Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Scientists fight online coronavirus misinformation war

 May 25, 2020 By Agence France-Presse


With cat photos and sometimes scathing irony, Mathieu Rebeaud, a Swiss-based researcher in biochemistry, has nearly tripled his Twitter following since the coronavirus pandemic began.

With 14,000 followers, he posts almost daily, giving explanations on the latest scientific research and, in particular, aims to fight misinformation that spreads as fast as the virus itself.

He is among a growing number of doctors, academics and institutions who in recent weeks have adapted and amplified their scientific messaging in hopes of countering what has been termed an infodemic — a deluge of information, including widespread false claims, which experts say can pose a serious threat to public health.

To cut through the noise however, it is imperative to work quickly and maximise social media engagement to get simple prevention messages across to the public, according to researchers and specialists.

“In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories provide complete, simple, seemingly rationalistic and watertight explanations,” Kinga Polynczuk-Alenius, a University of Helsinki researcher, said.

“This is in stark contrast to the available scientific knowledge — complex, fragmented, changeable and contested — and to the actions of political decision-makers and state authorities, which appear haphazard and self-contradictory,” she added.

In February, British medical journal The Lancet warned that “the rapid dissemination of trustworthy information” was needed most during a period of uncertainty.



This includes transparent identification of cases, data sharing and unhampered communication, as well as peer-reviewed research, it said.

Rigorous and time-heavy scientific studies and publications, however, compete with the immediacy of social media and a public often demanding firm and definitive answers.

“How do we communicate in this context of radical uncertainty?” asked Mikael Chambru, a scientific communication specialist at France’s University of Grenoble Alpes.

No choice


Jean-Francois Chambon, a doctor and director of communications at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said he had no choice but to forcefully deny a widely shared video in March accusing the institution of having “created” the new coronavirus.

“We must go to any lengths” to debunk the lies, he said.

The institute created a web page dedicated to educating the public about the virus, Chambon said.

“We realised that there was a lot of ‘fake news’ on the subject,” he added.

The Pasteur Institute currently has a combined 16,000 new subscribers a month on its social media networks, he said, compared with 4,000 before the pandemic.




Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, chairman of the ethics committee at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, agreed that the scientific community must counterattack in such situations.

“We don’t have a choice,” he told AFP.

Earlier this month, the Red Cross launched what it said was the first global network of social media influencers to battle misinformation and spread lifesaving content about the pandemic.

The World Health Organization, meanwhile, has entered into an agreement with Facebook to transmit information directly to users via personal message services.

But it is often individual doctors and researchers who can have a strong influence online.

Dutch microbiologist Elisabeth Bik tweeted a one-sentence summary of a vast study on the effects of antiviral drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine last week, just hours after its release.

Her tweet — “Each drug combination was associated with *lower* survival and more ventricular arrhythmias.” — sparked a lively and wide-ranging debate online.

Education

Scientists involved in the debate want to forge a “culture of science” among the public to help them understand what they hear and read, Chambru said.


Rather than simply imposing the view of a leading authority without any explanation, they aim to help people understand how science works including the need for studies to abide by rules and standards, he added.

“The position of authority would be extremely unpopular with the public,” Ganascia agreed.

Rebeaud, the biochemistry researcher popular on Twitter, said he was much less present on social media before the pandemic but had felt drawn to defend science.

The battle however feels unbalanced, said the researcher, who works at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland.

“Dismantling nonsense takes 10 times more energy than spreading it,” he said, agreeing with the findings of a 2018 study by the magazine Science which noted that “lies spread faster than the truth”.



Some scientists have called for a review of science education so that the public is less permeable to false information.

Information campaigns “cannot be perceived as an exclusive antidote to fight fake news,” Italian communications researcher Mafalda Sandrini said.

Fox’s Chris Wallace rips into Kayleigh McEnany for questioning faith of White House reporters

May 25, 2020 By Alex Henderson, AlterNet




There aren’t many people at Fox News who President Donald Trump angrily rails against on Twitter, but Chris Wallace is an exception. Wallace, although conservative, isn’t shy about being critical of Trump and his administration at times — and on Sunday, May 24, Wallace called out White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany for questioning the faith of White House reporters.

Trump is demanding that governors in the U.S. allow churches to fully reopen sooner rather than later — and McEnany, at a press conference, joined him in that assertion. Reporters, however, brought up a very legitimate concern of governors: crowded religious gatherings, governors worry, could promote the spread of coronavirus. And McEnany accused White House reporters of being anti-religion — a claim that Wallace stressed was way out of line.




Wallace, speaking to a panel that included Democratic strategist Donna Brazile and the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, asserted, “Donna, I spent six years in the White House briefing room covering Ronald Reagan. I have to say, I never — and in the years since too, I never saw a White House press secretary act like that.”

ABC News’ Sam Donaldson, Wallace recalled, was known for being aggressive at Reagan White House press briefings — and he would have had zero tolerance for the way in which McEnany has been conducting herself with reporters.

Wallace stressed, “I have to say that if Kayleigh McEnany had told Sam Donaldson and me what questions we should ask, that would not have gone well…. Let me just say, Sam Donaldson and me in the Reagan White House, we were pretty tough on the White House press secretaries — and we never had our religious beliefs questioned or were lectured on what we should ask.”

The conservative Goldberg was highly critical of McEnany as well, telling Wallace, “What Donald Trump wants in a press secretary is a Twitter troll who goes on attack. Doesn’t actually care about doing the job they have, and instead, wants to impress really an audience of one and make another part of official Washington another one of these essentially cable news and Twitter gladiatorial arenas.”

WHY I HATE LIBERALS:

Brazile, meanwhile, was nuanced in her criticism of McEnany and told Wallace, “I know Kayleigh. I think she’s an extraordinary person. But this combative — this posture that she has taken into the job — I don’t think is the right posture. I would hope that she could tone it down a little bit.”

BRAZILE IS A CLINTONITE WALL ST DEMOCRAT
NATIONALIZE LONG TERM CARE IN CANADA UNDER MEDICARE
Ontario Hospitals To Take Over 2 Long-Term Care Homes
The government says the homes have been unable to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.

The Canadian Press
05/25/2020 14:09 EDT | Updated 16 hours ago


ANDREW FRANCIS WALLACE/TORONTO STAR VIA GETTY IMAGESDownsview Long Term Care Centre, where 52 people have died from COVID-19, will be taken over by Humber River Hospital, the Ontario government announced Monday

TORONTO — Ontario says it has appointed hospitals to take over the management of two long-term care homes that have been unable to contain COVID-19.

The province says Humber River Hospital will manage Downsview Long Term Care Centre, which has reported 52 deaths, up from 40 just a week ago.

Southlake Regional Health Centre will manage River Glen Haven Nursing Home in Sutton, a 119-bed facility where there have been 20 deaths and 54 confirmed cases.

The orders last for 90 days, but the government says they can be extended, if necessary.

Earlier:

The government says that the homes have been receiving supports from the hospitals for weeks, but have still been unable to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus.

The Ministry of Long-Term Care reports more than 1,500 resident deaths and six staff deaths from facilities across the province, and there are currently 159 active outbreaks, down from 189 a week ago.
400 new cases

Meanwhile, Ontario reported more than 400 new COVID-19 cases Monday for a fifth straight day, along with persistently low levels of tests.

That brings the total in the province to 25,904 cases, including 2,102 deaths — an increase of 29 over the previous day.

The total also includes 19,698 resolved cases, which represents 76 per cent of all cases, a third straight day of that percentage declining, as the amount of active cases increases.

The 404 new cases represent an increase of 1.6 per cent over Sunday’s total. Ontario has now seen growth rates of between 1.5 and 1.9 per cent for 16 of the past 17 days, and the chief medical officer of health has said the province’s curve appears to be in a plateau.

READ MORE...2/3 Of Canadians Want Government To Take Over Long-Term Care: Poll
Canadians With Disabilities Left Out Of Federal Pandemic Funding
For-Profit Nursing Homes Hire Tory Insiders To Lobby Ford Government

Just 8,170 tests were completed in the previous day — the eighth straight day Ontario has fallen short of its goal of doing 16,000 a day, and far short of its capacity of over 21,000.

Ontario has struggled to boost its testing numbers after completing a blitz of testing nearly every resident and staff member of long-term care.

Premier Doug Ford announced Sunday that anyone concerned they may have been exposed to COVID-19 can now get tested, whether or not they have symptoms, the latest move in the province’s attempts to boost low testing numbers.

The premier has said mass testing is the province’s best defence against the virus. He said a new detailed testing strategy targeting specific sectors will be unveiled this week.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 25, 2020.
IN ALBERTA YOU CAN PROTEST THE LOCK DOWN BUT NOT PIPELINES
Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people, so let’s get it built.Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage

Alberta Energy Minister Says Pandemic Gathering Ban A ‘Great Time’ For Pipelines

Energy Minister Sonya Savage said bans on gatherings like protests makes pipeline construction easier.
By Melanie Woods

A ban on large gatherings or protests due to the COVID-19 pandemic creates optimal conditions for pipeline construction, according to Alberta’s energy minister.

Energy Minister Sonya Savage says the ongoing pandemic is a “great time” to build a pipeline, because people aren’t able to gather to protest pipeline construction.

Savage made the comments when asked about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on a podcast released Friday by the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors.

“Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people, so let’s get it built,” Savage said.

CHRIS SCHWARZ/GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Energy Minister Sonya Savage at a press conference in Edmonton April 24, 2020. Savage recently said the pandemic was a "great time" to build the Trans Mountain pipeline.



While host John Bavil chuckled at the comment, Savage reiterated she was optimistic about the expansion project, which has already completed 57 per cent of construction on its phase one stretch heading west from Edmonton.

“It’s moving along. I feel very very confident about Trans Mountain moving forward,” she said.

Most provinces have had strict restrictions on public gatherings in place since mid-March. While some restrictions have lifted in Alberta, there’s still a ban on gatherings over 50 people, and any group is subject to physical distancing of at least six feet between people.

Pipeline protest problems

Several pipeline projects championed by the Alberta government, including Trans Mountain, the Keystone XL pipeline expansion and the Coastal GasLink pipeline expansion, have faced mass protests in the past year.

“The activists have been so effective because the industry has been so ineffective,” Savage said. “They outsmarted the entire industry […] they got ahead of everyone.”On the podcast, Savage said pipeline opponents have been so successful in delaying projects because they’ve “outsmarted” the industry.

RELATED
Biden Pledges To Rip Up Keystone XL Approvals If Elected
Inside The Arrest Of 5 Indigenous Youth At The B.C. Legislature
Expect More ‘Conflict’ If Feds Push TMX Pipeline Forward: Indigenous Negotiator

Savage’s spokesman says in an email to the Canadian Press that the minister respects the right to lawful protest. Kavi Bal added that the current restrictions on public gatherings benefit no one, including pipeline proponents.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has championed stronger restrictions on protests, even before the pandemic. Earlier this year, he criticized anti-pipeline protesters aligned with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to Coastal GasLink pipeline as “champions of wokeness” and “leftists engaged in illegal activity.”


His government’s first bill of the spring session aimed to introduce sweeping penalties for anyone who gathers on what the government defines as “critical infrastructure.”


Now is a great time to be building a pipeline because you can’t have protests of more than 15 people, so let’s get it built.Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage


But earlier this month, Kenney said he was considering altering some pandemic-related gathering restrictions in order to allow anti-lockdown protesters who maintain physical distancing to gather without facing repercussions from law enforcement.


“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right that includes both freedoms of speech and assembly,” Kenney said in a May 11 statement. 

Work camp outbreaks

Alberta’s designation of oil and gas as an “essential service” during the pandemic has also been controversial, due to outbreaks at several work camps and concerns that pipeline construction could bring the virus to remote areas.
A mid-April outbreak at Imperial Oil’s Kearl mine northeast of Fort McMurray spawned over 100 cases across Western Canada.

A second outbreak was reported at Horizon oilsands mine camp operated by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. last week, with at least five confirmed cases of COVID-19.

As of Monday, Alberta has recorded 6,860 cases of COVID-19 and 135 deaths.


With files from the Canadian Press.
A North Carolina Salon Reopened, But Poultry Workers Aren't Welcome Yet Due To COVID-19

The hair salon says too many employees at the local Tyson plant have been infected with the coronavirus. They'll have to wait until at least June 8.


By Dave Jamieson, HuffPost US
BUSINESS
05/25/2020 

The hair salon SmartCuts reopened its doors in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, on Memorial Day weekend after a long closure due to the coronavirus.

But not every customer was welcome to hop in a chair like old times.

A sign posted on the shop window explained: “Due to the number of Tyson employees who have tested positive for Covid19, and given the close contact experienced during our services, we are unable to serve Tyson employees. We sincerely apologize for this decision, and we ask for your understanding.”

The local Tyson poultry processing plant is one of the largest employers in the area. Like other poultry, beef and pork facilities around the country, it has become a hotbed for the coronavirus ― with 570 workers recently testing positive out of around 2,200.

When a friend of hers sent Amy McGinty a photo of the SmartCuts sign, she was outraged. The 13-year Tyson employee said people look at her and her colleagues “like a disease.”

“They’re getting our food, but they won’t service us,” McGinty told HuffPost.

She said it was another indication of how poultry workers have been ostracized while they take on great risk to provide Americans with food during the pandemic.

“Even people I knew as friends, I can tell they don’t want to be around me,” she said.

A manager at SmartCuts confirmed the policy to HuffPost, saying it was a difficult decision but the salon’s owners believed it was in the interest of public health. The location is part of a chain with 12 salons in North Carolina and Tennessee.

FACEBOOK
A photo of the sign in the window of SmartCuts in Wilkesboro, North Carolina.

“We respect their business, and we really appreciate that they’re essential workers,” said the manager, Cathy, of the poultry plant employees. “But that puts them at risk.”

Cathy, who declined to give her last name, said the salon plans to allow Tyson employees back as of June 8, and they will be eligible to receive a $3 discount off the price of their haircuts.

Hair salons were allowed to open their doors again in North Carolina this weekend if they adhered to rules on reduced capacity, as part of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s phased reopening plan.

Photos of the SmartCuts sign made the rounds among Wilkesboro residents on Facebook on Sunday and Monday, with a number of Tyson workers expressing anger over the salon’s decision. Cathy noted that the plant’s workforce constitutes a large share of the salon’s clientele.

She said SmartCuts received “a lot of negative feedback” over the decision, but the owners are standing by the policy.

“We don’t want to turn down business. We’re trying to keep the general population safe and asking them [Tyson employees] to do the self-quarantine thing, where they’re not coming into contact with other people,” she said.

McGinty said workers like her have received “nothing but shame” for their efforts on the front lines of the pandemic. Because she works at the plant, McGinty said, it has been hard to find anyone to watch her 2-year-old ― other than her mother, who has a heart condition. When she recently took her daughter to the doctor, the first question the doctor asked was whether the child had been exposed to any Tyson employees.

She said she doesn’t get her hair cut at SmartCuts, but she should be able to if she wants.

“We are people. We are humans,” she said.


MEANWHILE....

Missouri officials: Hairstylist with COVID-19 serviced nearly 100 clients while sick


A hairstylist at a Great Clips in Missouri exposed nearly 100 people to COVID-19 as she continued working even after exhibiting symptoms of the virus.

The Kansas City Star reported that the woman serviced 84 clients and exposed seven other employees at the salon, according to the Springfield-Greene County Health Department on Friday.

While some states in the U.S. still prohibit salons and other close-contact businesses from reopening due to pandemic lockdown restrictions, Missouri allowed salon businesses to reopen on May 4.

Health officials said the hairstylist showed symptoms while working between May 12 and May 20, adding that virus tests would be distributed to those who were "directly exposed" to her.

Both the stylist and clients were reportedly wearing masks throughout the week.

The Great Clips franchise owners told McClatchy News that the salon would be sanitized and cleaned under the county health department's guidelines and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines, according to the report.

"The well-being of Great Clips customers and stylists in the salon is our top priority and proper sanitization has always been an important cosmetology industry practice for Great Clips salons," the franchise owners said.

Springfield-Greene County Health Department Director Clay Goddard commended the salon's response but said more accidental exposures could not continue to happen.

"We can't make this a regular habit or our capability as a community will be strained and we will have to re-evaluate what things look like going forward," Goddard said. "Each of us owns just how this will go forward in our community."
QUACK
French doctor defiant on hydroxychloroquine despite study


May 25, 2020 By Agence France-Presse


A controversial French doctor on Monday insisted he stood by his belief that anti-viral drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can help patients recover from the coronavirus, rejecting a study that indicated there was no benefit.

Marseille-based doctor Professor Didier Raoult has earned huge prominence in France during the crisis for his controversial beliefs and was visited by President Emmanuel Macron in person as the head of state sounded out experts.

Raoult has consistently argued that the drugs have a tangible benefit, a stance that has been loudly backed by President Donald Trump who has said he has even been taking hydroxychloroquine as a precaution.

"How can a messy study done with ‘big data’ change what we see?”, Raoult asked in a video posted on the website of his infectious diseases hospital in Marseille.

“Here we have had 4,000 people go through our hospital, you don’t think I’m going to change because there are people who do ‘big data’, which is a kind of completely delusional fantasy,” he said.

His comments came as the World Health Organization said it was suspending trial of hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment over safety concerns.

“Nothing will change what I have seen with my own eyes,” added Raoult.

Hydroxychloroquine is normally used to treat arthritis while chloroquine is an anti-malarial. Both drugs can produce potentially serious side effects, particularly heart arrhythmia.

Raoult, a distinctive figure with his shoulder-length shaggy grey hair, ended the video by repeating another controversial claim that “this is the end of the epidemic”.Looking at the records of 96,000 patients across hundreds of hospitals, the study published in The Lancet found that administering the drugs actually increased the risk of dying.

Macron met Raoult at his hospital in April as the president canvassed opinion about the next policy steps to make in the fight against the coronavirus.

The Elysee insisted at the time that the visit — which raises eyebrows in some quarters — did not represent any kind of “recognition” of the professor’s methods

© 2020 AFP


YOU WOULD BE FORGIVEN IF YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD SEEN HIM BEFORE
LIKE PERHAPS BACK IN 2016 APPROVING TRUMP'S HEALTH TO RUN FOR POTUS

Dr. Bornstein has the phrase “dottore molto famoso,” Italian for “very famous doctor,” printed on his business cards
COULD BE BROTHERS


30 YEARS OF CAPITALIST AUSTERITY
1990-2020 
HAS KILLED THE GLOBAL PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM 
THE CORONAVIRUS WAS THE BLUNT INSTRUMENT
France’s health workers to get ‘significant’ pay rises after coronavirus pandemic
May 25, 2020 By Agence France-Presse


Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said Monday that health workers would soon get hefty pay increases as part of an overhaul of France’s hospital system in response to the coronavirus crisis.

“I can say without any ambiguity, the increase will be significant,” Philippe said while kicking off consultations with doctors and nurses that are expected to conclude in July


Health workers have long complained about low salaries and insufficient staff at French hospitals, leading to a series of strikes over the past year to demand funding increase

In recent weeks, many have insisted that the nightly rounds of applause for caregivers treating COVID-19 patients would begin to ring hollow if the government did not back up the public recognition of their work with additional resources.


Starting pay for a nurse, for example, stands at 1,500 euros ($1,600), one of the lowest levels in the OECD group of developed economies.

Philippe promised “massive investments” as well as “radical changes” that could include new rules on working hours and scheduling to ensure that healthcare workers remain motivated despite the strains of their jobs.

“The key word here is pragmatism. I cannot say now what these discussions will lead to, but I’ve said that we must remove all constraints, whatever they are,” he said.

The government had already promised last November an additional 1.5 billion euros for hospitals over the next three years, including bonuses for thousands of nurses, in the face of growing anger over heavy workloads and staff shortages.

The state also pledged to absorb 10 billion euros of hospital debt, giving the system the ability to take on new loans for investments.

“We must do more,” Philippe acknowledged Monday, without providing any figure on potential spending.

“I believe this crisis requires us not to change our goals, but to step up our pace,” he said.

The coronavirus outbreak has killed over 28,000 people in France, though the number of daily deaths has fallen sharply since the peak of the outbreak.

The government is expected to announce next week a further loosening of the lockdown imposed in mid-March, which currently limits people from traveling more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from their homes.

Restaurants, bars and cinemas also remain closed, though they could be allowed to re-open with strict social distancing restrictions in areas where the number of COVID-19 cases has remained limited.

(AFP)

Monday, May 25, 2020


REPORT
U.S. Falters in Bid to Replace Chinese Rare Earths
Despite new legislation, Washington won’t be delivering critical minerals needed for defense, high tech, and energy.
BY KEITH JOHNSON, ROBBIE GRAMER | MAY 25, 2020, 7:00 AM
A front loader shifts soil containing rare-earth minerals to be loaded at a port in Lianyungang, in China's eastern Jiangsu province, on Sept. 5, 2010. STR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES


Rising tensions with China and the race to repatriate supply chains in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic have given fresh impetus to U.S. efforts to launch a renaissance in rare earths, the critical minerals at the heart of high technology, clean energy, and especially high-end U.S. defense platforms.

But it’s not going well, despite a slew of new bills and government initiatives aimed at rebuilding a soup-to-nuts rare-earth supply chain in the United States that would, after decades of growing reliance on China and other foreign suppliers, restore U.S. self-reliance in a vital sector.


“I think the light bulb has gone on, but we are still in a muddle about exactly what to do about it,” said David Hammond, an expert on rare earths at Hammond International Group, a consultancy.

The problem is that, despite years of steadily increasing efforts under the Trump administration, the United States—both the public and private sectors—has yet to figure out how to redress the fundamental vulnerabilities in its critical materials supply chain, and America still seems years away from developing the full gamut of rare-earth mining, processing, and refining capabilities it needs if it seeks to wean itself off foreign suppliers.

This month, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz became the latest lawmaker to introduce legislation meant to jump-start a domestic rare-earth industry by offering juicy tax breaks for new projects—and especially large tax incentives for end consumers who source finished products from American suppliers. Other lawmakers, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have pushed legislation of their own meant to spur U.S. development of rare earths.

The U.S. Defense Department, meanwhile, is trying to throw money at the problem, putting rare earths at the center of the annual defense acquisition bill three years in a row, with plans this year to massively increase existing Pentagon funding for rare-earth projects. All that comes after a drumbeat of Trump administration moves, from a 2017 executive order seeking to ensure supplies of critical minerals to a 2019 Commerce Department report suggesting ways to do so.

“It’s ripe for legislation,” said an advisor to Cruz, who says that kick-starting domestic demand for finished rare-earth products will percolate back up the supply chain and rejuvenate a U.S. industry that has basically evaporated since its world-leading days three decades ago.

The drive to decouple from China has been thrown into overdrive by the coronavirus pandemic and new calls from hawks in Washington to take a tougher approach to confronting Beijing’s rise as a global rival. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, took to the Senate floor this week to rail against China’s economic imperialism and called for the United States to leave the World Trade Organization and create a brand-new global economic order.

Other lawmakers and Trump administration officials, starting with the president, are also increasingly leery of maintaining the kind of deep economic integration with China that has marked the last two decades.

“There’s this confluence of factors that really provided added momentum to the discussions on the Hill concerning security of supply [of rare earths],” said Jane Nakano, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It went on before COVID, but certainly there’s added momentum because of COVID.”

Gaining independence on rare earths has been the subject of on-again, off-again debates in U.S. defense circles since 2010, when China, the world’s leading supplier, briefly halted rare-earth exports during a dispute with Japan. If there’s so much urgency about building a U.S. supply chain, it’s not to make the materials needed for the next generation of smartphones, electric car batteries, or wind turbines—though all those things need high-end rare-earth products.


READ MORE


The Great Decoupling



Washington is pressing for a post-pandemic decoupling from China. But the last big economic split brought on two world wars and a depression. What’s in store this time?
FEATURE | KEITH JOHNSON, ROBBIE GRAMER


China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths Cutoff to U.S.



Beijing could slam every corner of the American economy, from oil refineries to wind turbines to jet engines, by banning exports of crucial minerals.
REPORT | KEITH JOHNSON, ELIAS GROLL


I Was a Rare Earths Day Trader



How a naval confrontation in the South China Sea created a global investment bubble -- and cost me half my life savings.
FEATURE | JASON MIKLIAN

Rather, the Pentagon’s front-line weapons are all heavily reliant on precision-crafted rare-earth products and materials whose manufacture now is largely in the hands of China. Each F-35 fighter, for instance, needs 920 pounds of rare earths; each Virginia-class nuclear submarine requires 9,200 pounds. Tomahawk missiles, guidance systems, and jet engines all need different combinations of alloys and specialized products using some of the 17 different rare-earth elements.

If lawmakers, the Pentagon, and the White House are all now taking the rare-earth challenge seriously, why do they seem to be making little progress in tackling the issue?

Part of the problem is that a lot of the efforts so far, both in private sector and those with government funding, have focused simply on getting more rare-earth ores out of the ground in the United States. There are new rare-earth mines in different stages of early development in Alaska, Wyoming, and Texas, in addition to expansion underway at the one existing mine at Mountain Pass, California.

Another potential factor is the growing realization that China can’t continue to dominate the rare-earth market in perpetuity. This is not because of any legislation coming out of Washington that outmaneuvers Beijing but simply because China is taking steps to limit its breakneck production of the minerals, the mining of which leads to massive environmental damage.

“China has in its campaign to dominate the world splurged all its rare earths at bargain basement prices and has now ended up as a net importer of heavy rare earths,” said Christopher Eccleston, a mining strategist at the London-based financial advisory firm Hallgarten & Company. “It’s really quite a turnaround.”

In a 2019 study, Hallgarten projected that China would mine less than 50 percent of the world’s rare earths, compared with about 75 percent today, by the mid-2020s as it tightens restrictions on extracting its diminishing supplies.

Still, the critical bottleneck for the United States, and especially the defense sector, isn’t access to rare-earth ores, which are available from many countries all over the world, including deposits in Vietnam, Brazil, India, Australia, Canada, and Greenland. Rather, it’s that the rest of the value chain—processing those ores, refining them into metals, and turning that metal into advanced products like permanent magnets—is dominated by China.

“People get caught up on the resource end, and they don’t realize that China owns the metals and will continue to own that space,” said James Kennedy, the founder of ThREE Consulting, a rare-earth consultancy focused on security implications.

Some of the latest initiatives do seek to address part of those vulnerabilities, though even those measures have been ill-starred. The Pentagon said last month it would provide funding to both the project at Mountain Pass and for Australian firm Lynas to build processing facilities. But now both those programs appear to be on hold: Reuters reported that the Pentagon is halting the funding of those rare earth projects pending further investigation. It’s not clear if the holdup is due to the realization that Mountain Pass has minority Chinese ownership (and a Chinese monopoly on the mine’s output) or if the retreat is due to the realization that neither U.S. project is rich in the particular kind of heavy rare earths the military needs.


So far, all the steps taken fall short of rebuilding the full, mine-to-magnet kind of value chain that would be needed to ensure U.S. self-reliance of the critical materials.

“In the end, it does not matter how many rare-earth mines the United States opens. It does not matter if they are upgraded to produce mixed or separated oxides,” Kennedy said. “Nothing matters until we figure out how to overcome China’s control over metal production.”

Some of the latest plans—like Cruz’s new bill—do try to nudge the development of more domestic capacity at the high end of the value chain, by incentivizing manufacturers to use magnets and other advanced products made in the United States. But using traditional tools like tax credits to fix a problem caused by China’s state-mandated dominance of an entire industry is likely doomed to fail, Kennedy said.

“Tax incentives are only good if you see profitability,” he said, a rare event in an industry plagued by high costs, razor-thin margins, and serial bankruptcies. U.S. lawmakers’ proposals, he said, have “a market solution for a non-market problem.”

That’s a point that Kennedy, Hammond, and many other rare-earth experts repeatedly make: Given China’s state-mandated dominance of the niche rare-earth industry, it basically controls pricing and ensures that normal economic rules don’t apply. That makes it hard to respond to China’s current dominance by turning to market-based solutions, like urging mining companies to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into big upfront investments that could be rendered uneconomical with a single decision in Beijing.

“Let’s see: uncertain demand, uncertain price, uncertain technology—yeah, let me get my checkbook out,” Hammond said.

To make sure the United States can rebuild the full range of rare-earth capabilities—from mining to processing to making the advanced final products—Hammond and others think it’s time for the Trump administration to turn its penchant for state capitalism to one sector that could actually use it. That would entail bypassing the dicey market economics of rare-earth mining and processing altogether and doing something like creating a government entity that could just underwrite the entire process in the name of national security.

“This is a critical defense issue, like the shipyards in the Second World War,” Hammond said. “Rare earths lends itself to a state capitalist solution more than just about anything.”





Keith Johnson is a senior staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @KFJ_FP


Robbie Gramer is a diplomacy and national security reporter at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @RobbieGramer
The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class Hardcover – May 12, 2020
by Joel Kotkin (Author)




Following a remarkable epoch of greater dispersion of wealth and opportunity, we are inexorably returning towards a more feudal era marked by greater concentration of wealth and property, reduced upward mobility, demographic stagnation, and increased dogmatism. If the last seventy years saw a massive expansion of the middle class, not only in America but in much of the developed world, today that class is declining and a new, more hierarchical society is emerging.

The new class structure resembles that of Medieval times. At the apex of the new order are two classes―a reborn clerical elite, the clerisy, which dominates the upper part of the professional ranks, universities, media and culture, and a new aristocracy led by tech oligarchs with unprecedented wealth and growing control of information. These two classes correspond to the old French First and Second Estates.

Below these two classes lies what was once called the Third Estate. This includes the yeomanry, which is made up largely of small businesspeople, minor property owners, skilled workers and private-sector oriented professionals. Ascendant for much of modern history, this class is in decline while those below them, the new Serfs, grow in numbers―a vast, expanding property-less population.

The trends are mounting, but we can still reverse them―if people understand what is actually occurring and have the capability to oppose them.
Review

“Kotkin has written an essential and critical study of emerging class structures at the intersection of technological determinism and post-industrial capitalism. He suggests that technological oligarchs are already controlling our economic future while creating a high-tech neo-feudal society that undermines democracy and economic mobility for the middle and working classes.”



--John Russo, Visiting Scholar, Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and Working Poor at Georgetown University, Co-editor, Working-Class Perspectives


“Our society and economy is no longer progressing but regressing into a kind of “neo-feudalism.” As Joel Kotkin describes it, our once-great middle class is being eviscerated and America is dividing into a small group of uber-wealthy oligarchs who have colonized luxury cities like San Francisco and New York. A gripping cautionary tale by one of the most provocative and original thinkers of our time, this book is a must read for all those concerned about the future of our cities and our society.”

--Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class and The New Urban Crisis.
About the Author

Joel Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California and Executive Director of the Houston-based Urban Reform Institute. He is Senior Fellow for Heartland Forward and Executive Editor of the widely read website NewGeography.com. He is a regular contributor to City Journal, Daily Beast, Quillette and Real Clear Politics. As director of the Center for Demographics and Policy at Chapman, he was the lead author of a major study on housing, and recently, with Marshall Toplansky, published a strategic analysis for Orange County, CA.


Kotkin is the author of eight previous books, including The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us and the highly praised The New Class Conflict. He co-edited the 2018 collection Infinite Suburbia. Kotkin’s books The City: A Global History and Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Are Reshaping the Global Economy, were published in numerous languages including Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, German and Arabic. Kotkin has published reports on topics ranging from the future of class in global cities to the places with the best opportunities for minorities.

Kotkin has conducted major studies on demography and urbanism in East Asia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and many cities in the United States.


AMAZON KINDLE, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD A FREE CHAPTER TO READ


https://www.amazon.ca/Coming-Neo-Feudalism-Warning-Global-Middle-ebook/dp/B07VCG8RPF/ref=sr_1_1?_encoding=UTF8&dchild=1&keywords=The+Coming+of+Neo-Feudalism%3A+A+Warning+to+the+Global+Middle+Class&qid=1590459848&s=digital-text&sr=1-1


The Coronavirus Is Also Spreading a Dark New Era of Neo-Feudalism

‘HUMAN SACRIFICE’

Rather than a catastrophe ruining lives, some modern day clerics see the pandemic and the lockdowns as a “test run” for their dreams of achieving “degrowth.”

Joel Kotkin

Published May. 25, 2020

https://joelkotkin.com/books/


OPINION

Queen Mary's Psalter (Ms. Royal 2. B. VII)/Public Domain



Adapted from The Coming of Neo-Feudalism (Encounter Books).

The COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the global shift already underway towards a neo-feudal society. With the middle-class economy largely shut down and, in the best-case scenario, in for a long and painful recovery, the population that is barely hanging on is expanding rapidly in America and around the world. In the U.S. alone, the ranks of the poor are projected to increase by as much as 50 percent, to levels not seen in at least a half century.

Neo-feudalism is reprising the kind of society that existed in Medieval times, characterized by declining social mobility and greater concentrations of power. In the neo-Feudal world, as in the original, the middle class loses its primacy, as small businesses fail and even affluent families face the prospect of joining the ranks of ever expanding class of property-less serfs.

FROM DAILY BEAST
BEHIND PAYWALL
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-coronavirus-is-also-spreading-a-dark-new-era-of-neo-feudalism?ref=home




Winter 2019 / Volume III, Number 4
America’s Drift toward Feudalism
by Joel Kotkin

America’s emergence in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries represented a dramatic break from the past. The United States came on the scene with only vestiges of the old European feudal order—mostly in the plantation economy of the Deep South. There was no hereditary nobility, no national church, and, thanks to George Washington’s modesty, no royal authority. At least among whites, there was also far less poverty in America, compared to Europe’s in­tense, intractable, multigenerational poverty. In contrast, as Jeffer­son noted in 1814, America had fewer “paupers,” and the bulk of the pop­ulation was “fed abundantly, clothed above mere decency, to la­bor moderately and raise their families.”

Yet in recent decades this country, along with many other liberal democracies, has begun to show signs of growing feudalization. This trend has been most pronounced in the economy, where income growth has skewed dramatically towards the ultrarich, creating a ruling financial and now tech oligarchy. This is a global phenomenon: starting in the 1970s, upward mobility for middle and working classes across all advanced economies began to stall, while the prospects for the upper classes rose dramatically.

The fading prospects for the new generation are all too obvious. Once upon a time, when the boomers entered adulthood, they en­tered an ascendant middle class. According to a recent study by the St. Louis Fed, their successors, the millennials, are in danger of be­coming a “lost generation” in terms of wealth accumulation.

This generational shift will shape our future economic, political, and social order. About 90 percent of those born in 1940 grew up to experience higher incomes than their parents, according to researchers at the Equality of Opportunity Project. This proportion was only 50 percent among those born in the 1980s, and the chances of middle-class earners moving up to the top rungs of the earnings ladder has declined by approximately 20 percent since the early 1980s. Corporate CEOs used to boast of starting out in the mailroom. There will not be many of those stories in the future.

The Return to Oligarchy

In feudal society, power was exercised primarily by two classes—what the French referred to as the First Estate, the clergy, and the Second Estate, comprised of the warrior-aristocratic elite. Everyone else, even successful merchants, resided in the Third Estate, and most were peasants living at subsistence levels. This was a society, noted historian Pierre Riché, composed of “those who prayed, those who fought, and those who labored.”1

Contemporary society may have little place for orthodox religion, and our military, however impressive, hardly constitutes an effective ruling class. But we are beginning to see the elevation of two very powerful classes—one dominant economically, the other culturally. Meanwhile, the power of today’s Third Estate inexorably weakens.

The ultrarich represent an emergent global aristocracy—or rather, a new oligarchy. Fewer than one hundred billionaires now own as much as 50 percent of the world’s assets—the same amount that around four hundred billionaires owned a little more than five years ago. In the United States, the richest four hundred U.S. citizens now have more wealth than 185 million of their fellow Americans com­bined. The shift has been dramatic: the top 1 percent in America captured just 4.9 percent of total U.S. income growth from 1945 to 1973, but in the following two decades the country’s richest classes gobbled up the majority of U.S. income growth.

Patterns of property ownership reflect the very same trends that anchored both the medieval aristocratic and ecclesiastical classes. The proportion of land owned by the nation’s hundred largest private landowners grew by nearly 50 percent between 2007 and 2017. In 2007, according to the Land Report, this group owned a combined twenty-seven million acres of land, equivalent to the area of Maine and New Hampshire combined. A decade later, the hundred largest landowners had holdings of over forty million acres. Their holdings are now larger than the entirety of New England. Even in much of the vast American West, where much of the land remains in public hands, billionaires have created expansive estates that many fear will make the rest of the local population land-poor.

In the past, the oligarchy tended to be associated with either Wall Street or industrial corporate executives. But today the predominant and most influential group consists of those atop a handful of mega-technology firms. Six firms—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Netflix—have achieved a combined net worth equal to one-quarter of the nasdaq, more than the next 282 firms combined and equal to the GDP of France. Seven of the world’s ten most valuable companies come from this sector. Tech giants have produced eight of the twenty wealthiest people on the planet. Among the na­tion’s billionaires, all those under forty live in the state of California, with twelve in San Francisco alone. In 2017, the tech industry pro­duced eleven new billionaires, mostly in California. Only China, home to nine of the world’s top twenty tech firms, presents any kind of challenge to their domination.

Initially many Americans, even on the left, saw the rise of the tech oligarchy as both transformative and positive. Observing the rise of the technology industry, the futurist Alvin Toffler prophesied “the dawn of a new civilization,”2 with vast opportunities for societal and human growth. But today we confront a reality more reminiscent of the feudal past—with ever greater concentrations of wealth, along with less social mobility and material progress.

Rather than Toffler’s tech paradise, we increasingly confront what the Japanese futurist Taichi Sakaiya, writing three decades ago, saw as the dawn of “a high-tech middle ages.”3 Rather than epitomizing American ingenuity and competition, the tech oligarchy increasingly resembles the feudal lords of the Middle Ages. With the alacrity of the barbarian warriors who took control of territory after the fall of the Roman Empire, they have seized the strategic digital territory, and they ruthlessly defend their stake.

Such concentrations of wealth naturally seek to concentrate power. In the Middle Ages, this involved the control of land and the instruments of violence. In our time, the ascendant tech oligarchy has exploited the “natural monopolies” of web-based business. Their “super-platforms” depress competition, squeeze suppliers, and reduce opportunities for potential rivals, much as the monopolists of the late nineteenth century did. Firms like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft control 80 to 90 percent of their key markets and have served to further widen class divides not only in the United States but around the world.

Once exemplars of entrepreneurial risk-taking, today’s tech elites are now entrenched monopolists. Increasingly, these firms reflect the worst of American capitalism—squashing competitors, using inden­tured servants from abroad for upwards of 40 percent of their Silicon Valley workforce, fixing wages, and avoiding taxes—while creating ever more social anomie and alienation.

The tech oligarchs are forging a post-democratic future, where opportunity is restricted only to themselves and their chosen few. As technology investor Peter Thiel has suggested, democracy—based on the fundamental principles of individual responsibility and agency—does not fit comfortably with a technocratic mindset that believes superior software can address and modulate every problem.

This emerging world is far removed from the democratic capitalism that dominated the era after World War II. Rather than encouraging and accommodating families, today’s oligarchs promote a largely childless college campus environment, where they even pay female workers to freeze their eggs. Traditionally companies liked employees with families. Not so much in the brave new tech world, which demands long hours and little time off for such things as raising children.

As for the rest of the population, the prospects are even bleaker. In the tech hub of San Francisco, the middle-class family is almost extinct. The city has lost thirty-one thousand home-owning families over the past decade. It leads the state in economic inequality. The evidence of massive inequality, pervasive homelessness, and social dysfunction fills the streets.

Silicon Valley, located in the suburbs south of the city, has also become profoundly less egalitarian. It is increasingly divided between an entrenched ultra-wealthy class and a dependent poor class, work­ing largely in the service industries. By 2015, some seventy-six thou­sand millionaires and billionaires called Santa Clara and San Mateo coun­ties home, while many in the area struggle to feed their families and pay their bills each month. Nearly 30 percent of Silicon Valley’s residents rely on public or private assistance.

Wired magazine’s Antonio García Martínez describes the contemporary Valley as “feudalism with better marketing.” In Martínez’s view, a plutocratic elite of venture capitalists and company founders sit above the still-affluent cadre of skilled professionals—well paid, but living only ordinary middle-class lives, given taxes and high pri­ces. Below them lies a vast population of gig workers, whom Martínez compares with sharecroppers in the South. And at the very bottom lies an untouchable class of homeless, those addicted to drugs, and criminals.

Martínez describes a society that, as in the Middle Ages, is “highly stratified, with little social mobility.” High prices make it all but impossible for anyone except the very affluent to own their homes. Workers in the gig economy, much less the “untouchables,” have little chance to improve their lot but struggle to barely pay their rent, or are forced to sleep in their cars, on friend’s couches, or commute long distances from the outlying periphery.


Feudalism with Better Marketing

This new feudal order rests on a new clerisy, which has now taken the cultural and intellectual role exercised by the old First Estate. Al­though largely secular, these worthies take on the role of ecclesiastical authorities from medieval times, seeing themselves as anointed to direct human society—a modern version of the feudal “oligarchy of priests and monks whose task it was to propitiate heaven.”4

Far larger and broader than the oligarchy, the clerisy spans an ever‑growing section of the workforce that largely works outside material capitalist enterprise—as teachers, consultants, lawyers, gov­ernment workers, and even doctors, more of whom now work as employees or contractors than owners. These professions have only grown, while those of the traditional middle class—small business owners, workers in basic industries and construction—have seen their share of the job market shrink.

Estimates of the size of the clerisy vary. Michael Lind estimates what he calls the “overclass” at some 15 percent of the American workforce, far larger than the membership of the old First Estate, which was closer to 1 percent of the French population. Charles Murray, on the other hand, offers a narrower estimate including only those at the top echelon in law, government, and universities—roughly 2.4 million people out of a country of over 320 million.5

At its apex, the clerisy today is dominated by what Daniel Bell would define as the “knowledge class.”6 Made up largely of the well-educated offspring of the affluent, this class has become increasingly hereditary in part because well-educated people marry each other. Between 1960 and 2005, the share of men with university degrees who married women with university degrees nearly doubled, from 25 to 48 percent. “After one generation,” as Bell noted, “a meritocracy simply becomes an enclaved class.”7

The new clerisy is crucially important to the new oligarchs, who need allies in the government, media, and academia to maintain their supremacy. In many cases the tech elite now control the clerisy’s own industries: consider the media, with Jeff Bezos’s takeover of the Washington Post, and the entertainment industry, with the rise of Netflix, Apple, and Amazon in Hollywood.

The political rise of this cultural overclass has been building for well over fifty years. As early as the 1960s, presidential historian Theodore White spoke of the “the new priesthood . . . of action intel­lectuals” that shaped the John F. Kennedy administration. This ming­ling of intelligentsia and power reached a pinnacle during the presi­dency of Barack Obama, whose administration was staffed al­most exclusively with products of the nation’s elite universities. More than sixty administration officials, roughly a fourth of Obama’s over­all appointments, had attended just one school—Harvard. Remark­ably, more top administration officials had degrees from Oxford Univer­sity than from any American public university.

Like the old First Estate, the clerisy—what the French socialist writer Christophe Guilluy calls “the privileged stratum”—operate from an assumption of “moral superiority” that justifies their right to rule.8 They represent the apotheosis of H. G. Wells’s notion of an “emergent class of capable men” who could take upon itself the task of “controlling and restricting . . . the non-functional masses.” This new elite, he predicted, would replace democracy with “a higher organism,” what he called “the New Republic.”9

Whereas the old First Estate justified its control based on spiritual dogma, the modern clerisy bases much of its power on its reading of “science.” Its members claim that, rather than mere factionalism, they represent an “objective” perspective above personal considerations. “When scientists say they want to live up to their social responsibilities, what they usually say is that they want more power than they have,” once observed Irving Kristol. “It means they want to run things, to take charge. It’s always nicer to run things than to be run by them.”

A shared belief in meritocratic superiority binds the oligarchs and the clerisy. This has led, as in medieval times, to a remarkable sharing and dissemination of orthodoxy. Even professions such as journalism, once at least somewhat diverse philosophically, have become, with few exceptions, boosters of the “progressive” party line. By 2018, barely 7 percent of U.S. reporters stated they were Republicans; some 97 percent of all journalist political donations go to Democrats.

Similar patterns can be seen in other media as well. Once divided between conservatives and liberals, Hollywood and its imitators else­where now tilt heavily to the Left. Liberal columnist Jonathan Chait, reviewing the offerings of major studios and networks, described what he called “a pervasive, if not total, liberalism.” In 2018, over 99 percent of all major entertainment executives’ donations went to Democrats.
Universities and the New Clerisy

But the ultimate engine of the clerisy’s power, and the prime incubator of its orthodoxy, lies in the universities. This sector has expanded its influence and scope enormously in the last half century. The total number of people enrolled in college in the United States grew from five million in 1964 to nearly eight million in 1970 and to some twenty million today.

Yet even as the universities have expanded, it’s the elite tier that serves as the ultimate gatekeepers for the upper classes. In his book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making, David Rothkopf compiled a list of more than six thousand members of the “superclass” around the world—including leaders of corporations, banks and investment firms, governments, the military, the media, and religious groups. After drawing a “globally and sectorally representative sample” of three hundred members from the list, Roth­kopf and his colleagues found that close to three in ten attended one of twenty elite universities—with Stanford, Harvard, and the Uni­versity of Chicago most highly represented.10

As elite universities have become more expensive and more critical to success, they have become, if anything, more socially exclusive, widening the gap between themselves and smaller, less well-posi­tioned institutions.11A National Journal survey of 250 top American public sector decision-makers—a critical part of the upper clerisy—found that 40 percent of them were Ivy League graduates. Only a quarter had earned graduate degrees from a public university. The days of rising up from a minor college to a position of influence and high status increasingly belong to the past.

Equally troubling, the clerisy, again like its medieval counterparts, has adopted a role as an enforcer not of free thought but of “pro­gressive” orthodoxy. These trends are particularly acute in fields that most impact public policy and opinion. Well under 10 percent of faculty at leading law schools, such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, and Berkeley, describe themselves as conservative. Leading journalism schools, including Columbia, have moved away from teaching the fundamentals of reporting and have adopted a “social justice” agenda as their signature approach.

Much like the early Church after the fall of Rome, which sought to suppress the memory of pagan civilization, the clerisy now has turned against the inheritance of modern liberal capitalism. In the schools, they have worked to remove the lodestones of that culture—Homer, Cicero, Shakespeare, Milton, and the founding fathers—from the campus curriculum. Instead they favor more politically correct books that tend to focus on the undoubted failings of our civilization, but rarely support the idea of America as a fundamentally liberal society which has provided unmatched opportunity for millions.

In modern America, the clerisy represents an ascendant class that shapes many of the “progressive” values embraced by the oligarchs and helps legitimate their rule. Imbued with a sense of natural su­periority—whether based on religion or some sense of elevated cognitive abilities, they now seek to shape our cultural, political, and social environments in ways that often violate the standards of liberal democracy, open exchange, and pluralism. Before we cede such power to the clerisy, we may want to consider the old Latin phrase quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who watches the watchers? In the rise of the clerisy, we see a powerful force for hierarchy, social stagnation, and thought control that could rival the role played by its predecessors in medieval times.


The Decline of the Third Estate in America

As the oligarchy and clerisy have waxed, the prospects for the Ameri­can third estate have either stagnated or gotten worse. In the United States, a country built on aspiration, the fading prospects for the new generation are now painfully obvious. Three-quarters of American adults today will not grow up to be better off than their parents. According to Pew, a majority of parents think their children will be financially worse off than themselves.

Unlike their parents, most of whom joined the middle-class yeo­manry, many young people face a future as propertyless serfs. By 2030, according to a Deloitte study of U.S. trends, millennials will account for barely 16 percent of the nation’s wealth. GenXers will hold 31 percent, but even in 2030, when they will be entering their eighties and nineties, boomers will still control a remarkable 45 per­cent of the nation’s wealth.

This erosion of the “American dream” centers largely on property. Since the end of feudalism, the rise of market-oriented democracy has accompanied the rapid dispersion of property ownership. This factor, critical in the earliest development of self-government in ancient Athens and Rome, was critical to the American founders’ conception of a republic. During the middle of the twentieth century, rates of homeownership in the United States expanded from 44 percent in 1940 to 63 percent thirty years later. Yet in the new generation, this prospect is fading. In the United States, homeownership among the post-college cohort (ages 25–34) has dropped from 45.4 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2016, a drop of 18 percent, according to Census Bureau data.

Some pundits suggest the decline of homeownership stems from changing preferences among younger people. Planners, social pundits, and urban intellectuals within the clerisy repeatedly make this asser­tion—one echoed by investors who seek to create a “rentership” society where people remain renters for life, enjoying their video games or houseplants. Yet virtually all surveys show that the vast majority of younger people would like to own a single-family home, and most want to raise children. The reason for not doing so lies with high housing costs.

In the emerging neo-feudal world, property ownership is increasingly restricted to older generations, who benefit from expanding home values and rental income, as well as wealthy institutional investors. In this new order, inheritance, notes French economist Thomas Piketty, seems destined to “make a comeback.”12 In the next generation, inheritance may play a role unseen since the nineteenth century. In America, a nation with a mythology disdainful of inher­ited wealth, millennials are counting on inheritance for their retirement at a rate three times that of the boomers. Among the youngest cohort, those 18 to 22, over 60 percent see inheritance as their primary source of wealth as they age.


The Politics of Inequality

These changes in the patterns of ownership and class will likely reshape liberal democracy, creating “new forms of government,” pre­dicts Stratfor’s Eric Schnurer, “[with] economics and social organization as different from today’s as our world is from the Middle Ages.” The shrinking of the yeoman class of small businesspeople and prop­erty owners certainly undermines the ballast of democratic community life, and could well accelerate the already ongoing radicalization of American politics.

This radicalization is clearest among millennials—those faced with limited prospects for upward mobility. Some 40 percent of millennials, notes Pew, favor limiting speech deemed offensive—well above the 27 percent of GenXers, 24 percent of boomers, and 12 percent of the oldest, many of whom recall the censorship imposed by fascist and communist regimes of the past. Millennials are also more likely to be dismissive about basic constitutional civil rights, and are even more accepting of a military coup than previous generations.

This new radical bent extends to both Right and Left. In November 2016, more white American millennials voted for Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. But the new radicalism is, for now, most pro­nounced on the left. During the 2016 primaries, socialist Bernie Sanders outpolled Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump combined. A 2016 poll by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that 44 percent of American millennials favored socialism while another 14 percent chose fascism or communism. By 2024, these mil­lennials will be by far the country’s biggest voting bloc.

Drawing little hope from the private sector, many millennials en­dorse policies that favor handing control of American economic life to Washington. Some of this tendency rests on environmental con­cerns, but economic inequality drives much of the thinking. As one of the architects of the Green New Deal recently said, “Do you guys think of [the Green New Deal] as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”


The Coming Battle

Ultimately the shift of millennials to the Left could lead to a conflict between the oligarchs and the clerisy over the appropriation of wealth. The way things look now, the battle will be over who pays for an ever-expanding welfare state—not how to expand the middle class. This is likely to shift our politics increasingly in an authoritarian direction. As the great historian Barrington Moore noted, “No bourgeois, no democracy.” In a country where the middle ranks are shrinking, the elites more powerful, and ideological polarization is on the rise, the prospects for democracy, even in its greatest homeland, could be grim indeed.

In the world envisioned by the oligarchs and the clerisy, the poor and much of the middle class are destined to become more dependent on the state. This dependency could be accelerated as their labor is devalued both by policy hostile to the industrial economy, and by the greater implementation of automation and artificial intelligence.

Opposing these forces will be very difficult, particularly given the orientation of our media, academia, and the nonprofit world, as well as the massive wealth accumulated by the oligarchs. A system that grants favors and entertainment to its citizens but denies them prop­erty expects little in return. This kind of state, Tocqueville suggested, can be used to keep its members in “perpetual childhood”; it “would degrade men rather than tormenting them.”13

Reversing our path away from a new feudalism will require, among other things, a rediscovery of belief in our basic values and what it means to be an American. Nearly 40 percent of young Ameri­cans, for example, think the country lacks “a history to be proud of.” Fewer young people than previous generations place an emphasis on family, religion, or patriotism. Rather than look at what binds a dem­ocratic society together, the focus on both right and left has been on narrow identities incapable of sustaining a democratic and pluralistic society. The new generation has become cut off from the traditions and values of our past. If one does not even know of the legacies underpinning our democracy, one is not likely to notice when they are lost.14 Recovering a sense of pride and identification with Ameri­ca’s achievements is an essential component of any attempt to recover the drive, ambition, and self-confidence that propelled the United States to the space age. If we want to rescue the future from a new and pernicious form of feudalism, we will have to recover this ground.

To reverse neo-feudalism, the Third Estate—the class most threat­ened by the ascendency of the oligarchs and the clerisy—needs to re­invigorate its political will, just as it did during the Revolution and in the various struggles that followed. “Happy the nation whose people has not forgotten to how to rebel,” noted the British historian R. H. Tawney.15 Whether we can understand and defy the new feudalism will determine the kind of world our children will inherit.



https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/americas-drift-toward-feudalism/
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume III, Number 4 (Winter 2019): 96–107.

Notes
1 Pierre Riché, Daily Life in the World of Charlemagne, trans. Jo Ann McNamara (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 133.

2 Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave (New York: Bantam, 1980), 9.

3 Taichi Sakaiya, The Knowledge Value Revolution, trans. George Fields and William Marsh (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1985), 152.

4 Marc Bloch, Feudal Society, vol. 2, Social Classes and Political Organization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 443.

5 Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (New York: Crown Books, 2012), 19–20.

6 Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 15, 51, 213, 387.

7 Bell, 427.

8 Christophe Guilluy, The Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, the Periphery, and the Future of France, trans. Malcolm DeBevoise (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 2, 9.

9 H. G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought, (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Books, 1999), 51, 85–87, 99.

10 Ben Wildavsky, The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities Are Reshaping the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 169.

11 Murray, 4–56; Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014), 26–27, 84, 421–22, 424–28.

12 Piketty.

13 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

14 Roderick Seidenberg, Post-Historic Man: An Inquiry (New York: Viking Press, 1974), 179.

15 R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), 321.

About the Author


Joel Kotkin is the Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His next book, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, will be published in 2020.

ALSO BY JOEL KOTKIN
Neo-Feudalism in California
The New Shame of Our Cities