In a Two Class Society: Which Is the Target?
June 2, 2016
I read two articles this morning. The first was, I thought, a bit of factoid candy. Your view may be different. Navigate to “Apple, Microsoft and Google Hold 23% of All U.S. Corporate Cash, As Tech Sector Accumulates Wealth.” The meaning of “all” and “wealth” are not defined. Who worries about the definition of terms? Ted Cruz maybe? Another member of a high school debate team? Interesting. Money in quantity is bad. Interesting.
The main point of the write up is, in my opinion:
For the first time, the top five companies on the Moody’s cash ranking are tech companies, with Cisco and Oracle following Apple, Microsoft and Google. Technology companies overall held $777 billion in cash, or 46 percent of the total cash across all non-financial industries.
So what? I worked for Halliburton years ago, and my recollection is that it had cash then. No once seemed too concerned, even Halliburton knowledge workers.
I then read “We Need to Challenge the Myth That the Rich Are Specially-Talented Wealth Creators.” Hold those horses. The idea that Thomas Edison types a “specially talented” seems at odds with what I have learned with my close encounters of the third kind with the individuals who have oodles of money—at least on paper.
There is the arrogance thing. There is the confidence that trivial problems like death and mass transit visionaries are going to solve. There is the spending for parties like a Yahoo Christmas, a Google off site, Palantir warm up jackets, and other high technology “investments.”
The write up states:
We need a finance sector that is fit for purpose as a servant to the economy instead of a master. Currently, most of what it funds is not productive industry but lending against existing assets: in the UK lending by the financial sector to productive businesses declined from 30 per cent in 1996 to 10 per cent in 2008, and has stayed low since, while lending to other financial institutions and the property market grew. But then, to the financial sector, £1 million profit from useless speculation is no different from £1 million from any other source. Yet the difference matters to the economy as a whole and hence to us.
There is a shift to a somewhat parental attitude:
There are other reasons why we can’t afford the rich: their undemocratic and indeed antidemocratic influence in politics (witness Davos and TTIP), their excessive and wasteful consumption, their bloated carbon footprints and the fact that many are in effect betting on unsustainable economic growth in the rich countries and have interests in continued fossil fuel use. I deal with all these in my book, but above all, we need to challenge the myth that the rich are specially-talented wealth creators; it is time to halt the flood of unearned income that goes to the top and reassert democracy in facing the challenge of organizing economies that stop rather than accelerate global warming.
When I think about the big outfits with cash and the sentiment about those with cash harboring “undemocratic” and “antidemocratic Influence”, I have a question:
What’s the fix?
I recall that in the Dark Ages, unruly peasants could make life unpleasant for the dukes, earls, and barons.
Today I assume the “fix” is to stop using online devices, flip open manifestos about social and technology policies that eliminate that rich poor gap, and get some folks in office who can pass more effective regulations.
I am okay with my computers, smartphone, and muddling along with my Palantir and Dark Web notebook projects. It seems evident that some folks have a different orientation. Maybe “dad” will curtail online access, implement filters, and put an end to the big outfits’ success? I am delighted I have a manual typewriter.
Stephen E Arnold, June 2, 2016
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
