Perception of the 1% in 1896
Last edited Sat Jan 28, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Hopefully, GD is the correct forum for this post. My apologies if it is ill-placed.
I ran across the following whilst browsing through some old cookbooks and pamphlets. This pamphlet, entitled The Purveyor Cook Book (Jul 1 to Jan 1, 1896; no. 2), appears to be a gigantic advert for Crown Baking Powder (and other, odd, late 19th century products - like Root Beer, "made from real Roots!"
. . . but within the mish-mash of baking powder propaganda was this rather interesting take on "Millionaires". Historically, this was the Populist period in US history, so the sentiment is no real surprise, and while the math is a little suspicious it is fun to read, and I think offers a nice point of perspective on the issues of today. Keep in mind that the entire pamphlet is an advert, so the company that published it is going to insert itself often and positively into the discussion.
Note:
This publication is no longer in copyright
Original formatting - bold, italics, etc. - is maintained as much as possible
Millionaires
How the Wealth of One Person Detracts from the Wealth of Another
The "value" or "money" in circulation in the United States is now about 70,000,000,000 dollars. The population is about 70,000,000 people. The average wealth of each man, woman and child is about 1,000 dollars.
In the United States there are 4,047 millionaires. The average wealth of these millionaires is very great, being 3,000,000, instead of but 1,000,000 dollars. There are so many people who earn so little, and so many people who own so much, that, to say the least, one-third part of the population own and control nine-tenths of all "value" in the country.
By subtracting the wealth of the 4,000 millionaires and the aggregate wealth controlled by those own from 10,000 to 999,000 dollars, the average per capita of nine-tenths of the people is less than 133 dollars ! It has taken 200 dollars each from 63,000,000 people to create these millionaires. That is to say, should these millionaires divide up their wealth with the masses, among the people who own less than a million, the average per capita would be 333 dollars. But these millionaires will not share "value" with the people, unlike the J. P. Dieter Company, who divide profits with consumers of their specialties, so your average remains 133 dollars.
As a simple matter of fact, if you were to give away your 133 dollars to some person no better off than yourself, the average would remain the same. But if you purchase an article from some person better off than yourself, which you do in purchasing a cream of tartar baking powder at from 40 to 50 cents per pound; unless you obtain value for value the average is reduced, whether by one cent or one-millionth part of a cent profit - just that much, in proportion, is this average reduced, small and insignificant as it is.
Money is a representative of value, and need not be in itself of "worth" or "value." When you place a value on money, as itself, you place a fictitious value on money. There is yet another way of creating a "fictitious value"; it is brought about in this way: a certain article, baking powder, for example, or coffee, or anything else, is valued at so much money. For instance, CROWN Baking Powder is "valued" at 20 cents per pound can; another brand, worth no more, is valued at from 40 to 50 cents per pound can. That is to say, in this way a "depreciative value" is place on money and a "fictitious value" is placed on the cream of tartar; something of no value comes between the "exchange" and the "commodity." This "something" represents, between the selling price of CROWN and the selling price of a cream of tartar baking powder, a fictitious value of from 200 to 300 per cent of "false" profit, without an adequate "exchange" on your part. To give, or to throw away, is to reduce the average per capita below 133 dollars, and to so reduce is to make "real value" scarce. Where money is scarce, "commodity" is cheap.
Forty years ago we had no millionaires in America; money in the hands of the people was plenty. To day we have thousands of millionaires; money is scarce; the price of "commodity" should be correspondingly cheap. If the market value of any and all articles are not lower than in the past, rest assured that you are paying a "false value," and catering to selfish greed, without due recognition or recompense.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I must admit, I had great difficultly in following the argument being made in the pamphlet. However, just the fact that such an argument is being made in the first place - via a food product, no less - is really quite, uh, delicious!
Thank you again for posting this! 
I'm still not entirely sure what they're saying in detail - but the broad point was so very similar (especially the first portion of the piece) to the arguments being made today that it seemed interesting enough to post.
On a completely irrelevant note, copying it also made clear to me why I am so inclined to writing run-on sentences. I read too much of this kind of thing, loaded with never ending sentences! 
