-Caveat Lector-
Dear Lucio,
If you really want people to wake-up to the deception and con-trick that is
called democracy and be easily able to understand it and fight the injustice
of it, please get them to access:-
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/2012/democra.htm
Peace be upon you,
JAH.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucio Benedetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 5:16 PM
Subject: [CTRL] Boom for whom?
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> The Numbers
> Letters at 3AM
> BY MICHAEL VENTURA
> http://www.auschron.com/issues/dispatch/1999-10-29/cols_ventura.html
>
> October 29, 1999: If you pay attention, the numbers make you sick. The
> numbers are about a ruling elite (they are not populous enough to be
called
> a "class") that doesn't care whether or not we know the numbers because
they
> are convinced both of their power and our helplessness -- or rather, our
> consent, every day, to be helpless. The numbers are about an America that
> isn't America anymore, a democracy that isn't a democracy anymore. The
> numbers are about a lie called "the boom." The numbers don't need much
> commentary; the numbers speak for themselves.
>
> The United States has the industrial world's largest gap between rich and
> ordinary citizens. Note: This isn't the largest gap between "rich and
poor"
> (though we have that too), but the largest gap between "rich and
ordinary."
> "The richest 1% of Americans enjoy about 13% of U.S. household income
under
> official definitions, which excludes capital gains -- But if capital gains
> are included, as they should be, those at the top have 20-25% more income.
> Marie Antoinette and the French nobility (also a wealthy 1%) had a
> comparable share in 1789" (Los Angeles Times, August 1).
>
> American technicians make 9% less now than in the late Seventies. American
> unskilled workers make 25% less. Simple laborers make 30% less. CEOs make
> 480% more (Boston Globe, October 16). These facts describe an even more
> drastic situation when you realize that 80% of American workers are still
> unskilled (The New York Times, July 5). So --
>
> The wealthiest 2.7 million Americans, the top 1%, have as much to spend as
> the poorest 100 million. (Read that twice.) That ratio has more than
doubled
> since 1977. In our "boom," four out of five households are taking home a
> thinner slice of the economic pie today than in 1977. Their share of
> national income has fallen just under 50%, from 56% in 1977. More than 90%
> of the increase in national income is going to the richest 1% of
households.
> Yet, according to the Budget Office, even this figure is low because it
> "excludes deferred forms of income like restricted stock," etc. Meanwhile,
> the average after-tax household income of the poor has fallen 12% since
1977
> (NY Times, Sept. 5). Yet --
>
> Americans lead the world in hours worked! We put in the longest hours
among
> workers in industrialized countries. So, not surprisingly, America gained
an
> astounding 22% in productivity between 1980 and 1986, for instance (NY
> Times, Sept. 7).
> In other words -- most Americans work harder, and American productivity
has
> gone way way up, yet these harder-working Americans are getting a much
> smaller slice of the pie while the wealthiest 1% are taking in better than
> 90% of the profit. In fact --
>
> "The typical married-couple family with children puts in 256 more hours of
> work -- six additional full-time weeks! -- than it did in 1989" (NY Times,
> September 6). And those typical people are making less an hour, when
figures
> are adjusted for inflation: "The men in that group are actually doing a
bit
> worse than 10 years ago -- inflation-adjusted hourly wages of middle-wage
> men [have been] 1.8% lower in 1999 than in 1989" (same article). So -- if
> you're an average working married couple you are working, in hours, six
> weeks longer than you used to, for less money. That added productivity and
> profit isn't going to you; it's going to the richest 1%. The benefits of
> your work and the hours of your life are being stolen, and you're putting
up
> with it.
>
> And what is the median household income anyway?
>
> According to the IRS, two-thirds of our "boom-time" Americans earned less
> than $40,000 in 1997. Said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the
> Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "Many Americans who make $80,000 a
> year, $100,000 or $120,000, think of themselves as middle class, but the
> fact is that while these people are not rich, they are also not in or even
> near the middle, which is only about $32,000 in after-tax income." (NY
> Times, Oct. 16). Meanwhile --
>
> Businesses across the spectrum are cutting the number of full-time workers
> who are entitled to benefits, to such an extent that "just one third of
all
> workers in California now conform to the stereotypical notion of
employment:
> working outside the home at a single, full-time job year-round as a
daytime
> employee" (LA Times, Sept. 6). When you consider that California accounts
> for more than 40% of the national GNP, the figure becomes even more
> astounding. "[In California] just 31% of women who work, compared with 35%
> of working men, work traditional hours" (LA Times, Sept. 13). "Few
benefits,
> lower wages, diminished labor standards -- this is the reality for the
> nearly 1 million temps under age 35. On average, they earn 16.5% less than
> their regularly employed counterparts. When it comes to benefits, temps
> better take their vitamins and look both ways before crossing the street:
> only 5% receive employer-provided health insurance" (LA Times, Sept. 6).
> While --
>
> "The nation has lost 500,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 18 months" (NY
> Times, Oct. 18). That means 500,000 people forced from well-paying jobs
into
> god-knows what.
>
> Sixty countries in this world are in "far worse" condition economically
than
> they were in 1980 (NY Times, July 14). In 16 of these countries, the
> world-wide boom has decreased the average life expectancy, especially for
> women (NY Times, Sept. 23). While in the United States, executives made
419
> times more than factory workers in 1998, compared to 42 times more (the
good
> old days) in 1980 (NY Times, Sept. 22). While in 1997 rents in America
rose
> twice as much as the rate of inflation, pricing many poor and old people
out
> of the (decent) housing market (NY Times, Sept. 24). And in the United
> States, "among blacks, incomes failed to rise and poverty failed to fall"
> (NY Times, Oct. 1). While "the ranks of the uninsured have grown by more
> than 4.5 million since President Clinton took office in 1993" (NY Times,
> Oct. 4). And how is poverty officially defined: $16,655 for a family of
> four, though "the Census Bureau has begun to revise its definition -- the
> bureau's new approach would in effect raise the income threshold for
living
> above poverty to $19,500 for a family of four." This new figure "tries to
> determine what a low-income family must spend in the 1990s not only to
> survive, but preserve a reasonable amount of self-respect." (Which doesn't
> sound like too much to ask.) This would assume that what the minimum a
> family of four needs per month is $506 for food, $481 for housing, $245
for
> health care, $249 for transportation, and $199 for personal expenses,
(Which
> amounts to $1.65 per person per day for "personal expenses" -- how would
you
> like that for a daily personal allowance?) If the official estimate is
thus
> revised, then "46 million Americans, or 17% of the population, would be
> recognized as officially below the line" (NY Times, Oct. 18).
>
> This, while 36 million American children live in households that are
> "food-insecure" -- my god, what a phrase, "food-insecure"; 70% of all poor
> children live in households where at least one parent works. In the 1990s,
> the number of "extremely poor" American children grew by 16% (Children's'
> Defense Fund, C-Span, Oct. 16).
>
> And yet we are treated to headlines like this:
>
> "Increase in Costs of Labor Stirs Up Financial Markets. Both the stock and
> bond markets fell sharply after the Labor Department reported that the
> employment cost index rose 1.1% from the first to the second quarter of
the
> year -- Mr. [Alan] Greenspan [of the Federal Reserve Board] has warned
that
> he would act "promptly and forcefully' at the first hint that inflation
was
> accelerating" (NY Times, July 30). Dig it: The cost of labor is called an
> "inflation indicator." Working people earning more money is considered
> inflationary; CEOs earning more money is considered a sign of
profitability.
> These basic assumptions and definitions are not seriously questioned by
any
> major American news outlet that I'm aware of.
> So much for the "free" market. Most Americans are working six weeks longer
a
> year, in wage-earning hours, and are earning less. It is clear from the
> numbers that their additional work is going directly into the pockets of
the
> top 1%.
>
> This used to be called "wage slavery."
>
> All of the leading presidential hopefuls -- George W., Al Gore, Bill
> Bradley, and McCain -- are enthusiastic advocates of this same "free"
> market. There is no viable candidate who advocates an alternative. So if
> you're a wage-earner in America -- or a "food-insecure" child -- you don't
> have a candidate. The numbers prove it.
>
> If the word "freedom" means anything, it means a measure of control over
> one's economic life. By this definition, you and I are not free. And if
> "democracy" means a political structure through which the average citizen
> has a say in how power is wielded in our lives -- then we do not live in a
> democracy. The American myth says that if you work hard and play by the
> rules, then the sky's the limit. Well, most rule-abiding Americans are
> working harder than ever and have the highest productivity in history --
but
> their share of the pie is less, and they have no recourse in the political
> system. We have become a nation of serfs. Worker ants. The numbers prove
it.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
