EU European Union Model for Future Global Standards and Regulation

EU European Union Model for Future Global Standards and Regulation

The EU European Union has attracted much criticism and pessimism on its future, mostly by outsiders and e.g. the Anglosphere with Brexit, being encouraged by ideologues and selected corporate entities plus donors, in the US, with libertarian economic interests trying to avoid constraints of trade blocs like the EU.

In fact, according to the following essay by Ullrich Fichtner with excerpts and overview from Der Spiegel magazine, and keeping in mind the local, regional, national and global positives, often via the ‘Brussels Effect’, the EU should have a both an economically and socially productive future; this essay should be compulsory reading for decision makers in the Anglo world.

‘From Brussels to the Rest of the World – How Europe Became a Model for the 21st Century

An Essay by Ullrich Fichtner

Despite its long list of crises in recent years – including the most recent vaccine snafu – the European Union has become a global pacesetter. Its laws and regulations have established global norms. This has made the bloc a 21st century model.

I. Dog Whistling the EU, Europe and the Continent

………The Continent has been portrayed as a barren mountain range of EU summits, as a garbage dump of files, as a befouled land of plenty with lakes of milk and wine. Europe in caricature is a house of cards, a ramshackle home, a burning hut, a crumbling temple. It is always in ruins……

……the EU often looks as broken as its worst enemies describe it. Cyprus single-handedly blocking European sanctions against the Belarusian dictatorship. The governments of Hungary and Poland ruthlessly undermining the rule of law. Agonizing negotiations on a common refugee policy for the Continent repeatedly concluding in shabby nothingness. A common agricultural policy – one that has been wrong for decades – cemented once again. The procurement of coronavirus vaccines descending into acrimonious, backbiting chaos, fueled by the national interests of 27 member states. In our imaginations, that is truly not what a global power looks like.

II.  The EU Continues

There have been several times in the past 10 or 12 years that the EU has been so close to the abyss that the fall seemed inevitable. The great financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 became the Greek crisis and a European sovereign debt crisis. Significant doubts were raised about the basic structures of the federation of nations – and they weren’t just coming from the right-wing populists emerging across the Continent. Financial crises became identity crises and refugee crises spiraled into existential crises. In 2016, the decision by the British to leave the EU seemed like the final nail in the coffin of a historic experiment that the peoples of Europe never learned to love.

That the situation has since become less fraught is not least due to the fact that Brexit, by not destroying it, has actually saved the EU for the time being…..

III.  Top Three Global Market

……. In terms of the EU and its 27 members, it doesn’t really matter which metric you apply: It always ranks among the top three in the world by all criteria. It is even ahead of the United States in many fields and will be able to outperform China in many respects for decades to come.

The EU is the most important export market for the U.S., India, South Africa and Russia. It is the second-largest market for China and Brazil and the third largest for Japan and South Korea.

IV.  Brussels Effect on Global Standards

Every day, miraculous things are happening around the globe of which most Europeans take no notice. Technology companies in California build their devices according to EU regulations….. ……. Regional blocs of countries in South America are organizing themselves along the lines of the EU. Laws drafted in Europe are adopted almost verbatim into national law in countries around the world…..

…..Europe’s view of data protection, as laid out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), has quickly become a global standard that no company and no country can ignore….. America’s 500 largest companies are continually spending billions of dollars to implement EU rules, and the situation is no different for the largest Asian, African and South American companies. The smartest among them are already working to reduce their carbon emissions, with an eye on the “carbon tax,” that the EU has been working on for years.

These examples lead to the equally unbelievable and correct conclusion that globalization today is actually a “Europeanization”………

V. Good EU and Global Standards and Regulations

A global player like today’s Europe has never existed in this form in the history of the world. By regulating the affairs of its internal market step by step, the EU is formulating globally effective standards along the way. Whether it’s chemicals, hazardous waste, hormone-treated meat, electronic waste, emissions standards, animal testing, antitrust, privacy, crop protection, competition or air pollution control – the EU is always somehow already there.

It sets standards and criteria worldwide based on scientific findings and equipped with recognized scientific, legal and also moral competence – even in areas where, by law, it would actually have no say. It’s not a stretch to say that the European Union makes the world a little bit better every day, a little bit cleaner, a little bit healthier, safer and more sustainable…..

VI. Smart Power

The distinction between a “soft” and “hard” power originates from Joseph Nye, the Harvard professor  ………  hard power is an absolute necessity, but adds that military power is a blunt instrument. For today’s powers, he wrote, the point is to combine soft and hard power to create “smart” power.

Nye argues that missiles and warships don’t help fight global warming, protect privacy or regulate banking……

VII. Foreign Policies

The current EU high representative for foreign affairs, Josep Borrell of Spain, has compared today’s EU foreign policy with the introduction of the euro, when – for a time – the old national currencies existed side-by-side with the new European currency. For the moment, Borrell told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper shortly before taking office a little over a year ago, EU foreign policy must coexist with national foreign policies. The point, though, is that the intersections will grow over time….

VIII. Future of the EU

Around 20 years ago, professors from Germany and elsewhere issued incessant criticism of the euro and the appalling consequences it would have for the prosperity of everyone in Europe. Now that the euro has established itself as the world’s second-most reliable hard currency, it is a position that has been essentially abandoned today.

Nor has the eternal fear of a Brussels kraken sucking all the democracy out of the member states borne out. And despite myriad predictions of the EU’s demise, that hasn’t happened either….

…..But the European Union – and in this sense it is a lot like the United Nations – is often only scrutinized for its shortcomings. The EU is frequently judged solely on its ability to act quickly and too rarely on its ability to pursue a goal step by step, with calm and perseverance. And people also often forget that the EU is a federation of 27 countries. When they are united, Europe is strong. When they disagree, even the best EU is of little help.

In the long term – meaning years and decades – the EU will be judged by whether it achieves its objectives, and it only ever sets grand goals for itself. Preserving peace, saving the world’s climate, ending the destruction of nature, protecting people, increasing prosperity, improving lives, seeking happiness.….’

For more related blogs and articles click through Asian Century, Data Protection, Economics, Environment, EU Digital Services, EU European Union, EU GDPR, Global Trade, Government Budgets, Libertarian Economics, Media, Nationalism, Political Strategy, Radical Right Libertarian, White Nationalism, WTO and Younger Generations.

EU Digital Services – BigTech and Legacy Media – NewsCorp

Presently the EU is looking into more regulation on digital services and markets, even playing field for all, limits to expansion by Big Tech, hate speech, fines, policing platforms, etc.; backgrounded by talk in Australia of regulating Big Tech more.  

The latter is not so related to the EU’s actions but is more about Rupert Murdoch’s legacy media in NewsCorp, and its overbearing influence on its peers, politics and society in Australia, while losing money and asking for subsidies.  Nowadays it is demanding constraints on Big Tech i.e. payment for NewsCorp’s (plus other oligopoly legacy media) ‘entertainment content’ and partisan political agit prop, while still attacking the public broadcaster the ABC, restricting the NBN National Broadband Network, unclear tax arrangements and having a near monopoly presence in Australia.

The following gives an overview and summary of EU initiatives from Politico:

Europe rewrites rulebook for digital age – The bloc wants to impose fines of up to 10 percent of companies’ revenue if they abuse their position in digital markets.

Many of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies could face blockbuster fines under new proposals from the European Union announced Tuesday aimed at boosting digital competition and protecting people from online harm.

The announcement represents a watershed moment for Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission, which has made so-called “technological sovereignty,” or efforts to bolster the bloc’s role in digital markets, a central piece of its legislative agenda.

Under the proposals, known as the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, large online platforms like Google, Amazon and Facebook will face new limits on how they can expand their online empires or face levies of up to 10 percent of their global revenue — potentially billions of euros — for unfairly hamstringing smaller rivals.

In the most egregious cases, EU regulators would be granted stronger powers to break up companies that flouted the bloc’s new digital rulebook.

Brussels also outlined separate fines of up to six percent of annual revenue for Big Tech companies — those with at least 45 million users across the 27-country bloc — that fail to limit how illegal material, everything from hate speech to counterfeit products, can spread across their networks…..

Digital Markets Act: Dos and don’ts

The centerpiece of Europe’s digital plans is aimed at boosting online competition in a world dominated by Silicon Valley.

As part of the proposals, the Digital Markets Act will impose new obligations on so-called “gatekeepers,” or online players that determine how other companies interact with online users, to ensure these platforms do not stop others from competing for users. The rules will cover companies offering digital services like online search, social networking, video-sharing platforms, cloud computing, internet messaging services, online operating systems, online marketplaces and advertising products.

Failure to live by these rules could lead to hefty fines up to 10 percent of a company’s global revenue, or — in the worst cases — threats to break up firms that repeatedly break the new rules, a provision that is already baked into EU law…..

Digital Services Act: Greater responsibility

Brussels also unveiled a sweeping reboot of how large platforms must police their platforms for illegal material — rules that have not been updated in two decades.

Under those separate proposals, known as the Digital Services Act, online platforms will have to do more to limit the spread of illegal content and goods. The United Kingdom published similar proposals earlier on Tuesday, while the United States is mulling its own changes to so-called content liability to force platforms to further police what is posted or sold online.

The largest platforms like Facebook, Google and Amazon will have to provide regulators and outside groups with greater access to internal data, and appoint independent auditors who will determine if these firms are compliant with the new rules.

That will require these companies to carry out yearly risk assessments over how they are stopping illegal content and goods from spreading on their networks. National regulators will be granted more powers, including the ability to levy fines of up to six percent of a firm’s annual revenue if companies flout the regulations…..

For EU officials, Tuesday’s announcements mark their latest attempt to create greater competition in digital markets and protect people online from a wave of illegal material. 

But many European politicians, tech executives and civil society groups still disagree over how best to promote those goals while still encouraging the bloc’s online economy to compete with those of the U.S. and China.

That balance — Europe pushing for greater control over the online world while also boosting its digital economy — will now take center stage.

“Now, the U.S., us, the Australians, the Japanese are part of a global conversation about how to balance things because the most important thing here is that with size comes responsibility,” Vestager said. “All business operating in Europe — they can be big ones, they can be small ones — can freely and fairly compete online just as they do offline.”

For more articles about AI Artificial Intelligence, Australian Politics, Business Strategy, Consumer Behaviour, CX Customer Experience, Data Protection, Digital Literacy, Digital or e-Consumer Behaviour, Digital Technology, EU Digital Services, EU European Union, EU GDPR, marketing strategy, media, Political Strategy, SEO Search engine optimisation, Small Business, Social Media Marketing, Taxation and Web Marketing. 

NewsCorp Australia vs. Google and Facebook BigTech

Murdoch’s NewsCorp Australia vs. Google and Facebook or BigTech

Australian media outlets led by Murdoch’s NewsCorp, Google, Facebook, (mostly) conservative politicians and commentators (catering to above median voter age demographics) are demanding payment for any use of their news content or ‘journalism’ by Google and Facebook (catering more to below median voter age demographics), including a broad based focus upon posts, indexing, shares and links; backgrounded by Google threats to withdraw Google search and some media outlets from indexing.

However, the campaign conflates several issues but also misses other related issues of importance e.g. monopoly or anti-competitive behaviour by all players, opaque financial or tax arrangements, lack of good digital regulation e.g. privacy in Australia, decline in quality journalism and diversity of views in legacy media, while NewsCorp is paywalled, backgrounded by special treatment of major media players in Australia by the governing LNP Liberal National Party (freely promoted by NewsCorp), at the expense of quality, local and independent media, and an informed society.

Following are excerpts from international and Australian media presenting a confusing array of issues, causes, solutions, and gaps, or silence.

From Deutsche Welle

‘Google vs. Australia: 5 questions and answers

Australia wants Google to pay for displaying local media content. In return, the tech giant has threatened to disable its search engine in the country. Could this confrontation set a precedent?

What’s happening in Australia?

Australia has proposed a bill that would oblige Google and Facebook to pay license fees to Australian media companies for sharing their journalistic content. Noncompliance would incur millions in fines. In response, Google has threatened to block Australian users from accessing its search engine should the bill become law.

Mel Silva, managing director of Google Australia and New Zealand, told an Australian senate committee her company had no other choice but to block access to Google’s search engine in Australia should the bill be adopted in its current form. Even though, she said, this was the last thing Google wanted.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in turn declared that his country would not be intimated, saying, “We don’t respond to threats.” He added that “Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our Parliament.”….

Why has the confrontation escalated?

Google has said it is willing to negotiate with publishers over paying license fees for content. The tech giant, however, argues Australia’s proposed law goes too far. It would oblige Google to pay not only when providing extensive previews of media content, but also when sharing links to the content. This, said Silva, would undermine the modus operandi of search engines…..

What’s at stake?

“Search engines earn considerable money from media content, whereas publishers earn little,” said Christian Solmecke, a Cologne-based lawyer specialized in media and internet law. Google, however, argues that publishers benefit from the platform, as users are directed to media content when it is indexed on the Google Newsfeed and elsewhere.

But publishers want a bigger share of the pie by receiving licensing fees. “Billions are thus at stake for Google,” said Solmecke. He doubts the tech giant will follow through on its threat and disable the search engine in Australia. “After all, that search engine is an elementary part of the digital world.”

Is the EU planning a similar law?

In the spring of 2019, the EU adopted an ancillary copyright directive. All members states must now translate the directive into national legislation and adopt national ancillary copyright laws. Akin to the proposed Australian media bill, the EU directive aims to ensure publishers gain a share of revenue earned by internet platforms like Google when sharing journalistic content. Tech companies like Google generate revenue by, for instance, placing ads next to search results.

However, the directive does not place as many demands on companies such as Google and Facebook. “European and German ancillary copyright law is and will remain more narrow than the Australian bill,” said Stephan Dirks, a lawyer specialized in copyright and media law in Hamburg. Unlike the Australian bill, the EU directive allows tech platforms to display short media snippets for free. And it does not establish an automated arbitration model, either.

European confrontation looming?

Even though EU ancillary copyright law is more limited than the planned Australian law, experts do not rule out EU member states clashing with Google….

…..Most EU member states are yet to pass their own ancillary copyright laws. It thus cannot be ruled out that Google’s threats will have an impact on national lawmaking processes, said Dirks.

Joel Fitzgibbon Helps Albo Show Who’s In Charge! (Ross Leigh, 31 Jan 2021)

Another viewpoint via AIMN Australian Independent Media Network suggesting private and dominant media vs. private and dominant digital companies, (the former are) pushing credibility on their demands for fairness when they too run monopolies, receive subsidies financial and in kind e.g. dilution of media ownership laws, reach etc….

‘Speaking of transitions, I’m still trying to get a handle on the whole Google should pay for content thing. While I think that Google is far too big and we need to be looking at ways to ensure it pays its share of tax and doesn’t take advantage of its near monopoly position, arguing that it should pay media for directing people to their site is like asking the Uber driver to pay a fee every time he brings someone to your restaurant. Whatever else, it does strike me as odd that the government is getting involved in this dispute between private companies and coming down so hard on the side of the media companies.

At least it would strike me as odd if it weren’t for the fact that the same government paid Murdoch companies to cover women’s sport and the Murdoch companies charge the ABC for the right to show it.’

‘Fakebooks in Poland and Hungary

Meanwhile in Central Europe, Poland and Hungary have launched local versions citing ‘censorship of conservative views’ as the reason versus accusations of trying to limit freedom of speech through a nationalist lens:

Local versions of Facebook have been launched in Poland and Hungary, though experience shows that technology ventures conceived with politically biased and nationalistic motives rarely succeed.

Poland and Hungary have seen the launch recently of locally developed versions of Facebook, as criticism of the US social media giants grows amid allegations of censorship and the silencing of conservative voices.

The creators behind Hundub in Hungary and Albicla in Poland both cite the dominance of the US social media companies and concern over their impact on free speech as reasons for their launch – a topic which has gained prominence since Facebook, Twitter and Instagram banned Donald Trump for his role in mobilising crowds that stormed the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6. It is notable that both of the new platforms hail from countries with nationalist-populist governments, whose supporters often rail against the power of the major social media platforms and their managers’ alleged anti-conservative bias.

Albicla’s connection to the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is explicit. Right-wing activists affiliated with the PiS-friendly weekly Gazeta Polska are behind Albicla….

……The December 6 launch of Hundub received little attention until the government-loyal Magyar Nemzet began acclaiming it as a truly Hungarian and censorship-free alternative to Facebook, which, the paper argues, treats Hungarian government politicians unfairly. Prime Minister Viktor Orban was one of the first politicians to sign up to Hundub, but all political parties have rushed to register, starting with the liberal-centrist Momentum, the party most favoured by young people.

Pal – a previously unknown entrepreneur from the eastern Hungarian city of Debrecen – said his goal was to launch a social media platform that supports free speech, from both the left and right, and is free from political censorship. “The social media giants have grown too big and there must be an alternative to them,” Pal told Magyar Nemzet, accusing the US tech company of deleting the accounts of thousands of Hungarians without reason.

While it’s unclear whether there is any government involvement in Hundub, its launch is proving handy for the prime minister’s ruling Fidesz party in its fight against the US tech giants. Judit Varga, the combative justice minister, regularly lashes out at Facebook and Twitter, accusing them of limiting right-wing, conservative and Christian views. Only last week, she consulted with the president of the Competition Authority and convened an extraordinary meeting of the Digital Freedom Committee to discuss possible responses to the “recent abuses by the tech giants”…..

Future of Farcebooks

Unfortunately for the Polish and Hungarian governments and their supporters, rarely have such technology ventures succeeded.’

For more blogs and articles about ageing democracy, Australian politics, business strategy, conservative, consumer behaviour, data protection, demography, digital literacy, digital technology, EU GDPR, media, political strategy, populist politics, SEO search engine optimisation and taxation.

Economic Growth of Transactions vs. Consumption of Resources

In recent years we have heard calls to support our environment, a solution mooted is there should be low or no zero growth in the economy, but is this a valid or even achievable approach or idea?  

This is confusing growth in the consumption of resources with growth in transactions upon which economic growth is calculated, when there can be growth with low consumption of resources.

Many subscribers to zero growth view do not seem able to explain how economic activity will not crash through zero and remain negative, nor impairing the economy, employment, spending, investment and government tax bases and budgets, hence services also in decline (many who support this are retirees with guaranteed minimum income and access to services or the outright libertarians who view social security as undeserved welfare or libertarian investors who profit from disruption and chaos).

Further, parts of the environmental movement, especially the more nativist which is focused mostly upon the eugenics based ZPG styled ‘population growth’ (ditto Sustainable Population Australia and Population Matters UK), has been calling for both low or no population growth (via immigration restrictions) and zero economic growth as a solution to environmental degradation.

Often they cite the Club of Rome (sponsored by Fiat, VW and hosted on Rockefeller/Exxon estate) promoted ‘Limits to Growth’ which was applied by Herman Daly to his ‘steady state economy theory’ (or more accurately, ideas).  This includes no or zero growth via border restrictions, tariffs, autarky, no immigration, self sufficiency, no globalisation etc. and most telling, avoid multilateral trade agreements and/or blocs.  

The latter is quite telling, while national or even multinational companies and SMEs, have to stay behind borders and within national jurisdictions with environmental regulation and taxes, many existing global and/or multinational companies e.g. fossil fuels, auto etc. can remain outside nation states and avoid same controls, hence, preclude global competition; Brexit and Trump?

More to the point, many oligarchs, expecting benefits of privilege, also leverage eugenics or worse racism in politics, to gain retail electoral support from those who do not understand, then the wholesale audience of corporate donors etc. can get their libertarian policies enacted.

Following is an indirectly related article written about understanding economics for better environmental and climate outcomes.

From Eureka Press

‘Overhauling economics to combat climate crisis

David James

There is a common error about economics that, if not corrected, has far reaching consequences. It is the widely held belief that economic growth and consumption are the same. They are not. Economic growth is an increase in transactions, the amount of money that changes hands. Consumption is the using up of resources. It is perfectly possible to have at the same time an increase in the amount of transactions, economic growth, and a reduction in the consumption of scarce resources and less despoliation of the environment.

This misconception largely came about because of a sleight of hand in the economics discipline that inflated their own importance and converted economists into something resembling modern day high priests pontificating on the state of society. To demonstrate, consider the difference between these two statements. First:

‘The Australian economy (GDP) grew by 2 per cent indicating that the country is doing well.’

Sounds good, does it not? The nation is strong, and our standard of living is on track. Then consider this statement, which is exactly the same thing:

‘The amount of transactions in Australia (GDP) rose by 2 per cent, indicating that more money changed hands.’

Not quite the same thing, is it? Money can change hands for all sorts of reasons that may or may not include consumption of scarce resources. Say, for example, there was a massive global investment in renewable energy sources that eliminates the use of fossil fuels. This would reduce consumption of scarce resources while dramatically boosting economic growth.

‘Rather than considering the environmental challenge as a fight between the political right and the political left, the focus should instead be on overhauling economics completely.’

In Australia, recent economic growth has mainly come from rising property prices — or rather the increasing value of residential land — against which banks have loaned aggressively. That consumes hardly any resources at all. The bank loans are just blips on a computer screen (a little bit of electricity). Increasing the monetary value of land consumes no resources — the land remains the same.

This is not to suggest that there is not a problem with the over-consumption of resources or pollution. Both represent a critical challenge for the future of life on earth. But to conflate it with economic growth — and, in so doing, argue that capitalism is to blame — is dangerously wrong. It turns the issue into a political one, when correcting the problem is mainly about system design and engineering.

The real destroyer of the environment is industrialisation, not capitalism. The overconsumption of resources and pollution in the twentieth century was significantly worse in communist countries than in capitalist countries. Even now, communist China has a much worse environmental record, especially in the consumption of fossil fuels, than many capitalist countries. 

Industrialisation as conceived in the last century, whether of the communist or capitalist variety, is predicated on achieving economies of scale, especially in areas like agriculture and resource extraction. This inevitably harms the environment. Such pursuit of scale, including market dominance is, in turn, the aim of global corporatism (both privately owned and government owned). Corporatism, which has a capitalist face, but in many ways it is closer to socialism, should not be thought of as the same as capitalism. It is anti-competition, supposedly the core value of capitalism.

These large corporations create destructive monocultures and use their lobbying power to control politicians and government and stop stronger environmental protections. But there is a worse effect. As the anthropologist David Graeber pointed out, corporate bureaucrats are skilled at suppressing innovative ideas, mainly by buying them and them putting them in a drawer. Corporates may carry on about innovation, but they have a powerful business interest in keeping things the same.

There are occasional new moves, though. One such is the climate crisis, where there is expected to be big money is moving. The world’s biggest sources of capital, pension funds and insurance funds, are moving in that direction meaning there will be heavy investment in what is effectively the monetising of air quality. It will, however, only address one problem, carbon emissions. The problems of pollution, waste and resource depletion are far wider than that.

To get a clear picture of the environmental challenges the word ‘capitalism’ should be jettisoned. It only exists as a descriptor because Marxism was invented as an opposing ideology. Consider some simple tests of the allegedly distinctive features of capitalism. How long have markets existed? Thousands of years. How long has money with an interest rate existed? Thousands of years. How long have property rights existed? Hundreds of years.

We are more materialist because far more of our activities are subject to monetary exchanges, but what exactly is new about ‘capitalism’ that justifies making it an ‘ism’?

Rather than considering the environmental challenge as a fight between the political right and the political left, the focus should instead be on overhauling economics completely. Bizarrely, in most schools of economics the environment is treated as an externality: not something to be included in the models. Unless we measure and cost the main problem properly allowing us to scrutinise and limit the monocultures and waste practices that are powered by the world’s large businesses and state enterprises, we will not be able to find solutions.

For more articles and blogs about ageing democracy, Australian politics, conservative, consumer behaviour, economics, environment, GDP growth, global trade, libertarian economics, limits to growth, political strategy, populist policies and science literacy.

Koch Industries: How to Influence Politics, Avoid Fossil Fuel Emission Control and Environmental Protections

In recent years it has emerged how the industrialist Koch brothers Charles and David, have amassed immense wealth, power and a network of ideological think tanks for political influence.  

This has revolved round the promotion of libertarian economics, avoidance of and/or stymying environmental and fossil fuel related policies while using a coalition of GOP Republicans voters round evangelical Christianity, conservatism, libertarianism and white nationalism, to win elections.

As suggested, journalists and writers e.g. Jane Mayer with ‘Dark Money’ and Nancy MacLean with ‘Democracy in Chains’ have investigated how the Kochs established their ‘architecture’, spread and exert their influence in the US, Anglo world and globally; now another US writer Christopher Leonard has shone some light on the same in ‘Kochland’.

Following are excerpts from an article published by the US Green Left, and written by Alex Salmon titled ‘How Koch Industries wields power for true evil’ (Issue 1254, 18/2/20)

“Anti-capitalist feelings in the United States are probably more virulent today than ever before,” billionaire Koch Industries head Charles Koch told a gathering of the right-wing think-tank The Institution for Humane Studies in 1974.

This speech was part of a decades long strategy by Charles and his brother David to shift US politics to the right to serve the interests of billionaire such as themselves.

In Kochland, Charles Leonard traces the growth of Koch industries through seven years of research. Leonard has interviewed many Koch executives, traders and even whistleblowers to peel back the secrecy of Koch Industries. He gives us a glimpse of a company that has built itself into every aspect of US life while avoiding any accountability or transparency.

Their father Fred Koch, who founded what would become Koch Industries in 1940, was an extreme right winger who helped the Nazis construct their third-largest oil refinery, which produced fuel for the Luftwaffe. Fred was also a founder member of the John Birch Society, believing that Republican president Ike Eisenhower “was a tool of the Communists”.

The Koch brothers would continue to further this right-wing project after Fred’s death in 1967. In 1980, David ran for US Vice-President for the right-wing Libertarian Party. Although he only gained 1% of the vote, the Koch brothers found political influence by contribution $245,000 to Republican senator Bob Dole. David served as Dole’s US presidential campaign chair in 1996.

However, it was Charles who was responsible for slowly building up the power of Koch Industries power from the 1970s and increasing its political influence through a network of astro-turfed right-wing organisations such as Americans for Prosperity. David, meanwhile, would launder the families names via millions in charitable donations to institutions such as the New York State Theatre at Lincoln and the Hall of Fossils at the National Museum of Natural History.

From the mid-1970s, Charles developed his long-term strategy to change the way US citizens thought about the market and the role of government. It was a four-pronged strategy consisting of education, media outreach, litigation and buying political influence. Secrecy was key, as was Charles’ personal management philosophy, known as Market-Based Management (MBM).

Anyone working at Koch Industries was indoctrinated into the MBM philosophy. MBM was used to crush union power as Koch Industries successfully undermined the Oil and Chemical, and Atomic Workers (OCAW) at Pine Bend, Minnesota in 1972-73 and the International Boatmen Union (IBU) at Georgia-Pacific, Warehouses in Portland, Oregon from 2008-16.

With their wealth, Koch Industries lobbied for tax cuts, deregulation and attacks on workers’ rights as part of its more than 40-year trend towards privatisation of everything from public education to water access.

Leonard documents how the conglomerate has committed hundred of environmental, workplace, labour violations, among others. This includes allegedly stealing oil from Native American reservations and systematic theft of oil by mis-measuring amounts removed from storage tanks.

Since 1991, Koch Industries have been funding and fuelling climate denial through various different lobbying groups. This included doing what they could to kill public transit projects because any attempts to deal with the impending climate catastrophe would stop Koch Industries from making profit at any cost.

This would culminate in 2010, with the Koch Brothers -bankrolled far-right Tea Party movement taking control of the US Congress and Senate, effectively killing any attempts to implement a carbon tax. That same year, the Citizens United ruling in the US Supreme effectively removed limits on corporate donations, benefiting the Koch brothers immensely.

Leonard writes: “During the Obama years – the years when Americans for Prosperity warned repeatedly about the threat of creeping socialism – Charles and David Koch’s fortune more than doubled once again. At the end of the Obama administration, Charles Koch was worth $42 billion. Together, Charles and David were worth $84 billion, a fortune larger than Bill Gates’.”………

For more blogs and article about climate change, conservative, economics, environment, fossil fuel pollution, libertarian economics, political strategy, populist politics, science literacy and white nationalism.