It's no wonder that the game is popular. There has been a simmering dispute, for instance, between the board of directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the government over bonuses. The board is demanding the "right" to pay out £1.5 billion in bonuses at the bank, even though there business sense is so utterly crap that the government has had to pump billions upon billions of pounds into the bank to keep it afloat. The government is set to own up 84% by the time all the pieces fall. And while millionaire bankers want to use public funds to pay themselves bonuses - for what great feat, I'm not sure - the average salary in the UK is £20,000. The board of directors is threatening to resign if they don't get their loot.
And, just to confirm the public's belief that bankers are greedy parasites, a study by the New Economic Foundation in Britain has found that for every £1 they are paid, bankers destroy £7 worth of value. This contrasts with childcare workers, for instance who create £7 worth of value for every £1 they are paid. So much for the rich being rich because of their contribution to society. As I suspected all along, it is the poorest who contribute the most with socially useful work, while the rich are a big drag. As the study notes:
It said the report challenged the notion that high pay did not matter as long as poverty was eradicated. It argues that high pay is often generated by businesses that destroy other parts of the economy or fail to pay the full costs of their activities.
The report said tax accountants were the most destructive, laying waste to £47 of value for every £1 they created. Elite City bankers (earning £1m plus bonuses) destroy £7 of value for every £1 they create and advertising executives wreck £11 of value for every £1 they are paid.
On the other hand, the report judged that waste-recycling workers generated £12 for every £1 spent on their wages. Childcare workers create between £7 and £9.50 of value for every £1 of pay and hospital cleaners create more than £10 in value for every £1 they receive in pay.
So, go on and give those rich a whack, I say. You're providing a social service to the rest of us.
I WOULD, OF COURSE, NEVER ADVOCATE ACTS OF VANDALISM against the wealthy of the world. I think it's politically counter-productive to pour sugar in their gas tanks, or drag the key to your Hyundai across that shiny coat of paint on the red Porsche parked outside of Lululemon. I think it demonstrates an immature class consciousness to put poo-poo in a brown paper bag, light it on fire, set it on the doorstep of a mansion and ring the doorbell, then run away. I abhor such acts and if you send me photos of such acts I will publish them as demonstrations of moral depravity that must never be copied.
I'm particularly hoping to get some such photos from China where, apparently, keying luxury cars has become something of a past-time. I've often enough pointed out that China is not a socialist country, whether it's by looking at the macro-economics, the levels of class struggle, or the differential access to healthcare. I would add to this litany of evidence, the fact that the poor hate the rich. In fact, according to China Daily, 96% of the population feel there is resentment against the rich.
Yi Zhao, a civil servant from Guangdong province, admitted that he dislikes the rich.
"Most of them collect wealth at the expense of the poor. Take those real-estate manipulators for example. They control the property market aiming for a higher price and a considerable profit," he said.
"On the other hand, I simply can't accept the skyrocketing prices. Isn't it unfair to the majority who are unable to afford an apartment, even if we squeeze together the savings of three generations?"
You'll be glad to know that just like here, the rich in China are also self-important and self-deluded pricks who think that they got where they are because they're so damn smart.
"If those people have the time to hate us and envy us, why don't they spend the time working, using diligence and intelligence?"
Well, maybe because they know what was pointed out in an article on the Wall Street Journal blog, that 90% of China's private sector ruling class are, in fact, the children of top government officials. Whether the economy has been organized primarily through the state or the market, it continues to be the same people and their children who benefit, generation after generation. They're not so different from us after all. But still, you shouldn't key their cars. Unless you really want to and there's a good chance you could get away with it...
THERE IS A STARTLING ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES on Sunday about the rise in use of food stamps in the US, with 1 in 8 now on the program - that's 36 million people - and 20,000 more people signing up every day! Remember a few years back when we were told that the "Anglo-American economic model" was the road to prosperity? The essential recipe was privatize, de-regulate, and remove any barriers to profit-making and this would grow the economy and thus raise all boats. Well, we have here the fruits of that model. What a disgrace - the wealthiest country in world history where 46 million people - 15 percent - are without healthcare.
Now nearly 12 percent of Americans receive aid — 28 percent of blacks, 15 percent of Latinos and 8 percent of whites. Benefits average about $130 a month for each person in the household, but vary with shelter and child care costs...
A recent study by Mark R. Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, startled some policy makers in finding that half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, the figure was 90 percent.
In the face of this outrageous quantity of food insecurity, it's worth noting that each soldier sent to Afghanistan costs the US government $1 million per year. In fact, with defense spending cruising at over $1 trillion - or about 36% of total federal government spending - it is easy to see how the US might eliminate the problem of hunger not only within its own borders but on the whole planet.
But beyond the institutional barriers to eliminating food insecurity (never mind poverty) in the US, the Times article, which interviewed several recipients, demonstrates that ideology is a major obstacle. One man, a self-described "hard-working Christian" has been forced recently to rely on food stamps.
Like many new beneficiaries here, Mr. Dawson argues that people often abuse the program and is quick to say he is different. While some people “choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits,” he is a married, churchgoing man who works and owns his home. While “some people put piles of steaks in their carts,” he will not use the government’s money for luxuries like coffee or soda. “To me, that’s just morally wrong,” he said.
But, as with this man, these ideological pre-conceptions - people on welfare are lazy, greedy, etc. - are coming up against the reality of American capitalism. With any rapid recovery extremely unlikely, men like Mr. Dawson are being forced to re-evaluate their assumptions bit-by-bit. Today it's the idea that hard work alone will keep your head above water. Tomorrow it might be that misrepresentations of the poor include him - ie. that he's not really as special as he thinks.
How this will evolve American consciousness is, of course, not clear in advance. It is something that will be struggled over with groups like the far-right Minuteman Project (and, of course, even bigger players like the Republicans and Fox News) on one side, and those who advocate a progressive worldview based upon solidarity - still woefully under-represented - on the other, all trying to win the hearts of people like Mr. Dawson. What is clear is that the longer the present crisis continues, the more difficult it will be for the centre to hold.
DreamHost Promotional Codes
