Oxfam recently published that 62 people own as much as half the populationof the entire world. The entire pitch of the Clinton campaign is that this is absolutely fine, provided half of them are black and the appropriate proportions from ethnic minorities.
Identity politics have become well and truly established as the antidote to demands for social progress and for an end to the massive growth in wealth inequality. This is essentially an American development, although the idea that the purpose of feminism is for Emma Watson to get $12 million a film has caught on with at least some British people, and is the whole basis of the political stance of the modern all-American Guardian.
Hillary summed up the psychological trick of the faux egalitarianism in a simple sentence:
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow … will that end racism? Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”. It is brilliant rhetoric, a masterpiece of sophistry. Of course breaking up the banks will not directly end these other evils. But neither would ending those things end the appalling level of wealth inequality. It comes directly back to my opening question of whether multi-billionaires are OK as long as they are appropriately representative of black, female and LGBT.
The truth of the matter is that almost everybody who campaigns against wealth inequality is also strongly against racial, gender, religious and sexual inequality. But many of those who focus on identity politics not only have no concern for general equality, but are primarily concerned with the ability of themselves and those like them to propel themselves into the ranks of the elite.
…and if you’re just getting the UK state pension, you’re in the top 19%…
By giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015:link to link to https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/
Also, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.link to link to theintercept.com
A leaked transcript of Clinton’s June 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs officials and likely guests gives insight into her deplorable agenda – expressing views not stated on the stump.
She thanked GS CEO Lloyd (“I’m doing God’s work”) Blankfein, expressing delight “to be back among…kindred spirits.”
She ludicrously claimed ordinary Americans couldn’t have futures without GS “leadership and innovation.”
It makes money the old-fashioned way. It steals it through fraud, grand theft, market manipulation, front-running them, scamming investors, bribing political officials, having its executives in top administration posts, and getting open-ended low or no interest rate bailouts when needed.
According to Clinton, productive work by ordinary Americans didn’t make the nation great. “We all know how misguided that is,” she claimed.
“We know that it’s really due to your investing, credit, and economic stewardship, that they have been able to work at all, that they are able to put food on their tables,” she blustered.
“It’s due to you and other banking, trading, investment houses that we have an economy that works at all. You are why we are a truly 21st century economic power.” [From Stephen Lendman’s blog].
Sorry my second link to the intercept did not work, try this..https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/
“The top 1.03% richest people in the world includes those earning £25K annually. Little known as far as I can establish, FACT.”
That counts me out, definitely not a one percenter.
Someone earning more than three times that would be well inside though.
£75k wouldn’t come near the top 1% of UK earners, though, Fred. Whoever you’re thinking of…
She ludicrously claimed ordinary Americans couldn’t have futures without GS “leadership and innovation.”
Ah. That’s where they’ve been going wrong. Ignoring the all the leadership and innovation which gave us –
http://fortune.com/2016/01/14/goldman-sachs-mortgage-bonds-settlement/
Ba’al. Ouch.
In defense, I use a lot of silicone at work.
And anyway, E’s are good.
More leadership and innovation by Hil’s chums:
http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-aig-bailout?IR=T
(For you, Defo. I don’t use E’s at work…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skmvbMrVfnQ )
Hmmm. I don’t remember Dow Jones co’s going ballistic over the break-up of ITT. What needs breaking up is the manner in which Delegates are awarded to a candidate. It’s tie to make the popular vote rule the outcome.
It’s ‘time’.
Marc Mezvinsky:
@Ba’al
You’re looking at income, rather than wealth (which is far more relevant here.) The wealthiest 1% have a minimum net worth of USD 759,900 according to the 2015 Global Wealth Report by Credit Suisse (page 11). Mean net worth of an adult in the UK is USD 320,400 (page 10).
I’m currently reading Jane Mayer’s new book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Here’s what I just read in it (I’m reading it on my Kindle, so I can’t give a page reference):
” And Hillary can’t alienate the feminist/LGBT/Black votes, because they’re solid Dem…”
The truth is that Hillary has a long record of enmity towards Black Americans. This was most tellingly revealed when she preached the message of the Redeemers (aka the Klan) and spoke of the injustice of the Reconstruction process after the US Civil War. It is entirely fitting that she won the votes of the Old Confederacy last night and lost everywhere else (Massachussets’s vote was probably fixed).
The sad reality of her support among Black Americans in the South is that, so embattled are these communities not only economically and socially but politically, where gerrymandering and vote suppression are enormous problems, that a few brokers and wardheelers control large numbers of votes through Churches etc.
This is not to say that Sanders faces an impossible task- his basic message is one that appeals to the poor and his personal recordon Civil rights is one of life long service.
Those familiar with southern history will recognise that the sight of Blacks turning out to vote for their enemy was prefigured in the 1890s when Southern Populists complained of long processions of blacks, the clientele of the old Plantation owners, voting the Bourbon Democrat ticket and thwarting the People’s Party candidates in Georgia.
One thing is certain- none of those southern states is going to give the Democrats an electoral vote in November. The crucial states for the Democrats have yet to be decided and most of them are more likely to follow Colorado and Vermont than Texas, Alabama or Georgia.
Hillary can get away with that kind of Rush Limbaugh wisecrack because Americans are kept exceptionally ignorant of human rights law. They have no idea that human rights are legally indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Freedom from discrimination conditions every right but Americans don’t know that. They don’t even know what their rights are. So Hillary gets away with denying your economic rights because… discrimination, or something. While in fact the US bears duties to eliminate discrimination while protecting you from commercial exploitation that derogates your rights to health, education, housing, free association, social security, leisure, a livelihood, etc.
Sanders can’t rebut Hillary’s catchphrase because he’s equally steeped in US Juche and equally ignorant of human rights obligations that are universal, outside his hermit kingdom. He’s the feeblest decoy fake reformist the Democrats have puked up yet.
Not all Black leaders are fooled by Hillary Clinton’s charm or lies. Last week, Louis Farrakhan called her “wicked woman” and advised Afro-Americans not fooled by Hillary’s promises to the 14% US’s Black community.
In 2008, as senior political aid to then Sen. Barack Obama, Samantha Power (now US ambassador at United Nations) had called Hillary Clinton “a monster”.
https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/02/farrakhan-hillary-is-a-wicked-woman/
Pagan Babies; The entire system is verklempt. What of the Green vote? I’m beginning to think Nader did us a service by ensuring Bush victory. The critical mass could be reached with a Trump presidency which would provide the accelerant for a forest clearing fireball. I await the Phonenix.
Yes, losing a war with the SCO would do it; a Soviet-style collapse would do it too. Neither of those contingencies has anything to do with the vote, which has futility built in.
Petrodollar is a complex calculation for many countries struggling to keep head above water. It would have tanked long before now if the triangulations weren’t just shy of infinite.
The long-term distrust between Russia and China has hampered BRICS full implementation, but it is the 5 ton gorilla.
When you start looking more widely at the internet, you start to realise that the Nutters and Obsessives on here are relatively small beer.
Here, for example, is a “comment” put up in reaction to a YouTube video featuring Ayn Rand:
“Pogroms of 1905 were directed by the Rothschild networks so that the Jews would leave Russia, to then take over the USA with their homosexuality, pornography, Leftist fanaticism, neoconism.”
Now you wouldn’t find anything quite as bad on here would you. Would you…?
Clinton will say anything, does say anything, to win votes. It’s fraudulent, and also incredibly condescending. Basically, her campaign is just a huge smirk, and I’m personally astonished people can’t see through her. She’s Nixon without the brains. A Hillary presidency will be a monumental fuck up from day one, due to her total inability to work with people. Well, people who aren’t rich bankers. This seems pretty obvious to me, but she is still in with a good chance of winning. Personally, I reckon Trump can beat her, she’s got so many skeletons in the closet, but we’ll see.
The thing with Clinton is that, like her husband, she stands for absolutely nothing. Oh, she’s a neocon through and through, but they don’t really stand for anything, have no core beliefs, other than some sort of weird Darwinian misinterpretation seen through the lens of pathological greed. So expect all sorts of Iran bashing, Putin mocking, and general tom-fuckery; the MSM will love it, so it could be 8 years of pain. Vote Sanders, seriously.
8 years of misery for males…..8 years of bliss for females and androgynes.
Is it so bad to want to join the elite. Isn’t a healthy society with some degree of class mobility. I’m not saying we have got mobility nor that its desirable to expend your life’s work un aspiration (it’s a source of much comedy) but its a basic human trait. How do we ensure some healthy balance?
I am not sure if any if our well intentioned plans work. We oversee intelligence and drive it underground
. We regulate public war so we privitise it. We tax the wealthy and we empower tax havens. We force the Swiss ro disclose bank accounts and the US becomes the recipient of the secret Swiss accounts.
Every stick gas two ends. There are always unintended consequences. Let us try to do what it is that we do sincerely and nit lie to ourselves. Then maybe some of the consequences may not be entirely unintended.
Incidentally is there a modern version of Ferdinand Lyndberg’s The Rich and The Super-Rich?
V fat finger this evening.
A modern version seems unnecessary. Little has changed except we’re not wearing Togas.
As to the possible redemption of our political system, I will leave that to superior minds.
I’ve always suspected that Colleen McCullough wrote her Masters of Rome series of novels about the last decades of the Roman Republic bearing very much in mind the parallels with the plutocratic American republic.
You’re looking at income, rather than wealth…
Never pretended otherwise. Just making a simple point. The accumulation of wealth, however, requires income. If incomes were more fairly distributed, in the course of time (and neglecting the fact that while some people squirrel away their cash, others reinvest it and yet others blue it on horses with four left legs at Kempton Park) the wealth distribution hump would flatten out too.
I have yet to work out why people doing agreeable jobs in areas they are interested in can get paid so much better than people doing shitty jobs in the rain.
By the way, as threatened in the Daily Mail over the last week, Tom Bower’s scathing biography of Tony Blair is now out. It even contains new stuff.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Broken-Vows-Blair-Tragedy-Power-ebook/dp/B0193H0LAE
As does the An Apology thread here.
Attacking people one doesn’t like by having a go at their children, in-laws and relatives generally is not only a silly but also a dirty tactic.
It is even more dirty when the attacks are disguised as “information”.
In reply to John Goss, I think there is a very good case for treating wealth inequality as a form of discrimination, parallel to racism, sexism etc. Why should shelter, healthcare, education, food etc be distributed unequally according to the ability to pay?
Capitalism is so ingrained in our way of thinking that it is hard to question the “obvious truth” that rich people should have better things than poor people — just as it was hard in the past to question the “obvious truths” that, for example, girls were incapable of being educated to the same level as boys, or that “natives” did not require the same standard of living as white people.
In the same way that a whole host of spurious justifications grew up to support the sexism or racism of the past (remember those scientific studies of brain size etc?), so now we come up with all sorts of ridiculous reasons why inequality is natural and good.
Craig is right: this IS discrimination, and currently it is by far the most damaging and dangerous type of discrimination in this country.