Welcome friends to another edition of
economic update a weekly program devoted
to the economic dimensions of our lives
jobs incomes debts our own those of our
kids.
I'm your host Richard Wolff I've been a
professor of economics all my adult life
and I hope that that has prepared me
well to offer you these insights into
what's been going on in our economy over
the last week or two I begin with a
story horrible story in a way about the
arrest and charging of five doctors in
New York City for taking kickbacks from
the producer of a medication that they
were paid to prescribe rather more than
they might otherwise have done the
reason this gets a lot of attention is
because the medication in question is
fentanyl one of the most dangerous of
the opioids that are currently
accounting for overdose deaths in the
many tens of thousands across the United
States each year Arizona based iNSYS
therapeutics is the company and it
markets something called subsys a spray
form of the opioid fentanyl effectively
what the New York Times reported last
week was that the company paid doctor's
quote speaking fees they called them a
sham the New York Times did speaking
fees which went up and were granted in
proportion to the number of
prescriptions that the doctors wrote of
course this is what you get with
profit-making companies in the medicine
business in order to make profit the
company needs to sell as much medicine
as possible since this is a prescription
medicine it means that has to get the
doctors to write the prescriptions so
suddenly doctors are
whisked off to lovely resorts where they
can speak to one another all of this
being paid for with or without fees by a
company that makes it clear to the
doctors what all of this is for this is
normal in the medical business which it
is a business and happens with lots of
medications all the time but when you're
dealing with a killer of the sort of
fentanyl you can get in trouble and
that's what happened imagine with me as
we think about this what it would be if
we made medications medicines not for
profit that is we didn't have them be a
business driven by the notion let's make
more money which is the guiding notion
of capitalist business we might then
have medications produced by
organizations that had on them doctors
and medical professionals on the one
hand and the consuming public that takes
the medications on the other and that
together they would make a decision
about what medicines to use what
medicines to prescribe based on the
science and the need without the
intrusion of the profit and let me drive
the point home because medicine
companies like to justify the enormous
profits they earn even enormous in
relationship to other capitalist
businesses they justify it often by
saying well we have to charge these high
prices and make these big profits in
order to pay for the research that
produces medicines well two things one
often that we search is to be blunt
bogus it's not research on a new
medicine it's often research on how you
can make a medicine different enough
from an existing powerhouse drug so that
you can get a patent for it it's a
little bit different and yet you can
sell it as a competitor this isn't
developing a new medicine
this is developing a profit-making
strategy calling that research and
development is an attempt to fool the
public into thinking they have to pay
these wild prices for medications in
order to get medicines produced would be
a far better and cheaper over
arrangement to let universities and
research outfits have government or
other kinds of funding to produce new
medications for those diseases we need
most rather than letting the profit
motive dictate it's a wonderful example
of what the costs of capitalism are my
next update has to do with a little
statistic between 2009 and 2016 roughly
the presidency of Obama the federal
government's deficits fell straight line
down across those years this is sort of
interesting because Democrats are
usually accused of being budget-busting
deficit creators whereas Obama wasn't
it's doubly interesting because Obama
was president a president at a time of
enormous economic stress when you would
think the government tries to help out
and might legitimately be thought to run
a deficit but instead Obama's government
ran fewer and fewer deficits next point
with mr. Trump the deficits are going
back up and they are predicted to go
sharply up over the next several years
what's the significance of declining
deficits with a Democrat and rising
deficits with a Republican well if you
read the mass media you'd get the idea
oh isn't it odd that the one party
that's normally against deficits is now
running them and the party that normally
says it's okay is now cutting them that
would be to make a big mistake that kind
of analysis because what it does is it
takes seriously the debate about more or
less deficits the reasons the
Republicans can smoothly and easily
shift from one position to another and
likewise the Democrat
is because it doesn't really matter all
that much that's not what these policies
are about and that's not what these
political parties are doing what the job
of both parties is is to manage
capitalism to make it run as smoothly as
possible the difference between the
Republicans and Democrats is the
Republicans want to run it boldface idli
for the people who run the society the
richest the most secure and they really
pander to them the Democrats pander to
the same folks but they know the system
is more secure if those at the top share
at least a little with the rest of the
population to avoid the whole game
coming to a screeching halt
neither of them deals with the
capitalist system other than to support
it to encourage it to preserve it and to
keep it going
which is why we don't have any solution
to the problems of capitalism the
fundamental instability of the system
it's cycles it's bouncing up and down
such as it did so catastrophically in
2008 and likewise we have no resolution
to the problem of the growing inequality
that capitalism breeds of course both
the Republicans and Democrats say they
are for stability and they are for less
inequality but because they don't deal
with the system they both preside over
worsening situations in both areas so
let's not worry about the details of
up-and-down deficits we have bigger fish
to fry and bigger problems to solve my
next update has to do with what happens
if you leave the control of harm caused
by capitalist enterprises to them to
solve if you ask them to police
themselves to curb their excesses to
prevent the harm here's what you get
ingenious solutions and quotation marks
that have the peculiar problem of saving
the profits of the company
and not doing all that well on solving
the problem
I'm gonna give you the starkest example
cigarettes I'm assuming you all know as
the world does that here in the United
States we went through years and years
of litigation and programs that
demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt
that tobacco companies knew that their
product was dangerous causing lung
cancer and so on and fizzy m'a knew it
produced it anyway advertised it anyway
and that the only way to deal with it
was to really come down hard on them
punish them find them enormous amounts
of money require them to put warning
labels on cigarette packs not advertise
not be near a school you get the idea
and the companies were told you should
deal with this problem on top of it but
a large amount of discretion was left in
those company's hands so guess what a
recent article in the British newspaper
The Guardian shows that around the world
not in the United States and not in the
number of the countries that have done
like the United States come down on the
cigarette companies where they're in
danger of being exposed for what I'm
about to tell you but in countries where
the government is weaker where there
hasn't been that kind of campaign there
is massive marketing of cigarettes
especially to children and that's what
the Guardian went around the world to
document and did a really fine piece of
work this last week here are some of the
things the cigarette companies have done
and here for example is where their
research and development is focused
massive ads and store placements where
children shop in or near candy stores in
its extraordinary the research there's a
vast program of marketing single
cigarettes because children don't have
enough money to buy a pack so it's a big
expansion of the sale of cigarettes by
the individual piece
one that caught me unawares colorful
branding cigarette papers in various
colors mimicking children themes and
here's the one that really knocked me
multi-flavored cigarettes that's right
cigarettes that have been infused with
chocolate and strawberry and vanilla
every one of the major cigarette
companies talks about their commitment
for children and not advertising to them
but the reality exposed by the Guardian
shows that if you leave the solution of
the harm done by capitalist enterprises
to them they will avoid dealing with the
problem while they protect their profits
let me give you a second example also
drawn from the cigarette industry one of
those things it touts as its great step
forward was the development of
e-cigarettes or vapor or vaping
cigarettes but a recent study released
this last week at the Dartmouth College
Norton cottons Cancer Center shows that
the number of people weaned off of
cigarettes and shifting to the vaping
cigarettes is much much smaller than the
number particularly of young people who
are hooked onto cigarette smoking by
smoking those cigarettes those vapor
cigarettes the evidence suggests that
the vapor cigarettes are less dangerous
for you that's a good step but of course
by hooking large numbers of people on
the e-cigarette you continue to sell
that back oh which is what the company
makes its money on what a bizarre notion
leaving the control of the harm done by
profit-making capitalists in their hands
to solve. Before moving on to the other
updates for today, I want to remind you
we maintain two websites. They are
available 24/7, no charge whatsoever. We
urge you to make use of them. The first
one is rdwolff
with two F's dot com, and the other
one is democracyatwork, that's all one
word, democracyatwork.info. You can
use either of these websites to
communicate to us what you like and
don't like it, and would like to see changed
on this program. You could, by a click
of your mouse, follow us on Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram. You can see extra
material that we load up there all the
time, and if you are listening to this
program but you would like to consider
looking at it as a television program,
since it is available in both forms, we
urge you: go to the following website
where you can do that patreon.com, P-A-T-R-E-O-N,
patreon.com/economicupdate,
for the TV version. Let me repeat those
two websites in case you didn't note
them down: rdwolff with two Fs dot com,
and democracyatwork.info. Our next
economic update has to do with a huge
case coming up before the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this has
to do with the decision of the Federal
Communications Commission to abolish net
neutrality the requirement that the
internet make available at the same rate
to everybody the service the access to
the internet that we all now require and
use on a daily basis this decision if
you like to get rid of net neutrality
has produced a tremendous battle between
two groups of capitalists those who
stand to make money by being able to
charge if that neutrality is indeed
affirmed as God no longer there that
would mean that the court says that what
the FCC did is legal they can do that
they can get rid of the neutrality vs
companies that are gonna lose money let
me give you an idea of the people who
are pushing
to get rid of net neutrality because
they want to charge and guess who they
want to charge you and me here they are
just a partial list ATT Verizon t-mobile
Sprint okay
Comcast charter Cox and Altice these are
the internet providers that are in the
association's putting pushing to get rid
of net neutrality on the other side
pushing to keep it so that we can't be
charged this money are the attorneys
general of 22 states in the United
States but notice that's a minority of
the states in this country and a variety
of consumer advocacy groups and a few
big tech companies that understand like
Amazon Google Facebook Netflix and
others that making it more expensive for
us to get at the internet will mean we
lose it and use it less but here's what
I want to drive home here we are the
public for whom these institutions
supposedly exist the internet so we can
communicate with one another better so
that we can find out about important
issues better we are going to be faced
with fees that are going to be fought
out between two groups of contesting
capitalists makes you wonder who runs
this system the people the vast majority
who need it to work for them or the very
small number of people who profit off of
how the system works well the question
answers itself capitalism is a system in
which profit-making enterprises are the
dominant group for the rest of us we
live with the consequences while we are
excluded from participating in any
meaningful way on the one hand huge
corporations with vast resources to
throw into this on the other hand
consumer advocacy groups
who go around having bake sales to
collect a very small amount of money
which can't compete since it's all going
to be decided by one warring group of
companies on one hand and another
warring on the other extraordinary way
to organize an economy don't you think
next I want to turn to Germany for our
update the German city of Essen, E-S-S-E-N, Essen
got into the news last week when a local
food bank which serves 6,000 people per
week in this modest sized German city
this food bank distributes leftover or
discarded food from restaurants and
grocery stores it made the decision and
that's why they got the publicity to
stop giving food to non German citizens
in other words your need didn't
determine whether you got food your
nationality did whoa what do you say
about that not exactly your Christian
values you might think but we'll put
that one aside one critic of this
decision
Sahra wagenknecht of the Left Party in
Germany asked quote in a country as rich
as Germany are we arguing about who gets
leftover groceries and the answer is yes
exactly that's what you're arguing over
and why is this happening because
they've been cuts in all kinds of social
supports social services welfare
programs and why is that happening in
the rich country of Germany well the
answer is the same as why it's happening
in the rich countries of Scandinavia of
France of Italy and for that matter
Britain the United States and so on
here's the basic story capitalism has
abandoned those countries there's more
profit to be made by producing in China
and India and Brazil where wages are
much lower and so the capitalists have
picked up and gone over there and that
means they're in
in the United States or Britain or
France or Germany is much reduced if
they're gonna have to pay taxes they're
gonna pay them in the countries which
are on the uptick where they're making
more money where they see growth they
don't want to pay taxes in the country
from which they are departing so they
don't pay taxes and they join movements
and they pay for movements to cut back
on taxes so governments don't have
enough money and so the good people of
Essen Germany have to exclude starving
people who don't have a German
citizenship nothing was more hypocrisy a
hypocrisy or more hypocritical I should
say then a Chancellor Merkel in Germany
who said quote it wasn't good
to make that decision but she said the
situation highlighted quote the pressure
that nonprofits are facing let's be
honest which she isn't the pressure is
as capitalism moves East paying lower
wages brings much more wealth to the
people who own those businesses who
remain Americans British Germans and so
on they're making more profits because
they're paying lower wages in China than
they used to pay in Germany they don't
want to give up any of the extra wages
to deal with the consequences of moving
so they're gonna take it out on the
poorest of the poor shifting the burden
of capitalism's new direction by making
those at the bottom pick up the cost my
next economic update also highlights
something that we've talked about on
this program before it has to do with an
element and economics element of the
struggle between Donald Trump on the one
hand and stormy Daniels on the other for
those of you not familiar with stormy
Daniels I'm not going to discuss that
since I can't imagine there are too many
of you who don't know what I'm talking
about
stormy Daniels signed an agreement
apparently with agents of mr. Trump
including his personal lawyer not to
discuss the details of a love affair she
says she had with the president some
years ago
over the last week or two mr. Trump has
interned decided to sue Stormy Daniels
for 20 counts of damaging him by
breaching such a nondisclosure agreement
the press picked up that the tactic here
is a familiar one in American law
somebody Sue's you whether you're guilty
or not to be determined but the way you
defeat them is by countersuing
because then there are two kinds of
cases and the winner tends to be the one
who can afford the best and the largest
law firm to do the work to win the case
in other words it ceases being about
facts and justice and becomes about
who's got more money a porn actress
stormy Daniels or the President of the
United States you guess the outcome it's
a kind of a reminder of what the OJ
Simpson case kind of showed us too
money plays an inordinate a role if you
allow a capitalist system to produce
gross inequality it's naive to imagine
that that inequality will not find its
way into the legal system and make the
outcomes reflect the money and not the
justice of what's going on according to
the Guardian newspaper particularly of
March 16th there's a new law in the
United Kingdom in Britain that mandates
the reporting of the pay that is given
to men versus women and two different
layers of the society particularly top
executives we don't have that law in the
United States
at least not yet and the results are
really interesting and I wanted to
present them to you first for Great
Britain and these are the numbers for
the Year 2015 and 2016 so it's very
recent listen to these numbers as to the
gender difference in those years 618
thousand men in Britain earned over a
hundred and forty thousand dollars a
year let me do that again six roughly
six hundred thousand men earned over a
hundred and forty thousand how many
women earned over a hundred and forty
thousand a hundred and seventy nine
thousand do you understand
three times the number of men earn those
high salaries than the number of women
let's go even higher how many men and
women in England earned over 1 million
pounds that's the British currency per
year that would be over 1.4 million
dollars a year 17,000 men in Britain
earned that much 2000 women do in other
words all the discussion of gender
equalization all the discussion of
ending gender and sex discrimination has
not gone very far in capitalist Britain
and sadly this is all too typical I'm
bringing you the British numbers not
because they're worse than anybody else
or better but because they're typical
and we know them
other countries we don't have them quite
yet on average women in Britain get 25%
a quarter less than men finally on this
same point the Guardian did a
calculation based as best it could on
the available statistics on how men and
women do when it comes to sharing or
facing let's call it their income
situations the United States ranks 13th
in other words there are 12 other
countries where the ratio of men and
women is closer to equal than the United
States Britain is slightly worse than
the United States but roughly the same I
thought you might be interested in the
12 countries that do better that pay
women closer to what they pay men less
inequality here's the list of those 12
countries starting in the most equal and
then down getting closer to the US here
we go
Iceland Norway Sweden New Zealand
Slovenia Denmark Finland Canada
Luxembourg Switzerland Poland and
Belgium all pay people more equally for
their work we've come to the end of the
first half of economic update please
stay with us for the important and
interesting interview that is to follow
and please remember that after a short
break we will be right back.
 
 
