Viewpoint |
Bring back normalization with Cuba; the benefits will be well worth it


President Trump’s decision to roll back our opening with Cuba was disastrous. As he takes office again, he should reconsider.


Photo illustration: Brigitte Werner/Pixabay

by Lissa Weinmann
      OtherWords


Ten years ago, the U.S. and Cuba announced the start of normalization between our two countries. Americans and Cubans alike could see a bit of light through a crack in the wall of U.S. restrictions that, for six decades, have blocked normal interaction between close neighbors.

The brief opening was largely ceremonial — President Trump rolled much of it back in his first term. And only Congress can truly end the world’s longest running embargo.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, President-elect Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, embraces the same old Cold War playbook on the issue: punish Cuba, stoke chaos and civil unrest, and hope the government collapses. As far back as JFK, U.S. officials have been trapped in this irrational family feud that empowers hardliners in both governments while holding citizens here and there hostage to a bureaucratic status quo.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Two years of limited opening had a positive impact and was supported by a majority of Cuban Americans. Buoyed by Cuban government reforms and cash from families in the U.S., the island’s private sector boomed. Internet access increased and social media exploded with honest voices. American tourists flocked to the country.

Then Trump emphatically rolled this progress back — he even added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” despite a complete lack of evidence.

Today, after a brief glimmer of hope, Cubans are suffering. Hardliners have stopped the economic reform process. Confusion plagues new leaders transitioning from the Castros’ dominance. The pandemic gutted tourism, while storms and flooding ravaged crops.

The results have been predictable: An exodus from Cuba has surpassed all migration since the imposition of the embargo in 1962. At least half a million have migrated since the end of Trump’s first term — and more are on the way. The island has lost around 10 percent of its population in recent years, a staggering total.

We need to break our addiction to this big government policy that displaces people and blocks the rest of us from engaging with our neighbors. Ending the embargo would also open doors for Cuban reformers, dissidents, human rights activists, and religious leaders alike by removing the Cuban government’s excuse for its failures.

A bipartisan majority in Congress could potentially back a full lifting of the embargo. Gulf Coast states who took the big hit in the 60s when they lost a top trading partner in Cuba could be especially delighted to renew those relations.

”In a scenario of unrestricted trade, the aggregate of food and medical exports alone could amount to $1.6 billion with 20,000 associated U.S. jobs,” former International Trade Commission Chair Paula Stern PhD found in a 2000 study presented to Congress. Those numbers could be much higher today.

There would be other benefits as well.

Companies like Roswell Park in Buffalo, who had to jump through hoops to bring a groundbreaking Cuban-developed lung cancer vaccine to people in the United States, and other health care companies would finally be able to economically partner with world-class Cuban scientists on new medical advances.

For Trump, the next steps should be obvious: Avoid bloodshed. Ease the pain. Light the way to a new era in U.S.-Cuba relations.


About the author:
Lissa Weinmann is a board member of Windham World Affairs Council. She helped found and direct Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, a coalition that helped ease the embargo’s restrictions on food sales to Cuba, and directed the National Summit on Cuba. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.




Commentary |

Our tax code reward corporate price gouging. Next year, we can change that.

by Rakeen Mabud
OtherWords.org

Rakeen Mabud
Next year, we’ll have to make one of the most important decisions about the future of our economy. Will we hand more power and wealth to big corporations and the rich — or invest in a healthy and resilient economy that works for all of us?

In 2017, Republican lawmakers passed tax loopholes and cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy and big corporations. President Trump signed these giveaways into law, spiking inequality and setting off a wave of corporate profiteering.

Next year, parts of that law will begin to expire, which gives us the opportunity to make changes.

For decades, both parties have created an economy where big corporations and the wealthy aren’t pitching in like the rest of us. We’ve been sold a bill of goods known as “trickle down” economics. Trickle down goes like this: Feed the rich the best cut of meat and maybe we’ll get a bit of gristle that falls on the floor — and we’ll thank them for it.

The rich and most profitable corporations aren’t just contributing less and less to our collective coffers. They’re using their power to enrich themselves further while more of us struggle. Senator Elizabeth Warren recently described this as a “doom loop” for our tax code: the wealthy and corporations get richer from tax giveaways and then use their wealth and power to boost their profits — and then lobby for more tax cuts.

For example, the 2017 Trump tax cuts dropped the top corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent (compared to 40 percent in 1987). Supporters argued this would lead to better wages and supercharge economic growth. Instead, economic growth continued at about the same pace as before the tax breaks. And while 90 percent of workers did not see a raise, billionaire wealth has doubled.

In the same period in which corporations have enjoyed lower taxes, they’ve also raked in record profits. As my colleagues at Groundwork Collaborative have highlighted, lowering corporate tax rates actually incentivized corporate profiteering in the wake of the pandemic, as companies that overcharged us got to keep more of their winnings.

Viewpoints
Trickle down theory says these windfall profits and lower taxes should encourage companies to invest more in workers and innovation. But in an economy run by big corporations with enormous market share, that money ends up being funneled to shareholders instead of increasing worker wages, investing in new or more productive technologies, or holding critical inventories in case of a crisis.

If we want corporations to invest more in wages and productive investments, we should raise their taxes, since wages and research are mostly tax deductible.

In other words, corporate profiteering is not a foregone conclusion. Raising corporate taxes has the potential to boost investment, productivity, and economic growth — and get Americans some of their money back.

The Biden administration has taken critical steps to push back against failed trickle down economics and corporate profiteering. It capped the price of essential drugs like insulin, empowered regulators to go after corporations abusing their market power, and made historic investments in a green future. But more can be done by raising taxes on the largest, most profitable corporations.

Fundamentally, the coming tax debate is about who holds the reins in shaping our economy: megacorporations and their wealthy shareholders, or the everyday people who keep the economy humming. Next year is an opportunity for Congress to stand firm against the rich and powerful and build the economy that we want to see.


Guest Commentary |
This is a sad time in America

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


In his State of the Union address, President Joe Biden referred to an American dilemma – the shrinking Snicker’s bar. He pointed out that his Snicker’s bar purchase had less or fewer Snickers. I’m not exactly sure what a Snickers is, nuts, chocolate, sugar, the content of the bar. Size matters, when you’re hungry. It’s just a bad thing when you stop at your local convenient store to buy a soda pop and you walk out with a Snicker’s bar that cost more but has less in the wrapper. Apparently, there must be less Fritos and Cheetos in the bags as well. This is a sad time in America.

I remember buying a large bottle of coke, a bag of chips and a pastry for 25 cents. Those were the days but they are long past.

It’s an epidemic of course. It’s not just candy bars and junk food. Check the size of your fast-food hamburgers and the cost. You are paying more for less. A hundred dollars doesn’t go very far at the grocery store. American families are having a difficult time putting food on the table. A mother who cooks for her family every day is having to stretch her budge more and more.

President Biden is concerned about the problem but it’s been a growing problem for three years. It’s not getting better When does he propose to fix the problem, after he is reelected? Why not now? Or, why not over the past three years? People are hurting today. Promises of a better life if he is reelected are not reassuring to many Americans.

The border crisis is our number one issue this election. It’s not a priority with President Biden. He’s had three years to be walking that border. He’s had three years to stop the invasion of illegals and gang members into our country. His recent photo op to the border is too little too late. Joe Biden stopped the progress of the border wall. He opened the gates wide to the illegals. The results are not positive. We have major cities on the verge of economic collapse. Public schools, housing and more are suffering. Mayors are pleading for help.

Recently, Biden submitted a Border Immigration Bill to Congress that has not been approved. The bill still allows for an average of 5000 people a day over seven days to come into the United States illegally before closing the border. Or, the one-day maximum number is 8,500 entries before the border is closed. This a larger number of people than some of our rural counties in America. Over the course of a year this would amount to a city the size of Indianapolis or larger coming into our country. This is not border security, but only a continuation of Biden’s insanity.

We do need to help Ukraine. Putin is not anyone’s friend. Trump made a stupid statement about Putin attacking non-supportive NATO countries. However, the border security and Ukraine expenditures should be separate bills. If we don’t tightly secure our border our children are going to have a scary place to grow up. Sadly, we may already be in that place.


-----------------------------------------------------------

He is the author of 13 books including Uncommon Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

ViewPoint | Let's make MLK's dream a reality

By Dedrick Asante-Muhammad & Chuck Collins

This January marks what would have been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 95th birthday. Nearly a century after the late civil rights leader’s birth, it’s a good time to reflect on the work still to be done.

Just over 60 years ago, in his famous “I Have A Dream” speech at the 1963 March on Washington, King declared: “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

Sixty years on, as our report “Still A Dream” highlighted late last year, there’s been some progress. The African American community is experiencing record low unemployment, record highs in income and educational attainment, and has seen a massive decline in income poverty since the 1960s.

Despite all that, the check for racial economic equality is still bouncing. Without intervention, we found it will take centuries for Black wealth to catch up with white wealth in this country.

The 1960s were years of crucial economic progress for African Americans, even as the Black Freedom struggle faced assassinations and government suppression. In 1959, when King was 30, 55 percent of African Americans lived in income poverty. By what would have been his 40th birthday in 1969 (a year after his assassination), that poverty rate had dropped to 32 percent.

Yet this substantial progress still wasn’t enough to bridge the radical and ongoing racial economic divide between Blacks and whites. And since then, progress has slowed.


Library of Congress/Unsplash
Compared to the political and economic progress of the 1960s, the 21st century has been much less fruitful — even as the country saw its first African American president and a national recognition of police brutality through the Black Lives Matter protests. From 2000 to 2021, there was only a 3 percentage point decline in Black poverty (22.5 percent to 19.5 percent).

One modest area of progress: the unemployment rate for African Americans is no longer twice that of whites. Since 2018, Black unemployment has reached record lows of 5 and 6 percent, except during the 18-month recession caused by COVID-19. But as of 2021, Black unemployment was still about 1.8 times that of white unemployment.

The racial wealth divide was created by federal policies and national practices like segregation, discrimination, redlining, mass incarceration, and more. So it will require federal policy and national practices to close the divide.

And just as massive federal investment was necessary to develop the white American middle class, so too is it essential for a massive federal investment to bridge racial economic inequality.

Investing in affordable housing and programs designed to strengthen homeownership for African Americans will be essential. Other important policies include investments like a national baby bond program targeted at African Americans, national health care, and breaking up the dynastic concentration of wealth that’s made our country more unequal for all Americans.

Going 60 years without substantially narrowing the Black-white wealth and income divide is a policy failure. In this election year, policies that can finally bridge the Black-white divide should be at the forefront of our national debate.

Making a dream into a reality is challenging work, but it’s something our country has the resources to attain. The national celebration of Dr. King’s 95th birthday should be a time to rededicate ourselves to this work.


About the authors . . .

Chuck Collins


Dedrick Asante-Muhammad

Dedrick Asante-Muhammad is the chief of Race, Wealth, and Community at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

Chuck Collins directs the Program on Inequality and co-edits Inequaity.org at the Institute for Policy Studies. They are co-authors of the report, Still a Dream: Over 500 Years to Black Economic Equality. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.


App created to help LGBTQ+ reduce debt and increase savings

Photo: StatePoint

StatePoint Media - While many Americans have financial concerns about the future, these anxieties are far more prominent among the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ+ adults 60 and older earn less money and have more trouble paying their rent, mortgage, and other expenses than their non-LGBTQ+ peers, according to research from the Leading Age LTSS Center @UMass Boston and the National Council on Aging. SAGE, the world’s largest and oldest organization dedicated to improving the lives of LGBTQ+ elders, reports that 51% of LGBTQ+ elders are very or extremely concerned about simply having enough money to live on, compared to 36% of their non-LGBTQ+ peers.

Economic experts say that this financial security gap is a direct legacy of past governmental policies that put LGBTQ+ adults at a financial disadvantage, as well as ongoing discrimination that makes it harder for members of this community to secure employment, inclusive healthcare, family support and other fundamentals many take for granted throughout their lives and as they age.

Recent efforts are helping improve outcomes for the most vulnerable members of the community. For example, SAGECents is a digital financial wellness tool created specifically for the estimated 3 million LGBTQ+ Americans currently over 50, to help increase financial stability and reduce economic stress.

Launched in 2020, SAGECents is a collaboration between SAGE and LifeCents, a financial wellness technology and consulting firm, with the tool fully funded by the Wells Fargo Foundation.

This groundbreaking program is putting financial wellness into the palm of people’s hands. By creating a free account, SAGECents assesses each participant’s financial health, giving them much needed insights into their financial lives and a starting point to help them make financial decisions that improve their financial wellbeing. This includes information such as what benefits are available through Medicare, how to create a health proxy and a living will, and tips for increasing credit scores.

The app can also pair users with certified, LGBTQ-proficient financial counselors. Nearly 50% of SAGECents participants report saving an average of $571, more than 38% have reduced their debt an average of $591, and 39% have raised their credit score an average of 26 points. To learn more, visit sageusa.org.

“This is the generation that fought at Stonewall, and beyond, for the rights that so many of us enjoy. But sadly, this also is a generation that faced years of discrimination and underemployment and they are struggling financially in their later years,” says Christina DaCosta, SAGE chief experience officer. “Through the comprehensive resources and tools offered by SAGECents, we aim to empower and support these elders to achieve financial prosperity.”

In addition to widening access to financial tools for individuals, the Wells Fargo Foundation also supports SAGE’s efforts to break down the barriers responsible for this financial security gap, such as advocating against housing discrimination.

“At the root of the financial security gap is systemic discrimination. Tackling those issues is at the heart of our company’s efforts to create a stable financial future for members of the LGBTQ+ community,” says Ben-James Brown, Financial Health Philanthropy, Wells Fargo Foundation.

Finance, econ students have just a few days left to sign-up for annual futures trading competition

NewsUSA -- It’s that time of year again: CME Group, the world’s leading derivatives exchange, is calling on college students with an interest in finance to team up and try their hand at futures trading. Registration for its 19th annual University Trading Challenge is now open through Thursday, September 29, and there is no cost to enter.

Photo: Adam Nowakowski/Unsplash

As part of the innovative competition, teams of three to five graduate and undergraduate students from the same university are invited to learn expert techniques using a real-time, simulated trading platform provided by CQG, a leading provider of financial markets technology solutions.

Participants will trade CME Group futures and options contracts across the exchange’s main asset classes -- including interest rates, equity indices, foreign exchange, energy, agricultural products, metals and crypto.

CME Group will also provide students with educational content and market commentary, in addition to live market data and premium news articles from Dow Jones and The Hightower Report.

This year’s challenge officially kicks off on Sunday, October 2 and concludes on Friday, October 28.

"The many uncertainties in today's global economies are driving increased interest in and demand for hedging and risk management strategies," says Anita Liskey, Global Head of Brand Marketing and Communications at CME Group. "We encourage all university students who want to learn about derivatives markets and test their trading skills to participate in this unique, hands-on educational experience."

Each eligible member of the winning team will receive a $2,000 cash prize*. Additional prizes will be awarded for second through fifth place.

Student participants will also have the opportunity to attend CME Group’s Day of Market Education. This one-day forum will provide them with an exclusive look into CME Group and the derivatives industry.

CME Group is committed to educating the next generation of finance professionals on the significance of its global derivatives markets and risk management. In addition to interactive events such as the University Trading Challenge, CME Group also partners with other industry organizations to offer educational tools, such as Futures Fundamentals, a one-stop educational resource that explains the role of futures markets in everyday life. Through interactive features and rich content, the site provides risk management education for learners of all levels and helps simplify complex market topics.

To register and view details on eligibility, rules, regulations and requirements, please visit: https://www.cmegroup.com/events/university-trading-challenge/2022-trading-challenge.html.

For social media updates throughout the competition, make sure to follow #TradingChallenge2022. *Eligibility to receive competition prizes is only open to residents in the United States (US), Canada (CA) excluding Quebec, United Kingdom (UK), Germany (DE), Netherlands (NL), Switzerland (CH), Republic of Korea (KR), Taiwan (TW), and Japan (JP).

Getting a handle on bank overdraft fees

Photo: Andre Taissin/Unsplash
Overdraft fees can break your piggy bank. To help their customers, some financial institutions have increased their flexibility with regards to how and when overdraft fees are accessed and when funds are unavailable in an account.

StatePoint Media -- When your bank account balance is low, life can be stressful. For example, when it’s time to pay large expenses that can’t wait, like car loan payments or monthly rent, it’s all too easy to overdraft a bank account. This is especially true if you don't have a ready line-of-credit or a savings account you can dip into in an emergency. The current rate of inflation in the United States doesn't make it any easier either.

In fact, U.S. consumers pay billions of dollars a year in overdraft fees for covering all types of purchases, both large and small.

There is no doubt that overdraft fees serve as a pain point for many consumers, and as the issue of overdraft continues to be discussed and debated, several banks have taken different approaches in response.

Some have taken steps to address overdrafts, mostly by eliminating fees or eliminating the ability to overdraft completely.

Alternatively, PNC Bank now offers a solution that provides customers with greater control in these circumstances. Low Cash Mode, a tool that offers transparency and choices to help customers avoid fees by managing low-cash moments or mistimed payments, is a feature available in the PNC Virtual Wallet account through the PNC Bank Mobile app.

The feature notifies you when your available balance is near or below zero and gives you at least 24 hours (and often more) to bring a negative balance to at least $0 through a deposit or funds transfer before incurring a fee. It also gives you the choice of whether to pay or return certain pending checks and electronic payments when your balance is nearing negative territory.

The Value of Overdraft

The ability to choose to overdraft can help consumers avoid bigger repercussions like credit impacts and loss of access to banking that unpaid bills or late payments can cause. Allowing customers to make their critical payments – albeit for a small fee – sometimes makes a difference that helps allow them to stay in the banking system.

For example, if you opt to pay your rent or car payment – and avoid a penalty or a negative impact to your credit score by simply paying an overdraft fee – then the option to overdraft has provided a value.

“Removing the ability to overdraw an account doesn’t address the fact that many customers need to pay bills, even during temporary cash shortfalls,” says Alex Overstrom, head of Retail Banking at PNC Bank. “The key is that the consumer should be making the decision to incur or avoid fees, not just the bank.”

Control Pays Off

This level of control has demonstrated real results. PNC reports that 64% of customers who have a negative-balance event cure their account in time to avoid incurring a fee.

“Sometimes people just need a little more time to cover important expenses,” says Overstrom. “And in these moments, they should have choices to make things right.”

ViewPoint | A case for a mixed-method fix to the US economy


Anyone entering the labor market or buying cars or property this year or next will be highly affected by inflation policies.

Throughout history, sometimes the Federal Reserve, or "Fed," has altered the federal funds rate in the same direction, up or down, over lengthy eras. The Fed has also often left interest rates constant.

An example of the first was raising them from approximately 1977-1980, or cutting them from 1968-1971. An example of the second was over the Great Recession (2010-2015) - which held near 0%. Predictability gives firms expectations, causing smoother shifts in supply and demand without smaller iterations.

However, keeping rates lengthily at the same level can lead to financial instability, from: "chasing higher yield;" savings and investments imbalances; or, from larger policy changes once “shocks” arise. With the pandemic “shock,” political-economic turbulence might still be ahead, and more inflation. The 1920’s economist Irving Fisher described inflation as butter (money) spreading too far over bread (goods).

Inflation today has several culprits: monetary policies of central banks; international conflict; fiscal policies of spending bountiful government money, much of it deficit-financed; labor shortages from workers fearing the virus; and online-bought goods causing trouble coordinating ships or truck entries into ports.

The Fed, while independent, must still align itself with President Biden’s policies, which called for two infrastructure bills. With the larger bill, even moderates have to compromise, and the newly-convoluted idea that lawmakers do not have to reveal their stances makes politics more dyspeptic.

The wealth tax (on unrealized capital gains) to pay for the bill may have been unconstitutional or could have shifted investments overseas. But, raising the top income bracket was rejected, and raising the payroll tax on upper-earners was not even considered. Spending proposals, such as “free” community college, or even scholarships, or my own proposed idea for an ice-breaker vessel for the Arctic’s infrastructure, were rejected ad-hoc in behind-the-scenes negotiations. Hyper-politicized parliamentary rules took precedent over actually voting on amendments.

Undernoted in this debate, and absent from modern economic texts, is the 1960’s "balanced budget theorem," promulgated by economist Paul Samuelson. Increasing taxes and spending by similar amounts can theoretically increase short-term growth, though never attempted, but permitting an inflation focus. Yet, bills sometimes die, and Mr. Biden has not even addressed healthcare yet.

Fortunately, last year’s annual end-of-year budget crises were averted. Perhaps the Republicans saw no need to add “insult to injury,” since inflation hit. As Fisher described, perhaps butter melts faster than bread expands, in our analogy, because money is more liquid than goods, which take time to produce.

Henceforth, Mr. Powell may have lowered rates too slowly before, too quickly during, and to be seen too delayed after the pandemic. Some economists have said these were the Fed’s worst historical mistakes.

With both inflation and held-back pandemic growth presenting challenges, it might benefit the Fed to follow a third course, of short-term changing rates incrementally, from meeting-to-meeting, or quarter-to-quarter, based on changing conditions "on the ground," as military leaders say. In essence, mix the ingredients differently. The Fed did so in the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Instead of dubiously committing to raising rates indefinitely, it might be wise to keep an eye on growth, especially with the conflict overseas, as rate hikes could lead to recession- worse than the current climate.

The economy is now Mr. Biden’s, having re-nominated Mr. Powell for Chair, while nominating Lael Brainard for Vice-Chair, both now before the Senate amidst questions over Fed "insider trading," and whether the Fed should own environmentally-unfriendly assets.

Dr. Brainard could steer Mr. Powell within his newfound fixation on rate-raising. Once set, though, a mixed-method approach, as described here-to-fore, might prove most stabilizing, along with mixing policies between different tools. Also helpful for Fed policy, and for keeping rates low, would be if President Biden’s larger bill were to be revisited once growth slows, even if voted on in pieces. Parts, even those aimed at climate change, could stimulate the economy, especially if some revenues paid down debt.

A combination of all such approaches would ensure that the government gets the upcoming climate right and that the kids get their holiday baked goods just under a year from now, without a recession, but certainly with butter for everyone.

Dr. Todd J. Barry holds a PhD from the University of Southern Mississippi, and teaches economics, currently with Hudson County Community College in New Jersey, USA.

Guest Commentary: Can you imagine what it would be like if American truckers went strike?

by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator


Grocery store shelves are not like they used to be. Before the pandemic there was plenty of whatever we typically wanted. It’s not like that today.

Car dealerships have changed. Before the pandemic most dealers had plenty of new and used cars to sell. We were accustomed to browsing several lots as we shopped and compared models and prices. It’s not like that today.

When you needed your car fixed, parts were readily available or just an overnight order away. Today, you might wait three or four months for a part.

I recently looked into adding an additional heating unit to my house and was told, "Order it now and you might have it by summer."

A friend of mine ordered a small boat last August with the hopes he will have it by May or June this year, maybe.

The pandemic has changed our lives in more ways than sickness and death. The new normal is having to wait longer on what used to be so available.

If you think America’s products, food and merchandise are difficult to get now, then can you imagine if our American truckers all went on strike?

Canadian truckers have recently blocked the flow of goods into the United States. The protest follows rallies over opposition to COVID-19 mandates in cities across Canada. In a show of solidarity with a demonstration in Ottawa that has gone on for more than a week by the so-called Freedom Truck Convoy. The protests have paralyzed the Canadian capital’s business district and led the mayor to call for 2,000 extra police officers to quell the nightly demonstrations.

Several people involved in the protest Tuesday in Canada said the demonstrations had expanded from its original purpose, opposing mandates for cross-border truck drivers, and were there in opposition to all vaccine mandates, in addition to supporting truck drivers, the Windsor Star reported.

"Any delay or disruption in the supply chain creates problems, not just for agriculture but the state economy," said Chuck Lippstreu, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association, which represents businesses that support farmers, early in the closure.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, which represents the Detroit Three automakers, called for an end to the protest, citing its effect on the country’s economy. (NNY.360.com)

If the American truckers stopped driving today, the grocery stores would dry up and the movement of most everything you would want or need would not be available.

Truckers work hard. They have long hours. They sacrifice a lot by being gone so many hours, days and weeks. They deserve whatever they are paid and I’m sure in many cases are deserving of more. However, to our truckers, I have this request, please help us keep this country moving. We have enough problems in this country. A shut-down of any kind by America’s truckers would create severe hardship on the people everywhere in America.

We respect you. We appreciate you. We need you to keep this country moving. Furthermore, God bless you for what you do.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of Grandpa's Store, American Issues, and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Commentary: The Coronavirus could deepen globalization


Guest Commentary by Sreeja Kundu

by Sreeja Kundu
There is no further doubt left that the coronavirus outbreak is both an economic and a social shock that will remain imprinted on a nation’s psyche.

But the global impact of the pandemic poses a broader fundamental question: will this signal a major transition in the current neo-liberal order? Or more explicitly could the post-Covid world order witness the resurgence of the nation-state as we know it?

Genuinely watershed or pivotal moments are one of those rare episodes in history. Take your pick among- The Versailles Peace Treaty, Great Depression, Battle of the Stalingrad, or most recently the 2008 global financial crisis - all had the potential to alter the existing course of events or more significantly the status quo.

Even though, the world is yet to tide through the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic but in short term the crisis has given fuel to all various camps in the global order debate. The nationalists, anti-globalists, the China hawks and even liberal internationalists had already been experiencing a sense of urgency for their views.

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the course of life as we know it.

Third and a crucial insight derived from the Covid-19 crisis is the upsurge of the nation states.

It has crashed economies and broken health-care systems, filled hospital and emptied public spaces and has disrupted modern society on a scale that most living people had never witnessed. Given the deep economic damage and the social collapse that has unfurled because of this crisis, it is hard to see anything other than a reinforcement of a movement towards nationalism and a great power rivalry among others.

A striking example is the statement made by Wilbur Ross, the US trade advisor who believed that the virus renders the possibility that the US can’t depend on even "close allies" for its supply of essential items. His response far from being minced actually suggests that the most plausible response would be to shut the economic drawbridge.


What is surprising and perhaps unfortunate, that not just the US administration but the virus has revealed the hidden costs and the fragility of global supply chains which have prompted many to already write obituaries on globalization.

The first phase of globalization which lasted from the end of the Cold war until recently, was about free-trade agreements, building supply chains, creating an aspirational middle class through eradication of poverty and facilitating interconnectedness through digital means and mobility.

But the second wave of globalization which defines the latter part of the 21 st century has been confronted with mounting economic problems and consequent political challenges after a smooth phase of sail. The economic problems began with the 2008 financial crisis from which the world couldn’t fully recover. While economies might have become global, politics marked by nativist and populist impulses have remained national.

Is globalization waning?

One is already aware of the political backlash in the form resurgent nationalism that has taken place in both the industrialized nations and developing countries.

In this respect the coronavirus pandemic has intensified suspicion between an authoritarian regime in China and a populist administration in the US. Besides the obvious pitfalls that open-trade and integration with the global economy brings, that would be routinely flagged by populist political parties it would automatically deepen economic decoupling.

For example, some nationalists in the US and Europe already predisposed against unfettered trade, could actually flag the virus as the ultimate reason to seal the borders and bring factories back home.


Second, besides the hypernationalist narrative and the possibility of the overt geopolitical competition lies the fragility of the global supply chains. The supply chains were already under fire- economically due to rising Chinese labor cost, the US-China tariff war and the advances in technology in form of 3D-printing and automation.

Covid-19 crisis has undermined the basic tenets of manufacturing and exposed the weaknesses of the system. In other words, companies today will now rethink and possibly shrink the multi-step, multi-country supply chains that dominate production today. As Prof Richard Portes, sums it up correctly that "once supply chains were disrupted by [the virus] , people started looking for alternative suppliers at home".

Third and a crucial insight derived from the Covid-19 crisis is the upsurge of the nation states.

Unprecedented government aid and packages intended to mitigate the social and economic fallouts caused due to the outbreak and consequently the lockdown, forces a pertinent question to our minds - Is the nation-state back?

Even so, as anti-globalist might consider that the virus in China, thanks to intricately interconnected world was able to hit both the supply chain and humans in no time. Since globalization is not about movement of goods and services, but also of people, capital, technology and ideas. So intrinsically, socialist regimes would be better positioned to respond to emergencies as opposed to states that rely on a neo-liberal model.

A natural corollary is then that the high-water mark of globalization has arrived which signals radical pragmatic shifts.

The crisis so far has exposed the deep inequalities that dot our global village and tested the endemic resilience symbolized by the presence of a lamentable healthcare infrastructure in even developed nations. But that might itself open up the path for global coordination.

While on the short run the pandemic might benefit nationalists or anti-globalists by exposing the divisions, the crisis in the long run could further assist the development of the global consciousness. The more people over the world connect with each other over the same traumas over technology, the more they will be psychologically enmeshed within the community.

On an optimistic note , the coronavirus might provide the perfect fodder for the revival and perhaps lead to a deepening of globalization which had been fractured before the crisis.




About the author:
• Sreeja Kundu is business writer at Live Mint and holds a Master of Science in International Relations and Affairs from the University of Bristol.


More Sentinel Stories



Photo Galleries


Monticello Basketball vs Seneca
January 11, 2025
30 Photos

January 11, 2025
37 Photos

January 11, 2025
31 Photos

January 4, 2025
42 Photos

December 14, 2024
39 Photos

December 7, 2024
27 Photos