A (0:10)

Welcome, friends, to another edition of Economic Update, a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives. Jobs, debts, income, all of the things that make the world go around and make it go around the money as well. And I'm your host, Richard Wolff. I want to begin today's program on a kind of positive note about an important initiative being taken by the new prime minister in Denmark. She, Mette Fredriksen by name, represents the Social Democratic Party in Denmark. And she has caused quite an upsurge of interest in government when she proposed new taxes. And let me tell you what they were or what they are. First, a cap on deductions for people who earn over $1.6 million. They can't take the deductions that reduce their tax bill the way they used to because she felt it's unfair. And she likewise put a cap on the deductions that banks can take off of their tax obligations from the income they earn. If they earn over $480 million, they're going to have their deductions capped. This is remarkable because nothing remotely like this exists here in the United States. Perhaps even more interesting is why she is imposing these taxes. She's proposed them at this time, and her answer is that There are approximately 38,000 workers in Denmark whose work is particularly arduous. They are having to work under difficult physical, emotional, or both kinds of obstacles and pressures. You know, it's the equivalent of the first responders, the people on the front lines of the COVID virus who take a risk literally every day by the situations in which they work. And she wants to, at the very least, equip them and pay them extra to offset, in part, the extra difficult work they do. What an interesting idea to pay people according to the difficulty and the social importance of the work that they do. Well, how have the bankers and the rich people of Denmark reacted? This is not going to come as much of a surprise, but let me tell you two things they've stressed in their rageful answers. One, and I'm going to try to snarl a little just to get the flavor across, they're going to pass the tax on to the public. In other words, they want the people of Denmark to know if. If we get taxed by the government, no matter what the reason is, no matter what the fairness might be, we're going to stick you with the bill so we don't have to pay. Hmm, nice. And here comes the second. We'll cut employment and growth. If we have to give you taxes. Well, we're not going to Invest it. We're not going to hire people, we're not going to grow. And boy will you suffer. In other words, don't mess with us because we'll make the pain shift over and hit you worse. You know what this is like? This is like workers, when they are hit with a tax, saying, okay, we're not going to work, the whole system stops. You can't touch us, you can't tax us. Or maybe saying, okay, we have to pay an extra tax. We will, starting on Monday, so long as our wages are raised by exactly that amount or maybe a little bit more for the time and the trouble. These are threats against democracy. These are threats against the way the system ought to work in a democratic society. There will now be discussions in the Danish parliament and then there will be a vote. And if the vote is in favor of imposing these taxes, it's the job of the business community to pay them and not to issue threats. By the way, let's look at the threats. We're going to raise prices. No, you're not. That's fate. You know why the banks aren't going to raise prices? Because they'd lose business if they did. They're not free to do that. They don't set the prices. Not quite. Not yet. So it's a bit of a fate. Then there's what could the government do to. If they try to carry out these threats? You know, the government isn't powerless. Don't be fooled. You know what the banks and the rich are really doing? They're providing excuses that politicians can use not to vote for this tax increase on banks and the rich by telling the people, oh, we're not against taxing the rich. But you see, bad things will happen if we do. So we can. I'm really protecting you by not voting. What a hustle this is. Don't be fooled. Very briefly, let me explain what the government could do when threatened by business interests and the rich. And of course, I'm telling you this story about Denmark because it applies everywhere else, including the United States. Here are some things it could the government could issue price controls on banks. What they charge in fees, what they charge in interest. The same congress that passes the tax on the bank can pass the price control on the bank. And then the bank can't pass on the cost of its taxes by raising the prices of what it sells in the way of services. Problem solved. Suppose the banks come up with some other way to threaten the government. Counterthreats. That's what it would do if it were our government, wouldn't it? Here's an oh, you private banks are going to threaten us when we try to put a fair tax on you? Okay, we'll set up government banks and we'll compete with you. And then let's see where the public goes. Confronted by your private self help program for yourselves and your profits versus the public. Bang. That's why private bankers like those here in the United States fight against public banks. They couldn't possibly cope with the competition. Their celebration of competition is for speeches on July 4, not the reality, which is the last thing on earth they want. Just look at the history of the one state in the United States, North Dakota, that has a public bank to see what efforts the private banks have gone to to try to undercut. By the way, they failed that public bank in North Dakota. The threats are empty, but the political fallout is real. Politicians are afraid to go against those banks, afraid to go against the rich. So they use these kinds of arguments to do what the banks and the rich want while pretending it's only to protect us from those empty threats the banks have made. Don't be fooled. My next update shifts us from Denmark to West Virginia. Why? Because the Attorney General in West Virginia won. Patrick Morrissey, a Republican, I might add, has just filed lawsuits against Walmart and cvs, the drug company chain. Why? Because for years they filled obviously suspicious opioid prescriptions in huge quantities and distributed them to pharmacies, retail pharmacies, across wide swaths of the United States. We all know what the result has been. Hundreds of thousands of deaths from overdoses of opioids. There is now a set of lawsuits against the producers of the opioids. $26.4 billion worth of lawsuits. But this action by Patrick Morrissey in West Virginia doesn't go after the producer of the opioids, but someone equally guilty of, namely the distributors, those who made it possible for those producers to reach the millions of people that have become hooked on opioids and then the hundreds of thousands who have died from them. Why am I telling you this story? Because it's the latest in a long list of profit making capitalism killing people. You know, let's see the cigarettes, how about that one? Or the alcohol, how about that one? How about all the companies that cheated on the emissions control, filling our air with pollutants while we thought the pollution test was giving us safe air? It was profitable to do all those things. It was the profit motive that drove capitalists to do what they did and kill the huge numbers of people by the way, we're talking about numbers of people sick and dead that are still ahead of how bad Covid has been, at least to this point. So we ought to be equally upset about it. The profit incentive is not some kind of wondrous thing that explains the wonders of our economy. It is as often a killer as it is anything else. So that the question can we do better than a profit motive driven society is a very good, healthy and honest question. And banishing it on the grounds that profit is just a wonderful mechanism is somewhere between stupid and evil. My last update for today that we'll have time for has to do with something bizarre and unusual that the United States State Department, Mike Pompeo's bailiwick, just did. Kind of remarkable, you know, the State Department is what in other countries is called the Foreign Ministry. It deals with the relationship, or it's supposed to, between the United States and the rest of the world. So imagine my amazement when I read recently that the statement department sent a letter to universities and colleges across the United States urging them if they owned in their stock portfolios. You know, some universities like Harvard and Yale and Princeton and so forth have a big portfolio of stocks and bonds that they have accumulated. Anyway, the State Department suggested to all of them that they get rid of Chinese companies whose stock they own. Turns out they own quite a bit because a balanced stock portfolio, as any stock advisor these days will tell you, should include Chinese stocks. You know why? Because it's the second most important capitalist country in the world and, and growing three times faster than the United States. And not to be invested in China is thought to be, as an investment strategy, somewhere between stupid and evil. To stay with the theme, what's going on here? The government is picking companies. They're going to favor this company, not that one. And if you think it stops at foreign policy, don't be naive. Next week they'll be sending letters. Don't support this company because it's run by a Democrat. Don't support this one because it's run by a Southerner. Don't support. You get used to be the philosophy of capitalism, that the government has no point, no place choosing winners and losers in the private sector. It's supposed to be we, the consumer and the producers who in our competition determined who's doing a good job, who isn't, who deserves to grow, who doesn't. Mm, mm. None of that. We're now going to have the government tell us what to do. And by the way, lest any of you worry, this is not real. Anyway, it's all for show. Two recent studies prove it. One study said how much exodus of companies has happened to from Hong Kong because companies don't want to be part of China. They wanted to keep their independence. None. They're not leaving because they know the Chinese are going to support them in Hong Kong. And the Chinese American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing did a survey. Nobody's leaving there either. They Understand this is Mr. Trump's election strategy and little more. Well, we've come to the end of the first part of today's show. Please remember to subscribe to our YouTube channel, follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and be sure to visit democracyatwork.info that's our website where you can see other things that we do, our Union co op store and the two books we've published, Understanding Marxism and Understanding Socialism. And lastly, a special word of thanks to our Patreon community that are great supporters of ours, that we appreciate enormously. Stay with us. We'll be right back with our guest, Chris Hedges. Welcome back, friends, to the second half of today's economic update. It is with great pleasure that I bring back and welcome back to our microphones and our cameras, Chris Hedges, who by now has become a colleague and a friend. He doesn't need an introduction, so I'm going to be very brief. He worked for 15 years as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times and won a Pulitzer Prize for doing so. And he's the author of over a dozen books, some of which we have discussed on this program in the past. And the most recent one is called the Farewell Tour. So on behalf of an excited group of radio and TV audience, thank you very much, Chris, for joining us today.