Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Delta and Coca-Cola pivot on Georgia’s restrictive voting law: 'It's unacceptable'

      by

      Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterAfter weeks of pressure from activists some major companies and prominent Black executives are taking a somewhat harder line in speaking out against a new law in Georgia to restrict voting access.Delta Airlines, one of the Georgia-based companies that declined to speak out as the measure moved through the legislature, issued a forceful statement on Wednesday, saying the law was “unacceptable”.“After having time to now fully understand all that is in the bill, coupled with discussions with leaders and employees in the Black community, it’s evident that the bill includes provisions that will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives. That is wrong.” Ed Bastian, Delta’s CEO, wrote in a company memo on Wednesday.“The entire rationale for this bill was based on a lie: that there was widespread voter fraud in Georgia in the 2020 elections. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, that excuse is being used in states across the nation that are attempting to pass similar legislation to restrict voting rights,” he added.The statement is an abrupt reversal for Delta, which for weeks declined to say it explicitly opposed the Georgia measure. Two weeks ago, when the measure was being crafted in the state legislature, a Delta spokesperson told the Guardian that “ensuring an election system that promotes broad voter participation, equal access to the polls, and fair, secure elections processes are critical to voter confidence and creates an environment that ensures everyone’s vote is counted”.Delta’s statement came just after some of America’s top Black business leaders and CEOs released a letter condemning widespread efforts across the United States to make it harder to vote. “There is no middle ground here,” Kenneth Chenault, the former CEO of American Express, told The New York Times, which first reported on the letter. “You either are for more people voting, or you want to suppress the vote.”James Quincey, the CEO of Coca-Cola, which has largely stayed quiet over the last few weeks, also pivoted his company’s stance on Wednesday.“This legislation is unacceptable. It is a step backwards,” he told CNBC. “This legislation is wrong and needs to be remedied and we will continue to advocate for it both in private and now even more clearly in public.”Asked why he took so long to issue a full-throated condemnation of the law, Quincey insisted the company has “always” opposed the legislation, even though it has declined to say that for weeks.The Georgia law requires voters to provide identification when they request and return absentee ballots, limits the availability of absentee drop boxes, reduces the length of runoff elections, allows for unlimited challenges to voter qualifications, and gives Republicans in the state legislature more influence over the state election board as well as a pathway to meddle with local boards. The law also makes it illegal to provide food or water to anyone standing in line to vote.Nse Ufot, the CEO of the New Georgia Project, one of the groups leading the pressure campaign, welcomed the statement from Delta, even though she said it was “late”.“This is where the problem lies. Conversations with Black and Brown leaders must happen at all stages and all areas of decision-making, not after the damage is done. Here’s the lesson: listen to Black and Brown people,” she said in a statement. She added that the company should now call out voting restrictions advancing through other state legislatures and support sweeping voting rights legislation in Congress.Deborah Scott, the executive director of Georgia Stand-Up, another civic action group, called for a boycott of Georgia and Coca-Cola on Wednesday.“Although condemning Georgia’s anti-democratic moves is right and vocal support is welcome, the most effective response is one that will hit the pocketbooks of Georgia’s ruling elite – an economic boycott of the state,” she said in a statement. “This is a historic opportunity, comparable to other watershed civil rights moments such as the Montgomery bus boycott and Selma.”While Delta insisted it worked behind the scenes to remove some of the most onerous restrictions in the measure, the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, said he was surprised by the company’s stance.“Today’s statement by Delta CEO Ed Bastian stands in stark contrast to our conversations with the company, ignores the content of the new law, and unfortunately continues to spread the same false attacks being repeated by partisan activists,” Kemp said, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Since 2018, Delta has donated more than 41,600 to lawmakers who backed voting restrictions, according to Popular Information, an independent newsletter.A senior Republican also told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that lawmakers were weighing ways to punish the company after a statement that was “akin to Delta shooting us in the face with a shotgun without telling us it was coming.”The chatter among Republicans about retaliating is growing. Rs are amazed Delta didn’t wait until tomorrow – when leg session is over – to issue this statement. “This is the level of anger that makes people creative,” says one. “That should scare the shit out of them.” #gapol— Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) March 31, 2021
      Arthur Blank, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons football team also released a statement on Tuesday condemning the new law.“Every voice and every vote matters and should be heard through our democratic process in Georgia. The right to vote is simply sacred. We should be working to make voting easier, not harder for every eligible citizen,” Blank said in a statement on Tuesday. Spokespeople for both the Atlanta Braves and Hawks, the city’s baseball and basketball teams respectively, declined to comment on the measure on Tuesday.Corporations have signaled a willingness to speak out on controversial issues in recent years, from LGBTQ+ rights to the environment. But observers in recent weeks have questioned why companies have not brought the same force to opposing voting rights in Georgia.“They are looking at their best business interests, and when the pressure from one side increases, they essentially realize ‘hey look there’s a side where I need to weigh in and at this point I need to step up and make my opinion clear,’” said Tarun Kushwaha, a marketing professor at George Mason University. “My hunch is that the Georgia, Atlanta, based organizations were slow at doing this is they feared that there might be repercussions for them. Repercussions not just in terms of customers, but repercussions from the legislature.”Beyond Delta, activists have also singled out Coca-Cola, UPS, Home Depot, Aflac, and Southern Company to oppose the measure. Last week, leaders of the sixth district of the AME church, representing more than 500 Black churches in Georgia, went even further and called for a Coca-Cola boycott.There have also been growing calls for sports officials to sanction Georgia over the law. The president of the Major League Baseball players’ union indicated he was open to discussion about moving the league’s All Star Game from Atlanta this summer. The National Black Justice Coalition has also called on the PGA Tour to move the Master’s golf tournament out of Georgia. More

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden promises 'historic' $2tn spending in infrastructure – but Capitol Hill fight awaits

      by

      Joe Biden will unveil an expansive $2tn proposal to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, confront climate change and curb wealth inequality, part of a sweeping spending package that could define the president’s economic legacy.Biden’s plan, which he will lay out at a speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday afternoon, includes “historic and galvanizing” investments in traditional infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and highways, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars to fortify the electricity grid, expand high-speed broadband and rebuild water systems to ensure access to clean drinking water, an administration official said on Tuesday. It also seeks to expand access to community care facilities for seniors and people with disabilities and invest in research and development and workplace training.He will propose paying for the new spending with a substantial increase on corporate taxes that would offset eight years of spending over the course of 15 years, officials said. Among the changes, Biden will call for a rise in the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% and measures to force multinational corporations to pay more taxes in the US on profits earned abroad. The tax plan would unwind major pieces of Donald Trump’s tax-cut law, which lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.The package, known as the American jobs plan, is only the first part of the president’s sprawling infrastructure agenda. Aides say he will present a second legislative package next month that will focus on investments in healthcare, childcare and education. That package is expected to be paid for, at least in part, by raising taxes on the nation’s highest earners.As a candidate, Biden promised not to raise individual taxes on those earning less than $400,000.The scale of the proposals, together expected to cost as much as $4tn, has been compared to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. A memo outlining its ambition states: “Like great projects of the past, the president’s plan will unify and mobilize the country to meet the great challenges of our time: the climate crisis and the ambitions of an autocratic China.”Biden’s allies on Capitol Hill are gearing up for a fight over the infrastructure legislation that will likely prove to be significantly more contentious than the swift passage of Biden’s $1.9tn economic aid bill, which was enacted earlier this month with only Democratic votes.While the urgency of the pandemic helped Democrats overcome a handful of objections to pass Biden’s coronavirus relief plan, there is infighting over what belongs in the package – and whether the administration should spend time attempting to forge a bipartisan consensus.Both Democrats and Republicans share a goal of fixing the nation’s ageing roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure. Yet they disagree sharply on the details – how much to spend, what constitutes “infrastructure” and how to pay for the investments. This chasm was too big for either Barack Obama or Trump to overcome and both failed to make progress after promising to rebuild the country’s infrastructure.In a briefing with reporters on Tuesday night, the administration official said Biden believed the current moment offered a rare opportunity “to demonstrate that the United States and democracies can deliver for the people that they serve”.“The stakes of this moment are high,” the official continued, adding that the president was confident this package would prove once again that massive public investment programs have the ability to not only create millions of new jobs but “revive and revitalize our national imagination”.“We think that these are investments that as a country we cannot afford not to make,” the official said.But congressional Republicans are already balking at the scope of the project, warning that the tax rises will hurt American competitiveness and slow the nation’s economic growth as it struggles to rebound from the pandemic. Their opposition could force Democrats to pass the bill through reconciliation, a parliamentary process that would allow them to bypass Republicans in the Senate.Even then, rank-and-file Democrats are far from aligned. With a narrow majority in the House and an evenly divided Senate, Biden has little room for error and the jockeying is already well underway as Democrats push an array of competing policy demands and ultimatums.On Tuesday, congressman Josh Gottheimer, a centrist Democrat from New Jersey, said he would oppose any tax proposals that did not include a repeal of the cap on state and local tax deductions implemented as part of the Republican’s 2017 GOP tax-cut plan.Meanwhile, liberal lawmakers want to see Biden go even bigger. On Monday, senator Edward Markey and congresswoman Debbie Dingell proposed a climate and infrastructure plan that would spend $10tn over the next decade.There is also an internal debate over how to proceed. Moderate Democrats say the package should be targeted to attract Republicans, fulfilling a campaign promise Biden made to work with members of both parties. But many progressives see little value in compromise.Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, urged the administration not to waste precious time attempting to woo Republicans.“We can’t wait for Republicans to have some awakening on climate change here – we’ll be waiting forever if we do that,” she said on Tuesday “We’ve got a window to get this done and we have to move with the urgency and the boldness that this moment calls for.” More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The rich-poor gap in America is obscene. So let's fix it – here's how | Bernie Sanders

      by

      The United States cannot prosper and remain a vigorous democracy when so few have so much and so many have so little. While many of my congressional colleagues choose to ignore it, the issue of income and wealth inequality is one of the great moral, economic and political crises that we face – and it must be dealt with.The unfortunate reality is that we are moving rapidly toward an oligarchic form of society, where a handful of billionaires have enormous wealth and power while working families have been struggling in a way we have not seen since the Great Depression. This situation has been exacerbated by the pandemic.Today, half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, 500,000 of the very poorest among us are homeless, millions are worried about evictions, 92 million are uninsured or underinsured, and families all across the country are worried about how they are going to feed their kids. Today, an entire generation of young people carry an outrageous level of student debt and face the reality that their standard of living will be lower than their parents’. And, most obscenely, low-income Americans now have a life expectancy that is about 15 years lower than the wealthy. Poverty in America has become a death sentence.Meanwhile, the people on top have never had it so good. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 92%, and the 50 wealthiest Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of American society – 165 million people. While millions of Americans have lost their jobs and incomes during the pandemic, over the past year 650 billionaires have seen their wealth increase by $1.3tn.The growing gap between the very rich and everyone else is nothing new.Over the past 40 years there has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class and working families to the very wealthiest people in America.In 1978, the top 0.1% owned about 7% of the nation’s wealth. In 2019, the latest year of data available, they own nearly 20%.Unbelievably, the two richest people in America, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, now own more wealth than the bottom 40% of Americans combined.If income inequality had not skyrocketed over the past four decades and had simply stayed static, the average worker in America would be earning $42,000 more in income each year. Instead, as corporate chief executives now make over 300 times more than their average employees, the average American worker now earns $32 a week less than he or she did 48 years ago – after adjusting for inflation. In other words, despite huge increases in technology and productivity, ordinary workers are actually losing ground.Addressing income and wealth and inequality will not be easy, because we will be taking on some of the most powerful and well-financed entities in the country, including Wall Street, the health insurance industry, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and the military-industrial-complex. But it must be done. Here is some of what Congress and the president can do in the very near future.We must raise the minimum wage from the current starvation wage of $7.25 an hour to a living wage of at least $15 an hour. A job should lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in it.We need to make it easier, not harder, for workers to join unions. The massive increase in wealth and income inequality can be directly linked to the decline in union membership in America.A job should lift workers out of poverty, not keep them in itWe need to create millions of good-paying jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, wastewater plants, sewers, culverts, dams, schools and affordable housing.We need to combat climate change by fundamentally transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels towards energy efficiency and renewable energy which will also create millions of good paying jobs.We need to do what virtually every other major country does by guaranteeing healthcare to all people as a human right. Passing a Medicare for All program would end the absurdity of us paying twice as much per capita for healthcare as do the people of other countries, while tens of millions of Americans are uninsured or under-insured.We need to make certain that all of our young people, regardless of income, have the right to high quality education – including college. And that means making public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially reducing student debt for working families.And yes. We need to make the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America start paying their fair share of taxes.Growing income and wealth inequality is not just an economic issue. It touches the very foundation of American democracy. If the very rich become much richer while millions of working people see their standard of living continue to decline, faith in government and our democratic institutions will wither and support for authoritarianism will increase. We cannot let that happen. More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘You will not have your seat again’: how the Fight for $15 movement gained new momentum

      by

      For Terrence Wise, a McDonald’s employee from Kansas City, Missouri, the battle for a raise in the federal minimum wage is far from over.
      Joe Biden campaigned on a raise, the first since 2009, and the majority of Americans of both parties support an increase. And yet, last month, Congress blocked an increase from the paltry $7.25 an hour where it has been stuck since 2009. Now there are signs of new momentum for change.
      If Washington can’t find a solution, Wise had a warning for politicians of both sides. “If you’re not going to make $15 a reality for workers, if you’re not going to create an environment for workers to join a union and make that possible, you will not be re-elected. You will not have your seat again,” Wise said, an organizer with the Fight for $15 movement. “We will not continue to choose representatives who are truly not representing us or who are out of tune with the working class.
      “We say don’t take it as a threat – take it as a promise.”

      High hopes that the federal minimum wage would be lifted for the first time in over 10 years came with the introduction of Biden’s $1.9tn stimulus package. The wage hike, which Biden tucked into his original stimulus plan, would have been the largest victory for the Fight for $15 movement since it started to mobilize fast-food workers in 2012.
      But when the bill hit the Senate, the wage increase faced two major hurdles: moderate Democrats who said that $15 was just too high and a ruling from the Senate’s parliamentarian on whether including an increase in the spending bill would break Senate rules.
      Ultimately, both factors stopped the increase from going into law.
      While Congress’s failure to raise the minimum wage dealt a blow to the Fight for $15 movement, advocates say there is still enough momentum behind the issue to build pressure on lawmakers in DC to bring a $15 minimum wage back to the table. Activists also say the Democratic party risks losing the support of some of its base if a new minimum wage fails to pass.
      “It’s such a core priority for so many organizations, for so many people, so many of the voters that put a lot of these elected officials into office,” said Tsedeye Gebreselassie, director of work quality at the National Employment Law Project. “It’s the top economic policy priority this year.”
      Multiple polls have shown there is broad support for a $15 minimum wage. One Pew Research poll from 2019 found that 67% of Americans support a minimum wage increase. An Amazon/Ipsos poll released this month found approximately the same percentage of support.
      With inaction from Congress, 29 states have increased their own minimum wage above the federal rate. Seven states have passed legislation increasing their minimum wage to $15 gradually, Florida being the most recent state to pass the measure by a ballot initiative. A few companies have also taken things into their own hands, with Costco, Amazon and Target increasing their minimum wage to at least $15 in recent years. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on China, Xinjiang and sanctions: the gloves are off | Editorial

      by

      China’s response to criticisms of horrifying human rights violations in Xinjiang is clear and calculated. Its aims are threefold. First, the sanctions imposed upon individuals and institutions in the EU and UK are direct retaliation for those imposed upon China over its treatment of Uighurs. That does not mean they are like-for-like: the EU and UK measures targeted officials responsible for human rights abuses, while these target non-state actors – elected politicians, thinktanks, lawyers and academics – simply for criticising those abuses.Second, they seek more broadly to deter any criticism over Xinjiang, where Beijing denies any rights violations. Third, they appear to be intended to send a message to the EU, UK and others not to fall in line with the harsher US approach towards China generally. Beijing sees human rights concerns as a pretext for defending western hegemony, pointing to historic and current abuses committed by its critics. But mostly it believes it no longer needs to tolerate challenges.Alongside the sanctions, not coincidentally, has come a social media storm and consumer boycott targeting the Swedish clothing chain H&M and other fashion firms over concerns they voiced about reports of forced labour in cotton production in Xinjiang. Nationalism is a real and potent force in China (though not universal), but this outburst does not appear spontaneous: it began when the Communist Youth League picked up on an eight-month-old statement, and is being egged on by state media.China has used its economic might to punish critics before – Norway’s salmon exports slumped after dissident Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize – and often with the desired results. But this time, it is acting far more overtly, and it is fighting on multiple fronts. Some clothing companies are already falling into line. Overall, the results are more complex. The sanctions have drastically lowered the odds of the European parliament approving the investment deal which China and the EU agreed in December, to US annoyance. Beijing may think the agreement less useful to China than it is to the EU (though many in Europe disagree). But the measures have done more to push Europe towards alignment with the US than anything Joe Biden could have offered, at a time when China is also alienating other players, notably Australia. Foreigners – who in many cases have offered more nuanced voices to counter outright China hawks – are already becoming wary of travelling there, following the detention and trial of two Canadians, essentially taken hostage following their country’s arrest (on a US extradition request) of a top Huawei executive. The sanctioning of scholars and thinktanks is likely to make them more so. Businesses, though still counting on the vast Chinese market, are very belatedly realising the risks attached to it. Those include not only the difficulty of reconciling their positions for consumers inside and outside China, but the challenges they face as the US seeks to pass legislation cracking down on goods made with forced labour, and the potential to be caught up in political skirmishes by virtue of nationality. For those beginning to have second thoughts, rethinking investments or disentangling supply chains will be the work of years or decades. But while we will continue to live in a globalised economy, there is likely to be more decoupling than people foresaw.The pandemic has solidified a growing Chinese confidence that the west is in decline, but has also shown how closely our fates are tied. There can be no solutions on the climate emergency without Beijing, and cooperation on other issues will be both possible and necessary – but extraordinarily difficult.Beijing’s delayed response to the UK sanctions suggests it did not anticipate them, perhaps unsurprising when the integrated review suggested we should somehow court trade and investment while also taking a tougher line. But the prime minister and foreign secretary have, rightly, made their support for sanctioned individuals and their concerns about gross human rights violations in Xinjiang clear. Academics and politicians, universities and other institutions, should follow their lead in backing targeted colleagues and bodies. China has made its position plain. So should democratic societies. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia activists call for Coca-Cola boycott over ‘deafening silence’ on voting rights

      by

      Georgia activists are calling for a statewide boycott of Coca-Cola as part of an escalating effort to get major corporations to oppose significant voting restrictions Republicans in the state legislature are on the verge of approving.Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterThe call for the boycott, first reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution, is coming from leaders of the sixth district of the AME church, which includes more than 500 Black churches in Georgia. Bishop Reginald Thomas Jackson, the presiding prelate, said that there had been a “deafening silence” around voting rights from Coca-Cola and other companies that had put out statements last year supporting the Black Lives Matter movement.“Our position is they’ve not lived up to their own words. By your silence you’re actually being complicit. So we’re going to say to them, if you want our money, then you ought to have our back,” he said in an interview. He added that he expected other civil rights groups to join in the boycott calls soon.For weeks, activists have been placing pressure on Coca-Cola, as well as Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Aflac, UPS, and Southern Company – all based in Georgia – to use their political clout to oppose bills in the legislature that would require voters to provide ID information when they vote by mail, limit the availability of absentee drop boxes and give the state legislature more power to meddle in local election boards, among other measures.But those major companies have declined to speak out directly against the bills. The Georgia chamber of commerce released a statement earlier this month saying it had “concern and opposition” to provisions in the legislation. The Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce has been a little more specific, saying earlier this month it was focused on addressing weekend absentee voting, drop boxes and ID requirements.Coca-Cola told the Guardian earlier this month it supported both chambers of commerce and a “balanced approach to elections”. A spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the boycott.Georgia lawmakers will probably hammer out a final version of sweeping voting changes before the legislative session ends next week. While they walked back an effort to cut weekend early voting, they still have left sweeping restrictions in bills that civil rights groups say are a blatant effort to suppress votes.Jackson said he plans to lead a protest at the Georgia capitol on Thursday and did not rule out calling on boycotts of the other major companies.“Boycotting is not something we really want to do,” he said. “Coca-Cola is a fine company. But at the same time, we think all of these major companies have responsibilities on issues of social justice.” More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in World Politics

      The Other Side of the Indian Farmers’ Protests

      by

      In November 2020, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation published an article by Paul Nemitz and Matthias Pfeffer on the threat to digital sovereignty in Europe. They called attention to the need in Europe for “decentralised digital technologies” to combat a trend they see as essential for preserving “a flourishing medium-sized business sector, growing tax revenues, rising prosperity, a functioning democracy and rule of law.” 

      The authors felt encouraged by the fact that the European Council was at last looking at challenging the US tech platforms that dominate global cyberspace: Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft. Europe appears ready to draft laws that would impose targeted regulation strategies different from those that apply to “small and medium-sized actors, or sectoral actors generally.”

      Indian Farmer Protests Explained

      READ MORE

      There are multiple reasons for such a move, which will inevitably be attacked by the corporations as violating the sacrosanct principle of free trade. Nemitz and Pfeffer recognize the complexity of the implicit goal, to ensure “strategic autonomy while preserving an open economy.” Besides the threat to traditional businesses incapable of competing with the platforms, they cite the fact that “unregulated digitalisation of the public sphere has already endangered the systemic role of the media in two respects” to the extent that 80% of “online advertising revenues today flow to just two corporations: Google and Facebook.” This threatens the viability of “costly professional journalism that is vital for democracy.”

      Europe is struggling to find a solution. In the context of the farmers’ protests in India, the Joint Action Committee Against Foreign Retail and E-commerce (JACAFRE) recently took an emphatic stand on the same subject by publishing an open letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In this case, the designated culprits are the US powerhouses of retail commerce, Amazon and Walmart, but the authors include what they see as a Quisling Indian company: the mega-corporation, Reliance Industries.

      The giant conglomerate claims to be “committed to innovation-led, exponential growth in the areas of hydrocarbon exploration and production, petroleum refining and marketing, petrochemicals, retail and telecommunications.” JACAFRE suspects it may also be committed to the idea of monopolistic control. It complains that Reliance’s propensity for establishing partnerships with Facebook and Google is akin to letting the fox in the henhouse. This has less to do with the platforms’ direct action than the coercive power their ever-increasingly possession and control of data represents. “If the new farm laws are closely examined,” the JACAFE’s authors claim, “it will be evident that unregulated digitalisation is a very important aspect of them.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Unregulated digitalization:

      A pandemic that grew slowly in the first two decades of the 21st century with the effect of undermining most human economic activities, personal relationships and even mental equilibrium

      Contextual Note

      Three years ago, Walmart purchased the Indian retailer Flipkart. Interviewed at the time, Parminder Jeet Singh, the executive director of IT for Change, complained that the data controlled by e-commerce companies is no longer limited to patterns of consumption but also extends to production and logistics. “They know everything, who needs it, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it, when it should be moved, the complete control of the data of the whole system,” he said. That capacity is more than invasive. It is tantamount to omniscient and undetectable industrial spying combined with forms of social control that are potentially as powerful as China’s much decried social credit system.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In 2018, Singh appeared to worry more about Walmart than Facebook or Amazon, because it represents the physical economy. The day US companies dominate both the data and the physical resources of the Indian economy, Singh believes it would “game over” for Indian economic independence. He framed it in these terms: “If these two companies become a duopoly in the e-commerce sector, it’s actually a duopoly over the whole economy.” 

      On the positive side, he insisted that, contrary to many other countries, India has the “digitally industrialized” culture that would allow it not only to resist the domination of a US-based global company, but also permit it to succeed in building a native equivalent. He viewed Flipkart before Walmart’s takeover as a successful Indian company that had no need of a monopolistic US company to ensure its future growth. 

      Historical Note

      Fair Observer’s founder, CEO and editor-in-chief, Atul Singh, recently collaborated with analyst Manu Sharma on an article debunking the simplistic view shared across international media that persists in painting India’s protesting farmers as a David challenging a globalized Goliath insidiously promoted by Narendra Modi’s government. The Western media’s narrative puts the farmers in the role of resistance heroes against a new form of market-based tyranny.

      But as Singh and Sharma point out, this requires ignoring history and refusing to recognize the pressing need to move away from a “Soviet-inspired model” that ended up creating pockets of privilege and artificial dependence. These relics of India’s post-independence past became obstacles not only to productivity but to justice as well, to the extent that the existing system favored those who had learned to successfully exploit it.

      Singh and Sharma highlight the incoherence of a system that risks provoking deeper crises. Does that mean that Modi’s proposed reform is viable and without risk? The two authors acknowledge the very real fear farmers feel “that big private players will offer good money to farmers in the beginning, kill off their competition and then pay little for agricultural produce.” They realistically concede that, once in place, “India’s agricultural reforms will have intended and unintended consequences, both positive and negative.”

      But there may be more to the story. From the JACAFE’s perspective, the farmers’ instincts are correct. Their fear of the big players leveraging their clout in the traditional marketplace by exercising discretionary control of production and distribution becomes exponentially greater when considering that, thanks to their mastery of data, their control is not limited to the commodities themselves. It extends to all the data associated not only with the modes and means of production, but also with the channels of distribution and even habits of consumption. That explains why the JACAFE sees the 2018 takeover of Flipkart by Walmart as particularly foreboding.

      This dimension of the issue should also help us to understand why Prime Minister Modi has recently been playing cat and mouse with both Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. At some point, the purely rhetorical game that even a mouse with a 56-inch chest can play while dodging the bite of a pair of voracious and muscular cats (Amazon and Walmart) has its limits. India is faced with a major quandary. It needs to accelerate its development of domestic resources in a manner that allows it to control the future economic consequences for its population but must, at the same time, look abroad for the investment that will fund such endeavors.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      In a recent article on foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) in India, Singh and Sharma noted that the recent flood of cash can be attributed to the fact that “corporations from the US and the Gulf have bought big stakes in Reliance Industries, India’s biggest conglomerate. They are also buying shares in Indian companies. In effect, they are betting on future growth.” The problem with all foreign investment is that while it is focused on growth, the growth that investors are targeting is the value of their own investment and its contribution to augmenting their global power. From the investors’ point of view, the growth of the Indian economy is at best only a side-effect. The case of Reliance in particular will need to be monitored.

      In December 2020, Reliance’s chairman, Mukesh Ambani, promised a “more equal India … with increased incomes, increased employment, and improved quality of life for 1 billion Indians at the middle and bottom of the economic pyramid” thanks to the achievement of a $5-trillion economy by 2025. While reminding readers that “Facebook and Google are already partnered with Reliance and own stakes in Jio Platforms,” the Deccan Herald reports that the three companies have joined hands again to “to set up a national digital payment network.” The question some may be asking is this: When three partners occupy a central place in expanding Asia’s second-largest economy, who are the foxes and who are the hens?

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Win the Amazon union fight and we can usher in a new Progressive Era | Robert Reich

      by

      The most dramatic change in American capitalism over the last half-century has been the emergence of corporate behemoths like Amazon and the shrinkage of labor unions. The resulting imbalance has spawned near-record inequalities of income and wealth, corruption of democracy by big money and the abandonment of the working class.All this is coming to a head in several ways.Over the next eight days, Amazon faces a union vote at its warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama. If successful, it would be Amazon’s first US-based union in its nearly 27-year history.Conditions in Amazon warehouses would please Kim Jong-un – strict production quotas, 10-hour workdays with only two half-hour breaks, unsafe procedures, arbitrary firings “and they track our every move”, Jennifer Bates, a worker at Bessemer, told the Senate budget committee on Wednesday.To thwart the union drive, Amazon has required Bessemer workers to attend anti-union meetings, warned workers they’d have to pay union dues (wrong – Alabama is a “right-to-work” state that bars mandatory dues), and intimidated and harassed organizers.Why is Amazon abusing its workers?The power shift can be reversed – but only with stronger labor laws, tougher trade deals and a commitment to antitrustThe company isn’t exactly hard-up. It’s the most profitable firm in America. Its executive chairman and largest shareholder, Jeff Bezos, is the richest man in the world, holding more wealth than the bottom 39% of Americans put together.Amazon is abusing workers because it can.Fifty years ago, General Motors was the largest employer in America. The typical GM worker earned $35 an hour in today’s dollars and had a major say over working conditions. Today’s largest employers are Amazon and Walmart, each paying about $15 an hour and treating workers like cattle.The typical GM worker wasn’t “worth” more than twice today’s Amazon or Walmart worker and didn’t have more valuable insights about how work should be organized. The difference is GM workers a half-century ago had a strong union, summoning the collective bargaining power of more than a third of the entire American workforce.By contrast, today’s Amazon and Walmart workers are on their own. And because only 6.4% of America’s private-sector workers are unionized, there’s little collective pressure on Amazon or Walmart to treat their workers any better.Fifty years ago, “big labor” had enough political clout to ensure labor laws were enforced and that the government pushed giant firms like GM to sustain the middle class.Today, organized labor’s political clout is minuscule by comparison. The biggest political players are giant corporations like Amazon. And what have they done with their muscle? Encouraged “right-to-work” laws, diluted federal labor protections and kept the National Labor Relations Board understaffed and overburdened.They’ve also impelled government to lower their taxes (Amazon paid zero federal taxes in 2018); extorted states to provide them tax breaks as condition for locating facilities there (Amazon is a champion at this game); bullied cities where they’re headquartered (Amazon forced Seattle to back down on a plan to tax big corporations to pay for homeless shelters); and wangled trade treaties allowing them to outsource so many jobs that blue-collar workers in America have little choice but to take low-paying, high-stress warehouse and delivery gigs.Oh, and they’ve neutered antitrust laws, which in an earlier era would have had companies like Amazon in their crosshairs.This decades-long power shift – the emergence of corporate leviathans and the demise of labor unions – has resulted in a massive upward redistribution of income and wealth. The richest 0.1% of Americans now has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90% together.Corporate profits account for a growing share of the total economy and wages a declining share, with multi-billionaire executives and investors like Bezos taking home the lion’s share.The power shift can be reversed – but only with stronger labor laws, tougher trade deals and a renewed commitment to antitrust.The Biden administration and congressional Democrats appear willing. The House has just passed the toughest labor reforms in more than a generation. Biden’s new trade representative, Katherine Tai, promises trade deals will protect American workers rather than exporters. And Biden is putting trustbusters in critical positions at the Federal Trade Commission and in the White House.I’d like to think America is at a tipping point similar to where it was some 120 years ago, when the ravages and excesses of the Gilded Age precipitated what became known as the Progressive Era. Then, reformers reversed the course of American capitalism for the next 70 years, making it work for the many rather than the few.Today’s progressive activists – in Washington, at Amazon’s Bessemer warehouse and elsewhere around the nation – may be on the verge of doing the same. More