World News
COVID-19 Proved Workers Make The World Run, Not The Bosses
Published
3 weeks agoon
By
admin
The start of the COVID-19 pandemic compounded the existing crises of capitalism for workers everywhere. This was most obviously apparent for “frontline” or “essential” workers, who were forced by their need to survive to risk disease, disability, and potential death on a daily basis at their jobs. While lauded in media and culture in the early days of the pandemic, the rewards these workers have actually received have been precarity, damaged health, depressed wages, and for far too many, an early death. As a new ruling class narrative that insists the pandemic is over becomes hegemonic, the stories and ongoing crisis faced by these workers is fading from public view. In his most recent book, The Work of Living: Working People Talk about Their Lives and the Year the World Broke, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez chronicled the stories of frontline workers in the first year of the pandemic. Max joins the The Chris Hedges Report to discuss his book and the ongoing struggle of the working class under capitalism in the age of COVID-19.
Production: Dwayne Gladden, Adam Coley, Cameron Granadino
Post-Production: Adam Coley, Kayla Rivara
Audio Post-Production: Tommy Harron
Transcript
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.
Chris Hedges:
Working men and women kept the country from disintegrating during the pandemic. They staffed the hospitals, stocked the shelves, drove the buses, manned the cash registers, cooked and delivered the food, grew the produce, drove the trucks, and collected the garbage. Yet these vital frontline workers were also sacrificed in disproportionate numbers in a system of grotesque inequality. In late 2020 and early ’21, at the height of the pandemic, Maximillian Alvarez conducted a series of interviews with workers battling to survive. They did not have the luxury of working from home, ordering what they needed from Amazon, and having it delivered. Their jobs, difficult before the pandemic, now came with grave health risks and few benefits or protection. Alvarez, as he does in his podcast Working People, set out to tell their stories. He raises up the voices and lives of those, the commercial media have largely rendered invisible, laying bare the huge divide between the haves and the have-nots.
Joining me to discuss his book, the Work of Living and the Untold Stories of Working Men and Women is Maximillian Alvarez, who is also the editor-in-chief of The Real News. So I read these stories, and there were certain themes that came out, which I wanted to ask you about. And I want to begin with, which was a constant for even when you’re interviewing a burlesque dancer, is the importance of work, not just in terms of exchanging labor for a wage, but in terms of self-importance.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, I think that’s exactly right. I mean, one of the things that I hope comes through in this book, in the interviews with workers that I do on my podcast, Working People and here at The Real News Network is working people aren’t dumb. Working people hold the world up. And there’s so much skill and knowledge and experience in everything that folks do and all the vital forms of labor that they perform to keep society running. And I think that you really see that in all of these interviews, whether it’s me talking with Willy, a gig worker in Texas who details all the ways that he goes above and beyond to get people their groceries, to navigate the craziness at this or that grocery store, or Kyle, a sheet metal worker in Louisville who really takes a whole lot of pride in the work that he and his coworkers do. Nick, a grave digger in New Jersey, you just hear directly from the people who do this kind of work, all the attention and accrued knowledge and even love that goes into performing the vital labor that they do.
Chris Hedges:
And yet COVID made them ask questions about work and about their place in society that they hadn’t asked before.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, I think that, honestly, as a society, there’s still a lot of big questions that we haven’t fully confronted since the onset of COVID-19 in the spring of 2020. I think the most obvious is that COVID-19 forced all of us to confront our own mortality, in a way that perhaps we never had to before. And I think that you’re seeing the after effects of that. I do think that COVID-19 was a really concentrated, terrifying experience, but it was also an extended moment when workers realized that they are essential, that the work that we do does keep society and the economy running, even while the board members and shareholders and the corporate executives were able to ride out the storm in their second homes. It was people like the folks that I talked to in this book, who kept us all from falling into the abyss.
And I think that working people haven’t forgotten that. They know how essential they are. And so I think that you are seeing that sort of trickle out into things like the Great Resignation, record numbers of people quitting their jobs, a lot of whom I’ve talked to who said, “I got to sit down during COVID and think, ‘Is this what I want to be doing with my life? Should I be accepting the poor treatment that I’m getting at work? Should I be asking for more? If I died tomorrow, would I be pleased with how I’ve lived my life?’” But it’s also, I think, translated to workers becoming more militant on the shop floor. We’ve seen a lot of strikes over the past couple years, a unionization wave that’s extending into industries that have been very hard to unionize, like the service industry, because COVID, again, showed workers how little say they actually have over consequential decisions, whether that be when to open schools in-person, or what safety measures to implement in restaurants. If working people were the ones bearing the brunt of those decisions, but had no input over those decisions, a lot of people realize that actually having a voice on the job and banding together to demand what we need is actually something worth fighting for. And we’re seeing that happening all over the place.
Chris Hedges:
There’s a juxtaposition which you address in the book between the effusive, kind of lauding by the wider society of these quote/unquote essential workers. And yet during the pandemic, they’re clearly treated as if they’re disposable.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, I think that this is one of the biggest disconnects or sort of logical knots that we’re still trying to unravel right now, because… I try to make this clear in the book, in the conversations that I have with these 10 amazing human beings, that there was also a lot of good that we saw in each other over the past two and a half years. Working people showed their mettle, not just at the workplace, but people sacrificed to bring their immunocompromised family and neighbors groceries. They found ways, even remotely, to stay connected to each other and to take care of one another. And also there are these great moments, like the one captured by the great artist Molly Crabapple, who designed the cover for the book, where people were standing on their balconies banging pots and pans in honor of the frontline workers who were risking their lives, many of whom never asked to risk their lives. They were just trying to make a paycheck at that very scary moment. But I think we collectively acknowledged one another in that way and celebrated one another.
And corporations and businesses really capitalized on that and took it as a marketing opportunity. So many different businesses celebrated their frontline workers as heroes and even used the opportunity to get favorable coverage in the press for giving their workers quote/unquote hero pay, like Amazon. Amazon was touted as this great benefactor for giving workers hero pay, that it then ripped away from workers weeks later and no one said anything about it. And it was a very calculated move. The reason that businesses like Amazon did not call it hazard pay is because then they would have to keep paying it as long as the hazard persisted. But calling it hero pay makes it seem like it’s just something given in recognition of heroism.
But actually on the shop floor, when workers would raise concerns over safety protocols like Christian Smalls at Amazon’s facility in Staten Island, they were fired for it, or they were reprimanded for it. And all the while, I talked to Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, a nurse in California for this book. She’s understandably, like so many healthcare workers, very bitter about the fact that their hospitals were celebrating the staff as heroes, while not listening to those very same staff members when they were saying, “Here’s the PPE that we need. Here are the safe staffing ratios that we need to provide the care that every patient deserves.” So workers were really, again, held up as these kind of human-shaped cardboard cutouts. But when it actually came to listening to what workers on the shop floor were saying that they needed, they were, as always, comfortably ignored.
Chris Hedges:
You do a good job of describing what work conditions are like. One person you interviewed, Nick, who’s… I just was stunned, and I’ll let you explain it. And of course, the pandemic exacerbates the difficulty and danger of these work conditions. But just lay that out. I mean, there are things that came with being a grave digger that I didn’t expect, including, of course, direct exposure to toxins. But you can talk a little bit about Nick’s work and what happened during the pandemic.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, I mean, the interview with Nick Galuppo, a grave digger in north-central New Jersey was one of the first ones that I recorded for the book. So in a lot of ways, it kind of set the tone for the other interviews that I did. And it really… I mean, I’ll let folks read it, but I think it’s a really fascinating conversation that he and I got to have, where we learned more about him, how he fell into working at a graveyard, what that work entailed before the pandemic hit, and the working conditions that he describes there. I mean, without going into full depth mean, we’re not talking about your typical flat suburban memorial park. We’re talking about an older graveyard with differing soil contents that largely serves a Jewish population, where the sort of customs and traditions are to bury people the day that they die or at latest one day after.
So what that means is they’re not embalmed. They’re not being buried in metal caskets. They’re being buried in quarter-inch pine boxes with wooden dowels, so that everything is decomposable. And again, it’s an older cemetery, where you have this older equipment that guys are jerry-rigging to keep going. And he describes it, Nick does, as a fast-paced construction site for the dead. And then COVID hit, and he talks about those early days in the pandemic. New York was really the epicenter of it in that kind of area of the country. And Nick saw that. He and his coworkers saw that in the graveyard, because he tells me that, on average, they do about four or five burials a day at this cemetery before the pandemic hit. In those early months, that number tripled. And so these guys are running all over the place trying to do an essential service.
You can tell when Nick is talking how much care he takes with the work that he does. He takes very seriously the responsibility of offering families a chance to send their loved ones off into the great beyond as best they can. And so he understands the high stakes of doing what they do right. But when you are trying to do that, when you’ve got 15 burials lined up, one after the other, and you’re running around this graveyard where some parts of the graveyard have water tables that are full, others where you have caves in, it really does paint a gruesome picture. But I think it makes you appreciate the invaluable work that folks like Nick do to provide that sort of peace and comfort that so many of us depend on when we bury our loved ones.
Chris Hedges:
I want to talk about a little. He has to sometimes remove these disintegrated coffin. I mean, talk about what happens.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Well, like I said, in this particular cemetery, given the population that it predominantly serves, the burial practices that are required of folks like Nick, and the geographical makeup of the cemetery that he’s working at, we don’t go into the goriest details of what he does, but you definitely get a sense of how packed that cemetery is. And again, when folks aren’t embalmed, when you have soil that gets a lot of water in it, when people are buried so closely together, you can kind of use your imagination that, if someone is being buried right next to a site where two people were buried the year before, and there’s been caves ins… I mean, the one detail that Nick gives is they got to put these shale bars in between the two graves on the side, so that essentially human remains don’t fall into the hole where new person is being buried.
And again, I think the thing that Nick says that is very profound is he says, “Our job is not just to bury holes and put caskets in it. Our job is to provide families with a sense of peace at a very critical moment, where they are saying goodbye to their loved ones for the last time.” And so imagine feeling the burden of trying to provide that peace, when you’re working in such a morbid kind of environment, where so many things can go wrong, and you’re dealing with so many gruesome realities and old equipment. And at the same time, these guys are also terrified of getting sick. These guys are also… Go ahead.
Chris Hedges:
There’s no personal protective equipment, hazmat suits, anything like that. This is Nick: “You can get a pair of leather gloves or something, or you could shove some Vicks or a scarf in your nose if you want.” That’s all the protection they’re given.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. And he also talks about how on construction sites and a bunch of other sites, where kind of this sort of fast pace industrial work takes place, you have a lot of OSHA regulations and rules put in place to protect workers. And so in a lot of sites, if it’s raining outside, if there’s inclement weather conditions, you’re going to shut down the work site for a day. With a graveyard, you can’t do that. People die, and they need to be buried. And so rain or shine, snow or sleet, these guys are out there doing this work. And again, it was the perfect storm that Nick described, where numbers of burials have tripled. The conditions under which people were being buried were not getting any better. All the while, those sort of whatever lax OSHA regulations there are that pertain to graveyards, the fact of the matter is that on a day-to-day reality management throws those out the window. They say, “Get those people in the ground. I don’t care how you do it.” And that’s kind of how Nick understands that. I don’t think that folks Nick necessarily want or agree with that, but they understand the reality in front of them. And this is what they put up with that a lot of us just never see.
Chris Hedges:
Let’s talk about Willy. So he is a gig worker. I mean, I found this interesting, because it highlighted the kind of stress that gig workers are under, same with Amazon workers, for instance. I mean, they are measured down to the second, and their performance is rated on how fast. He’s a shopper, so he has to get food. And what happens when there’s long lines? What happens, he writes, when he calls shopper support and nobody picks up? That kind of stress, can you speak to that?
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, I mean, gig workers, it’s a form of neo-feudalism, frankly, what we call the gig economy. And I point people to the great work of scholars, like Veena Dubal, who’ve written about this extensively or listened to folks like Willy or Vanessa Bain, another great worker organizer, who’s been speaking out about these horrendous conditions that gig workers have been working, under even before the pandemic. But so many of us, including many people in my own family, were drawn into the promise of the gig economy 10, 12 years ago, because it promised that we could be our own boss. It promised a degree of independence.
Chris Hedges:
Let me just interrupt, because I read in one of the questions you were a gig worker yourself in essence. What did you work in a-
Maximillian Alvarez:
Well, so I was a warehouse temp 10 years ago, while my mom and dad were both driving for Uber and Lyft. This was when the recession hit our family, like millions of other families, very hard. We eventually lost everything including the house I grew up in. But working as a temp, that’s kind of like the proto gig work. I mean, you’re not hired by the company technically, which essentially means you can get paid less. You can be fired at the drop of a hat. There was even a class action lawsuit filed against the temp agency I worked for, because they were stealing our wages so much. But yeah, I mean, the promise, again, for my folks and for folks like Willy, was that you can be your own boss, and actually if you can make a decent take-home pay, and you can do it on your own time. What we have seen the trend over the past decade is what Bernie Sanders famously called a race to the bottom, where the take home pay keeps going down.
And these black-boxed algorithms that determine everything, they determine, like you said, what route people should take from their home or from a drop-off destination to the grocery store. It determines how long that should take. It determines their ratings and what they should get paid for this or that delivery. And what Willy talks about is right when the pandemic was hitting, Shipt, which is the company he works for, which is the delivery service that is owned by Target Corporation, made adjustments to its algorithm and was telling workers, “Oh, this is going to be good for you. You’re going to get more take-home pay.” And Willy noticed that his take-home pay was going down. So he started talking to folks online, and he talked to over 500 people in a matter of weeks and was realizing that this was happening everywhere. And again, they have no control over that.
And they also have no control over all the things that can crop up when you’re trying to make those deadlines. If you’re trying to get a delivery in at 20 minutes, but say it’s around Christmas-time, and the lines are super long, and there are only two people at checkout, and maybe the card that Shipt gives you doesn’t work. And so like you said, you got to call Shipt shopper service. No one’s answering the phone. All the while your time’s clicking down and you have no control over that, but you, as the worker, are the one who take the brunt of it. Your ratings go down. Your pay goes down. And if your ratings go down enough, they can kick you off the platform, thus ripping away your lifeline. And so whenever Willy would raise this with Shipt or post about it on Shipt-owned Facebook groups, he would get viciously ridiculed by the moderators and by fellow shoppers and told that the problem was with him. So this is really what the gig economy does, is it puts all the burden onto workers and all the responsibility and all the liability onto workers, while it gives them, in fact, no control over their schedule. And the algorithm kind of is the all-seeing boss that tells them what to do every second of every day.
Chris Hedges:
Well, he gets so desperate, he wants to hire someone to help him, so he can make the time slot to stand in a line, while he gets the food, and they won’t let him.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, again, speaking to the brilliance I think of everyday working people, Willy will be the first to tell you that he’s an introverted guy. And he is not a natural-born organizer. It’s very uncomfortable for him to talk to so many people. But what I think you see is a guy who realizes that he’s getting screwed over. And so he starts digging into the contract. He starts reading the fine print. He starts seeing that there’s a problem here. And he kind of forces himself to talk to more people about these issues. And the example that you’re pointing out was Willy, he’s like, “I’ve worked as an independent contractor in construction before. Based on what I know from being an independent contractor, I can bring, say my daughter, with me to stand in line during Christmas-time, because those lines take forever while I go do the shopping. But in the Shopper’s Guide that Shipt gives us, they tell you that you can’t do that.” And so again, it’s kind of forced it’s leaving you no option to actually make your quotas and stuff like that.
But what Willy also points out is that legally they can’t necessarily do that. So they can essentially walk right up to the line of telling you, “You can’t have anyone helping you,” but within the fine print of the Shipt shopper agreement, you actually can do it, because Shipt wants to leave itself a back door for if it’s ever taken to court to say, “Oh, no, actually this is an independent contractor.” This is what they’re always trying to bounce. They want to tell workers that they’re independent, while taking away any independence that they actually have.
Chris Hedges:
Was it in Willy’s, or just a little aside, that at Christmas the tips went down? Was that Willy?
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah, yeah. Willy, he talks about… And there’s a lot of factors that go into that, right? But yeah, he was noticing that his tips were going down, because he was working twice as hard and still making less. And so he was like, “Something’s going on here.” But on top of that, he was noticing… People had probably all seen these commercials, whether it’s for Shipt or Instacart, they always say, “Our shoppers go above and beyond.” And they were even in these shopper groups on Facebook, people were celebrating Shipt shoppers for buying balloons for their customers or feeding their dogs or walking their dogs. And Willy had the gall to ask his fellowship Shipt shoppers, he’s like, “Why am I going to walk someone’s dog? If that dog gets loose and gets hit by a car, or if it bites me, I’m liable for that. I’m not getting paid for that. And yet it’s being held up as a virtue, when in fact, we should not be asked or expected to be doing this, when we’re already living so close to the bone.”
Chris Hedges:
I want to talk about the… Barbara Ehrenreich once said that being poor in America, or the working poor, it’s one long emergency, because your financial situation is so precarious, that if your car breaks down, if you are laid off, your entire life crumbles. And there’s a moment in, I think she’s a bartender in the book, and that happens. Of course, the bar is closed. And she admits that she was an alcoholic. She had been sober, and she goes right back into the drinking. So talk about that precariousness. We know the financial cost, but, throughout the book, there’s a very deep emotional and psychological cost.
Maximillian Alvarez:
There is. And I think one of the things that I hope people take away from the book and from this moment that we are in, this moment of labor unrest and worker action, is that so many of these problems existed long before COVID-19 ever hit our shores. Workers, who have been going on strike the past two years, these are long brewing problems. We are headed towards a national rail shutdown, because of problems that have been brewing in the industry for decades. I mentioned that because, up till COVID-19 hit in 2020, so many people were living so close to the bone. There were study after studies saying that one unexpected emergency expense would be enough to throw people into financial ruin, to the point of potentially losing the roof over their heads, so on and so forth. This is the reality that working people have been living in for a long time. Since the 1980s working people in this country have been more productive than they ever have been, and yet they share in less of the fruits of that productivity, while more of it gets pocketed by the 1%.
Chris Hedges:
Well, then the New York Times ran a story a couple years ago. They said that if wages kept pace with productivity, the minimum wage would be $20 an hour.
Maximillian Alvarez:
And yet minimum federal minimum remains 7.25. It remains 7.25 in places like Texas. And this is something that, again, really comes through in the book, is that, because of how much we have kind of limited the economic path to a comfortable, dignified life for working people, so many people were right on the edge, when something like COVID-19 hit. Then you add on top of that the ways that we have hollowed out the social safety nets and public institutions that are supposed to protect people in that sort of environment. So Ashley, the bartender in Portland, also describes trying to get unemployment when the system essentially buckled. My parents couldn’t get unemployment for weeks because that system was buckling under pressure.
Chris Hedges:
Isn’t this they were trying to call the unemployment office and they just put it on auto dial?
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah.
Chris Hedges:
So keep calling and calling. I just have a couple minutes left. You did mention the supplemental income and checks and extension of unemployment benefits. And that’s a theme in the book, and it turned out to be very, very important. All of that has ended, of course.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Right, yeah. So I think one of the things that workers, who I talked to for this book, are sort of conflicted about is that they say, “Yes, for all the ways that the government, the market, the media failed us,” the fact of getting one stimulus check, the extended unemployment benefits, the eviction moratorium, the pause on student debt payments, the the child healthcare tax credits, those were a major boon for a lot of folks, who, again, were living so close to the bone, to the point where some could make more on unemployment than they could working in the early days of the pandemic. And that, they tell me, gave them a chance to actually stop from the rat race for just a second and think, “Is this what I want to be doing with my life? Should I be working somewhere where I’m treated better? Should I quit my job and go look elsewhere? Or should I stay at my job and demand better pay?” And yet, the order-giving class could not let that happen. And so they ripped away pandemic era vital social aid. And now they are jacking up prices on everybody and clawing all those gains back and calling it inflation. And we still haven’t raised the federal minimum wage, so you’re seeing a real class struggle here.
Chris Hedges:
I think we should be clear that most of these programs were initiated by Donald Trump, and most of them were ended by Joe Biden.
Maximillian Alvarez:
Yeah. I mean, it was potentially paradigm shifting, especially if you compare it to how we responded to the financial crash in 2008. Families mine were left to fall into the abyss, while everyone threw their weight behind the banks and the big corporations. What Donald Trump started by putting money directly in people’s pockets was a huge change in policy. And unfortunately, it seems like we’re doing everything we can to unlearn the potential lesson that we could have learned from that.
Chris Hedges:
I just want to close it just quickly on mental health, because that’s another theme that runs through most of the interviews. There’s huge mental health struggles, not only among the people you interview, but also many of those people. You interview a teacher, for instance. And they have to deal, and they don’t have any resources.
Maximillian Alvarez:
They don’t. I mean, right now the entire country’s talking about learning loss for students. And as Rebecca Garelli, an educator in Arizona and an organizer, tells me, she’s like, “Apart from parents, no one’s more concerned with students’ mental health than us, because we have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis.” Of course, teachers care about students’ mental health, their learning loss, their ability to kind of develop socially. But if we cared about that as a society, we would’ve cared about that for decades leading up to this point, when resources like counselors on campus have been hollowed out. And there’s so many ways that we can actually take care of our students and our educators, but we actually have to listen to what the educators are saying. And unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening right now.
Chris Hedges:
Great. I want to thank The Real News Network and its production team, Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley, Dwayne Gladden, Kayla Rivara. You can find me at chrishedges.substack.com.
You may like
-
'The Road To Damascus' Uses Theater To Confront White Supremacy
-
'War Made Easy' – The Iraq War 20 Years Later
-
Did The US Navy Destroy The Nord Stream Pipelines?
-
High Injury Rates Push Minnesota’s Amazon Workers To Organize For Safety
-
Unintimidated, Amazon Workers Press On To Unionize Their Workplaces
-
Meet The Teamsters Unionizing The Cannabis Industry
World News
Australian National Review – Ellen Brown: The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami
Published
7 hours agoon
March 21, 2023By
admin
Ellen Brown: The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami
By Investment Watch Blog
via scheerpost:
Technically, the cutoff for SIFIs is $250 billion in assets. However, the reason they are called “systemically important” is not their asset size but the fact that their failure could bring down the whole financial system. That designation comes chiefly from their exposure to derivatives, the global casino that is so highly interconnected that it is a “house of cards.” Pull out one card and the whole house collapses. SVB held $27.7 billion in derivatives, no small sum, but it is only .05% of the $55,387 billion ($55.387 trillion) held by JPMorgan, the largest U.S. derivatives bank.
The global derivatives market is a $2+ QUADRILLION (2,000+ TRILLION) ticking time-bomb. When banks fail, derivatives won’t just unwind in an orderly fashion. Few people understand this.
These are some of the top U.S. banks ranked by derivatives exposure (double-digit TRILLIONs). pic.twitter.com/cS23fazqZH
— Gabor Gurbacs (@gaborgurbacs) March 19, 2023
The Bank of International Settlements estimates that there is a combined $52+ Trillion off balance sheet Dollar-denominated debt among non-banks outside of the U.S. and non-U.S. banks. In case of non-orderly derivatives wind-downs this could become extremely problematic. pic.twitter.com/x5IhFCnUsX
— Gabor Gurbacs (@gaborgurbacs) March 19, 2023
Credit Suisse’s $39 Trillion Derivative Debt Poses Significant Threat to US Financial System.
- The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, is under a lot of pressure due to the deteriorating condition of Credit Suisse, a Swiss banking giant. Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010, Yellen was given increased powers to oversee financial stability in the U.S. banking system. The legislation made Yellen the Chair of the newly created Financial Stability Oversight Council (F-SOC), whose meetings include the heads of all of the federal agencies that supervise banks and trading on Wall Street. It is Yellen’s authorization that would be required before the Federal Reserve could create any more emergency bailout programs for mega banks.
- Recently, the US Treasury was reviewing US banks exposed to Credit Suisse, looking into how many billions of dollars of underwater derivatives US banks were on the hook for as a counterparty to Credit Suisse, and U.S. banks exposure to Credit Suisse’s other major counterparties that U.S. banks do business with.
- Credit Suisse was making headlines for two years, and serious problems at Credit Suisse have raised alarm bells in the US financial system. Credit Suisse is a global, systemically significant, too-big-to-fail bank that operates in the US and is deeply interconnected throughout the global financial system. Its failure could have widespread and largely unknown repercussions, which is why the US financial system and economy need to be adequately protected.
- The recent revelations about Credit Suisse’s deteriorating state have raised concerns about contagion risks in the banking industry, particularly in light of the staggering amount of secret derivative debt being held by foreign banks. According to a report by the Bank for International Settlement, this unreported exposure is 10 times greater than their capital, with an estimated $39 trillion of dollar debt held off balance sheets.
- This poses potential threats to dollar swap lines and with a significant portion of derivative trades still not being centrally cleared, a layer of opacity is added to an already unaccountable system. The quarterly derivatives report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that four US mega banks held 88.6% of all notional amounts of derivatives in the US banking system, with a total notional amount of $195 trillion.
World News
Australian National Review – UCSF Orders Their Doctors To Ignore COVID Vaccine Injuries
Published
7 hours agoon
March 21, 2023By
admin
UCSF Orders Their Doctors to Ignore COVID Vaccine Injuries
By Steve Kirsch
They don’t file VAERS reports either. That’s a violation of federal law. I had a bunch of questions for their media relations department, but they ghosted me. Here’s what I wanted to know.
Dr. Josh Adler is executive vice president and chief clinical officer at UCSF Health as well as vice dean for clinical affairs at the UCSF School of Medicine. I wondered if he would like to see these questions answered as well. So I asked him.
Executive summary
Their response: silence.
You know what that means, don’t you?
The questions I sent them
- The UCSF Chief Medical Officer has issued a verbal directive that medical staff (doctors, nurses, techs, etc.) are specifically instructed NOT to associate the COVID vaccine to any injuries. So even if they believe the vaccine caused the injury they are NOT allowed to talk to the patient about it. Can you explain how this is in a patient’s best interest? World health authorities such as Karl Lauterbach, Federal Minister of Germany for Health, have publicly admitted that the rate of severe vaccine injury is 1 in 10,000 and the V-safe data in the US shows the rate of severe injury (requiring medical care) is actually 100X higher: 8 SEVERE INJURIES per 100 fully vaccinated people. So why is the UCSF medical staff forbidden to make an association??
- I’ve been told that the staff are told not to ask if the person was recently vaccinated with the COVID vaccine because that would suggest to the patient that the COVID vaccine might have caused their medical condition. Is this true? So the patient must offer it to the doctor because the doctor isn’t allowed to ask? How does that improve clinical outcomes?
- I’ve been told that 70% of the Radiology Department (in Marin specifically) requested and were granted religious exemptions after seeing what happened to people who received the COVID vaccine. If it wasn’t 70%, what is the number?
- I’ve been told that the placentas of a majority of vaccinated women who give birth are not normal (calcified, blood clots, etc.). This started happening after the shots rolled out. Can you tell me what percentage was observed and why nobody at the hospital is speaking out to the press about this situation?
- Most troubling to me is that I was not able to find anyone who currently works at UCSF (including doctors, nurses, and lab techs) who would talk to me on the record for fear of being fired. Why would these doctors and nurses have such a fear? Will you guarantee in writing that any staff member who speaks out about any of the points above will be protected and not be fired just for speaking out? Have you fired anyone for speaking the truth? Who?
- With all the chatter about fear and intimidation tactics, have you issued WRITTEN assurances to the staff that 1) it is OK to ask about COVID vaccine status, 2) that it is OK to write vaccine exemptions when warranted such as allergic reactions, 3) that if they believe the vaccine caused an injury that they are free to talk about it with the patient and 4) that staff members who talk publicly about what they are seeing in the clinic with respect to vaccine-associated injuries/deaths and don’t violate any confidentiality/HIPAA rules will be protected from being fired? I want to know whether TRUE speech is protected and whether UCSF has notified staff of this in WRITING. If not, why not? Do fear and intimidation tactics yield better health outcomes?
- My friend Tim Damroth told me he suffered a cardiac arrest 2 minutes after getting his first COVID shot. He was in such pain since the shot that his UCSF doctors prescribed a nerve block shot. But in order to get the nerve block shot, UCSF required him to be fully vaccinated (i.e., 2 shots)! He asked for a vaccine exemption, but the UCSF doctors told him that UCSF doesn’t allow them to write any vaccine exemptions, even for people who almost died after getting the shot. So Tim got another shot in order to get the medical care he needed but this made his pain much worse. Can you confirm whether COVID vaccination is still required to get certain medical care at UCSF? If it isn’t still required, when did the requirement end? Can you explain the rationale for requiring vaccination to give a shot? Do you deny treatment to people with life threatening conditions if they are not fully vaccinated? How vaccinated must they be to be treated? 2 shots? 3 shots? I just talked to Tim and he will be delighted to sign a HIPAA consent to allow UCSF to talk about his case and all his medical records publicly so everyone can learn what happened to him. Are you proud of the way he was treated? Do you have any regrets?
- If you believe that COVID vaccine and masks are effective, why would you subject a patient to have to be vaccinated before receiving medical care? This is nonsensical in light of the Cleveland Clinic study which clearly showed that vaccines increase risk of getting COVID which would seem to put the staff at higher risk. You are clearly ignoring that study. On what basis? Nobody has been able to debunk the study. The precautionary principle of medicine requires that you hold off your vaccine requirement until you can resolve the ambiguity.
- How many UCSF staff have died within 6 months of receiving a COVID vaccine shot? Were autopsies done? Did they do the histopathology studies to rule out the COVID vaccine as a cause of death? Can we see the slides?
- How many UCSF staff have been seriously injured from the COVID vaccine?
- Why didn’t any doctor at UCSF file a VAERS report on the vaccine injuries of
, Jan Maisel, and Angela Wulbrecht. This is required by law. was a former Chief Medical Officer at UCSF. Maisel is Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at UCSF. Wulbrecht was a top UCSF nurse. All of their injuries were required by law to be reported, yet no VAERS reports were filed. Why not? What are you doing to correct the problem? - UCSF ultrasound technicians with decades of experience have seen an unprecedented number of menstrual irregularities in women who have been vaccinated. Why aren’t any of them warning the public about this? Is the public better off if nobody knows about this?
- I talked to one of the funeral homes used by UCSF. They are seeing a 20X higher rate of perinatal deaths after the COVID vaccines rolled out. This is a disaster. Why isn’t anyone saying anything about this? Why did the funeral director decline to be named for fear of being fired? Why isn’t UCSF just publishing the numbers to warn the community? How does keeping this information secret result in superior clinical outcomes?
- Nearly all of the UCSF neurologists know that the COVID vaccines have caused serious injuries to huge numbers of UCSF patients. Can you explain why none of them are speaking out publicly about what they are observing in the clinic?
- Why not make public health information from the hospital public? The information can be easily anonymized to protect privacy. Wouldn’t making medical records such as age/admission date/COVID vaccine dates/reason for admission be a huge public service? If the vaccine really works, everyone would know it. If the vaccine doesn’t work, everyone would know it. Why don’t we have data transparency?
- Is anyone at UCSF calling for data transparency from the CDC? If the death-vax records were public, we could instantly know whether the shots are beneficial or harmful. Is there a reason these records are not public and nobody at UCSF is calling for these records to be made public? Do we get better health outcomes when the CDC keeps the data from public view? The data can be easily anonymized to satisfy any HIPAA requirements. I personally released a subset of the death-vax records from Medicare. So I know it can be done. Oh, and it showed the vaccine were causing an enormous amount of excess deaths.
- How long do you think you can get away with hiding all these vaccine injuries from public view?
- Is this really in the public interest to keep all this stuff secret and engage in fear and intimidation tactics? Is there a paper in a peer-reviewed medical journal showing superior patient outcomes when the public is kept in the dark about vaccine injuries?
Additional actions

Summary
It’s not just me who wants answers to these questions. Pretty much all my readers want to know the answer too.
More importantly, I’d guess that most of the people who work at UCSF would want to know the answer to these questions as well.
But apparently UCSF management and the mainstream media don’t think any of these questions are important.
I wonder if any members of the UCSF Health Leadership Team are curious about the answer to any of these questions. And if not, why not? Do all of them think secrecy is the best way to go? Which questions do they not want to have answered and why? I’ve emailed Dr. Adler and I hope he will respond.
They can’t keep running from the truth. The longer they avoid answering these questions, the worse they look.
Some day there will be accountability. You can bank on that.
World News
Australian National Review – Government-Backed Digital Money To Represent $213B In Payments By 2030
Published
7 hours agoon
March 21, 2023By
admin
Government-backed Digital Money to Represent $213B in Payments by 2030
By Lucas Mearian
Digital currencies backed by government banks still face a mountain of challenges before they’ll be ready for prime time, but 114 countries are involved in various projects, either in the planning stage or all-out pilots.
The global value of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will grow dramatically from $100 million today to $213 billion by 2030, once the virtual money gains greater adoption for domestic payments, according to new data from Juniper Research.
By 2030, 92% of the total value transacted through CBDCs around the world will be paid domestically, as cross-border payment systems face an uphill battle for adoption, Juniper predicted.
The digital currency, which is backed by traditional fiat cash such as the US dollar or British pound, can bolster financial inclusion because customers don’t have to have a bank account to hold them; they can instead use encrypted “digital wallets” that exist in the cloud, on a desktop or laptop, or even on USB storage device.
With a cross-border CBDC payment system, immigrants, for example, could send money back to their countries of origin without having to pay what can be exorbitant fees for electronic money transfers. Businesses would also be able to make cross-border payments for goods and services with much cheaper, and faster, settlements.
Central-bank-backed digital currencies would also reduce the costs of printing and replacing mone, help improve fraud detection, and allow money paid to scammers to be more easily traced and recovered, according to Lou Steinberg, former Ameritrade CTO and managing partner at cybersecurity research firm CTM Insights.
“It would simplify and speed up cross-border payments and reduce the cost and complexity of processing checks, wires, etc.,” Steinberg said in an email reply to Computerworld. “Unlike cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, a currency that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States or other trusted government would provide certainty that the value of the currency is being carefully managed. A government can adjust everything from the money supply to interest rates as they manage and maintain the value of a fiat currency.”
Digital currencies also eliminate the anonymous nature of consumer cash transactions. In places such as China, where spending activity is closely monitored, that would let the government know what movies an individual is buying tickets for of whether they are spending money at a bar. Those are hard to track with cash.
The US has been a slow follower compared to other nations, such as China and its digital Yuan, in developing a CBDC. Australia, China, Thailand, Brazil, India, South Korea and Russia already have pilots or will begin test programs this year. By 2030, the Bank of England and UK Treasury are planning to launch a digital pound or ‘Britcoin’ CBDC.
It matters which nation’s digital currency achieves widespread adoption first because that government will be able to set the global rules for most others, according to Steinberg. “Whomever sets up large international payment systems first will have a de-facto standard, one which latecomers will have to adopt,” he said. “The US continues to study a digital dollar while others are making progress. We need to prioritize a system for international payments and settlement based on a digital dollar, almost the equivalent of a next-generation SWIFT network.”
The features and standards can be used to design in privacy or state surveillance and traceability. They can include limited use currency, such as a type of dollar that could only be used for stimulus but not saved, or a digital dollar food stamp.
“On the other hand, countries like Cuba have two types of currency, and limit the use of one type to foreigners only (so they know which of their citizens are collecting money from foreigners),” Steinberg said. “If we want western standards around privacy, we need to set the standards. If we want the dollar to maintain its role as a ‘reserve currency,’ we need to set the standards around cross-border networks. Showing up late to the game means you play by some else’s rules.”
All together, 114 countries representing 95% of global GDP are investigating the creation of CBDCs, according to the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank. Only 10% have launched general CBDC networks. Sixteen percent of projects are in pilot stage, 30% are in development, and 27% are still in the research stage, according to the Atlantic Council.
“We are behind. The good news is that we are starting to realize this,” Steinberg said of the US.
This map by the Atlantic Council shows the maturity of CBDC projects around the globe.
In March 2022, for example, US President Joe Biden issued an executive order calling for more research on developing a national digital currency through the Federal Reserve Bank, or “The Fed.” The order highlighted the need for more regulatory oversight of cryptocurrencies, which have been used for nefarious activities such as money laundering. The Fed has been investigating the creation of a CBDC for years.
US lawmakers have also introduced bills that would allow the US Treasury to create a digital dollar. The electronic dollar would allow people to make payments using tokens on mobile phones or through cards instead of cash.
In November, the New York Federal Reserve Bank began developing a wholesale CDBC prototype. Named Project Cedar, the CBDC program hammered out a blockchain-based framework expected to become a pilot in a multi-national payments or settlement system. The project, now in phase 2, is a joint experiment with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to explore issues around the interoperability of the distributed ledger.
Juniper Research’s Maynard believes China will lead both domestic and cross-border CBDC use in 2030, “as it has had early pilots which have seen some success in the market.”
Since CBDCs are issued by central banks, they will be mainly targeted at domestic payments at first, with cross-border payments arriving as systems become established and links made between CBDCs used by individual countries. Crucial to CBDC success, however, will be cross-border and retail merchant acceptance.
CBDCs will also require a complex regulatory framework including privacy, consumer protection, and anti-money laundering standards, which need to be made more robust before adopting the technology, according to the Atlantic Council. Any new system of payment could also jeopardize the national security objectives of the country using them.
“They can, for example, limit the United States’ ability to track cross-border flows and enforce sanctions,” the group said. “In the long term, the absence of US leadership and standards setting can have geopolitical consequences, especially if China and other countries maintain their first-mover advantage in the development of CBDCs.”
Steinberg agreed, saying a fully distributed system has risks, “both that wallets will be electronically pick-pocketed, and that transaction validity (consensus) can be cheated. A well-designed system could be quite secure today and future proofed. A poorly designed one would lead to widespread theft and fraud,” he said.
The research by Juniper said to date there is still lack of commercial product development around CBDCs, with few well-defined platforms for central banks to leverage — a big limiting factor for the current market.
“While cross-border payments currently have high costs and slow transaction speeds, this area is not the focus of CBDC development,” said Nick Maynard, Juniper’s head of research. “As CBDC adoption will be very country specific, it will be incumbent on cross-border payment networks to link schemes together, allowing the wider payments industry to benefit from CBDCs.”
For success, any CBDC platform would need a full end-to-end financial network, including wholesale capabilities, digital wallet, and merchant acceptance, Juniper said.
Full end-to-end CBDC solutions, including wholesale capabilities and – most importantly – widespread merchant adoption central banks to generate buy in. That will mean leveraging platforms from experienced payments vendors, as well as having a public consultation model which involves key stakeholders at every stage.
“In order to achieve merchant adoption, it’s a chicken or egg scenario to an extent,” Maynard said. “Merchants will want to use the platform users are transacting in, but users will want to use the platform their favourite merchants and brands are on. As such, it will likely require a mix of incentives at both the user and merchant level to generate initial traffic.”
One of the challenges for central banks is figuring out how to enable a CBDC that adds value above existing payment systems, according to Gartner Research. The success of CBDCs also depends on “programmability” enabled by smart contracts, Gartner argued in a January report.
“In order to further justify investments into CBDCs, developers are experimenting with injecting programmability into CBDC-enabled payment value chains,” Gartner said. “Therefore, bank CIOs need to prepare for this transformation,”
As part of ongoing pilots of the digital Yuan, or e-CNY, for example, the Bank of China Chengdu is using smart contracts to manage the deposits for extracurricular school activities, such as field trips to museums. Using the e-CNY CBDC reduces reliance on third parties to deal with a refund if a class is canceled, or a student couldn’t attend, Gartner said.
Countries such as Russia and China see how payments that depend on US infrastructure and currencies can be affected by sanctions and are working to develop alternatives, Steinberg said.
“The one to watch is China,” Steinberg said, referring to the mBridge Project. “Domestically, they need to keep electronic payments from all moving to tech companies, and undoubtedly see benefits in increased consumer surveillance. Internationally, they piloted cross border payments and settlement with central banks in places like Thailand and UAE. That’s the current concern.”

Australian National Review – Ellen Brown: The Looming Quadrillion Dollar Derivatives Tsunami

Australian National Review – UCSF Orders Their Doctors To Ignore COVID Vaccine Injuries

Australian National Review – Government-Backed Digital Money To Represent $213B In Payments By 2030

International Blood Bank for the Unvaccinated has been Formed with Members from at Least 16 countries – Demand for “Pure Blood” Skyrockets

Life Force Network News English Transcript – White Paper Protests

Tesla Broke Labor Laws By Telling Workers Not To Discuss Pay, NLRB Claims
Trending
-
Health3 months ago
International Blood Bank for the Unvaccinated has been Formed with Members from at Least 16 countries – Demand for “Pure Blood” Skyrockets
-
English3 months ago
Life Force Network News English Transcript – White Paper Protests
-
Science and Tech3 months ago
Tesla Broke Labor Laws By Telling Workers Not To Discuss Pay, NLRB Claims
-
Life Force Original Content6 months ago
Speak Up News Part 2
-
English5 months ago
Life Force Network News English Transcript -UK False Data English Transcript
-
Life Force Original Content6 months ago
Speak Up News Part 1
-
Life Force Now5 months ago
Life Force Network News-UK False Data
-
Life Force Now6 months ago
Judge Rules California Prison Must Close