PROMOTING A CULTURE AGAINST VIOLENCE

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, J.D.

What happened in Uvalde, TX is heartbreaking, devastating, and beyond sad - the second worst school shooting in U.S. history.  But what happened in Uvalde is also not an isolated incident of violence, nor the only instance of violence in schools.  It follows a long line of school shootings over recent years.  And it should make us pause to consider why this happened, or more specifically why this is continuing to happen.

Senseless violence never fully has an answer. But it does have a combination of factors that either promote and limit its likelihood.  Those factors in America have remained the same for some time and have created a pattern even when each instance of violence has had its distinct set of contexts.

The factors that we must consider:

Weapons: Guns are the major source of violence and of school violence. While it is true that the weapons themselves may not be the cause, and also true that other forms of weapons could and would be used by some one who wanted to cause harm, still guns make it “easier” for most perpetrators to cause that harm.  Guns are more likely to be used because of the ease of accessing them.  And shootings are more likely to cause death since it only takes one bullet to kill.  And in the case of assault weapons, they are geared toward killing and injuring severely. Without clear methods to limit the access and use of guns and other weapons, they will continue to be readily available for harm.

Culture of Violence: Besides weapons themselves, our American culture has promoted violence in every form through television, movies, social media, traditional media, sports, etc.   American culture has been fixated by violence, particularly in shows, films and video games about war, conflict, crime, etc.  We are hard pressed to find films, for example, that don’t somehow depict and even promote violence. Like weapons, they may not be the direct cause for the violence, but they promote violence in a way that attaches to our psyches, and certainly to those individuals who are intent to do harm.

Lack of Political Will: Neither the Left/Democrats nor the Right/Republicans has fully demonstrated a political will to curb violence.  The Left has been rallying for gun control but has not wanted to control violence in other contexts, including in media.  The Right has skirted gun control but has not offered an alternate solution that would prevent violence using guns and other weapons. Without bipartisan efforts to create constructive systems to protect against violence, the violence will continue unchecked.

Lack of Adequate Security:  While we all want our children to go to school and enjoy their childhood without encumbrances, we live in an age when a certain degree of encumbrance may be necessary to protect our children. Whether background checks, security systems in schools, and/or security guards in school, each school can and must create a context where children can still play and learn freely, but with a higher level of certainty of their security.  It does not need to be either/or; it can be both/and.

Mental Health Awareness & Treatment: In every case of school violence, we are dealing with individuals with mental health issues.  No sane person would harm others, particularly children.  The perpetrators  disturbed minds lead them to disturbed behaviors.  And the younger they are, the more likely they will use the school context to manifest disturbed actions.  Even without great details of the perpetrator in the Uvalde community, we can gather that he has been dealing with mental health issues.  But it raises many questions: What is the source of his mental health concerns? Were these concerns previously identified, and if not, why not? How were they being or not being addressed, and also why not? Unless and until we can monitor, support, and provide treatment for people suffering from mental illness, we run the risk of allowing any one of them to snap.  And the result is either harm to themselves and/or others.  

Fraying Family and Community Bonds: For decades the American family and community have steadily shifted and declined with increases in single parent or no parent households where other family or community members step in or no one is there to step in on behalf of kids. Without the strong family and community bonds, children are becoming more isolated and less able to fit into society and social structures within society. The disconnect from family and community creates a disconnect for caring about oneself or others, which in turn increases the likelihood of causing harm to oneself or others.

Lack of Spiritual Foundation: While religion and religious groups can have its problematic elements, spirituality is a centering concept that gives individuals and communities purpose. That purpose also gives people hope. Fundamentally what is lacking from many individual lives is the sense that they matter and have a purpose for being, and as such, they lack hope. While I would advocate that Christ is the reason we have purpose and value, other faith traditions also help individuals find a sense of that purpose as well. But increasingly, our society and especially our youth are lacking that spiritual foundation.

While many other factors can also influence the perpetrator and the context for violence, these particular factors have persisted.  Without legislative, educational, and mental health changes and advances, as well as family, community, and spiritual grounding, the patterns of violence that we have seen through the years will continue.  Every school shooting is a tragedy, but every school shooting is potentially preventable.  We can not just be sad, but we can also take action. 

Our responses have to include prayer, emotional and financial support for victims and families, direct advocacy, legislative action, and other modes of action.  But we can be more than responsive to crises, but also proactive on prevention. We can be more concerted in our efforts to not only protect our children but create a culture that does not promote violence, does not allow violent means and weapons to be easily accessed, and does not allow mental illness to go unchecked.

Certainly in this fallen world, we can not prevent every crime and every violent act.  But if we can minimize the likelihood of violence, and especially against innocents and children, we can make an impact that can ensure that more of them can grow, learn, and thrive with freedom from violence. 

A CRUCIBLE FOR AN INTEGRATED GLOBAL ECONOMY

By Randall Margo, Ph.D., G.L.O.B.A.L. Board Director/Treasurer

05/17/2022

To paraphrase Clausewitz, it appears NATO's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine is to pursue economics as a continuation of war by other means. Whether this approach will yield a triumphant outcome is yet unknown, but it clearly is impeding the progress of economic integration that flourished almost unabated since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, and accelerated with China's inclusion in the World Trade Organization in 2001. The war along with the covid-19 pandemic signals a potential damaging risk to the global economy that should not go unheeded.

Globalization, for all of its perceived shortcomings raised hundreds of millions of people out of the clutches of abject poverty, generally defined as $1.90 daily income. Regrettably, hundreds of millions remain impoverished below even this meager level of subsistence. Meanwhile, global trade enabled middle class and even working class residents within developed economies the ability to purchase smart phones, computers and other items formerly considered luxury items. This mutual benefit of an integrated global economy as with all things in life came with tradeoffs, evidenced by the off shoring of manufacturing products, certain services such as call centers and computer programming, and violation of technology patents by China among others. Yet, globalization's upward trajectory seemed unrelenting, expanding by 4,100 percent, according to WTO statistics, as capital from multinational corporations and investors exploited labor savings and tax advantages by locating in developing nations. World Bank data estimated that prior to covid-19, $19 trillion of value occurred from trade in 2019, or more than one-fifth of the world's combined gross domestic product of $87 trillion.

Covid-19 provided the first assault on globalization as the world's foremost nations closed their borders and deliberately shrunk economic activity to limit the virus from spreading. It soon became apparent, however, that this approach provided a false security as most nations were critically reliant upon others for personal protective equipment and other vital products, including the ultimate development of vaccines. Consequently, placing a full moat around a national economy, even one as large and diverse as America's became unfeasible. An undesirable and unintended byproduct of these shutdowns was the breakdown of supply chains, which had evolved over decades into a smooth and inexpensive movement of goods, to accommodate a world predicated upon just-in-time inventory management practices. Struggling to regain their efficiency amid the imposition of daunting health restrictions and accompanying labor shortages, a KPMG study last year confirmed that two-thirds of corporations were rethinking and  reconfiguring business requirements to adjust for inventory shortages and rising transportation costs by adopting multiple sources for supplies closer to their major markets and a level of redundancies that will surely lead to higher costs and slower growth.

Then, just when most national economies began shedding their severe covid-19 restrictions and the global economy was starting to rebound, Russia invaded Ukraine. NATO's decision to impose economic sanctions against Russia is likely to create more serious and long-term ramifications to an integrated global economy then even the formidable covid-19 constraints. Here's why.

Although the NATO nations aligned against Russia rightfully perceive economic sanctions as a preferred alternative to direct military conflict with a country possessing a fearsome nuclear arsenal, other nations throughout the world now see how the major economic powers led by the United States can and will impose devastating financial sanctions on a particular country, even when not under specific attack themselves, or united through treaty with another sovereign country for its defense. From the standpoint of China, India, Brazil, or Iran, and multiple other nations, they sense, and in Iran's case know firsthand that what happened to Russia can happen to them. Therefore, their interest in supporting NATO sanctions at the expense of their own economic well-being is problematic, to say the least. It further raises a larger issue. Must countries that don't share the cultural and democratic values of western powers undertake their own self-interest, by either forming partnerships separate from NATO countries, or reducing their reliance on NATO countries for economic sufficiency. If the answer is yes, it's easy to envision a shrinkage in global growth, resulting in higher costs and subsequently, lower living standards for all nations. An inadvertent but likely outcome of this situation could be greater numbers of migrants attempting to flee the more impoverished countries to gain entrance to nations with greater economic wealth and opportunity.  

The case for an integrated global economy has always been that mutual benefits accrue to both consumers and buyers of all nations based on price and quality of goods and services being traded. It is truly remarkable that following the devastation of World War II, independent nations led by the United States would establish a world trade organization to facilitate an integrated rules based global economy. A popular theory during the post World War II era was that economic integration among nations would make military clashes less likely, given the substantial costs to a specific country's prosperity. Until now, that concept has generally held up among the world's more affluent nations. But, what happens when nations calculate that their independent national interests could be challenged or harmed by  economic warfare. Economic self-reliance then becomes a salient and perhaps overriding consideration.  Thus, expanding the integration of global economies in the near future will be a monumental task, as multinational corporations and independent minded nation states attempt to navigate in a world where the next pandemic or economic war can create immediate disruption. An integrated economic system that provided unparallel global growth and prosperity in human history is now being jeopardized by its own success, leaving individual nations vulnerable to Darwinian economic measures when conflict among nations occurs. Much of the world's future economic growth rests on how businesses and governments of the world  meet this changing environment.       

Dr. Margo is the author of Less Work for Less Pay: Previously served as an Adjunct Professor at Golden Gate University, Research Fellow at William Jessup University, and local government administrator.

HONORING THE LIFE AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEGACY OF PROF. DAVID WEISSBRODT

By Sosamma Samuel-Burnett, G.L.O.B.A.L. Founder/President

Nov. 15, 2021

It is with a remarkably heavy heart that I share the news of the passing of Prof. David Weissbrodt -- a man who has had a distinctively important role in my life and career, including at G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice.

Prof. David Weissbrodt was many things in my life -- beloved Professor, Mentor, Employer, Advisor, Board Director, & Friend,. I had the blessing of having Prof. Weissbrodt for several of my law school courses at the University of Minnesota Law School (1994-1997), but most notably his International Human Rights Law Course. That course set me on a path to a lifelong career focused on international human rights.

I had the opportunity to work for Prof. Weissbrodt as a law student and co-authored with him an article that appeared in the Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights. Thereafter, once he became the U.S. Member for the U.N. Sub-Commission for Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (later the U.N. Sub-Commission on Human Rights), I had another amazing opportunity to serve with him in Geneva, Switzerland through an a grant from the renowned Human Rights Center, which he had established. After graduation, I served as Development and Policy Director for Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights (now Advocates for Human Rights) which he founded and continued to serve as General Counsel. We had extensive meetings, engaged in many events, and had so many remarkable experiences together in all of these contexts.

As I continued my career in Washington, D.C., California, and now Colorado, my relationship and collaborations with David continued. By 2014, when I established my own organization, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice, David served as one of my first Board Directors and as Expert Commentator.

While we had so many wonderful educational and professional experiences together, what I enjoyed most were my visits with David and his family when I travelled to MN with my family. I was especially honored to return to the University of Minnesota for a special tribute event for David at his retirement from his full-time faculty role. It was an evening filled with the Who's Who of human rights -- and all influenced by David.

My last visit with David and his family was pre-COVID-19 and during a summer trip to MN. We had great conversations over lunch at St. Anthony Main. David's soft but strong voice had become softer, but his quick, alert mind remained sharp. But I knew that his health was wearing on him. I was so hopeful we would have just one more visit. But despite not having that opportunity, I will cherish all the remarkable years and memories we have had together.

Prof. David Weissbrodt will always be considered a giant in international human rights. But he also shared his platform and his opportunities to allow me and many others to also learn and lead in this field. For that and so much more, I am forever grateful to David.

https://law.umn.edu/news/2021-11-12-minnesota-law-mourns-passing-legendary-human-rights-professor-david-weissbrodt

Penetrating China’s Economic Riddle

By Randall Margo, Ph.D., Board Director, G.L.O.B.A.L. Justice

Winston Churchill famously remarked that "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Contemporary wisdom could similarly be offered on the present state of China given the government's harsh crackdown foisted upon several of the country's leading technology firms. Why during a worldwide pandemic causing economic turmoil, along with a multibillion dollar tariff tussle with its largest trade partner would the government unleash a severe regulatory attack on some of its largest and most successful technology companies, including Alibaba, Tencent, and Didi, wiping out hundreds of billion dollars of equity from its shareholders?

The conventional wisdom is that these technology companies became too big for their own good, and therefore, posed a systemic threat to the government due to their large wealth. But China's opaqueness may becoming transparent with the recent collapse of Evergrande, the country's largest real estate development company as more accurate information emerges to unveil the company's as well as the nation's present condition.

Note: Ratio of median apartment price to median family disposable income, as of mid-2021. Source: J.P. Morgan Asset Management Guide to China.

To wit, the chart above succinctly displays the prodigious cost of home ownership in China's major cities, far surpassing the vast sums needed in the west's most expensive cities. Clearly, these housing values are unsustainable, which is one reason why the Chinese government is not interceding to bailout Evergrande. But there is a more significant issue that ties the crackdown of major technology and the real estate predicament: the growth of technology and the cost of housing has resulted in greater income inequity within China, similar to its occurrence in the United States. Why is this a problem?

With the accession of Xi Jingping in 2012, the theme of "common prosperity" has increasingly and more fiercely been emphasized. Xi views the Chinese economic model as superior to the western model of capitalism, whereby society as a whole prospers more equitably and appropriately under a hybrid system of capitalism managed and controlled by sturdy and benevolent government leadership. The Gini-coefficient in China, which measures distribution of income on a scale of 1-100 with 1 being a totally equitable society, is 38.5 compared to Russia's 37.5, with all of its oligarchs and poverty, and comparable to the 41.1 level in the United States. Consequently, it becomes difficult for a communist government to contend its policies ultimately result in common prosperity, when its ostensibly utilitarian model of governance offers no meaningful difference from other systems regarding income inequity, while also lagging behind the standard of living of its capitalistic competitors.

The adverse effects of high technology and real estate sectors, like in America, fall primarily on the young. The real estate sector is particularly pernicious towards the young, pricing most out of the home buying market in places proximate to where the best employment opportunities exist. High technology also creates huge inequity issues. In America, Amazon, among the richest companies in the world, is about to become the nation's largest employer. Yet, the vast majority of its workers toil in fast-paced warehouses and delivery trucks for wages at or modestly above minimum wage. China's largest technology firms, including Taiwan based Foxconn, which manufactures most Apple products, mimic Amazon's approach in what Chinese employees call 9-9-6, meaning work from 9am-9pm six days a week. Meanwhile, the large mostly migrant labor force building all of China's expensive real estate projects labor 72 hours a week for pay that offers little likelihood of ever owning the increasingly expensive housing units they are constructing. All of this has given rise to discontent and cynicism among China's younger population struggling for an economic foothold in modern China.

There is one notable difference between American and China. Youthful housing aspirants in America can readily borrow upwards of 90% of the cost to purchase a house from private lenders, whereas most housing in China is purchased without borrowed funds. To the extent private credit exists, most new homeowners need to provide 40-60% of the purchase price. As a result, most homes in China are bought by existing homeowners with equity in other properties, primarily for investment, because real estate values always go up - don't they. This situation exacerbates the difficulty for first-time homebuyers in China. Moreover, as younger workers struggle to save there is less disposable income available to move its society away from an export related economy dependent upon low wages to a more affluent consumer oriented economy. It also has left China with an estimated 65 million vacant housing units.

This confluence of factors is also harmful to the formation of marriage and families, which is already under distress due to its decades long one-child policy. Unfortunately, China's elimination of its one-child in 2016 hasn't boosted its population, and in fact, produced only 1.3 children per female (15-49) resulting in just 10 million births in 2020 compared to 17.86 million in 2016. As China's population begins to shrink, its economy will likewise suffer, as we have seen in Japan.

Xi Jingping surely recognizes these circumstances and is determined to achieve his "common prosperity" goal in a manner that evades potential conflict while addressing economic issues that have been festering and undermining China's governance model. Whether it can be done is the ultimate question. Perhaps his Russian counterparts can help him unwrap this enigma.   

Cryptocurrency - Transformative or Anarchistic for Society

By Randall Margo, G.L.O.B.A.L. Board Director & Commentator

Bari Weiss, who penned a blistering letter of resignation as an editor/writer for the New York Times, recently posted a debate on Substack on the case for and against Bitcoin, Bitcoin Is Civilization - by Balaji S. Srinivasan - Common Sense with Bari Weiss (substack.com) and Michael W. Green - Common Sense with Bari Weiss (substack.com). I bring this forward to commend Ms. Weiss for providing well-reasoned opinions side-by-side as an example of what major newspapers and magazines should furnish, allowing readers to make up their own minds on timely and complex topics, and to examine the comments made by Messrs. Srinivasan and Green.

Although the seeds of cryptocurrency were planted in the 1980s, it has only been about a decade since the currency commenced public trading. Bitcoin, the largest of the cryptocurrencies has a current market value of roughly $600 billion, while the total crypto market is now $2.5 trillion. Whether these astronomical values reflect a sophisticated ponzi scheme or a transformative method of exchanging money continues to be argued. Less examined and understood are the implications as to why the popularity of cryptocurrencies exist. 

Ms. Weiss hit on a key topic when she observed that fiat money systems are centralized through governments and central banks, whereas crypto systems are decentralized through an application known as Blockchain. Consequently, crypto systems function outside the regulatory control of governments. Key to crypto platforms is the privacy afforded individuals. Governments, however, tend to view this secrecy as enabling nefarious criminals to launder funds without detection or to escape taxes.

A recent example highlighting governmental concern was the cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline, which disrupted energy supplies and demanded ransom by Bitcoin payment. While the majority of funds were able to be recovered, the attack still netted the thieves a couple of million dollars. A larger issue though, is that these 'funds' are traded, maintained and accumulated beyond the reach of taxing authorities. To the extent cryptocurrencies can purchase goods and services from vendors, and the list is growing, it limits the power of governments to force individuals within their borders to accept their own currencies for payment.

Mr. Srinvivasan, former Chief Technology Officer for cryptocurrency company Coinbase, enthusiastically views this sweeping change occurring from the blockchain technology used to convey cryptocurrency. In countries where currencies are unstable and authoritarian regimes rule, he sees Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies providing a lifeline for financing dissidents that can't be tracked to the end users. Moreover, it provides an alternative source of 'money', thereby creating an option for residents living within nations that dilute the value of their fiat currencies, by unleashing unlimited amounts of dollars and debts. He points to Venezuela as the most egregious example of this practice.

He further contends that the same blockchain technology enabling cryptocurrency to be transferred without a central hub, such as the federal reserve, also can serve to construct a decentralized social network. Consequently, just like no banks are needed to move cryptocurrencies, no social network platforms like Facebook are required for individuals to send encrypted digital messages to each other. Mr. Srinvivasan identified several partially decentralized social networks presently in existence, noting more are being built. In essence, encryption lies at the heart of blockchain technology for financial or communication exchanges. But, instead of being on a hub platform, it is decentralized on a myriad of individual platforms, as a record-keeping ledger. Srinivasan argues that this leads to a world where government is unable to spy on its citizens - think China's social credit system, or America's NSA.  Online privacy of individuals is protected, not by inconsistent application of laws within nation-states, but by a technological system designed for confidentiality. He claims that the crypto community now reaches 100 million members across the globe in just its first decade, and is accessible to anyone with an internet-connected device, explaining that the cloud, not the land of one's residence, is where the future of financial and human freedom lies.

Michael Green, the former portfolio manager for Peter Thiel takes issue with much of the above. First, he argues that these cryptocurrencies are unsafe. If you lose your crypto-key, there is a power outage, or a cyber-attack, you lose everything. Unmentioned is that governments can easily shutoff land-based internet connections, as we have seen in Cuba and elsewhere, shutting out customers from their accounts. He further notes that China, Iran and Russia play a dominant role in the world of cryptocurrency, with China "...accounting for roughly 90% of the processing power in the Bitcoin network." These countries are using cryptocurrencies primarily to diminish the power of the U.S. dollar, which has remained the supreme currency for global trade since World War II.

Mr. Green emphasizes the criminal characteristics of Bitcoin, in which an estimated $400 million a month in illicit activity occurs, or roughly 40% of all Bitcoin usage. Meanwhile, the energy consumption used to mine the Bitcoins is now on par with that of Sweden. Of greater concern, is that the price of Bitcoin depends upon continuous additions of customers and fiat money. While the value may currently $600 billion, that is half of its value compared to just April of this year. It's difficult to make the case for an alternative currency to replace fiat money when that alternative lost half its value within the past three months.

Yet, if cryptocurrency is not the answer, it still leaves the overriding questions unresolved. How can fiat currencies increasingly expanded by nation-states to finance unsustainable debt, be corralled before these currencies are debased to the point worthlessness? And, is there a way to protect free speech where communication through digital platforms without the risk of tracking by governments, or high tech platforms? So far, the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve are promoting stablecoin as an alternative digital currency, which would mirror the dollar, albeit, with strict regulatory controls. While this could prevent a safer option for residents of nations like Cuba or Venezuela seeking a safe haven for their savings, it runs the same risks of government tracking.

In an environment where individual privacy is being eroded and fiscal policies among nations are severely testing the limits of government funded by debt, the debate on digital currencies and the accompanying blockchain technology reveals and presents these issues in an illuminating manner. How this debate is eventually resolved may provide the future course to our economic and private lives.