billionaires for bush
Come join the BILLIONAIRES FOR BUSH for a Bush Birthday Bash George Bush has given so much to the Billionaires that we just had to give something back. So on Tuesday, July 6th, from 5:00 to 7:30PM at a bucolic location on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Canõn and Rodeo Drives in Beverly Hills, the Billionaires for Bush will be wishing our favorite Cancer a Happy Birthday. Among our birthday gifts for our beloved leader will be the state of Ohio (thanks to Wally ODell, chairman of Diebold), Florida (thanks to Georgies own brother Jeb), the Bill of Rights (with everything but the 2nd Amendment crossed out), and all those missing Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. We will greet rush hour traffic with our joyful revelry, chanting Four More Wars! and More Money, Fewer Hands! Put on your Billionaire attire - your power tie and top hat or evening gown and pearls (or any combination thereof) and come out and celebrate with the Billionaires. Whether you're a War Profiteer, a Corporate Polluter, a Clear-Cutting Timber Baron or a Merged Media Magnate, you're welcome at the party. Have your chauffeur park the Stretch Hummer at one of the metered spaces at the parks in that neighborhood, or one of the paid parking lots South of Santa Monica. We will be setting up at 4:30PM, but you are welcome to come and join us whenever you're able to leave the boardroom that evening. And check us out online at: www.billionairesforbush.com "Run for the hills, here come the Billionaires!"
Re: Turkey: We are all billionaires
So, how do they make it? Lots of two income families in Turkey? And these people are employed...ain't the wages system grand? Mike B) --- Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kamu-Sen recalled that the lowest monthly civil > servant wage stood at TL > 570 million at present when the hunger line stands > at TL 581 million, > stressing that it's a miracle for a civil servant to > make their living > with his wage. > > http://www.turkishdailynews.com/old_editions/09_15_03/dom.htm#d4 > = * We have nothing that is ours except time, which even those without a roof can enjoy. Baltasar Gracián, Oráculo manual y Arte de prudencia http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Turkey: We are all billionaires
Poverty line rises to TL 745 million - ANKARA - Turkey's poverty line went up to TL 745 million and the hunger line to TL 581 million as of August, a survey conducted by leading public worker' union Kamu-Sen said. Following the most severe economic crisis of the country in 2001, thousands of people lost their jobs in Turkey, while those working people have found themselves in a state of exhaustion and desperation. Kamu-Sen said in its survey that the hunger line, which stood at TL 566 million in July increased to TL 581 million in August. The poverty line, which was TL 730 million in July rose to TL 745 million in August. The poverty line for a family of four increased to TL 1,587 billion from TL 1,581 billion in August, the survey said. Kamu-Sen recalled that the lowest monthly civil servant wage stood at TL 570 million at present when the hunger line stands at TL 581 million, stressing that it's a miracle for a civil servant to make their living with his wage. http://www.turkishdailynews.com/old_editions/09_15_03/dom.htm#d4
Those poor billionaires
Those poor billionaires By Larry McGurty A recent issue of Forbes says that of the top 25 billionaires in the world, the United States is home to 15. The world has 538 billionaires, of which 276 live here. The article said its annual Billionaires List for 2001 varies from previous lists in that this year it includes those who live off their wealth as well as the "working rich," whatever that may mean. While wealth measured in the billions is unfathomable to most people, a poll taken by the Pew Research Center shows that 52 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the country's economic direction, with women and nationally oppressed minorities being the most dissatisfied. The Forbes list shows something even more fundamental - that modern capitalism is turning the theories of Adam Smith, often referred to as the founder of bourgeois economics, on their head. In his "Wealth of Nations," Smith wrote: "The mere existence of a class of capitalists, and therefore capital, depends on the production of labor. For example: if a day's labor is only sufficient to keep the worker alive, that is, to reproduce his labor power, his labor would be productive because it would be reproductive; because it constantly replaced the values it consumed. But in the capitalist sense it would not be productive because it produced no surplus value. (It produced no new value, but only reproduced the old; it would have consumed it in the other. And in this sense ... a worker is productive whose production is equal to his consumption and a worker is unproductive who consumes more than he reproduces.)" When we try to envision the present economic chaos in relation to the super-rich, we can only say that these shakers and makers are dealing in "funny money" - that an economic system that rewards hard work with unemployment and greed with untold wealth, is an economic system that ill serves working people. The only permanent solution is to remove control of the means of producing and distributing wealth from those who prey upon the real producers and put an end to the nefarious schemes of the parasites and exploiters. Who are the rich? They are the top 1 percent of taxpayers; 1.25 million with incomes above $333,000. They also include nearly 200,000 millionaires. And then there's the super rich, the 400 who: had an average income of $110 million in 1998. saved $1.6 million in taxes because of cuts in the capital gains tax. collected 7 percent the cut in the capital gains tax despite paying only 1 percent of the nation's total income tax. paid 22 percent of their adjusted 1998 income in taxes, down from 30 percent in 1995. Over the last quarter-century, the after-tax income of the top 1 percent of tax filers has more than doubled, until their: share of household wealth increased from 33.4 percent in 1962 to 38.1 percent in 1989. average wealth more than doubled from $4,851,800 in 1962 to $10,203,700 in 1989. share of after-tax income increased from 7.3 percent in 1977 to 12.3 percent in 1989. The top 1 percent own: 47.7 percent of all common stock, the bottom 80 percent of families own 4.1 percent. 32 percent of all other financial assets; the bottom 80 percent own 8.5 percent.
Re: billionaires
G'day Pen-Pals, The Margin Call - a sound never heard by ordinary punters in Australia before - is booming across the land. The market here is down 6 per cent for the morning, and there's no sign of serious bottom-feeding yet. Of course, you have to remember that NewsCorp is a whopping presence on the Sydney exchange, and news of Rupert's sick prostate hit only last night. House prices are gonna take a hit by all accounts, as apparently many have been putting their houses on the line to join the fun. And over in even more battered Japan, economists are saying (a) they can't see a tenable bottom (b) they don't think it's fair they should be taking such a hit for a problem that self-righteous ol' Unca Sam had so long and so obviously allowed to grow in his back yard. Asian economies got a real lecture to go along with their pain in '97 and '98 - and now they would doubtlessly like to return the favour. Only they're copping it this time as well. I guess the early exiters must have serious money lying fallow, but it's hard to imagine how they're gonna pick their moment for re-entry. The fund managers must always have been scared of the dot.con sector, contributing to the bloat only to keep their clients, and they must be hesitant to re-enter at values still above 1998 levels. When they do re-enter the NASDAQ, one would imagine we're going to see the behemoths gain huge relative value at the cost of all their smaller would-be competitors. This looks like the standard Marxian 'low profits>crisis>capital destruction>increased concentration and centralisation' process at work to me. Reckon the NASDAQ might be a shorter list in a month or two (and that the people Michael Hoover listed will have more market power than they had a month ago). I guess this needs only another few days of decline to expose the exposed. And then all those who've been saying that the upside of all this is that Greenspan won't have to hike again might have to think again. Credit might be very hard to get in economies waiting to see just how significant and widespread will be the bad-debt problem coming out of all this. And then the real economy might begin to groan. Is this the way to think about what's going on? Cheers, Rob.
billionaires (fwd)
probably too much to expect that below-types will start jumping from fifteenth floor windows any time soon (and their going bye-bye won't destroy capitalism), but one can hope... Michael Hoover > Here's how some famous billionaires fared as the stock market plunged > this week. > > William H. Gates III, chairman and chief software architect, Microsoft > Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - news), lost $11.1 billion on his 741.7 million > shares of the company. > > Charles R. Schwab, chairman and co-CEO of Charles Schwab Corp. > (NYSE:SCH - news), lost $2.6 billion on his 175.2 million shares. > > Jeffrey P. Bezos, chairman and CEO of Amazon.com, lost $2.4 billion on > his 117.5 million shares. > > Michael S. Dell, Chairman and CEO, Dell Computer Corporation > (NasdaqNM:DELL - news) lost $2.3 billion on his 306.1 million shares. > > Jerry Yang, Chief Yahoo! of Yahoo!, lost $1.6 billion on his 45.4 > million shares. > > Stephen M. Case, chairman and CEO of America Online, lost $122.4 > million on his 8.90 million shares.
[PEN-L:5009] FW: WILL BILLIONAIRES FIGHT INEQUALITY? by Ralph Nader (fwd)
FYI. Nancy Breen, PhD, Economist Applied Research Branch National Cancer Institute EPN Suite 313 6130 Executive Blvd MSC 7344 Bethesda MD 20892-7344 Express mail address: 6130 Executive Blvd, Suite 313 Rockville MD 20852 phone: 301 496-4675 fax: 301 435-3710 -Original Message- Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:39 PM To: Spirit of 1848 Cc: nancy krieger Subject:WILL BILLIONAIRES FIGHT INEQUALITY? by Ralph Nader (fwd) fyi ... -- Forwarded message -- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:24:55 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) Subject: WILL BILLIONAIRES FIGHT INEQUALITY? by Ralph Nader WILL BILLIONAIRES FIGHT INEQUALITY? America's leading consumer activist writes a provocative public letter to billionaire Bill Gates. By Ralph Nader Third World Network Features Mr William H Gates, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Microsoft Corporation, 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. 27 July 1998 Dear Mr Gates: An astonishing calculation comes from Professor Edward Wolff of New York University and presents an important opportunity for you. Professor Wolff, a wealth economics specialist, estimated that your net wealth is greater than the combined net worth of the poorest 40% of Americans (106 million people). That includes their home equity, pensions and mutual funds, but excludes their personal cars. When Professor Wolff made his analysis, your net worth was only $40 billion. Now, according to the latest Forbes listing of billionaires, your assets exceed $51 billion and that may be outdated, given the most recent surge in Microsoft stock. So it is fair to assume that the mostly secondhand cars of these 106 million Americans can now be included and then some. All this wealth makes you the world's number one working rich person. Apart from the more than medieval size gap between your wealth and theirs, it is more than a little worrisome that tens of millions of Americans have so little net property worth, some after a lifetime of labour. As Jeff Gates, author of the new book, The Ownership Solution, says: 'Capitalism is very good at creating capital but terrible at creating capitalists.' The United States now has the sharpest wealth disparity of any Western nation. The wealth of the top 1% is greater than that of the bottom 90% of Americans. As author Gates observes: 'The implications attending inaction are staggering fiscally, socially, politically and even environmentally.' If you knew the range of Gates' experience in Washington and the business community, you would conclude that his normative conclusion was not 'a random thought'. As might be expected, on a worldwide plane, wealth disparities are staggering. According to the United Nations Development Programme, the assets of the world's 358 billionaires were greater than the combined incomes of countries with 45% of the world's people (about three billion human beings)! All these chasms are widening against a background of modern and accelerating technology, declining trade barriers, mobility of capital, medical advances and presumably a greater awareness of what history's most tragic mistakes, avarice, monopolies and cruelties can produce. As one illustration, last year, more people in the world died (nearly six million) from tuberculosis and malaria than in any previous year. The growth in gross global GNP and capability did not stop these diseases of poverty from their mass destruction. Concentration of power and wealth and the gross insensitivity of economic and political leadership had a good deal to do with these preventable casualties. There is obviously a problem of distributive justice that has not been given the attention it deserves by the leaders of global capitalism. I saw a T-shirt being distributed at a conference recently with the message: 'A Rising Tide Lifts All Yachts.' A telling phrase for our times. Warren Buffett, possibly the world's number two working rich person with assets exceeding $33 billion, is your dear friend and fellow card player. Let me suggest that you team up with him to sponsor, plan and lead a conference of billionaires and multi-billionaires on the subject of National and Global Wealth Disparities and What do Do About It. The quantity, quality and distributional dimensions of economic output will drive participants to come to grips with the fundamental purposes of economic systems and their economic indicators. With the dual sweep of the Gates-Buffett hands, the serious and consequential plight of humanity would become a matter of high alert for those business colleagues and acquaintances of yours who aspire to move from success to significance. During our brief meeting earlier this year at the Time-Warner 75th anniversary dinner in New York, you replied that you were open to communication (by E-Mail, you smilingly suggested). I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ralph Nader -ends- Abou
[PEN-L:5715] Re: 358 Billionaires = 2.7 Billion People
If I'm not mistaken, check out the UN Human development Report 1996. Another helpful reference is the World Development Report 1995, Workers in an Integrating World. The 1996 version should be available in a few weeks. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 16 Aug 1996, Alex Izurieta wrote: > Shawgi, > > Impressive picture of 'freedom' brought about by capitalism!!! > Freedom to climb up, freedom to ...slide down, ehh??? > > But, could you give us precise references? > > >A United Nations report says that ... > > It might be useful to get hold of the report. > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > Alex Izurieta > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Institute of Social Studies > P.O. Box 29776 > 2502 LT The Hague > Tel. 31-70-4260480 > Fax. 31-70-4260755 >
[PEN-L:5713] 358 Billionaires = 2.7 Billion People
Shawgi, Impressive picture of 'freedom' brought about by capitalism!!! Freedom to climb up, freedom to ...slide down, ehh??? But, could you give us precise references? >A United Nations report says that ... It might be useful to get hold of the report. Thanks, Alex Alex Izurieta E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Institute of Social Studies P.O. Box 29776 2502 LT The Hague Tel. 31-70-4260480 Fax. 31-70-4260755
[PEN-L:5711] 358 Billionaires = 2.7 Billion People
A United Nations report says that the last 15 years have seen a tremendous growth in wealth for some side by side with an "unprecedented decline" for others. In the top 15 industrialized countries, there has been a dramatic surge in economic growth since 1980, according to the UN's Human Development Report 1996. "Over much of this period, however, economic decline or stagnation has affected 100 countries, reducing the incomes of 1.6 billion people," the report says. "In 70 of these countries average incomes are less than they were in 1980--and in 43 countries less than they were in 1970. Over 1990-93 alone, average incomes fell by a fifth or more in 21 countries." This last drop was mostly in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The UN study finds that "the world has become more polarized, and the gulf between the poor and rich of the world has widened even further." Some facts the UN study finds are: * The poorest 20 percent of the world's people saw their share of global income decline from 2.3 percent to 1.4 percent in the past 30 years. * The assets of the world's 358 billionaires exceed the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people. * During the last 30 years, the proportion of people with negative per-capita income growth tripled. * In the 1980s, the socialist countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union did much better economically than all but a handful of countries. But after the return of capitalist exploitation, these countries "suffered steep declines in per capita income-which fell on average by a third from the peaks in the mid-1980s." The report's stark picture is a virtual condemnation of capitalism. Though that is not its authors' conclusion. The report offers many suggestions on what could be changed in order to eliminate what is called the "rich-poor gap." But it does not say how these suggestions might be instituted. That's because it can't. Because the report fails to clearly indicate that capitalism is the source of the problem, it cannot offer the only possible solution: the elimination of capitalism. Karl Marx, in his classic study of the workings of capitalism, showed that the conditions of capitalist production can produce great wealth only by also creating grinding poverty. He said, in fact, that this is an "absolute general law" of capitalism. (Capital, Vol. 1, p. 644) Marx was not saying, as some argued at the time, that capitalism would force the real wages of the workers to decline more and more. This has not happened, though even the highest-paid workers are vastly poorer than the wealthy ruling class. The law of capitalism Marx found is that there is an absolute impoverishment of a section of the working class that the capitalist system throws out of the production process: the chronically unemployed, the elderly, disabled persons, etc. These are the permanent poor who have no chance of coming out of poverty. This poverty pulls down the living standards of the entire working class. The permanent poor serve as a reserve labor force-workers who are forced to accept any wage, no matter how low, in order to escape this grinding poverty. This pressure is used to drive down wages for all workers. Capitalism has never been able to eliminate poverty. It has not eliminated poverty either in the United States or around the world. Capitalism not only creates a permanent layer of poor people, but there is also the periodical impoverishment of workers hit by corporate downsizing, layoffs, cutbacks, and wage reductions. Capitalism's failure to eliminate poverty is proof of its bankruptcy. It is an outdated economic system. Revolutionary socialism remains the best answer. Workers World, August 1996 Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
