Citigroup's Shocking 'Plutonomy' Reports

Michael Moore highlights a confidential report that Citigroup initially circulated only to it's wealthiest customers. Those reports, since leaked, plainly discuss the power of the Plutonomy in America, and how it would only strengthen, as long as the "the rest us" (the non-plutonics) could be kept in the dark about the Plutonomy existence, its role, and its over-arching control in the American Economy.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005...










more:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/4/789523/-Cit...

"At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich."

When the fuck is that point coming????

I don't know when that point will be.

That's adorable. What would middle class be? 10 million in the bank? In the US now you're either mega-fucking rich or you're counting on monthly income to get by (or only have a few months, maybe a year or two, of savings should you not be able to work). There is almost no middle class anymore.

Guess he had more insight than we gave him credit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-0pedQeGw

daily basis...

If we all STOPPED PAYING OUR CREDIT CARDS they would sink in couple of months. We would just need SOLIDARITY to protect ourselves against their threats. If we stood in SOLIDARITY they would have no choice but to change their game or GO DOWN. We would need to figure ahead of time what the end game would be or otherwise we would risk being bought off.

I think passion is what gets everyone there, and without a strong leader, who "sells" the end game, then it's just bubbling anger.

If we all STOPPED PAYING OUR CREDIT CARDS they would sink in couple of months...

What if? It seems the coveted "credit score" is becoming less and less valuable, what with the lenders who've stopped lending. I mean, why pay on time to keep a "good credit score" when you can't get additional credit or loans?

Right now, I've got a leaky water heater that desperately needs replacing, but can't afford it right now and I don't have the credit to "put it on plastic."

I think back to my senior year in high school (almost 40 years ago): my stepfather brought home about $200 a week and that was enough to buy a house for a family of four on a corner lot in southern California, two cars, and food and clothing. We weren't rich by any means, but we sure as hell didn't have a household of four people with two wage earners and a leaky water heater...

I've got a 50gal GAS water heater gone begging. Could you use it?

the average American is too busy making ends meet and escaping from reality with mindless TV and video games. The won't ever take the time to look up and notice what's being done to them, and by whom.

Yeah, yeah, American Idol, blah, blah.

Bread and circuses by any other name.

Welcome to the decline of the Roman Empire, the sequel.

I read his "People's History of the United States". He does explain how the rich use the middle class as a buffer between the poor and them. He also goes on to show all the events in the history of the US history and the ones we mostly are not aware of and how the rich have engineered them.


you can find him here.
http://howardzinn.org/default /

This is a good OP. and very timely. It is time to be aware of what they are doing and what can be done to correct this.

This has been going on for centuries. It's truly sad how few people are aware of history.

Keeping the majority willfully ignorant and in compliance.

the fact that Citigroup's applied theory of plutonomy is grounded deeply in historical and socio-economic reality, namely the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s and present class disparities worse than the First Gilded Age.

First, these are the same idiots who brought us Milton Friedman, "free" markets, trickle down, Raygun, Voodoo, supply side, neoliberal economics. And you see where that has taken us don't you? A total collapse of the financial system only to be bailed out by that middle class they wish to destroy.

If Not for all us middle class, all those rich people would be holding nothing in their stock portfolios. It was this middle class, that they so despise, that paid the taxes to bail out the idiots who bet America's future. If not for us, there would be no tax dollars to funnel to Wall Street.

Second, the uber wealthy cannot ever be a large enough market to equal the American middle class market of 2001. Do they really believe it was the uber wealthy who made Wal-Mart so successful?? Do they really believe that China is going to make enough profit simply by selling their crap to a handful of the uber wealthy idiots? This is absolutely ridiculous.

This memo sounds to me like a rationalization of a serious problem they know they have created. They see the financial collapse of the country thanks to what they have done. So, to keep their uber wealthy idiots from realizing that the end results is a total destruction and ruin of America, they are trying to sell those uber rich, the only ones who have money enough to buy their financial products, on the idea that they don't need the American middle class anymore.

They are trying to sell the idea that despite the collapse of most American markets, manufacturing and production (which they caused and continue to destroy) that the uber wealthy can simply sell to each other and continue to make money. Sounds an awful lot like the service economy America was suppose to become after all the middle class jobs were destroyed.

Right now, and for the past 30 years, America has been functioning like a plutocracy. Anyone who doesn't see it is just plain blind. But the uber wealthy need us much, much more than we need them. Without us paying taxes and buying crap, there would be no money for them to take.

I'm surprised the middle class has not revolted yet too.

...and remember the date on those: October 2005, not only before the crash but back when Wall Street was in full "sell (and sell and sell) bets on repackaged crap" mode. It's a sales pitch far more than an analysis.

The terminology of the pitch, though, is more telling than the pitch itself. Because it's a pitch directly to the "if we're all rats on a sinking ship, be the top rat" mentality.

It is because, for some reason, many Americans who are struggling want to believe that THEY will someday be rich and of course, THEN they wouldn't want taxes to take it away.

It is a pathetic way of thinking, of course, but I cannot tell you how many people really believe this. They ally themselves with rich white people because they see it as glamorous and fun. Being a minority and poor is to be looked down upon, and most of these white Americans don't want to be in the same boat with "them."

I've tried arguing with these people. I've told them that, since I've raised money from some very rich people, I can assure them that the rich don't want them in their "club" and will do anything to keep them out and keep all the money for themselves and their children. But the "wannabee" hold on to the illusion and the RWingers keep stoking the fires of prejudice and fear.

Sad, but true...

These rich people can find their 'middle class taxpayers' just about anywhere

An economic order driven principally by conspicuous consumption at the pinnacle cannot provide decent livings for the mass of the people, and is absolutely incompatible with even the pretense of rule through democratic institutions.

The results were greater class antagonisms and social unrest.

And the outcome is always tyranny and revolution, in no particular order....

in favor of the vocational.

The spread of the Latifundia (slave-worked cash-crop plantations) turned formerly middle-class farmers into an urban proletariat (a term that originates from the Latin word for the urban poor), that backed populists like Tiberius Gracchus that lead to a backlash from the aristocracy (and Gracchus's murder), leading to a series of populist (Marius, Caesar) and reactionary (Sulla, Octavian) dictators that destroyed the Republic.

Now I see that it's a treasonous one.

The reason being? Their CEO liked the Umbrella logo of Travelers Insurance.

In Jan of 1994, due to a minor illness, I watched TV 24/7.

One of the wonderful things that was going on that week was that the Chiappas were in revolt. Not only that -- the friggin' Mainstream Media was responding like crazy. They actually sent CBS, NBC and ABC reporters down to the hills of the farming community. Local news casters allowed for the film videos of the young reporters taking the viewer into the insides of the revolting peasants' huts. Families that had a halfway decent set of dishes were considered "wealthy" because many families only had several eating implements to share among five six or more people. These opeople were poor in a way that most Americans could not envision - no running water, dirt floors, little in the way of stored food, etc.

The media was excited about it. They had detailed explanations of how oppressed these peasants were. How onerous the Mexican army sent in to fight against them.
"Tune back in at 6 or 11 or tomorrow morning, and there will be even more," became an hourly promise.

"This is almost like Edward Murrow" thought I.

Friday early morning media had an update on the revolt. But then at the noon news feed, all that came up was a report that skater Nancy Kerrigan had her knee badly damaged by two guys with crude weapons. From that point on, the Nacy Kerrigan/Tonya Harding 24/7 was all that remained of news.

Over a decade later, in an article in Rolling Stone, it was revealed that Citibank put out the word that the coverage had to be squashed immediately.

And so it was.

Not one of the major news stations showed anything more about the Chiappas revolt. And it was at least ten days later that I read a small update (like on page 22) of the San Francisco Chronicle.

major bank to do something like that- but you sound pissed off enough, personally offended enough, to want to learn more.

I very vaguely recall that; I was young and having a bad summer. All I remember is the Harding/Kerrigan shit getting played over and over and over, and thinking "isn't there something more important they could show?"

Guess I was right.

No wonder they wouldn't give me a business checking account. Jackholes.

They aren't the ones that stacked the deck against the middle class, they are just playing by the rules. It's the GOPhers that need to go to jail.

and even though it was a treasonous Gramm who sponsored the bill, Clinton signed it.

Plutonomy simply states that the ultra rich have most of the wealth so they are the ones driving almost all of the economy.

Citigroup is just devising investment tactics to take the most advantage of that reality. Faulting Citigroup for that reality is like shooting the messenger.

from yet another avenue of outright theft by the plutonomy. So it really isn't shooting the messenger. It's shooting one of the aiders and abettors of the crime.

By far, the biggest reason why you have a plutonomy in the first place is a regressive tax structure that allows the wealthy to continue to grow more wealth exponentially. The repeal of Glass-Steagall may have played a part, but that part is so small as to be irrelevant for all intents and purposes. There's plenty of other things well out ahead of that pack. Without regressive tax laws, the plutonomy never would have happened.

Furthermore, Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with protecting the middle class. It had to do with protecting the stability of the banking industry, which the Great Depression taught us would collapse of it's own weight if not stringently regulated. Such a collapse affects ALL classes, not just those in the middle.

... if you had been paying attention you would know that the Dems are only 1% less culpable than the Reps in this regard.

They are all bought and sold my friend.

How many Democrats voted for Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

How many Democrats voted to cut the taxes on equity investments to 20% and then to 15%?

Clinton may have signed some of those bills, but only because he never would have gotten any of his agenda passed had he not. The only chance Clinton had was passing a modest tax increase on the richest Americans and the public responded with the '94 takeover of congress. It has nothing to do with being "bought and sold." It has to do with surviving politically.

Even the suggestion of raising taxes on the rich gets turned into bullshit socialist accusations and all sorts of other hyperbole. That's a reflection of the stupidity of the average American why buys into the brain dead trickle down bullshit mantra.

.. on the rich?

After watching his less than stellar performance in every area you could say I'm not expecting much.

Fact is, maybe Dems have not ACTIVELY fucked over the poor and middle class, but they've done nothing to fix it all either.

The Democrats who have to legislate with one hand tied to their balls, or John Q. Public who gave the rope to the GOP?

... are a spineless bunch of corporatocrats, with the possible exception of a handful like Kucinich.

They have let the GOP paint them into a rhetorical corner and they are too cowardly and stupid (except Grayson) to counter the bullshit arguments of the right.

I have little respect for any of them any more but you are free to grovel over the crumbs of advancement they have made, I'm not satisfied.

We are in a DEPRESSION right now, and the pain level is going to steadily rise in the coming years. Perhaps some politicians will stand up and do something, right now the health care "reform" and the financial re-regulation that should both be a slam dunk are barely on life support.

If you are satisfied, you'd be satisfied with ANYTHING.

You can't even begin to support your ridiculous assertion that "the Dems are only 1% less culpable than the Reps" so now you want to engage in some sort of tangential discussion about how the Democrats aren't nearly as far to the far left as you'd like and therefore somehow I am completely content with the current state of progress.

I can't say you're at all coherent, my friend, but you are amusing.

Cheers!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Whether you like it or not.

I bet you didn't realize how much you're revealing about yourself, though.

Have a nice day!

I think you proved the other poster's point.

when there's enough others to give political cover so the others huff & puff about how horrrrible the pubs are, cutting taxes.

people aren't buying it anymore.

"On May 26, 2001, Nelson was one of a dozen Democrats to support president George W. Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: the massive tax cut package that defined the administration's plans for job growth. The bill was passed using reconciliation -- meaning it wasn't subject to a Democratic filibuster -- and received the support of 58 Senators.

Two years later, Bush had introduced a second tax-cut package, this one entitled The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. That too was passed through reconciliation with Nelson's vote proving even more critical. The Nebraskan was one of only two Democrats to back the measure, giving it exactly the 50 votes needed to become law (Vice President Dick Cheney voted yea to break the impasse)."

in my state the two senators trade off the unpopular votes so neither has to take all the political heat. you think the party as a whole doesn't do the same?

both cuts passed, with democrats providing the crucial votes for passage both times.

Cheers!

class agenda.

Everyone else are sheep and useful idiots of the nobility who live only to enslave the proletariat and steal candy from small children. And nothing will ever change until the people rise up in bloody revolution and kill the ever living shit out of all the ruling classes and their bourgeoisie enablers. Then and only then will the working classes taste the fruits of their labor and wars will end and milk and honey will flow freely and dogs and cats can finally come together and blah de blah blah fucking blah.

Traitors, all!

It is a well known fact and countless economist have been pointing to it.

Or the cupidity, either.

I would not be surprised to see them take a big hit for this politically.

Politicians like to make the appearance of doing something while doing nothing. Citibank would be a good target.

Suggesting companies focus on the few wealthy and ignore the mass of citizens is.....one of the
DUMBEST ideas I've read in a looooooooooooooooonnnnggggg time. The wealthy are actually crappy consumers. One percent of the population has ten homes each needing to be furnished and stocked. Unless they redecorate once a week, even with padded inflated bills, that won't support more than a very few businesses. Meanwhile, 99% with a whole lot less needs something for their MILLIONS of tiny places.

Just what I'd expect from the criminal masterminds of Citi.

Think of the low income people who lap up whatever Rush and Beck say and then vote against their own interests. All "they" need to do is put out a few misleading and scary ads and those who let others do their thinking for them will drink the Kool-aid and vote accordingly.

Religion is certainly a big factor. It's amazing how passive people are about something they hold so dear, letting "Father" or the minister decide for them -- it's been that way for eons.

But a Mobster/Racketeer knows that the people we all vote for are for sale now to the highest bidder. So in order to keep most of his loot the Mobster/Racketeer buys the politicians, instead of the voter's votes, that he can't otherwise get away with stealing.

We have been playing against the rich people's stacked deck for over a hundred years. FDR cut the cards once, but the GOPers have been dealing off of the bottom ever since. Obama should have invested a lot more in rebuilding this country and creating jobs. So far IMHO, that is the democrat's biggest blunder since November. Repeal every one of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and it would pay for real economic first aid.

... a fatal flaw.

Why control the masses when you can control the loud and the representatives of democracy. Democracy that is for sale is plutocracy.

The wealthy are actually crappy consumers.

Might be true--a friend who does business in a variety of communities here in the northeast dreads doing business with Greenwich customers the most. His business has to do with dining and country clubs and he says they complain about the specials and tear them to pieces about the prices.

When I worked in advertising for McDonald's Corp., it was a well known fact that we had to be careful about price increases in stores around Wall Street. They would notice an increase of one cent in price on a Big Mac and would back off ordering it.


Cher

Although the rich may only PERSONALLY own 10 houses (or 20 or 30 or ...) they control huge blocks of purchasing power and most of what they purchase is NOT retail.

That is the market Citi is after. The market that the rich control.

>>the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous (home-grow)] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.<<

The report also says " the WORLD is dividing into 2 blocs"
( as has been predicted for some time)
The have and have-nots.
In this case, the very. very. haves versus not very at all nots.

increasing stupidity as it becomes a requisite to support the non-sensical, carcinogenic notion of allowing Plutonomy to rule the nation.

Plutonomy and Plutonium are both deadly poison, but whereas the latter has no intent of it's own, the former left to it's own devices can only increase in and magnify corruption and evil manipulation as a means of sustaining itself.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

Round 'em up, put 'em into camps, and take back what they have stolen from We the People.

While people are busy knocking the people in the $80-120K income range, the richest 1%($462K per year) are laughing all the way to the bank. Those in the $80-120K income range are the most heavily taxed because our progressive tax structure hits them the hardest. Meanwhile the richest 1% benefit from regressive taxation. That's why the richest 1% have managed to accumulate more wealth than the bottom 90%.

It's pretty simple really. If a person gets to a point where they make $100K per year or so, chances are they are paying a top marginal tax rate of 28% and 7.62% FICA on every dollar they make(or 15.24% if they are self employed). Meanwhile the richest 1% (who own 90% of all equity investments) get taxed only 15% on those investments and pay no FICA. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that no matter how hard a working American works, the chances of them every accumulating any real wealth are almost nil, while the ultra rich are effectively getting as much as a 30% better return on their investments due to the tax advantages. The rich get richer and nobody else has a chance.

Raising the tax brackets only stacks the deck even more against the middle class so long as equity investments are taxed at only 15% and the rich get a free ride on FICA.

http://www.lcurve.org /

The US population is represented along the length of the football field, arranged in order of income.

Median US family income (the family at the 50 yard line) is ~$40,000 (a stack of $100 bills 1.6 inches high.)

--The family on the 95 yard line earns about $100,000 per year, a stack of $100 bills about 4 inches high.

--At the 99 yard line the income is about $300,000, a stack of $100 bills about a foot high.

--The curve reaches $1 million (a 40 inch high stack of $100 bills) one foot from the goal line.

--From there it keeps going up...it goes up 50 km (~30 miles) on this scale!

A simple proposal would be to tax capital gains at the same rate as earned income. If a person were to make 50,000,000 in a year off investments in the stock market, he would be in the top tax bracket for most of his income. Even then, he would still walk home with over 30,000,000. Of course, there would have to be exceptions such as for IRAs and 401(k)s, but you get the gist.

However, I would add that if that were done, than tax brackets would have to be re-adjusted up the income ladder, not down. As it stands, the rich have been pushing the brackets further down on top of the middle class.

A big part of the problem is FICA. While Social Security is arguably the best and most successful program in the history of the US, it's paid for exclusively by the lower and middle classes. Someone who is self employed pays as much as 15.24% on every dollar they make. That's more than Warren Buffett pays in his total federal tax bill.

Social Security is every American's responsibility and no more so than those who reap the most benefit of what the US has to offer. State taxes and use taxes are mostly regressive also.

Universal health care is another great idea, but make no mistake it will be paid for by the lower and middle classes and the deck will get stacked in favor of the rich even more.

The income tax brackets used to apply to stock income also, but this changed in the last 2 decades and has been whittled away until the rich pay only 15% at most (assuming they pay anything at all).

That is, every dollar earned beyond that cap is not taxed for FICA. One proposal to deal with FICA insolvency by the 2040s is to simply remove the cap. The insolvency problem would essentially be a non-issue for another lifetime. Are you also arguing capital gains should also fall under a FICA tax?

Actually, I wouldn't say FICA becomes insolvent by the 2040s. What I really mean is by the 2040s, FICA will start paying out more than it gets in. Eventually, roughly 20 years after this milestone is hit, the trust fund is tapped dry, and there is no more buffer to cover the short-fall. In such a situation, FICA would have to cut benefits to all entitled by roughly 30%, so a senior citizen would only get 70% of what he or she is supposed to get in the future if nothing is done about it.

Income is income. Why should someone who lives off a trust fund get taxed at a lower rate than someone who punches a time clock?

Social Security costs about 4.4% of the GDP. So why is every working low and middle class American paying 12.4% (6.2% employee's share, 6.2% employer's share)? If you were to tax every dollar of income in the US at 4.4%, you could give every working American an 8% raise. Yes, it is a bit more complicated than that, but not much really.

quote have been notoriously wrong thoughout their entire history.

There is always a nebulous definition of what "rich" entails, but DU has a far better grasp on it than the general public. I bet a poll would find "rich" - the people that get away with too much, don't pay their fair share - defined as at LEAST over 100k, and most likely over 2 or 3 hundred K. A good share of DUers fit into the class you describe themselves, and know firsthand how it goes.

It is as you say, the upper middle class gets slammed hardest, along with the poorest. They don't have the political power to stop the lower classes from hitting back against "the rich"... but the TRUE rich do, and always escape.

There are probably only a few thousand people that basically need to have 99% of their assets confiscated and redistributed throughout society, followed by a 90% top marginal rate, ABOVE say... 200k? 300K?


Are stock options taxed? If not, they should be.

I would agree completely that most on DU have a much better grasp of the problem than the average man on the street.

But just try creating a new post complaining about much taxes the upper middle class pays and you'll get a chorus of people who say they only make $8K per year or whatever and how dare someone who makes more than the average complain about anything. What they don't understand is those people aren't the ones that are holding them back. If anything, they are shouldering the biggest burden.

I don't believe in wealth redistribution even under these circumstances. I do believe that hard work should be rewarded with all that society has to offer like a living wage, good benefits, time off, and fair access to the necessities of life, and that all Americans shouldn't have the deck stacked against them when it comes to accumulating capital. That isn't going to happen under our current system of taxation.

strife in the U.S. The accumulation of capital assets, or ownership of an asset, removes most of the production from that asset from the general economic activity of the economy and leads to diminution of the over-all asset pool.

So if we all just burned down our houses, businesses, and cash and moved to farm communes everyone would collectively be better off?

Because the wealthiest 1% dont have regular income. I've toyed around with the idea of a wealth tax where the wealthiest 1% would have to pay 1/2 of 1% of their net worth in taxes each year.

THAT would get us somewhere.

I don't blame anyone for wanting to get rich or for getting rich. Taxes should be levied on income, not wealth. I can even see a very limited inheritance going from one generation to the next. I think a truly progressive tax is what's needed and that goes for all taxes in all forms. As long as there's an equal playing field for everyone things will eventually even out. I can see an extremely high temporary tax rate (say around 90%) on the mega rich for a few years to make up for at least the past 2-3 decades of inequity to speed things up.

income tax.

That's not subject to FICA and is currently capped at a 15% top marginal rate.

The reasoning(if you can call it that) is that corporate income is already taxed at the corporate level (partially) so it shouldn't be taxed at the same rate as wage income. The reality is many (if not most) of the blue chip corporations (which make up the lion's share of stock volume) pay no corporate income tax at all. My solution to that problem is to do away with corporate income tax altogether and tax all equity investment income exactly the same as all other income. The net effect will be higher revenue receipts and the end of the tax loophole that the ultra rich currently enjoy.

The top % use our greed to divide the lower class from the middle class.

They also exploit the middle class's gullibility.

None of this is new.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:hQkLWctTKqwJ:w...

their raping and pillaging will continue. We've got to stop supplying them with men with guns.

See Russia 1917

And I mean that!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

about wanting to rule over us.

These people are delusional, self-absorbed, stupid bastards who believe that
the yacht owners can prop up the U.S. economy---all...by...themselves.

This is similar to "teh stupid from the neocons". Just like the neocon statement papers,
this plutonomy ramblings is a bunch of baloney wrapped in pseudo-intellectual-ease.

You can dress up dumb with pretty words. Anyone can buy a thesaurus. It's still dumb.

If the uber elites can keep the economy afloat--then why are we in a recession? Why
did leading economic indicators (such as the Baltic Exchange Dry Index) tank during the
initial phase of the recession? Demand for EVERYTHING plummeted. Gee, I thought
the elite and their caviar-soaked billions didn't need the peasants (e.g.--those making
less than $500,000 per year).

If so, why did we plunge into recession and why are we now plunging back into more
bad economic times?

There is no doubt that the uber rich will suffer less in dire economic times. They've
got more resources, connections and cash. However, these people do not drive
the bulk of our U.S. economy---the rest of the country does. The fact that they think
they can "go it alone" isn't "shocking" or "upsetting". It's totally laughable and
ridiculous.

Yes, the elites own the companies that supply an impressive cash flow. However, their
cash flow is dependent upon other people investing in their company or buying their
products and services. If the lower 95 percent can't (or won't) pay their credit-card
bills, what happens? If those who own such brands as Target, Kraft, United Airlines, Pizza
Hut, Walgreen's, Ford--don't have the American people backing them--they fail.

Just look at their analysis, which spells out that a plutonomy flourished "in the roaring 20's".
Are they stupid? The destruction of the lower, middle and upper-middle classes during this time
--and the concentration of wealth to the upper echelons--drove us into The Great Depression.
They mention how wonderful a "roaring 20's" plutonomy was--without pondering the obvious
history that followed that period?

IDIOTS!

The uber-elite nimrods snatching up everything and planning to rule over a bunch of powerless
peasants is a failed model and a recipe for economic disaster--not some brilliant intellectual analysis!

These people are damn dumb. The fact that this nonsense is written by some pompous asses who
know how to crack open Roget's and go to town--doesn't mean it's true. It's crap.

The failed neocons and the soon-to-be-failed plutonomists can take their fake cerebral jargon and
their ill-conceived, pie-in-the-sky unicorn dreams of world domination--and shove them up their asses.

If the memo is intended to argue for an investment strategy, it makes sense. But it makes no sense when it seems to suggest that economies following the plutonomy model are somehow healthier than the continental European economies and more egalitarian economies.

Invest in companies that sell to the rich, make high end products, etc. That economy is just fine. It's the mass market economy that's in a recession.

Recessions are so proletarian.

Basically the bottom 40% get just enough to sustain their lives & reproduce.

The next 20% of income goes to the next 19% of the population, the remaining 40+% goes to the next 60% and the last 20% of the population gets 0%. Breaking the last 20% down reveals that they actually have had a growing negative worth (~4%) since Raygun.

This, too, shall pass

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05mon4.html?a...

While government revenues might have bailed out the rest of us, say, people getting evicted from their homes. But, instead they had to take the government revenues and keep their $1.27 trillion.

It was, indeed, the biggest heist in history.

We wanted to help give him a great opening weekend. The plutonomy thesis was stunning. I hope this gets national attention.
I mean the dead peasant policies were grim but the plutonomy thesis is the part the media needs to spotlight.

with our Football, NASCAR and Television.

As long as everyone can see their beloved sporting event right in their living room, there will not be an uprising.

Once that is gone though, the rich fuckers had better head for their private islands and stay there. Once those redneck suckers who are fighting for their cause now figure out they have been duped, they will be storming the castles.

anything that might remotely help someone other than the uber rich as "socialistic" or "communistic" and we see how the braindead Beck-Limbaugh fans just regurgitate that back without any understanding of what they're saying.

that takes wealth from the middle class and distributes it among the wealthy.

Like the last modulus of wealth creation that just collapsed, just one probably has a few considerations left out.

Right now things are OK. The lunie right is blaming the lubruls for the mess they are in. Fox news is working hard to foment a civil war between the lubruls and the lunies. In the mean time, wealth is being shoveled toward the rich.

The problem is that if the lunie right figures out they've been had, they might turn on those that are actually responsible.

J

Don't they feel stupid having Michael Moore break this kind of a major news story?