Merge Left

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
— Martin Luther King, Jr.

inequality

The bottom 50% (wealth) held 1.1% of America’s total net worth in 2010 [New]

Written by

without comments

Inequality is on the march:

Table showing the share of net worth held by percentile of wealth owners, 1989-2010. Top 10 percent, especially top 1 percent, has increasing share of wealth, bottom 50 percent has only 1.1 percent of total wealth.

Between 1989 and 2010, the top 1 percent of the population went from holding 30.1 percent of the wealth to 34.5 percent, while the bottom 50 percent went from having 3 percent of the wealth to having just 1.1 percent. That’s right: In 2010, 50 percent of Americans had 1.1 percent of the total net worth (PDF), according to the Congressional Research Service. The share of wealth held by the next 40 percent of people, up to the 90th percentile, had also dropped, from 29.9 percent to 24.3 percent. Put another way (and it’s stunning however you look at it), 10 percent of people have 74.5 percent of the wealth.

Table showing the median and mean household net worth for selected years 1989-2010. Ratio of mean to median shows increasing inequality.

The median and mean household net worth dropped considerably between 2007 and 2010, but even as both dropped, inequality increased, with the median—the amount of wealth that half of people have more than and half of people have less than—dropping by 38.8 percent, while the mean—the amount you get when you add up all the wealth and divide it by the number of people—lost just 14.4 percent. That means that the amount everyone would have if wealth were distributed equally went from being 4.6 times the amount the person actually in the middle has to being 6.5 times that number.So: Prior to the financial crisis and the recession, there was massive inequality in America. Following the financial crisis and the recession, there is a Grand Canyon of inequality in America. For good reason, we talk a lot about how much of the wealth the top 1 percent have. We talk less about how little the bottom 50 percent have, but think about what it means that 50 percent of people have just over 1 percent of the money. Forget all the definitions you’ve heard of who is in the underclass. We’re on track to have “underclass” and “majority” be synonyms. And the Republicans have got a guy running for president who wants to speed the process.

No question that the Republican candidate wants to speed the process. The same thing applies to the Democratic candidate though.

 

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!

No Accountability Yet for Toronto G20 Police Crimes [New]

Written by

without comments

Paul Jay says until police and their political masters are held responsible under the criminal code, it can all happen again:

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

from the transcript:

It’s been two years since the Toronto G-20, two years since more than 1,000 people were arrested, hundreds of them brutally clubbed and violently assaulted by police. There’s been a series of reports looking into the police activities. First the Ontario Ombudsman issued a report. Then there was a civilian report looking into the activities of the RCMP, then the Ontario Independent Police Review Director, and now the Independent Civilian Review into matters relating to the G-20 summit—that’s the report issued by the civilian oversight board responsible for the Toronto Police.

Now that all the reviews and reports are in, the question remains: have people responsible been held accountable? And can it all happen again?

But before we dig into all of that, let’s remind ourselves what the G-20 was all about. Let’s take one more look at the big picture.

The 2010 G-20 in Toronto was a declaration by the global governing elite that the economic crisis, largely triggered by banks and financial institutions, would be paid for by ordinary people everywhere. It was also a declaration that force and the violation of basic civil rights would be used against those who protest and resist bearing the consequences of a crisis they didn’t cause. The more than 1,000 arrests at the Toronto G-20 was a statement by the governments of Canada, Ontario, and Toronto that mass protest would be met by mass arrests.

As I pointed out in a previous report, the missing words in the G-20 declaration were higher taxes on the wealthy and higher wages for workers—both obvious solutions to the stated goal of fighting deficits and dealing with a serious lack of demand in the economy.

What the G-20 leaders did agree to was this: “[The] advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016″—we know that means cuts to pensions/social services and other austerity measures. We see this plan being played out across Europe and North America and other countries. The arrests at the G-20 were made in defense of this global strategy.

And now reports from the Ontario Independent Police Review Director and the Ontario Ombudsman have made it clear: the police services responsible during the G-20 violated citizens’ right to free assembly and used excessive force in doing so.

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!

Missing (1982) [New]

Written by

with 5 comments [5 new]

What an excellent film! I wonder how did I miss it all this time. Missing describes the story of the disappearance of U.S. citizen Charles Horman in the violent aftermath of the the 1973 military coup in Chile. Horman was in Chile at the time along with his wife, Beth Horman, and his friend, Terry Simon. His father, Ed Horman, flew to Chile to join Beth in trying to find Charles. Ed was under the impression the U.S. embassy in Chile would help him.

Here’s the description on the Wikipedia article:

Missing is a 1982 American drama film directed by Costa Gavras, and starring Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, John Shea, Charles Cioffi and Janice Rule. It is based on the true story of American journalist Charles Horman, who disappeared in the bloody aftermath of the US-backed Chilean coup of 1973 that deposed leftist President Salvador Allende.

The film was banned in Chile during Pinochet‘s dictatorship, even though neither Chile nor Pinochet are specifically mentioned by name in the film (although the Chilean cities of Viña del Mar and Santiago are).[1]

Both the film and Thomas Hauser‘s book The Execution of Charles Horman were removed from the United States market following a lawsuit filed against Costa-Gavras and Universal Pictures‘s parent company MCA by former Ambassador Nathaniel Davis and two others for defamation of character. A lawsuit against Hauser himself was dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. Davis and his compatriots lost their lawsuit, after which the film was re-released by Universal in 2006.[citation needed]

There is a fascinating interview with Peter Kornbluth, director of the National Security Archive’s Chile Documentation Project at George Washington University, in the 2nd disc. As you can imagine the State Department took issue with the film at the time. When Bill Clinton declassified some relevant documents things changed. Can you imagine Barack Obama doing such a thing? Me neither.

 

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!

Paul Krugman’s Austerity debate on BBC [New]

Written by

with 3 comments [3 new]

Krugman wipes the floor with the two pro-austerity guests:

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

Daniel, also, posted about that.

And the segment where Krugman detailed his view of the current situation to the BBC host:

IFRAME Embed for Youtube
IFRAME Embed for Youtube

UPDATE: There was another segment with Paul Krugman and an ex finance minister of Greece. It’s at the 6 minute mark:

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

UPDATE END

And here’s the entire BBC program:

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

 

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!

James Galbraith’s ‘Inequality and Instability’ study [New]

Written by

with 4 comments [4 new]

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!

US education problems explained in one simple graph [New]

Written by

with one comment [1 new]

Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality:

Relative Poverty Rates in Twenty-One Rich Nations at the Turn of the Century for Children

Source: Timothy M. Smeeding, 2008. “Poorer by Comparison.” Pathways 3-5.

BlahEhMmmmInterestingFantabulous!