Monday, February 10, 2020

College Costs in the US Compared to Some Other Countries




Students in the US spend more on college than almost any other country, according to the 2018 Education at a Glance report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the US, college costs have significantly increased every year for at least three decades. When it comes to the price of an education, the US is in a class of its own. Compared to the rest of the world, spending per student in the US is outrageously high, and has almost no relationship to the value that students get in exchange.
Today, fully one third of all developed countries have free college for their citizens. And another third has very low tuition (less than $2,400 per year). But in America, college is now the second-largest expense a person will incur in a lifetime, second only to buying a house. In fact, increasing tuition and fees at American colleges have made college too expensive for many families. On average, US college students now graduate with more than $35,000 of debt. And did you know that more than half of the students who enroll in US colleges do not ever finish a degree? Each year millions of American college students leave college with no degree, but with thousands of dollars of debt. Surprisingly, almost forty percent of college students consider dropping out just to avoid more student loan debt. In addition, more than three million older Americans struggle to survive under crushing student loan debt. It is shocking but true: thousands of senior citizens in the US are forced to give up their Social Security checks because of student loan debt. Nowadays, the staggering cost of a college education in America causes many young people to wonder whether college is worth the expense.
            But in spite of all this, many people in America still do not know that in lots of countries around the world today, college is either free or almost free. And contrary to what you might expect, studying abroad can actually save you money. As the cost of US colleges continues to rise, many Americans are turning to universities in other countries for their education. Europe is popular because many countries there offer free tuition. Some of these countries—like Slovenia, Norway and Germany—even offer free tuition to international students. And, even when non-EU students are charged tuition and fees, these costs are much lower than at US colleges and universities. Add to that the low cost of living in most European countries, and it’s clear why more and more Americans today get their degrees in Europe. According to data from the Institute of International Education, about 50,000 U.S. students are currently pursuing full degrees abroad, with more than half of them studying in the U.K. and Canada. But in countries like Sweden and Germany, students attend university entirely free of charge. And colleges in France and Switzerland also offer extremely low tuition and, as a result, only a small percentage of students graduate with student loan debt. Even when you add the cost of traveling overseas, college in Europe is less expensive than a private college in the US.
In the US public system, the high cost of college has a lot to do with politics. Most state legislatures now spend much less per student than they did thirty years ago. Brainwashed by the ideology of small government, states are more and more forcing American public universities to beg for funds. Cuts in funding were especially deep following the 2008 recession, and the easiest way for universities to make up for the cuts was to shift most of their costs to students. The rationalization offered along with these funding cuts is always the same, namely that the cuts will just make colleges more efficient. But unfortunately, budget cuts have instead made many public colleges behave more and more like profit-hungry corporations. And—unlike many other countries—the US has no workable system for controlling price increases.
            Some students may imagine that the way things are now is somehow ‘natural’ or inevitable. But many professors remember that things used to be different in the US, at least until the late 1970s. In New York, Governor Cuomo has committed to making undergraduate education at the City University of New York (CUNY) and the State University of New York (SUNY) entirely free for students from families that earn less than $120,000 per year. And in 2014, Tennessee’s governor Bill Haslam agreed to provide free community college to all state residents. Today Tennessee is model state in this regard.
            America was once the world leader in producing talented and hardworking college graduates. But today, unaffordability and limited access have created a situation in which a college education in the US simply is not worth the expense for many families. How can we remedy this? If we really want to make America great again, then we should consider the total financial burden that students—and their parents—face. And we should provide students with all of the financial support that is necessary for them to complete their degree without student debt. This could easily be done.
            We could make higher education a right for all, and cancel all student debt for an estimated $2.2 trillion. To pay for this, we could impose a tax of a fraction of a percent on the same Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy in 2008. This Wall Street speculation tax would raise $2.4 trillion over the next ten years. It would place a tiny 0.5 percent tax on stock trades. This is only 50 cents on every $100 of stock. Wall Street was bailed out for several trillion dollars. So why can’t 45 million Americans be bailed out from the $1.5 trillion burden of student loan debt? Today, many other countries in the world still have a similar tax, including China, the UK, Hong Kong, South Korea, Brazil, Switzerland, Germany, and France.
It is no accident that these countries are not facing the kind of crisis in higher education that we face here in America.


Pete Buttigieg Supporters Big on Excitement, Short on Policy




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMY9KPl69NM&feature






















Clint Koble Almost Beat a Trump Cultist in 2018—Now He's BACK to Finish the Job




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7swSSvdQnQI&feature






















Bernie Sanders attacked by Unhinged James Carville on MSNBC




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJBg0n3kPgc&feature























2017: Keith Ellison Loses DNC Chair Race After Smear Campaign over His Support for Palestinians Rights




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mGIa9aM7CM

























What Does the Future Hold for US-Bolivia Ties?


Mark Weisbrot. CEPR. February 8, 2020

The Trump administration’s current and future behavior in Bolivia can best be forecast by its strong support for the military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Evo Morales on November 10. And no one disputes that Morales was democratically elected to his term that began in 2015.

The OAS is lying and cannot defend its accusations.
But there’s more: the Organization of American States (OAS), whose leadership under Secretary General Luis Almagro is strongly influenced by Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, played a leading role in the coup that brought this violent, repressive, racist, anti-indigenous government to power. The OAS did this by repeatedly claiming, falsely, or implying, that the Morales government committed fraud in the October 20 election.

One hundred and thirty-six economists and statisticians said the OAS charges were false. Members of the US Congress demanded answers from the OAS for their false accusations. Journalists have also tried to ask questions. All have gone unanswered for more than three months. Why? Because the OAS is lying and cannot defend its accusations.

The treatment of these transparent falsehoods—only eighth-grade arithmetic is necessary to understand them—by many US-based NGOs that claim to support “human rights” and “democracy,” is disgraceful. The same goes for most of the US media, including the editorial board of The New York Times, which for the first time in 17 years supported a military coup—provoking an angry response from more than 300 academic experts. The truth will come out.


To Survive, Venezuela’s Leader Gives Up Decades of Control Over Oil


Anatoly Kurmanaev and Clifford Krauss. New York Times, February 9, 2020

CARACAS, Venezuela — After decades of dominating its oil industry, the Venezuelan government is quietly surrendering control to foreign companies in a desperate bid to keep the economy afloat and hold on to power.

The opening is a startling reversal for Venezuela, breaking decades of state command over its crude reserves, the world’s biggest.

The government’s power and legitimacy have always rested on its ability to control its oil fields — the backbone of the country’s economy — and use their profits for the benefit of its people.

But the nation’s authoritarian leader, Nicolás Maduro, in his struggle to retain his grip over a country in its seventh year of a crippling economic crisis, is giving up policies that once were central to its socialist-inspired revolution.

Under Venezuelan law, the state-run oil company must be the principal stakeholder in all major oil projects. But as that company, Petróleos de Venezuela, or Pdvsa, unravels — under the weight of American sanctions, years of gross mismanagement and corruption — the work is unofficially being picked up by its foreign partners.

Private companies are pumping crude, arranging exports, paying workers, buying equipment and even hiring security squads to protect their operations in a collapsing countryside, according to managers and oil consultants working on the country’s energy projects.

In effect, a stealth privatization is taking place, said Rafael Ramírez, who ran Venezuela’s oil industry for more than a decade before breaking with Mr. Maduro in 2017, in a video address this week.

“Today, Pdvsa doesn’t manage our oil industry, Venezuelans don’t manage it,” said Mr. Ramírez. “In the middle of the chaos generated by the worst economic crisis suffered by the country in its history, Maduro is taking actions to cede, transfer and hand over oil operations to private capital.”

The haphazard changes to the oil sector, which have accelerated in recent months, are remaking the oil industry in a nation whose assertive energy policies had, since the 1950s, served as an example to developing countries of how to take control of natural resources.

And they are a stark retreat from the vision of Hugo Chávez, who was Mr. Maduro’s mentor and predecessor. Mr. Chávez nationalized in 2007 the giant holdings of Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips and packed Pdvsa’s leadership ranks with political allies dedicated to his socialist-inspired “Bolivarian revolution.”

But Mr. Maduro’s transformation of Venezuela’s oil industry has stemmed the collapse triggered by an American embargo. Sanctions imposed in January 2019 had wiped out about a third of Venezuela’s oil production, bringing it down at one point to the lowest level since the 1940s, according to data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Oil production now is still less than a third of the total in 1998, when Mr. Chávez took power. By late 2019, Venezuela had stabilized exports at about a million barrels per day, according to Bloomberg’s tanker tracking data.

The dribble of oil exports has provided Mr. Maduro with foreign revenue at the most critical moment of the country’s economic crisis, allowing him to adjust to sanctions and consolidate his rule.

In the country’s main oil export hub, José, key processing plants and piers are slowly coming to life after near total paralysis in the summer, when Pdvsa was cut off from the global financial system and struggling to cope without its biggest market, the United States, according to shipping agents and oil managers.

The unofficial, partial privatizations of the past year have been led by an unlikely reformer: Manuel Quevedo, a National Guard general with no known oil experience who was appointed by Mr. Maduro to head Pdvsa.

General Quevedo broke with the nationalist rhetoric of his predecessors to hand over operational control of joint oil projects to partners that include Chevron, Russia’s state-run company, Rosneft, some European and Chinese companies and groups of Venezuelan magnates.

“With Pdvsa in crisis mode, they are increasingly handing operational responsibilities and decisions over to the partners,” said Lisa Viscidi, a specialist in Latin American energy issues at Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research group.

The concessions are gradually reducing Pdvsa to little more than a holding company collecting the state’s share of oil field revenues, with most of financial and strategic decisions taken by private partners.

This is a startling decline from just a decade ago, when Pdvsa was the pride of Venezuela and the cornerstone of its economy.

Until the start of the economic crisis in 2013, the company was the source of virtually all of Venezuela’s hard currency. It was also its biggest employer and penetrated all aspects of life in the country, running everything from supermarkets to parks.

Today, oil fields wholly owned by Pdvsa account for less than half of the nation’s remaining oil production, and their output continues to plummet.

Chevron has become the single largest foreign producer of oil in Venezuela, and a crucial part of the country’s stabilization over the past few months.

Its four joint ventures in the country are pumping a gross total of about 160,000 barrels per day, according to two industry sources familiar with the company’s projects, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

Chevron quickly responded to the impact of American sanctions — such as the loss of American light oil that was used to blend with heavy Venezuelan crude to help it move through pipelines — by switching to Venezuelan light oil. By September, the company was able to restart its Petropiar heavy oil processing plant, which has formed the backbone of Venezuela’s oil export recovery.

A senior official with the Trump administration said the activities of Chevron and other foreign oil companies in Venezuela “are clearly of concern.”

But the U.S. government has given Chevron exemptions from sanctions, as recently as last month. “If Chevron is forced to leave Venezuela, non-United States companies will fill the void and oil production will continue,” said Ray Fohr, a company spokesman.

On the export side, Pdvsa’s biggest ally has been Russia’s Rosneft, which over the past year has grown to sell about two-thirds of Venezuela’s oil. Rosneft has quickly replaced Pdvsa’s American sales routes by diverting its oil to Asia, often obscuring the cargo’s source and destination to bypass sanctions, according to companies that monitor tanker traffic.

Barred from the global financial system, Pdvsa has also been forced to cede control to foreign partners in organizing exports, which goes against the country’s energy laws. Over the past few months, Chevron, Rosneft and Italy’s Eni have all directly exported Venezuelan crude.

Pdvsa’s opening of exports — oil cargoes worth millions of dollars — to anyone who can bypass sanctions to line up a vessel, insurance and a customer for the crude has even created a small cottage industry among Venezuela’s elite.

Now, the only thing that matters is that oil continues to flow, said one partner at a joint oil venture, as he scanned his phone, viewing the state company’s cargo offers.

“The historical struggle for resource sovereignty is being sacrificed for operational expediency,” said Antero Alvarado, an energy consultant in Caracas.

Venezuela’s new oil production has allowed the country to import essentials like food, medicine and fuel to keep the country running.

And there are indications that Mr. Maduro’s government wants to take the underhand liberalization further, even rolling back the watershed nationalization of the oil industry that took place in the 1970s.

A group of lawmakers installed at the head of the National Assembly by Mr. Maduro in January — amid an international outcry — has proposed changing energy laws to allow greater private investment.

“In these times of declining output, we have to give space to a national proposal that, first of all, shall give private capital greater participation in exploration, production and marketing of oil,” Leandro Domínguez, a lawmaker, said in a statement.

Mr. Domínguez’s proposal is not recognized by the United States and most European and Latin American countries, who continue to support a rival, opposition-led congressional leadership. The opposition lawmakers oppose any changes to energy laws under Mr. Maduro, creating a legal limbo for foreign oil companies.

Despite the recent changes, there are many reasons to believe Venezuela’s best days as an oil superpower are over, according to Amy Myers Jaffe, an oil expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, and other experts.

Venezuela could gradually recover production to 2.6 million barrels a day over 10 years, but only with investments of over $200 billion, according to projections by IPD Latin America, a consulting firm.

At a time when many oil companies are struggling with declining profits, executives are looking for cheaper and cleaner sources of oil. Even if a political settlement eventually lifts sanctions, Venezuela’s dirty oil, laden with sulfur and other impurities, may find far fewer investors.

Clifford Krauss is a national energy business correspondent based in Houston. He joined The Times in 1990 and has been the bureau chief in Buenos Aires and Toronto. He is the author of “Inside Central America: Its People, Politics, and History.”