.
bks, absolutely right about Domhoff. He's a big disappointment for having claimed the mantle of Mills, writing books like The Power Elite 2000 (or some similar title; I read it, don't have it at hand) and the like. What killed me about the latter is that he's playing Son of Mills but the Pentagon was barely in the index, and the CIA left out altogether! He had a line about how the military's insignificant since it only represents 3% (at the time) of the total GDP pie, a willful blindness in so many ways, ignoring all the military spending labeled as something else, ignoring the central role in shaping policy and society, ignoring how it provides (until now) indispensable enforcement toward running the goddamn world, ignoring the hyperprofit potentials it allows, of course ignoring the incredible leverage that secret power allows over the public parts of the government... it's kind of like measuring the physical weight of someone's sex drive (balls/ovaries and half the brain, let's say) and declaring that it can't be determinative of very much because it's only a small percentage of one's total body weight.
But anyway, that's not Domhoff talking, it's our financial consultant, and the nice thing about a well-respected scholar like Domhoff giving it to us (instead of Alex Jones, say) is that at least we know it's a real person's testimony.
Elihu wrote:"If a drought strikes them, animals perish - man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish - man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them, animals perish - man writes the Constitution of the United States." – Ayn Rand
In a world of competition life's portrayed (key word) as a contest where we're forced to live by making gains at others expense,
man's abilities and understanding compared to the natural world is orders of magnitude so great that they could be characterized as "god-like" imo. in civilization, the idea is never to live and relate to each other like animals.
A deconditioned consciousness of mutual respect is the only way to cure this cosmetic disease.
or we could obey the Constitution. imo, doing so would be the realization of something like the above statement...
Fine until your last line, I'd say. Where do people get such an essentially religious idea?
In the 1770s, the top 0.1% of the time looked West and saw a seemingly endless continent that they could conquer from the natives with relatively little trouble. The main obstacle was a pesky notional Line of Demarcation that the Crown and Parliament had drawn on some map back in London, restricting the colonists to the coastal areas east of the Appalachians. Then they looked East and saw London was 6,000 miles away. That's why your Founders declared Independence and your Federalists (an essentially separate group) later framed a new Constitution. Lucky for us there was enough anti-Federalist upheaval (among the white men who were the only acknowledged full humans of the time) to at least force a Bill of Rights. All the best things about this country have come about thanks to those who struggled against the original vision of your Constitution, forcing amendments and building institutions that the Federalists had not imagined.
justdrew wrote:someone should ask the author of the OP what those top .1% are doing with their children?
Sending them to Harvard, Yale, etc. Finding one or two to run the show and giving the rest sinecure jobs in their own foundations, or capital for ventures if so inclined. Just as the Corleone goal is to shift the wealth secured from crime into legal pursuits, the top 0.1% seek to shift the wealth secured from legalized plunders into the non-profit entities that shape society and an impenetrable, largely off-shore structure of holding companies holding holding companies. The robber baron seeks to become (or to be succeeded by) something known as a philanthropist. The old money in this country has institutionalized itself to such a degree that some of the best known family empires are as rich as ever, but the individuals no longer appear on these Forbes lists of billionaires and the like. So it has been until now, with many of the super-rich understanding the need to restore some of the society's ability to sustain the damage they do, sponsoring universities, charities, churches and other institutions, albeit always with a view to reproducing ideologies compatible with their continued existence. Now, with capitalist civilization facing an end stage that may extend for another century or see global production collapses tomorrow, more of the top .5% than ever are seeking simply to become invisible: to render their wealth untraceable, to establish themselves in relatively discreet high-security enclaves, to exert economic control over nations at a remove, to have their names unknown to the world.
The figure that says the top 1% make 25% of the income and hold 40% of the wealth is a substantial underestimation, by the way. Most of the wealth held by the 99% or even 99.5% is in the form of primary housing. That represents security, but it's not disposable. It's not investable. It's not power. Even a high-earning professional with a bit of wealth and a fancy home (and children's college bills) cannot alone make the development decisions for his or her town as a whole. That person by himself doesn't get to place power plants or raze neighborhoods for an office park, or set up think tanks on the Potomac to directly influence Congress, or pay a billion dollars straight out of his pocket to establish foundations that attack Social Security (like Petersen) or assault the teachers union (like Gates).
Furthermore, large-scale capital never acts alone; it attracts borrowed capital and holds the mode of production through proxies of privileged stock and holding companies. If I own a majority share of voting shares in Company X at $4 million in stock (which counts as my personal wealth), that may give me access and control to company assets of $40 million and similar totals in company credit and cash flow. Also, I get to use the company jet, managerial retreats, etc. Let's call that a part of my indirect wealth, my corporatized. (In addition, there is extralegal wealth for example, drug money that goes altogether unaccounted, but let's leave that out for the moment.) Subtract housing and add the indirect wealth, and you probably find the top 1% holding 90% or more of the investable, active wealth: ownership of the means of production and the natural wealth from which everything flows.
how many are they having? Are they seeing the kids trained in the same fields or just letting the kids go do whatever they want?
They're having lots. Generally, just a couple get to captain the main ship, while the rest can pursue their dreams individually in chosen professions or as philanthropists, artists, or dumb leisure-society layabouts.
When the wealth is all trickling up, and those at the top are having children, the same old problems of aristocracy would come up wouldn't they?
Absolutely have, since long ago.
Wombaticus Rex wrote:I think that's worth reposting on this forum at least once every 2 weeks, myself. As I often remind myself when I'm on a WOO kick for too long: "Class warfare, class warfare, class warfare."
Thank you for this excellent article, WR. You know of course I will be cross-posting it, with thanks.
.
i kidd. you'd think i could appreciate something like synchronicity by now. it seems we are not all gifted equally in the "spidy sense" area...