Rewriting American Law to Pro-corporations

Contiuning in its ruling the conservative majority Supreme court today overturned two lon-standing decisions made by older Supreme courts. In its current session Supreme court has ruled on four anti-trust cases where it has sided with defening party (corporations). So now as a result of these rulings its very difficult to sue a bank/investment bank for fraud when they sell IPO's, its far tougher for investors to sue corporate management for alleged fraud, its not illegal if corporations join together and set minimum prices for products (basically nobody can sell below those prices so "competition"). Its difficult to sue corporations for wage discrimination (you have to sue within 180 days after you receive the pay, no matter that you come to know of discrimination years later)

Further it opened a big loophole in campaign finance law by which interest groups can advertise on behalf of candidates even just before elections, schools cant increase diversity in schools (Seattle school case) by taking race as a factor.

Most decisions set aside previously given decisions by Supreme Court, overruling earlier rulings. Most of them are blantantly unfair and biased, you dont need to be a law student/lawyer to understand that in these decisions. These decisions were not a matter of technicality but clearly ideologically lead.

Media Reaction: Well as far as New York times goes it has reported on the cases but if you look carefully in opinion pieces very few (almost none) of the pro-corporate decisions have being given lot of coverage or criticism. they have criticised te campaign finance thing and some other but nothing in which investment banks were left free even if they commit fraud. Not surprising given the state of the media. Also Wall Street Journal obviously hasnt criticised pro-corporation decisions. I havent looked in detail to other mainstream media outlets but expect similar reaction.

This Supreme court on domestic issues can rewrite US laws and it has a long term (given most conservative judges are young and they server till they die usually).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Kays-Kloset.html?hp

Rewriting American Law to Pro-corporations

Contiuning in its ruling the conservative majority Supreme court today overturned two lon-standing decisions made by older Supreme courts. In its current session Supreme court has ruled on four anti-trust cases where it has sided with defening party (corporations). So now as a result of these rulings its very difficult to sue a bank/investment bank for fraud when they sell IPO's, its far tougher for investors to sue corporate management for alleged fraud, its not illegal if corporations join together and set minimum prices for products (basically nobody can sell below those prices so "competition"). Its difficult to sue corporations for wage discrimination (you have to sue within 180 days after you receive the pay, no matter that you come to know of discrimination years later)

Further it opened a big loophole in campaign finance law by which interest groups can advertise on behalf of candidates even just before elections, schools cant increase diversity in schools (Seattle school case) by taking race as a factor.

Most decisions set aside previously given decisions by Supreme Court, overruling earlier rulings. Most of them are blantantly unfair and biased, you dont need to be a law student/lawyer to understand that in these decisions. These decisions were not a matter of technicality but clearly ideologically lead.

Media Reaction: Well as far as New York times goes it has reported on the cases but if you look carefully in opinion pieces very few (almost none) of the pro-corporate decisions have being given lot of coverage or criticism. they have criticised te campaign finance thing and some other but nothing in which investment banks were left free even if they commit fraud. Not surprising given the state of the media. Also Wall Street Journal obviously hasnt criticised pro-corporation decisions. I havent looked in detail to other mainstream media outlets but expect similar reaction.

This Supreme court on domestic issues can rewrite US laws and it has a long term (given most conservative judges are young and they server till they die usually).

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Schools-Race.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Scotus-Kays-Kloset.html?hp

Inequality increase in US

Summers on Inequality

Some interesting data points from the article:

"...from Congressional Budget Office data that, since 1979, changes in income distribution had raised the pre-tax incomes of the top 1 per cent of the population by $664bn or $600,000 per family – an increase of 43 per cent."

"The lower 80 per cent of families are $664bn poorer than they would be with a static income distribution, which works out to $7,000 less in income per family or a 14 per cent loss."

These data clearly shows as argued in the article that policies just focussing on economic growth are not enough. No concrete policy alternatives are provided in the article.

Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?

Malnutitution levels in India are among the worst in the world. Nearly 50% of Indian children are malnourished!!!!

The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?: "Why are child malnutrition levels not improving?

India’s tardy performance can be traced to the limited progress in providing basic health care."

SEZ Saga continues .....

Background on what are SEZ: SEZ's can be viewed as islands within India where infrastrucutre is provided by SEZ owner - the corporation and various industries are set up. In return companies within SEZ's dont have to pay income tax for atleast 5 years and then part income tax. The other benefits are no custom duties and excise duty (SEZ is considered foreign for these tax purposes). The condition on SEZ is that they have to be a net exporter. Net atleast $1 should be the foriegn currency earned out of SEZ (which is a relatively simple requirment). Estimated cost of this policy to the nation over 10 years is Rs. 1,00,000 Crore in lost tax revenue or more as per the Finance Ministry of India.

After Nandigram SEZ approvals throughout the country were put on a hold till further notice. It was said that there is a "National Rehabiltation Policy" which is being discussed and once thats finalized SEZ's approvals will start.

Fast Forward 4 months and the "National Rehabilitaion Policy" is still draft version in the ministries, but SEZ approvals have started. Infact around more than 100 more SEZ's have got approval after that. Well there was one series of changes in the SEZ policy which were announced. Those were

1. size of SEZ is being restricted to 5000 hectares or sth. (Reality: To get around it corporations are now breaking up SEZs so that in contigous its more than 5000 hectares but any single SEZ is not large.
"Though RIL initially planned a single SEZ in Navi Mumbai, sources said it later decided to split the zone into four projects in order to bypass the contiguity issue and avoid procedural roadblocks." )

2. Now earlier 75% of SEZ land could be used for housing/retail - basically non-industry and only rest 25% land must be used for industry. That limit was increased to 50%. on 50% of SEZ land its housing and real estate.

Also now govt doesnt acquire the land it asks corporations to deal with it directly with farmers (though state govt. usually put in restrictions for sale of land other than to the SEZ owner - that was the case in Maharastra case atleast a few months back).

So basically nothing substantially changed in SEZ policy. There was noise for some time but now everything is hunky-dorry. The left parties also dont protest now as they are doing the same in West.

Notice I have not even raised the issue of land acquisitions and how bad they get. Even leaving that aside that, this is a CORPORATE SUBSIDY. More later on "flawed" rationale for SEZ's.

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=167987

US Supreme Court & Corporations

In the last two weeks or so US supreme court has given 4 judgements pro-corporations against investors/consumers. And they are very plainly pro-corporation - you dont require to stretch your imagination to any degree. All make tougher to sue corporations for things like plain fraud to wage dicrimination to
1. Supreme Court sides with business again
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/21/PM200706211.html
An 8-1 Supreme Court ruling will make it more difficult for investors to bring class action lawsuits that allege they've been ripped off by companies committing securities fraud.

2.
Supreme Court sides with banks
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/18/PM200706182.html
Supreme Court justices have ruled that Wall Street investment banks and stock brokers are immune from antitrust lawsuits that challenge the banks' and brokers' cooperation when they float IPOs.

3.
A big day for business at the Supreme Court
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/06/11/PM200706111.html?refid=0
The Supreme Court released four, unanimous business-related opinions today. There was some bad news for Big Tobacco. And, as Steve Henn reports, it wasn't such a good day for unions either.


4.
High Court Vs. Working Women
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/09/1765/
On May 29, the Bush Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts delivered what could be a devastating blow to women experiencing discrimination in pay and promotion.

All due to pro-corporate justices choices made over the years.

Private sector shining, govt tarnished ??

Another article showing how free marketers twist things around. India shining has been twisted to saying "Private sector shining, govt tarnished". It basically gives some numbers criticizing the govt. schemes are praises private sector.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Private_sector_shining_govt_tarnished/articleshow/2076743.cms

Notice the people who are thought to be responsible for this -

" But 90% of civil servants are clerks and chaprasis, and less than 10% are Class I and II officers. Will the Congress reverse the ratio? Will it sack chaprasis and clerks while increasing the number of officers, judges, teachers and other badly needed staff? "

"Will the Congress empower parents' committees or panchayats to withhold salaries of errant teachers?"

" Subsidies remain at 14% of GDP.."

No mention in this of the more than Rs. 1 Lakh Crore of SEZ corporate subsidy and the other subsidies given in form of land transfers and other benefits in the article. No mention of Rs. 10,000 crore in export incentive. No mention of the lowest tax-GDP ratio India has (~10%) [ in Europe it is ~40%, in US its 25% ] which India has, no mention of farmer suicides or their distress due to govt's penchant to open up agricultural sector. No mention of Mid-day meal scheme's success or the growing inequality or of the not-yet-passed Right to Education Bill (6 years and still pending).

I agree with some points in the article on how some of the subsidies are structured (LPG or Petrol subsidies, fertilizer subsidy) but most other points are just selective looking at numbers (looking at numbers which dont show the complete picture like GDP growth rate or teacher absentism without looking at why). Anyway be careful with these numbers they can deceive very easily.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Private_sector_shining_govt_tarnished/articleshow/2076743.cms

Pinkyshow: Interresting short clips on things that matter

Other videos: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pinkyshow

US Income Inequality & Potrayal in Mainstream

Income inequality is considered a non-issue in the laize faire world. There are several arguments given against taking it seriously. One of the arguments which this article tries to make is - it does not matter. equality brings instability it seems. Also its a difficult thing to get hold of so lets not bother with it. (economic text/professors treat it that way mostly)

The first para shows the income & productivity divide (showing that capital owners are earning more % as compared to labor). But in next para this is sort of looked over by the author saying it doesnt matter because economy iss more stable now.

"

Pay gains diverged. In early postwar decades, compensation increases crudely paralleled productivity gains -- improvements in efficiency. From 1950 to 1973, productivity rose 97 percent. Over the same period, median compensation of male high school graduates aged 35-44 rose 95 percent (after inflation); for college graduates 35-44, the increase was 106 percent. Those in the top one-half of 1 percent received only a 37 percent gain. From 1980 to 2005, productivity increased 71 percent. Median compensation for high school graduates dropped 4 percent, and compensation for college graduates rose only 24 percent. For those in the top one-half of 1 percent, it jumped 89 percent.

Comparisons such as these evoke images of greedy CEOs and hedge fund managers. But the story is more complicated. On the whole, the economy that produces these growing inequalities outperforms the one that created more statistical equality. The norms and practices highlighted by Levy and Temin collapsed mainly because they no longer worked. The idea that everyone's wages should reflect inflation plus a few percentage points worsened both inflation and stability. There were four recessions between 1969 and 1981; by then, inflation was 10 percent and mortgage rates 15 percent. Productivity growth had plunged.

Greater competition -- from imports, deregulation, new technologies -- also doomed pattern wage-setting. Companies with lax pay practices lost sales and profits. Consider GM, Ford and Chrysler as Exhibit A.

Economic inequality is an intellectual quagmire, because its origins and consequences are so murky. Contrary to popular belief, for example, it has not prevented most Americans from getting ahead. Consider families with children. A study by the Congressional Budget Office finds that from 1991 to 2005 income gains averaged 35 percent for the poorest fifth of these households, 19 percent for the middle three-fifths and 53 percent for the richest fifth. [ Put here the fact that now far more families have both parents working and longer than before ] But their gains have decreased slightly since 2000. Here's another twist to the discussion: Today's immigration aggravates inequality, because so many new immigrants are poor and unskilled.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/05/AR2007060501765.html