https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD8jOlHazbk&ab_channel=RedactedTonight
Monday, December 7, 2020
The Rich Gain Billions While Workers Are At Food Banks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seJ_xh5sEXU&ab_channel=RedactedTonight
Donald Trump's Georgia Rally is DELUSIONAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZUtkn7aZ24&ab_channel=ChristoAivalis
After Trump leaves, US and Israeli aggression against Iran remains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cwY6NbeZdM&ab_channel=TheGrayzone
WEAK EXCUSES From "Progressive" NOT To Leverage POWER.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UVyywAMFFg&ab_channel=TheJimmyDoreShow
The top 1% of households own 43% of global wealth, 10% owns 81%, while the bottom 50% have just 1%.
by michael roberts
The top 1% of households globally own 43% of all personal wealth while the bottom 50% have only 1%. The 1% are all millionaires in net wealth (after debt) and there are 52m of them. Within this 1%, there are 175,000 ultra-wealthy people with over $50m in net wealth – that’s a miniscule number of people (less than 0.1%) owning 25% of the world’s wealth!
This information comes from the 2020 Credit Suisse Global Wealth report which has just been released. The report remains the most comprehensive and explanatory analysis of global wealth (not income) and of the inequality of personal wealth. Every year the CS global wealth report analyses the household wealth of 5.2 billion people across the globe. Household wealth is made up of the financial assets (stocks, bonds, cash, pension funds) and property (houses etc) owned. And the report measures this, net of debt. The report’s authors are James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas and Anthony Shorrocks. Professor Anthony Shorrocks was my university flatmate, where we both graduated in economics (although he has the much better mathematical skills!).
According to the 2020 report, total global household wealth rose by USD36.3 trillion during 2019. But the COVD-19 pandemic cut that 2019 increase by nearly half (USD17.5 trillion) between January and March 2020. However, because stock-markets and property prices then rebounded, thanks to government and central bank credit injections, the Credit Suisse researchers reckon that total household wealth was still slightly up by mid-2020 compared to the level at the end of last year, although wealth per adult was slightly down.
By mid-2020 global household wealth was USD 1 trillion above the January level, a rise of 0.25%. As this is less than the rise in adult numbers over the same period, average global wealth fell by 0.4% to USD 76,984. In comparison to what would have been expected before the COVID-19 outbreak, global wealth fell by USD 7.2 trillion, or USD 1,391 per adult worldwide.
The most adversely affected region was Latin America, where currency devaluations reinforced reductions in dollar GDPs, resulting in a 12.8% reduction in total wealth in dollar terms. The pandemic also eradicated the expected growth in North America and caused losses in every other region, except China and India. Among the major global economies, the United Kingdom has seen the biggest relative erosion of wealth.
Most shocking is the still huge inequality of household wealth globally. As shown by the wealth pyramid graphic below, inequality remains stark, both geographically between the 'rich north' and 'poor south'; and between households within countries.
At the end of 2019, North America and Europe accounted for 55% of total global wealth, with only 17% of the world adult population. In contrast, the population share was three times larger than the wealth share in Latin America, four times the wealth share in India, and nearly ten times the wealth share in Africa.
Wealth differences within countries are even more pronounced. The top 1% of wealth holders in a country typically own 25%–40% of all wealth, and the top 10% usually account for 55%–75%. At the end of 2019, millionaires around the world – which number exactly 1% of the adult population – accounted for 43.4% of global net worth. In contrast, 54% of adults with wealth below USD 10,000 (ie pretty much nothing) together mustered less than 2% of global wealth.
The researchers reckon that the worldwide impact on wealth distribution within countries has been remarkably small given the substantial pandemic-related GDP losses. Indeed, there is no firm evidence that the pandemic has systematically favoured higher-wealth over lower-wealth groups or vice versa. In 2019, the number of millionaires worldwide soared to 51.9 million, but has changed very little overall during the first half of 2020.
At the apex of the wealth pyramid, the report estimates that at the start of this year there were 175,690 ultra-high net worth (UHNW) adults in the world with net worth exceeding USD 50 million. The total number of UHNW adults rose by 16,760 (11%) in 2019, but 120 members were lost during the first half of 2020, leaving a net gain of 16,640 in UHNW membership since the start of 2019.
During the first half of 2020, the number of millionaires shrank by 56,000 overall, just 1% of the 5.7 million added in 2019. Membership has expanded in some countries and some have lost significant numbers. The United Kingdom (down 241,000), Brazil (down 116,000), Australia (down 83,000) and Canada (down 72,000) all shed more millionaires than the world as a whole.
It seems that wealth inequality declined within most countries during the early 2000s. The fall in inequality within countries was reinforced by a drop in “between-country” inequality, fuelled by rapid rises in average wealth in emerging markets. The trend became mixed after the financial crisis of 2008, when financial assets grew speedily in response to quantitative easing and artificially low interest rates. These factors raised the share of the top 1% of wealth holders, but inequality continued to decline for those below the upper tail. Today, the bottom 90% accounts for 19% of global wealth, compared to 11% in the year 2000. In other words, there was a concentration of wealth towards the top 1% (and even more to 0.1%), but with some dispersion among the remaining 99%.
The researchers conclude that the small decline in wealth inequality in the world as a whole “reflects narrowing wealth differentials between countries as emerging economies, particularly China and India, have grown at above-average rates. This is the main reason why global wealth inequality fell in the early years of the century, and while it edged upward during 2007–16, we believe that global wealth inequality re-entered a downward phase after 2016.”
In short, what the report shows is billions of people have no wealth at all after debts and that the distribution of global personal wealth can be described as a few Gulliver giants looking down on the mass of Lilliputians.
VENEZUELA WINS SIMPLY BY HOLDING AN ELECTION
By Vijay Prashad and Carlos Ron, People's Dispatch.
December 4, 2020
https://popularresistance.org/venezuela-wins-simply-by-holding-an-election/
NOTE: I am in Venezuela currently to serve as an international election observer and will report on the elections and more. – MF
The Upcoming Legislative Elections In Venezuela Are Going To Be Held In A Context Of Great Adversity Are An Important Step In The Democratic Recuperation Of The Country’s Institutions From The US-Backed Opposition.
On December 6, the Venezuelan people will vote for a new National Assembly. Ordinarily, there is nothing unusual about this, nor would this be newsworthy outside Venezuela. Ever since the election of Hugo Chávez to the presidency in 1998, the Venezuelan people have been used to more than one national election each year (this legislative election is the 25th in 21 years); these have been the presidential elections, the legislative elections, and the referendums to strengthen the 1999 Constitution. On the surface, this is just another one of these elections that has served to deepen the meaning of democracy in Venezuela.
But, these days, even the holding of an election is a contest between the Venezuelan people and the United States government. Since Chávez became the president, the United States government and its allies have tried to destabilize Venezuela’s government, including by direct efforts at regime change. When it became clear that Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which he led, had strong popular support and could not be defeated at the ballot box, the US government and its allies pushed to delegitimize Venezuela’s political sovereignty.
Strong disagreements mark the Venezuelan political arena, where the oligarchy maintains its own political platforms and continues to attempt to undermine and defeat the Bolivarian Revolution. These forces—now called the opposition—have contested elections since 1998, with some gains no doubt, but without being able to prevail. In 2015, for instance, the opposition was able to win a majority in the National Assembly elections and has controlled the Assembly over these past five years. The very fact that the opposition won in 2015 shows that there is a robust electoral system in the country. At that time, there was no complaint about fraud.
An Opposition Made In Washington
Rather than undertake their constitutional duty to govern alongside President Nicolás Maduro, sections of the opposition decided to operate as a wing of the US Embassy in Caracas. One of the legislators, Juan Guaidó (who had won his seat from the state of Vargas), allowed himself to be made the instrument of a US-attempted political coup after the presidential election of 2018. The opposition to the Bolivarian Revolution has always been divided and has not been able to find a unity of purpose. One of the most important divides is along the axis of whether or not to subordinate itself to the United States government. People like Guaidó were quite happy to be an instrument of Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo, while others made it clear that this was an unpatriotic, even treasonous, approach. Since 2015, the opposition has faced an existential crisis around this question of the level of US support for its political process; Guaidó’s entire influence relied on his support from Washington, rather than from his own constituents or from the opposition.
The Venezuelan Constitution requires an election to the National Assembly before January 5, 2021, when a new group of legislators have to be sworn in. That is why the election is being held on December 6. Some sections of the opposition that derive their power from Washington—such as Guaidó’s camp—had decided early on to boycott the election by alleging that it would be fraudulent. They have not provided evidence for these claims; the North Atlantic media required no evidence to repeat them, nor did this media address the simple matter of the National Assembly elections in 2015 having favored the opposition. Rather than contesting power through democratic means of elections or proposed legislation, the Guaidó opposition seeks to seize power by undemocratic means. Winning the election seems less important than delegitimizing the electoral and democratic process.
US Interference In The Elections
The United States government—with bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats—has actively intervened in Venezuela’s 2020 National Assembly election. In September, the US Treasury Department sanctioned four officials of the Venezuelan government: Reinaldo Enrique Muñoz Pedroza (the attorney general), David Eugenio De Lima Salas (a former governor), and two officials of the National Electoral Council (Consejo Nacional Electoral)—Indira Maira Alfonzo Izaguirre and José Luis Gutiérrez Parra. Indira Alfonzo is the president of the National Electoral Council and a well-respected former judge with long-standing ties to the opposition. The US government claimed—without providing evidence—that these officials were part of an “election interference scheme to prevent free and fair parliamentary elections from taking place in December 2020.” The US government’s interference continued later that month with its subsequent sanctioning of five opposition leaders who decided to participate in the elections; the US State Department sanctioned them for their “complicity” in the elections.
Opposition politicians who face this pressure from Washington also face a disgruntled base in Venezuela that has been fighting against this policy of abstention and boycotting. Many of the party members from these opposition groups have sued their leaders, demanding that they participate in the election. They are fed up with the strategy of attrition by Guaidó and by Guaidó’s subservience to the US State Department.
For that reason, there are more than 14,000 candidates from 107 political organizations, with 98 of them identified as opposition parties. They will contest the 277 seats (increased from 165 to better reflect population growth and more ability for democratic input).
Venezuela’s National Assembly has been stalled ever since it was made an instrument for regime change by Washington. Now, with this election, it is hoped that the legislative process can resume. A new National Assembly would be able to appoint key officials and would be able to discuss legislation to address the pandemic; it should become a place for healthy dialogue between the government and the opposition, which has been hijacked by Washington and by Guaidó. More than anything else, this National Assembly would provide a legal challenge to governments and banks in Europe and the United States that have frozen at least $6 billion of Venezuelan funds and confiscated assets such as Citgo; they will no longer have Guaidó’s alleged interim government to use as an excuse for their actions.
Venezuela wins just by holding an election. That’s the bottom line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)