21ST CENTURY POLITICAL ECONOMY: PROSPECTS & CHALLENGES

Introduction
It is very difficult to make prognostications about the political economy during hard times amid a general climate of pessimism, but the same holds true when the economy is expanding and most people believe there is no end to the expansion. Public opinion surveys about economic conditions in the next decade and the possibility of upward social mobility indicate more pessimism on the part of most people than optimism, especially in advanced capitalist countries that one would not normally associate with pessimism about the political economy. Given that the world economy has been in contracting mode in the past five years, and socioeconomic mobility has been experiencing stagnation to downward pressure in the past thirty years, one cannot be surprised that people are pessimistic abut the near future.

Just as significant, the 'business as usual' mentality and the absence of structural changes in the political economy amid revelations of massive banking scandals and speculative schemes in every sector from mortgages to hedge funds that contributed to global economic contraction does not leave room for optimism on the part of the masses that governments ask to bailout the financial sector. In part, pessimism stems from the reality that people know they will have to bailout the corporate sector, thus sacrificing upward mobility for themselves and for the next generation.

How did we arrive at such a difficult scenario for the world economy, after all signs seemed to be optimistic when the Cold War ended two decades ago? As I argued in a recent article about the distinct possibility of an economic depression in the 2030s, to make any kind of a rational assessment about the rest of the century is impossible. Nevertheless, structural aspects of the political economy's record of the past and present indicate that at least the first half or so may be very turbulent and it could cause social and political instability of a great magnitude. The world economy could experience an upturn in the second half of the century, but only intermittently if there are no systemic changes. There are legitimate questions to ask about where the global economy is headed in the 21st century:

1. Sustainable growth or long-term contraction?
Can the level of steady growth and development that the US, Japan and Western Europe experienced during the early Cold War, or the kind of growth that China, India and Brazil experienced in the last two decades be sustainable and carry with it the rest of the world economy? Was such growth  achieved at the expense of periphery nations exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods, and could the uneven trade and income relationship on a world scale continue to provide sustainable development in the 21st century? Some believe this would be the case, but if the basic geographic and socioeconomic structure does not change, is it not reasonable to conclude the same problems will exist down the road, thus precipitating contraction within spurts of growth regionally instead of sustainable growth globally?

2. Globalization under the Neo-Liberal Model.
Will the era of globalization under the neo-liberal model persist, regardless of its detrimental impact on the welfare state and on laboring and middle class incomes? If the current model does not persist, will there be a trend toward regional blocs that will become increasingly protectionist? Will there be new models of integration in Europe and US to compete with China, or will there be increased tendency toward national economic sovereignty? This a difficult question to answer, for it challenges the imagination to see how globalization under neo-liberalism can proceed without precipitating self-destructive tendencies in the economy, and creating extreme social and political volatility.

3. Does the Bretton Woods best serve the 21st century economy?
Will international agencies, especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank continue to play the significant role they have been in the last fifty years, or will there be a revision of Bretton Woods as the focus for economic growth shifts from West to East? Helping to manage the world economy has been easy for the IMF and World Bank because they have had the backing of governments, commercial banks and corporations behind them. How long this will last is a matter of public confidence in the political and financial institutions that back the IMF and World Bank. What if the consensus widens that these financial institutions are impediments to growth and national sovereignty, serving only very large corporate interests?

4. Concentrated Wealth and Chronic Poverty
Will there be a greater concentration of wealth or better distribution to allow for lessening of poverty and upward social mobility? Will the chronic problem of endemic poverty be solved around the world, or will it actually worsen and increasingly spread to  advanced countries as statistics currently indicate? There are optimists, arguing that endemic poverty can come to an end and upward social mobility can be realized. Maybe some day egalitarianism can be achieved, but it would have to come after systemic change in society and I seriously doubt that it will be in the 21st century that seems to be repeating some structural patterns of Imperialism in the 19th century, especially 1880-1914.

5. Global Struggle for Raw Materials
Will the struggle for water, minerals, and raw materials in general intensify and cause regional conflicts? All indications are that nations will fight on behalf of their corporation for control of raw materials and markets, using all kinds of ideological and political justifications to stake their claim. The struggle for raw materials and markets is never a ending one and it could explode into a global war in this century after a possible large-scale depression in the 2030s. However, the fear of mutual destruction owing to massive weaponry, including nuclear on the part of a number of countries, may be a deterrent.

6. What is the European Union's role in the world economy? 
At the start of this decade, the situation appears more dire for the full and associate members of the Europe Union, once the envy of the world as the most progressive integration model of a regional bloc, but on the verge of an uncertain future. In 1947, President Harry Truman realized that without a strong and stable Europe, the US could not possibly be strong politically, economically and militarily. To some degree, this remains true today in the age of even greater inter-depedence in the world economy, and with Asian economic ascendancy threatening the traditional Western balance of power. Given that the US has spent its way into a weak monetary situation owing to record public debt and balance of payments deficits, it is in no position to help stabilize Europe as it did in 1947 with the Marshall Plan. This means that the Western nations face a very serious crisis that is at its root political but manifesting itself in the economy with social and political consequences. 

7. Can Developing Nations provide the stimulus for 21st century growth?
Can Africa, Latin America and smaller Asian and Eurasian nations that account for less than 20% of the world's GDP provide the impetus for growth and sociopolitical stability in the 21st century, given that US, Western Europe and Japan seem to have reached a point of irresolvable contradictions in the political economy? The Third Third has the largest reserves of raw materials and cheapest labor with the largest potential for growth and development. Developing (or more accurately, underdeveloped nations) is where China certainly is investing for the 21st century, followed by the traditional G-7 nations also competing for markets and raw materials, especially strategic minerals.

Regional blocs, including the recently formed CELAC that includes 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries, but excludes the US and Canada, may have an impact on containing the globalization/neo-liberal momentum that swept across the world in the last two to three decades. Could regional blocs, nationalism and sociopolitical instability preclude the rapid growth and development of developing nations needed to provide a stimulus for the world economy in the 21st century? Does the fact that there is a heavy-handed foreign policy on the part of the US and its European partners help or hinder the development of underdeveloped nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East and Africa? Could the clash of civilizations - East versus West - continue to impede growth and development in the Islamic world that the US and the West has stigmatized with the war on terror?

8. Is finance capitalism at the root of economic volatility and decline? 
The combination of a number of things could mean a very difficult three to five years for the world economy, but longer-term there may be even bigger structural problems unless governments begin to do a better job of regulating, monitoring, and enforcing mechanisms of accountability. The idea of securing profits for the financial sector at the expense of the rest of society - profiting  when times are good and still profiting when times are bad - is not one that workers and the middle class will tolerate forever.

One can imagine a world in which banks and finance companies determine everything from monetary and fiscal policy to labor and social policy; a world where socioeconomic polarization is even worse than it was one hundred years ago on the eve of the Great War in 1914. This scenario does not have to play out, but given the current trends in the political economy of the West as well as other nations like Russia and India, it may be very plausible.

Society will not tolerate forever numerous banking scandals involving illegal activities, including deals with drug lords and other underground entities engaged in international weapons trade, while the taxpayer pays for bank bailouts. Perpetual manufactured speculation on government bonds that drives up rates and prevents a quick economic recovery in every sector from housing to manufacturing and keeping unemployment high is not something that society will tolerate forever.

The lack of a coordinated monetary policy on the part of central banks, with the ECB playing games with rhetoric instead of adopting a realistic monetary policy to free the regional bloc from its downward trend indicates that the creditor-debtor nation gap will impede growth and development, not just regionally, but globally. In the absence of monetary and fiscal policy intended to absorb the large unemployed and underemployed population and raise living standards does not leave room for optimism. Not only will there not be steady economic growth and development given the policies intended to concentrate capital in the top one percent of the world's population, but there will not be harmonious social and political conditions in the rest of the decade or the rest of the century.

9. Can the BRIC nations save the world economy?
So where do we go in this century, given where we have been in the past and were we are currently with the BRIC nations providing some light at the end of the economic contraction cycle? The global economy at the start of the 21st century is not off to a good start, although the notable exceptions are Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) countries with enormous potential but with the largest percentage of the world's population and the world's poor. Besides having a serious poverty problem, BRIC nations are not exactly models of social justice or Norwegian-style democracies. Moreover, they have the potential of sociopolitical instability owing to the contradiction of rapid short-term GDP growth, while the poor-rich gap persists due to a very slow upward mobility that would account for a strong middle class. In short, the 'Asian-Eurasian' miracle has a limited time span with some structural risks.

10. Is there a Science/techno fix for society?
Can science and technology provide a solution to economic problems and can science and technology alter the consumerist atomistic values that go along with the existing political economy, or is the solution strictly political? Every government and every international organization from the UN agencies to the OECD emphasize that innovation is key to societal economic and social health in the 21st century. Science and technology will make vast strides to improving the quality of life, but that quality of life would be too expensive to afford for the majority of the earth's population. Science and technology available today can solve world hunger and water shortage problems, but if it is not profitable for corporations to do so, it does not take place. Science and technology can provide medical assistance to children in sub-Saharan Africa and Central America, but if it is not profitable for pharmaceutical companies, they will do nothing. The science/techno-fix is a mirage unless policy is behind it to support its application to humanity, all of humanity.

11. Lessons from history
After the end of the Cold War, a number of scholars from around the world tried to determine what geopolitical model the world resembles, agreeing that most likely it is that of pre-1914. The world's political economy based on globalization and neo-liberalism, combined with raw US-NATO military intervention in non-Western areas as a means of resolving conflict certainly suggests that we may be back in the pre-1914 era. However, history may resemble itself but never exactly repeats itself because conditions change on a daily basis. The world of regional blocs today is very different than the spheres of influence in the pre-WWII era, or even in the Cold War eras when the Soviet bloc, the US-bloc and the non-aligned represented a certain order with a degree of predictability. Today we have very distinct signs of instability in the political economy, signs that may predict sociopolitical instability.

a. Expansionary Cycle of neo-liberalism and globalization1980-2000
 Easy credit/low interest rate era of 1980-2000 coincided with the Reagan-Thatcher launch of strengthening corporate welfare capitalism at the expense of social welfare and middle class incomes. This era was also known for neo-liberal triumph and globalization embolded by the downfall of the Communist bloc. Finance capital took advantage of the impetus that neo-liberalism provided to free itself of many regulatory restrictions that had been in place as a safety net in periods of economic contraction. Although the credit economy under a regime of regulations can function to best serve a pluralistic society, the credit economy cannot possibly be blamed because finance capitalists abuse, manipulate and corrupt the credit system in order to score quick and large profits, knowing that the entire house of cards will come down crashing as it did when the Lehman Brothers case erupted to trigger the current global recession.

Despite the deep economic contraction of the market economy from 2007 until the present, neo-liberals continue to defend the exact same system that caused the contraction. Refusing to accept that capital concentration causes vast distortions as it chokes off demand and leaves surpluses that the market cannot absorb, they argue that government is at fault because government has monopoly on the money supply and the fiscal system. This is true, except that government monetary and fiscal policy follows whatever direction finance capital wishes, because the 'national interest' is currently identified with finance capitalism - to some degree even in quasi-statist China. Anything that impedes finance capitalism, such as social welfare programs and a progressive tax system, is deemed dangerous to the political economy that has proved self-destructive and ruinous to the general welfare of society.

Added to this era of ebullient neo-liberalism and globalization was the advent of China that helped to provide an immense stimulus to the world economy. That China took a global lead in capitalism, although its own brand of a mixed economy, emboldened the apologists of globalization under the neo-liberal model. What went wrong in the process of all of the global economic growth was the loosening of regulations and relaxed oversight to the degree that banks were dealing with drug international lords and illegal gun dealers, to say nothing of fixing Libor rates and manipulating the bond market through hedge funds/CDS products, buying government debt and concealing it so that creditworthiness is not impacted, etc.; all of these illegal or at the very least highly questionable activities under the watchful eye of the political class that did nothing while receiving funding to run political campaigns, or bribes to supplement personal wealth.

We are now witnessing the convergence of a number of factors accounted for the beginning of the 21st century crisis, which entailed using the public debt as a pretext to transfer income from the middle class and workers to the corporate and finance capital sector, as well as capital transfer from the periphery countries to the core where capitalism has been suffering from its worst crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Given the structure of the political economy from 1980 to 2000, which followed finance capital's directives as evidenced by fiscal and monetary policies, in essence central banks serving the markets instead of regulating them for the general welfare of society, the contracting cycle was inevitable.
 
b. Recessionary Cycle 2007-present: Public Debt Crisis and Austerity
The manufactured war on terror after the tragedy of 9/11, combined with a new wave of defense spending in the first decade of the 21st century, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost an estimated one trillion dollars, put an enormous strain on the global civilian economy. The crisis of finance capitalism promoted by the 'below prime' and other speculative enterprises caused public debt crises not just in the US and core nations (G-7), but sent public debts of many nations into risky territory that allowed for speculators to bid for higher interest rates until it became prohibitive to borrow in the free market.

Austerity policies imposed across Southern and Eastern Europe, something that was unthinkable two decades ago, suggests a heavy handed neo-imperialist direction, given that such policies have been reserved for Third World nations far too vulnerable to resist the power of core nations imposing austerity. In essence this means that the EU is creating a two-tiered economy with the strong and thus hegemonic economies on the northwest tier and the weaker and “dependent” economies in the south and east. Especially amid this crisis, creditor countries demand from weaker EU members lower taxes for direct foreign investment, fewer restrictions on capital movement, liberalization of all vital sectors of the economy, including privatization of public enterprises so that foreign investment penetrates and eventually dominates such sectors.

In return, they extend loans with interest rates higher than most home mortgages, and they saddle the debtor countries with cumulative foreign debt that will keep them perpetually dependent in every respect, from finance and trade to technology and essential pharmaceuticals. In an environment where the strong capitalist countries have been trying to perpetuate their economic, financial, monetary, trade, military, ideological and political hegemony over weaken nations the world is now experiencing a redefinition of the integration models based on some level of reciprocity. Clearly, the regional blocs were and remain in a state of realignment, as the models of integration are changing to reflect a sphere of influence scenario - as in pre-1914 - rather than mutual benefit scenario as globalization and neo-liberalism had promised.

c. Declining incomes and the specter of economic nationalism 
Statistics regarding working class and middle class incomes in most countries, including the G-7, suggest a steady decline for the past three decades or so. For example, in 1978, the US average hourly wage was $8.96 in real terms as compared with $8.57 in 2008, reflecting not just wage stagnation, but real downward socioeconomic mobility. It is estimated that 80% of the total income increase in the last three decades has been going to the top 1% of income earners, while the middle and bottom income groups resorted to increased borrowing at the same time as the public sector that was spending to buttress the corporate welfare system.

As workers and the middle class feels the downward income pressure amid rising personal debt, and as they are not optimistic about their children's future, the tendency is to become more inclined to support economic nationalism. As time passes, economic nationalism of both the left and right ideological orientations is gaining momentum at the grassroots level. Europeans are losing faith in the common currency - Southern and Eastern Europeans losing faith for different reasons than northwest Europeans. Economic nationalism is also finding expression as a reaction to globalization in Latin America and around the world, in areas where people identify globalization with the corporate structure of the G-7. It is possible that popular support for economic nationalism increases throughout the first half of this century, expressing itself in a variety of political parties, business circles and social movements. This would entail an uphill battle for the continuation of globalization under the neo-liberal model.

12. The Population vs. Resources Debate
If population were to remain frozen for the next two decades, would the world avoid a possible great depression in 2030s; even if population were to drop by one billion, and resources across the board were to rise by 20% would the capitalist economy avoid a major contracting cycle under the model of massive capital concentration, uneven economic development, speculative, parasitic and corrupt banking and corporate practices, a state fiscal structure intended to buttress finance capital?

Finally, if poverty rises during contracting cycles, why has much of the Western World experienced downward social mobility in the past four decades amid a period of economic growth? Even if the state were to do everything that finance and corporate capital requested, short of allowing people to die of starvation in the streets, is it theoretically possible that the market economy can avoid economic contractions in the future, and a major one in the 2030s?

The projections for the rise in the population from the current 7 billion to 11 billion by the middle of the 21st century, and the limited energy, water, and food resources will be a major source of global sociopolitical instability, especially since the exploitation of natural resources rests primarily in the control of Western multinational corporations. Considering that the US has just under 5% of the world's population but accounts for 25% of the world's consumption, or 5% more than China and India combined whose population is more than seven times higher than the US. It is troubling, if not the ultimate social injustice, that 12% of the world's population in North America and Western Europe currently accounts for 60% of the world's private consumption spending, while one-tird of the world people living in Asia and sub-Sahara Africa account for just 3.2 percent of the world's private consumption.

Some are optimistic that urbanization in Asia and Africa will result in higher living standards. While it is true that no rural-based economy has reached high income levels, and that rich countries are urban, it is not true that all urban countries are rich. If that were the case, Latin America with a large concentration of its population in urban areas should have been as developed as US and Canada. In the first decade of the 21st century, the average annual  urbanization growth was 2%, while in the Middle East and Africa it was 3%, and in Asia Pacific 2.7%. Concerned about rapid population growth and the lack of resources to meet the rising demand, the UN has warned about a global labor market recession especially in the underdeveloped nations and possible social unrest.
 
UN figures show that 324 cities with a population of over 750,000 has a rise of 20.0% in the last decade, with Africa, Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America as leaders. Currently at one billion people, Africa will see a doubling of its population in the next half century, thus accounting for 20% of the world's population. Multinational corporations are counting on a continued surplus labor force that will keep consumption expanding horizontally, while keeping wages low.


13. The Green Solution - Cyber-Eco-Bourgeois Revolution?
Some have argued that 21stcentury economics means thinking 'green', but I have argued that the green movement is not much more than a Trojan Horse of finance capitalism. (Green Movement: Corporate Trojan Horse) To a large degree, not just governments, but a large segment of the population chose to surrender national  sovereignty to finance capital in exchange for the promise of consumerist paradise. Prevalent in developed and semi-developed countries, the cyber-eco-bourgeoisie (1970s-present) are now on the verge of a new revolution that is redefining the foundations of bourgeois liberal democracy. There is a “cyber-eco-bourgeois revolution” currently unfolding; a systemic change not in the mode of production but in thought and way of life that is a continuation of the Enlightenment spirit. Technology and contradictions in the political economy will continue to foster the evolutionary development of this post-web middle class. The cyber-eco-bourgeoisie will become more evident once it emerges from its nascent stage and reconfigures the entire social and institutional structure just as the mercantile bourgeoisie and their successors did in their time. 

Cyberspace-Eco Social Order is inevitable with the evolution of the bourgeoisie, largely because objective conditions will bring it about. The working class or at least a segment will be co-opted into the cyberspace-eco-bourgeois movement in more conservative countries like the US and UK, where institutions are under the firm control of traditional socioeconomic and political elites. In countries with a history of strong working-class consciousness labor will maintain greater socio-political cohesion and may forge alliances with other radical groups–students and cyber-eco bourgeoisie–as a way of retaining political influence. Whether co-opted by or antagonistic to the cyber-eco bourgeoisie, the comprador bourgeoisie inside and outside the formal economy, as well as the working class and its role in society will be influenced, if not largely determined, by the new middle class. Though this is already a reality in the rapidly evolving division of labor for the most advanced countries in high-tech sectors, it will become a reality for the entire world for that is at the core of the both the mode of production and mode of technology.

14. Conclusions

a. Social Discontinuity
Capitalism has been evolving in the past five centuries and it will continue to evolve in the 21st century in order to meet the economic, social and political conditions of societies and the nation-state. Short of grassroots revolutions in the core nations spreading to the periphery, I do not see social discontinuity threatening the capitalist system for the next one hundred years. This is because the system still has enormous room to grow and expand geographically and to continue integrating more segments that are currently on the fringes but have tremendous market-based potential. None of this spells good new for social justice, just as it entails continued uneven social and economic growth on a world scale under very tenuous political and social conditions.

b. War and Revolution
In the distinct absence of political multilateral solutions to conflicts, the advanced capitalist countries will resort to militarist hegemony solutions that will impede economic and social progress. Small wars and uprisings will likely be on the rise during this century. These are always an impediment to economic growth and development, especially for the countries on whose soil the conflict unfolds. Given current trends on the political economy, wars on a small scale as well social unrest not just in developing but also in advanced capitalist countries are a certainty owing to the reality that instant information and communications systems have made people more aware of the social injustice that exists and options before them. In fact, the 21st century may experience much worse social turbulence than the second half of the 20th century. In such social uprisings, and not the kind funded from foreign governments like those in Libya and Syria, may rest the seeds of systemic change and the hope for a better future.

c. Value System Change
For culture to survive and flourish society must have a degree of shared values it is willing to wholeheartedly embrace – spiritual as Hoffman maintains or material as Marxists argue – but also prosperity even if concentrated within a small group of people, hegemonic elites that foment the growth of the education, the arts, sciences and other cultural endeavors. At the same time, hegemonic elites that essentially create and propagate the dominant or mainstream culture are invariably successful in convincing the majority of the population to revere the cultural values and aesthetic achievements emanating from it only if there is not only an idealistic ultimate goal but a practical aesthetic aspect to culture.

While economic determinism has an impact in cultural trends–in everything from elite to popular culture–economic determinism is by no means alone in shaping culture from ancient to modern times. Value system change is inevitable and with it will come systemic change. However, throughout history there are rare examples of the elites that hold power yielding it voluntarily. This means that the 21st century will go through very difficult times as societies struggle to change in order to best serve the majority of the people and not an increasingly small minority.

WESTERN HYPOCRISY IN THE ASSANGE CASE

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange has been held up in Ecuador's embassy in London for about two months, seeking asylum from the government in Quito. The allegations that Assange is facing in Sweden are sexual assault, so the Swedish government has requested that UK extradite the WIKILEAKS founder. I have written in in past that Assange is an flamboyant individual whose work does have very positive journalistic value. That Ecuador offered him asylum is a political issue, but so is the case against Assange by Sweden. Regardless of the merits of the sexual assault case against Assange, the larger issue is that Sweden would likely extradite Assange to the US where he could face a military or a special court without any due process is what could amount to a trial no different than those reserved for 'enemies of the state'.

Ecuador requested that Swedish officials and lawyers interview Assange inside the embassy in London, and that the merits of the case pending against him be made much clearer so that there is no appearance of a political witch hunt. Ecuador further asked for assurances that if he were extradited in case the evidence legitimately pointed against him, Sweden would guarantee that his human and civil rights be respected and he would not be extradited to the US to face a political trial, in essence trumped up charges related to the publication of secret documents that have proved embarrassing to US foreign policy. Sweden has refused to cooperate. The UK has similarly refused any cooperation with Ecuador in order to arrive at a political/diplomatic solution to the Assange case that the US wants to use as an example to anyone wishing to follow the type of  blatant WIKILEAKS journalism exposing government secrets. 

Ecuador has similarly asked the US for assurances that it would respect the human rights of Assange and follow international law and not deny him due process; in other words not treat him like a Guantanamo Bay terrorist. The US has refused any cooperation with Ecuador, placing government privileges to secrecy above human rights, due process, freedom of the press, or freedom of speech. In a surprising move, the UK boldly threatened that it would capture Assange, violating international law and falling into the trap of a double-standard, given that UK has been an outspoken defender of embassy compounds as integral parts of the sovereign nation they represent.

Why would Britain commit such a blunder, given that so many former UK diplomats argue this is not the way to proceed? Why would Britain knowingly risk Ecuador mobilizing the friendly nations of Latin America and others around the world against it? Why would Britain be so blatant about such a high-profile matter when it really does not impact its national interests in any manner other than the fact that Assange is in London? Even if the UK intended to storm the Ecuadoran embassy or capture Assange on route to the airport, why not just do it; why make an announcement about it and give both domestic and international critics time to mobilize and place the entire strategy in doubt?

1. Did the Foreign Office acted in such a direct manner in order to bring the issue out into the open and take the pressure off itself, while proving to the US that it 'really tried', knowing all along that it cannot possibly violate international law without consequences down the road? After all, the UK has many enemies that can easily use this case to storm embassy compounds around the world.

2. Did the Foreign Office issue a imperialist style warning to a small Latin American nation that is close to Venezuela so that it can 'fish out' the level of international support, including US and Swedish reaction? Ecuador immediately appealed to its Latin American neighbors, placing the US in a very difficult position, because an extra-continetal power has in essence threatened to violate the sovereignty of an OAS member. The US is obligated by treaty to vote with Ecuador on this issue, but it cannot, thus finding itself in a defensive position with the rest of its neighbors.

3. Did the Foreign Office act on orders from Washington, or at least in consultation after it had an agreement with Sweden to test the waters of violating international law? If so, was this intended to force the government in Quito to negotiate a solution before giving asylum? Even after Ecuador announced its decision on Assange, the Foreign Office remained committed to a negotiated settlement - in theory, while unofficial sources hint at no change in UK policy, until further notice as domestic and international mounts against London.

4. Did the UK deliberately choose this confrontation, knowing that Russia and specifically Vladimir Putin's circle would use the case to argue that the West is guilty of a double-standard and must be condemned for not respecting human rights, freedom of speech, due process, or international law? Would not other governments not so friendly to the West not do the same and with justification? Can one imagine the US or UK trying to make a human rights case against China or Iran? Would the West have any moral authority to say a word about the behavior of any government violating international law and human rights, if it is also guilty of the same crimes?

There may be other scenarios and eventually some truth will surface. For now, what we have before us is a case of a small nation accusing a former colonial power of behaving like a neo-colonial bully. Disrespecting international law, human rights, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, while resorting to force reflects poor judgement on the part of the Foreign Office, assuming the threats were in earnest and not in essence intended to rid the case by undercutting the position of the US in a sly way.

Stand up in court is the central issue for those seeking justice in this case, but what kind of court, in what nation, under what conditions, etc. so that it is genuinely a fair trial to determine guilt or innocence on the charges of sexual assault. Neither the UK or Sweden 'US puppets', for they have enormous leverage and can easily resist US pressure on issues of vital national interests, so we cannot place the UK and Sweden in the same category as a weak Third World country over which US pressure can easily work. The WIKILEAKS issue simply means that there is 'policy convergence' between US, UK and Sweden. The informed reader on the WIKILEAKS issue knows that it smells of political persecution.
 
That there has been such an immediate and immense outcry against the handling of the case by former UK diplomats, to say nothing of the media that is leaning more toward Assange and less toward the Foreign Office only helps Ecuador that has stood up to the UK and US that appear to want to violate international law but insist the rest of the world must not do so. The larger question is the one of a double-standard, or as they say in the US 'EXCEPTIONALISM' in policy - policy only applies to the smaller and weaker nations, while the great powers are exempt!

IRAN AND US QUEST FOR HEGEMONY

America's quest for hegemony, that is, pursuing a geopolitical, economic and ideological/political integrative policy  (transformation policy after WWII) from the McKinley administration to the present drives the US and its junior partners to pursue the same policy. Whether Iran today, Iraq yesterday, Vietnam in the 1960s existed or not what one needs to analyze and focus on is the policy, and not try to demonize the object of that policy in order to justify hegemony in the form of Pax Americana. ( for more see Kofas, Independence from America: Global Integration and Inequality. 2005)

If Iran never existed, another Iran-like nation would have to take its place so that the transformation policy could continue, for without it the American empire cannot justify its existence as currently constituted institutionally. Does the fact that US is pursuing transformation policy mean that Iran is a perfect state and that it does not violate human rights? Not at all the case, nor should we try to use one issue as distraction for the other; instead put both on the table for analysis. According to the UN as well as many governments and independent human rights organizations, including Israeli ones, Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinian people. Does the US adopt any punitive measures against Israel for violating human rights? Instead, the US obstructs any action in the UN, and, owing to the powerful Israeli lobby, it rewards Israel for violating human rights. What must one conclude given the blatant hypocrisy of US foreign policy?

 When the Soviet Union was about to collapse, Georgy Arbatov, intermediary of the KGB and Politburo and an adviser to Gorbachev stated that Moscow was about to do something extremely horrible to the US, namely deprive it of a long-standing enemy. Having recognized that the USSR had lost the Cold, Arbatov asked what would the US do without an enemy to justify its quest toward a global integrative policy, a very question given the domestic institutional structure was inexorably linked to the expansionist integrative policy. Well, we now know what the US did; it found a new enemy in "Islamist terrorism", broadening the definition to include any Islamic organization or regime that dares to reject the US integrative policy, and dares to declare a multidimensional foreign policy, especially one that condemns Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. This too would be fine, except that the US has found ground for convergence with al-Qaeda in a number of countries where there have been popular uprisings, including Libya and Syria.

Has transformation policy reached its limits, especially now that China and Russia are part of the global market economy, and does this mean that the US must resort to military solutions to impose transformation policy? There are those who advocate that 'war means peace' and that the US must support war against Iran, or at least permit Israel to hit Iranian targets. War advocates pushing an agenda of hegemony and destruction I can understand if their position is rooted in tangible interests of weapons manufacturers waiting to profit, security/intelligence for hire, politicians who see tangible political benefits from advocating war, and from all 'for-hire' analysts whose job is to push war in return for a paycheck.

In all honesty, I cannot understand advocates of war on ideological grounds, so I have concluded that they are:
1. delusional, refusing to see all of the bad consequences for all parties concerned;
2. suffer from some form of psychosis, owing to bad experiences in childhood or as adults as a result of detrimental personal experiences, in which case a visit to a doctor may go a long way in improving the psyche;
3. suffer from lack of knowledge about the many complex issues surrounding consequences of war;
4. suffer from an absence of morality rooted in humane and humanist values;
5. enjoy playing the devil's advocate
6. any combination from the above.

Transformation policy is finished because it has run its course and it is now bankrupting the US owing to immense defense spending that comes from selling bonds to the Chinese, Japanese and Arabs. Enlightened policies abound, but they are waiting for enlightened politicians to implement them. Neither Obama nor Romney measure up, for they are both committed to the anachronistic Cold War transformation policy.

GREAT DEPRESSION in 2030s?

It is irritating to the point of absurdity to read or listen to economists and journalists dealing with economic issues, especially in political economy and macro-economics, trying to predict the future as though they have a crystal ball. Are economic predictions, even those made with the aid of computer models, any more credible than 'psychic' predictions, or should governments, business, labor unions, and academics do some serious reflection about how to create a social and economic safety net for the next great depression? Economic predictions of the next recession or the next mega growth trend in a national, regional, or global scale notwithstanding, there are theoretical and empirical indicators that lend themselves to analysts trying to assess how and why the next recessionary or expansionary cycle in the market economy would evolve.


We do know some structural features about capitalism as it has evolved since the Renaissance when it was in its embryonic phase under mercantile capitalism spurred on by conversion from subsistence to commercial agriculture and long-distance trade. One of structural feature is that capitalism entails perpetual quest for expansion; but that does not mean endless economic growth as its apologists try convince the public ever since Adam Smith. While the market economy strengthens the capitalist class, it does not mean a steady line of upward progress for the rest of society. or wealth of nations; on the contrary, social equality and social justice along with uneven international economic growth and development are sacrificed for capitalism to function.


Rooted in capital accumulation and social hierarchy, the capitalist system operates in small and larger cycles of expansion and contraction, small expansionary cycles that may last 3-6 years, followed by contraction that may last 2-3 years - economic cycles may last longer and should not be identified strictly with business cycles, though the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are larger expansionary cycles as in the 1880s, followed by contraction of the 1890s - 1920s followed by the 1930s. Within the expansionary cycles there are small downturns just as within the contracting cycles there are  mini expansions. There are also mega expansionary and recessionary cycles that last for many decades, if not more than a century.


Variables that impact expansion and contraction are mainly found in the market itself that has the capacity to absorb what is produced. The state also has a catalytic role, for without its intervention through central banks and fiscal policy, as well as advocating for international market expansion, capitalism cannot survive, especially in today's world of welfare capitalism in some countries, quasi-statism in others, and a mix of both in others. The state has always been the key player in the market economy that has never wanted state intervention except when it came to serving its interests in expansion or rescue.


Besides social polarization inherent in the market economy, uneven geographic development and asymmetrical (unfair) trade relationships between the strong national economies and the weaker ones, combined with capital concentration in the core (strongest) capitalist countries, while the the weaker ones suffer chronic balance of payments deficits results in cyclical crises. As the world becomes more integrated economically under the market economy, social inequality rises owing to super concentration of capital in a small percentage of the world's socioeconomic elites that prevail over governments catering to the market economy. Studies indicate, including those of the UN and World Bank, that from 1970 until 2010, poverty has been rising on a world scale along with geographic and social inequality, largely owing to the slow decline of the middle class in the Western World. Will the rise in poverty and downward social mobility of the middle class, especially in Western nations precipitate the next major contraction and does it signal economic and political problems that will only be resolved through widespread social unrest?


With the help of computers, it is possible to see that after the sluggish growth decade of the 2010s, we may have a more robust decade of the 2020s. This will be helped by massive developments not only in technology, renewable energy and biotech industries. The more thorough exploitation of untapped resources in underdeveloped areas, especially Africa where China among the other Great Powers, is heavily focused may help with the next expansionary cycle of the 2020s. The so-called green technologies may also provide some stimulus, although much of this is mostly a very thin public relations veneer behind which rest corporate interests and governments trying to appease the public that economic exploitation will not come at the expense of the ecosystem and the large masses of the population.


The Malthusian theorists continue to argue that the problem of poverty - rising during contracting cycles -  rests with 'too many people, too few goods and services', so if we curb population growth and consumerism...well, the problem will be solved because there will be enough for everybody. On the surface, the theory seems to make some sense, largely because people immediately associate it with the size of the family and the income it earns as analogous to support the family. If the family has sufficient income to live well for three members, all is well and good, but if there are six children, there is a problem. So is this what is wrong with the world, it has too many people and not sufficient resources, or is it a problem of distribution of those resources?


If population were to remain frozen for the next two decades, would the world avoid a possible great depression in 2030s; even if population were to drop by one billion, and resources across the board were to rise by 20% would the capitalist economy avoid a major contracting cycle under the model of massive capital concentration, uneven economic development, speculative, parasitic and corrupt banking and corporate practices, a state fiscal structure intended to buttress finance capital? Finally, if poverty rises during contracting cycles, why has much of the Western World experienced downward social mobility in the past four decades amid a period of economic growth?


Even if the state were to do everything that finance and corporate capital requested, short of allowing people to die of starvation in the streets, is it theoretically possible that the market economy can avoid economic contractions in the future, and a major one in the 2030s? It is not true that the major cause of the depressions of the 1890s and 1930s rested with governments caving in to capitalists in the previous decades, only to come back and impose some sense of rationalism on the market economy so it does not self-destruct?


It is not my intention to engage in historicist logic, but if the political economy continues on its present course of massive capital concentration and downward social mobility, the chances of a great depression in 2030s, perhaps a decade later, is inevitable. It is true that there are social and regulatory safety mechanisms that exist today to protect both the economy and society from the type of depression that took place in the 18890s and 1930s. However, as much in the US as well as as across Europe those safety and regulatory mechanisms have been eroding in the last three decades, making the economy and society much more vulnerable. 

Predatory by nature, capitalism needs regulatory mechanisms along with perpetual injections of capital transfers through the fiscal system - money collected from the bottom social classes - in order to survive. Any other scenario would mark its demise, not because of any external threats, but owing to self-destructive tendencies. I have no crystal ball that tells me we are headed for a great depression on the one-hundred year anniversary of the 1930s tragedy. All I have is the record of the past and current trends indicating that there is a very good possibility of a major economic contraction on a world scale with very serious social and political consequences if it takes place.

SLAVES TO GODS AND DEMONS - chapter V: the Curse of Eros

This historical literary novel takes the reader through a journey of mid-20th century Greece, as it reflects on the rich legacy of the classical world of paganism and Christianity.


The following link will take you to the novel's fifth chapter  "THE CURSE OF EROS"  in its completion.

http://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/5512s.pdf

http://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/5512s.pdf

EURO-CRISIS AND CRISIS PEDDLERS

The Eurozone dilemma:
Are the choices before the Eurozone between 1. a devalued euro currency or the real possibility of dissolving the common market/currency bloc, 2. a northern euro-currency versus a southern one,
3. a euro-currency for international trade and national currencies for domestic consumption, 4. other options such as a return to national currencies but retaining the trading bloc? That the accrediting agency Moody's has placed Germany among other EU creditor nations on watch for a downgrade of their triple A rating is very significant in so far as it forced Germany to defend the eurozone; but doing so proves the point that Moody's was making about the reality of an inevitable downgrade. Exactly what does all of this mean economically at the national, regional and global level? Who is propagating to exacerbate the crisis and who is profiting in this speculative market? Can the words of well-paid Nobel prize winners in economics be taken seriously, unless they have full disclosure as to their personal financial interests?

1. SPAIN: Banking, Fiscal and Social Crisis
Spain has agreed to an one-hundred billion euro bailout for its banks. That may sound like a lot, but it is not sufficient for Spain to recover, for it turns out that Spain, like Greece, has a crisis that is not merely confined to banking but impacts the state budget and real economy currently in severe recessionary more and 25% unemployment. After looking at various figures from different sources, I have concluded that Spain will have to have a haircut of its debt and additional money to service past debt, as well as operational expenses to meet budgetary needs, all of it amounting to around half a trillion euros, or one-quarter of the European Central Bank reserves.

This may sound like an astounding figure, but if one considers that Greece has already absorbed a quarter of trillion between 2010 and 2012, the figure for Spain may actually be very low. The 10-year bond is trading at extremely high levels (7.5%) that cannot be supported from domestic assets. Speculators are waiting in the wings to make money from the Spanish crisis, assuming that the IMF, European Central Bank, US, and Germany allow for such a scenario to unfold unchecked. If these funds (roughly half-a-trillion) are not made available, Spain will have to revert to a national currency, thus taking down with it all of the eurozone; to say nothing of the fact that Spain may have explosive social unrest that could trigger a European-wide movement against the austerity regime that the banks, IMF and Germany are imposing on the rest of Europe. Does this mean that the EU must come up with half-a-trillion euros, otherwise there is a chronic problem? Only an announcement is needed that the EU stands behind Spain to meet its monetary needs, and that will calm the markets.

2.  ITALY vs. GERMANY
The situation in Italy is even worse than Spain, partly because Italy is in the G-8, enjoying one-quarter of the eurozone's GDP, wish sufficient leverage to bring down the entire eurozone, if it does not secure EU cooperation on how to fix its fiscal problems. Italy's economy is even more integrated into the EU than Spain and while it may not be at the boiling point like Spain in terms of a banking and social crisis, it is not far behind. Because it has a two-trillion euro economy and sovereign debt that cannot be supported without massive austerity measures and foreign injections of capital, Italy will need twice the bailout money that Spain will. In short, between Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland, the entire reserve fund of the European Central bank estimated at two trillion euros will be gone in a single day.

How can Germany save Italy to preserve the eurozone, other than to make money much cheaper, with the exchange rate well below one euro to the dollar? Growth for the balance of the decade will be slow, so the only other option within the eurozone model is to let the printing presses work overtime -  the current exchange rate reflects this is where things are headed, but we have a long way to go with another 10 to 30 percent devaluation of the euro. Does Italy have a choice but to force Germany to devalue the euro? When the US, followed by France and UK withdrew money from Germany on the eve of the Great Depression, the result of such retrenchment was a worsening of the crisis. Can Germany afford to disengage just because it wants to make greater profits from a higher exchange rate?

3. GREECE: Apocalypse Now!
We come to the poster-child of the eurozone crisis, Greece that has a debt of 365 billion euros, a GDP of around 200 billion, and no chance in hell of reducing its debt, mostly foreign-held, down to 120% of GDP by 2020. Currently, Greece is hoping to sell assets to make some headway, but even if it sold everything the public sector owns and that is profitable, it would still have a problem with the public debt, which cannot come below 120% of GDP by 2020. Contrary to what the IMF has been promising in the past two years, Greece has been sinking into deeper debt, deeper economic and social crisis and political polarization where the middle class sees no solution but in leftist and extreme right wing political parties. Former IMF official, currently bank executive Panayiotis Roumeliotis, stated that: "We knew at the Fund that this program (austerity program) was impossible to be implemented because we don't have any successful example." The IMF went ahead with the EU in implementing a program that was doomed to fail from the start, and the question is why? The former IMF official went on to state that the IMF was prepared to argue that if the program failed it was the fault of the government receiving IMF-EU advice, not of the program.

The amazing thing about the failure of the IMF austerity program in Greece is that it is a repeat of what the IMF has been doing in the past six decades around the world with equally disastrous results for the real economy, but with resounding success in securing national integration into the global corporate system. The situation in Greece has served as the canary in the coal mine, though clearly the real explosion will come from Spain and Italy, while Greece remains rather insignificant with just 2% of the eurozone's GDP. If there is a social uprising in Spain, Greece will certainly follow; all of this may take place by winter 2012-2013 as tourism season will come to an end and unemployment rises across Southern Europe.

4. Conclusions
The stock and bond markets along with social and political developments prove on a daily basis that the situation in EU is very serious. Is it serious enough to bring down the eurozone and sink the world economy into another recession. On the payroll of companies that a speculating on currencies and 'shorting' securities, some economists constantly argue that a double-dip recession is upon us. I have stated in the past that I have no argument with any analysis on the part of economists like Roubini and others, as long as they disclose their sources of income and the percentage that comes from companies shorting the market. Scaring investors because they are paid and hiding behind academic credentials is more than highly unethical. It is true that all of Southern Europe and most of Eastern Europe have very serious fiscal, economic and social problems. Trying to analyze those problems and proposing possible solution is one things; trying to cash in on those problems as a propagandist is unethical and condemnatory. The eurozone needs a liberal monetary policy for the decade to lift itself out of crisis, and the sooner political and financial elites realize it the better for all concerned.

DRUG LORDS, BANKERS, AND THE STATE

One assumes that bank executives are honorable, while drug lords are criminals; bankers contribute to the economy and society in a positive manner, while drug lords are parasitic, destroyers of human lives and the social fabric; bankers represent the official economy that has the stamp of legitimacy from society, while drug lords represent the underground economy. 

What if owing to the structural weaknesses of the formal economy and the relative strength of the informal economy on a global scale there is a merging of interests between drug lords and bankers, between the formal and informal informal economies where the lines are blurred owing to money laundering operations on a global scale? What if the process of capital accumulation is no different regardless whether the money deposited in banks emanate from pharmaceutical companies or drug lords, does it mean that capital from the legitimate source is not as useful as from the illegal? If this is the case, can regulation prevent the convergence of interests between drug lords and bankers?


This is not to suggest that the average bank employee is corrupt, or that the average bank manager or executive is hardly distinguishable in deeds than a drug lord; any more than it is to suggest that banking has not provided a useful function in the world's economic growth and development in the past six hundred years. The idea here is to raise some questions that governments have been asking and some they dare not ask about the symbiotic relationship between legitimate and illegitimate money in the world of finance. 

True there have been many official reports about narcotics and banks in Florida, Cyprus, Mexico, Central America, Latin America and the Caribbean, just as there had been rumors of mega-banks of HSBC fame dealing in narcotics money laundering. Given that at least 10% of the world's entire GDP is illegitimate money - in some countries that percentage is as high as 30% - how does capital from drug lords corrupt the legitimate business of banking, politics and society?While there are excellent UN, US, and World Bank reports on narcotics and the money flow, it is very difficult to find comprehensive reports that have the road map of narcotics that traces money to large banks like HSBC and even more difficult to trace narcotics to US intelligence agencies working with foreign governments and military - Honduras, for example. By contrast, there is no shortage of reports linking the narcotics trade to any regime on the US enemy list. In short, if it were not for the fact that HSBC was laundering money for "enemy Islamic states", would we know everything about the bank's narcotics laundering operations?


It is interesting that the rise of corrupt banking corresponds with the deepening economic crisis of the political economy and the rise of narcotics trafficking in the last three to four decades. The question is whether drug lords and bankers have assumed roles of inordinate influence in society just at a time that official or formal capitalism is weakening and contraband activity assumes greater significance. As far as protesters across US and European cities are concerned, are bankers not more parasitic and destructive than drug lords? After all, drug lords have influence in Mexico, Central America, Colombia and the Andes, Caribbean, Afghanistan and coastal  West Africa, whereas bankers have a global reach. Are we now at a turning point where government is so much weaker than bankers that state regulation cannot prevail to provide a semblance of legitimacy to the financial sector, even though the links between drug lords and banks have been established for some financial institutions?

From the later Middle Ages to early Renaissance rise of banking houses in Italy until the early 21st century, banking has always had more than its share of mega scandals, especially as its significance in the economy and society has risen. This is in part because banking business deals in the movement of large sums of money deposited and loaned both from and to private and public sectors where the origin of money may not always be as clean as bankers would wish it. However, it is also the fact that so many from the world of banking/finance are in charge of ministries of finance - consider that Goldman Sachs, a company with its share of numerous scandals around the world, manages to have its former executives serving in key US and EU government positions. 

In the 19th century, the Riggs Bank in Washington made it money and reputation both as a lender and exclusive depository for the government. One of the most influential banks in financial and political circles, Riggs was instrumental in the creation of the Federal Reserve and remained a powerhouse of influence until the massive scandals of the 1970s involving the bank's role in handling deposits for Chilean military dictator Pinochet and Saudi Arabian funds used for intelligence operations. FBI discovered that Riggs in the 1970s, like HSCB in the last ten years, had been used as a catalyst to money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illegal activities, all with the full knowledge of politicians, among them the uncle of President George W. Bush serving in executive role at Riggs. In 2004, when the Justice Department fined Riggs for engaging in illegal activities, a number of other banks, including HSBS, Deuchebank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, ING, CITI, Barclays, to name only a few, were engaged in questionable if not blatantly illegal activities that included everything from money laundering from global narcotics operations to manipulating the rate banks charge each other (Libor) to insider trading and falsifying statistics. 

It is possible that the Frank-Dodd Act of July 2010 may still restore some safe guards into banking so that risks are limited, thought there are those that doubt the new set of regulations will limit the rising power of the banking lobby. Will the new act only protect the big banks and destroy the small ones, and will it be able to prevent scandals that include money laundering operations from drug cartels?

The Reagan and Bush administrations launched the deregulation machinery of banks, thus allowing banks to enjoy wider range of risks in deposits, which included drug money, as well as 'investment products' that included high risk ventures that is reminiscent of the 1920s when the banking system crashed, along with the stock market, taking down with it the entire global economy. 


It is possible that the Frank-Dodd Act (July 2010) may restore some safe guards into banking so that risks are limited, thought there are those that doubt the new set of regulations will limit the rising power of the banking lobby. Will the new act only protect the big banks and destroy the small ones, and will it be able to prevent scandals that include money laundering operations from drug cartels? What does the record show for the past two years? Has Frank-Dodd prevented a 'banking culture' rooted in questionable if not blatantly outright illegal activities? Is the answer nationalized banking system, more regulation, no regulation, including permitting money to flow in and out of banks from any source, including drug cartels, just as long as the bank keeps presenting healthy quarterly reports to investors?

Regardless of regulation, there have been many banking scandals in the last three decades, but one of the largest involves UK-based HSBC, which does business in many countries, including US and Mexico. That the bank was involved in money laundering from drug lords should not surprise anyone, because money laundering operations have been an integral part of the banking business for as long as banks have existed. After all, what is a drug lord to do with all that cash, if not store it somewhere and launder it in the process?

Besides HSBC, ING recently paid a fine of more than $600 million, a good deal lower than what will be imposed on HSBC. There are more banks waiting in the wings to have their story told about their activities with drug cartels and money from 'enemy Islamic sources'. Some may find it absurd that Vatican Bank has been involved in corruption, money laundering, mafia money and other illegal operations, but this too is an old story that makes sense only as a part of the larger question of how we distinguish legitimate from illegitimate money  (good clean Catholic money from bad mafia money) and whether there are illegal influences in the political realm behind the smiling faces of legitimacy, even if the Holy Cross hangs behind the bank executive's desk.

It is not known what amounts illegal drugs generate every year, but estimates are $18-39 billion from the Mexican and Colombian cartels alone, with the US remaining the world's biggest consumer coming in at between 25 and 30% for a population that is roughly 4% of the world. It is also estimated that drug related violence in drug producing and drug-running nations has surged, as a large percentage of the money in circulation comes from the drug trade. Of course the solution does not rest with farmers asked not to raise the high-cash coca crop, any more than the solution is 'just say no to drugs'. Legalization may be a something to consider and there are many articles that make a good case for the manner that legalization may help in some respects, but result in higher drug use. 

While the US wastes millions to fight the drug trade, it cooperates with the military and intelligence in Central America, Caribbean and Bolivarian republics which is deeply involved in the narcotics trade. If the CIA and the Pentagon have a good working relationship with military and intelligence offices in Latin America and Caribbean for security reasons, how can any money spent on fighting the drug trade be effective? How is it possible for the war on drugs to be effective if large world-class banks launder drug money? In short, how can government pursue an official policy against corruption and narcotics, but at the same time have close ties to the officials that make the drug trade possible? How can government have massive public campaigns against drug lords, but not bankers that launder drug money?