Cartel

Cartel: a formal (explicit) agreement among firms. Cartel members may agree on such matters as price fixing, total industry output, market shares, allocation of customers, allocation of territories, bid rigging, establishment of common sales agencies, and the division of profits or combination of these. The aim of such collusion is to increase individual member's profits by reducing competition. Competition laws forbid cartels.

Picture if you will, a group of millionaire white men (mostly, some women too, and some people of color but mostly white men) who come up with a scheme whereby they organize thousands of mostly black young men in the prime of their lives into a single industry. They convince these mostly black young men (some white, latino, and asian men, and some women too) to perform in front of a huge nationwide TV audience -- with the promise that if they perform really really well, they might eventually be paid millions of dollars. But there's a catch -- these young men will work 365 days a year at their job but they are required, by the cartel, to donate all of their labor, to these white men for 4 years. In fact, 99% of them will not be paid for their labor at all (instead the white male millionaires will keep all of the earnings). The scheme promises that about 1% of these young men will become millionaires -- but as I said, the rest will get nothing. Making matters even more inhumane, the millionaire white men decide that these unpaid laborers must remain "pure" -- even if they come from the most impoverished families in the country they cannot accept ANY gifts whatsoever -- not even a ticket to a show or a trip to the dentist or else they will be kicked out of the system.

So what am I talking about here? A South African diamond mine? A pre-Civil War version of American Idol? A factory that relies on forced labor in China?

Nope, I'm talking about the National Collegiate Athletic Association better know as the NCAA. The NCAA is a multi-billion dollar cartel. For example, in 1999, CBS paid $6 billion for the rights to broadcast the NCAA basketball tournament for 11 years. $6 billion! Out of that $6 billion -- how much do the players get? You guessed it, $0. Fox is paying another $320 million for 4 years just for the rights to broadcast the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) football games. College football and basketball coaches are paid millions of dollars each year -- apparently they are not required to stay pure. Yet the players whose labor creates these billions of dollars in revenue are paid $0. (And don't go talking to me about the value of the education these men get -- we all know that graduation rates for scholarship athletes are abysmal. These "student-athletes" are used for their labor, pure and simple.) It seems to me that not only is the NCAA an illegal cartel that is breaking the law by restraining competition, they very well may be in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

From today's NY Times article about Los Angeles Lakers' forward Lamar Odom.

Odom, who lost his father to divorce at age 6 and his mother to cancer at 12, attended three high schools his senior year and signed with Nevada-Las Vegas amid rumors that he received improper inducements of cash and free dental work from a university booster.

The NCAA literally wanted to punish a young black man who was dirt poor and being raised by his grandmother from seeing a DENTIST! Meanwhile the coach of the team and the white man in the NCAA office who made up the rule, were paid millions.
















NCAA President Myles Brand, multi-millionaire who makes his money by stealing the labor of thousands of young athletes. You sir have been named this week's "Worst Person in the World."

Let them drink rocket fuel

I usually don't read the LA Times (other than the Sports page to read about the Lakers and the Calendar section to read Get Fuzzy and Carolyn Hax). The LA Times seems to go through a new publisher every few months and just within the last year the paper has become increasingly conservative. Which is too bad because the LA Times used to be required reading -- especially for their coverage of Latin America and the Pacific Rim (which was much better than the NY Times coverage of those areas). Anyway.

But today, they had an important article that the NY Times seems to have missed -- so good for them.

Today I opened up the paper and read, "EPA May Decide Not to Limit Toxin." Perchlorate is a highly toxic ingredient in rocket fuel that has contaminated water supplies across the country -- including the Colorado River and aquifers near current and former military installations and defense contractors. Perchlorate is really bad stuff:

Scientific studies have shown that the chemical blocks iodide and suppresses thyroid hormones, which are necessary for the normal brain development of a fetus or infant.

Perchlorate is so toxic that just a few parts per billion has been shown to have an adverse effect on human health. So, of course, the corporate lobbyists who were appointed by Bush to run the Environmental Protection Agency have announced that they have decided they WILL NOT limit the allowable amount of perchlorate in our drinking water. Literally, the Bush administration EPA is saying that it is okay for Americans to drink rocket fuel.

If anybody wonders why I will NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE -- this is one of the reasons why.

Congratulations to Senator Barbara Boxer for taking corporate whore EPA administrator Benjamin Grumbles to task for his failure to protect American's children from being forced to drink rocket fuel. And congratulations to the State of California for setting its own standard for perchlorate because they got tired of waiting for the EPA to act (although at 6 micrograms/L the California standard is probably far too lax -- Massachusetts set its allowable limit at 2 micrograms/L.)

Needless to say, Benjamin Grumbles has been named this week's Worst Person in the World.

Wall Street Journal tells Obama to 'smell the glove'

Okay so I saw this editorial by Peggy Noonan when it came out last Friday. (Hat tip to Blue Texan at Firedoglake for flagging it and doing a great piece about it.) But at the time, I told myself, 'just ignore it, think happy thoughts,' because really getting into the muck of what's going on with this editorial was just gonna make me mad.

Then Nascar lovin' multimillionaire newscaster Brian Williams wrote on his blog that not only did he like Noonan's editorial but he thinks Noonan deserves the Pulitzer Prize. Which caused steam to shoot out my ears so now I'm here writing a blog post instead of watching Survivor.

Let me just take a moment to break down why Noonan's original editorial is so problematic and what it says about the Wall Street Journal, Brian Williams, and the modern Republican Party.

Noonan's editorial, The View from Gate 14 questions Barack Obama's patriotism (big surprise there, given that the entire Republican noise machine apparently got the memo to try to advance that narrative this week). The centerpiece of Noonan's editorial is this:

Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over . . . the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford...

Yeah because it's not enough that Barack Obama already idolizes Ronald Reagan, he also has to get teary eyed over slave owner George Washington and neo-Nazi Henry Ford -- the guy who was actually cheering for Germany to win World War II?

Look, Peggy Noonan isn't dumb. As Reagan's speech writer, she was his voice and his brain as it deteriorated over the course of his presidency. Noonan could have picked ANY Americans to illustrate her professed love of country. And she intentionally chose a SLAVE OWNER (George Washington) and SOMEONE WHO SIDED WITH HITLER (Henry Ford) to illustrate her point. Which is what exactly? That you have to be a white supremacist to be a good American? Noonan chose these examples to rub Barack Obama's nose in America's long history of racism. Noonan chose these examples, and the Wall Street Journal chose to publish this piece to tell Barack Obama, "no matter how much you love Reagan, no matter that you were head of your class at Harvard -- you'll never be part of the white establishment." Notice the pivot in Noonan's argument:

"[Obama has been portrayed as] the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But..."

Noonan is going out of her way to remind Obama that this is not just the country of Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez but also the country of the Middle Passage, Jim Crow, and the KKK. This editorial is the worst kind of sneering Republican country club racism and the sort of coded dog whistle politics that white southern voters love to hear.

For Brian Williams or anyone else to praise this vile race baiting editorial as good journalism is incomprehensible.

Noonan and Williams and Rove and Atwater and Murdoch and Bush have made modern Republicanism synonymous with racism and racism synonymous with patriotism. At some point, you would think that there must be some decent Republicans somewhere who would object to this grotesque symphony of hate. But so far, crickets...
















Henry Ford receives a medal of honor from the Nazis (hat tip Blue Texan writing at Firedoglake).

Also, be sure to check out Glenn Greenwald's article on this whole sordid mess.

And the crazy thing is, for all I know, Obama really does get all misty-eyed thinking about Henry Ford and vile Republican hate merchants like Peggy Noonan -- because he's an amazing human being who goes out of his way to see the best in people. But of course, Noonan's too busy telling Obama to smell the glove to notice any of that.

WSJ recommends letting the poor freeze to death to combat global warming

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted on several amendments to the proposed economic stimulus bill. Democrats wanted to add an extension of unemployment benefits and home heating subsidies for poor families. The Wall Street Journal editorial board didn't think that was such a good idea. They wrote:

As for home heating subsidies, these encourage greater energy use, especially in the Northeast, which depends on oil more than natural gas. This is thus more of a stimulus to foreign oil exporters than to the U.S. economy. Think of it as one more subsidy to add carbon to the atmosphere, notwithstanding the usual global warming grandstanding.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board is a leading global warming denier and has consistently opposed the Kyoto Protocol and any other efforts to mitigate this potentially apocalyptic problem. But with their editorial on February 8th, it seems they've found a plan to combat global warming that they actually like -- namely, letting the poor freeze to death. So, according to the WSJ -- investing in green energy technologies = bad, regulating power plants = bad, allowing the poor to freeze to death (especially those freaks in the Northeast who heat their homes during the winter) = good for the environment and a plan they can really get behind.

Send Lawyers, Guns, and (Sociopathic) Economists...

For a while now, I've been interested in the role of the those who rationalize empire. While soldiers are often sent in to seize the land -- I'm fascinated by the role of the white collar professionals who follow: the priests (who say it is God's will), the lawyers (who say the soldiers' actions were justified and set up rules to exploit the conquered people), and the economists (who say the exploited people are really better off now anyway). While the soldiers' actions are often the focus on the peace movement -- in many ways, I think the actions of the bureaucrats are often more insidious. The soldiers can kill you, but the bureaucrats are the ones who erase a people's history, colonize one's mind, and perpetuate injustice long after the soldiers have gone.

With that in mind I give you, "What to Expect When You're Free Trading" published on Wednesday in the NY Times. The article purports to be a a defense of free trade. But it's so much creepier than that. From the piece:

"All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices."

That's a debatable premise. If you lose your job to a Chinese manufacturer -- no amount of cheap goods at Walmart is going to offset the fact that YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INCOME.

But the premise does have a certain partial truth -- sometimes outsourcing leads to lower prices (sometimes not). It fails to examine who wins and who loses -- instead focusing on net gains and net losses (see the sleight of hand?) but we can still keep talking.

But simply arguing in favor of so-called free trade is not enough for economist Steven Landsburg. Rather, he's out to vilify those who don't want to starve to death in the interests of his economic theories. His article builds up to the grand conclusion that if you don't want to lose your job to Chinese slave labor then YOU are a bully.

For many decades, schoolyard bullying has been a profitable occupation. All across America, bullies have built up skills so they can take advantage of that opportunity. If we toughen the rules to make bullying unprofitable, must we compensate the bullies?

Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation...

Get that? If you're an autoworker, or textile worker, or electronics worker and you don't want to lose your job (and so you go and take the despicable action of VOTING for someone who will look out for you) then Dr. Landsburg says YOU are a BULLY, who uses FORCE, to ENRICH YOURSELF AT SOMEONE'S INVOLUNTARY EXPENSE.

Look, Steve, here's how I see it -- if you want to argue in favor of free trade that's fine. If you want to be a corporatist whore ala Gordon Gekko in Wall Street screaming about "Greed is good" -- the first amendment says go ahead. But when you call a manufacturing worker a bully for voting for a guy you don't like -- then you've crossed the line.

Here's the story that Steven Landsburg won't tell you. If you're a union organizer in a third world country and have the audacity to ask for a few more cents an hour in wages (or bathroom breaks or other unspeakable socialist crimes) oftentimes the CIA or a local oligarch will send a death squad to kill you and your family (and possibly your whole village). If you're a foreign government that wants to control its own natural resources, the U.S. government will send troops to occupy your country or use the CIA to organize a coup to topple your government. The reality is that so-called "free trade" requires enormous levels of bullying, force, and violence -- BUT ALL OF THE VIOLENCE IS BEING DONE BY MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND THEIR ALLIES. For Steven Landsburg to suggest that unemployed U.S. factory workers are bullies for voting while he ignores the crimes against humanity committed by his corporatist friends is sickening.

It seems to me that we can have an honest conversation about trade agreements.

• We can look at who wins and who loses.
• We can look at all of the costs -- factory workers who lose their jobs, depression, suicide, and the collapse of former company towns; the real costs of death squads and military interventions; as well as brutal working conditions, toxic pollution, and birth defects in the third world.
• We can look at moral costs of killing people for cheap goods and what that says about us as a people.
• I'm also happy to look at benefits -- such as cheaper boxer shorts at WalMart and lower-priced coffee at the supermarket and whether that improves my quality of life.
• We can also debate whether national economic policy should make allowances for a natural diversity of talent, intelligence, and strength. Should economic policy allow a man with nothing but a strong back and a good work ethic to be able to achieve a middle class standard of living through a unionized factory job or should he be expected to live under a bridge because he's not a college educated manager (working all day to outsource factory jobs to Mexico)?

A free society can and should have that debate. But for Landsburg or the NY Times to publish this intellectually dishonest propaganda piece (surely placed by some PR firm trying to influence upcoming votes in Congress) is reprehensible.

A final note: Can anyone guess where Steven Landsburg got his Ph.D. in economics? If you guessed the University of Chicago -- you're our big winner. For more on the University of Chicago's distinguished history of training the apologists for genocidal regimes please see my earlier post, "Milton Friedman Wants You to Be His Bitch."