The Ukraine crisis – a measure of global bankruptcy

The unfolding of the latest “revolution” in Ukraine since late 2013, and the reaction to it of leading foreign powers, is a particularly graphic indication of the impotence of the world’s rulers to confront the multiplying failures – political, economic, financial and social – that are now overwhelming the global community.

There seems little doubt that the overthrow of the Yanukovitch régime was primarily the result of chronic economic mismanagement and serial corruption and abuse of power. Such failings are of course only too familiar from the collapse of scores of governments of more or less underdeveloped states around the world over many decades. Also familiar is the complicity of Western governments in the misdeeds of the country’s leaders – even if there seem to be few precedents for the brazen flaunting of manifestly ill-gotten wealth demonstrated by Ukrainian billionaires in the UK, where one of them has recently paid over £130 mn for what is said to be the most expensive apartment in London.

But while both Western and Russian support for such kleptocracies comes as no surprise, what does seem different is the inability and / or unwillingness of the major powers, in either East or West, to take the necessary steps to restore some semblance of order and stability, such as would have been expected following the downfall of their client states in the past, particularly during the Cold War. In those days it was common to see failed rulers replaced with ones more acceptable to their own people or amenable to the dominant foreign power (whether the US, Soviet Union or former colonial master) with relatively little fuss. This was typically facilitated by easing deposed rulers into exile and providing successor régimes with financial sweeteners to help them consolidate their political support at home.

Such was broadly the practice followed for many years by the dominant Western powers towards their client states in much of Africa and Latin America – and also by the Soviet Union in respect of its satellites. Arguably it was for long largely successful in keeping the lid on geo-political disorder, albeit at the price of perpetuating the economic and social injustice afflicting the mass of the people in these regions. Where it came seriously unstuck – as in Cuba, Vietnam and, for the Soviets, in Afghanistan – this was only where internal opposition received substantial backing from the rival superpower.

How the world has changed since the 1980s

By the time the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 it was clear that the Soviet economic model had imploded, rendering it impossible for the Soviets to maintain their imperialist great power pretensions; hence the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yet even as this development was being proclaimed in the West as the clear triumph of liberal capitalism it was starting to become apparent that the latter model also was coming under increasing pressure. The most obvious symptom of this was the series of financial crises, starting with the stock market “crash” of 1987, followed by successive market upheavals across the world through the 1990s – each one resolved by publicly financed bail-outs or guarantees of actually or potentially insolvent financial institutions – and culminating in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008.

The main immediate cause of this chronic malaise was the rapid build-up of debt in both the public and private sectors which began in the 1980s, encouraged by moves to liberalise financial markets initiated in the United States and spread across the world thanks to “globalisation”. The rise in indebtedness was in fact a response to the underlying weakness of the global economy, which reflected a long-term tendency of the rate of economic growth to decline from the historically high levels recorded in the 1950–73 period. Failure to maintain relatively high growth – so vital to ensuring a healthy capitalist economy – thus posed a threat to the stability of the whole system. In this context the global build-up of debt, much of it used to finance speculative rather than productive investment, was merely masking a systemic decline that was already discernible before the Soviet collapse – albeit unanimously ignored by mainstream propaganda and media.

Emasculation of the state

The apparent hope of Western policy makers was that by extending yet more debt they could create the conditions for a self-sustaining revival of GDP growth and tax revenues, thus enabling the colossal indebtedness, particularly of the public sector, to be paid down over time. This delusion has even survived the onset of the GFC, although it is by now clear to a growing number of analysts that most of these huge debts can never be repaid and will sooner or later have to be written off. One thing not to be contemplated is that taxes should be raised, particularly on the mega-rich corporations and individuals best able to sustain the extra burden for whom, thanks to global liberalisation, taxation has by now become largely voluntary. Indeed such is the continued dominance of the Reagan-Thatcher “supply side” ideology that many political and business leaders still advocate even more cuts in already much reduced rates of direct taxation.

The net result of these ruinous tendencies over decades is that governments – even of the world’s richest countries – have been rendered progressively more unable to fulfil the basic functions of the state as their fiscal resources have shrunk. This has been reflected most obviously in the steady erosion of the welfare state over the last 30 years or more – although this trend has also owed much to the predominant ideological bias against social welfare, particularly in the US and UK. In contrast there has been no tendency to stint on spending on corporate welfare – particularly when it comes to bailing out the financial sector in a crisis. Likewise spending on defence and the “military-industrial complex”, so far from facing any cuts, has benefited from massive and often corruptly wasteful spending on the open-ended “war on terror” – including the disastrous and illegal conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Strikingly this spendthrift irresponsibility in the West, concentrating ever more wealth in fewer hands while the social fabric is allowed to decay, is largely mirrored in Russia and the rest of the ex-Soviet world, where economic and social conditions have in many cases been allowed to sink to Third World levels since the 1990s (most notably in the Central Asian republics). Both regions are likewise marked by increasing lawlessness, such that in both West and East wrongdoing by corrupt financiers and oligarchs goes largely unpunished and “whistle-blowers” and others seeking justice are marginalised or actively persecuted.

End of the road?

What the Ukraine crisis appears to show is that the limits of such fiscal profligacy, officially sponsored criminality and neglect of the public interest may now have been reached. While the US and the EC on one hand and Russia on the other are ostensibly competing to try and draw Ukraine into their respective spheres of economic and political influence, it is apparent that neither side has sufficient resources or political will to save the country from impending economic disaster. In fact there are grounds for believing that their rivalry is to some extent more apparent than real. For there is no doubt that the two sides have for the most part actively colluded with each other in the ruthless pursuit of their questionable foreign policy goals – so that, for example, Russia has been happy to have its brutal repression of Chechen and other separatists in the North Caucasus identified with the US-led “war on terror”.

On this reading the main cause of the dispute over Ukraine is that President Putin has suffered an important political setback – and loss of face – through the downfall of his client Yanukovitch, a reversal which could clearly have serious negative consequences for him at home in Russia, where he is evidently struggling to repress growing popular dissent. If this is so, and if the Western leadership does indeed covertly view Putin as more of an ally than deadly enemy in the wider geo-political game, they may well be anxious to help find him a face-saving way out of the confrontation in Ukraine. Their willingness to do so may be all the greater given their incapacity to contain Ukraine’s domestic crisis without at least tacit Russian cooperation.

In this context Russia’s obviously superior military capability on the ground may not count for much, given that a) it would face overwhelming popular opposition to any military intervention outside Crimea and b) it could not on its own mobilise the other material resources needed to make its intervention politically sustainable. Equally, however, the EU and US combined can evidently afford to offer only quite limited financial support, which would prove grossly inadequate if Russia were to withdraw its own aid to Ukraine.

It thus transpires that the leading powers involved (Russia, EU and US) are effectively incapable of acting individually to help Ukraine achieve the minimum level of financial stability to save it from economic and social collapse. Yet it may also be questioned whether, even if all three could agree on an acceptable political outcome in Ukraine, they could actually muster the resources needed to stabilise the country beyond the short term. This is not only because their own financial and economic fragility reduces their capacity to act – as shown by the inadvertently revealed British government memorandum indicating that it would contemplate no sanctions against Russia that might imperil City institutions – but because they lack the ideological or moral commitment to act in the public interest of the Ukrainian people as opposed to favouring their own dominant vested interests.

Arguably this same combination of financial and moral bankruptcy may explain the incapacity of the “international community” to address other signs of economic, social and political instability that have emerged recently in the world’s poorer, more marginalised countries and taken the world by surprise. In particular such an analysis might seem applicable to the series of upheavals since 2010 that have come to be known as the Arab Spring. The impotence of the major powers in face of these uprisings has been matched by their inability to offer a coherent explanation of their causes – although there seems little reason to doubt that a major catalyst for them has been the chronic negative impact of the GFC (particularly in Europe) on the whole Mediterranean region.

What all this surely tells us is not only that the Western liberal-capitalist economic model is now as terminally outmoded and discredited as the dead Soviet model of central planning, but that we can only expect to find a way back from the brink of global disaster if our structures of government – in both East and West – are made far more responsive to the needs and aspirations of the mass of ordinary people rather than those of corrupt and unaccountable oligarchies. Sadly, the lesson of the Ukraine crisis to date is that nothing can be expected to change this balance of forces without intensifying conflict both within and between states, with dangerously unpredictable consequences.

The Mirage of Intellectual Property

Perhaps few incidents could better define the present phase of global capitalist decay than the lawsuit brought by Apple against Samsung Electronics over alleged infringements of its intellectual property (IP) in respect of its iPhone and iPad handsets and tablets. The case – which has evoked counter-claims by Samsung of comparable IP infringement by Apple – was initiated in April 2011 and has involved litigation in various jurisdictions around the world. By mid-2013 it has resulted in numerous, often contradictory, judgments from different courts but with no decisive victory for either party. Hence any damages or compensatory actions that may result to or from either side seem likely to be largely self-cancelling. Meanwhile the costs of the litigation to both parties, which have not been disclosed, may be conservatively estimated to run to tens of millions of dollars. Arguably growing market recognition of the futility of the whole exercise may have something to do with the 30 per cent decline in Apple’s share price since September 2012 – at a time when the broader stock market has risen by nearly 20 per cent. Thus the only evident gainers from this exercise are lawyers and consultants, while the supposed beneficiaries – shareholders, and ultimately consumers – are the losers.

The Apple vs. Samsung case may in fact prove to have served a wider public purpose if it makes people aware of the absurdity and wastefulness of trying to enforce patents granted in different countries to different companies for what may often appear to be broadly similar technologies, let alone claims (as also complained by Apple) that the shape of one firm’s handset screen may be a copy of another’s. Indeed it should force us to confront the whole question of the role of IP in the modern economy and whether any genuine public interest is served by seeking to enforce proprietary patent rights in an era of rapid technological change, particularly when the claim to such rights often seems questionable in the first place.

The question is all the more pertinent given that intellectual property rights seem only to have become a major issue in international economic relations (or even within national economies) within the last 20-30 years. It is true that the right of individuals to be granted patents on new inventions has been recognised for centuries by national governments in the West. However, it is striking that they never till now seem to have loomed large in the development and spread of technology either before or since the industrial revolution of the early 19th Century. This is probably because the value of patents has not been generally perceived as great enough to justify the cost and effort of obtaining them, given that they do not normally offer protection to inventors / patent holders for more than 20 years and may be hard to enforce.

This naturally begs the question of how and why attitudes have changed in recent years. The key to understanding this is evidently the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which was included in the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) established in 1995 as the governing body regulating international trade. The WTO replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which had fulfilled the same function since 1948 and had not included any rules governing IP, although the United States in particular had been anxious to remedy this deficiency at least since the 1980s. As a consequence all countries joining the WTO are required to sign up to TRIPS, which commits them in principle to granting and enforcing IP rights to and for all legitimate claimants from whichever country. (It should be noted that this applies to copyright on content and recordings of creative / artistic works as well as technological innovations.)

The most obvious reason for the new-found determination of US and other Western countries to impose IP protection rules internationally is that they are the main source of both technological innovations and mass-market “cultural creations” such as films and musical recordings and that they wished to secure the maximum share of the value generated by these for their corporations and national economies – or even in some cases to limit access to them if that was seen as in their strategic interest. What is less obvious, but arguably a more compelling reason, is that business cycle and competitive pressures combined with market and technological change have been pushing global big business to seek new outlets for investment of their continuing flow of surplus profits. In particular, they have been forced to respond to a) the slower growth and increasing saturation of traditional markets for consumer goods (such as electrical appliances and motor cars) as well as greater competition from low-cost producers such as China, and b) the correspondingly greater importance of services in consumer markets, also associated with a relatively bigger need for investment in intangible assets (such as technological research) rather than plant and buildings. (Another vested interest probably behind this trend may be worthy of mention, namely the voraciously expanding legal services industry, which has rightly viewed IP litigation as a potential bonanza.)

A difficulty posed by this growing dependence on such “software”-intensive markets is that big corporations do not necessarily enjoy the protection from competition that goes with large size, economies of scale and corresponding barriers to new entrants – which have typically protected big players in traditional heavy industries such as engineering and petrochemicals. Hence other ways to protect profits by limiting competition have had to be sought. While Microsoft Corporation demonstrated in the 1990s how to do this by successfully operating a highly profitable monopoly with its Windows software – notwithstanding a US federal anti-trust prosecution – such tactics may well seem difficult for others to replicate, not least because competitors (notably Apple) were ultimately able to eat into Microsoft’s ruthlessly acquired market share. But even as such options for capturing economic rents from IP appear to be dwindling, major players in different technology sectors still seek to use patent law to limit competition.

The trouble with this approach is that the task of designing and enforcing an effective system of patents that meets general acceptance faces as many serious constraints as ever. Of these the central one is that IP restrictions on economic activity are widely perceived as either inherently unfair or unenforceable – even by most countries which have signed up to them under WTO / TRIPS, not least because (as developing countries have argued in WTO negotiations) the already industrialised countries have the competitive advantage of being able to subsidise research and development for their corporate interests. Moreover, to the extent that patent rights are enforceable it is also argued by many that, so far from being an incentive to investment in research and development that may lead to desirable technological progress, they permit and encourage those with control of existing dominant technologies to prevent any advances to them in order to maximise their returns to their past investments. Such a charge could indeed be convincingly levelled at the major pharmaceutical companies, which have often sought to extend the life of patents (typically by making very slight modifications to existing products) rather than undertaking or allowing research by others so as to permit development of new drugs incorporating vital advances in treatment. This constraint has been identified by at least one very respectable body of academic opinion – including two Nobel prize winners – as a reason for recasting the entire global structure of IP law and regulation (

At the same time there is growing recognition that most of the vital innovations that are central to the modern global economy are largely the result of publicly financed research, so that the claim of any private sector companies to any exclusive rights over them seems obviously indefensible. This is the clear implication of a recent study (authored by a leading economist, Prof. Mariana Mazzucato and published by the think-tank Demos – – pointing out that such key technologies as the algorithm central to Google’s search engine and the touch-screen facility used by Apple and other smart-phones were largely developed with the aid of US federal funding, while many important advances in biotechnology made by UK public bodies have been made available at little cost to pharmaceutical companies which have used them to make substantial, patent-protected profits.

Perhaps the most egregious perversions of the concept of IP have been those based on attempts to patent new products derived from naturally existing ones such as the human genome and planting material for crops. The latter case in particular has been the subject of a long campaign (led by the main chemical company concerned, Monsanto Inc.) both to promote the adoption of genetically modified (GM) seeds and to ensure that farmers using them cannot save and replant them – according to traditional agricultural practice – in supposed breach of the manufacturer’s patent. The seemingly endless controversy surrounding this campaign – centring mainly on the issue of the costs and (highly questionable) benefits of GM varieties – has thus far led to no objectively measurable public benefit; rather the contrary. Indeed Monsanto’s recently announced decision to abandon attempts to have its GM seeds authorised for use in the EU would indicate they are starting to see the whole campaign as a futile waste of effort. Yet unquestionably in the absence of restrictive patent laws and TRIPS Monsanto and others would hardly have had the incentive to embark on such a wasteful course and those resources could have been devoted to more constructive purposes.

As suggested earlier, all these largely vain efforts to assert IP rights to an extent that has never been attempted before may come to be seen as worthwhile insofar as they have provoked a strongly hostile reaction against the idea that certain economic actors should seek to claim a right to monopoly control of access to productive assets – and the economic rents that go with them – which are either the common heritage of mankind or have been developed at public expense and thus, notionally, in the public interest. Nowhere has this revulsion been stronger than in the area of pharmaceutical products when the dominant global corporations have sought to deploy their patent rights to deny access to the world’s poorest to affordable life-saving drugs (e.g. to treat HIV) in pursuit of maximum profits. But equally significant is the trend towards developing freely available “open source” software – such as the Linux alternative to Microsoft’s Windows, which has clearly been conceived as an express rejection by its creators of Microsoft’s anti-social values.

There seems every reason to hope that such developments (as well as the inconclusive outcome of the Apple / Samsung litigation) point to a future where such intangible productive assets will be regarded as freely available to individuals or communities to use for whatever legitimate purpose they choose. This is akin to the increasingly popular concept of the “creative commons”.

It needs to be stressed that this does not mean that the concept of intellectual property is wholly without validity. Indeed it is likely to remain the consensus view that inventors, authors and producers of intellectual “products” – whether technological or “cultural” should be entitled to reap a monetary reward from their creations. The question of how this may be achieved, while balancing the interests of individuals and the public at large, in an age when copyright is increasingly hard to protect, needs to be the subject of international public debate. Perhaps the most rational solution would be a structure of rewards for properly authenticated inventors or originators of different types of IP that allows them to be suitably (but not exorbitantly) compensated on a one-off or time-limited basis, preferably according to internationally agreed criteria.

What these developments in relation to IP do signify, however, is that the attempt by the global corporate establishment to seize control of intangible assets on an increasing scale in order to meet their helpless addiction to seeking ever more high-yielding investment outlets is doomed increasingly to fail.


17 September 2013

Capitalism’s terminal debauch

As the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) drags on, the inability or unwillingness of the ruling global elite to recognise or address its true causes appears ever more surreal, not to say terrifying. The sense of impotence and ideological bankruptcy among political leaders is manifested almost daily – as in President Hollande’s attempt on 9 June to convince his Japanese hosts that the Eurozone crisis is “over” ( and in Britain’s opposition Labour party simultaneously embracing the governing Coalition’s policy of austerity and welfare cuts even as the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies projects that this strategy will preclude any relief from public spending cuts and tax rises until at least 2020.

This flight from reality is a sign of the utter helplessness felt by world leaders in face of their failure to find a solution to the global economic paralysis stemming from the GFC. From their perspective, of course, any such solution must be compatible with preserving the present “neo-liberal” world economic order, which since the 1980s has concentrated untold wealth in the hands of the tiny minority that they represent, while the vast majority of the world’s population sinks deeper into impoverished hopelessness.

A conspicuous recent symptom of their frustration is the attempt by the new government of Japan, whose economy has experienced no significant growth in over 20 years, to break free from chronic stagnation by engaging in a renewed massive bout of Quantitative Easing (QE) – or money printing by any other name. The main idea behind this move is ostensibly to promote domestic inflation – instead of the chronic deflation the country has experienced since around 1990 – by encouraging a devaluation of the Yen and thereby, it is hoped, a rise in consumption and growth. The immediate impact of this initiative was dramatic, prompting a 25 per cent fall in the value of the Yen against the US dollar in the 6 months to mid-May 2013 and a corresponding rise in the Nikkei stock market index (over 80 per cent) in anticipation of the higher inflation and economic growth investors apparently believed would result from this stimulus.

The scale of this intervention – involving the purchase by the Bank of Japan of government bonds (JGBs) with Yen newly created by itself – has been even larger (proportionate to the size of the national economy) than the parallel initiative in the United States, where the Federal Reserve’s QE programme is currently monetising debt at the rate of over $1 trillion annually. Not surprisingly, it may seem, such massive injections of funds, channelled through major banks and investing institutions, have served to underpin the broad-based market euphoria building round the world since late 2012, which has seen most stock market indices rise by upwards of 20 per cent. Yet for all the efforts of politicians and mainstream commentators and media to spin this market surge as an indicator of rising economic optimism and the long-awaited revival of economic growth (GDP) – even though it has failed to lift most market indices as high as the all-time peaks attained before the bursting of the bubble in 2000 – manifestly it has been an entirely synthetic, liquidity-driven bonanza.

Moreover, mainstream propaganda is at pains to downplay the vital role of QE in allowing both public and private debt to continue to be financed. Yet without such massive official purchase of government bonds (and also private-sector “toxic waste” such as US mortgage backed securities) there is no doubt that their market value would have fallen – and interest rates correspondingly risen – to unsustainable levels, thereby forcing public and private institutions into open insolvency and mass default.

Corruption of the market place

The artificial nature of the recent stock market “boom” is still more obvious once we discover that a large proportion of the stock purchases fuelling it has been made by companies buying back their own shares, ( often financed by increased debt rather than retained earnings. In other words, company executives and directors are using the opportunity provided by the abundant cheap finance conjured out of thin air by QE both to manipulate their share price higher – facilitated by the prospective reduction in the number of shares outstanding – and to enrich themselves by selling their own shares in the company at a higher price, as well as through increases in their remuneration where (as is often the case) this is linked to rises in the share price. At the same time the whole process reflects dwindling rather than growing confidence among corporate insiders in the prospects of their businesses and an irresponsible tendency to cash in while they can, even if that means further weakening balance sheets (now loaded with more debt which will be even more of a handicap once interest rates rise again).

These corrupt, market-distorting practices in the stock market may be seen as just another manifestation of a broader climate of manipulation now pervading all asset markets. The best publicised case of such market rigging has been the LIBOR interest rate fixing scandal exposed in 2012. On top of this now come allegations – which have thus far received little media coverage – that the vast foreign exchange market (with daily turnover of more than $4.5 trillion), whose epicentre is once again London, is also subject to widespread distortion of exchange rate benchmarks by market traders. Even more hidden from view is the abundant evidence that the US authorities are colluding with private sector financial institutions to suppress gold and silver prices ( (in the interests of maintaining the value of the US dollar, otherwise severely threatened by the Federal Reserve’s ever more profligate monetary policy) – a process which is illegal under anti-trust law.

All this reinforces the growing sense that virtually all international financial markets are by now effectively rigged – and that the often criminal practices involved are tacitly sanctioned, indeed orchestrated, by the governments of the industrialized world under US leadership. Indeed, while evidence of this has been building for many years – as witness the establishment of the shadowy US presidential Working Group on Financial Markets following the stock market plunge of 1987 and a number of well documented instances of official share buying in Japan and other Far Eastern markets since then, it may be said that the widespread adoption of QE since the onset of the GFC has served to underpin and sanctify the whole principle of generalised market manipulation.

It should go without saying that allowing such an essentially fraudulent market climate to develop is extremely hazardous for those who would preserve the illusion that the world economy is governed by more or less free markets and a “level playing field” for all. For once market players perceive that markets have become institutionally perverted and corrupt arenas where a privileged few with inside information can make vast profits at the expense of the mass of ordinary investors the latter are bound to start leaving the casino in droves – if not burning it down. At the same time it will become harder and harder to convince the public at large that they should make huge sacrifices to keep the system afloat.


Against this background the continuing resort to QE – an unprecedented experiment that turns the basic principles of market economics on their head – represents an enormous gamble. It has been justified largely on the basis that it can stimulate revived growth by pumping more money into the economy. However, its failure to do so thus far – notwithstanding attempts to pretend that the US economy at least is now recovering – has led in recent months to growing worries in the markets that it will soon prove unsustainable. For without the prospect of a boost to growth leading to a reduction, let alone a reversal, of budget deficits holders of US Treasury Bonds and JGBs are losing confidence that they will hold their market value. This concern is already being reflected in a slight rise in market interest rates. Yet for reasons noted above any significant rise in interest rates – of 1 percentage point or more – would likely precipitate mass global insolvency, which would be compounded by a generalised collapse in asset values. Even more chilling is the prospect that, even if the longed for revival of growth were to occur, it would inevitably lead to a sharp rise in interest rates as both demand for capital and inflationary pressures pick up. The only way this might be averted would be by engaging in further monetary expansion (via QE) so as to continue bearing down on interest rates, although this would bring the obvious danger, indeed certainty, of hyperinflationary collapse. Either way, therefore, there is now evidently no way of avoiding the catastrophic market meltdown that policy makers have been struggling to avert since 2007.

This harsh reality is finally starting to be reflected in the mainstream media, as it continues to pay lip-service to neoliberal orthodoxy while at the same time being forced to recognise its inevitable failure. Thus a leading commentator in the right-wing Daily Telegraph ( on the one hand chides both the Tories and Labour for their failure to make serious cuts in the welfare budget, but none the less concludes that the British national debt burden is after all too large be paid down and can only be eliminated through inflation or default. This thought is echoed by a former senior economic policy official in the George W. Bush administration, Dr Pippa Malmgren, who in a recent interview states that “at the end of the day, the magnitude of the debt that is held by the United States, and indeed by all of the industrialized economies that have a debt problem, is so great it cannot be paid down. The human suffering involved would be so far beyond our capacity to withstand, so it has to be defaulted on.” ( – 8 June).

Thus the global elite – or criminal syndicate – which attempts to manage the world economy in its own interests now finds itself in the position of a chess player who has run out of moves. Yet such is the irresponsibility of those in charge that, so far from conceding defeat, we can only expect them to try ever more desperate ploys – such as precipitating yet more wars – in trying to escape the inevitable. One thing that seems most unlikely to deter them is the scale of human suffering they might unleash.

20 June 2013