Bankrupting cities – the US’s new cut-and-run scheme

$18 billion – that is the cost of Detroit’s debt.

$18 bn – that is the cost of Detroit’s debt, as revealed on Thursday when the city filed for bankruptcy, setting a new record in the US. This figure is a gentle reminder of America’s inequality – consider, not only that 30 of the nation’s billionaires could single-handedly pay off Detroit’s debt, but the news comes amid a gloat of optimism in the US.

US jobs figures – the most scrutinised of monthly data in the world’s largest economy – has beaten all expectations in June, May and April (monthly payroll gains averaging 196,000). Other good-news data has encouraged Ben Bernanke, the US Federal Reserve Chairman, to “taper” quantitative easing and equities are topping unknown heights.

But all this means nothing for the citizens of Detroit, or at least those 78,000 who remain in the city, down from two million in its 1950s heyday. Along with the citizens of America’s other bankrupt cities – Stockton, Mammoth Lakes and San Bernardino – they are the dead weight that America must cut in her struggle to the surface of economic buoyancy.

The message is harsh, yet simple – economic recovery is not universal and struggling cities must pay for their own recovery. How many more American cities, then, will we see go bankrupt as the inequality spits ever further? And what if this US tactic caches on in Europe – could we see a bankrupt Nottingham or Liverpool? (Admittedly, America’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy is not quite as dramatic as "bankruptcy" in the UK).

For Detroit, though, this means many more years representing America’s blue collar bust; the demise of industry and the heartland of sub-prime mortgages, while the rest of the country gets back on its feet.  When asked by CNBC if Detroit’s bankruptcy will affect markets, Steve Brice, Chief Investment Strategist of StanChart replied “markets seem to shrugging it off quite significantly”. 

However, to end on a positive note, this filing completes Detroit’s fall from grace. Here on, things can only get better in America’s industrial heartland.  

Photograph: Getty Images

Oliver Williams is an analyst at WealthInsight and writes for VRL Financial News

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496