Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Oxfam on Global poverty

22 Jan

Published on Monday, January 21, 2013 by Common Dreams

Profits of World’s 100 Wealthiest Could End Poverty Four Times Over: Report   Oxfam report shows how extreme global inequality ‘hurts us all’

 – Jon Queally, staff writer

 

The profits of the world’s one hundred most wealthy individuals last year would be enough to wipe out world poverty, says a new report. And not just once over, or twice over, but the vast amount of money that has flowed to the top of the world’s financial food chain would be enough to eradicate the worst kind of poverty a full four times over.

 Barbara Stocking, Oxfam’s chief executive, who said world leaders should commit to reducing inequality at least to 1990 levels. (Photograph: David Levene) Such an explosion in extreme wealth and income inequality represented by these numbers is exacerbating and hindering the world’s ability to tackle poverty, warns international aid group Oxfam International in a new analysis published ahead of the World Economic Forum starting in Davos this week.   According to the report, ‘The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all,’ the $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to eliminate extreme poverty four times over. In releasing the report, Oxfam is calling on world leaders to curb today’s income extremes and commit to bringing back inequality levels to at least those experienced in the early 1990’s.   “Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam’s executive director.   “We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true,” he said. “In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left.”   “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour. It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.”   In addition, Barbara Stocking, Oxfam’s chief executive, says the world’s extremity of wealth inequality is “economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive”.   Oxfam is calling for a ‘new global deal’ which would stabilize the world’s economic systems and bring equality back in way that would benefit all humanity.   “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour. It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.”   The group estimates that closing tax havens – which hold as much as *$32 trillion or a third of all global wealth* – could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. In addition to a tax haven crackdown, elements of the “global new deal” Oxfam envisions would include:  •a reversal of the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation;  •a global minimum corporation tax rate;  •measures to boost wages compared with returns available to capital;  •increased investment in free public services and safety nets.   According to Al-Jazeera:  

The group says that the world’s richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process.   “We sometimes talk about the ‘have-nots’ and the ‘haves’ – well, we’re talking about the ‘have-lots’. […] We’re anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don’t normally hear us talking about wealth. But it’s gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth,” Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera.

The argument for social democratic REFORM of capitalism

18 Jan

NEW: We need a system of social democracy that will 1. end militarism 2. fight unemployment and 3. will create A LIVING WAGE law throughout all 50 states.  Capitalism, Marx claimed, was predicated on the exploitation of the workers, ie Cheap labor. He seems to have made that point correctly.

We ask, Why is there poverty in America, the richest economy on earth? Why did we have no mandatory health insurance, until the advent of Obama? Why do we keep having year after dreary year of pointless wars?

Is LABOR America’s problem? Apparently it is! The average worker during the Eisenhower fifties earned only 150 percent of what the average minimum wage recipient earned. To create a class of dumbed -down workers may be the strategy of America, which now ranks 16th in the world, in terms of higher education attainment by the youth of this country. This is atrocious.

It is all, I believe, part of the corporate-Capitalist strategy, in coordination with the state.

What America created after the Great Depression, caused by the stock market crash of 1929, was the need for a ‘mixed economy.’ This could only be achieved through some degree of state planning, a process which World War Two accelerated. That is what we live under now. However, the system needs to be reformed in order to guarantee the poor a living wage.

That is fundamentally our argument.

on the Obama -Romney “Debate”

8 Oct

source: Common Dreams.

Charles Ferguson, director of the documentary Inside Job, ‘America’s duopoly of money in politics and manipulation of public opinion’; The Guardian:

Neither of [the candidates said] a serious word about the causes of the financial crisis; the lack of prosecution of banks and bankers; sharply rising inequality in educational opportunity, income and wealth; energy policy and global warming; America’s competitive lag in broadband infrastructure; the impact of industrialized food on healthcare costs; the last decade’s budget deficits and the resultant national debt; or the large-scale, permanent elimination of millions of less-skilled jobs through both globalization and advances in robotics and artificial intelligence.

In a time of pervasive economic insecurity, with declining incomes and high unemployment, four years after a horrific financial crisis, how can all of these questions be successfully ignored by both candidates?

As it turns out, their behavior is entirely rational, though for disconcerting reasons. The answer lies in the combined effect of three related forces: America’s deepening economic problems; the role now played by money in politics; and the emotions of a scared, increasingly cynical, economically insecure electorate.

Amy Davidson, ‘Seven Chances Obama Missed’; The New Yorker:

President Obama did badly in his first debate—by his standards, by those of his supporters, and in comparison to Mitt Romney. As Ann Romney said recently, this is hard; it’s easy to criticize from home. (Jim Lehrer, the moderator, who all but announced at the end that he’d lost control, might borrow that line.) But the loss is especially striking when one considers the openings Romney gave him, both before and during the debate.

Karen Dolan,‘The Biggest Losers: Big Bird and the American People’; Institute for Policy Studies:

Lehrer proceeded to let the candidates run roughshod over him, then lost us all when he said “we’ve lost a pod” as he reprimanded the candidates for taking too long. In an evening devoted to domestic issues, none of the three men ever mentioned women’s rights, civil rights, immigration, poverty, climate change, or any other environmental issue.

Most importantly, nobody dared to breathe the truth, lest it actually get out — America Is Not Broke.

That’s right, the debate was an exercise in ridiculousness that produced no insight, no plan, no inspiration, no leadership, no truth. We are rich. We have enough money to put nutritious food on the tables of the one in five U.S. kids who are hungry and undernourished. We have enough money to help the laid-off moms and dads make ends meet until they get another job.

We have enough money to keep grandma, sister, and even every child (“future people,” as I believe Romney put it) taken care of through their hard-earned benefits of Social Security and Medicare. We have enough money to help the down-and-out in times of sickness and emergency through Medicaid and help low-income families through refundable tax credits and the last shreds of welfare available to some.

We do. We’re a rich country. We’re not broke. Not only are we not in an economic position, recovering from the Wall Street-induced Great Recession to be able to tolerate the austerity trumpeted by Romney and half-conceded to by Obama, but we don’t need to resort to it.

Richard Kim, ‘Jim Lehrer Gets Pwned’; The Nation:

I’ll leave it to the horserace pundits to decide who won tonight’s debate and to the voters to decide who will win the election. I know who lost: Jim Lehrer, PBS, old media and the myth of the “sensible center.” Tonight’s moderator, Jim Lehrer, got utterly, totally, savagely pawned. The Lehrer/PBS school of moderation is fundamentally unequipped to deal with the era of post-truth, asymmetric polarization politics—and it should be retired. Time and time again, Romney deviated from the positions he took to win the GOP primary, and neither Lehrer nor Obama was able to effectively press him on it. Obama at least tried, at times.

The gulf between political reality and mainstream media mores has never seemed so wide and unbridgeable. Frankly, I came away with one new opinion, and that was to agree with Mitt Romney that PBS should go. (Big Bird, I’ll rethink this in the AM.)

But beyond the numbing boredom and bewilderment that tonight’s debate format and moderation caused, there are real costs. Not necessarily to the candidates—the media has called the debate for Romney, but I don’t think it will move the needle enough for Romney to win—but to democracy.

Gary Young, ‘Romney edges a presidential debate light on zingers’; The Guardian:

Barack Obama […] appeared nervous, distracted and unprepared. After four years in the Oval Office, he’d lost his voice. Gone was the charisma, the optimism and the eloquence. Defensive, halting and verbose – he looked tired and that made his presidency look tired. Both campaigns set low expectations, but only Obama met them. If you were watching without knowing who was the president, you wouldn’t have guessed it was him.

Poorly moderated and often wonkish, the debate frequently got swamped in the kind of detail that few could follow and with charges and counter-charges that few could immediately verify.

Robert Kuttner, ‘First Round to Romney’; The American Prospect:

Romney’s strategy, as it has been throughout the campaign, was to lie, and for the most part Obama failed to call him on it. Romney essentially disavowed the tax and budget plan he has been running on for eighteen months, claiming that it was possible to cut tax rates and make up the difference by closing loopholes. Obama correctly pointed out that the arithmetic didn’t work. But Obama failed to challenge Romney to identify just which loopholes he would close.

On Social Security and Medicare, Romney gave Obama another opening that the president failed to maximize. Romney said that nobody at or near retirement age needed to fear any changes. The obvious implication is Social Security and Medicare cuts for younger people. Obama had a nice one-liner—”If you are 54 or 55, you might want to pay attention.”—but he failed to drive the point home.

On Dodd-Frank, Romney told one whopper after another. He claimed that the law protects banks that are “too big to fail.” What Dodd-Frank actually does it to authorize, for the first time, how to shut down such banks.

For the most part, Obama was operating on Republican territory—he admitted that his health plan was a copy of Romney’s; he was for tax cuts, too; for small business, too; for budget balance, too.

To hear Romney, he would preserve America’s social safety net, not cut taxes on the rich, and make sure that Medicare was preserved for America’s seniors. All this flies in the face of what the Romney campaign claimed for 18 months, but for the most part Obama let Romney off the hook.

Robert Reich,‘The First Presidential Debate’; RobertReich.org:

In Wednesday night’s debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he’s either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he’s a fabulous actor.

But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney’s budget plan — awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney’s 47 percent talk, or Romney’s “carried-interest” tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he’d replace and why. And so on.

David Corn,‘”We Have a Horse Race Again”‘; Mother Jones:

Throughout the campaign, Obama has tried to depict the election as a choice between two visions of how the nation should move forward. At the start of the debate, he pitted his “economic patriotism”—in which the country together invests in education, innovation, and infrastructure to ensure a solid economy in the years ahead—against what he called Romney’s “top-down” economic policies that are premised on the belief that if taxes are cut for the rich and regulations are lifted on corporations, the economy will rev up. But he never seemed to place Romney on the defensive on this mega-theme. On other occasions, Obama has presented this case much more effectively.

Turning Obama’s choice message on its head, Romney basically agreed, Yes, there are two choices: what you got now, or what I’ll give you. And promises are easier to sell than actualities—particularly when they are not bound by facts.

At the start of the campaign, the conventional wisdom was that Obama could have a difficult time winning reelection, given the lousy economy and polls indicating widespread public unease. Yet Romney’s liabilities ensured a competitive race. This first debate showed how challenging the fundamental dynamics are for Obama.

With the president failing to bring his A-game to Denver—and neither he nor moderator Jim Lehrer referred to Romney’s 47 percent rant—Romney took full advantage of the occasion. But given there are so few undecided voters at this point, Romney’s strong performance in a debate that didn’t generate much news or memorable exchanges may not move the needle much. (How many undecideds watched this wonkish debate?) But now that the pundits are once happily declaring, “We have a horse race again,” the Obama crew will have to make sure the president sharpens his case. In a way, he’s always had the tougher sell. This first debate was a painful reminder of that.

Joan Walsh, ‘Those old Obama debate blues’; Salon.com:

A subdued, deferential, over-prepared President Obama ceded the first debate to Mitt Romney on style and substance. Democrats had to look at historical evidence that debates don’t change election outcomes for comfort Wednesday tonight.

Romney shook his Etch-a-Sketch and lied his way through the entire debate with no challenge from moderator Jim Lehrer. He simply denied he has proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. He insisted he wouldn’t cut the education budget or Pell Grants, when he will. He claimed the Affordable Care Act raised taxes by a trillion dollars. He essentially revived the idea of death panels by saying Obamacare established “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.”  Yet the president didn’t call him on any of it.

In fact, Obama let Romney off the hook on a range of toxic topics, from Social Security to the tax deductions he’d eliminate to make his tax-cut plan “revenue neutral.” Some omissions seem like political malpractice. The president had many opportunities to ask Romney exactly what loopholes he’d close and which deductions he’d eliminate – child tax credit? Mortgage interest deduction? Charitable deductions? – and help Romney commit political suicide. But he never did; he went straight to the wonky idea that there are not enough loopholes to close or deductions to balance his tax cuts for the rich. He had the chance to ask Romney for his deduction-elimination plans directly, even if only rhetorically, even if Lehrer didn’t follow up. But Obama never did.

 
“The rich are different from you and me.” “Yes, they have more money.”

 

Military-industrial complex: GD, NG, Raytheon, Boeing, Cessna, GE, DuPont, ExxonMobil.

 

Hartford, Conn.

 

Alec, right-wingers, legislators.

Cheney, Koch Brothers. WalMart.

Paul Weyrich, right-winger.

Says Van Jones.

Coke and Pepsi pulled their funding from Alec.

NRA sponsors leg in 20 states, including Fla, for the ‘stand your ground’ fiasco.

 

Capitalism is a disaster. It does not meet human needs well. Everything is subjected to the profit motive.

Nine-tenths of the population is fighting over fifty percent of the US pie.

 

Diebold in Ohio helped to elect W.

 

Nixon devalued the dollar, ruining us all.

 

Gleichshaltung, or co-ordination of the population to the regime. We live under a soft version of authoritarianism in America. Everyone lives in fear. Fear of policemen; fear of gangsters; fear of petty criminals; fear of government; fear of not enough government; fear of drugs; fear of corporate malfeasance. America is really a blight, despite the media-generated images of a happy folk. There is a rise in the cost of living; there are defense cutbacks; there is corruption on Wall Street and in government; there is a kind of mass-hysteria in America, which finds its outlet in war, crime, street violence and sports. TV brings this socially-acceptable level of fake violence into peoples’ living rooms. The main thing is that people should work, work, work harder just to stay afloat. It is imperative that the people don’t understand what’s really going on: the rewards of society going to fewer and fewer people. The big lie is that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats,’ but in truth, the Reagan-era saw most of the economic rewards going to the big banks, corporations and the rich. The middle-class could barely stay afloat during this period of hard-right capitalist takeover of the budget. The military budget exploded in order to fund Reagan-Bush led wars. The truth in the final analysis is that we live under the capitalist system, and government exists to protect it. The rewards will always go to the haves, not to the have-nots.

 

There are now 47,545 total US wounded in 2 wars.

32,223 in Iraq and 15,322 in Afghanistan.

 

Human life has no meaning to the capitalists, only the profit motive. Oil is what is vital to protecting America’s ‘national interest.’

 

The system doesn’t work for the benefit of the ordinary people.

 

US and Red China now control 16 percent each of the world’s economy.

 

In America there is a “Misery index”, comprised of inflation, the value of the dollar, the rise in the Cost of living, the rise in the cost of oil, and government ineptitude.

Notes, Judson’s book

13 Mar

 

Notes

“It can happen here”, Bruce Judson, Yale School of Mgmt.

In progressive societies the concentration may reach a point where the strength in numbers of the many poor rivals the strength in ability of the few rich; then the unstable equilibrium generates a critical situation, which history has diversely met by legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution redistributing poverty.

The Durants: “The government of the United States, in 1933-52 and 1960-65, followed Solon’s peaceful methods, and accomplished a moderate and pacifying redistribution”. The New Deal and the Great Society.

“We conclude that the concentration of wealth is natural and inevitable and is periodically alleviated by violent or peaceable partial redistribution.”

Economic inequality, revolutions, and economic shocks.

The result is that an economic crisis is frequently the catalyst that pushes a vulnerable political system over the edge from instability to revolution.

Extreme economic inequality has been building in the US for over 30 years.

And those who have power, wealth, and influence are rarely interested in losing those advantages.

Revolutions often start with reforms.

The distribution of wealth and the health of the middle class, the impact of recent economic or political shocks, the lack of satisfaction of rising expectations, the perception of unfairness in the distribution of wealth, the history and efficacy of institutions in society.

The wealthy develop a sense of entitlement, and they increasingly seek to insulate themselves from the rest of society. They use their wealth to obtain political influence that solidifies their privileges.

A vibrant and large middle class is essential.

“Where democracies have no middle class, and the poor are greatly superior in number, trouble ensues and they are speedily ruined.” Aristotle

“It is the poor who have wanted to rob the rich or the rich who have tried to put the poor in chains.” de Tocqueville

Revolutions occur, or do not occur, because people believe in something. *Mobility in the US is actually lower than mobility in almost all European countries and Canada, despite the abiding myth of Horatio Alger.

The top earning 10 percent of US families receive 49.3 percent of all US household income, including capital gains. The top 10 percent received a 34.2 of the nation’s income 30 years ago.

The bulk of the explosion of inequality has occurred in the past 30 years.

In 1979, the top 1 percent of Americans received 10 percent.

By 2006, it had reached 22.8 percent.

Ucal Berkeley, Economics dept.

*A young male has an income, adj for inflation, that is 12 percent less than his father 30 years ago. My note: “Stagnation.”

America’s class structure is headed in the direction of Brazil’s and Mexico’s.*

Inequality peaked 1928-9, descending from 1950’s -79.

The top 1 percent of all households received 18 percent of the nation’s income in 1913.

This total peaked at 23.9 percent in 1928.

Declined to 11.3 percent in 1944.

In 1976,  it was 8.9 percent.

Then by 1979, the top 1 percent had increased to over 22.8 percent. Note: Reagan reversed this trend.

The driving factor is the top 1 percent.

We have become an economic oligopoly.

Unchecked and rising economic inequality is an indicator of a dysfunctional democracy that is spiraling downward.

“The American dream in reverse”. Obama

The American dream is essentially a middle class dream.

The majority of working Americans have been waiting for a raise for over 30 years.

In 2006, the top 10 percent of US households received incomes of over $104,400 or greater.

This top group accounted for just below 49.3 percent of the nation’s total income.

By 1944, the percent of total income held declined to 33 percent until the 70’s.

The total income in the 70’s received by the top 10 percent reached 49.3 percent.

Presently, 10 percent receives almost 50 percent of the nation’s income.

The top one percent , household income of $376,000, received almost 22.8 percent of all income.

Before the stock market crash of 1929, the top 1 percent of Americans received almost 24 percent of all income. From 1952 to 75, the top 1 percent received between 9 to11 percent of total hh income.

The richest tenth of one percent earned $1.91 million or more.

Median real income increased from a real income of 43,937 to 49,568 $$.

13 percent gain in 28 years.

Note: In other words, they LOST money.

This doesn’t include social security.

1979 was the turning point. note: The bastards elected Reagan.

The golden age of equality in America was engineered through a combination of tax policies and social benefits.  Note: Social engineering by the Democrats.

Economic growth and productivity gains have gone to the rich.

The task force on inequality and American Democracy, reports the growing concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of the few.

Source: NYU

The top 20 percent own almost 85 percent of the nation’s wealth.

80 percent are fighting over 15 percent! America’s ‘banana-republic like wealth distribution’.

The Gini coefficient.

0 equals perfect equality.

1 absolute inequality

The US has a gini at .463

The US has the highest inequality rate with the exception of Mexico and Turkey

On the per capita GDP scale, our neighbors are Sweden, Swiss, and UK; on the Gini scale, Sri Lanka, Mali and Russia.

My note: The Cold War and Reagan-Bush-Bush II effectively bankrupted the US.

Capitalism, shell game?

13 Mar

Shell -game:

How many people are aware that the US gov’t gives $5 B subsidies to the oil companies . The taxpayer-suckers are actually subsidizing the fat cats who  pay almost nothing in taxes: Exxon, BP, Conoco, Shell are literally getting rich off of the American system. Meanwhile, the workers of America are getting sacked by the corporate bosses, and the middle-class foots the bill for the exporting of jobs to low-wage sweatshops in Asian and Latin American countries. What a racket! And the politicians have the nerve to say they’re working on behalf of American families, who are their ‘bosses.’ As if the self-protecting, self-serving, self-replicating elite doesn‘t work to protect its own interests. “Public servants” or criminals? You decide.

The US imports and exports oil. Why do we import it? Because Pres. Obama, for better or worse, nixed drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Why do we export it? Obviously, for profit. Meanwhile, Russia and other countries are sitting on oceans of oil. There is no oil shortage. The world is awash in the black gold. They’re more interested in the long-term profits to be made by pretending they have to conserve it so dearly.  Russia, China, Brazil, India are all increasing their oil usage, and this drives up global prices. Solar, wind and other alternative energies can’t yet replace the magnitude of oil consumption in the world. Speculators also help drive prices up in times of ‘crisis.’

Imagine what the US economy would be if they lowered the price of oil. Middle-class families would be much, much better off, as would working-class ones. It’s all about Greed and Profit…Foreign nations are profiting from our misery, as are the oil companies. The Saudi Gov’t. loves instability in the Mideast, which helps raise the price of oil, its sole commodity, because they know they can count on the US military to be their paid lackeys and fight any and all comers in the region. They and the Israelis may even be behind some of the Mideast chaos, which feeds their mutual self-interest in keeping America from freeing itself from both foreign oil and foreign wars. The sham of American democracy, in which politicians of both parties are being funded by corporate and banking interests, is becoming more and more apparent to the American voters. Or perhaps not.

The owners of the means of production wish to control everything and influence everyone: the oil in the ground; the water that we drink; the educational system; and of course the political system. They seek to gut all forms of regulation or else to water them down sufficiently as to render them powerless. They were shocked when Obama blocked their attempt to build a transAmerican pipeline in the Midwest, the Keystone Pipeline, which would have caused rampant pollution, wanton destruction of millions of acres of farmland, and the violation of the rights of citizens and their states. Fortunately, the environmentalists and “Nimbys” managed to shoot a potent cannonball across the bow of the oil companies, and the Republicans are now foaming at the mouth with rage, baying for Democrat blood. This is life under “Hegemonic American capitalism!”

As Coolidge said, “The business of America is business.” The entire country cannot function without oil, even if they do manage to invent new green technologies. The consumers probably can’t afford the hybrid cars in droves quite yet, so we’ll continue to need oil. And pay dearly for it.

————

Gangster Capitalism:

ExxonMobil, Bank of America, GE, Chevron, Boeing, Valero, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Conoco Philips, Carnival Cruises. All have profited during these times and skirted paying income tax. Gangster Capitalism 101, taught by Professor Al Capone.

Finance derives capital beyond its limits.

Capital is value set in motion to expand. [acceleration]

Capitalism, a 3 percent rate of compound GDP growth, profitability, and rates of accumulation.

Monopolies.

Nobou Okishio:

Investment, profitability, the standard of living of workers remains fixed, price competition.

Harvey:

Surplus of capital relative to opportunities to employ capital. “The over-accumulation of capital.” Assets, paper products, short-term profits.

Finance, lack of demand, stimulation, manipulate the credit-system, Keynesian economics.

Protest lit:

1. Most middle-class families have housekeepers, servants, and nannies. They ruthlessly exploit labor, off the books.

2. Wage-slavery keeps millions of people in poverty.

3. The exploitation of labor is a vital element of capitalism. Land, resources, commodities, and money itself, are ruthlessly exploited by capitalists for profit.

4. “A living wage” campaign is needed in order to socialize the working-class and raise it from the evils of wage-slavery, for the minimum wage is unlivable.

5. Immigrants are dumped on the US, in order to maintain a pool of uncomplaining, exploitable labor kept hidden within the shadows of daylight.

The rich live on capital gains and dividends.

The middle-class tend to be lifers.

Lenin, “Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.” The exploitation of overseas markets is integral to capitalist economies, leading to colonialist wars, such as we have experienced recently in the middle-east.

The top ten percent of the people own 50 percent of the income in the US, and 20 percent have 80 to 85 percent.

Hence, 80 percent of the US population is fighting over 15 percent of available resources.

It’s worse in Britain! Fewer than 1 percent own 69 percent of the wealth (Aristocrats! The Rothschilds are their trusted bankers)

American capitalism requires 50 percent of the population, the working-class, to remain in the dark about the sources of their oppression.

The masses are comforted, gilded slaves, with 24-hour cable TV, sports, alcohol, and other distractions to keep them in a state of “False consciousness,” and apathetic indifference.

The Ancient Romans kept their masses enslaved too, with ‘bread and circuses,’ ie games and dole and religion.

The most salient fact about America is the unspoken truth about the class system.

Protest the Wall-Street -DC axis! March on Wa® shington!

One in six persons in the US lives in utter poverty.

The capitalist-system.

Capitalism means the exploitation of workers.

The exploiters and the exploited.

Whoever controls the economy controls the people.

American pop culture, or mindless, amoral garbage keeps them ignorant.

Americans lack a bill of ‘economic right.’

Trickle-down economics didn’t trickle down! The rich took the lions’ share for themselves.

“Free market economics” or Reaganomics, is tearing society into pieces.

W. doubled US national debt.

In ten years, the US dollar lost 20 percent of its value.

2000-2010 meant, “The crisis of capitalism.”

$35K should be a livable income, but then it‘s highly-taxed!

The SEC is supposed to regulate Wall Street, but they have overlooked white collar crimes.

——————————–

“The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggles.” Marx and Engels.

The bourgeoisie, the middle-class, pays its workers, the proles, a wage that they can not live on. This keeps them coming back for more. The angry, discontented masses will eventually come to understand their condition as artificially -imposed, and they will rise up and overthrow the source of their oppression. That’s the basic thesis of Marxism. Capitalism is not forever but will produce its anti-thesis. Guided by enlightened Marxists, the proletariat will reorganize society under equitable lines.

Things are so bad, that it must be compared with the Great Depression, when 5 percent of the population in 1929 owned 33 percent of the US GDP.

6 banks now control sixty percent of the economy!

In  14 years during the sixties, income rose about 55 percent despite– or even because of– the Vietnam War.

From 1974 until now income declined in real values. Nixon decided to decouple the dollar from the gold standard, I believe. Thus money has become more and more worthless unless it’s a lot of money.

Inflation, plus gas prices, plus COLA, plus job outsourcing, plus more and more surveillance and law, is a formula for MISERY.

Welfare, $2,070 for a family of 4 in 1966.

By 2020, $35,604 in gov’t spending per capita, just to maintain the white-controlled status quo.