The real divide - and it isn't left/ right or religion

It’s the ultra rich versus the rest of the world. And the rest of the world is getting pasted. In the words of Warren Buffet in 2006,

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

All this faldarol about gender, religion, race, and any other cultural partitioning you can envision is just a smoke screen. Designed so you won’t notice we are being robbed blind. Not so sure? Here is the profile of Trumps Sect of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bessent

Quick tldr…his husband, former [New York City] prosecutor John Freeman, have two children. He is the former head of the London office of Soros Fund Management. But sexual orientation and politics aside, he easily qualifies since his financial disclosure showed a net worth of $525,000,000. That qualifies.

It’s just as you always knew…follow the money. As the wealth inequality gets larger and larger, those that survive on their labor drift into poverty. They have assets; we have leases and mortgages. Used to be a day when folks actually owned their music collection. Now they rent it. Even farmers are fighting tooth and nail to own their tractors, going to court for the privilege of repairing “their won equipment” . The common man owns less and less every year.

While the pandemic was nasty, "The world’s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion —at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day— during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty. " Anyone can google the question of how big that increase was, the numbers vary somewhat at different sources. The general drift is all the like.

So ask yourself a simple question. All that govt debt build up due to handouts…where did all that money end up? Where is it now?
The answer is: it was spent by 90%+ of the recipients. It was spent on mortgages, rents, food, gasoline, and power. Guess who owns the producers of all that stuff. There’s your answer.

When Ds harangue about Medicaid, don’t fall for it. Universal healthcare is the correct answer. Sending tax dollars to the ultra rich via “Joe and Jane consumer” is just the conduit. It ends up in the folks that own the assets.
And all this MAGA crap…let’s return to the Golden Era of the 50’s…I can guarantee that will not include the essential foundations of that economy: top marginal tax rates of 90%, huge inheritance tax rates, and free universities.

Back at Scott bessent…here is what he said in an interview .

Could we be seeing that this economy that we inherited starting to roll a bit? Sure. And look, there’s going to be a natural adjustment as we move away from public spending to private spending,” Bessent said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Translation: we will deregulate (privatize) everything we can. And the common man will funnel more and more money to those that hold the assets.

The ONLY way out is to tax that wealth. Pull that money out (taxation lowers the amount in circulation), and use it to provide for the general welfare. Cuz if this continues, your children, and your grandchildren will be impoverished. It’s inevitable. What ever it is that you want, housing or food, or whatever, the super rich will always out bid you. That’s how the market works. High bidder wins.

7 Likes

Yep. Class war is the only war. A bit of nationalization of assets, and strict enforcement of anti-trust and anti-monopoly law would go a long way to correcting the balance of wealth. This has to happen after they are no longer in control of the government.

Where they would like to take America.

A new lobbying group, dubbed the Freedom Cities Coalition, wants to convince President Trump and Congress to authorize the creation of new special development zones within the U.S. These zones would allow wealthy investors to write their own laws and set up their own governance structures which would be corporately controlled and wouldn’t involve a traditional bureaucracy. The new zones could also serve as a testbed for weird new technologies without the need for government oversight.

Wired recently reported that the Coalition was drafting congressional legislation that would allow it to establish a network of its new “cities.” One of the chief motivations for the creation of these communities is so that new “scientific” and technological development initiatives can be carried out without the need for regulatory oversight

1 Like

It all boils down to this really…

Add in capital being more lightly taxed in the US vs income, and you significantly accelerate this process.

1 Like

Again with the stealing ideas from movies. This time “Robocop.”

2 Likes

Didn’t Disney already have that and they just took it away?

1 Like

So where do we fall on the divide? A qualified actuary should be at a ~95th percentile income within their age band where mid-career they are probably at the 98-99th percentile across all ages and potentially in the top 1% of household incomes depending on their partner’s income.

That’s not ultra rich, but my sense is this puts us on the side of the “haves” rather than “have nots” in the class war.

3 Likes

There is an easy simplification:

Do you derive most of your day to day income from assets (wealth) or from your employment?

If its employment…then you are still not there yet.

4 Likes

This is just mean talk from those that don’t like Trump. He’s bringing back all the high paying low skill jobs back to the US, just like he did last time. All the low educated people will make a fortune once his policies are in place as Trump gets rid of all the waste and corruption.

1 Like

How influential is your ownership? Is your wealth in funds run by others or do you own businesses that have to do what you say? How able are you to leverage your wealth into pressuring politicians?

The Haves own assets that:

  1. Earn income so they don’t have to work
  2. Can be leveraged to influence politics
  3. Can be leveraged to influence economies (from local economies to international)
  4. Are not highly concentrated such that a single problem can destroy them.
3 Likes

just watch until conditions become similar to just before the french revolution. Then watch the heads roll

Depends on the size of your assets. If you have $10mil socked away…you will be fine, but that won’t cover both your retirement and leave enough so your grandkids do not need a job. The future belongs to those that have unearned income.

And you won’t be able to compete in the bidding war for political influence. So your voice is pretty muted.

There are fascinating ramifications to this build up of wealth, like the insatiable demand for new assets to buy. Enter hedge funds and private equity. And most importantly…debt.

Debt is the easiest asset to create. You don’t need to pour any concrete, or write great code. All you need is a recurring cash flow. I’ve created debt instruments from some pretty weird cash flow streams. (Who knew you could securitize wheelie bin fees?)

The auto companies make 110% of their profit from their financing divisions. They lose money on the cars themselves. This is because there is an insatiable demand for the securities those cash flows produce. Credit card receivables, monthly subscription fees, car leases, the list is almost endless. This is a big reason why so much stuff you “buy” is actually not owned by you. Better to monetize the cash flows, confident that these alt debt instruments will be snatched up.

1 Like

I think that there is (or at least should be) a natural progression for all persons to accumulate wealth on which to retire as they age. The problem is lower earners are so squeezed by everyday living expenses that they end up entirely dependent on govt or others in retirement. So I don’t view unearned income>earned income as the only separating characteristic between the rich and the poor.

I must be there as I have no employment income. :grinning:

2 Likes

So I was drawn by Progressive neoliberalism and clicked on a few links in the bibliography:

Johanna Brenner’s reading of my essay misses the centrality of the problem of hegemony. My main point was that the current dominance of finance capital was not achieved only by force but also by what Gramsci called “consent.” Forces favoring financialization, corporate globalization, and deindustrialization succeeded in taking over the Democratic Party, I claimed, by presenting those patently anti-labor policies as progressive. Neoliberals gained power by draping their project in a new cosmopolitan ethos, centered on diversity, women’s empowerment, and LGBTQ rights. Drawing in supporters of such ideals, they forged a new hegemonic bloc, which I called progressive neoliberalism. In identifying and analyzing this bloc, I never lost sight of the power of finance capital, as Brenner claims, but offered an explanation for its political ascendance.

Essentially touching on what you’re talking about.

So at what level of wealth does someone become politically relevant? What level is needed for influence? You can’t just draw a line at influence - some level of those rising up now could be there on a few years and you need to do enough to keep them as supporters. I think that makes a broader group politically relevant.

I guess the answer is related to “What level of government?”

There are a couple of sites that show how much money it takes to outspend your opponent. OpenSecrets is a good one. The candidate that spends the most is usually the favorite. That may mean a couple $1000 for a school board seat, maybe $15000 for a state rep. Federal is pricey. According to the Federal Election Commission, the average campaign cost for a seat in Congress ( the House of Representatives) is 1.3 million and for a Senate race is 7.6 million.

Back in 1972, Jerome Powell wrote a memo outlining how to protect corporate interests, politically. Brilliantly outlined a strategy to use campaign contributions at the state legislative level, where winning elections was relatively inexpensive, in order to control the redistricting done every 10 years. Gerrymander. If I recall my history lessons, the memo’s audience was the Chamber of Commerce. He later joined the Supreme Court. It’s a fascinating story I won’t repeat here.

Interesting data points. The 1.3M for an average house seat looks like something a small number of well to do people could possibly influence, but that might mean focusing on a seat that is deemed safe enough as to not capture any national attention as I expect the really competitive races get more money generally.

Boebert spent over 7M in 2022 and barely won.

1 Like

Bloomberg spent loads in the D primary and it seemed to have no impact. I’m not convinced all the spending achieves much.