On the contrary, the cohesion of groups will intensify in times of
declining (general) prosperity. Those who have access to vital resources
will guard them even more fiercely (or subtley) than they do now. In the
past 30 years, while real mean incomes in the West have declined (largely
hidden by ever-cheaper goods imports from China, etc -- so far!), those of
the rich have increased enormously. The protestations of politicians
against bankers and others (made in order to appease the growing anger of
ordinary folk) are of little avail. In almost all advanced countries --
America and Germany being the only (temporary) exceptions I can think of --
the most senior politicians (and the most senior civil servants) belong to
the same commercial layer that has had a privileged upbringing (instilling
that hard-to-define, but important social confidence), select education and
access to power and information not available elsewhere.
The nipped-in neck of the employment/wealth hourglass is nowhere near as
narrow as it used to be in times past -- when the differentials (wealth,
clothes, culture, access to weaponry, etc) could be gigantic -- but it's
heading that way in all advanced countries. The present persecutory
attitudes of Western politicians (particularly American) towards Julian
Assange and Wikileaks shows just how much those in the upper lobe fear
exposure of their inner talk from below.
When stress becomes too intense and widespread, as in 14th century England
(the Peasants Revolution) or the 17th century (the Civil War) or the 19th
century (factory labour and trade unions) or today (riots in Greece,
France, Belgium, Portugal and the UK [students only so far] ) then it's not
"every man for himself". They're intelligent enough to know that only by
associating together can they have enough power to at least make their
grievance known, never mind changing anything.
(What was so very fascinating about the recent student demonstrations in
London was the way that the mobile phone was used spontaneously to organize
constantly changing feints and thrusts in this street and that street
against the weak points in the police lines. As with the WikiLeaks
controversy, it's a moot point whether the upper lobe or the lower lobe
will make the most effective use of modern IT if the economic situation in
Western countries worsens in the coming years!)
K
At 23:29 17/12/2010 -0800, Mike wrote:
That works rather better as a country is on the way up when there are
benefits available for widespread distribution but rather less well on the
way down when it so visibly becomes every man for himself...
M
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:36 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Waiting for Robespierre
James Fallows oughtn't to have been surprised by the networking that goes
on in the oligarchy. It happens everywhere at all levels. All of us
preferentially retain the network of friends that we made in our highly
formative adolescent and early adult years (when our frontal lobes were
growing and developing enormously as we began to choose the p;articular
culture and roles that we wanted in adult life). It's part of our
immensely long genetic history in small groups.
America is supposed to be more democratic than most advanced countries.
But it's rapidly becoming the highly stratified country that older
cultures have long since been. In England, for example, the upper middle
class, who get their children into the best schools and universities
(particularly Oxford and Cambridge), have an almost total lock on the best
jobs in the country -- in finance, business, politics, media, academe.
And, as James Fallows remarks, many of these people glide in and out of
several different networks in which they have pals made in earlier years
at university etc.. There are exceptionally gifted individuals who break
into these inner circles from below, as it were, but they're relatively
scarce in comparison with the "old boy network". This is a tired old
phrase, as is "It's not what you know, but who you know, that's
important", but true nevertheless.
Keith
At 15:50 17/12/2010 -0800, Mike wrote:
Truthout:
BUZZFLASH DAILY HEADLINES
Does Pennsylvania Avenue eventually become Wall Street, or does it just seem
that way?
Obama's former budget director, Peter Orszag, is becoming Citigroup's vice
chairman of global banking, at a salary speculated to be well in excess of
one million dollars a year - and that doesn't include the "bonuses."
Orszag is just one in a long line of top-level Democratic and Republican
economic advisers in D.C. who make seamless rides back and forth from Wall
Street to Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill. As a Reuters article notes:
He [Orszag] follows in the footsteps of another prominent Democratic
government official - former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who became a
senior counselor to Citigroup and helped shape the bank's strategy during
the years leading up to the financial crisis. Rubin resigned under a cloud
of criticism in early 2009, after the struggling bank accepted $45 billion
in U.S. government bailout funds.
Rubin has come to symbolize the continuous "neoliberal" school of finance
that has been the course of both parties for the last few decades - and many
Rubin fellow travelers - such as Geithner and Summers - have been key to the
pro-Wall-Street tilt of the current White House.
James Fallows of the Atlantic writes that Orszag's jump to Citigroup "should
be shocking." But he laments that very few media outlets, political figures
or even progressive notables were outraged by another major example of the
oligarchy at work.
Indeed, Goldman Sachs (which Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson headed at one
time) just hired Theo Lubke, the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank's
efforts to regulate the derivatives market. Lubke - you know what's coming -
will become Goldman Sach's "chief regulatory reform officer in the
securities division to help navigate the impending overhaul of financial
regulations in the derivatives market."
The relationship of government financial advisers and regulators and "banks
too big to fail" is as toxic as methane gas in a coal mine.
As a result, like the miners who aren't forewarned of the risks of a
possible explosion due to the lax regulation of wealthy mine owners, we
don't get a warning of financial collapse until it's too late.
Mark Karlin
Editor, BuzzFlash at Truthout
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
<http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/>http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2010/12/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
