Oligarchy = Government by the few (Merriam-Webster, 2011)
“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important.” – Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist
Today I am taking the liberty of quoting at length from the article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, written by renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz and published in the May 2011 edition of Vanity Fair magazine. Stiglitz received a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001. He lays out in stark terms the situation we the people face in America under our growing economic inequality:
“It is no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. … Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. … While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been propitious – 12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades – and more – has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. … While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow. ….
“The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years – whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative – went on to receive large bonuses. …Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin. …
“The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security – they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government – one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: to gridlocked to redistribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes. …
“… [O]ne big part of the reason we so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power. … Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself – one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest. …
“Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. … The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. … Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift – through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price – it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work. …
“Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military – the reality is that the ‘all-volunteer’ army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism only goes so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all of that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. …
“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from ‘food insecurity’) – given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted ‘trickling down’ from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation – voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent …
“In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit…. As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? …
“Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society – something he called ‘self-interest properly understood.’ The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest ‘properly understood’ is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest – in other words, the common welfare – is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. … It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul –it’s good for business.
“The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
Editor’s Note:
But we can’t wring our hands in hopelessness, and we can’t wait around for the corporate-political oligarchy to come to its senses on its own. The great ex-slave abolitionist Frederick Douglass’s admonition from over 150 years ago is as true today as it was then: “Power yields nothing except to demand.” None of us has the resources or strength to upend the corporate-political oligarchy on our own. Organization, direction, discipline, and solidarity are a must. I am not talking about lobbying and petitioning. I am talking about abolishing the oligarchy and restoring democracy. With organization, direction, discipline, and solidarity, we can fight ‘em till hell freezes over, then fight ‘em on the ice, then win. Do any political organizations presently exist with the potential to successfully challenge the corporate-political oligarchy and divest it of its present death-grip on our democracy? If so, which ones are they? And if not, what should we do? I have some ideas about these questions. What are yours? Respectfully,
David Van Os
david@texas-patriot.com
Please pass on to friends.
RoohIt Plugin