'capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization .... at the expense of labor'

[marmar]

http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2010/10/16/the-citigroup-plutonomy-memos.html



Remember, remember, the Citigroup plutonomy memos:

Back in October, we coined the term 'Plutonomy' (The Global Investigator, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, October 14, 2005). Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in plutonomy countries. . . . (T)he lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor . . . contribute to plutonomy.

. . . .

We think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the productivity boom, at the expense of labor.

. . . .

RISKS—WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

. . . . (A) policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. . . . At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation (on the rich or indirectly though (sic) higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous laborers, in a push-back on globalization—either anti-immigration, or protectionism.

[indepat]

1. Who could have ever thunk it?

:patriot:

[FarCenter]

2. Only partly true, since hundreds of millions in a multitude of countries are now better off

Globally, labor has made advances. Whether they are proportional is hard to tell without evaluating global wealth distributions.

[blindpig]

6. As compared to billions.....

and those who are doing better can have it taken away at the drop of a hat as we are seeing in the 'advanced' economies even now.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

3. Globalism is Trotskyism Inversed ...

Instead of international socialism, it's international capitalism.

[tama]

5. Capitalism is imperialism

but same can be generalized to all agricultural civilizations so far.

[ananda]

4. See Alex Jones' End Game.

Very enlightening.