The conspiracy of wealth.

[Mark Stapleton]

I fall into that unusual category of people who believes that 9-11 and the JFK assassination were inside jobs ("a conspiracy theorist" in common parlance) and who also believes that we urgently need to develop a global system of governance, decentralized by all means, but global nevertheless.

A nice idea, Sid. The only problem is how would one prevent that model of governance being corrupted like all the others? Empowering it with the ultimate jurisdiction would not make that Government corruption-proof, imo.

An equitable global taxation system, massive reduction in global arms expenditure and a cohesive plan to prevent the planet from permanent damage due to overpopulation would provide a more stable and harmonious planet but it all seems a bit idealistic in light of the plentiful evidence that corruption is part of human nature.

How to create a corruption-proof (or even corruption-resistant) model of Global Government, while having it run by humans is the big question.

[Mark Stapleton]

Apparently it's not possible (for me) to transfer a table of data to a post here without all the numbers getting jumbled together, so I'll have to adapt. The following information is from Time Almanac 2000, with Information Please. The Millennium Collector's Edition. Ed. Borgna Brunner. Boston: Family Education Company, 1999, p. 838.

A brief article, The Rich Get Richer, reads as follows:

"In September 1999, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) released a report examining the distribution of after-tax income among Americans in 1977 and 1999. The report, which is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, shows that despite tax increases on high-income households in 1990 and 1993, this group has received large tax cuts overall since 1977. The result has been a widening of the gap between the rich and the poor.

"The CBPP report breaks the U.S. population into fifths based on after-tax household income level. According to the report, the top one percent of Americans made an average gain of 115% in after-tax income between 1977 and 1999. The top one-fifth also fared well, gaining 43%. In contrast, the middle fifth made only 8% more and the bottom fifth in fact saw its average income decline by 9%. The next-to-bottom fifth did not change significantly."

The data for this is as follows (U.S. Average After-Tax Income in 1977 and 1999):

The lowest 1/5 income group had an average after-tax income in 1977 of $10,000 a year (5.7% of all US income); in 1999 the lowest fifth was projected to have an average income of $8,800 (4.2% of all income).

The second-lowest 1/5 income group had an average income in 1977 of $22,100 a year (11.5% of all income); in 1999 this income group was projected to have average income of $20,000 (9.7% of all income).

The middle group had an average income in 1977 of $32,400 a year (16.4% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $31,400 (14.7% of all income).

The fourth 1/5 income group in 1977 had an average income of $42,600 a year (22.8% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $45,100 (21.3% of all income).

The highest 1/5 income group in 1977 had an average income of $74,000 a year (44.2% of all income); in 1999 this group projected to have average income of $102,300 (50.4% of all income).

Meanwhile, the top one percent had an average income of $234,700 a year in 1977 (7.3% of all income); in 1999 the top one percent projected to have average after-tax annual income of $515,600 (12.9% of all US income).

"NOTE: Figures rounded to nearest hundred dollars.... Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Web: www.cbpp.org. (Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office.)" (Ibid.)

Although no indication is given either way, I assume these figures are in constant dollars (viz., $10,000 in 1977 dollars would be a much larger amount than $8,800 twenty years later). But even assuming that, it's noticeable that the income appears to be "depressed" the lower you go on the income scale (see below on minimum wage rates for similar indications of "depressed income").

I think one of the interesting things about this is that while the highest income group was the only group that actually increased its "percentage share" of all after-tax income (from 44.2% to 50.4%), it seems likely that the illusion of "upward mobility" for the second-highest group (and probably similar notions of incremental improvement for the middle groups) helped serve to offset the reality that there was little or no substantive "improvement" in their own "position." (One notices that the first four groups are separated by around $10,000 increases, until we get to that last group, where there's a big jump in differential -- $45,000 to $100,000.) In other words, the vast, vast majority (4/5ths) of Americans can "aspire" to an after-tax annual income of around $50,000, and all their income put together only makes up half of all such income.............unless, of course, things have changed for the better in these happy years under the leadership of the Bush Administration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this data, the year and its corresponding US federally-mandated minimum wage rate is given, followed in parentheses by the constant value of that rate in 1996 dollars<1>:

1955: $0.75 ($4.39)

1956: $1.00 ($5.77)

1957: $1.00 ($5.58)

................................................................................

1960: $1.00 ($5.30)

1961: $1.15 ($6.03)

1962: $1.15 ($5.97)

1963: $1.25 ($6.41)

1964: $1.25 ($6.33)

1965: $1.25 ($6.23)

1966: $1.25 ($6.05)

1967: $1.40 ($6.58)

1968: $1.60 ($7.21)

1969: $1.60 ($6.84)

1970: $1.60 ($6.20)

................................................................................

1973: $1.60 ($5.65)

1974: $2.00 ($6.37)

1975: $2.10 ($6.12)

1976: $2.30 ($6.34)

1977: $2.30 ($5.95)

1978: $2.65 ($6.38)

1979: $2.90 ($6.27)

1980: $3.10 ($5.90)

1981: $3.35 ($5.78)

1982: $3.35 ($5.45)

................................................................................

1988: $3.35 ($4.44)

1989: $3.35 ($4.24)

1990: $3.80 ($4.56)

1991: $4.25 ($4.90)

1992: $4.25 ($4.75)

1993: $4.25 ($4.61)

...............................................................................

1995: $4.25 ($4.38)

1996: $4.75 ($4.75)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<1> "Adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U. Source: U.S. Employment Standards Admin. Web: www.dol.gov/esa/public/miniwage." (Ibid., p. 828.)

One could draw the conclusion from this data that from the time of the Kennedy Administration until the Reagan Administration there was some consensus that a "reasonable" minimum wage rate was about $6.00 an hour (in 1996 dollars value). Since then apparently even $5.00 an hour was too much to hope for.

To put this in context, I know plenty of people who've worked the same jobs for 25 years or so and make a good living earning about 3 times the value of the minimum wage circa 1962; this is "more" in today's terms because it's roughly 4 times as much as current minimum wage rates.

To put this in more context, where I live beginning factory workers today consider themselves lucky to start out at $10.00 an hour, which is not much more than what minimum wage would've been in the 1960s. And even then, one's job is not exactly secure in light of the extremely inexpensive (and lacking-in-bargaining-rights) labor pool that exists in, say, the democratic country of China.

Interesting point, Daniel.

It's the same here in Australia and most likely throughout other western democracies. In fact, from 1999 to the present, I believe the gap will have grown considerable bigger, with no end in sight as the price of energy inexorably rises.

China is having boom times--!0% per annum for the last four years or so--and its middle class is growing accordingly. Unfortunately, it looks like those in the West's lower and middle classes could suffer a drop in living standards roughly commensurate with the rise in living standards the Chinese and Indians are experiencing.

It's not all good news for China. They're paying a high price with nine of the ten most polluted cities on earth being located in that country. The economy and the environment are on a direct collision course in China and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out, imo.

[John Dolva]

Mark: "...its middle class is growing accordingly" - it's localised. Deliberately so.

The killers of Tienamin Square were handpicked to not have relations amongst the demonstrators. As well. they were compartmentalised, isolated and indoctrinated prior to striking. It's a nation divided, with a unity that is a result of that division.

China is an Imperial nation with an Emperor. It has been so since the mists of its early history for thousands of years. They have evolved a system of government that essentially has remained the same because it can take on many guises. Broadly there is the mass peasant base. Then a series of hierarchical levels that are in fact potentially accessible to all. Patronage and Justice is meted out irrespective of a persons presumed status. A lowly peasant may rise to very high positions and a person high in the hierarchy may sink to the bottom of the pile. The Emperor remains an elusive person, or assemblge of persons, depending on circumstances.

At the moment, a 'foxy' (see the meaning of the fox in chinese mythology), leadership is raising a portion of society to western standards. The peasantry as usual is left to fend for themselves within this hierarchical system. Perhaps a refined form of corporate fascism a' la Il Duce is an apt comparison. China is imperialistic and is spreading its influence wider and wider, knowing when to hold back, and when to advance. It advances on many levels, ranging from open economic influences, covert drug trades, and open warfare, economic and military. Because of the success of the Chinese system, there are elements in western society in thrall of it, and there are very influential elements in US high society privy to this formula.

The Last Emperor never was. The Emperor merely changed clothes, and continues to do so. China is a society with little regard for human life at the top and perhaps a marxist wolud call it 'State Capitalist'. The truth. however, I suspect, is something more sinister.

Edited July 8, 2007 by John Dolva

[Mark Stapleton]

Interesting point, Daniel.

It's the same here in Australia and most likely throughout other western democracies. In fact, from 1999 to the present, I believe the gap will have grown considerable bigger, with no end in sight as the price of energy inexorably rises.

China is having boom times--!0% per annum for the last four years or so--and its middle class is growing accordingly. Unfortunately, it looks like those in the West's lower and middle classes could suffer a drop in living standards roughly commensurate with the rise in living standards the Chinese and Indians are experiencing.

It's not all good news for China. They're paying a high price with nine of the ten most polluted cities on earth being located in that country. The economy and the environment are on a direct collision course in China and it will be very interesting to see how it plays out, imo.

I definitely have no problem with increasing the living standards of people in China, India, Latin America, etc. This will I think inevitably lead to greater democracy (for instance, in China). My main point about China is that back when you and I were kids the very idea of what's been going on was considered "trading with the enemy" -- a totalitarian, undemocratic Communist state. Western businessmen have taken a much more "liberal" attitude since then, recognizing that cheap labor can be "got at" best where there isn't a lot in the way of democracy, bargaining rights, etrc, etc. Those who have the wealth know what they're on about and couldn't care less about anything as long as their profits are increased. That end is not served by the higher living standards (wages) of western workers. And the point is apt about pollution: the Chinese government is selling out both the population and their environmental health for the sake of.......capitalism. Odd turn of events all around, I think; you'd think some Marxist could make an extensive critique about that, if there are any left out there.

I have no problem with increased living standards in those countries either. I'm just pointing out that it could be accompanied by a drop in living standards in the west. As manufacturing and other labor intensive sectors re-locate en masse to the source of cheaper labor, the labor force in the west is experiencing a sharp drop in demand for their services--unless the labor costs can be reduced to compete with those overseas, of course. 'We must compete in a global environment' is the corporate mantra justifying this 'realignment'.

Alternatively, the cheap labor force can come to the west. In Australia, employers can have cheap labor home delivered via section 457 temporary visas, allowing foreign labor to move here under strict supervision--from the employer. There have been shameful tales in the Australian media about foreign workers being paid as little as $10 per day by employers eager to exploit such schemes. I believe the sponsors of globalism have determined that labor costs in the west have been too high for too long. Industries in the West which have heavily unionised workforces, like manufacturing, just relocate to a third world country if the domestic cost of labor cannot be bargained down.

The cost of labor in the west must and will fall, gradually resembling that of the third world until some equlibrium is reached, I guess. It's a drop in living standards, although not for everyone.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark: "...its middle class is growing accordingly" - it's localised. Deliberately so.

The killers of Tienamin Square were handpicked to not have relations amongst the demonstrators. As well. they were compartmentalised, isolated and indoctrinated prior to striking. It's a nation divided, with a unity that is a result of that division.

China is an Imperial nation with an Emperor. It has been so since the mists of its early history for thousands of years. They have evolved a system of government that essentially has remained the same because it can take on many guises. Broadly there is the mass peasant base. Then a series of hierarchical levels that are in fact potentially accessible to all. Patronage and Justice is meted out irrespective of a persons presumed status. A lowly peasant may rise to very high positions and a person high in the hierarchy may sink to the bottom of the pile. The Emperor remains an elusive person, or assemblge of persons, depending on circumstances.

At the moment, a 'foxy' (see the meaning of the fox in chinese mythology), leadership is raising a portion of society to western standards. The peasantry as usual is left to fend for themselves within this hierarchical system. Perhaps a refined form of corporate fascism a' la Il Duce is an apt comparison. China is imperialistic and is spreading its influence wider and wider, knowing when to hold back, and when to advance. It advances on many levels, ranging from open economic influences, covert drug trades, and open warfare, economic and military. Because of the success of the Chinese system, there are elements in western society in thrall of it, and there are very influential elements in US high society privy to this formula.

The Last Emperor never was. The Emperor merely changed clothes, and continues to do so. China is a society with little regard for human life at the top and perhaps a marxist wolud call it 'State Capitalist'. The truth. however, I suspect, is something more sinister.

John,

Interesting stuff about China. Perhaps an imperialistic war between China and the US could be on the cards.

I agree it doesn't value life highly. Over 8,000 Chinese miners died last year while Australia's mining industry, which is of a similar size, lost three. John Howard's comment a while back that he would like the Australian mining industry to be more like its Chinese counterpart was carefully noted by the unions.

It has an economy so overheated that the Chinese Premier said recently that he didn't know how to reign it in. It will be interesting to see how much of this growth will eventually be attributed to the Beijing Olympics, but the environmental issue is the wild card which could sink them. The poisoned air and water will make some of their worst polluted cities, up in the north, uninhabitable before long. Interesting times ahead.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm not sure what you're really saying, Stephen.

I'll do a crude paraphrase. Please correct me if and where I have it wrong.

(1) there's a huge disparity of wealth, with a small minority who are 'super-rich'...

(2) the super-rich is like a caste; inherited wealth is really the only gateway to membership.

(3) the super-rich are cynical and use ploys such as nationalism and religion to divide and rule the masses (99.9%+?)

I agree with (1). It is really just a statement of fact, based on well-known and widely available statistics.

(2) seems a lot more problematic to me. It does not make sufficient allowance for socio-economic mobility and the self-made man phenomenon. How do Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs, Aristotle Onassis or Rafiq Hariri fit into this caste paradigm?

(3) also seems very problematic to me. You imply the super-rich, as a united whole, collude to defend their interests as a class/caste.

The truth, IMO, is much more subtle.

Some enormously wealthy folk collude and conspire. Others don't.

There are networks of collusion - just like there are in other social classes. These networks themselves cut across social strata.

Sid, I dont for one moment push the belief that the ruling class daily conspire together to bring these things about, and for one good reason, they dont need to, the system of vast social/ecomomic disparity, which has taken millenia to perfect, does it automatically. As regards the Bill gates phenomina, of course some members of the "lower orders" make it to the Boardroom, its the only way they get to sell the American dream, but you can bet the farm precious few make it, most money remains with the same economically dominant units that it always has.

[John Dolva]

Mark: "...its middle class is growing accordingly" - it's localised. Deliberately so.

The killers of Tienamin Square were handpicked to not have relations amongst the demonstrators. As well. they were compartmentalised, isolated and indoctrinated prior to striking. It's a nation divided, with a unity that is a result of that division.

China is an Imperial nation with an Emperor. It has been so since the mists of its early history for thousands of years. They have evolved a system of government that essentially has remained the same because it can take on many guises. Broadly there is the mass peasant base. Then a series of hierarchical levels that are in fact potentially accessible to all. Patronage and Justice is meted out irrespective of a persons presumed status. A lowly peasant may rise to very high positions and a person high in the hierarchy may sink to the bottom of the pile. The Emperor remains an elusive person, or assemblge of persons, depending on circumstances.

At the moment, a 'foxy' (see the meaning of the fox in chinese mythology), leadership is raising a portion of society to western standards. The peasantry as usual is left to fend for themselves within this hierarchical system. Perhaps a refined form of corporate fascism a' la Il Duce is an apt comparison. China is imperialistic and is spreading its influence wider and wider, knowing when to hold back, and when to advance. It advances on many levels, ranging from open economic influences, covert drug trades, and open warfare, economic and military. Because of the success of the Chinese system, there are elements in western society in thrall of it, and there are very influential elements in US high society privy to this formula.

The Last Emperor never was. The Emperor merely changed clothes, and continues to do so. China is a society with little regard for human life at the top and perhaps a marxist wolud call it 'State Capitalist'. The truth. however, I suspect, is something more sinister.

John,

Interesting stuff about China. Perhaps an imperialistic war between China and the US could be on the cards.

I agree it doesn't value life highly. Over 8,000 Chinese miners died last year while Australia's mining industry, which is of a similar size, lost three. John Howard's comment a while back that he would like the Australian mining industry to be more like its Chinese counterpart was carefully noted by the unions.

It has an economy so overheated that the Chinese Premier said recently that he didn't know how to reign it in. It will be interesting to see how much of this growth will eventually be attributed to the Beijing Olympics, but the environmental issue is the wild card which could sink them. The poisoned air and water will make some of their worst polluted cities, up in the north, uninhabitable before long. Interesting times ahead.

Wouldn't surprise me at all, Mark. Though there is some way to go for people to truly accept the concept of friendly and unfriendly nuclear weapons. (fortunately the prevailing wisdom is still: In case of Nuclear War: Kiss your Children goodbye)

Taiwan is an interface. China is committed to attack if Taiwan declares full independece, and the US is committed to respond.

Another is Korea. Not so sure how committed the Russians would be, but as an interface it's continually volatile.

China and Japan are traditional enemies with Japan at the moment a US alliance.

Vietnam is traditionally a desirable territory for China, but the strong Viet independence is unlikely to weaken.

The Dalai Lama talks of Chinas sovereignty as if a fait accompli, yet while feted in the west there is caution as China threatens economic disadvantage to those who ally with the Tibetans.

China and India have had their biff as well as India and Pakistan, no doubt China is most interested in any outcomes there. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran etc provides another volatile interface.

Burma, the 'unknown nation'.

In the Pacific, there are the smaller Island Nations, like Fiji, that are often overlooked, however they have strategic importance and a Chinese interest, and they have a UN vote.

Interesting you should mention the Cihinese miners, Mark, and Howards position there. It's akin to the Waterfront and the Building industries where Howard no doubt would like to do away with safety regulations and working standards.

Edited July 9, 2007 by John Dolva

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Possibly, even more worrying than the massive disparity of Wealth and power that this conspiracy creates, is the distorting effect that it exerts on Society as a whole, As greed becomes the common currency, and psychological drive for large swathes of the populaton. This phenomina has a disasterous effect on communities, and organisations who in the recent past could rely on partnership co-operation to ameliorate the worst aspects of a class based society. Individual greed has a corrosive effect on Human relationships, people are encouraged to see their World as split between winners, and losers, with losers being lazy and deserving of the full consequences of their inaction.

This creates, in its wake, fear and distrust, and a burning desire to grab as much as one can and Devil take the hindmost, put simply, ordinary citizens begin to Ape the behaviour of the ruling class, but of course without the power, wealth and resources enjoyed by the rich.

The Media, owned almost exclusively by the powerful, are key, playing on the fear and generalised anxiety of the greater population, by employing diversionary tactics, divide and rule propaganda, and constantly exhorting us to consume, consume, consume they effect a kind of disempowering mad scramble to secure, for one's self, an ever larger share of goods and services, which are in turn artificially manipulated to create "shortages" thus increasing the fear of "missing out" and, as a byproduct, reinforcing negative, selfish behaviour, which can then be held up as "Human nature" thereby ingraining it in people's minds as "normal" PHYSICALLY WE EXIST IN THE 21ST CENTURY, PSYCHOLOGICALLY WE ARE STILL LIVING IN CAVES.

Karl Marx's main philosophical thrust wasn't just that Capitalism was grossly unfair, but that it acted as a brake on Humanity's development, imprisoning us in an artificial mental ghetto, which, if left unchecked, would lead to disaster for rich and poor alike, looks like he had a point.