault on a long line of legal precedents, from the Nuremberg Trials to the Pentagon Papers case to the core historic First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of the press.

[pullquote] If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it. [/pullquote]

The Nuremberg Trials following the Second World War affirmed the basic principle that “following orders” is not an excuse for participating in crimes. If a person, especially in the military, encounters illegal activity, then his or her duty is not to participate in that activity but to try to stop and prevent it.

The world-spanning corruption, deceit, and thuggery exposed by Manning have been the subject of dozens if not hundreds of articles on the World Socialist Web Site —including the murder of journalists and civilians by helicopter in Iraq; backroom deals with MasterCard and Visa in Russia; violations of international treaties by US spies posing as diplomats; and conspiracies to install Shell Oil men in the Nigerian government. Cables leaked by Manning contributed to anger that fueled protests that brought down US-allied strongmen in Tunisia and Egypt and rocked the entire region. Human civilization as a whole owes this brave young soldier a debt of gratitude.

Not a hair has been touched on the heads of any of the criminals exposed by Manning within the US political establishment, military, and intelligence apparatus, as well as their corporate and financial co-conspirators. These individuals continue to sit comfortably in their luxurious offices enjoying lavish incomes and lifestyles. On the subject of the “guilt” of such individuals, figures such as Abrams are silent. Instead of prosecuting the criminals exposed by Manning, the Obama administration has done its utmost to make an example of Manning, including through the use of torture.

Abrams’ emphasis on the judge’s acquittal of Manning under the “aiding the enemy” theory is a red herring. Colonel Lind did not refuse to allow the Obama administration to proceed under this theory as a matter of law. She only ruled that Manning was not guilty under the facts of this specific case, holding the door open to similar charges in future prosecutions.

The factual circumstances of Manning’s disclosures and their publication are in all pertinent respects identical to the leak and publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg himself, who handed copies of the Pentagon Papers to a New York Times reporter in March 1971, has publicly defended Manning and has rejected any false distinction between the “good” Pentagon Papers and the “bad” WikiLeaks.

Abrams himself emerged in 2010 to pen a long New York Times column falsifying the history of the Pentagon Papers as part of an attempt to discredit Julian Assange and Wilikeaks. (At the time, the World Socialist Web Site published a detailed response setting straight the historical record.)

The falsification of the history of the Pentagon Papers case serves definite political ends. In 1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Can anyone imagine such statements being made today in the judiciary, in Congress, or in the media?

There is no legal or moral substance to any of the charges against Manning, who had every right to do what he did. Democratic rights cannot be entrusted to figures such as Abrams. The defense and expansion of basic democratic rights—and the struggle to safeguard heroic individuals such as Manning, Edward Snowden, and Julian Assange from retaliation by the state—requires nothing short of the independent mobilization of the working class on a socialist program.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Carter writes for the wsws.org, information arm of the Social Equality Party.

The true press vs. the corporate state—
Obviously in full partnership with and quite probably at the behest of their American counterparts, event though as usual the HYPOCRISY WALL remains high in top US circles. Below a sampler of reports on this critical issue.
__________________________________________________

‘It’s a total abuse of the law’

By Elliot Sperber

Cory Booker: No more than a supreme opportunist and Obama copycat. Oppose and defeat this man.

This article discusses the techno-fatalistic Californian Ideology – which, among other things, is prevalent among the information technology community – and it’s relationship to Cory Booker, Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post, and other contemporary things. Along with a considerable deal of surprise, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ sudden 250 million dollar purchase of the Washington Post (a trifle for him at 1% of his estimated fortune of 25 billion) has elicited no small share of conjecture as well. A libertarian who has funded legislation opposing taxation in Washington state, as well as the legalization of same-sex marriage, Bezos’ economic conservatism, social liberalism, and demonstrated interest in political issues will very likely influence how he runs the Post.

Bezos laughing by Wikipedia commons

Author’s website & bionote: http://hygiecracy.blogspot.com
Elliot Sperber is a writer, attorney, and contributor to hygiecracy.blogspot.com. He lives in New York City.