Unfairly, a bailout price tag of some 700 billion dollars will be picked up by the American middle and poorer classes. None of those actually bearing the brunt of this transfer of wealth will benefit from it directly. The beneficiaries are those among some one percent of the nation who own about 99 percent of its total wealth.
According to US wealth distribution data compiled by 'The State of Working America', 'Wealth distribution in the U.S. is extremely concentrated at the top --even more so than income.'
These statistics, on the other hand, only hint at the L-Curve phenomenon because the top 1% isn't scrutinized in sufficient detail. Still, compare the net worth of the top half of the top 1% with the bottom half of the top 1%! If you add them together and proportion them out, 3/4 of the wealth in the top 1% is actually in the top 0.5%.
Only a tiny group of Americans --Bush's 'base' --will benefit from the bailout directly.
The top and bottom halves of the top 0.5% would undoubtedly show even greater disparity if the data were presented with enough resolution. Note that nothing on this page even mentions billionaires. The largest fortunes are in the $100-billion range. The statistics on billionaires are diluted by lumping them in with mere millionaires. --op cit,
I have a better idea. Let's plot US wealth on a curve. Pro-rate the bailout. Let those getting the bigger share on the back-end bear the burden proportionally gong in. It is absurd to expect someone earning only $40,000 per year to cough up the same amount of money as, say, Bill Gates. I'm told Bill has given most of his money away. But, as he was once the richest man in the world, he is as good an example as anyone. Anyone whose 'net worth' is some $60 billion dollars should be expected to pay proportionally or between 10 and 15 percent of the total bailout. See: Inequality in the US
So skewed to the top is wealth in America that anyone not earning millions almost falls off the bottom end of the chart. Is it fair to ask folk earning miniscule amounts to pay sums equal to those paid by billionaires?This is a crisis that was foisted upon this nation by a tiny elite and their toadies in Washington. Those are the folk who should accept and bear the responsibility for the bailout. Instead, those who created this crisis expect to be rewarded for their incompetence and greed. Let the 'wizards' of Wall Street cough it up. Let each pay according to his ability. Bush, meanwhile, will be remembered as the right wing idiot who despite himself proved Karl Marx to have been absolutely correct.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!
--Karl Marx
The following is a follow up at: Reds in the Bed
"One of the ironies about this financial crisis is that it makes action on poverty look utterly achievable. It would cost $5bn (£2.7bn) to save six million children's lives."World leaders could find 140 times that amount for the banking system in a week. How can they tell us that action for the poorest is too expensive?"--Guardian,UK, Thursday September 25 2008 [quoted in Reds in the Bed ]
Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy
They covet their neighbors possessions, now just how "Christian" is that?
Just like Khrushchev said, "Capitalists will sell the rope that will hang themselves". The USA is now selling off much of its companies, real-estate and infrastructure to foreign interests, to continue to float the "American Dream". Is anybody going to wake up and smell the coffee before its too late?
The entire former and current Bu$h cabal and its accomplices in Congress, are the most unpatriotic bunch this country has experienced and should be Impeached, have trials of Treason and then be turned over to the Hague for War Crimes. I sometimes wonder what the"Founding Father's" would think about them?
Confiscate their illegally amassed fortunes and give it to humanitarian programs where-ever the farce War Of Terror is being waged, both domestically and abroad.
Have these fascist's Goon's & Thug's spend their life sentences at Gitmo enduring what "Enemy Combatant's" have. Then the world will see that the US is serious about prosecuting "Terrorist's".
by
Stanimal (0 articles, 4 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 702 comments)
on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 11:49:43 AM
This is just another victory by the Neo-con fascists. They are not capitalists. They are just greedy, power mad scum who are going to trash our economy completely.
If you want to know more about the bailout bill, what caused the crisis, who really benefits, and what the bailout bill will actually do, see Senate Bailout a.k.a. Bank Robbery Bill
by
Mark Adams (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 275 comments)
on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 3:59:53 PM
Since Marx's treatise is sort of an end-game for capitalist society, and because Marxism could not exist before Capitalism, then he owes his fame to the very Capitalism his followers seem to hate.
Many Marxists are too lazy or impatient to work or wait for Capitalist society to mature to the point Marx thought necessary for his theories to play out. Instead, they work through the democratic system to force policies that society is currently not ready for, financially. These efforts, more often than not, result in not only the corruption of the Capitalism that is necessary for Marx's ideas to be fully realized, but often results in poverty and starvation for the masses that Marxists pretend to speak for.
Just because people like Bush want to be viewed as free-market Capitalists, doesn't mean they haven't used political power to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Such action is a crime against the common Marxists who are relying on Capitalism to deliver them to the doors of Marxist perfection.
Destroy Capitalism, and you destroy Marxism. Only Totalitarian Authority will remain, when political power exceeds both economic power and fair judgment.
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 198 comments)
on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 6:59:37 PM
Monopolistic capitalism is the problem, not capitalism per se. Marx has too many meaningless associations. It's much better to look at the reality of very successful socialist Scandanavian countries as an example of totally different social structures. Elites are like cockroaches, they're everywhere, but they are much more rare in the socialist countries.
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (262 articles, 53 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 643 comments)
on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 9:53:40 PM
EVENTUAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN UNDER CAPITALISM September 25, 2008
Now that even Bush, Paulson, et al are saying the economic system is on the verge of collapse, we have a decisive refutation of the claim that capitalism had found a way to avoid depressions and keep itself in power permanently with Keynesian economic policies. The crisis is here to refute all their predictions.
Since those who have the money, i.e. the ruling class, always have the means for influencing the government, it was only to be expected that the capitalists would repeal the restrictions put on them by the New Deal as the Great Depression of the 1930's became a distant memory. The exotic financial instruments that enabled the present crisis were made legal by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. Before, when banks loaned money, the people who received the money paid it back to the bank. The bank thus had a strong motivation to assure that the people they loaned money to could pay it back. Even if the original maker of the loan sold it to another institution, that other institution had the same motivation to assure that the loan was good before they bought it. The repeal of Glass- Steagall made it possible to combine many loans into one instrument. The original loan maker could combine both good and bad loans into one instrument and sell it to another financial institution. They would get their quick cash payback when they sold the financial instrument and would not have to worry about whether the borrower could pay it back. It became possible to issue loans with variable and escalating interest rates that the borrower had no prospect of repaying and lump these bad loans in with other good loans and sell the whole amalgam to another financial institution who in turn could sell it to a third institution, etc.
Someone could argue that capitalism could have avoided this crisis if only we had not repealed Glass-Steagall. But the point is that the ruling class will always lobby for the repeal of the legal restrictions on their financial manipulation when the crisis that led to their adoption has become a distant enough memory. And they will do this even if the repeal is not in the interest of the capitalist system as a whole. In an analogue to The Tragedy of the Commons, individual financial high rollers will benefit from the repeal of any restrictions on their behavior although it may threaten the welfare of the capitalist class as a whole.
And if anyone doubts that the possessors of great wealth or the ruling class can always obtain what they want from the government, they need only remind themselves that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to run for President with any prospect of winning. The only way to get large sums of money is to go to those who have large sums of money. And they are not just contributing to political campaigns for their health; they are unlikely to give money to any candidate who will legislate against their interests.
Another example is the savings and loan crisis. A single financial institution could not by law be both a bank and a savings and loan. This was one of the New Deal reforms during the Depression to enable more people to own homes. These legal restrictions were repealed and the savings and loan crisis followed a few years later.
A second argument about why capitalism has to eventually fail comes from examining the series of crises that resulted from exorbitant loans to third world countries. When a series of Asian countries defaulted on their loans, there was concern that the capitalist system might not be able to contain the crisis. Earlier, there were similar concerns when a series of Latin American countries defaulted. This series of crises demonstrates that capitalism is like a high wire walker threatening continually to loose their balance. They may regain their balance this time and the next time and the next, etc. But is is a statistical certainty that eventually there will be a fatal plunge to earth.
You may as well admit it. You can not avoid an eventual economic meltdown if you retain capitalism and it is past time to replace an uncoordinated system of production for individual profit with a socialist system of production for human needs.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 319 comments)
on Thursday, October 2, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM
Since Marx's treatise is sort of an end-game for capitalist society, and because Marxism could not exist before Capitalism, then he owes his fame to the very Capitalism his followers seem to hate.
And so?
To say that of Marx that he is the product of 'capitlist' excesses is NO criticism of Marx --but of 'capitalist excesses'. Likewise, it is absurd to blame 'abolitionists' for the excesses of slavery. We must be very careful NOT to mistake premises for conclusions.
by
Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 554 comments)
on Friday, October 3, 2008 at 1:55:00 AM
I don't think that's Capitalism you're talking about. It sounds like Democracy, though.
Such corruption, which can happen to any economic system, is a result of evil acts by individuals and groups, and are more likely to happen in a secretive system of government, than in a free society.
Capitalism means earning your wage, and saving more than you spend, in order to create the savings that are Capital. You're not saying that my Grandma's life savings are really the proceeds of theft, are you?
Economics is about the effective allocation of scarce resources, and only Capitalism allows an individual the ability to thrive and support more than just himself. Capitalism's focus is on the free trades that allow the accumulation of savings, or Captial.
Marxism assumes that everything we need already exists, and merely needs to be distributed fairly. But it has no way of evaluating who the best managers of any given resource are, and thus will be inherently inefficient, compared to Capitalism.
Our corrupt government is not Capitalist, at least not anymore. I'm not sure it ever was, since we've had corrupt bankers influencing politicians since our founding. They had already driven England from its status as the wealthiest and most powerful nation, and with the emergence of the American States, found a new pool of money to corrupt with their inhuman, anti-capitalist banking systems.
Marxism is not what is corrupting Capitalism, but those who are corrupting it tend to lean toward it, because history shows its easier to control a population through pseudo-Marxism than pseudo-Capitalism.
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 198 comments)
on Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 3:03:58 PM
No...I was talking about 'capitalism' as in the study of 'economics'.
Marxism does not 'corrupt' capitalism ---it is essentially the anti-thesis of capitalism.
Moreover, Marx predicted that societies premised upon Capitalist econoimc systems would eventually collapse. He was right! Moreover, he said --quite correctly --that the ECONOMIC system of capitalism was incompatible with the POLITICAL system of 'Democracy. And --again --he was quite right.
Capitalism means earning your wage, and saving more than you spend, in order to create the savings that are Capital.
That may happen in a capitalist society but that's NOT what 'capitalism' means. It is NOT how capitalism is defined. It betrays a misunderstanding of basic economics. I recommend a good Economics 101. Check your local community college.
Capitalism is the exploitation of 'labor' by 'capitalists' who, in the US, amount to about 1 percent of the population but own or control some 90 percent of the nation's total wealth. Few people in the US are, in fact, 'capitalists' though the nation is said either correctly or incorrectly to be a 'capitalist' nation. In fact, the Constitution did not establish ANY economic system upon our founding --though Hamilton would have fit in very well with the Wall St bankers of today.
by
Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 554 comments)
on Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 3:58:50 PM
You say that Capitalism and Democracy are incompatible, and thus condemn Capitalism.
What about Democracy? I guess it's perfect? I guess it doesn't represent Mob Rule? Can't a majority still be wrong?
Capital accumulation, unless criminally obtained, represents proof of productivity and efficiency. Democracy proves popularity. So do you usually use productivity and efficiency, or popularity, in making your own personal decisions?
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 198 comments)
on Monday, October 13, 2008 at 2:12:00 PM
Sure, I work, but I am so much more than that. As a laborer, I am paid a wage. With my savings, I can invest and try to help my neighbors, and increase my earnings through entrepreneurialism.
Where is the entrepreneur in Marxism? Without him, where do improvements come from?
A Marxist might argue that my entrepreneurialism is actually predatory of the folks I try to help by selling to them. Is your local gas station owner doing you a favor by keeping affordable gasoline nearby to you, and selling it for a profit, or is he screwing you by charging more than you can buy it for at the refinery? You don't really want to have to drive to the refinery to buy gas, do you? In such a case, at least you have a choice to not buy gas from that particular entrepreneur, and can seek to meet your needs elsewhere. But under Marxism, as history shows, your choices will dwindle, as will supplies of other necessities, like food and milk. So will the quality of both the products and services you enjoy under today's pseudo-Capitalist economy.
I suspect that what you are really against, as I am, is the corruption of the economy by criminals in government, who give favors to their friends, and charge us for the privilege. It is not true Capitalism that you object to, but the Fascist/Corporatist corruption of the system that used to keep it just and fair.
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 198 comments)
on Monday, October 13, 2008 at 2:23:48 PM
Since Marx's treatise is sort of an end-game for capitalist society, and because Marxism could not exist before Capitalism, then he owes his fame to the very Capitalism his followers seem to hate.
'Socialism' existed BEFORE capitalism. It just wasn't called "Marxism" because neither Marx nor A. Smith had been born yet.
Many Marxists are too lazy or impatient to work or wait for Capitalist society to mature to the point Marx thought necessary for his theories to play out.
Bunkum! How many marxists have you known? Be honest!
Instead, they work through the democratic system to force policies that society is currently not ready for, financially. These efforts, more often than not, result in not only the corruption of the Capitalism that is necessary for Marx's ideas to be fully realized, but often results in poverty and starvation for the masses that Marxists pretend to speak for.
Nope --wrong again! Capitalism will have fallen of its own greed and systemic inconsistencies and would have done so if Marx had never been born and had never lent his name to an economic system.
Just because people like Bush want to be viewed as free-market Capitalists, doesn't mean they haven't used political power to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
The fact is indisputable: some one percent of the nation owns about 90 percent (or more) of the total wealth! Did Reagan/Bush policies help bring this about? INDISUTABLY!!! I have the stats from the BEA, the Bureau of Labor, and the Census Bureau to pain the picture. The TRANSFER OF WEALTH UPWARD began with Reagan's tax cut of 1982 and continued to this day but for a brief reversal of the trend in Bill Clinton's second term. THOSE ARE THE FACTS, JACK!
Such action is a crime against the common Marxists who are relying on Capitalism to deliver them to the doors of Marxist perfection.
That sentence doesn't even make sense!
Destroy Capitalism, and you destroy Marxism. Only Totalitarian Authority will remain, when political power exceeds both economic power and fair judgment.
Nonsense! Many societies had practiced 'socialism' for thousands of years. It's as old as the hills. Marx, like most social scientists, offered an explanation based upon an emerging science: 'economics'. I am of the opinon that 'economics' may never be a precise science but that doesn't mean it isn't science. Physics, for example, was once though to be 'precise'. Quantum physics changed all that. Now elementary particles are no more precise than economic concepts --in other words, they are mere probabilities.
by
Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 554 comments)
on Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 4:29:17 PM
3
3
1
