That is likely part of it- when you get into international corporate loopholes - things get complicated - by design. The simple example given in the previous post is just the tip of the iceberg. The main point here is that 1) outsourcing of our manufacturing base was made a whole lot more attractive by such loopholes and 2) this allows profits to be funneled out of the US Economy. We have a pay to play system - if you play, along with the Establishment big money interests - you get paid - and everyone in Washington knows it. The natural outcropping of self interest and greed takes over - and the system gets rigged in favor of the Oligopolies. Every time some tax law or regulation is being made - the Oligopoly is sitting at the table -and perhaps has a right to be there. The problem is that the person who is supposed to be representing the people - is either in the pocket of, or influence by, the oligopoly. It is not like the Oligopoly wins every table but, over time , table after table, the rules of the game get tilted in favor of the Oligopoly. Sure from time to time we get lone voices calling out such practices - drug price fixing for example. Everyone then turns to that person and says "LOOK LOOK - we have freedom of speech in this nation - what a good system we have". That lone voice then quickly gets drowned out by the cacophony on the take. It is not easy to run against a herd of stampeding bulls - to shoot the goose laying the golden egg -and most don't. A few lone voices then do not matter -and in fact help make this illegitimate system look legitimate. Red or Blue admins - the systemic issues in our HC system have not been addressed. Obamacare was lipstick on a pic. 3.5 Trillion dollars - (2017) .. near the same as total Federal Revenue for the year. That is what we spent on Healthcare. Its a legalized extortion racket. Other first world nations provide universal healthcare - at roughly half the cost. The crisis is so bad - even conservative groups are now looking seriously at Universal healthcare https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/
I am speaking from the MMT perspective, which postulates money (and its value) can be created in BOTH the public and private sectors. A Job Guarantee (manifested in a public sector "buffer pool" of workers not currently engaged in the private sector for whatever reason) is MMT policy. From this perspective, your statement that "good economic conditions don't require above poverty wages" is ridiculous, because if a certain proportion of workers is condemned to below poverty participation or even exclusion from the work force entirely, there is nothing "good" about that situation. I'm surprised you have fallen for the "we are at full employment" myth. First, involuntary un+underemployment is real, and measured by U6 (in the US), currently c.7%. (Look it up for yourself) Second. your proviso "albeit it might be at ridiculously low wages" represents economic injustice at its most blatant; you might as well be advocating slavery. So...change reality; later on you agree Orthodox Neoliberalism, ie private sector "invisible hand" markets ALONE without planned public sector intervention, is a problem, yet here you are saying it is reality. Low wages help create poverty and lack of effective demand (a Keynesian principle). You are merely pushing supply side dogma. The only criticism I have of AOC is she can be drawn into 'culture war' diversions, as do much of the mainstream Left, because they have abandoned any hope of transforming the economy away from the way YOU perceive it (supply side, quantity theory of money etc). Nonsense. An MMT JG is policy within a capitalist system. The EU is suffering from low growth rates and high unemployment rates c. 6.3% Agree.…..with the reservations noted above. So how about a combination of "planned" and "invisible hand", specifically as described in my comments re money creation above? (Trying to fund public policy by taxing the private sector is a mug's game: that's why the Left can't win elections and hold office over several election cycles. So.… just reduce wages, break up big, efficient producers, increase competition, and ...Bob's your uncle....sounds like a Libertarian wet dream. Macro economic arrangements, both national and international, are far more significant than the micro issues you relate in that example.
We agree here - but were coming from different pages as per the definition of "Good economic conditions". (GEC) The above is correct - I was from the perspective of a different definition of GEC. I get the difference you are pointing out - but the impact on the definition a good economy is minimal. If we are talking good for Oligopolies - that is different than what is good for the 99%. I then go on to say that the reality is that the game is skewed towards the Oligopolies. . You respond "So change reality" I would love to ... The above makes no sense to me. I agree that the reality is what it is - the game is tilted. The question is how to change it. I have never pushed supply side dogma in this post - be specific with your accusation .. your arrows are starting to wander off target. you continue to wander into a strawman .. telling me how I perceive things - but being wrong about it. AOC - New Green Deal - No transferring pollution problems to other nations. Then she participates in actions and advocacy of blocking the Keystone Pipeline. Blocking the Keystone not only transfers pollution to other nations - w/r to carbon - it increases the overall pollution problem w/r to pollution of the oceans by heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants and so on. I don't understand where the money is coming from. Are you saying we should borrow more ? because we can create money to pay any debt ? No idea what you are getting at here. My example is related to Macro - we can get into more detail on that but - first we need to get on the same page.
First let me say it's pleasure to engage in genuine debate, as opposed to the norm on PF. OK I consider a good economy is one that works for everyone, whether big (including Oligopolies) or small business, CEO's, workers, or consumers. I should not have made that comment at that point, because I can now see it has diverted you from the argument I am presenting. yes …... Your "lower wages help stimulate the economy" and before that "nor are above poverty min wages a requirement" seemed to me to be expressing supply-side dogma. [And personally, I think there is a place for big business, even Oligopolies, in our complex, post-industrial IT and AI world, so that anti competitive practices become less relevant. eg do we really need a competitor for 'Google? What we do need is just taxation of Oligopolies, or dare I say it - nationalisation in some industries]. I can see that now: perhaps you are NOT a supply-sider. I agree the Left is confused re international relations, largely because they accept the "absolute national sovereignty" argument of the Right (and I suspect I might not get your agreement for a genuine "international rules-based system" either…) But the Keystone? Sorry I'm outside the States so don't know the details. I will say most environmentalists have scant regard for the fossil job loses, and costs of transition to green..... Yes, although that sounds like the argument pro coal people make in Australia (the world's largest exporter of coal) because Australian coal is cleaner than that in India and China, and hence less polluting...maybe true, but if we have to go green, such arguments miss the point, if indeed we (the globe) have to go green. [QUOTEI don't understand where the money is coming from. Are you saying we should borrow more ? because we can create money to pay any debt ?[/QUOTE] Well...in a sense, yes. In fact we can always fund the utilisation of available resources (in this case to build the necessary green infrastructure); .....can you spot the difference between that statement and "we can create money to pay any debt"? The former statement derives from MMT, the latter is couched in mainstream "value of money", neoliberal terms. By now you may understand, given my previous (mis-?)perception you are an orthodox neoliberal adherent along the lines of, eg, Rogoff, who is still pushing his "government debt is bad" ideology. . Are we on the same page now? [The topic of exports and import substitution does come up in MMT, and is significant for poorer nations; I think you will see the connection with your concerns re the example of profits from sales of shoes going overseas].
Epiphany PLUS and Eureka too. The problem with the DNC rules for debate participation is it is prejudiced against "The West". Western candidates are expected to preform in Eastern polls or be filtered out. End Epiphany Plus Moi STOP
Usually when threads tend to drift from the OP its bad news for the quality. I have to say in this case the 'drift' represents a staircase up to a higher floor. This is a compliment.
The polls requirement that mirrors the order of States' primary dates is Eastern oriented. Western candidates would have a harder time being known in the East. Is that sufficient. Just another unfairness brought to you by The DNC!
Does Tulsi, like me, actually believe in the IDEAL of a world without war, ie an international rules-based system, backed by something like an UNSC without veto? Or does she accept MAD as the deterrent, in conjunction with staying out of other people's business?
I don't know but I doubt it. I don't think she really wants to compromise on American sovereignty quite that far. I am sure that she would love to negotiate away to reduce nuclear arsenals and 'just say no' to military involvements. I am curious how broad a role she expects intelligence agencies to have. Does she just want them just gathering intelligence, or does she expect them to use them to support American policy.
Well...in a sense, yes. In fact we can always fund the utilisation of available resources (in this case to build the necessary green infrastructure); .....can you spot the difference between that statement and "we can create money to pay any debt"? The former statement derives from MMT, the latter is couched in mainstream "value of money", neoliberal terms. By now you may understand, given my previous (mis-?)perception you are an orthodox neoliberal adherent along the lines of, eg, Rogoff, who is still pushing his "government debt is bad" ideology. . Are we on the same page now? [The topic of exports and import substitution does come up in MMT, and is significant for poorer nations; I think you will see the connection with your concerns re the example of profits from sales of shoes going overseas].[/QUOTE] I just noticed this response now - not sure why I missed it. Your "lower wages help stimulate the economy" and before that "nor are above poverty min wages a requirement" seemed to me to be expressing supply-side dogma. Lower wages can attract capital. This is not something I like or have control over - it is just a statement of fact. Lower wages also boosts profits for corporations and shareholders. This is viewed by many as "good economic conditions" - and it is - for Oligopolies - but not for the worker. We must be careful not to put things in black and white - because it is anything but - and things get complicated real quick. Sure there are some economic benefits to low wages but, if these benefits are not spread among the people - what good are they. In many cases you have Oligopolies come in - offering lower prices and so on. There is a benefit for a number of years - then - when the Oligopolies have control and competition has been kicked out or marginalized - prices go up due to collusion/price fixing. Yes, although that sounds like the argument pro coal people make in Australia (the world's largest exporter of coal) because Australian coal is cleaner than that in India and China, and hence less polluting...maybe true, but if we have to go green, such arguments miss the point, if indeed we (the globe) have to go green. The question of the Keystone is not one of "having to go green". The fact of the matter is that next year the US will not "go green". Next year the US will go through 7.8 Billion barrels of oil. Roughly 42% of oil coming into US refineries is imported from 70 other nations. One of those nations is Canada. The question is not "will we use the oil" - "will we go green". The question is whether or not a barrel of oil from Canada by Pipeline is more environmentally friendly than a barred of oil by Tanker from Nigeria. The answer to this question is a no brainer. Canada - hands down is the better choice for the Environment (and the US economy for that matter) - it is a win win. Not building the Keystone will 1) not change US oil consumption by 1 drop, 2) force refineries to buy from someone else "Nigeria" or some other heavy polluter 3) not stimulate the US economy. Zooming out to the bigger picture - Ocean Pollution is the #1 enviro issue - 2/3 are industrialization and population growth - CO2 comes in at 4 but is connected with 1,2,3. A study I read a decade ago - when 1.4 Billion were industrialized (out of 7.5 Billion) stated that consumption in the first world is (36) .. China at the time was (11) .. someone eating a bowl of rice a day in Africa (1). The study stated that if China was to reach first world levels of consumption - world resource production would have to double. If we are already stressing the Ocean (and air) with 1.4 Billion industrialized .. what happens when we go to 2.8 ? We should not be buying stuff from polluting nations - such as Nigeria - if there are alternatives. Not only does this increase pollution directly - it also encourages industrialization of these nations which increases pollution indirectly. The debt/deficit question is complicated. At the moment the US is still the world reserve currency - and so we can print a whole lot of money without things being effected that much. We do not however have an unlimited ability to print money. It just does not work that way. Second - the interest on our debt is now above 500 Billion/yr. Total Federal revenue is 3.4 Trillion - 2.9 is what we have to spend after making our debt payments - without incurring more debt. As we increase this debt - the interest payments will increase. We can inflate away some of this debt - but, it is not as simple as just printing money like crazy.
That's actually supply side economics, but anyway let's disregard names and consider the substantive issues. Lower wages also reduce aggregate effective demand, which reduces economic activity... Yes. You are now agreeing with my argument (ie Keynes' proposition that lack of effective demand is an economy killer). Yep. Well the IPCC is telling us it is exactly a matter of needing to transit from fossil to green - globally - ASAP because of the postulated CO2/climate change issue: for my part I would like to transit ASAP because, with pumped hydro as backup, it seems we can run the globe 24/7 on (free) sunshine and wind, once the infrastructure is built. I favour that because the fossil industry, in extracting and burning fossil fuels (in power plants and cars, etc) pours carcinogenic and poisonous gases into the environment regardless of the CO2 issue, this pollution being difficult and expensive o deal with. Indeed Europe is in the process of banning diesel cars, for example, because of this pollution problem in built up urban areas. Except you are ignoring real pollution ie carcinogenic particulates and poisonous gases associated with fossil use. Thank you for making my point. Yes, all confirming the globe needs to transit to clean, infinite (from sun/wind and maybe nuclear), sustainable, non-polluting energy, and begin recycling all waste -- potentially a huge new industry. You don't understand how an economy CAN work, as opposed to the way it does work now, within our obsolete current neoliberal orthodoxy. A nation's currency-issuing government can directly create funds in its central bank, to purchase whatever real resources including labour are available for sale (in that currency). That is NOT the same as saying " we have an unlimited ability to print money". Well, fact is, government does not need to, nor should it, issue interest-bearing bonds at all. The government CAN purchase ALL involuntarily unemployed labour and engage such labour in socially desirable activity (as determined by the needs/desires of local communities). {If the private sector was 100% efficient and always employed all available labour, this vital MMT idea of government as 'employer of last resort' would be irrelevant - but unfortunately the private sector never achieves actual full employment (ie U6 < c. 2%). Note: you can follow the present debates between Krugman et al (neoliberal, neo-Keynesians*) on one-side, and Stephanie Kelton et al (MMT-ers) on the other side; it seems there is disagreement over whether money is created when banks write loans for credit worthy customers, or whether banks needs deposits before they can lend (the orthodox view). We get into the orthodox "loanable funds" theory and "quantity theory of money" all part of false orthodox dogma. * it turns out, nothing to do with Keynes himself... (google: Krugman on MMT...lots of information...) Btw, just out of interest (and deference to the thread's topic) what is your view on Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...txXtbRJ1vFYl1DXdAqbCQXfbcjmox4JTsxGa-_cnUFfoM Bernie Sanders: "Deficit hawks once again show their hypocrisy on military spending". "I find it ironic that when I and other progressive members of Congress propose legislation to address the many unmet needs of workers, the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor, we are invariably asked, “How will we pay for it?” Yet we rarely hear that question with regard to huge increases in military spending, tax breaks for billionaires or massive subsidies for the fossil fuel industry". "At a time when we have massive levels of income and wealth inequality; when half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck; when more than 500,000 Americans are homeless; and when public schools throughout the country are struggling to pay their teachers a livable salary, it is time to change our national priorities. It is time to invest in the working families of this country and not a bloated military budget". I'm sure Tulsi agrees.
I have never disagreed. There is a difference between saying "this is what supply side thinks" and me thinking this. You missed the boat above. I cleaned up contaminated soil and groundwater for a living for over a decade - not using traditional "dig and dump" (dig up and transport to a landfill) was my specialty - alternative remediation technology specialist would be me - bioremediation, chemical oxidation, electrokinetic technology .. some of which I invented. so pay attention - Regardless of what the IPCC says - the US is going to use 7 Billion barrels of oil next year. fact not fiction. What you are speaking of is fiction... the land where we won't use that much oil next year - and the year after that. Global oil demand is increasing - not decreasing. The supply has to come from somewhere. 2 options - 1) dirty way 2) really dirty way Choice 1) barrel of Canadian Crude (or Mexico but Canada is much cheaper) shipped by pipeline - or 2) barrel of Nigerian crude by tanker The choice is not ... will we or won't be be using 7 Billion barrels. The world oil demand is going up - we need to supply that demand the cleanest way possible. "Thank you for making my point." Your welcome ! "Yes, all confirming the globe needs to transit to clean, infinite (from sun/wind and maybe nuclear), sustainable, non-polluting energy, and begin recycling all waste -- potentially a huge new industry." Indeed - we should have been on the forefront of EV-battery technology - revenue will surpass semiconductor chips soon - and go much higher - we are not one of the suppliers from the article I read. in the meantime - we will use 7 Billion barrels in 2020 You don't understand how an economy CAN work, as opposed to the way it does work now, within our obsolete current neoliberal orthodoxy. You are using to many labels and jargon with respect to generalities. I don't care about Krugman or the difference between neoliberal .. blah blah or how loans are written, quantity of money. What is your point ? how does this relate to what we were discussing... You: "A nation's currency-issuing government can directly create funds in its central bank, to purchase whatever real resources including labour are available for sale (in that currency). That is NOT the same as saying " we have an unlimited ability to print money". ??? - yes it is .. its money creation in one form or another. pick your label - in either case our ability to create and/or print money, in one form or another is not unlimited. Btw, just out of interest (and deference to the thread's topic) what is your view on Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance Tulsi is my choice for President - I have threads devoted to her glory
Well done. That's the Australian government's position, with regard to (relatively better quality ie cleaner burning/less CO2-emitting) Australian coal, for the Asian Market. But the 'fossil as usual crowd' better hope Jeremy Rifkin is wrong in his new book "The Green New Deal", which says clean green baseload (ie intermittent green with pumped hydro backup and/or other battery technology), will be cheaper than fossil, as early as 2028. When that happens, and when the "dirty way" is no more acceptable than "the really dirty way" , the industry will be facing $100 trillion in stranded fossil assets.... ...and only 8 years to go to Rifkin's 2028.... a good financial risk/reward profile? It is related because it will be governments that have to fund the transition, if and when clean green base load becomes cheaper than fossil, and governments will be required to compensate the fossil-industry-based pension funds. (c. $40 trillion, according to Rifkin). That's merely your own ideology showing, re creation of money and its 'value'. You said you're not interested macro-economics; OK well just take it from me: the world COULD run without money at all....it"s a matter of HOW resources + knowhow + labour are utilised/managed. The choice of a macro-economic system, and how money - if used at all - is valued, is not dependent on some type of 'holy scripture' . Naturally, you can only conceive (or want to conceive) of the system in which you operate. [Krugman is trying - and falling - to defend that system]. That ends your first and last lesson in macroeconomics from me. Interesting. we agree on foreign affairs policy, but not on macroeconomic management. I suspect it's a classic Libertarian - collectivist clash.....because money creation in the public as well as private banks (MMT policy) certainly implies a larger role for government, in the nation's affairs.
I keep abreast on the technology to some degree. The simplest argument would be that there is a whole lot of money bet that we will still be using a whole lot of oil in 2028. ... If we had found the holy grail - I would have heard of it.. While you are reading people magazine on the airplane .. I am perusing the latest edition of Scientific American Joke - I love reading the gossip mags in line at the grocery store. Up until 2028 - and I would bet the farm a lot longer - we are going to be using a whole lot of oil. So what are your thoughts on regime change wars ?
Just to let you know: apparently Rifkin has access to the highest levels of business and government policy making bodies, all around the world…. No doubt our views will diverge again.... I'm against regime change wars; and I think the UNSC should be the proper body for dealing with issues where a nation's internal upheavals threaten to result in serious external consequences. ....but of course the UNSC cannot deal with such issues because it was saddled, from the start, with an emasculating veto. Footnote: the 5 UNSC permanent members combined have 99%+ of the world's military force. In effect I think the UNSC should be in charge of international security (who would have thought), and the rest of the world could be relieved of the terrible burden of military expenditure, not to mention the tragedy of permanent and ongoing loss of innocent life in war. Meanwhile, I'll follow Tulsi's prescription for avoiding regime change wars.
Don't know if our views diverge in Rifkin - you have not told me what this wonderful technology is that is going to get us off fossil by 2028. In the meantime while we are using oil - should we not do it in the cleanest way possible ? We agree - We can't have a war with a nuclear superpower - without annihilation - yet - our leaders wander around pretending otherwise. This is one of the necessary illusions that maintains the military industrial complex. The reality is that all our toys are useless against a major power such as Russia - or China. So whats the point of the over 1 Trillion dollar total annual spend. In 2000 - the total spend was roughly 300 Billion (which was 5 times more than it needed to be). Under Bush that spend went to over 900 Billion and topped a Trillion under Obama. Had we maintained the 2000 spend (even increasing with inflation) we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars - to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium "saving the world" and so on. Instead we threw that money down the toilet fighting useless wars - the purpose of which was to pad the pockets of the Establishment international financiers that run this nation
Here is an article on global oil demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...and-to-hit-a-plateau-around-2030-iea-predicts The prediction is for a rise in demand until 2030 at which point demand will remain there for at least another decade. Now perhaps these folks are wrong but, I don't see any technologies that can replace this demand. After how many years - EV's only make up roughly 2% of new car sales.
Well said. Hopefully views like these strike a chord with sufficient numbers of people to propel Gabbard into the electorate's consciousness. On the energy production side: sun/wind plus pumped-hydro storage, this latter being simple, old, and effective technology ready to go now. What that means is it will not be economical to build any more fossil power plants after 2028 (according to Rifkin, as PV prices keep falling); not that we will be "off fossil by 2028". (I admit I misunderstood Rifkin's statement, in this regard). On the energy use side, particularly cars: government subsidization of lithium-ion based EV's would be required to bring about mass uptake of EV's, given current battery technology. But things are changing quickly, and fuel cell EV's may also be a mass market alternative soon. Meantime, Australia has just experienced it's hottest December day on record (40.6C, averaged over the entire continent), and a greater area (than ever recorded) of the normally damp east coast forests are burning at the same time, after a prolonged east cost drought, where most of the population live. As you can imagine, the climate change/CO2 hypothesis - whether scientific or not - is gaining traction amongst the population, despite the constant denials of conservative radio commentators ("shock-jocks"). And this is where the 'money' thing come into play....("how will we pay for it"?)
We will see if the technology gets there by 2028 - you are then talking at least a decade to build new power plants - assuming the technology works. At the time I assume there are none of these plants operating at scale - and this is only one source of demand among many. (do you know what percentage we are talking here ?) Since we are going to be using ff for a long time forward - we should do so in the most Enviro friendly way possible. What we don't need is people like AOC at the helm who don't understand the issues. This bastardizes the whole cause - and believe me you - working in the industry for as long as I did - directly for 10 years and on the side and indirectly for many more - there is a whole lot of bastardization of technology and issues that goes on. Take Bioremediation for example - I introduced this technology to one geographic location in particular. No one was doing it - had to get permission from the regulator - still have the letter. A few years later every enviro engineering firm was an expert in bioremediation - or so they would claim. The Enviro Engineers that I worked with had no microbiology classes and perhaps 2 first year chem classes - the basic 100 and organic - but when that ring goes on the finger they are experts in everything (some - I know some great engineers that are not like this .. but it is a well known issue among the trades. An engineer is a generalist - my background is pure science - a scientist not a generalist - Chem/Microbio But you don't need any of that to understand this one - basic common sense will do it. These companies went out and tried to do landfarming - spreading the contaminated soil out and adding amendments to stimulate bacterial activity. After some years of failing - the company would kick the contractor off the job and I received a number of these. I am looking through the files - more than one site - 7 or so. They added fertilizer - tilled the soil - all fine - but nowhere could I find anything about the moisture content. Turns out they did not adjust it - and the region had not much precipitation over the last few years. If there is no water in your basement - do you have any mold ? Go figure .... I see lots of stupid things - we saw this rush away from incandescent to compact florescent - "to save energy". - but, these bulbs contain mercury - and where does that end up in China and India - and even here. .. landfills leak - and it is not uncommon. One technology I have looked into is to take the CO2 emission from a plant - feed this into a bioreactor which turns the CO2 into Methane - which can then be recycled back into the plant. This is a real technology - that would work - and the costs should not be that obscene - this I would put grant money towards and tax incentives - but I don't see this happening in any significant way. I have looked into one of the companies that does this - never tried to crunch any numbers though.
Apparently no big plants operating at scale yet, but this study claims the entire planet COULD run on intermittent green (solar/wind) backed by pumped hydro, with the potential sites identified, which if true is merely a (global) engineering project involving present technology. https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs Have you seen the film "The Need to Grow" about carbon replacement in soils, and soil remediation, without use of poisons and artificial fertilisers? It's a very well presented film, with a segment about some sort of bio reactor (IIRC) and it would be good for AOC to understand those issues (since we must hope that AGW/climate change/CO2 extinction is not in fact just around the corner....).
Good article - was interesting. 28% of emissions comes from power generation. Don't have the breakdown for coal/gas in terms of % of pollution. This is good with respect to global CO2 emissions.. What it does not address is oil - as oil is not used in power generation. fertilizer into the oceans is a big problem - there is a sargassum epidemic on Caribbean beaches. The number of dead zones is rising rapidly.
One of the more interesting vids of Tulsi; this one about the OPCW report on Syria and also about the Afghanistan Papers. Regarding the OPCW report: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thegra...ors-block-coverage-of-opcw-syria-scandal/amp/ Journalist Tareq Haddad explains his decision to resign from Newsweek over its refusal to cover the OPCW’s unfolding Syria scandal. According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad’s editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. “If I don’t find another position in journalism because of this, I’m perfectly happy to accept that consequence,” Haddad says. “It’s not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn’t report something like this.”
