Monday, April 04, 2022

CHRISTIANITY IS PATRIARCHY

Former Christianity Today editor Mark Galli accused of sexual harassment

Two new reports say the famed evangelical magazine failed to hold senior leaders accountable for sexual harassment and made women employees feel unappreciated and unsafe.

Mark Galli at his home in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. RNS photo by Yonat Shimron

(RNS) — The former editor of a prominent evangelical magazine who made national headlines for criticizing Donald Trump’s failed character has been accused of sexual harassment during his tenure as editor.

new report from Christianity Today magazine, published Tuesday (March 15), claims the Carol Stream, Illinois-based ministry failed to hold former editor-in-chief Mark Galli and former CT advertising director Olatokunbo Olawoye accountable for sexual harassment for more than a decade.

That harassment included “demeaning, inappropriate, and offensive behavior,” according to the report from CT’s news editor Daniel Silliman, which was edited by senior news editor Kate Shellnutt and published without review from the ministry’s executive leadership.

Silliman reported finding a dozen firsthand accounts of harassment.

“Women at CT were touched at work in ways that made them uncomfortable,” according to the CT news story. “They heard men with authority over their careers make comments about the sexual desirability of their bodies. And in at least two cases, they heard department heads hint at openness to an affair.”

Eight women alleged that Galli touched them inappropriately, including one former employee who said Galli caressed her bare shoulder during an event in the early 2000s, while another said Galli’s hand got “stuck under her bra” when he rubbed her back.

According to the report, Galli was reprimanded in 2019 after three women in three days reported to human resources that he’d inappropriately touched them — allegedly hugging a woman from behind, grabbing another woman by the shoulders and shaking her and putting a hand on another woman’s butt.

However, the article said, 2019 was not the first time Galli had been reported to HR for inappropriate behavior toward female colleagues — it was just the first time a record was kept. According to the report, more than half a dozen employees reported harassment from Galli or Olawoye between the mid-2000s and 2019. But none of those reports resulted in a formal write-up, warning or reprimand.

Reporting a case of harassment could also lead to backlash, according to the Christianity Today report.

Dan Darling, an evangelical author and director of the Land Center for Cultural Engagement at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the magazine’s account showed how badly Christian institutions have handled issues of sexual harassment.

“A lot of our institutions did not have good policies,” he said.

The report was sad, he said, but also a step forward for Christian groups. He hopes that other ministries will learn from Christianity Today’s example and adopt better policies.

“We need these protections in place,” he said. 

Galli told CT’s news editors that he likely “crossed lines” during his three decades at the magazine but said he never had “any romantic or sexual interest in anyone at Christianity Today.”

In a phone interview with Religion News Service, Galli said he was deeply troubled by the allegations in the story, which he denied. Several of the incidents in the story were taken out of context, he said, or were simply false.

“My initial reaction is that I am shocked at how many of the statements made in the article were simply not true,” he said.

Galli also said he was “deeply troubled” if he did anything that offended or intimidated other people and would be open to meeting with people he had offended and apologizing. 


RELATED: Christianity Today editor argues morally compromised Trump should be removed from office


In 2019, not long before he retired, Galli called for then-President Trump to be removed from office, saying Trump’s character flaws made him unfit for his office. The editorial caused a national uproar among evangelical Christians. Galli then left CT — which was founded by the famed evangelist Billy Graham — in early 2020 and has since converted to Catholicism.

In an editorial, also published Tuesday, Tim Dalrymple, the current president and CEO of Christianity Today, said he first became aware in 2019 that a CT senior editorial leader — whom he did not name — had “treated his female reports unprofessionally, engaging in unwanted touch despite repeated communications that such behavior was wrong, unwelcome, and needed to stop.”

Christianity Today President Tim Dalrymple. Photo via Christianity Today

Christianity Today President and CEO Tim Dalrymple. Photo via Christianity Today

Dalrymple, who had only been at CT for three months at the time, said he found out from HR that the editorial leader’s conduct had been addressed verbally but no written warnings were in place about past conduct.

That leader was then disciplined and warned they would be suspended or fired if any additional harassment occurred. According to Dalrymple, “no further allegations of unwanted touch or other inappropriate conduct arose” between then and the former leader’s retirement in 2020.

However, in 2021, two current employees came forward with additional details about alleged harassment by this senior editorial leader.

“They described highly inappropriate comments and unwanted touch that left them feeling disrespected, objectified, and unsafe,” Dalrymple wrote. “Our immediate response was to grieve with them, thank them for their courage, and commit to a process that rigorously examines what we got wrong as a ministry and what we must do differently going forward.”

As a result, Christianity Today hired Guidepost Solutions, which has become a go-to consultant for evangelical groups facing allegations of sexual harassment, misconduct and abuse, to assess its response to issues of harassment and misconduct.

That report, made public Tuesday, found allegations of harassment against two employees at Christianity Today, neither of whom were named in the report. The report also found that CT’s culture and work environment can feel “inhospitable to women at times.”

“While many believe that this aspect of CT’s culture has improved under its current leadership, others believe that women are still discounted and treated as ‘less than’ in the CT workplace,” according to the Guidepost report.

The Guidepost report also found that women employees at the ministry felt CT failed to hold employees accused of harassment accountable.

“These female employees felt that CT had not held Former Employee 1 accountable for his actions and that the organization’s policies and procedures were insufficient to address and prevent future incidents of harassment and abuse,” according to Guidepost.

Dalrymple told RNS in a statement that CT’s leadership supported the reporting done by Silliman. 

“We invited the report because we wanted to know the truth of the matter,” he said. “We cannot be truth-tellers if we refuse to tell the truth about ourselves. I appreciate Daniel’s report and stand behind it fully.

The Christianity Today article also detailed allegations of repeated harassment by Olawoye, who was fired Christianity Today after being arrested in a 2017 sting operation. He later pleaded guilty to traveling to meet a minor for sex and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to identify Dan Darling as director of the Land center at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.


RELATED: Mark Galli, former Christianity Today editor and Trump critic, to be confirmed a Catholic

JOINS A CHURCH OF LIKE MINDED ABUSERS


Guidepost report: RZIM leaders were blinded by loyalty, spent donor money to sue a survivor

A report from Guidepost Solutions details the failings of leaders at the prominent Christian ministry. The organization’s board members said they disagreed with some of the findings.

Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias died in 2020. RNS photo illustration by Kit Doyle

(RNS) — A newly released report on the internal culture at Ravi Zacharias International Ministries found that leaders at the ministry were blinded by loyalty to the founder, overlooked Zacharias’ misconduct for years, used ministry funds to sue an abuse survivor and misled the public.

The report from Guidepost Solutions was released Wednesday (Feb. 23), seven months after the board of RZIM, which remains anonymous, received it. According to the report, board members had full control over the public release of the document — which was posted to the ministry’s website less than an hour before the evangelical magazine Christianity Today published a story detailing the report’s contents.

In an unsigned letter, the board of RZIM placed the blame for the organization’s failings squarely on the shoulders of Zacharias, who died in 2020. Once a beloved preacher, author and Christian apologist, the now-disgraced Zacharias also had a long pattern of sexual misconduct and abuse, according to a report released in 2021 by RZIM.

“We at RZIM sincerely apologize for the enormous pain caused by Ravi Zacharias’ sin and our failure to uncover it sooner,” the board said in the statement announcing the release of the Guidepost report. “Regretfully, we trusted and defended a man of whose integrity we were firmly convinced.”


RELATED: Class-action lawsuit claims RZIM misled donors, covered up Ravi Zacharias’ abuse


The board also admitted that it had used ministry funds to pay for Zacharias’ legal bills, despite a 2017 public statement to the contrary, and that it had failed to correct that statement.

Still, the board raised doubts about the accuracy of the report. The anonymous board also claimed it was being transparent by releasing the report.

Ravi Zacharias addresses a crowd gathered on the National Mall for Together 2016 in Washington. Photo courtesy of RZIM

Ravi Zacharias addresses a crowd gathered on the National Mall for Together 2016 in Washington. Photo courtesy of RZIM

“Although we are releasing this report, we do not agree with everything in it,” the board letter stated. “We believe there are inaccurate accounts or pieces of information that were either overlooked or omitted by Guidepost and we disagree with some characterizations therein.”

In the report, Guidepost Solutions said the RZIM board had withheld information from the team working on the report and refused to allow Guidepost to name board members it spoke to during its five-month investigation. Overall, leaders were cooperative, the report states, but there were issues in getting information.

“However, we are not confident that RZIM has provided us with all information relevant to our investigation,” according to the Guidepost report. “In other words, we fear that if we did not specifically request an exact piece of information — for example, if we were not aware of its existence, but its relevance to our work would be apparent — RZIM would not have provided it proactively, even if RZIM knew that it would provide clarity.”

Guidepost found that leaders at RZIM had been aware of allegations of inappropriate behavior by Zacharias since at least 2008 — when the apologist was reportedly seen in Singapore holding hands with a young woman. In 2011, an RZIM board member traveled to Singapore at Zacharias’ request to discuss a visit the apologist had made to a massage studio.

“Zacharias told the board member that he had visited the massage studio because it was essential for his back issues and then separately added that he had never viewed pornography,” according to the report — a claim the board member said “seemed odd.”

For years Zacharias traveled with a female masseuse — which raised eyebrows among some staff. But anyone who questioned Zacharias was “sent to Siberia” — a term for being sidelined or marginalized by RZIM leaders.

In this May 29, 2020, file photo, images of Ravi Zacharias are displayed in the Passion City Church during a memorial service for him in Atlanta. A posthumous sex scandal involving Zacharias, who founded the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, placed the global organization in a wrenching predicament. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)

In this May 29, 2020, file photo, images of Ravi Zacharias are displayed in the Passion City Church during a memorial service for him in Atlanta. A posthumous sex scandal involving Zacharias, who founded the Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, placed the global organization in a wrenching predicament. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)

A number of massage workers came forward after Zacharias’ death to accuse him of sexual misconduct at spas that he had co-owned in the United States. A 2021 report also found Zacharias spent extensive time overseas on writing trips, where he often got massages. Zacharias also allegedly groomed Lori Thompson, a Canadian supporter, asking her to send nude photos and then urging her to keep their correspondence secret.

Zacharias later sued Thompson and her husband — then paid Thompson a $250,000 settlement that required her to sign a nondisclosure agreement that is still in force.

Ruth Malhotra, former longtime RZIM spokesperson, said the Guidepost report, while important, was disappointing. She said RZIM failed to live up to its promises to be transparent and that Guidepost had not included the stories of survivors of abuse in the report, which was limited to the RZIM culture and leadership. 

“The Guidepost report on RZIM reveals a staggering pattern of financial corruption and false communications from the Board and senior leadership that concealed and enabled Ravi Zacharias’ abuse,” she said. “Yet this report only exposes the tip of the iceberg in what was a toxic organizational culture that harmed many people within and beyond the ministry.”

She said there were “troubling omissions” from the report.

Overall, Guidepost found RZIM leaders failed to hold Zacharias accountable and believed his side of the story when allegations were raised — even if his explanations were suspect. The report also found that no RZIM leaders had firsthand knowledge of Zacharias’ misconduct.

“As set forth in detail in this report, we found that in assessing and responding to allegations against Zacharias made by Thompson and others, RZIM heavily and unjustifiably relied upon Zacharias’ representations, many of which were discernibly dubious at the time and are even more doubtful today, in light of revelations that have emerged since 2020,” the report states.

Ravi Zacharias speaks to students at the Zacharias Institute during the ReFresh conference in Alpharetta, Georgia, in July 2018. Photo by Gary S. Chapman

Ravi Zacharias speaks to students at the Zacharias Institute during the ReFresh conference in Alpharetta, Georgia, in July 2018. Photo by Gary S. Chapman

“RZIM leaders — some of whom were related to Zacharias — accepted his explanations, failed to drill down on contradictions and to pursue additional inquiry, and minimized the interest of individuals at RZIM who sought more information or expressed doubt about Zacharias’ rationalizations.”


RELATED: She wanted to help Ravi Zacharias save the world but ended up defending an abuser


Guidepost also found that the executive committee of RZIM’s board agreed to pay for Zacharias’ legal bills but did not tell the entire board or RZIM top leaders that it had done so. Some of the legal payments and other financial transactions were also hidden in a “confidential file” apart from the ministry’s normal accounting and financial oversight process, a pattern that “represents a loophole in RZIM’s internal controls that could be exploited to the detriment of the ministry.”

The RZIM executive committee also authorized a $250,000 loan to Zacharias that was used for the Thompson settlement, then gave the apologist a $400,000 bonus, enough to repay the loan and pay taxes associated with the bonus.

Guidepost concludes its assessment with a series of recommendations, including changes to its leaders, as many of the leaders who mishandled the allegations against Zacharias were still in place when the report was completed. Since the report was delivered to the RZIM board, Sarah Davis, the ministry’s former CEO and Zacharias’ daughter, stepped down and started a new ministry. One of the first projects of the new ministry, Lighten (initially named Encounter), is a video about “cancel culture.”

Davis has left the new ministry, said Kristen Henriques, co-CEO of Lighten. The Lighten team includes a number of former RZIM staff and  is a tenant in RZIM’s building, while it looks for new space. 

“We also received a line of credit from RZIM to launch the ministry, but our desire is to repay all of the loaned funds as soon as possible since we want to leave as many resources available for other apologetics organizations,” Henriques told Religion News Service in an email. 

Sarah Davis, CEO of RZIM and eldest daughter of Ravi Zacharias, speaks in a May 2021 video about her father’s misconduct. Video screengrab via Facebook/RZIM

Sarah Davis, former CEO of RZIM and eldest daughter of Ravi Zacharias, speaks in a May 2021 video about her father’s misconduct. Video screen grab via Facebook/RZIM

 

Other recommendations included tightening financial controls, making the names of board members public, adding independent board members who do not have close ties to the Zacharias family and strengthening the organization’s personnel policies.

Guidepost’s assessment is skeptical about the ability of RZIM to make changes needed to restore the ministry’s credibility — citing issues with current leaders as well as distrust among many current staffers.

“It will be difficult for the current RZIM leaders and the board to rebuild trust with the ministry’s employees and members and to reestablish their credibility as leaders, because of their previous failings. In our view, this is the most significant obstacle that RZIM’s leaders and directors must overcome if RZIM is to survive, as an apologetics ministry, a grant-making organization or in some other form.”

RZIM did not respond to an email requesting comment.  

In the past, RZIM’s board has said the ministry will stop doing apologetics and instead make grants to other Christian groups, but no details of that work have been made public. 

RZIM also faces significant legal challenges. A group of donors has sued the ministry, claiming that RZIM misled them into thinking Zacharias was a trusted Christian leader. 

This story has been updated with details about Sarah Davis’s departure from Lighten.Thgs


RELATED: After Ravi Zacharias report, Christians examine how to avoid ‘betrayal blindness’ 


Rajapaksa to blame for Sri Lanka’s economic calamity

Island nation needs an urgent IMF bailout to avoid bankruptcy in the coming months

By SALMAN RAFI SHEIKH
Fuel and power shortages threaten to tilt towards a humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka. Image: Screengrab / NDTV

When Sri Lanka President Gotabaya Rajapaksa campaigned for the presidential election in 2019, he advanced a vision of political stability and economic progress after years of chaos and decline.

Three years later, Sri Lanka’s economy has hit rock bottom, with protests spreading across the country over electricity outages, food and medicine shortages and soaring prices. The shortages are becoming so acute that some believe they could spiral into a humanitarian crisis.

Reports said the Ceylon Petroleum Corp. requested the public not to queue for diesel on Wednesday and Thursday after the state-run refiner failed to unload a shipment of 37,500 metric tonnes of the fuel. Wire agencies interviewed doctors and health workers who spoke of dire shortages of imported vital drugs and diagnostic chemicals.


Sri Lanka’s trade deficit doubled to US$1.1 billion in December. It reportedly had about $2.3 billion of foreign-exchange reserves last month and faces a $1 billion bond repayment in July.

Authorities have devalued the local currency, curbed imports and raised fuel prices and interest rates in a bid to control the situation, so far to no avail. Stock trading was briefly halted for the second straight day Wednesday after a key index plunged 5%.

Part of the crisis has been driven by the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which among other things has drastically driven up global oil prices. But the real story of Sri Lanka’s descent into chaos starts with the rise of President Gotabaya and his populist, strong-man rule in 2019.

This rule was facilitated by hard-line Sinhala Buddhist nationalist forces, including those dominated by former military men such as Viyathmaga. These organizations projected themselves as agents of transformation and their model of centralized governance was presented as what was needed after three disastrous years of the coalition government of the United National Party and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party.

To dramatically alter Sri Lanka’s fortunes, a new policy vision prepared in part by Viyathmaga, “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendor”, was issued to guide Sri Lanka’s path to glory.


Apart from other issues – including the existing constitution – plaguing Sri Lanka, this vision identified that “the prevailing tax system has contributed to the collapse of the domestic economy.”

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa addresses the nation after being sworn in on November 18, 2019. 
Photo: AFP

Accordingly, the Gotabaya government introduced, soon after coming into power, massive tax cuts that reduced its revenue by a whopping 28%, Sri Lanka central bank data shows. This was a major turn away from the path of fiscal consolidation undertaken by the previous government.

Moreover, this decision ran counter to the International Monetary Fund’s 2019 review of the Sri Lankan economy, which it said needed “sustained efforts to mobilize revenues will be needed in 2020 … to protect the economy against shocks, allowing for exchange rate flexibility in the event of market pressures.”

As a result, Colombo was left with what the IMF called in early 2020 a “weak revenue performance and expenditures overrun”, pushing the island nation down an unstable fiscal path. This was followed by a formal closure of the IMF’s program in the country.

In early 2020, the revenue shortage was further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which stripped Sri Lanka of a critical source of foreign currency: tourism. With the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns being a global phenomenon, worker remittances, traditionally a key source of foreign exchange for Sri Lanka, fell hugely by almost 23%.


In April-May 2020, Sri Lanka’s sovereign ratings were downgraded to B-negative. Among the reasons cited for the downgrade was the Gotabaya regime’s decision to introduce tax cuts that exacerbated already rising public and external debt challenges.

Crucially, this downgrade also locked Sri Lanka out of international financial markets. In December 2021, the rating was further downgraded to “CC”, deepening market perceptions of the nation’s financial straits.

While Sri Lanka’s access to foreign exchange was curtailed, Colombo continued to settle its debt repayments using existing foreign-exchange reserves throughout this period.

Even though in the following months Sri Lanka’s reserves continued to fall – dipping from $7.6 billion in 2019 to $2.3 billion in October 2021) – Colombo did not consider going to the IMF for an emergency bailout that ultranationalists – including the Rajapaksa family itself – think would compromise Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

Instead, Sri Lanka opted for currency swap deals with China and India, which, apart from temporarily bolstering the reserve position, did nothing to consolidate Colombo’s failing fiscal position.


As a result, in early 2022, Sri Lanka’s actual useable reserves fell below US$1 billion, prompting Colombo to simultaneously approach India and the IMF for urgent help.

Sri Lanka is running out of money. Photo: AFP

New Delhi, seeing in Sri Lanka’s acute economic crisis an opportunity to consolidate its own geopolitical foothold vis-a-vis China, has agreed to open a $1 billion credit line to help Colombo buy essential goods, including oil and medicine. Colombo is also already in fresh talks with India for yet another loan of $1.5 billion. This is apart from the ongoing talks with the IMF for a bailout package.

This has all been necessitated by the fact that there is no way Colombo can avoid going bankrupt without securing a bailout. There is simply no way for Colombo to repay the $6.9 billion owed in 2022 with less than $1 billion currently in reserves and the economy still staggering. The IMF, the bogeyman of Sri Lankan nationals, is now the only source of sufficient funds to avoid bankruptcy.

Gotabaya’s government, meanwhile, is in denial. The president addressed his nation in the third week of March outlining how the crisis was not his doing while confirming his government’s decision to accept the IMF’s bailout conditions to be formally discussed in April.

“Subsequent to my discussions with the International Monetary Fund, I have decided to work with them after examining the advantages and disadvantages,” Rajapaksa told his beleaguered nation in a somber address. As several analysts have pointed out, the speech aimed to ease investors’ growing concerns that Sri Lanka will be bankrupt in a month or so.

Sri Lanka, very much like the heavily indebted Argentina, is also seeking to go to the World Bank after securing an IMF bailout package to provide for what Sri Lankan officials are calling “budgetary support.”

A World Bank statement released to the media said that the Bank is not currently in talks with Colombo, but that they are “engaging with the authorities to identify a comprehensive structural reform program needed to ensure sustainable growth, and around which such support may be possible in the future.”

Most analysts believe that Colombo will be able to secure an IMF bailout, but its road to recovery is going to be long and difficult insomuch as it would depend upon how robust Sri Lanka is in implementing the IMF’s recommended structural reforms.

These will include cutting government expenditures and subsidies, privatizing state-owned enterprises, stopping money printing, floating the exchange rate and laying off public sector workers, among other tough measures.

While these reforms, if implemented, will take time to bear fruit, industries like tourism are unlikely to flourish amidst the worst power cuts and oil and medicine supply shortages in recent memory. Meanwhile, the ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) will have to ensure it does not internally disintegrate amid the inevitable backlash against the IMF and World Bank’s recommended reforms.

If the SLPP government is able to survive, one thing that it can and must do immediately is to drastically cut its expenses and take the opposition parties on board to minimize the political fallout. Reports indicate that the SLPP is moving in this direction. It has decided after the opposition demanded to table the IMF report in the parliament for debate.

Sinhalese nationalism is one core of Sri Lanka’s economic crisis. 
Image: Facebook

What this means in practical terms is shifting from an exclusionary and ultranationalist set-up to a more inclusive dispensation.

Whereas the recent exit of hardcore nationalist ministers like Udaya Gammanpila indicates a probable restructuring of the government, Gotabaya’s recent – and first-ever – meeting with the Tamil National Alliance also indicates a shift towards a more inclusive approach to stabilize its own regime and discourage the opposition from launching agitation.

While this may be merely symbolic, there is no denying that the way out of the crisis involves both political and economic restructuring.
Sri Lankan protesters take to streets, defy curfew amid economic crisis


Protesters in Sri Lanka defied a curfew and took to the streets Sunday in opposition of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the country faces shortages of essential supplies and high inflation. 
Photo by Chamila Karunarthne/EPA-EFE

April 3 (UPI) -- Protesters defied a curfew and took to the streets of Sri Lanka on Sunday in continued calls for President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to resign amid an economic crisis.

More than 100 people joined as opposition politicians marched toward the home of opposition leader, Sajith Premadasa, as troops armed with rifles stood at checkpoints in the capital of Colombo, The New York Times reported.

Demonstrators in the suburb of Rajagiriya held signs that read "Enough is enough" and "Go home, Gota" as they protested quietly in hopes to avoid drawing the attention of security forces.

Protesters have called for Rajapska to resign as the country faces power outages as long as 13 hours and shortages of basic supplies such as food, gas and medicine after running out of foreign currency to pay for imported goods.

Rajapaksa declared a 36-hour state of emergency on Saturday in response to the protests which saw nearly 50 people injured and 45 arrested as police responded with teargas and water cannon's as a crowd gathered at Rajapaksa's home on Friday.

The government also shut down access to social media, causing a rift between the president and Namal Rajapska, a cabinet minister and nephew of the president, who used a virtual private network or VPN to say write on Twitter that the ban was "completely useless."

A Sri Lankan government official on Sunday denied reports that Rajapksa and other members of the government planned to step down as early as Sunday.

"The rumors to the effect that the prime minister is going to resign have no basis to it," Information Department Director-General Mohan Smaranayake told Bloomberg.
US yield curve inversion signals possible recession

April 2, 2022| Bank of Valletta| MALTA

There are concerns that the world’s largest economy is set to fall into recession. 
Photo: Shutterstock.com

A closely watched feature of the US Treasury yield curve inverted last Tuesday, sparking concerns that the world’s largest economy is set to fall into recession. The two-year US Treasury yield briefly rose above the benchmark 10-year yield for the first time since September 2019, inverting a portion of the yield curve.

Inversions are closely monitored by Wall Street and policymakers as they typically signal malaise about the economy’s long-term growth prospects and have preceded every US recession in the past 50 years.

Short-term yields rose lately as the Federal Reserve started to tighten monetary policy in an attempt to tame inflation, which has soared to its highest level in four decades. Policy­makers have signalled that they are ready to raise interest rates, possibly as many as six in 2022.

Separately, the mood of consumers in Germany has darkened significantly as the Russian invasion of Ukraine dimmed the outlook for Europe’s largest economy, according to a closely watched survey published on Tuesday. Pollster GfK’s forward-looking baro­meter dropped to -15.5 in March from a revised reading of -8.5 in February.

Economists had expected a reading of -14. The downward trend in the headline index continued and a sharp increase in the propensity to save in March further reinforced it, the agency added. The impact of sanctions, high energy costs and supply chains broken by the outbreak of the war means “the risk of a recession has risen sharply,” the pollster said.

Finally, UK mortgage approvals unexpectedly ticked down in February, data from the Bank of England (BoE) showed on Tuesday. Approvals for house purchases, an indicator of

future borrowing, fell to 71,000 in February from 73,800 in January. Economists had predicted approvals to rise to 74,850. However, the February figure sits above the pre-pandemic average of 66,700 in the 12 months to February 2020.

BoE figures also showed the average annual growth of consumer credit accelerated to 4.4 per cent in February from 3.2 per cent in January.

“The annual growth rates of credit card borrowing, and other forms of consumer credit were 9.4 per cent and 2.4 per cent respectively,” the central bank added.

This article has been prepared by Bank of Valletta plc for general information only.

Thomas Piketty Thinks America Is Primed for Wealth Redistribution

Talk
 April 1, 2022
By David Marchese
Photograph by Christopher Anderson/Magnum
 The New York Times

LONG READ

FOOTNOTES AT END


In 2013, the French economist Thomas Piketty, in his best seller “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” a book eagerly received in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse, put forth the notion that returns on capital historically outstrip economic growth (his famous r>g formula). The upshot? The rich get richer, while the rest of us stay stuck in the mud. Now, nearly a decade later, Piketty is set to publish “A Brief History of Equality,” in which he argues that we’re on a trajectory of greater, not less, equality and lays out his prescriptions for remedying our current corrosive wealth disparities. (In short: Tax the rich.) If the line from one book to the other looks slightly askew given the state of the world, then, Piketty suggests, you’re looking from the wrong vantage point. “I am relatively optimistic,” says Piketty, who is 50, “about the fact that there is a long-run movement toward more equality, which goes beyond the little details of what happens within a specific decade.”

In the time since “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” was published, there has been a huge proliferation in the number of American billionaires. Something like 130 new ones were added between 2020 and 2021 alone. That happened in the context of growing public discussion — and anger — about economic inequality. So what the hell happened? What enabled the ultrawealthy to flourish in the face of such widespread antipathy? Let me put this very clearly: I understand that each year and each decade is tremendously important, but it’s also important not to forget about the general evolution. We have become much more equal societies in terms of political equality, economic equality, social equality, as compared with 100 years ago, 200 years ago. This movement, which began with the French and U.S. revolutions, I think it is going to continue.

Of course there are structural factors that make it difficult: the system of political finance, the structure of media finance, the basic democratic institutions are less democratic than they should be. This makes things complicated. But it’s always been complicated. The Supreme Court for decades made it impossible to create a progressive income tax. They were fine with the racial segregation, but having a progressive income tax was unconstitutional. In the end, it took 20 years to change the Constitution, but
then it happened and contributed to reduced inequality.1



OK, so you’re saying that the long-term trend is toward more equality. But in 1990 there were 66 U.S. billionaires. Now there are more than 700. Over the last 40 years or so, chief-executive pay is up more than 900 percent, even accounting for inflation. The average worker’s pay over the same period is up only 12 percent. You believe we should be thinking of those facts as road bumps on the path to greater economic equality? If you take the big picture, yes. But the other lesson from the big picture, from history, is that it takes major political mobilization to keep moving in the direction of equality. In the United States today, the democratic institutions, the rules of the game, are set up in a manner that, indeed, the rich are entrenched. But if you look at opinion polls about a billionaire tax in the U.S. — among Democratic and also Republican voters — you have
huge approval.2

So is the political system able to respond to this, or is it rigged? The lesson from history is that when the political system is rigged, at some point you have a reaction, you have a mobilization.

What did you think of the billionaire tax that Biden just proposed?3

It would have been better before his election. If you had told the American public before the elections that he wanted a wealth tax — which again is something that is very high in opinion polls — this would have been much easier. This could have forced the Democratic Congress to take a stand. It’s more complicated now. But if it works, it’s better than nothing.

I understand what you’re saying about the popularity of a proposed billionaire tax, but do you believe America is at a place where a phrase like “wealth redistribution,” which is what you’re talking about, is broadly politically plausible? When you say Americans don’t like redistribution, some certainly don’t like it, but in the 20th century, high, progressive taxation of income and inherited wealth was to a large extent invented in the United States. That’s why it always makes me skeptical when people say, Americans don’t like this, don’t like that. Look at history! There’s no deterministic reason why a given country should be this or that. Sometimes, in my country and in the U.S. also, people tell you, “Look, we are not Swedes.” This is used as an argument to say that there is a culture of equality in Sweden, which we would never have.

But Swedes themselves weren’t always “Swedes.” Exactly. Sweden until 1910, 1920 was one of the most unequal countries in the world, with a special sophistication in the way inequality was organized. You could have between one and 100 votes, depending on the size of your wealth.4

This is only a half-joking question: Let’s say in the United States the billionaires get sick of being the bad guys and don’t want to be taxed the way Biden is proposing, so they move to Ireland or some other tax haven. Then what happens? But that’s the point: These people don’t live in an autarchy. They rely on the rest of the world, which means that we have to impose rules on the conditions in which they can enjoy these assets — which were produced by the collective. All wealth is collective by nature in the sense that it relies on the work of hundreds, thousands, millions of engineers, technicians, the accumulation of knowledge. Then, private property is a social construction that we invent in order to organize economic and social relations. It’s a very useful social invention as long as you keep under control how much you can accumulate, how much power you can concentrate, etc. But none of these assets are their assets. They are a product of a collective process. No one invented anything by himself or herself.

That kind of ontological argument might be a hard sell for some Americans. For some, but this has nothing to do with the American spirit, American values. It has something to do with a small subset of people who are just pushing their interests. If you ask the American public about who is working hard, is it the normal people or the elite? Whose effort created everything? You will be surprised by the answer.

My sense is that in the very recent past a lot of the growth in wealth has resulted from entrepreneurship rather than the accumulation of inherited wealth. That’s in conjunction with skyrocketing rates of return for the wealthy. Do those factors have any implications for how we understand the accumulation of capital generally or r>g5 specifically? 

If you go back to the beginning of the 20th century, late 19th century, you also had lots of new innovation and new wealth. We invented the automobile, electricity, trans-Atlantic radio. People in every time period tend to say today is different, this is big innovation, new wealth, but in a changing economy where we make technological discoveries, you always have this process. But the thing is, if it’s not regulated, if we don’t design institutions in order to spread the wealth — on the contrary, we have an institutional setup where you accumulate wealth by using public infrastructure, public education, the health system, and then once you have accumulated the wealth, you push a button and you transfer it somewhere else. Remember the ProPublica study before the summer of 2021 where they looked at billionaires in the U.S.?

An economic argument in favor of billionaires is that their doing well is a sign that our system of capitalism is working and that it means growth for everyone. But growth has been slowing down at the exact same time that billionaires have been rolling in it. Has that given definitive lie to the idea that the success of the 0.1 percent is good for the rest of us, too? It’s proof as far as proof can get in the social and political sciences. The evidence that we have is that if you take the United States, the growth rate of national income per capita has been divided by two following the Reagan decade. It’s been a little more than 1 to 1.2 percent per year — the national income per capita real growth rate between 1990 and 2020. It used to be more than 2, 2.5 percent between 1950 and 1980. The tax performance in the Reagan decade was supposed to boost growth: Maybe you would have more inequality, but the size of the pie is going to grow so much faster than before that the average wages and income of average Americans will grow like you’ve never seen. This is not what we’ve seen.

The big lesson from this is that the period of maximum prosperity of the U.S. economy in the middle of the century was a period where  you had a top income-tax rate of 90 percent, 80 percent,7

Between 1980 and 2020, the marginal tax rate applied to the highest incomes was, on average, 39 percent. and this was not a problem because income gaps of 1 to 100 or 1 to 200 are not necessary for growth. The other big conclusion is that what really matters for economic prosperity is education andrelative equality in education.8

That probability rises to 90 percent for children whose parents’ incomes are within the top 10 percent. The key reason the U.S. economy was so productive historically in the middle of the 20th century was because of a huge educational advance over Europe. In the 1950s, you have 90 percent of the young generation going to high school in the U.S. At the same time, it’s 20 to 30 percent in Germany, France, Britain, Japan. The story that Reagan tried to tell the country in the ’80s, which is basically forget about equality, the key to prosperity is to let the top become richer and richer — it doesn’t work.

Have you seen any structural or ideological changes that you think make our moment different from historically comparable ones? Well, the dominant ideology has been moving toward the view that we’ve gone too far in terms of market liberalization, in terms of globalization without regulation and the superrich getting richer. The problem is that we’re still stuck with institutions that were set up in the ’80s and ’90s in terms of limited tax progressivity, free capital flows without any common collective regulation,9

In the United States, this institutional setup has been reinforced because of Trump’s big tax cut on corporations. There are many dramas we associated with Trump, but part of the drama is that he has been able to tell the middle class and lower middle class, “Look, we are going to continue with tax dumping, but I’m going to protect you in another way by protecting you against Chinese and Mexicans, the Muslims.” He was able to be elected on an ideology where you don’t redistribute between the rich and the poor but rather you protect Americans, especially white male Americans, against anybody who looks foreign. The risk is that neoliberalism is replaced by this form of neo-nationalism in order to avoid redistribution. Sometimes people like Trump can be successful with this strategy because it’s a much clearer message than saying, “Let’s look at the history of progressive taxation.”

You mentioned oligarchs. In America, we don’t like to think that we have them — that’s for a country like Russia. Instead we like to think we have entrepreneurs who achieved through merit. But the similarities are obvious: They’re all taking advantage of the free global movement of capital and have a disproportionate amount of political influence. Do you see America as being as securely in the grip of the oligarchic class as other countries we think of as being less democratic? The U.S. oligarchs have less control of the political system than the Putin clique in Russia, that’s for sure. In terms of what fraction of wealth accumulation is due to individual effort, individual merit, as opposed to a legal and institutional system that is working for them more than for the rest of the country, it’s difficult to say. Many Russian oligarchs bought the right assets at the right time, resold it. This is business life.

To me, maybe the best comparison between the U.S. is not so much with Russia today but with Europe and the Belle Époque before 1914: a system which is nominally democratic but where the concentration of wealth is so high and lacking proper rules about political finance, political influence, that the democratic system is not enabled to have a common-sense reaction to this excessive level of inequality that, in the long run, is not good for U.S. prosperity. Particularly because when other countries get more educated than the U.S., then its economic leadership will be gone forever. U.S. economic leadership came from mass education, not from a small elite of billionaires. They have never been the source of U.S. prosperity, and they will never be.

You know, I do find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that after 40 years of worsening inequality, you — the inequality guy, Mr. r>g — are publishing a book saying we’re on the right track historically. It’s sort of cold comfort to know we’re more equal today than we were 100 or 200 years ago. Really give me a reason to feel as optimistic as you do. “Give me a reason to be optimistic?” By looking at my historical evidence, by thinking about the big picture, I have become more optimistic. I was a bit puzzled that many people looking at “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” came away with a pessimistic conclusion. I’m trying to show that the key in history is not the big catastrophes but the positive political construction of an alternative, and this process started with the French Revolution, the U.S. revolution. This process toward more equality is more deeply rooted in our modern ethos and modern political cultures than most people believe. I remember in 2014 having a public discussion with Elizabeth Warren in Boston. I was talking about a progressive wealth tax with a rate of 5 percent per year or 10 percent per year on billionaires. She looked at me like, Wow, that’s too much. Joe Biden today, a centrist Democrat — who voted for the Tax Reform Act of 198611


FOOTNOTES
The 16th Amendment, allowing for the levy of federal income tax, was passed by Congress in 1909 in response to an 1895 Supreme Court ruling striking down an income tax. The amendment was ratified into law in 1913.

2     In a 2020 Reuters/Ipsos survey, 77 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans polled said that they strongly or somewhat agreed that "the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs."     

3 The Biden administration’s proposed 2023 budget included a minimum 20 percent tax rate on all American households worth more than $100 million. That tax rate would be on their full income, or the combination of traditional forms of wage income along with unrealized gains. 

4 This rule, which varied by municipality, excluded all women and approximately 80 percent of men from voting. Even corporations had the right to vote in municipal elections in Sweden until 1910. Sweden was like this but then moved to something else.

According to Piketty’s analysis, the return on capital is historically around 4 or 5 percent. Barring the growth that occurred in 2021 after the pandemic-induced losses of 2020, the last time America’s G.D.P. grew at a rate close to 4 percent was 2004-5. 

6 According to that ProPublica investigation, the 25 richest Americans paid federal income tax at what amounted to a rate of 3.4 percent. That’s compared with a rate of 14 percent for those American households making the median income of roughly $70,000. as compared with their wealth. If you pay no tax, it’s easier to accumulate more wealth, and that’s what continues.

7 That is, the top marginal income-tax rate, which peaked in the United States at 94 percent in 1944. From 1932 to 1980, the average top rate was 81 percent. 

8 There is compelling correlation between income inequality and education: Researchers have found that there is a little more than a 30 percent probability of gaining entrance to an institution of higher learning for young adult Americans whose parents’ incomes are within the bottom 10 percent. 

9 Meaning the ability of the wealthy and of corporations to move capital across borders in an effort to minimize — i.e., evade — taxation. without financial cadastre10

10 A term for an official register of real estate property, value and ownership, often used in determining taxation. so that you can track who owns what where — which is a big problem when you want to impose sanctions on oligarchs.

11 A key priority of Reagan’s second term, which lowered federal income-tax rates. — is coming in with a wealth tax. Things can change pretty fast.




This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.

David Marchese is a staff writer for the magazine and the columnist for Talk. Recently he interviewed Neal Stephenson about portraying a utopian future, Laurie Santos about happiness and Christopher Walken about acting.
Review: The Balletic Rise and Fall of Eva Perón

Celebrating its 50th anniversary, Ballet Hispánico takes on a new challenge: its first full-length ballet, with choreography by Annabelle Lopez Ochoa.


Dandara Veiga and company in “Doña Perón,” with choreography by Annabelle Lopez Ochoa.Credit...Paula Lobo


By Siobhan Burke
April 3, 2022
Dona Peron
NYT Critic's Pick

Ballet Hispánico, founded in 1970, has been honoring its 50th anniversary for a solid two years. On Friday at the inaugural City Center Dance Festival, the company presented the final program in this extended celebration, which got off to a rocky start with canceled performances in April 2020. Anniversary events often feel like empty fanfare, but this turned out to be a milestone, a breakthrough: the company’s first evening-length production, and a striking one at that.

The 75-minute “Doña Perón,” choreographed by the prolific Belgian-Colombian dance maker Annabelle Lopez Ochoa, is a vivid 10-episode portrait of the life of Eva Perón — Evita — the mythic and polarizing Argentine actress who ascended from poverty to populist first lady, all before the age of 33, when she died of cervical cancer.

In an interview about the work, Lopez Ochoa said, “We really wanted to make a portrait of a woman without having a judgment,” an approach she reiterated on Friday in a post-show talk with Ballet Hispánico’s artistic director, Eduardo Vilaro. Still, it’s hard to come away from “Doña Perón” not admiring its protagonist, in part because of storytelling choices — which emphasize the personal over the political — and in part because of the brilliance of the lead dancer in the opening-night cast, the captivating Dandara Veiga.

One of the production’s greatest strengths is its thoughtful integration of movement — Lopez Ochoa’s high-varnish, athletic style of contemporary ballet, gorgeously danced by the whole cast — with handsome design elements. This harmony stands out from the first, saintly image: Veiga alone in the center of the stage, elevated on a pedestal in a voluminous white dress, as if mid-ascension. (Mark Eric designed the plot-propelling costumes, many of which come and go through seamless onstage changes; the spare, functional set and projections are by Christopher Ash.)

Veiga, with Antonio Cangiano, left, and Mariano Zamora and company.
Credit...Paula Lobo


Veiga is soon joined by a chorus of dancers representing Evita’s working-class followers, the descamisados (or the shirtless ones), waving white cloths in the air. Their grounded unison phrases offset the stillness of her authoritative posture: arms raised at right angles, framing her face, a recurring gesture that at times shudders into frantic motion, echoed by the group. Sounds of a recorded speech and cheering thread through Peter Salem’s dramatic original score (played live) for bandoneón, piano, percussion, cello and violin.

Lopez Ochoa, who collaborated with the director Nancy Meckler, establishes early on that something is amiss: Veiga convulses and sways off-balance; her followers catch her. In the second episode, we meet Evita the child (the valiant Nina Basu) and witness her rejection by her father, who had a second, wealthier family. Young Evita reappears throughout the ballet, sometimes banished by her older self and sometimes embraced.

The action progresses through Evita’s move to the city, depicting her flirtations with men — a display of deft, tango-inflected partnering — and her continued rise to fame and power. (While much different from Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, this telling of Evita’s story seems to take a few cues from its narrative arc.) Chris Bloom, as Juan Perón, is a competent technician but overshadowed by Veiga’s gradually intensifying light. Their chemistry, as spouses and political partners, never quite clicks.

Theatrically, “Doña Perón” suffers from some overwrought and undercooked moments. The specter of illness asserts itself melodramatically: Every so often, Veiga falters and clasps her abdomen, as projections of what look like roots or nerves flash across the backdrop, a suggestion of the body’s internal decline. When her character dies, and Bloom tries to revive her, the interaction is almost cartoonish.

But other passages are as affecting as these are flat. Toward the end, Veiga (onstage for almost the entire work) finds herself alone, having been shunned by the waltzing upper classes. In silence (the music has dropped out), she flings her high heels and diamond necklace to the wings and begins to stamp and shout with enthralling rawness: “Che! Che!” The ensemble joins her, multiplying her rhythms with their own a cappella calls and body percussion. In this banding together, you see not just a riveting story but a company having reached a new horizon.