Do we have the Davos "elites" on the run?

Not yet. But there are signs.

The transnational corporate and political elite were back in Davos, Switzerland, from January 16-20 for their annual conclave amid the most severe crisis of global capitalism since the founding of the World Economic Forum half a century ago. In earlier years, participants in the exclusive gathering jet-setted into the Swiss resort town exuding confidence in the hegemony of global capitalism. But this time around, uncertainty over their ability to manage the crisis, maintain control, restabilize global capitalism and rebuild fractured consensus in their ranks was on full display.

The World Economic Forum served as a premier clearinghouse and planning body of the transnational capitalist class and its political allies during the heyday of capitalist globalization. But now the ruling groups appear to be in permanent crisis management. The Davos elite are acutely aware that global capitalism faces a series of interlinked crises — what the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risks Report for 2023 termed a “polycrisis.” The world is facing “inflation, cost-of-living crises, trade wars, capital outflows from emerging markets, widespread social unrest, geopolitical confrontation and the spectre of nuclear war,” warned the report. These risks are “amplified by comparatively new developments in the global risks landscape, including unsustainable levels of debt, a new era of low growth, low global investment and deglobalization, a decline in human development after decades of progress, rapid and unconstrained development of dual-use (civilian and military) technologies, and the growing pressure of climate change impacts.” Together, “these are converging to shape a unique, uncertain and turbulent decade to come,” it concluded. - Truthout

Democratic Visions January 2023

Democratic Visions is a project that's been going on for a while. You can click on the YouTube icon, and go from there, for more info.

Biden administration may have to cut some of the bullying, sanctions crap, like it or not

Stupid and ineffective sanctions, fomenting a new Cold War with China...while he's been much better than I expected on domestic issues overall, in foreign policy, except for Ukraine, Pres. Biden has been horrible. Hopefully he'll get it together, at least bit by bit.

Iran, the oil exports of which the US had devastated, seems to have increased its sales abroad by about a third, with volume rising from 669,000 mn bpd in 2021 to 900,000 mn bpd in 2022, a 35% increase, according to VOA. Most of Iran’s oil goes to China, which will need even more of it as its economy opens back up. The Iran sales to China evade US sanctions.

I conclude that virtually the only way for the US to keep economic pressure on the Kremlin in the second half of 2023 is to turn a blind eye to an even bigger expansion of Iranian exports, which could help offset the expected 0.9 million barrels a day shortfall.

In short, in the real world Washington may have to choose which country to put under maximum pressure sanctions, and it just may not be possible to do both.

Many social scientists believe that, anyway, harsh sanctions on a country devastate the middle class and make it weaker vis-a-vis the government, and so actually harm civil society activism. Iran’s protest movement would do better with fewer, not more, U.S. sanctions — especially broad ones targeting civil institutions such as the Central Bank. - Informed Comment

Regulators are preventing a crypto-fueled economic meltdown

I'd prefer to see the stuff just banned, already. But what's going on is righteous, especially if you think about what would be happening with right-wingers in charge.

The implosion of what’s been unmasked as a criminal enterprise at FTX has created a chain reaction, where lost faith, pullbacks on trading volume, and potentially similar schemes at FTX competitors are devastating the nascent asset class. It should reinforce the fact that the government’s success in keeping crypto out of the broader financial system was the most important regulatory action of the past decade. We rarely give enough credit to agencies that prevent something from happening; it’s hard to prove a negative, as they say. But if we manage to get out of this cycle without a recession, we will have the banking regulators, primarily Gary Gensler at the Securities and Exchange Commission, to thank...

Hedge funds that have done business with Binance are receiving subpoenas related to federal investigations around compliance with anti–money laundering laws. Meanwhile, the SEC, along with securities regulators in Texas, has filed objections to Binance’s acquisition of assets from a bankrupt lender named Voyager Digital.

Perhaps the most important move by the banking regulators did not involve a specific crypto firm or token. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (in early January) issued a joint statement that essentially told large banks to rethink any inkling of holding crypto assets in their portfolios. After detailing the numerous risks from crypto—including fraud and scams, misrepresentations and poor risk management from crypto companies, high volatility, legal uncertainties, and the potential for digital versions of old-time bank runs—the regulators stated: “It is important that risks related to the crypto-asset sector that cannot be mitigated or controlled do not migrate to the banking system.”

While the joint statement went on to say that banks aren’t legally prohibited or discouraged from providing any permitted services to customers, you didn’t have to read between the lines to get the regulators’ point. They don’t want to see major banks investing in a bunch of crypto at this point, and they will be watching closely any transactions of that type. “Issuing or holding as principal crypto-assets … is highly likely to be inconsistent with safe and sound banking practices,” the regulators wrote. - The American Prospect

The community college system needs a student-oriented overhaul

I had not been aware of these numbers.

On paper, starting at a community college is a great idea. Community colleges typically have open admission and are comparatively cheap or even free. Four out of five students who begin at a community college say they plan to transfer and eventually earn a bachelor’s degree or higher.

But in one of the most persistent failings of the higher education system, only about one in six of them actually succeed...

They get lost in a process for which colleges and universities often offer little guidance, causing students to waste time and money earning credits that don’t count toward a bachelor’s degree. That not only thwarts the aspirations of students and their families; it also adds costs for the state and federal taxpayers who subsidize their educations.

And new figures show that, rather than improving, the problem has been getting worse. - Hechinger Report

Yes, put an end to noncompete "agreements"

The rich man always has his whimpering, simpering propagandists proclaiming the supposedly unbeatable glories of market "freedom." Well, let's see them start living up to that.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposal Thursday to ban employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers, preventing them from moving to a competing business or even starting their own business after leaving a job. If you’re reading that and imagining that these apply to high-level developers or researchers in deep with proprietary technology, think again. One in 5 workers in the U.S. is subject to a noncompete clause, according to the FTC, coming to around 30 million workers. That’s not a legitimate business practice to protect trade secrets. It’s a strategy to control workers. - Daily Kos

Proposed Snake River dam removals would break new ground

In terms of the size of the project, that is. Dam removals have become fairly common in the U.S., but not like this.

The surgical removal of the four dams would rapidly and dramatically change the river. Federal agency reports estimate that breaching would take about two years, but up to seven years could pass before the river flushes out the built-up sediment behind the dams and finds a balance between sediment flow and water. Water levels would drop, with dams no longer keeping them artificially high. Connective streams would re-emerge. Salmon numbers may improve, and, eventually, the three hatchery operations run by the Nez Perce might be pared down.

Dam removal doesn’t guarantee a full recovery, though, given the turbulent ocean conditions and degraded freshwater quality. Habitat elsewhere is also involved — other bodies in a larger community are experiencing their own pains. Still, last year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration agreed that breaching is necessary for salmon recovery, the first time a federal agency has come to such a conclusion and an important sign of support. - High Country News

Mexico looks to stick it to New NAFTA

The article is from mid-December. I suspect there are other factors here, beyond what's noted therein. Namely, that like a lot of countries Mexico is fed up with U.S. "dumping" practices. And at least equally fed up with its agriculture being at the mercy of the ultra-exploitative greedheads of global Big Ag.

A high-level delegation from the Mexican government is in Washington today to discuss a series of bilateral trade issues, one of them being U.S. government and biotech industry claims that Mexico's intention to restrict imports of genetically modified corn in 2024 violates the new Agricultural Biotechnology provisions in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that replaced NAFTA in 2020. Three years ago, the Mexican government announced its intention to phase out the use of the herbicide glyphosate and the importation of GM corn, citing both public health and environmental reasons.

U.S. and Mexican agribusiness interests responded with a demand that the U.S. government threaten Mexico with a USMCA trade dispute, arguing that the new USMCA provisions guarantee their rights to export GM corn to Mexico. Mexico is the largest export market for US corn, nearly all of which is genetically modified. The Mexican government has shown a willingness to negotiate the 2024 deadline, delaying the prohibition on GM feed corn imports, which constitute the vast majority of US exports to Mexico. Industry representatives continue to demand trade action from the U.S. government.

But does the Mexican action actually violate the Agricultural Biotechnology provisions of the USMCA? Senior trade attorney at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Sharon Anglin Treat did a detailed textual analysis of the agreement earlier this year and concluded that Mexico is not obligated to accept GM corn exports from the United States if it has legitimate concerns about public health or the environment. - IATP