Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Globalization Marches On
Growing popular outrage has not challenged corporate power.
Shifts in global power, ongoing or potential, are a lively topic among policy makers and observers. One question is whether (or when) China will displace the United States as the dominant global player, perhaps along with India.
Such a shift would return the global system to something like it was before the European conquests. Economic growth in China and India has been rapid, and because they rejected the West's policies of financial deregulation, they survived the recession better than most. Nonetheless, questions arise.
One standard measure of social health is the U.N. Human Development Index. As of 2008, India ranks 134th, slightly above Cambodia and below Laos and Tajikistan, about where it has been for many years. China ranks 92nd-tied with Belize, a bit above Jordan, below the Dominican Republic and Iran.
India and China also have very high inequality, so more than a billion of their inhabitants fall far lower on the scale.
Another concern is the U.S. debt. Some fear it places the U.S. in thrall to China. But apart from a brief interlude ending in December, Japan has long been the biggest international holder of U.S. government debt. Creditor leverage, furthermore, is overrated.
In one dimension-military power-the United States stands alone. And Obama is setting new records with his 2011 military budget. Almost half the U.S. deficit is due to military spending, which is untouchable in the political system.
When considering the U.S. economy's other sectors, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and other economists warn that we should beware of "deficit fetishism." A deficit is a stimulus to recovery, and it can be overcome with a growing economy, as after World War II, when the deficit was far worse.
And the deficit is expected to grow, largely because of the hopelessly inefficient privatized health care system-also virtually untouchable, thanks to business's ability to overpower the public will.
However, the framework of these discussions is misleading. The global system is not only an interaction among states, each pursuing some "national interest" abstracted from distribution of domestic power. That has long been understood.
Adam Smith concluded that the "principal architects" of policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers," who ensured that their own interests are "most peculiarly attended to," however "grievous" the effects on others, including the people of England.
Smith's maxim still holds, though today the "principal architects" are multinational corporations and particularly the financial institutions whose share in the economy has exploded since the 1970s.
In the United States we have recently seen a dramatic illustration of the power of the financial institutions. In the last presidential election they provided the core of President Obama's funding.
Naturally they expected to be rewarded. And they were-with the TARP bailouts, and a great deal more. Take Goldman Sachs, the top dog in both the economy and the political system. The firm made a mint by selling mortgage-backed securities and more complex financial instruments.
Aware of the flimsiness of the packages they were peddling, the firm also took out bets with the insurance giant American International Group (AIG) that the offerings would fail. When the financial system collapsed, AIG went down with it.
Goldman's architects of policy not only parlayed a bailout for Goldman itself but also arranged for taxpayers to save AIG from bankruptcy, thus rescuing Goldman.
Now Goldman is making record profits and paying out fat bonuses. It, and a handful of other banks, are bigger and more powerful than ever. The public is furious. People can see that the banks that were primary agents of the crisis are making out like bandits, while the population that rescued them is facing an official unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent, as of February. The rate rises to nearly 17 percent when all Americans who wish to be fully employed are counted.
Bringing Obama to Heel
Popular anger finally evoked a rhetorical shift from the administration, which responded with charges about greedy bankers. "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat-cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama told 60 Minutes in December. This kind of rhetoric was accompanied with some policy suggestions that the financial industry doesn't like (e.g., the Volcker Rule, which would bar banks receiving government support from engaging in speculative activity unrelated to basic bank activities) and proposals to set up an independent regulatory agency to protect consumers.
Since Obama was supposed to be their man in Washington, the principal architects of government policy wasted little time delivering their instructions: Unless Obama fell back into line, they would shift funds to the political opposition. "If the president doesn't become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose" the support of Wall Street, Kelly S. King, a board member of the lobbying group Financial Services Roundtable, told the New York Times in early February. Securities and investment businesses gave the Democratic Party a record $89 million during the 2008 campaign.
Three days later, Obama informed the press that bankers are fine "guys," singling out the chairmen of the two biggest players, JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs: "I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free-market system," the president said. (Or at least "free markets" as interpreted by state capitalist doctrine.)
That turnabout is a revealing snapshot of Smith's maxim in action.
The architects of policy are also at work on a real shift of power: from the global work force to transnational capital.
Economist and China specialist Martin Hart-Landsberg explores the dynamic in a recent Monthly Review article. China has become an assembly plant for a regional production system. Japan, Taiwan and other advanced Asian economies export high-tech parts and components to China, which assembles and exports the finished products.
The Spoils of Power
The growing U.S. trade deficit with China has aroused concern. Less noticed is that the U.S. trade deficit with Japan and the rest of Asia has sharply declined as this new regional production system takes shape. U.S. manufacturers are following the same course, providing parts and components for China to assemble and export, mostly back to the United States. For the financial institutions, retail giants, and the owners and managers of manufacturing industries closely related to this nexus of power, these developments are heaven sent.
And well understood. In 2007, Ralph Gomory, head of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, testified before Congress, "In this new era of globalization, the interests of companies and countries have diverged. In contrast with the past, what is good for America's global corporations is no longer necessarily good for the American people."
Consider IBM. According to Business Week, by the end of 2008, more than 70 percent of IBM's work force of 400,000 was abroad. In 2009 IBM reduced its U.S. employment by another 8 percent.
For the work force, the outcome may be "grievous," in accordance with Smith's maxim, but it is fine for the principal architects of policy. Current research indicates that about one-fourth of U.S. jobs will be "offshorable" within two decades, and for those jobs that remain, security and decent pay will decline because of the increased competition from replaced workers.
This pattern follows 30 years of stagnation or decline for the majority as wealth poured into few pockets, leading to what has probably become the greatest inequality between the haves and the have-nots since the end of American slavery.
While China is becoming the world's assembly plant and export platform, Chinese workers are suffering along with the rest of the global work force. This is an unsurprising outcome of a system designed to concentrate wealth and power and to set working people in competition with one another worldwide.
Globally, workers' share in national income has declined in many countries-dramatically so in China, leading to growing unrest in that highly inegalitarian society.
So we have another significant shift in global power: from the general population to the principal architects of the global system, a process aided by the undermining of functioning democracy in the United States and other of the Earth's most powerful states.
The future depends on how much the great majority is willing to endure, and whether that great majority will collectively offer a constructive response to confront the problems at the core of the state capitalist system of domination and control.
If not, the results might be grim, as history more than amply reveals.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
102 Comments so far
Show AllKinda zoomed by like a roaring 767...
"Bringing Obama to Heel" - gotta luv it ;)
An average termite mound has a better chance of survivability than the vaunted civilization of Homo Sapiens. Humans are too vain and stupid to be nihilists, and they want to colonize the galaxy with this hubris vacuum, then dance with different stars. I suspect the very ocean and rocks are laughing at us, plus those whatever particles that zap through our bodies without so much as a by your leave. I miss Issac Asimov, who predicted much of this shit, and Carl Sagan who clung to hope that either Asimov was wrong, or that some ethical ETs would come charging to our rescue and not use us for sex toilets the way we do every thing else weak.
someday hoi polloi will go to the streets en masse to protest the recently revealed fact the president/dictator of these newnighted states of amerika stomps kittens and puppies for fun....then the ragged will leave their hovels flicking their bics, demanding an apology...and by god they will be given one...so sincere an an apology, that they will commence to crying and shredding their tatters in sympathy and deep...deeeeeeep patiotism...(i love when it all comes together)
Cynic! :)
One thing is 24,000 children dying daily from deliberate policies to scare the bottom half paupers - the world's 2.7 bn living on less than USD 2 a day - into working harder. That we can live with. We've learned how to, and it's easy. But cruelty to small, furry, cute animals, that's where we have to draw the line. (Never mind the cows and pigs and chickens and such - they were made to die for our skins. - Remember: Pegasus died for our skins!)
Save the photogenic kittens now!
Chomsky rareley writes in such simple terms. I like how he articulated the rise of the financial industry as the dominant economic force in the U.S. today. Wall Street and banking have evolved into a separate species from the rest of the economy. Their historic role was to provide the means for speculation which would spur real growth in production and innovation. Today it's a means unto itself.
The industry's main strategy now is to keep a steady river of cash flowing into the market. During sharp spikes - such as the tech and housing bubbles - the big investors cash in handsomely. With the windfall they don't invest in widget factories or R&D. It's too risky vis-a-vis plowing it back into the market and other venues of speculation that not even Solomon could understand. Afterall, the money from the windfall is THEIRS. If you wanted to invest in building widgets, you borrow the money. Then, if the enterprise goes tits-up, declare bankruptcy and not lose any of your own funds.
And this is the Achilles heal of trickle down economics. Tax cuts given to big wealth is supposed to spur greater investment by them in the real economy, thus generating more growth, jobs, etc. But they've taken the money and stockpiled it, spent on big-ticket items for themselves or, mostly, invested it. But to keep this modified Ponzi scheme going, there needs to be a constant influx of funds into Wall Street. That's why day trading by the commoners was allowed and the cynical push to privatize Social Security. They don't care about solvency - Wall Street just wants the gargantuan transfer into the market.
It's said that the first time Gingrich heard the theory of supply side economics, he about creamed his shorts. The aptly-named Arthur Laffer scribbled some ridiculously simple graph on a restaurant napkin depicting the fantasy: "Wow!" shouted Newt, "You mean we can cut taxes for the wealthy AND increase tax revenues!? Thankya Jeezus!"
Chomsky had to write this in simple terms as it was for an audience of New York Times readers. That pathetic crowd has suffered massive, irreversible brain damage from years of constant exposure to toxic levels of disinformation.
The byline says New York Times Syndicate. Did this piece actually appear in the Times or Times online? If so I congratulate them for giving him a platform.
I couldn't find it in a search of the NYT.
This is an extremely grim picture that he paints. The most depressing aspect is that I don't see anything on the horizon that could challenge this state capitalist system. We're heading in the wrong direction and we continue to do so.
"Creditor leverage, furthermore, is overrated. In one dimension-military power-the United States stands alone."
While I generally like Chomsky's writing, I think he missed the boat on this one.
The US Military is being funded by foreign loans. When those loans are called, what happens to your high maintenance military?
What happens to the military? Nothing. Didn't you see Obama's budget cutting proposals? Social programs are going out the window, military is protected.
Yeah I predict the next brave new glorious "reform" to pay for empire will be to force us to buy our pensions out of pocket from private investors, ie the privatization of Social Security. It will trumpeted as pensions for everyone and besides the S.S. trust fund (which has been raided) is broke, and the deficit (caused by imperialist wars, faux health insurance reform, and bailing out the banks )is too large, etc a nd all the "Huff it in Post "readers will throw a party and praise Jeeeeebu.... err I mean Obummet for "saving" the newly privatized Social Security. Hey it worked for health care "reform," didn't it. Nothin' like when the proles applaud their own subjugation I say. :( Not that I am cynical about the powers that be or anything mind you...
Just a year ago I would have told you that SS in untouchable. After seeing Obama work his magic on health care, I suspect you are right.
It takes a Dim to dismantle a village. The Dims are the best sucker punchers. What's sad is that at one time the Dim swere probably were at at least somewhat on the side of Union working people, 40 years ago ie two full generations. It's sad the Dims abandoned working people, now we need to abandon them in turn and work against them to save the few remaning fragments of our tattered social safety net.
If the Chinese took back their money, we'd have half a chance to get our jobs and exports going. The dollar is too strong, man.
Try answering your own question.
The US has the biggest strongest military in the world. Let's say you are Japan, and want your money back. The US says to you, "fuck off". What are you going to do?
Furthermore, more subtly, when you have so much of your money invested in something, when you have so much money loaned to one country, the US, you are both effectively dependent on each other. If you bring the US down, you go down with it. You are stuck in a death embrace with each other.
Creditor leverage vis a vis a lone superpower such as the US, is different from creditor leverage vis a vis a much smaller country.
You did a good job of connecting the dots for him.
What follows is my rebuttal to an American "f... off". Because we are funding the military (and by implication, the MIC) with borrowed money, any recall on those funds would prevent the military from fulfilling its daily financial obligations. I.e, purchases could not be made, staff could not be paid, contracts would not be funded, ad nauseum. In order for the MIC to continue operating in such circumstances, the US would print more money (LOTS more money; the MIC is expensive), which would devalue the dollar relative to world currencies, which would precipitate a sell-off of foreign investments in the US, which would undermine our global credit rating, which would collapse our domestic market putting 10s of millions of people on the streets, which would..... You get the picture.
This is what I see as a possible scenario. Others may see differently when they peer into the crystal ball.
There is one problem with the idea of the creditor nations pulling the plug on the dollar investments and that is, with what will they replace the dollar? The Euro is slipping and with the financial problems facing quite a few European countries, it may not be the place for anyone's money these days.
The British pound? It too is slipping. One fast rising currency in recent years has been the Canadian dollar but for some reason I don't see them making that switch. So even though China and Japan might want to ditch the dollar, they don't really have good options for where to go.
Interest rates are down because they don't have to be high. But if the large holders of US debt did start moving their money, then you can be sure that US interest rates would go up so as to lure them back.
You are looking at things as if the US were a small country. The US isn't say, Iceland.
If the US dollar were to be rapidly devalued, it isn't just the US that gets hurt. In fact, in the event of a rapid devaluation of the US dollar, it is Japan, China, S Korea that are going to be hurt more, for 2 reasons:
firstly, all those US dollars that Japan, China, S Korea hold suddenly become much less valuable. If you are the Japanese central bank, do you want to see the huge pile of US dollars you are using as a bed halve in value? Every dollar you are holding overnight becomes worth only 50 cents? Or a quarter?
Secondly, in the event of a devaluation, US exports will increase, while imports will decrease. This is why currency devaluation is often a strategy used by countries to kickstart their economies, and to deal with balance of payments problems. Consider how dependent the economies of Japan, and especially China, are on selling things to Americans.
So, in the event of a rapid devaluation of the US dollar, Japan will see its huge amounts of imports to the US decrease, due to Japanese goods becoming much more expensive, AND it will see the value of the huge pile of US dollars it is holding decrease.
And since the US has the strongest military, a military solution, whether via threats, or via actual action, to get the US to comply isn't possible.
Doesn't seem like such a great idea from the standpoint of Japan, now does it?
"Globalization Marches On - Growing popular outrage has not challenged corporate power"
How quickly - relatively - we went from hopes and trust in a "classless society" in the 1960-70'ies to a Global Class-System benefitting the few at the cost of the many.
It's Charles Dickens' worst scenarios globalized.
And we're responsible, through pretty mindless comfortable consumption and being fooled again and again into not reacting, from personalized fears of conflict combined with material distractions. That's how it is, that's what we do - and don't.
IT IS HAPPENING IT HAPPENING
this very conversation is taking place all over the planet earth France Greece island south America Africa the middle east Asia Russia Australia India name it.
A hundred years of imperialism colonialism trauma and exploitation cannot end overnight millions R speaking as I type these words.
Let us connect the book the pen the streets & the art to transcend borders cultures visions solutions policies.
Not long ago this conversation was unthinkable I say we can evolve exponentially.
So much to do so many of us let us start with accountability of government and corporation. war crimes fraud cooking the books of corruption,diplomatic immunity and bail outs.
Let us for a start ask Boeing to drop tourists in Jerusalem but not bombs in Gaza for they do manufacture weapons too.
The CEO OF Macdonald was asked what he was doing in Iraq around the early stages of the assault and rape of Iraq he replied we do not do politics we here for business.
I say it is about time we repositioned words by doing so we reposition actions consequently we define accountability and evolve from there. We must become many and yet remain one.
Let us use the internet but never let go of the old world nothing is substitute to two souls gazing into common grounds and dreams.
In Soulidarity.
Good one.
"collectively offer a constructive response."??????.........are you talking to me? ok then, you there, and you, and you and you, open your windows, stick you heads out and shout "i'm mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore!".....yes indeed a cynic and crazy and old...this country is made of up of the self serving....college kids are in the streets to protest tuition hikes! and in truth were in the streets to protest viet nam because of the draft....(i am now going to protest by pressing really hard on these keys)...EAEAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
RE: Globalization: Would you be willing to give up your cell phone? The reason I'm asking ( i.e., the idea of people pulling together for a common good) is based on a recent bee study article.
It is a hypothesis, NOT a proven theory, but some are wondering about the demise of bees.
Colony collapse ( similar to a Wall St. breakdown, but in the Nature community,) is occuring, and researchers are studying whether radiation from cell phones is causing bees to lose their sense of direction, and like E.T., they can't get home and they starve.
Since without bees, our food resources pretty much die, what would people do if this hypothesis proves true?
If true, then Rachael Carson and T.S. Eliot were both right, and "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper."
"Mans" inhumanity to man" is bad enough, but imagine all of those Titans of world power being taken down ( along with the rest of us)
Bees and honey , which is the perfect food, as it never rots, but oh my, civilizations certainly do!
China and India will lose the fight for Africa and it's infinite resources. Thus they will lose the fight for global dominance; Russia will be a contender, but when the blood finally dries, when the killing abates, the U.S. will own that continent. The power derived will place this predator in a position of dominance unparalled since England's colonies upon which the Sun Never Set.
YA DON'T NEED A SWORD TO CUT FLOWERS
OR A GUN TO BLOW YOUR MIND
gh
Where do you get the notion that China, India, and Russia won't win the fight on what you mentioned? The US appears to be making it too easy for them giving them our jobs, letting own our debts, importing most everything from them, losing to them on intelligence, etc... As for infinite resources in Africa, I thought that all resources on this planet are finite. Surely, you jest.
Have you alerted Beijing and Moscow?
They might reward you for saving them so much trouble.
Half of the idiots in this country will vote for the republicans and the other half of the idiots will vote for the democrats. Well, we have identified the problem, we have way too many idiots.
Chomsky is sui generis, and I believe really is as important as his admirers think he is.
But man, he's a pedestrian and dreary writer!
He's just reflecting the reality around him and using academic preciseness of crossing ts and dotting i(s), there is nothing wrong with that IMO. While his writing doesn't have say the flowing beauty of an Arundhati Roy or the cutting humor of a Joe Bageant the information he conveys is so important, thorough, and factually documented that it's worth slogging through IMO.
I agree.
But as you point out, it can be a slog.
It is good to see CD posting Chomsky's articles. However, I do agree with previous posts. This is Chomsky lite..
Published on Friday, March 26, 2010 by the New York Times Syndicate..
Chomsky goes mainstream?
Well, well the NY Times. Your moving down Noam, congratulations!
This article is more like Chomsky; "Militarizing Latin America"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25054.htm
There are things which can be done to help correct the social imbalances.
Public, only, funding of USA elections. Get all the private money out of elections. We may then see the dissolution of the two party system, and the emergence of egalitarian political parties which do the most good for the greatest number.
Population control is a must. A smaller world population has obvious benefits.
Amen on public campaign funding. Naked bribery---no matter what other Orwellian euphemism the-powers-that-be may assign to it---now completely controls the levers of power. Naked bribery and an unaccountable propaganda industry, both now 'legitimized' by the Supine Court (as they once legitimized slavery), are wielded against the public through extortion by a criminal financial sector government. Our country's experiment with democracy, however promising and unique in history, appears to be following the time-worn, inexorable historic lifecycle of all Republics turned empires.
But this time the liquidation of empire could still be very different than chaos and war. As Mayans saw it, history is more like spiral than a repeated time loop, and at times breakout transformations do occur as long ago they predicted for our now immediate future. We do seem to be headed for a uniquely 'interesting' future, and one that could also be surprisingly great and wonderful on the other side of the crisis. We still need hope even though the last preacher dashed it. (His attempts to re-use his old script now sound so tinny and hollow in the theater).
It is rising consciousness on a sufficient scale that can dramatically alter the potentially darker path of history. Consciousness is rising here. Public treasure, Doctor Noam Chomsky is flooding the town square with light. I still believe there are enough good people to turn this ship around when the time is right.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Seriously folks, if you want a break from life here in DUH-MERICA, go to the PBS World Focus site and look at yesterday's special show entirely devoted to renewable energy in Denmark. Guaranteed to raise almost anyone's IQ 30 points:
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/03/26/worldfocus-special-edition-on-renewable-energy-in-denmark/10119/
As usual Noam Chomsky provides solid analysis. But we will have a tough time confronting the power of the power elites who have caused these problems, as they not we have the real power at least in the short run. They aren't called power elites for nothing. But odds are power elites hate becoming extinct as much as anyone else, and thus will be likely to bring about at least a certain level of reforms to insure that their nation states don't become completely failed states.
In the long term after such reforms come which temporarily might well give more power to those other than the power elites, a real opportunity for reform and rebellion from the bottom wil likely take place. At that time, such a rebellion by the masses is crucial to survival of all.
We need ultimately to get back to the Bretton Woods agreement which provided for a solid stable exchange for all currencies internationally.
Also I'd have to say the USA is only minimally a democratic state if even that today and surely not a functioning democracy with its policy of torture of innocent people abroad, spying on its people without any warrant, its foreign policy of endless war, along with its use of proctology tests on those going through commercial airports by those not having any medical training, and other such actions contradict any such notion. For nine years it's been so.
Again a less salient point, but one nevertheless is the false interchangeable use of England and Britain. England isn't nor was it in the time referred to a nation state, but rather a country within three countries making up the state of Britain. The real problem here is created by the arrogance of those in England who put out such non sense. But with his background Chomsky surely should know Britain and not England is a state. This has been official since the May 1707 Act f Union.
AD
"Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?"
Patrick Henry
Sounds like today doesn't it?
NEWS FLASH.
Life expectancy has gone up in just about every ex-communist( in a economic sense) once the market was liberalized to allow privatization.
THIS JUST IN.
Most child labor for Multinational corporations where it still exist is part-time factory work, as opposed to full time working on a farm. This allows children to go to school rather then be confined to an age old peasant life.
SPECIAL BULLETIN , Capitalism in India is directly responsible for phasing out the caste system...
Read Norbergs "In Defense of Global Capitalism" It will destroy your socialist philosophies with a VENGEANCE.
Globalization is very good, it breaks down racism, and allows me to enjoy PHO in Texas while a pen pal plays Wu-Tang in Germany.
TELL THE PEOPLE
You're kidding, right?
NO CAPITALISM IS GOOD, talk to any of my friends who escaped the USSR
I'm not sure what you mean. Did you mean to say "No, capitalism is good" by any chance?
NO NEED TO YELL, we've already heard this stuff from the school system. But as for the USSR, I want to point out that calling a place "socialist" does not make it so. We can argue about what defines socialism, but I believe there are a few central characteristics- workers' self-management, abolition of wage labor, and so forth. The USSR had none of these things.
On the other hand, I don't know of anywhere in the world with "pure" capitalism, whatever that really is. The U.S., for example, is certainly not characterized by free markets. There is an enormous amount of planning involved, only the ones doing the planning, as Chomsky points out, are the very wealthiest.
With that said, I wouldn't even want a transition to dogmatic capitalism. I'm not sure that it has ever really existed on a large scale, but if it did I imagine it would look something like feudalism. That's why I don't just like to call myself anti-capitalist. It's too ambiguous, and it's disconnected from reality. I would rather come out as a socialist and a libertarian (not a contradiction, not at all) and reclaim the words.
So, I'll agree with you. No capitalism is good.
My point is the most ambitious attempts at socialism were horrible failures..
Once you accept we are no smarter then those who trusted Stalin and Mao you'll understand why all your leftist ideals are flawed.
The problem with Russia wasn't a flaw in Marx's theories it was a problem with Russian culture embracing hierarchy from what i can see. How is Medaev and Putin working out for you guys in the current post modern capitalist era of Russian history?
Which reminds me a joke:
Putin and Madev are having dinner at a restaurant and the waiter comes up ask Putin how would you like your steak?
Rare and bloody says Putin.
And the vegetable, asks the waiter?
He too will have his steak rare and bloody.
So don't blame socialism for Russia's systemic problems that shit isn't going to fly for anyone paying attention.
Hint #2 socialist Sweden is doing great both in the stability of their financial system and living standards.
Chomsky talks extensively about "inequality", "lack of egalitarianism", the absence of "social balance", and significantly the "spoils of power" --- which is really the 'spoils of war' or the 'spoils of EMPIRE'.
Noting, "This pattern follows 30 years of stagnation or decline for the majority as wealth poured into few pockets, leading to what has probably become the greatest inequality between the haves and the have-nots since the end of American slavery."
While Chomsky is a consummate political analyst and committed activist, the economics of the situation are perhaps worse than he paints.
The US is actually far worse in income (and wealth) inequality than other countries. Economists' gold standard of analyzing income inequality is the GINI Coefficient of Income Inequality --- which is a scale from 0 to 1, in which 0 relates to absolute equality of income in a country to all citizens, and 1 signifies all income captured by ONE PERSON.
On this scale the US is very high (inequality) at 0.49 --- which is almost literally off-the-charts compared to all other supposed advanced democracy in Europe and Japan, which run from a low egalitarian 0.23 to a still moderate equality of 0.34. Communist China and the former Soviet Empire (now Russia) are 0.45 and 0.47 --- slightly more egalitarian than the US, which may well allow America to approach the workers' paradise, and Mugabe kleptocracy of Zimbabwe (now 0.53) based on the fast rising GINI of inequality in the US even before this latest corporate/banking screwing we are experiencing.
So, yes, Noam, the US is in an awful position in fair, normal (for a democracy) income inequality, and non-egalitarian distribution of income (and wealth is even more skewed).
And, yes, this is to be expected in the nature of the "Spoils of Power" in an Empire -- which is what the US now is, as a disguised ruling-elite Global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE --- which controls 'our' country by hiding behind the facade of its TWO-PARTY modern 'Vichy' sham of democratic government.
And, even the US Global Empire's own CIA acknowledges that a high GINI index (above 0.45) is the best barometer of internal civil unrest and potential revolution in any country so afflicted.
So, it would seem that an Empire is as an Empire does, and that is that income and wealth are monopolized at the tip of the pyramid of ruling-elite hierarchy --- and that this ineluctably (and thankfully) generally leads to revolution --- which the US certainly needs to shake it from its death-spiral of EMPIRE.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
The US Empire, much like the British Empire and the Roman Empire, will continue to expand, at great cost of life and wealth, until it collapses upon itself, is destroyed by a bigger Empire, or becomes a third world nation is rendered irrelevant, ( that would be my prediction ).
China is allowing the US to spend trillions of dollars to maintain the empire, and they are loaning the US more every day.
Soon they will stop buying US Treasury bonds, bills and notes, as will the rest of the world, and the US Dollar will collapse and a new world currency will be put in place.
This is a good thing for the planet, not so good for the Empire's peasants ( that would be you and I ).
We do not deserve to have so much while the rest of the world has so little, we never did.
To Hell with the US Empire!
Think like an Anarchist- Live like a Pacifist,
Peace.