Tag Archives: Billionaires

Why Don’t Billionaires Pay the Same High Tax Rates the Rest of Us Pay?

Posted on by
Reply

By Charles Hugh Smith

Source: Of Two Minds

The truth is America has lost its way if commoners pay a rate of 40% but its billionaires pay next to nothing.

As with everything else in polarized America, billionaires proclaiming space tourism is the next big thing for humanity neatly divides opinion into two camps: those who laud the initiative, hard work and innovations of the billionaires as examples of the American Can-Do Dream, and those who wished the billionaire space tourists had taken a one-way flight to a distant orbit of blissful silence.

Setting aside that bitter divide, let’s explore another divide: how our two-tier tax system enables billionaires to become billionaires while the rest of us get poorer. Whenever I discuss the taxes of the non-billionaire self-employed, armies of apologists leap to the defense of the status quo with various quibbles: the 0.9% Medicare surcharge only kicks in above $200,000, the cap on Social Security taxes is $142,800, and so on.

Setting aside the quibbles–and recall the tax code with regulatory notes is thousands of pages–let’s deal with the real issue, which is that billionaires and their corporations pay a thin slice of taxes as a percentage of total income/gains if they pay any at all, while self-employed and small business pay extraordinarily high tax rates.

To all the quibblers: please add the 15.3% Social Security/Medicare tax rate (self-employed / sole proprietors pay both the employee and employer share of this tax) to the federal tax rate of 24% for income above $85,520. It’s 39.3%.

Just how hard would it be to conclude that everyone earning more than $142,000 should pay at least the same rate the rest of us pay? Aren’t we demonstrating all those same laudable traits of the billionaires, just on a smaller scale? Why should we pay 40% and the billionaires pay essentially zero?

Gee, do you reckon paying no taxes might help folks become richer? Garsh, nobody ever asked that question before. And do you reckon paying 40% of your income might make you poorer over time? Golly gee, how come the talking heads worshiping the billionaires never ask these questions?

Since Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are the bedrock of America’s social safety net, why shouldn’t billionaires pay to support these programs? Well, why not? Just how lame do the excuses have to be to be recognized as laughably self-serving?

Here’s the trick billionaires use to evade taxes. There are countless ways for the super-wealthy to evade taxes–funnel earnings through an Irish post office box, buy a tax break in Washington DC, slide the money into one of dozens of global tax havens, and so on.

But a simple one is to report no income and live large off borrowed money. As the billions of dollars in capital gains pile up as the billionaire’s stock holdings soar (thanks, Federal Reserve, for the free trillions; awful swell of you to give us all that free money), there’s no income generated until the billionaire sells some shares. No sale, no income. Just pay yourself $1 a year in salary, borrow against your billions at super-low rates of interest, and voila, you’re tax-free while you build your super-yacht, buy your private island, and so on.

Just as a thought experiment, suppose the first $50,000 in earnings for everyone were tax-free, and a 40% tax rate was collected on all income above $1 million, both earned and unearned (capital gains), not when the gains were realized in a sale but at the end of every tax year, whether the shares that rose in value were sold or not.

So Billionaire Space Tourist reaped $10 billion in capital gains from the appreciation of stocks held, then the Billionaire pays 40% of those gains: $4 billion. There is a way to not pay any taxes on capital gains–have your portfolio lose value. No gains, no taxes. And to close all the loopholes, the tax rate is on all assets and income connected in any way, shape or form with the U.S. First they pay the U.S. taxes, then if they want to pay other nations’ taxes as well, be my guest. But the 40% is due and payable regardless of any other conditions.

You don’t like it, then stop selling any products in the U.S. or holding any assets in the U.S. Why should billionaires get to set up immensely profitable monopolies, quasi-monopolies, cartels and corporations in the U.S. but pay near-zero in taxes? Why should billionaires be free to profit from America’s economy but pay nothing to support its citizenry?

What precisely is the logic of reducing taxes on the wealthiest few to near-zero? If there is no logic, then we’re left with corruption: America is a moral cesspool.

The truth is America has lost its way if commoners pay a rate of 40% but its billionaires pay next to nothing.┬аPlease note Karma and Divine Retribution are not controlled by the billionaire’s lackeys and apparatchiks in the Federal Reserve. The pendulum of exploitation has reached its extreme, and the reversal to the opposite extreme is underway.

Have We Reached “Peak Self-Glorifying Billionaire”?

Posted on by
2

By Charles Hugh Smith

Source: Of Two Minds

Perhaps we should update Marie Antoinette’s famous quip of cluelessness to: “Let them eat space tourism.”

As billionaires squander immense resources on self-glorifying space flights, the corporate media is nothing short of worshipful. Millions of average citizens, on the other hand, wish the self-glorifying billionaires had taken themselves and all the other parasitic, tax-avoiding, predatory billionaires with them on a one-way trip into space.

Have we reached Peak Self-Glorifying Billionaire? If so, where does the downhill slide take us? Let’s start with a bit of history. Correspondent Jim B. summarized historian Arnold Toynbee’s study of the rise and fall of civilizations thusly: “Civilizations fail when their elites change from an admired dynamic creative class to a despised Establishment of corrupt rentiers, an entrenched governing class unfit to govern.”

Despised, check. Corrupt, check. Entrenched, check.

The 2013 book Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty discusses the differences between failed states and successful states, and concludes that the failed states are fundamentally kleptocracies that answer to a self-serving elite while successful states are answerable to the broad populace.

To summarize: When the few benefit at the expense of the many, the resulting kleptocracy ends up a failed state. When states maintain meaningful, transparent ways of responding to public needs and demands, the result is a successful state.

This is of course a simplification. The perverse effects of colonialism linger, the development of civic organizations public institutions, values and identities that make up what I call the social ontology are not pre-ordained, and nations with low-cost surplus energy can be quite successful kleptocracies until their energy surplus runs out.

But in the main, the question remains: How did previously successful political, social and economic systems change such that they no longer generated beneficial synergies but slid into fatal synergies?

From the point of view of how systems fail to maintain dynamic stability, three factors pop out:

1. Elites become too successful in sluicing the nation’s income, wealth and political power into their own hands.

2. Since the system continues to thrive despite their dominance, then there is obviously no need to change anything–especially if it reduces their share of the nation’s wealth and political power.

3. The elites ignore the intangible decay of leadership, the real-world dynamics of scarcity and over-estimate their own capabilities and the resilience of the system.

I recently described the feedback loop that occurs when a wealthy elite can purchase political power:“as a result of their campaign contributions and lobbying, the elites’ wealth continues expanding, enhancing their political power to further expand their wealth, and so on.”

In a healthy system, there are mechanisms that limit elite ownership of wealth and political power to what the system can bear. Over time, the feedback I described increases elite wealth and power to a point where the limits are crushed and the elite feedback gathers momentum.

With institutional limits no longer in the way, the elite reaches the point where the political system no longer responds to the broad public at all, and the vast majority of income-producing wealth is already in the hands of the elite.

The U.S. is already at this final stage: Wealth/Power Inequality and the Slide Into Disorder.

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens: “Contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States.”

This dominance throws the system out of balance such that, as David Parsons recently put it: (Elite-dominated) “Capitalism makes everyone homeless and then makes award-winning movies about how resilient people are for living in their cars.”

The apparent success of the system even as it grows ever more imbalanced generates a self-serving confidence in the Elites that their dominance is not only benign but permanent.

But this self-serving view is illusory. Beneath the surface, major subsystems are attempting to re-establish stability, but the instability is so extreme that the measures being deployed are also extreme.

These policy extremes only push the system further out of balance in other directions, creating fatal synergies as mutually reinforcing imbalances pile up.

See the chart below of money supply as one example of many.

But the elite is blinded by their confidence and greed to these accelerating imbalances. They reckon that managing the narratives (a.k.a. propaganda), minor policy tweaks and creating more currency and credit are all that’s needed to maintain what they consider the optimal form of stability: they own 99% of political power and 97% of all the income from capital.

Monopoly Versus Democracy: How to End a Gilded Age: “Ten percent of Americans now control 97 percent of all capital income in the country. Nearly half of the new income generated since the global financial crisis of 2008 has gone to the wealthiest one percent of U.S. citizens. The richest three Americans collectively have more wealth than the poorest 160 million Americans.”

I’ve often noted that the wealth of Rome’s political and economic elite went from being 20 times the wealth of a landowning farmer or craftsman to 200,000 times the commoners’ wealth at the end of the Western Empire. Now that three individuals own more wealth than half the American populace, and the top 0.1% hold more wealth than the bottom 80%, I think we can safely declare we’ve reached the same extreme.

The first tranche of American presidents left office less wealthy than when they entered because serving in public office was understood as a noble and valued sacrifice of time and wealth. Now presidents leave office far wealthier than when they entered public service.

Per #3, the elite no longer sees any compelling reason to sacrifice their income, wealth and power to stabilize the system or benefit the common good. In the view of the billionaires, if any sacrifices are necessary, then they should be borne by the bottom 95%, or failing that, the bottom 99.5%.

Given their dominance, their willingness to use their wealth and power to protect their dominance dooms the system to destabilization and collapse, as the resources and value system required to successfully navigate eras of instability and scarcity are no longer available to the state or public.

In effect, the elite uses its power not to restabilize the system but to maintain its extreme dominance and protect it from any political threats.

A once vibrant ecosystem has become a monoculture whose stability is far more precarious than it appears on the surface, as the resilience of monocultures is entirely artificial.

Two recent books illuminate corners of this destabilizing inequality:

Billionaire Wilderness: The Ultra-Wealthy and the Remaking of the American West

├втВм╦ЬJackpot├втВмтДв Looks at How Inequality Is Experienced by the Very, Very Rich

We are in the final stages of this accelerating destabilization: the refusal of the elite to sacrifice any meaningful share of their wealth and power to save the system from fatal synergies guarantees collapse.

Perhaps we should update Marie Antoinette’s famous quip of cluelessness to:┬а“Let them eat space tourism.”┬аWe all know where this cluelessness ultimately leads.

ARCHITECTS OF POWER: HOW THE GLOBAL ELITE PROFIT FROM EXTREME INEQUALITY & PRE-EMPT THE BACKLASH

Posted on by
Reply

By Dr. Tim Coles

Source: Waking Times

There is a new, mega-rich global elite consisting of a small number of billionaires and multibillionaires. Many of them made their money in the technology sector. Others play financial markets or inherit fortunes. They are wealthier and more powerful than some entire nation-states.

The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) says:

тАЬWhilst there have always been differences between the wealthier, better educated and the less privileged, these differences appear likely to widen in the coming decades.тАЭ

The mega-rich deliberately order the world in ways that guarantee their wealth by institutionalising inequality. Occasionally, this is admitted. In 1997, a book published by the Royal Institute for International Affairs in the UK acknowledged:

тАЬThe present international order may not be the best of all possible worlds, but for one of the тАШfat cats of the WestтАЩ enjoying a privileged position in an international society that is structured and organised in ways which perpetuate those privileges, there are good reasons for not pursuing radical change.тАЭ

This is also true of internal policymaking. The third richest man in the world, Warren Buffett (worth over $80bn), confirmed this: тАЬThereтАЩs been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won.тАЭ This echoes his statement in 2006, just prior to the global financial crisis: тАЬThereтАЩs class warfare all rightтАж but itтАЩs my class, the rich class, thatтАЩs making war, and weтАЩre winning.тАЭ Around the same time, the liquidity firm Citigroup circulated an investor memo, stating: тАЬSociety and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share.тАЭ More recently, the UK MoD admitted: тАЬIn the coming decades, the very highest earners will almost certainly remain rich, entrenching the power of a small elite. Vested interests could reduce the prospect of economic reforms that would benefit the poorest.тАЭ

Consider the enormous concentration of wealth and power that results from this imbalance.

Ever-Increasing Power

Global and national inequality is staggering and getting worse. By 2011, a mere 147 тАУ mainly US and European тАУ corporations owned and controlled 40% of world trade and investment. Just four corporations influence the profitability and power of these 147: McGraw-Hill, which owns Standard & PoorтАЩs ratings agency; Northwestern Mutual, owner of the indexer Russell Investments; the CME Group, which owns 90% of the Dow Jones market index; and BarclayтАЩs bond fund index. Evaluative decisions by analysts at these firms affect the wealth and performance of each of the 147 giants.

ThatтАЩs corporate wealth concentration. But what about wealth concentration among individuals?

There are 7.7 billion people in the world. Of those, just 2,153 are billionaires. According to Forbes, their combined wealth totals $8.7 trillion. The list of billionaires reflects where power is most concentrated: in the US. While China and EuropeтАЩs number of billionaires declined in the previous 12 months, the US and Brazil gained billionaires. The US is home to 607 billionaires or 0.000001% of the population. It is worth noting that President Donald Trump was a billionaire before he came to power. Trump has cut taxes for his fellow billionaires. As an indication of continued wealth concentration, consider the wealth disparity among the billionaire class itself. He Xiangjian, founder of the Midea Group, is the joint-50th richest person, worth over $19.8bn. Jeff Bezos, by comparison, the founder of Amazon, is the richest man in the world, worth over $131bn тАУ more than six times He Xiangjian.

Part of the problem has been the US-led imposition of an economic dogma called тАЬneoliberalismтАЭ (which is neither new nor liberal) on much of the rest of the world.

Neoliberalism can be roughly defined as:

1) Financialisation, i.e., allowing investors to make money from money as opposed to tangible things;

2) Deregulating financial services;

3) Taking out government insurance policies so that working people bail out financial institutions;

4) Cutting taxes for the wealthy;

5) Privatising public services to reduce social mobility;

6) Imposing austerity to make markets more attractive to investors.

Neoliberalism has cut taxes for the super-rich, enabling them to hold onto their wealth at the expense of others. According to Oxfam, the average rate of personal income tax for the wealthy was 62% in 1970. In 2013, it was 38%. In the UK, the poorest 10% pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 10%. Global GDP, i.e., how much money there is in the world, is $80 trillion. But, of this, $7.6 trillion is untaxed. In the decade since the financial crisis, the number of billionaires doubled. This reveals that the system rewards greed. In 2017, 43 people owned as much wealth as half the worldтАЩs poorest. In 2018, the number was 26.

To put all this into perspective, Jeff Bezos owns as much wealth as the poorest fifty countries. When it comes to more тАШdevelopedтАЩ nations, BezosтАЩs wealth equals the entire GDP of Hungary. Consider how Bezos makes his money. Amazon is a corporation that primarily advertises and delivers products. The innovation, design, and investment in and of those products is the work of others. Amazon treats тАЬworkers like robotsтАЭ by spying on them, discouraging unions, offering insecure contracts, and encouraging long hours. Amazon is also notorious for paying little or no corporation tax. Amazon is an online retailer. The Internet was developed by the US Defense Department in the 1960s as ARPANET, with public money. The satellites that enable online transactions are first and foremost military hardware. Not only did Amazon take advantage of state-funded innovation, but it also rewards government investors by selling the CIA cloud technology and the Pentagon artificial intelligence.

Bezos is far from being the only one. Bill GatesтАЩs Microsoft and the late Steve JobsтАЩs Apple, which became the first trillion-dollar company, also enjoy low taxes, technologies developed with government grants, and procurement contracts.

Consider also the immoral activities of other hi-tech nouvelle m├йga riche. Without making it clear to users, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (worth $66bn) has made his money by selling personal data to insurers and advertisers. Scientists have used Facebook in social media experiments without the knowledge or consent of users in an effort to see how memes affect mood.

Other mega-rich, including the hedge fund manager Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies, used Facebook to market political candidates. Other tech billionaires include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Google technology was funded by the CIAтАЩs venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Also relying on technologies developed by the Pentagon with workersтАЩ tax dollars, the company cooperates with the National Security Agency to spy on citizens and it has even enabled US assassination programmes.

Consequences

How do the billionaires get away with it, and what are the social and political consequences? The examples below are from the US, but it should be noted that the US exports its mega-wealth model.

A study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page on plutocracy (government by the rich) notes that the rich buy political parties. Politicians draft and/or vote for laws that help the rich. The authors analysed 1,779 policy issues in the US and conclude that тАЬaverage citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.тАЭ Unlike the public, тАЬeconomic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy.тАЭ Other research into wealth inequality in the US finds that тАЬ[c]ertain policies, such as the decreased support for unions and tax cuts favouring the relatively well-off and corporations, have benefitted a small minority of the population at the expense of the majority and have thus contributed to widening income inequality.тАЭ

At the turn of the last century, 9% of American families owned 71% of the nationтАЩs wealth. The elite of the day included familiar names: John D. Rockefeller (oil), J.P. Morgan (banking), W. Averell Harriman (industry), and so on. Things balanced out after the Second World War, with the majority of Americans becoming middle class. Gradually, state controls over the economy were removed, and the situation reverted to the inequality of bygone centuries.

Since the 1970s, the US middle class has been shrinking. Until recently, the middle classes of Asia grew, precisely because strong Asian economies (notably China, South Korea, and Singapore) either retained some state controls or refused to adopt the US neoliberal model.

Alan B. Krueger, a labour economist and key Obama advisor, explains that, тАЬsince the 1970s income has grown more for families at the top of the income distribution than in the middle, and it has shrunk for those at the bottom.тАЭ Between 1979 and 2007, the top 1% ((multi)millionaires and (multi)billionaires) enjoyed a 278% increase in their after-tax incomes. But 60% of Americans saw their incomes rise by just 40%, which when adjusted for rising living costs means stagnation. Krueger notes that during that period, $1.1 trillion of annual income was moved to the top 1%. тАЬPut another way, the increase in the share of income going to the top 1% over this period exceeds the total amount of income that the entire bottom 40 percent of households receives.тАЭ

The exportation of this model means that Australia, Britain, and Canada became what the billionaire-dollar liquidity firm Citigroup calls тАЬplutonomies,тАЭ economies in which the rich drive luxury goods markets such as jewellery, fashion, cruises, and sports cars: hence the recent entry of celebrity Kylie Jenner into the billionaire class. The Citigroup document also notes that in plutonomies the top 1% owns 40% as much wealth as the bottom 95%. No matter where you live, you canтАЩt escape the institutional structures that create inequality.

The US military exists, in part, to maintain the unjust status quo. Yet, it acknowledges the dangers of dominance: тАЬA global populace that is increasingly attuned and sensitive to disparities in economic resources and the diffusion of social influence,тАЭ thanks in part to the very technologies that enrich the rich, тАЬwill lead to further challenges to the status quo and lead to system rattling events,тАЭ like Brexit or the Yellow Vest protestors in France.

The mega-rich and international think tanks and forums they sponsor are beginning to reluctantly accept that their status quo political puppets might get voted out of office and give way to so-called far-left or far-right parties unless they address wealth inequality.

New Paradigms of Control

The question, then, is how to deal with the restless and disaffected majority while not radically altering the system and taking away the privileges of the elite. In 1961, US President John F Kennedy said: тАЬIf a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.тАЭ In the 1980s, World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab said: тАЬEconomic globalisation has entered a critical phase. A mounting backlash against its effectsтАж is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countriesтАж This can easily turn into revolt.тАЭ More recently, he said: тАЬToday, we face a backlash against that system and the elites who are considered to be its unilateral beneficiaries.тАЭ Likewise, the billionaire Johann Rupert of Cartier jewellery (one of the many luxury services driving plutonomies) said: тАЬWe are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us.тАЭ Similarly, the British MoD discusses тАЬ[m]anagement of societal inequalities,тАЭ as opposed to the elimination of social inequality.

Many of the new elites make people redundant by automating the workplace. While Amazon still relies on human shelf-stackers and delivery drivers, it uses an increasing number of physical robots to stack shelves and algorithmic robots to assist online customers. Likewise, Facebook and GoogleтАЩs content filters rely on heavy automation. This is creating precarious employment conditions. According to the Washington Post (which is owned by Bezos): тАЬтАжthe modern emerging workforce of tech, urbanised professionals, and тАШgig economyтАЩ labourers all represent an entirely new political demographic.тАЭ Politicians then тАЬfocus more on education, research and entrepreneurship, and less on regulations and the priorities of labour unions.тАЭ

But there are many problems. For one thing, the financial services economy, which markets everything, has made тАЬeducationтАЭ a form of unsustainable debt. The quality of US education is notoriously low by world standards, and many young people are тАЬoverqualifiedтАЭ for menial jobs, like delivering for Uber or stacking shelves in Amazon warehouses. The UK MoD acknowledges that, тАЬFreelance work isтАж often low-paid, lacking the benefits and security of formal employment and, therefore, the growth of the gig economy could increase inequality.тАЭ

The crisis of what to do with a young, indebted, restless population automated out of steady work by тАУ and competing with тАУ algorithms and physical robots has been considered for at least 50 years.

Traditionally, тАШeducationтАЩ meant brainwashing children to work in menial jobs for life in adulthood. But as the economy changes and employment becomes less stable, new methods of тАШeducationтАЩ for re-skilling adults are required. In the late 1960s, future political advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski authored a book in which he advocated for lifelong learning as a way of re-skilling an aging population that finds its employment opportunities diminished, as small-to-medium-sized businesses get overtaken by tech giants. Around the same time, the British Labour Party (when it was a real labour party) introduced the Open University with the aim of providing lifelong learning. Likewise, in the 1980s, futurist Alvin Toffler envisaged an тАЬelectronic villageтАЭ in which flexible working hours and lifelong learning would be required in a hi-tech economy.

To keep the poor from rioting while trapping them in a system that works for those who design it, todayтАЩs multibillionaire elites help to privatise public services and education by offering scholarships and infrastructure investments. In doing so, they train poor people to work for their system by developing othersтАЩ technology skills while hiding their own taxable wealth in charity foundations.

Howard G. Buffett is the son of Warren. While enjoying largely tax-free wealth that further impoverishes the global poor, the Buffetts, via HowardтАЩs foundation, invest in dams and irrigation in the poorest nations of Africa. BezosтАЩs foundation awards scholarships for STEM courses (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). ZuckerbergтАЩs foundation seeks тАЬto find new ways to leverage technology, community-driven solutions, and collaboration to accelerate progress in Science, Education, and within our Justice & Opportunity work.тАЭ

Conclusion

By using free online services, we have allowed ourselves to be the products that tech giants sell to advertisers. By not organising to raise taxes on the mega-wealthy, we have underfunded our public services. By not keeping an eye on whoтАЩs funding what, weтАЩve allowed our political parties to hoover up donations from elites. By failing to understand the economy, weтАЩve allowed a new normal of instability and political uncertainty to flourish to the advantage of asset managers and hedge fund investors. As the US pursues global domination, this model will continue to be exported. ItтАЩs time to wake up.

The Number Of Billionaires In America Has Absolutely Exploded During The Pandemic

Posted on by
Reply

By Michael Snyder

Source: Investment Watch Blog

For the wealthy and the ultra-wealthy, happy days are here again.┬а Even though we have just been through┬аone of the most difficult 12 months in our history, the number of billionaires has increased dramatically during this pandemic.┬а That seems rather odd, but there is no denying that the rich have gotten even richer during this crisis.┬а In fact, Forbes revealed this week that the number of billionaires has risen┬аby about 30 percent┬аover the past yearтАж

The number of newly minted and reissued billionaires soared last year, Forbes reported Tuesday in its annual ranking, a staggering accumulation of personal wealth that stands in sharp contrast with the widespread economic struggles unleashed by the coronavirus pandemic.

The number of billionaires on ForbesтАЩ 35th annual ranking swelled by 660 to 2,755 тАФ a roughly 30 percent jump from a year ago тАФ and 493 of them are first-timers. Seven of eight are richer than they were before the pandemic. Forbes calculates net worth by using stock prices and exchange rates from March 5.

Of course thanks to the reckless policies of our leaders, a billion dollars does not go nearly as far as it once did.

But still, a billion dollars is a whole lot of money.

Needless to say, the biggest reason why the number of billionaires has exploded is because we have been witnessing one of the greatest stock market rallies in history.

A year ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was sitting at about 23,000.

Today, it is above 33,000, and some analysts expect it to shoot quite a bit higher throughout the rest of 2021.

Stock prices have never been more detached from economic reality as they have been over the past 12 months, and they have only risen so high because of unprecedented intervention by the Federal Reserve and because of extremely wild spending by the federal government.

Many have warned that the party will inevitably come to a crashing end at some point, but it hasnтАЩt happened yet.

So for now, the market optimists look like champions.

And now that Joe Biden is in the White House, the corporate media is telling us that we are on the verge of a grand new era of American prosperity.  The corporate media insists that the pandemic will soon be behind us thanks to the vaccines, and the talking heads on television envision a return to the good old days very quickly.

In fact, BarronтАЩs is already declaring that the тАЬU.S. economy might be stronger than itтАЩs ever beenтАЭ.

And CNN is trying to convince us that тАЬAmericaтАЩs economy could be heading for a golden era of growthтАЭ.

Really?

If the U.S. economy is actually improving, then why are new claims for unemployment benefits going up?тАж

The number of Americans filing first-time unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, according to the Labor Department.

Data released Thursday showed 744,000 Americans filed first-time jobless claims in the week ended April 3. Analysts surveyed by Refinitiv were expecting 680,000 filings. The previous weekтАЩs total was revised higher by 9,000 to 728,000.

If economic conditions were getting better, that number should be going the other way.

Even I didnтАЩt expect a number this bad.

Prior to 2020, the all-time record high for new unemployment claims in a single week was 695,000.  That record was established in October 1982, and it stood all the way until the COVID pandemic hit the U.S. early last year.

Sadly, we have been above 695,000 almost every single week since then.

The numbers compiled by the states tell us that nearly three-quarters of a million Americans filed new claims for unemployment benefits last week.  That is an absolutely catastrophic number.  Nobody should be talking about a тАЬgolden era of growthтАЭ or claiming that the тАЬeconomy might be stronger than itтАЩs ever beenтАЭ until we get that number back down to pre-pandemic levels.

And right now, we are at a level that is about three times as high as pre-pandemic levels.

Look, the truth is that anyone that tells you that unemployment is low in the United States is lying to you.

According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if honest numbers were being used the unemployment rate in the United States would be┬а25.7 percent┬аright now.

That is the sort of number that we would expect to see during an economic depression, and the truth is that we are in┬аan economic depression.

Over the past year, more than 70 million new claims for unemployment benefits have been filed, and approximately 4 million U.S. businesses have gone out of existence permanently.

But donтАЩt worry, the stock market is hovering near all-time record highs and the corporate media is telling you that everything is going to be wonderful now that Joe Biden is in control.

Come on man!

You canтАЩt really believe that stuff that they are shoveling.

With each passing day, more Americans are losing their jobs, more Americans are falling out of the middle class, and the cost of living just keeps going up even higher.

In fact, we just learned that global food prices have now gone up┬аfor 10 months in a rowтАж

The global food-price rally thatтАЩs stoking inflation worries and hitting consumers around the world shows little sign of slowing.

Even with grain prices taking a breather on good crop prospects, a United Nations gauge of global food costs rose for a 10th month in March to the highest since 2014. Last monthтАЩs advance was driven by a surge in vegetable oils amid stronger demand and tight inventories, according to Abdolreza Abbassian, a senior economist at the UNтАЩs Food and Agriculture Organization.

I am going to continue to watch global food prices very carefully, because I believe that it will be a very important trend in the months and years ahead.

But for now, the good news is that at least economic conditions are relatively stable.

Yes, things are not nearly as good as they were before the pandemic, but at least they are not getting a whole lot worse.

So even though things are not great, we should enjoy this period of relative stability while we still can, because it definitely will not last.

Viral Inequality: From Jeff Bezos to the struggle of Indian Farmers

Posted on by
Reply

Billionaires have profited enormously from lockdown, whilst mega corporations are buying out and shutting down independent stores and farms.

By Colin Todhunter

Source: OffGuardian

According to a new report by Oxfam, тАШThe Inequality VirusтАЩ, the wealth of the worldтАЩs billionaires increased by $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth now stands at $11.95tn.

The worldтАЩs 10 richest billionaires have collectively seen their wealth increase by $540bn over this period. In September 2020, Jeff Bezos could have paid all 876,000 Amazon employees a $105,000 bonus and still be as wealthy as he was before COVID.

At the same time, hundreds of millions of people will lose (have lost) their jobs and face destitution and hunger. It is estimated that the total number of people living in poverty could have increased by between 200 million and 500 million in 2020. The number of people living in poverty might not return even to its pre-crisis level for over a decade.

Mukesh Ambani, IndiaтАЩs richest man and head of Reliance Industries, which specialises in petrol, retail and telecommunications, doubled his wealth between March and October 2020. He now has $78.3bn. The average increase in AmbaniтАЩs wealth in just over four days represented more than the combined annual wages of all of Reliance IndustriesтАЩ 195,000 employees.

The Oxfam report states that lockdown in India resulted in the countryтАЩs billionaires increasing their wealth by around 35 per cent. At the same time, 84 per cent of households suffered varying degrees of income loss. Some 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in April 2020 alone.

The authors also noted that income increases for IndiaтАЩs top 100 billionaires since March 2020 was enough to give each of the 138 million poorest people a cheque for 94,045 rupees.

The report went on to state:

тАжit would take an unskilled worker 10,000 years to make what Ambani made in an hour during the pandemicтАжand three years to make what Ambani made in a second.тАЭ

During lockdown and after, hundreds of thousands of migrant workers in the cities (who had no option but to escape the countryтАЩs avoidable but deepening agrarian crisis) were left without jobs, money, food or shelter.

It is clear that COVID has been used as cover for consolidating the power of the unimaginably rich. But plans for boosting their power and wealth will not stop there. One of the most lucrative sectors for these people is agrifood.

More than 60 per cent of IndiaтАЩs almost 1.4 billion population rely (directly or indirectly) on agriculture for their livelihood. Aside from foreign interests, Mukesh Ambani and fellow billionaire Gautam Adani (IndiaтАЩs second richest person with major agribusiness interests) are set to benefit most from the recently passed farm bills that will lead to the wholesale corporatisation of the agrifood sector.

CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION

A recent article on the grain.org website, тАШDigital control: how big tech moves into food and farming (and what it means)тАЩ, describes how Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others are closing in on the global agrifood sector while the likes of Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and Cargill are cementing their stranglehold.

The tech giants entry into the sector will increasingly lead to a mutually beneficial integration between the companies that supply products to farmers (pesticides, seeds, fertilisers, tractors, drones, etc) and those that control the flow of data and have access to digital (cloud) infrastructure and food consumers. This system is based on corporate centralisation and concentration (monopolisation).

Grain notes that in India global corporations are also colonising the retail space through e-commerce. Walmart entered into India in 2016 by a US$3.3 billion take-over of the online retail start-up Jet.com which, in 2018, was followed by a US$16 billion take-over of IndiaтАЩs largest online retail platform Flipkart. Today, Walmart and Amazon now control almost two-thirds of IndiaтАЩs digital retail sector.

Amazon and Walmart are using predatory pricing, deep discounts and other unfair business practices to lure customers towards their online platforms. According to Grain, when the two companies generated sales of over US$3 billion in just six days during a Diwali festival sales blitz, IndiaтАЩs small retailers called out in desperation for a boycott of online shopping.

In 2020, Facebook and the US-based private equity concern KKR committed over US$7 billion to Reliance Jio, the digital store of one of IndiaтАЩs biggest retail chains. Customers will soon be able to shop at Reliance Jio through FacebookтАЩs chat application, WhatsApp.

The plan for retail is clear: the eradication of millions of small traders and retailers and neighbourhood mom and pop shops. It is similar in agriculture.

The aim is to buy up rural land, amalgamate it and roll out a system of chemically-drenched farmerless farms owned or controlled by financial speculators, the high-tech giants and traditional agribusiness concerns. The end-game is a system of contract farming that serves the interests of big tech, big agribusiness and big retail. Smallholder peasant agriculture is regarded as an impediment to be replaced by large industrial-scale farms.

This model will be based on driverless tractors, drones, genetically engineered/lab-produced food and all data pertaining to land, water, weather, seeds and soils patented and often pirated from peasant farmers.

Farmers possess centuries of accumulated knowledge that once gone will never be got back. Corporatisation of the sector has already destroyed or undermined functioning agrarian ecosystems that draw on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognised as valid approaches to secure food security.

And what of the hundreds of millions to be displaced in order to fill the pockets of the billionaire owners of these corporations? Driven to cities to face a future of joblessness: mere тАШcollateral damageтАЩ resulting from a short-sighted system of dispossessive predatory capitalism that destroys the link between humans, ecology and nature to boost the bottom line of the immensely rich.

IMPERIAL INTENT

IndiaтАЩs agrifood sector has been on the radar of global corporations for decades. With deep market penetration and near saturation having been achieved by agribusiness in the US and elsewhere, India represents an opportunity for expansion and maintaining business viability and all-important profit growth. And by teaming up with the high-tech players in Silicon Valley, multi-billion dollar data management markets are being created. From data and knowledge to land, weather and seeds, capitalism is compelled to eventually commodify (patent and own) all aspects of life and nature.

Foreign agricapital is applying enormous pressure on India to scrap its meagre (in comparison to the richer nations) agricultural subsidies. The public distribution system and publicly held buffer stocks constitute an obstacle to the profit-driven requirements of global agribusiness interests.

Such interests require India to become dependent on imports (alleviating the overproduction problem of Western agricapital тАУ the vast stocks of grains that it already dumps on the Global South) and to restructure its own agriculture for growing crops (fruit, vegetables) that consumers in the richer countries demand. Instead of holding physical buffer stocks for its own use, India would hold foreign exchange reserves and purchase food stocks from global traders.

Successive administrations have made the country dependent on volatile flows of foreign capital via foreign direct investment (and loans). The fear of capital flight is ever present. Policies are often governed by the drive to attract and retain these inflows. This financialisation of agriculture serves to undermine the nationтАЩs food security, placing it at the mercy of unforeseen global events (conflict, oil prices, public health crises) international commodity speculators and unstable foreign investment.

Current agricultural тАШreformsтАЩ are part of a broader process of imperialismтАЩs increasing capture of the Indian economy, which has led to its recolonization by foreign corporations as a result of neoliberalisation which began in 1991. By reducing public sector buffer stocks and introducing corporate-dictated contract farming and full-scale neoliberal marketisation for the sale and procurement of produce, India will be sacrificing its farmers and its own food security for the benefit of a handful of unscrupulous billionaires.

As independent cultivators are bankrupted, the aim is that land will eventually be amalgamated to facilitate large-scale industrial cultivation. Indeed, a recent piece on the Research Unit for Political Economy site, тАШThe Kisans Are Right: Their Land Is At StakeтАШ, describes how the Indian government is ascertaining which land is owned by whom with the ultimate aim of making it easier to eventually sell it off (to foreign investors and agribusiness). Other developments are also part of the plan (such as the Karnataka Land Reform Act), which will make it easier for business to purchase agricultural land.

India could eventually see institutional investors with no connection to farming (pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, endowment funds and investments from governments, banks, insurance companies and high net worth individuals) purchasing land. This is an increasing trend globally and, again, India represents a huge potential market. The funds have no connection to farming, have no interest in food security and are involved just to make profit from land.

The recent farm bills тАУ if not repealed тАУ will impose the neoliberal shock therapy of dispossession and dependency, finally clearing the way to restructure the agri-food sector. The massive inequalities and injustices that have resulted from the COVID-related lockdowns are a mere taste of what is to come.

The hundreds of thousands of farmers who have been on the streets protesting against these bills are at the vanguard of the pushback тАУ they cannot afford to fail. There is too much at stake.

How Billionaires Transfer Blame to Others

Posted on by
1

By Eric Zuesse

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on either side, Eric Zuesse writes.

Throughout history, aristocrats, and their flaks such as their тАШnewsтАЩ-media, cast blame downward, away from themselves who collectively control the government, and onto, instead, some minority or other mass group, who canтАЩt even plan or function together so as to be┬аable┬аto control the government.

The U.S. has a two-Party aristocracy, as is clear from the тАЬOpen SecretsтАЭ list of the 100 biggest political donors in the 2020 U.S. Presidential and congressional campaigns, the┬атАЬ2020 Top Donors to Outside Spending GroupsтАЭ. Those are only these individualsтАЩ publicly acknowledged expenditures, none of the dark political money, which, of course, is donated secretly. At the top there, of the donorsтАЩ lists, is Sheldon Adelson (who just died, on January 11th in California, and was buried in Israel), who spent far more than anyone in all of U.S. history had ever spent in any campaign cycle, $215 million, which amount far exceeded even┬аthe $82 million that he had spent in 2016, which in 2016 was second only to Thomas SteyerтАЩs $92 million┬а(the previous all-time highest amount donated in any campaign year). Adelson gave exclusively to Republicans, whereas Steyer gave exclusively to Democrats. Steyer in 2020 gave $67 million, which тАФ though he was running for President in 2020, and hadnтАЩt been running in 2016 тАФ was only 73% of his 2016 donations, in that year, when he had been the nationтАЩs top political donor. He was only the 5th-biggest donor in 2020, instead of #1.

The second-biggest donor in 2020 was the liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, who ran in the Democratic Presidential primaries in order to defeat the only progressive in that contest, who was Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg spent $151 million of his own funds for that purpose. In 2016, he had┬аspent $24 million┬аin order to help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, and then try to beat Donald Trump.

The third-biggest in 2020 was Timothy Mellon, the son of Paul Mellon and grandson of┬аAndrew Mellon. Timothy Mellon gave $70 million, all to Republicans.

In 2020, the top ten donors, collectively, spent $776 million to own their chunk of the U.S. Government. The second group of ten (#s 11-20) donated only $187 million; and, so, the top twenty together donated $963 million, just shy of $1 trillion. All 80 of the other top-100 donors, together, gave around $370 million, so that the total from all 100 was around one-and-a-third trillion dollars. 47 gave to Republicans; 53 gave to Democrats.

The smallest publicly acknowledged donor among the top 100,┬аFoster Friess, gave $2.4 million, all to Republicans.

Most of these 100 donors are among AmericaтАЩs approximately 700 billionaires; and, even the ones who arenтАЩt are serving and doing business with the billionaires, and therefore are to some extent dependent upon having good relations with them, not being enemies of┬аany┬аbillionaire. All of these 100 are, obviously, also dependent upon the governmental decisions that the public officials whom they have purchased will be making, not only regarding regulations and laws, but also regarding foreign policies. For example, Friess merged his company into Affiliated Management Group, which┬атАЬis a global asset management firmтАЭ that тАЬhas grown to approximately $730 billion.тАЭ┬аVirtually all of the top 100 political donors are internationally invested, and their personal wealth is therefore affected by American foreign policies, in ways that the personal wealth of the rest of the population is not.

When the U.S. invades a foreign country, or issues sanctions against a foreign country, it benefits some American investors, not only in corporations such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, but even in some foreign-headquartered corporations. AmericaтАЩs spending┬аaround half of the entire worldтАЩs military expenses gives an enormous competitive boost to AmericaтАЩs billionaires, which is paid for by all U.S. taxpayers. It takes away money that would otherwise go toward the rest of the U.S. population тАФ people who might even become crippled or killed by their military service for the benefit of AmericaтАЩs billionaires. Marketing this military service to the public, as тАЬnational defenseтАЭ тАФ even at a time when┬аno┬аnation has invaded or even threatened to invade America after 1945 тАФ is good PR for AmericaтАЩs wealthiest families, regardless of whether itтАЩs of any benefit whatsoever to other Americans. Because of the success of this PR for the military, Americans┬аconsider the U.S. military to be AmericaтАЩs best institution тАФ far higher than┬аany other part of the U.S. Government or any non-governmental institution, such as churches, the press, or the medical system. The U.S. Department of Defense is, also,┬аby far, the most corrupt of all Departments of the U.S. federal Government. This fact is carefully hidden from the U.S. public, so as to keep the public admiring the military.

Billionaires use their media, and their scholars, to point the finger of blame, for the problems that the public does know about, anywhere else than against themselves; and, though the billionaires have political differences amongst themselves, they are unified against the public, so as to continue the gravy train that they all are on.

In order for the aristocracy not to be blamed for the many problems that they cause upon the public, their first trick is to blame some minority or some other vulnerable mass within the public. Or else to blame some тАШenemyтАЩ country. But if and when such a strategy fails, then, they and their media blame the middle class or тАЬbourgeoisie,тАЭ in order to fool the leftists, and also they blame the тАЬcommunistsтАЭ and the poor, in order to fool the rightists. ThatтАЩs a two-pronged PR strategy тАФ one to the left, and the other to the right. Since the aristocracy is always, itself, fundamentally conservative, they would naturally rather blame the leftists as being тАЬcommunists,тАЭ than to blame the middle class and poor, because to do the latter would place the publicтАЩs ideological focus on economic class, which then would threaten to expose the billionaires themselves as being the actual economic тАЬeliteтАЭ who are the publicтАЩs real enemy (and as being the elite against which the propaganda should instead be focused). Blaming the middle class and poor might work amongst their fellow-aristocrats, but if tried amongst the public, it would present the danger of backfiring. Consequently, there is a return to the days of Joseph R. McCarthy, but this time without communism. Thus, here is how the White House correspondent for a Democratic Party тАШnewsтАЩ-site, CNN, closed his тАШnewsтАЩ-analysis, on January 14th, under the headline┬атАЬWashingtonтАЩs agony is a win for autocrats and strongmenтАЭ:

Mission accomplished

Nice work, Mr. Putin.

According to a US intelligence community report, RussiaтАЩs chief goal in interfering in the 2016 election in support of Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton was to тАЬundermine public faith in the US democratic process.тАЭ Four years on, there have been two impeachments and an insurrection against the US legislature. Millions believe TrumpтАЩs lies that he was illegally ejected from power, and doubt BidenтАЩs legitimacy.

Conspiracy theorists have seats in Congress. There are serious questions about whether one of the countryтАЩs great political parties is now anti-democratic. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in a federal system that grants vast power to the states. And AmericaтАЩs self-appointed role as an exceptional nation and beacon of democracy is in the gutter.

Most of the disorienting events of the last few years can be blamed directly on Trump and his particular skill at tearing at the social, racial and political divides that are just below the nationтАЩs surface. So the ex-KGB man in the Kremlin hardly deserves all the credit. But Russia, China and other autocratic nations are gaining much from WashingtonтАЩs agony. TheyтАЩre already using it to promote their own closed and totalitarian societies as models of comparative order and efficiency тАФ and to beat back brave local voices calling for democracy and human rights.

In an effective declaration of victory for RussiaтАЩs espionage offensive against the US more than four years ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of the Russian Parliament, slid home the knife. тАЬFollowing the events that unfolded after the presidential elections, it is meaningless to refer to America as the example of democracy,тАЭ he said.

тАЬWe are on the verge of reevaluating the standards that are being promoted by the United States of America, that is exporting its vision of democracy and political systems around the world. Those in our country who love to cite their example as leading will also have to reconsider their views.тАЭ

ThatтАЩs propaganda from тАЬleftistтАЭ (i.e., Democratic Party) billionaires. A good example of an independent American journalist who has been fooled by Republican Party billionaires to blame some amorphous mass of тАЬleftistsтАЭ is Sara A. CarterтАЩs 12 January 2021 youtube┬атАЬRudy Giuliani talks big tech censorshipтАЭ, blaming AmericaтАЩs problems on тАЬthe government,тАЭ or тАЬthe bureacracy,тАЭ and, of course,┬аespecially┬аon Democrats. At 10:15 there, she said тАЬMy mother fled from Cuba.тАЭ Carter, as a conservative, is so obsessed with her visceral hatred of тАЬcommunism,тАЭ that she interpreted AmericaтАЩs dictatorship as being communists, instead of as being billionaires тАФ of┬аboth┬аParties: actually, fascists. In a two-Party┬аfascist dictatorship, she fears the leftists. This is typical of propagandists on the conservative side. But propagandists on the liberal side (such as the CNN correspondent exemplified) are no better, just different.

Both propaganda-operations cast blame away from the real culprits.

In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on┬аeither┬аside. What the public sees and hears, instead, is political theater, merely tailored to different audiences.

тАШ$2.5 TRILLION THEFTтАЩ тАУ STUDY SHOWS RICHEST 1% OF AMERICANS HAVE TAKEN $50 TRILLION FROM BOTTOM 90% IN RECENT DECADES

Posted on by
Reply

 

The median U.S. worker salary would be around twice as high today if wages kept pace with economic output since World War II, new research revealed.

By Brett Wilkins

Source: Common Dreams

New research published Monday found that the top 1% of U.S. income earners have taken $50 trillion from the bottom 90% over the past several decades, and that the median worker salary would be around twice as high today as it was in 1945 if pay had kept pace with economic output over that period.

The study’s authors, Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, examined income distribution and economic growth in the United States from 1945 to the present. The researchers found stark differences between income distribution from 1945 to 1974 and 1975 to 2018.

According to the studyтАФwhich was funded by the Seattle-based Fair Work CenterтАФthe median salary of a full-time U.S. worker is currently about $50,000. Adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index, workers at or below the current median income now earn less than half of what they would have if incomes had kept pace with economic growth. This means that if salaries had kept pace with economic output, the median worker pay would be between $92,000 and $102,000 today, depending on how inflation is calculated.

Had the more equitable distribution of the roughly 30-year postwar period continued apace, the total annual income of the bottom 90% of American workers would have been $2.5 trillion higher in 2018, or an amount equal to about 12% of GDP.  In other words, the upward redistribution of income has enriched the 1% by some $47 trillionтАФwhich would now be more than $50 trillionтАФat the expense of American workers.

David Rolf, a Seattle labor organizer, president of the Fair Work Center, and founder of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 775, is more blunt. He calls this “the $2.5 trillion theft.”

“From the standpoint of people who have worked hard and played by the rules and yet are participating far less in economic growth than Americans did a generation ago, whether you call it ‘reverse distribution’ or ‘theft,’ it demands to be called something,” Rolf, who helped lead the fight for a $15 hourly minimum wage in Seattle and beyond, told Fast Company.

Remarkably, the study found that workers at all income levels would be better off today if income kept pace with output. Full-time, prime-age workers in the 25th percentile, for example, would be earning $61,000 instead of $33,000. Workers in the 75th percentile, who in 2018 earned $81,000, would be making $126,000. Even 90th-percentile workers, who earn $133,000, would be making $168,000 under the more equitable distribution.

On the other hand, had the economic pie been divided more equitably, the income of the top 1% would fall from around $1.2 million to a still-affluent $549,000.

“We were shocked by the numbers,” said Nick Hanauer, a venture capitalist and self-described “zillionaire” who, along with Rolf, came up with the idea for the study. “It explains almost everything,” Hanauer told Fast Company. “It explains why people are so pissed off. It explains why they are so economically precarious.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who made correcting economic inequality a pillar of both of his presidential bids, lamented the “h-u-g-e redistribution of income in America” in a Monday tweet.

The researchers’ findings, which come amid a deadly coronavirus/Covid-19 pandemic, shine light on the injustice of an economyтАФby far the wealthiest in the history of civilizationтАФin which essential workers struggle mightily, and often in vain, to survive while the richest people grow ever richer at their expense.

According to Americans for Tax Fairness, the total wealth of U.S. billionaires increased by $792 billion, or 27%, during the first five months of the Covid-19 pandemic. During this period, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s wealthiest person, has become the world’s first multi-centibillionaire, with a net worth now surpassing $200 billion. Meanwhile, his employees struggle to make ends meet, and Amazon workers who speak out against poor pay and hazardous working conditions during the pandemic have been fired and derided by company executives.

Compared to other most-developed nations, the U.S. has done a relatively poor job of taking care of its people during the pandemic. In addition to the U.S. being the only developed nation without universal healthcare, its workers have received less in direct payments and government support than people in many comparable countries.

The gap between the richest and poorest U.S. households is now wider than it has ever been in the past 50 years, according to the most recently available data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The pandemic has only exacerbated the situation, as around half of lower-income American households have reported a job or wage loss due to Covid-19.

Internationally, the U.S. ranks 39th out of over 150 nations in income inequality, according to Gini coefficient data compiled by the CIA, placing it roughly on par with nations like Peru and Cameroon. Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations, the U.S. has the seventh-highest level of income inequality.

The U.S. has the highest poverty rate among the world’s most-developed nations, and the fourth-highest poverty rate among OECD nations after South Africa, Costa Rica, and Romania. According to UNICEF, the U.S. also has the second-highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world behind Romania, with more than one in five U.S. childrenтАФand over one in four Latinx children, and nearly one in three Black and Native American childrenтАФliving in poverty.

This year, more than 54 million Americans, or roughly one in every six peopleтАФincluding 18 million childrenтАФmay experience food insecurity, according to the nonprofit group Feeding America.

Global billionaire wealth tops $10 trillion as COVID-19 deaths mount

Posted on by
Reply

By Jacob Crosse

Source: WSWS.org

The collective wealth of the worldтАЩs 2,189 billionaires has risen to $10.2 trillion, an increase of nearly $1.3 trillion in the past three years, according to a new report by the Swiss bank UBS and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The unprecedented surge in wealth takes place amidst a global pandemic that has killed more than one million people worldwide, including more than 215,000 in the United States alone.

The report, тАЬRiding the Storm,тАЭ is based on data from 43 markets, including interviews with 60 billionaires, accounting for around 98 percent of global billionaire wealth. It sums up the results: тАЬMost of the decade was a time of exceptional prosperity for billionaires regardless of sectorтАжтАЭ

The US continues to have the largest concentration of billionaire wealth, accounting for 36 percent of the worldтАЩs total, or $3.6 trillion. China ranked second with $1.6 trillion and saw the largest growth over the decade, by 1,146 percent.

Third was Germany, where billionaire wealth totaled $594.9 billion, an increase of 175 percent from 2009тАЩs $216.1 billion. While fourth in terms of billionaire wealth at $467.6 billion, Russia saw the smallest growth by percentage, 80 percent, from $260.2 billion in 2009 to $467.6 billion in 2020.

The $10.2 trillion amassed by less than .0003 percent of the global population is more than the estimated 2020 Gross Domestic Product of every country on the planet except for the US and China. The staggering total hoarded by less than 2,200 people, or about the number of COVID-19 deaths in the US within the last 72 hours, surpasses the previous high of $8.9 trillion recorded in 2017.

For a household earning the average US median income, it would take over 16 million years to accumulate $1 trillion, not even enough to cover what has been collectively usurped from global society in less than three years. Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, has calculated the cost of ending hunger in the US at $25 billion, which could be done 400 times over with $1 trillion.

The billionaires who have increased their wealth the most, according to the authors, are in the тАЬtechnology, healthcare and industrial sectors,тАЭ including Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The report states: тАЬDuring 2018, 2019 and the first seven months of 2020, technology billionairesтАЩ total wealth rose by 42.5% to USD 1.8 trillion, supported by the surge in tech shares.тАЭ

The surge in technology and medical shares was buoyed by unlimited cash from the Federal Reserve, included as part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act passed at the end of March in a near-unanimous vote by both Democrats and Republicans.

This financial bailout made a тАЬbig differenceтАЭ in the fortunes of billionaires, with the authors writing: тАЬBillionaire wealth is loosely correlated with equity markets, due to holdings in listed companies, and a few weeks makes a big difference. From the end of March, governmentsтАЩ huge fiscal and quantitative easing packages drove a recovery in financial markets. By the end of July 2020, billionaire wealth was back above its 2019 level.тАЭ

Particularly obscene is the surge in wealth of billionaires in the health care industry, in the midst of a deadly global pandemic. The authors write, тАЬHealthcare billionairesтАЩ total wealth increased by 50.3% to $658.6 billion, boosted by a new age of drug discovery and innovations in diagnostics and medical technology, as well as latterly COVID-19 treatments and equipment.тАЭ

The report adds: тАЬThe number of tech billionaires grew from 68 in 2009 to 234 in 2020, while the number of healthcare billionaires grew from 48 to 167. Tech and healthcare billionairesтАЩ total wealth both multiplied by four times тАУ from $321.3 billion to $1.3 trillion for tech and from $120.8 billion to $482.9 billion for healthcare.тАЭ

And what are these тАЬpandemic profiteersтАЭ spending their fortunes on? To get some idea, ChristieтАЩs auction house in New York held its latest online auction, тАЬ20th Century Evening SaleтАЭ live-streamed from the Rockefeller Center in New York on October 6. In one night, the worldтАЩs wealthiest spent over $340 million on 59 different 20th and 21st century art pieces. The auction also featured the most expensive dinosaur skeleton ever sold, a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex, for $27.5 million.

The massive concentration of wealth is a decadesтАЩ long and bipartisan policy of redistribution to the rich. The Institute for Policy Studies measured the tax obligations of America’s billionaires as a percentage of their wealth between 1980 and 2018 and found that it had decreased 79 percent. Over the last 20 years, the growth in US billionaire wealth has been 200 times greater than the growth in median wealth.

While the billionaires are richer than ever, the response of the ruling class to the pandemic has produced a massive social catastrophe for the working class. In the United States, tens of millions are unemployed and being cut off of all benefits, facing poverty, homelessness and hunger.

Earlier reports found that the 643 wealthiest Americans increased their wealth by a staggering $845 billion between March 18 and September 15. During that same time, over 62 million people in the US applied for unemployment benefits. An estimated 10.5 million jobs were eliminated, with major companies such as Disney, United Airlines, and Cineworld announcing tens of thousands additional layoffs in the last week.