Europe’s Falling Population

 Everybody thought that 2020 would be the baby boom year. But that’s unlikely. And the reason is not the coronavirus. Elke Loichinger, researcher at Germany’s Federal Institute for Population Research (BiB), told DW that it would “be inadequate” to connect the estimated decrease in the number of births in 2020 to the pandemic. She said there was a different cause: “Already before the pandemic, the number of potential mothers, as well as the total fertility rate, has been decreasing.”

Italy recorded the widest gap between births and deaths since the Spanish flu epidemic in 1918. The country recorded an estimated 400,000 births and more than 746,000 deaths. On top of that, number of marriages fell by more than half, which suggests that there will be fewer babies in Italy in 2021.

France has noted a decrease of 1.8% in number of births in comparison to 2019.

Germany recorded zero population growth for the first time since 2011. The number of births fell from 2019, and the number of deaths increased noticeably. The estimations are that there were 755,000-775,000 births and at least 980,000 deaths in 2020.

Loichinger said the increased number of deaths in 2020 was partly connected to pandemic, but added that the overall negative deficit between the number of births and deaths is not a surprise. “We have seen this since the 1970s in Germany. More people are dying than babies are being born.”

Migration was also a reason for the changes to Germany’s population in 2020. Among other things, restrictions on international travel hampered international migration, people moved less, and as a result fewer people migrated to Germany.

“The reason that the population in Germany has not by now declined noticeably is migration,” Loichinger said, adding that with exception of few years, more people have immigrated than emigrated during the last three decades. It is expected that the population in Germany is going to decline from the mid-2020s, largely because of the effects of migration. “The future population of Germany is likely going to decline, but at what speed and in what timeframe is hard to say. It will highly depend on migration,” Loichinger said.

The same goes for the whole European Union. According to Eurostat projections, the EU’s population will peak at 449.3 million in 2026 then gradually decrease to 416.1 million by 2100.

What is certain is that “the German population is aging, with or without migration,” Loichinger said.

Coronavirus: Pandemic leads to baby bust rather than boom | Europe| News and current affairs from around the continent | DW | 13.03.2021

US Militarism

 



The US Air Force plans to order more than 600 new nuclear missile the length of a bowling lane. It will be able to travel some 6,000 miles, carrying a warhead more than 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The missile currently goes by the inglorious acronym GBSD, for “ground-based strategic deterrent.”

On September 8, the Air Force gave the defense company Northrop Grumman an initial contract of $13.3 billion to begin engineering and manufacturing the missile, but that will be just a fraction of the total bill. The government will spend roughly $100 billion to build the weapon, which will be ready to use around 2029.  $100 billion could pay 1.24 million elementary school teacher salaries for a year, provide 2.84 million four-year university scholarships, or cover 3.3 million hospital stays for covid-19 patients. 

The GBSD is designed to replace the existing fleet of Minuteman III missiles; both are intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. Like its predecessors, the GBSD fleet will be lodged in underground silos, widely scattered in three groups known as “wings” across five states. 

America’s nuclear arsenal is presently 3,800 warheads. ⁠ Russia has about 4,300 nuclear warheads, the only arsenal on par with America’s, and is also up-grading to new nukes.

William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense during the Clinton administration, argued in 2016 that “we simply do not need to rebuild all of the weapons we had during the Cold War” and singled out the GBSD as unnecessary.

And for practical purposes, such numbers are superfluous and surplus to requirements. “Once you’ve dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on a city, if you drop a couple more, all you do is make the rubble shake,” said Air Force Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Robert Latiff, a Bulletin Science and Security Board member who once commanded a unit of short-range nuclear weapons in West Germany.

James Mattis, the former Marine Corps general who would go on to become Secretary of Defense, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2015 that getting rid of America’s land-based nuclear missiles “would reduce the false alarm danger.” Whereas a bomber can be turned around even on approach to its target, a nuclear missile launched by mistake can’t be recalled.

Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (thebulletin.org)

UK Militarism

 



 A new study shows the U.K. government has increased spending on the military to $61.5-billion last year, up from $54.8-billion in 2019. 

Currently around £56.1-billion of the NHS annual budget goes on staffing costs. A 1 percent pay rise would cost approximately £561-million. That’s almost the same amount the Ministry of Defence (MOD) spent on missiles for its new fleet of F-35 Lightning fighter jets in January. A week after the missile spending was announced, the MOD said another £76-million would be spent maintaining the F-35s.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Britain now has the fourth-largest defense budget in the world, ahead of Russia, France and Germany.

Only the U.S., China and India spent more on their militaries than the U.K. , with the Pentagon accounting for 40 percent of the world’s defense expenditure.

The IISS said the Russian defense budget for 2020 was $60.6-billion, down $1-billion from 2019. Russia is 70 times the size of the U.K. and has more than twice as many inhabitants

Other spending announcements during lockdown this year include £180-million on armored vehicles for the British army, £102-million on a surveillance system for soldiers and £98-million for shoulder-launched missiles. 

The British government was likely to spend more than £200-billion over the next decade to fulfil its pledges on military procurement for equipment such as new nuclear-armed submarines, aircraft carriers and combat aircraft. In addition, other costs for the Trident nuclear weapons system could reach up to £164-billion in the 40 years to 2061.

Britain overtakes Russian military spending — but onl… (dailymaverick.co.za)

Road Pollution

 Roads occupy less than 1% of the country yet 94% of Britain has some traffic pollution above background levels. 

The most widespread pollutants are tiny particles, mostly from fossil fuel burning, nitrogen dioxide from diesel vehicles, and noise and light. More than 70% of the country is affected by all of these, with the only land to escape road pollution being almost entirely at high altitudes.

Road pollution affects 94% of Britain, study finds | Pollution | The Guardian

Warren Buffet rolling it in

 Warren Buffett has been up there near the top of the world’s wealth league for decades. Now, his net worth has exceeded $100 billion.

Berkshire Hathaway, the source of virtually all of Buffett’s wealth, has had a good start to 2021. The firm’s A shares are up 15% this year, outpacing the 3.8% gain of the S&P 500 Index. That’s been helped by Buffett’s recent push to spend record amounts buying back Berkshire’s own stock, a notable shift for an investor who has preferred to use the $138 billion cash pile to buy other businesses.  In 2020, Buffett spent a record $24.7 billion on buybacks and filings indicate he’s already bought at least $4.2 billion worth of stock through mid-February. Buffett added $1.9 billion to his fortune on Wednesday as Berkshire Class A shares hit a record high, h

The staggering amounts accumulated by the ultra-wealthy – $1.8 trillion by the world’s 500 richest in 2020 alone – highlights the K-shaped recovery that’s taking place as the U.S. emerges from the pandemic. While millions of disproportionately poor, working-class and minority people remain unemployed, the rich have seen incomes and net worth levels jump thanks to a buoyant stock market.

Meanwhile, more than 8 million Americans — including many children — fell into poverty in the second half of last year.




Quote of the Day

 For they starve the little frightened child

   Till it weeps both night and day:

And they scourge the weak, and flog the fool,



   And gibe the old and gray,


And some grow mad, and all grow bad,


   And none a word may say.



 Oscar Wilde

THE BATTLEGROUND OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE


 Socialism can only be realised by the success of the working class in its struggle against the owning class. The Socialist movement is built upon the facts of this class struggle. It is useful and necessary therefore to learn what the class struggle really is and the field in which it is carried on.

Labour Party and Capitalist opponents either viciously deny the class struggle or allege that we Socialists make the struggle ourselves by appealing to class hatred and stirring up discontent which should be left to slumber.

Added to these types of opponents we have had those who claimed to be Socialists, but who argue that there is no real class struggle of the workers apart from the Socialists who wage it.

THE FACTS OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

Classes arise in the historical march of economic evolution. They result from property divisions caused by economic change. The fact that society is made up of owners of various kinds of property and those who practically have no property, naturally leads each section to take action to protect its interests. Owners of wealth inevitably seek to hold on to their possessions and to add to them.

The great body known as the working’ class, own no wealth as a class, and are compelled to take action to protect their interests as a working and dispossessed group of men and women. The interests of the workers every day is to live as well as they can while employed by the owning class. Naturally the interests of workers and owners clash, because the owners employ the workers to get a profit or surplus out of the work done, and the smaller the proportion given to workers as wages, the more there is left for profits.

Is then the struggle between workers and employers over wages and working condi¬tions the class struggle? Is that the struggle which carries hope of victory for the workers? Is that struggle for better wages and shorter hours, etc., the real fight? Is the workshop, the factory, the mine or strike headquarters, the real final and chief battleground of the class struggle ?

THE ECONOMIC BASIS.

The workers under the present system must seek masters and obtain the best terms for the sale of their working powers. The whole working life of the working class means that they are engaged in the class struggle, a struggle to uphold the interests of their class in the daily conflict with em¬ployers.

It does not depend upon the workers’ state of mind, ignorance or alertness. The struggle is bound to exist whether it is recognised or not. The existence of a body of the population with no means of living but that of working for the group of owners —that fact alone denotes a class struggle. The workers cannot take action to seek work and wages without displaying the conflict of interests between them and em¬ployers, and the inevitable struggle that is involved in it.

THE ECONOMIC FIELD.

The continual struggle about hours and wages seems to some to be petty and in¬effectual, and they therefore deny that these daily struggles of trade unionists and other workers are a part of the class struggle. But these never-ceasing battles over details of wages and hours are the actual result of the conflict of interests, and are inseparable from the struggle of the working class to live as wage-slaves in a society which allows them no other way of living as a class.

The field of industry is therefore a battleground of the class struggle, but it is not the only one. Around the question of “the job,” and job conditions, the workers are always compelled to struggle, and always will be while there is a working class dependent upon employers for existence. The changes in hours and wages always taking place never destroy the power of the employers over the workers. Through all the variations of hours and wages, there is but, on the average, a subsistence wage for the worker, with a rapid exhaustion of his physical powers. The economic battleground of the class struggle is limited to a guerilla warfare, with no chance of a victory for the working class.

LIMITATIONS OF ECONOMIC ACTION.

On the industrial field the power of the workers to fight the employers is small to-day. The workers have practically no savings, and cannot stop work for long. To withhold their labour-power from the employers is in most cases to simply postpone their surrender.

The workers cannot stop the use of modern wages-saving machinery or speeding-up methods, and neither can they prevent amalgamations and trusts dispensing with large numbers of workers required in competitive trading.

Craft and industrial differences have helped to keep alive a narrow, sectional or trade outlook among the workers, and the industrial field with its job rivalries, does not easily promote a class outlook.

It takes much time for the various branches of workers to realise that the competition and conflict among themselves is itself a result of the position of the working class. The workers do not quickly grasp the fact that they are driven to compete with each other because the economic system of to-day reduces each worker to a seller of merchandise (labour-power) in a market where there are less buyers than sellers.

The limitations of the economic struggle are greater than ever to-day, because the employers are closely organised, and the real control in most industries is in the hands of large combines who dominate the situation. Almost every step in industrial development throws the scale heavily against the workers, who in spite of the long strikes and lock-outs are eventually defeated.

On the industrial field, too, there is the sinister and powerful factor which plays so much havoc with the workers’ efforts to fight for better conditions. That factor is the labour leader—Liberal, Labour, Com¬munist, matters not—who, for the sake of his job or to earn the goodwill of the employers—side-tracks the struggles of the worker into blind alleys and to trust in the employers.

THE POLITICAL FIELD.

The employing class maintain their supremacy in the struggle because they have control of powers which enable them to defeat the workers. That power is political. How are the great strikes of our time smashed? Not because the employers rely upon economic means, but because they make use of the law and the armed forces at the disposal of the political rulers. Every Emergency Powers Act, Trades Disputes Act, and Prosecution of Strikers, shows where the real power lies.

Beyond the mere victory in a strike, the employers have the wider and permanent victory of being still in control and possession of the means of production, etc., and that is why they so carefully and strenuously seek to retain control of the political machine.

The real success in the class struggle by the workers can only be secured if they are able to obtain control of the machinery by which the employers at present dominate. That is, if the class struggle is to be waged victoriously by the workers they must win political power, and thus get the machinery in their hands to put an end to Capitalist ownership.

The economic battlefield of the class-struggle is one therefore where the workers are bound to continually struggle within Capitalism for a bare existence.

The political battlefield of the class struggle is the only battlefield where the workers can finally win and abolish the struggle altogether by abolishing classes and Capitalism altogether.

Necessary though it is that the workers should struggle on the economic field, the most important battleground of the class struggle is on the political field. But they must become conscious of their class interests—they must fight for Socialism.

A. KOHN

(Socialist Standard, November 1928)



Hat-tip – Matt C

Profit From Patents

All over the world, the supply of coronavirus vaccines is falling far short of demand, and the limited amount available is going to rich countries. Nearly 80% of the vaccines so far have been administered in just 10 countries, according to WHO. More than 210 countries with a collective population of 2.5 billion haven’t received a single shot.

 In Bangladesh lies a factory with new equipment imported from Germany operating at just a quarter of its capacity. It is one of three factories that The Associated Press found on three continents whose owners say they could start producing hundreds of millions of COVID-19 vaccines on short notice if only they had the blueprints and technical know-how. But that knowledge belongs to the large pharmaceutical companies who produce the first three vaccines authorized by countries including Britain, the European Union and the U.S. — Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca. The factories are all still awaiting responses. Across Africa and Southeast Asia, governments and aid groups, as well as the WHO, are calling on pharmaceutical companies to share their patent information more broadly. Last month, WHO called for vaccine manufacturers to share their know-how to “dramatically increase the global supply.”

“If that can be done then immediately overnight every continent will have dozens of companies who would be able to produce these vaccines,” said Abdul Muktadir, whose Incepta plant in Bangladesh already makes vaccines against hepatitis, flu, meningitis, rabies, tetanus and measles.

Pharmaceutical companies that took taxpayer money from the U.S. or Europe to develop inoculations at unprecedented speed say they are negotiating contracts and exclusive licensing deals with producers on a case-by-case basis because they need to protect their intellectual property and ensure safety. The deal-by-deal approach also means that some poorer countries end up paying more for the same vaccine than richer countries. South Africa, Mexico, Brazil and Uganda all pay different amounts per dose for the same AstraZeneca vaccine — more than governments in the European Union.

“What we see today is a stampede, a survival of the fittest approach, where those with the deepest pockets, with the sharpest elbows are grabbing what is there and leaving others to die,” said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS.

In South Africa the Biovac factory has said for weeks that it’s in negotiations with an unnamed manufacturer with no contract to show for it. And in Denmark, the Bavarian Nordic factory has capacity to spare and the ability to make more than 200 million doses but is also waiting for word from the producer of a licensed coronavirus vaccine.

The WHO set up a patent pool modeled after a platform for HIV, tuberculosis and hepatitis treatments for voluntary sharing of technology, intellectual property and data. But not a single company has offered to share its data or transfer the necessary technology. 

The other proposal is to suspend intellectual property rights during the pandemic, but has been blocked in the World Trade Organization by the United States and Europe, home to the companies responsible for creating the vaccines described as the best way to stop the spread of coronavirus. That drive has the support of at least 119 countries among the WTO’s 164 member states, and the African Union, but is adamantly opposed by vaccine makers.

“People are literally dying because we cannot agree on intellectual property rights,” said Mustaqeem De Gama, a South African diplomat who has been deeply involved in the WTO discussions.

Countries call on drug companies to share vaccine know-how (apnews.com)

Hedge Fund Manager Reaps the Profits

 Billionaire hedge fund manager Sir Chris Hohn paid himself $479m last year after his Children’s Investment (TCI) fund, recorded a 66% jump in pre-tax profits to $695m.

It is believed to be the highest annual amount ever paid to one person in Britain and equates to £940,000 a day. It is 9,000 times the average UK salary and 1,700 times the amount paid to the prime minister, Boris Johnson.

 The staggering amount was paid in dividends from TCI, the hedge fund Hohn set up in 2003, to Hohn’s personal company TCI Fund Management (UK) Limited.

The hedge fund is ultimately owned by a parent company in the Cayman Islands tax haven.

 The High Pay Centre’s Luke Hildyard, who campaigns against excessive executive pay, called for higher taxes on top earners such as Hohn. “The sources of hedge fund owner’s wealth include the profits of the companies they invest in and the funds provided by their super-rich clients,” he said. “Extreme payouts such as this demonstrate that there is considerable scope for highly profitable companies to pay their staff more, and for the super-rich individuals that either own or invest in hedge funds to pay more tax, so that everyone can enjoy better public services and a fairer, more cohesive society.”

Billionaire hedge fund boss pays himself UK record of £343m | Executive pay and bonuses | The Guardian