Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Is the US Heading for 'Developing Nations' Inequality Levels?

By Paul Harris, The Observer UK. Posted July 30, 2007.


The American Dream of riches for all has turned into a nightmare of inequality: welcome to Richistan, USA.
Advertisement

On the surface, Mark Cain works for a time-share company. Members pay a one-off sum to join and an annual fee. They then get to book holiday time in various destinations around the globe.

But Solstice clients are not ordinary people. They are America's super-rich and a brief glance at its operations reveal the vast and still widening gulf between them and the rest of America.

Solstice has only about 80 members. Platinum membership costs them $875,000 to join and then a $42,000 annual fee. In return they get access to 10 homes from London to California and a private yacht in the Caribbean, all fully staffed with cooks, cleaners and "lifestyle managers" ready to satisfy any whim from helicopter-skiing to audiences with local celebrities. As the firm's marketing manager, Cain knows what Solstice's clientele want. "We are trying to feed and manage this insatiable appetite for luxury," Cain said with pride.

America's super-rich have returned to the days of the Roaring Twenties. As the rest of the country struggles to get by, a huge bubble of multi-millionaires lives almost in a parallel world. The rich now live in their own world of private education, private health care and gated mansions. They have their own schools and their own banks. They even travel apart -- creating a booming industry of private jets and yachts. Their world now has a name, thanks to a new book by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank which has dubbed it "Richistan." There every dream can come true. But for the American Dream itself -- which promises everyone can join the elite -- the emergence of Richistan is a mixed blessing. "We in America are heading towards 'developing nation' levels of inequality. We would become like Brazil. What does that say about us? What does that say about America?" Frank said.

In 1985 there were just 13 US billionaires. Now there are more than 1,000. In 2005 the US saw 227,000 new millionaires being created. One survey showed that the wealth of all US millionaires was $30 trillion, more than the GDPs of China, Japan, Brazil, Russia and the EU combined.

The rich have now created their own economy for their needs, at a time when the average worker's wage rises will merely match inflation and where 36 million people live below the poverty line. In Richistan sums of money are rendered almost meaningless because of their size. It also has other names. There is the "Platinum Triangle" used to describe the slice of Beverly Hills where many houses go for above $10m. Then there is the Jewel Coast, used to describe the strip of Madison Avenue in Manhattan where boutique jewelry stories have sprung up to cater for the new riches' needs. Or it exists in the MetCircle society, a Manhattan club open only to those whose net worth is at least $100m.

The reason behind the sudden wealth boom is, according to some experts, the convergence of a new technology -- the internet and other computing advances -- with fluid and speculative markets. It was the same in the late 19th century when the original Gilded Age of conspicuous wealth and deep poverty was spawned by railways and the industrial age. At the same time government has helped by doling out corporate tax breaks. In the 1950s the proportion of federal income from company taxes was 33 per cent, by 2003 it was just 7.4 percent. Some 82 of America's largest companies paid no tax at all in at least one of the first three years of the administration of President George W. Bush.

But who are the new rich? Some of the names are familiar, Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates and savvy stock investor Warren Buffett. But most are unknown, often springing from the secretive world of financial hedge funds. Men like James Simons, who took home compensation of $1.7bn last year. Last year the 25 top earning hedge fund bankers in the US earned an average of $570m each. The average US household income is $50,000.

It is such men -- and they are usually men -- who feed the outlandish luxury goods economy of Richistan. It is they who are responsible for the rebirth of the butler industry, which was all but dead in the Seventies and is now facing a shortage of trained staff. So keen is the demand that many can expect to earn a six-figure salary when they graduate from booming butler schools.

Then there is the runaway feeder-industry of luxury consumer items. The new ultra rich turn up their noses at Rolexes; the sought-after brand is Franck Muller, which sells a high-end timepiece for $736,000. Or try a Mont Blanc pen, encrusted in jewels, for $700,000. Louis Vuitton's most exclusive handbag sells for $42,000. Only 24 were ever made and none ever touched a shelf as all were pre-sold to Richistani clients.

In places such as Manhattan and Los Angeles, restaurants and bars outdo themselves in excess. New York's Algonquin Hotel has a $10,000 "martini on a rock" (it comes with a diamond at the bottom of the glass). City eateries sell burgers for more than $50. One offers a $1,000 omelette. In Los Angeles there is a craze for Bling mineral water -- at $90 a bottle.

Then there are the boats. The private yacht industry in America has been caught in an arms race of size and luxuriousness. So far, there has been a clear winner: Oracle-founder Larry Ellison's 450 foot water palace, the Rising Sun. More than 80 rooms on five stories and a landing craft that carries a Jeep, a basketball court doubling as a helipad and a fully-equipped cinema.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: usa, inequality, wealth

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The dumb rich could spend in proportions similar to the average person.
Posted by: zyxwvut on Jul 30, 2007 12:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The new ultra rich turn up their noses at Rolexes; the sought-after brand is Franck Muller, which sells a high-end timepiece for $736,000. Or try a Mont Blanc pen, encrusted in jewels, for $700,000. Louis Vuitton's most exclusive handbag sells for $42,000.

So if a person who has fifty-million dollars spends about three quarters of a million on a watch, that is equivalent to a person with thirty-thousand dollars spending about $450 on a watch (the ratio is 1:66.66666 or 3:200 or 1.5%).

Granted, the situation between the relative purchasing power of a person with millions of bucks and someone living on an average income isn't nearly this simple. But it is comforting to know that whenever there are super-rich people, there will always be super-opportunistic people who come along and sell them trendy, luxury versions of what are essentially the same goods and services as the rest of us buy and use.

We spend a few thousand dollars on a vacation, they spend a million. We spend $10-15 on a haircut, they spend $1,000-1,500.

There is a twisted equality in this, but it only goes so far. In the end, a rich person does not have to worry about becoming homeless or being denied medical care if there is a little turbulence in his or her financial situation. So there are many absolute differences.

I need to figure out a way to sell rich people coffee for $100 per cup.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Coffee fo $100 per cup. Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Gold flake coffee beans. LOL Posted by: zyxwvut
You can bet...
Posted by: ZPaul on Jul 30, 2007 2:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can bet that whoever sells luxury items to the rich are almost invariably very rich themselves. How much of a "comfort" is that to people with a normal income? The rich, if they "help" anybody, help the rich, almost never the poor. That´s the way it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History is warning you, USA
Posted by: Nigelthebriton on Jul 30, 2007 2:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An emigré French nobleman reminisced, looking back at France during the years leading up to the fall of the Bastille in 1789: "...We believe it (our lifestyle) to be indestructible...Never was there a more terrible awakening preceded by a sweeter slumber and more seductive dreams"

So, slumber on, Murdoch et al - while you can!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4.7
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jul 30, 2007 3:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know the rich are getting too rich when they complain that their taxes are too low.

Good article. Lots of interesting stuff about the excesses and dumb spending habits of the so-called "smart money". You could build a good documentary with this...maybe the next Michael Moore movie.

The trouble is that the myth of the American Dream is so hardcoded in our culture that the message of this article could be lost. Just like the pre-Depression years, a lot of average working Joes take it as inspiration to get rich themselves--regardless of the odds against them--and miss the point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rich are not rich "because of technoloy" but because of its class mechanism
Posted by: Perfectclue on Jul 30, 2007 3:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The rich are not rich because of new technology, but because democracy was corrupted with a class mechanism, between the corrupted middle layers and the emerging capitalist oligarchy, through class elites, class hierarchies, and clas ideology. Once you institute new forms of class rule, class laws and class nationalism, it is the end and betrayal of democrati principles, and the false claims that a principle of social wealth and democracy have been created.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Everywhere I look... Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Dr. Winston O'Boogie put it well
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 30, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say you want a revolution?
Well, you know
We all want to change the world....

We may not chance the world but we will change this country. Count on it.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The myth of trickle down economics
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Jul 30, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wealthy tend to invest and/or save much of their surplus income while the poor spend virtually all of their income and borrow on top of that, living from paycheck to paycheck and using credit cards to cover the difference.

The actual flow is trickle-up. One of these days it may just trickle up in their faces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Necessarily Trickle-Up Posted by: pdxstudent
» Fair enough. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Fair enough. Posted by: bornxeyed
Yeah it always makes me shudder to read...
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 30, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."homeless children". In the UK we have the same problem of a growing rich-poor divide but we are well away from where the US is so far. We have free healthcare for all and we have pretty careful policies to ensure kids don't end up on the street (right wing people of course are forever whinging that poor people have children deliberately just to get housing, but even if they did i wouldn't want those kids left on the streets!).

Our real rich-poor divide is elderly women. The pensions gap is a disgrace and the cost of heating fuel is rising much faster than the level of income these people get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One Other Thought
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jul 30, 2007 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greta piece! But when the writer makes the point that the "average" income in the USA is $50,000 - that is a tad misleading. Molly Ivins (Lord, rest her merrie soul) once made the observation that if Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter that is being run by two elderly nuns who are caring gor 36 homeless people, at the time Gates is inside that shelter, the average net worth of everyone inside that shelter is 1.5 billion. The real question is this:

What is the medium income of everyone in America? The answer is much lower.

Cheers!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: One Other Thought Posted by: kathat
» U.S. Median Income Posted by: stormchilde1975
» RE: U.S. Median Income Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: U.S. Median Income Posted by: mike1997
» Funny thing about Gates... Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: One Other Thought Posted by: Trazom
» RE: One Other Thought Posted by: jbur816
» RE: One Other Thought Posted by: Conservasaurus
And speaking of Bill Gates
Posted by: bob t on Jul 30, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been in the computer field, on the internet shortly after it became the internet. That was back when Gates was a teenager.
Being around for that long I know for a fact that Gates STOLE his way to the top.
I remember when he sold DOS to IBM and DOS didn't even exist. It existed only in the minds of the guys whose office was in the building next door to the building where he had an office.
I remember every program created by others and which he stole from them.
I remember when he stole windows from XEROX's Palo Alto Research Center(PARC).
And that is what the Republicans call free enterprise.
Thats what Bill Gates and free enterprise is all about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Buy 'em out, boys... Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: And speaking of stealing Windows Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: And speaking of stealing Windows Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: And speaking of stealing Windows Posted by: edgar_michel
30 trillion?!
Posted by: zutronius on Jul 30, 2007 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was shocked to read that combined, these people had somewhere in the estimate of $30 TRILLION dollars. I think $30 trillion could be put a long way towards say...weaning our fossil fuel dependency, poverty, world famine/hunger, and put towards practical and well thought out environmental policy to ensure our survival as a species. But instead, we have the elite rich living out their American Dream.

Sigh :(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 30 trillion?! So So Right Posted by: edgar_michel
» Might as well just burn it! Posted by: bornxeyed
» I should have said... Posted by: bornxeyed
Rich man, Poor man
Posted by: fdgsr on Jul 30, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trickle down benefits are more like 'flow down' benefits. If the rich spend lavishly, those from whom they buy receive the flow. Ultimately the producer, not the entrepreneur, but the workers who produce what the rich want benefit. They have a job producing something that sells. The middle man mark up artists also receive some of the flow, but they also spend it on something made by workers. Workers are paid for what they make, even if it only a fraction of what the item sells for.

In the case of people like Warren Buffet; they do not consume much more than anyone else. They eat the same number of calories of food, but part with more of their easy money for it. Only a small fraction of a $1000 cup of coffee is coffee; the rest is an appearance of control over the money. It is not. The rich could not be richer if they spent $1.00 for the coffee. They could be more in control of the wealth, but the cost of the coffee content would be the same. To choose to spend $1000 for coffee gives the feeling of wealth.

The rich sequester the evidence of wealth of the nations and the world, which is perceived value. Perceived value is represented in terms of money, not calories. They keep the money working to produce a cash flow by providing for the flow down to the workers who are influenced to produce by a promise to pay a wage or a price that they accept. Those who refuse the price are the real poor. So long as more can be produced with the available effort than anyone could possibly buy, there will be wealth. So long as some refuse the price at the bottom, there will be poverty. So long as the rich get satisfaction by throwing crumbs to scrambling people at the bottom of the feeding chain there will be charity.

The only problem of morality is the care of the unfortunate. It is unfortunate that there are sick people near the bottom, lame people near the bottom, and lazy people at the bottom. The sick, lame and lazy at the top will take care of the sick, lame and lazy at the bottom. It is called charity. Charity is paying for those who cannot or will not produce the value of their consumption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Even if..."!?! Posted by: pdxstudent
» Labor as commodity Posted by: pzzp
» Labour is Commodity Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Labour is Commodity Posted by: Blade
» RE: Labour is Commodity Posted by: pzzp
» RE: The Only Job in Town Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: The Only Job in Town Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: The Only Job in Town Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: ich man, Poor man Posted by: Blade
The myth created by the Republicans (who on the whole are the super rich)
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 30, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is that YOU TOO can be in their ranks if you believe in the American Dream and work hard. So vote for George Bush and our party, because someday you will be ONE of us. Yeah right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Um, the disturbing 'point' of this article
Posted by: Gegner on Jul 30, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is it takes a lot of poor people to make on rich one.

The 'wealth' that is 'accumulated' (read stolen) by the super rich in fact represents raises the workers did not receive and lower prices the customer never sees.

Workers/consumers are mercilessly exploited so capitalists can 'capture' excess(ive) value...and line their own pockets with it.

There is another way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "free market" as a religion, NO. Posted by: Brooklynbrenda
» RE: "free market" as a religion, NO. Posted by: edgar_michel
Neo-Fascism Neo-Feudalism
Posted by: jim_altman on Jul 30, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wealth is the new Aryanism. The neofascist, neoconservative agenda for the last 30 years has been the rebirth of feudalism. Just as the Nazis fancied themselves as nobel knights on a quest to restablish some millennial Aryan utopia, today's robber barons envision themselves as the only true guardians and gatekeepers of value and quality in the world today. In their minds, only the super-rich are qualified to define what is good, noble, or pure, and we neo-serfs should be enthralled by their choices. These people are true believers in their predestined nobility and right to power. Conventional liberal moral arguments will consistently fail to dent or deter their agendas for absolute hegemony. At best, the benevolent barons like Gates and Buffett will do their best to keep their serfs happy, unrebellious, and productive, while the less benevolent dukes will continue to advocate for the building of more and bigger dungeons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Neo-Fascism Neo-Feudalism Posted by: edgar_michel
Human Compassion Level Easy To See
Posted by: Windwhistler on Jul 30, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is quite revealing. From it, it is exceedingly clear how much compassion our million/billion/trillion dollar business practioners (aka robbers) among others have for their fellow man. Then there are the criticisms that appear to be little more than sour grape comparisons by $30,000 a year tread-mill "slaves". What about the large mass of the world that survives (for a time) on $400 a year (or less)? I wonder what their opinion might me on this topic? Hey people we blew i!. I'm damn glad I brought no progeny into this world. All of you with any hope for the human race hold up your hands.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We shouold concentrate on fixing Pooristan.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jul 30, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Richistan is not the problem. The problem is, as the saying goes, "It sucks to be poor." America is becoming a poverty based economy, and the trend is unstoppable. It makes sense to fight the trend rather than to exacerbate as the Bush-Republicans have done, but government policy at best will delay the inevitable.

The world will soon be energy-poor, and the countries that succeed will be those who adapt. America is structured around cheap energy, but the usefulness of that paradigm has run its course. There is a lot to do and not much time to do it in. What really frightens me is that our leaders, in politics and business, seem more interested in tapping our unrealistic expectations for profits than in adapting to the new reality.

It has been noted in studies that once we reach a point in income where we have a degree of security, then additional income does not improve our happiness. Take that, Uber-Rich. But here in America, we have made poverty and even middle-class life terribly stressful and unfulfilling.

Much of what we accept as lifestyle "improvement" has a neutral or even negative effect on our overall sense of well-being. Since there is no way that the American lifestyle is in any way sustainable, it is high time we change. We need to recalibrate our societal expectations to match the requirement for an energy-frugal lifestyle, and remake the infrastructure of this country to make that type of lifestyle more palatable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Rich People Taste Good!
Posted by: rgoalierob on Jul 30, 2007 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yummy yummy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Rich People Taste Good! Posted by: edgar_michel
» Hahahahahaha!!!!!! Posted by: Prophit0
Socialism for Survival
Posted by: jcrw on Jul 30, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SOCIALISM FOR SURVIVAL!

Human life and progress is possible only in a world that is ecologically sustainable and in which the global economy is democratically based to provide for universal human needs.

For centuries capitalist greed has been the motivating force behind slavery, racism, colonialism, and world wars. Today, with global warming, the U.S. corporate ruling elite threatens to destroy the entire planet to maximize greed and profit for itself. The natural and economic resources essential to the vast majority of peoples for survival are being exploited and privatized for the greed and profit of a few.

The 500 year reign of barbaric capitalism must end now if humanity is to survive this century.
jeremy@infowells.com
www.infowells.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Socialism for Survival Posted by: richholland
» RE: Socialism for Survival Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Socialism for Survival Posted by: Brooklynbrenda
» Exactly! Posted by: eddie torres
» Sorry Posted by: bornxeyed
» Karl Marx was RIGHT! Posted by: zooeyhall
How long till someone...
Posted by: smendler on Jul 30, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... actually picks one of these spots for an attack? And what will happen when they do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

there is such a thing as ENOUGH...!
Posted by: smendler on Jul 30, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I had to pick one word to use as a slogan, it would be simply "ENOUGH."

One (admittedly over-simplified) way to characterize the present struggle would be as a fight between "ENOUGH" and "MORE." There are some people who realize that there is such a thing as ENOUGH, and everyone ought to be able to have it. Others, on the other hand, think that there must always be MORE (power, wealth, yachts, whatever) and they're willing to do whatever it takes (kill, enslave, pillage, cheat, destroy the environment - either directly or secondhand if they're squeamish) to get it.

That's one meaning of "ENOUGH" - the other, of course, is that there are certain things of which we have had quite ENOUGH already! And at some point, a critical number of folks might come to realize that ENOUGH REALLY IS ENOUGH...!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An interesting question to pose to free-marketeers
Posted by: smendler on Jul 30, 2007 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is abject poverty a necessary precondition for the existence of multibillionaires?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wealth is finite? Posted by: pzzp
» Yes, it is. Posted by: Illiteratilumen
Why aren’t you people at work?
Posted by: shangrilalad on Jul 30, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
All right, what’s going on here?

Why aren’t you people at work?

Are you blogging from home or maybe sneaking a peek at the office? Shame on you.

I’m semi-retired and that’s my excuse.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why aren’t you people at work? Posted by: edgar_michel
» This IS our work- Posted by: WitchyNy
we are just parasite
Posted by: lesterliu on Jul 30, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if we cant control our consumption, we are no different from those parasites who will eventually burn out their hosts and dies. its so predictable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not exactly Posted by: bornxeyed
the new nobility
Posted by: vwaites on Jul 30, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
comes not from royalty, but from corporations.

We are once again in a form of the system we liberated ourselves from in 1776. Thomas Paine said then, that if we rid ourselves of the burden of the Bourgeoisie, we could afford public education and other social programs. Now, here we are, listening to canidates talking of getting rid of these same social programs in order to control an out of control deficit.

Look at the French revolution to see where this is all headed. Just subsititute oil for bread.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the new nobility Posted by: bornxeyed
Sowing chaos, reaping profit
Posted by: eddie torres on Jul 30, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter, everyone gets a virus and the nuns start a for-profit vaccination clinic. Like all successful oligarchs, he's an expert at sowing a manageable landscape of chaos (MS Windows) where independent operators with the "entrepreneurial" spirit can carve out a profitable niche, as long as enough income gets kicked upstairs at harvest time.

Compare that with how Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black operate in the media biz, James Simons or Michael Berger in the hedge fund biz, and Philip Anschutz or Joe Nacchio run telecoms.

For every oligarch who publically mirrors some stylized ideal of the American Dream, there's an alter-ego billionaire on the run from the law or under investigation or hiding out in a non-extradition tax haven.

It's not because "there's always a few bad apples". It's because there are never enough investigators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sowing chaos, reaping profit Posted by: ray burchard
Karl Marx has been proven RIGHT!
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 30, 2007 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karl Marx is vindicated. EVERYTHING he predicted is coming true.

As for those who say "well, socialism didn't work in Russia, China, etc." my answer is that the "socialism" in those countries was NEVER the socialism of Marx. It was a "statist" socialism---not a true workers social democracy.

We need a true socialist workers democracy in this country and the world. Until then all the hand wringing, the quick fixes, the "reforms", the this-or-that latest report on income inequality---all these are just band-aids on the cracks in the dike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Jul 30, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" there's a scene I love that begins with the line: "Get ready For the Great Pie Fight!" I feel like shouting, "Get ready for the great revolution Fight!" - but it's not comedy or something nice. Dramatic income changes such as these described here are bound to lead to a violent revolution. We already have the making of private armies like Blackwater for the wealthy to defend their riches, but little by little the disenfranchised poor will start turning to sabatage and guerilla tactics like the ones used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam in the past. Crime rates have already risen tremendously, but the answer has been to get tough on crime and give longer sentences. Roosevelt was smart enough to foresee this in the 30's and make dramatic changes in the social system. Let's hope we elect leaders who can learn the same lesson.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The Walton family bunker Posted by: zooeyhall
» Ted Turner Posted by: jbur816
1410
Posted by: carolecraig on Jul 30, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to be an Alternet supporter. I withdrew my funding (limited I will admit) at the time Israel was sowing southern Lebanon with cluster bombs and Alternet carried advertisements to visit Israel. I am now going to remove myself from your mailing list (again). Don't you see that the term Richistan is loaded with racism? I am not at all sure what reality your editors live in. But it certainly is not one that I want to inhabit no matter how much I support resistence to the American regime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]