What Do Brazil, Mexico, Russia and the USA Have in Common?
What do Brazil, Mexico, Russia and the USA have in common?
A rapidly expanding billionaire class.
Rampant poverty.
And a distressed middle class.
That's the take of Pulitzer prize-winning New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston in a soon to be released book - Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (And Stick You with the Bill) (Portfolio, December 2007).
In it, Johnston seeks to afflict the comfortable top one tenth of one percent of Americans -- the 300,000 men, women and children who last year made more money than the bottom 150 million Americans.
Yes, we all have the right to vote and change this unbalanced state of affairs.
But political power in the United States is exercised by this narrow, rich segment of the population.
Much of the wealth transfer upstairs has come at the hands of corporate welfare artists who have shifted billions from the middle class to the billionaire class.
Some politician could take the central political issue of Free Lunch -- wealth inequality -- and run on it to the White House in 2008.
But the current crop of corporate candidates will likely ignore it so as to not offend the funding class.
While Johnston focuses on the perfectly legal schemes that bloat the richest of the richest at the expense of the rest of us, much of the thievery he documents is the result of pure un-prosecuted or under-prosecuted corporate criminality.
"One of the new rules has been to make sure there are far too few cops on the beat on Wall Street to even write down all the legitimate complaints, much less pursue more than a handful of evildoers," Johnston writes. "More importantly, the actions of Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers and the others were just part of a massive shift in practices and policies that continue. The Wall Street scandals are not over. The conduct they revealed is just becoming institutionalized."
"Thousands of executives at hundreds of companies took money from shareholders through deliberate actions that distinguish them from bandits only because they wielded pens instead of pistols," Johnston writes. "The techniques are subtler and less overtly violent, but the results are worse, for they undermine the legitimacy of society in ways that street bandits do not. The rules allow this."
In the book, Johnston takes shots at the corporate criminal class that would never make it by his editors at the New York Times.
"Unlike the common thief or bandit, these executives have the best and the brightest lawyers to explain away misconduct or to obfuscate.," he writes in the book. "In the rare instances when indictments are handed up, the cheated shareholders sometimes end up paying to defend the thieves who robbed them. Added to this are the legions of publicists who are paid to report what their bosses want us to hear - the antithesis of journalism's call to pursue the facts without fear or favor. The ranks of these image shifters are growing, while across the country a quarter or more of journalists are being fired, reducing further the chances that inconvenient facts will become known."
"The checks and balances provided by oversight, inspection, investigation and in extreme cases, prosecution have all been gutted in the name of deregulation and shrinking the size of government," he writes. "When there is no policeman on the beat the greatest beneficiary is not the taxpayer who is relieved of the cost of maintaining the police officer, but the thief."
Johnston points out that we used to prosecute loan sharks. But then we got rid of usury laws and passed new laws that allow "Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, MBNA and Citibank to exploit the poor, the unsophisticated and the foolish."
"These lenders, or their fronts, can now charge rates and impose penalties that were illegal, even criminal, a generation a go," he says. "The result? In the last 25 years or so, one American family in seven has sought refuge in federal bankruptcy court. "
We've turned vices into pastimes. Case in point - gambling subsidized by money that was promised to "help the poor, the elderly and the sick."
"In this way does Donald Trump take from the least among us to burnish his image as a supposed billionaire," Johnston says.
In a different time, this book would climb the New York Times Best Sellers list and stay at the top for a long time.
The bottom 150 million would read it and get angry.
And politics would go populist in 2008.
But as of now, Clarence Thomas, Alan Greenspan, and Ann Coulter are one, two and three atop the Times non-fiction list.
Johnston's book won't be in bookstores until December.
Time for a change.
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
28 Comments so far
Show AllSonOfPowerslave
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT....
Successive US administrations have been forcing their Military Agenda on emerging market Countries for decades. 40 Billion military aid [sic] to Israel, 30 Billion aid [sic] to Egypt, pressuring Japan to relinquish it's 60 year embargo on Foreign Military Interventions etc etc
Boost To Military Spending
(AFP) March 4 -
The Chinese have announced an increase in their military budget of 17.8%. That's a lot of new yuan to spend on military equipment - China's armed forces will get 350.9 billion yuan (about 45 billion dollars) for 2007....
Jiang, the Chinese spokesman, said the military expenditure would account for 7.5 percent of total government expenditure in 2007, compared with 7.4 percent in 2006.
"Overall, the proportion has been stable over the past few years," said Jiang, speaking ahead of Monday's opening of the annual session of the legislature, which is to approve the budget.
"The increases have been in order to make up for the weak basis of the nation's defence."
China's military expenditure in 2005 amounted to 1.35 percent of Chinese gross domestic product, compared with 4.03 percent for the United States, Jiang said.
"What I especially want to emphasise is that China persists in following the path of peace and development and in pursuing a defence policy that is defensive in nature," he said.
IN OTHER WORDS THE FIGURES ARE CORRECT AND CAN BE CROSSED REFERENCED BY MANY SOURCES....
YOUR FACTS: "...China is estimated to have spent 4.3%. FAR less???..."
ARE WRONG
What part of "military expenditures as a PERCENT OF GDP" do you not understand?
And, if you believe the figure for China, you are even more gullible than I thought.
'But then we got rid of usury laws and passed new laws that allow "Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, MBNA and Citibank to exploit the poor, the unsophisticated and the foolish."'
An excellent account of how this operates appears in the DVD "Maxed Out." Plus, you get see congressional whores complementing these slimey predatory lenders on their humanitarianism and compassion for the poor. It's a real treat. Check it out. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/maxed_out/about.php
Rank Country Military expenditures
1 USA 553 Billion
2 UK 68 Billion
6 China 45 Billion
7 Russia 32 Billion
11 India 21 Billion
24 Iran 6.3 Billion
25 Mexico 6.1 Billion
etc
[SonOfPowerslave: see if you can detect the odd country out for the ongoing 'warmongering pathology'...
and promotion of 'state sponsored terrorism'...]
SonOfPowerslave
Currently, US of good ole' A is spending over 46% of all military expenditure spent on earth by all countries combined!!!!
forextrader October 18th, 2007 1:25 pm
simonhhh "forextrader: You can add China and India to your list of emerging markets that have caught America [and it's incompetent economic leadership] with it's pants down…These tightly run economies; which spend FAR less on Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP...
In 2002, the USA spent 4.06% of GDP on the military. China is estimated to have spent 4.3%. FAR less???
simonhhh "forextrader: You can add China and India to your list of emerging markets that have caught America [and it's incompetent economic leadership] with it's pants down…These tightly run economies; which spend FAR less on Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP and GNP; look on at the Bu$hCo nutjobs and laugh all the way to their respective federal reserve banks….I'd say Bu$h the inferior has no idea what a fool he's made of himself internationally!!!"
Agreed! Excellent post!
Stilba's enlightening rant: "forextrader, don't be naive. You say several ridiculous things in your rant, but the main thing you need to understand is that the United States is not going anywhere. It is troubled, for sure, but it can come back astoundingly fast with a few changes from the top (the first being the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq). But don't take my word for it. Wait and see."
Yes Stilba we will wait and see, you naive little American sheep, you.
The only thing that will save america
is a military coup.
Donald trump was in the UK news the other week trying to 'persuade' a Scottish farmer to move after generations of living and working there: so that trump could build a leisure complex. It looked like an ugly episode to me, hope the erosion of peoples' rights don't travel accross the atlantic very well!
So, canuck chuck, do you think Lula stole the last Brazilian elections? Or are you upset that the 2004 gun ban referendum was defeat in EVERY Brazilian state?
What Do Brazil, Mexico, Russia and the USA Have in Common?
All have fake elections?
And I would add that more voices, not less, are needed. I'm running for office. Are you?
right on ezeflyer!
I love the idea of incorporation- or at least using some of those priciples to manage the national (and st/local) budget. Also, shut down the (privatley owned, est. less than a 100 years ago)) federal reserve that charges us interest to print our own money.
There has to be a model somwhere on a smaller scale where families or a co-op incorporated themselves.
READ THE BOOK PEOPLE!! Bunch a whiners I swear.
Well, Grover Norquist who helped to engineer a fiscal nightmare that would do Ebineezer Scrooge (prior to his spiritual transition) proud, may be happy now; but alas, the karmic brownie points of stealing away the few protections poor folk require, that is priceless. There ARE some things money can't buy, like a legacy that's taken into the continuum; and what these greed-festers have carved out for themselves will take lifetimes of SERVICE to repay. Within 100 years, all the neocons will be opting to become the next century's Mother Theresas...
If the growing grassroots is the only force that can change things, shouldn't we come up with a permanent solution that prevents oligarchies or hegemonies from arising again? One that benefits and pleases the most by preserving our ideological diversity as well as our natural diversity? So far I've found only three permanent solutions to the recurring problem:
1. Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy (by popular referendum) that makes the people the lawmakers in a version of direct democracy similar to Switzerland's. A country that despite having few natural resources, has the highest per capita income in the world, no wars in over 150 years though surrounded by warring nations, no boom and bust economy, no WOD and few drug problems, little crime and immigration problems, the best education and health care and a healthy environment, See http://www.ni4d.us/
No MSM support for this great idea means little or no support from the public and curiously, from progressives.
2. The grassroots Green Party where decisions are made by consensus, not by rich and powerful groups.
Being a global movement, it is best able to address global issues such as war and global warming. Because it is supported by small individual contributions and takes no corporate bribes, the people make the decisions, not an oligarchy. It's correct refusal of Big Money bribes puts it at a disadvantage in attracting membership but it is the largest and fastest growing third party.
3. Incorporating We the People into the largest, richest
and most powerful corporation against which all others will be forced to compete.
If every American citizen had equal non-transferable shares in our trillions of dollars worth of our public resources, then these would truly belong to all of us, not in words but in reality. The dividends we would receive from leasing our resources could lift all Americans out of poverty and probably make us all rich, with the best environment, education, health services and with lasting peace.
We the People Inc. could charge broadcasters a realistic fee for the use of our public airwaves, charge the oil companies fairly for drilling rights in public lands and a fair percentage from the oil extracted (like Hugo and Evo do). We could charge the mining industry for a percentage of our minerals extracted and the same for the use of our water resources, fisheries, roads, transportation and more.
That instead of socializing the costs of our self-destruction by the looting of our public treasury, the pillaging of our resources and the use of our young men and women as cannon fodder to enrich the corporations of the oligarchy.
The People Inc. could decide to get rid of unnecessary expenses like the gargantuan Pentagon budget, the Electoral College, the IRS, the Fed, obsolete paid professional politicians that take large corporate bribes to keep us poor. We could decide to make polluters pay, to make the banks behave and show Wall Street for what it is, a gambling casino with no regard for life.
As a for profit corporation, We the People could have an administration that works for us all, instead of for other corporations. And we could vote to hire and fire our administration at yearly stockholders meetings according to their performance, just as all other corporations do. We the People Inc. would make major decisions, not oligarchy politicians.
We the People Inc. could decide to do business only with ethical corporations that profit us economically but will not pollute our air, water and land. That would not offshore jobs and sacrifice lives for war profiteering. That would give us world peace and carry out the democratic will of The People Inc.
We may hate corporations for good reason, yet we continue to buy their cars, gas, shop at their mega-stores, watch their tv programs, etc.. Corporations as faceless machines that produce money often work against the public interest but their economies of scale guarantee that they will stay on their mindless paths until they destroy the planet unless We the People Inc. beat them at their own game.
Incorporating We the People seems a simple, attractive and permanent solution, also with no detectable downside except it's lack of publicity.
Regardless of how its done, if the permanence of a democracy depends on it's benefits to the most people and to our environment, not having to fertilize the tree of democracy with the blood of patriots periodically too is something to be considered.
I'll be sure to purchase a few copies and give them as Christmas gifts to friends who like to read.
Thanks, DC Johnston!
The rulers have lost control. All this financial chicanery is about staving off a stupendous depression collapse. The rulers have no more choice about impoverishing the majority of us than a sick man has about hacking off a gangrenous limb. It's the system, dear.
simonhhh, right you are. In fact, it seems that almost everybody (but Saddam Hussein and the middle class/poor in the U.S.) has managed to outfox our dear Mr. Bush over the last seven years, starting with his own inner circle. This seems to prove that it actually DOES matter who gets into that office. A decade ago I wouldn't have believed it.
The same people who rob us from Wall Street (and elsewhere) can be found behind the dandy notion of "flat taxes". They're running in the next election as silent enablers of Republicans.
Meanwhile, Hillary and Barack and Nancy and Harry are said to just not understand this economic facet at all. Right? They're somewhere between complicit and clueless! Right?
forextrader: You can add China and India to your list of emerging markets that have caught America [and it's incompetent economic leadership] with it's pants down...These tightly run economies; which spend FAR less on Military Expenditures as a percentage of GDP and GNP; look on at the Bu$hCo nutjobs and laugh all the way to their respective federal reserve banks....I'd say Bu$h the inferior has no idea what a fool he's made of himself internationally!!!
forextrader, don't be naive. You say several ridiculous things in your rant, but the main thing you need to understand is that the United States is not going anywhere. It is troubled, for sure, but it can come back astoundingly fast with a few changes from the top (the first being the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq). But don't take my word for it. Wait and see.
Mokhiber claims:
Some politician could take the central political issue of Free Lunch - wealth inequality - and run on it to the White House in 2008.
If you believe that one, I've got a bridge and some swamp land to sell you! Any candidate that tries to run on that theme, and who gains any traction doing so, will be subjected to such an all-out corporate media assault that it would shock even seasoned observers of the dysfunctional US political system. More fictions about the candidate would sprout up than even FOX could keep track of and embellish. The problems are much deeper than an apathetic public and uninspired and uninspiring candidates -- the corporate oligarchy has many lines of defense against any traditional approach to change the power equation. It is way past time for those on the left to think outside the box.
"Yes, we all have the right to vote and change this unbalanced state of affairs."
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
For further evidence how Putin has outwitted Bush and his schizoid talking to 'his father in heaven' gobbledygook check this out...
"Bush, aides grossly misjudged Putin"
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Friday, October 12, 2007
WASHINGTON — "The Bush administration's failure to win Russia's consent to install U.S. missile defenses in its European backyard and a growing list of other disputes suggest that President Bush and his aides have misread the man whose "soul" Bush thought he'd divined when they first met six years ago.
Bush's strategy on Russia assumed that Russian President Vladimir Putin embraced democracy, wanted integration with the West and sought a "strategic partnership" in which Moscow would acquiesce to U.S. policies such as NATO expansion. Feuds could be resolved through the close personal relationship that Bush believed he had with his Russian counterpart.
Instead, fueled by record oil and natural gas prices and resentment of what he lambasted in February as Bush's "almost uncontained hyper use of force," Putin has led global opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, hosted Palestinians on the U.S. list of terrorist groups, sold anti-aircraft missiles and other arms to Iran and stymied Bush's drive to tighten U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.
The Kremlin has steadily increased spending on defense modernization and revived symbolic long-range aerial reconnaissance patrols toward U.S. and European airspace.....
Bush and his aides "grossly misjudged Putin," considering him "a good guy and one of us," said Michael McFaul of Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
The former KGB officer created that illusion partly by appearing to share Bush's political and religious convictions, standard tradecraft employed by intelligence officers to recruit spies, he said.
"Putin . . . is a brilliant case officer," said Carlos Pasqual, a former senior State Department official now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington.
What many experts regard as the real Putin — a hard-line, derisive Russian nationalist — was on display Friday as he greeted visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates ahead of talks that failed to break the impasses over missile defense and other key security issues.
After keeping the U.S. officials waiting for 40 minutes, Putin mocked their mission in front of reporters and television cameras.
"Of course, we can sometime in the future decide that some anti-missile defense should be established somewhere on the moon . . . ," he said....." etc..etc..
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20508.html
I respectfully take issue with this title of this blog. You can't compare a has been Empire like the US with emerging markets like Brazil, Russia and Mexico. I am not saying that things in Russia, Brazil, and Mexico are oh so great (on economic equality and their respective politcal situations), but these emerging markets that are going places in the future. Their currencies are going through the roof and taking the US Dollar to the cleaners. Their economies are growing like a weed. The US on the other hand is a declining market and it's going down in flames. Brazil, Russia and Mexico will eat our lunch and deservedly so. Brazil is energy independent unlike the US. Mexico's economy should be like Germany, but America doesn't want that. They want to see a Mexico living hand to mouth. Well that ain't gonna happen much longer, America! Russia which had a drunk US puppet president in the 90's now has a leader that won't take crap from the US and rightly so! The US Dollar is falling through the floor and America obviously doesn't give a rat's ass. The US is becoming a failed state, and these emerging markets will kick our ass.