The word “plutonomy” was coined by Ajay Kapur, a global strategist at Citigroup, in 2005. The memos discussed a new era of economic growth that is powered and consumed by the very wealthy.
The memos were highlighted in Michael Moore’s documentary movie, “Capitalism: A Love Story.”
Quotes from the Memos: “The world is dividing into two blocs — the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest. Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S.”
“Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, creative financial innovation, capitalist- friendly cooperative governments, an international dimension of immigrants and overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, the rule of law, and patenting inventions. Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.”
“We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.”
“Since we think the plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger…” “It is a good time to switch out of stocks that sell to the masses and back to the plutonomy basket.” continue reading
In the years following the Revolution, petitions played a vital role in registering widespread political opinion on important questions of public policy and religion. The ultimate stakes were the disestablishment of the Church of England and the possibility of a newfound commitment to full religious freedom for all citizens of the independent commonwealth. The most notable example is the famous “Ten-thousand Name” petition, presented during the first General Assembly session on October 16, 1776. Asking for disestablishment of the Church of England as well as religious equality, this document consisted of 125 pages sewn or joined together with wax seals, and was signed by an unprecedented ten thousand Virginia citizens. With other petitions, this enormous manuscript began the debate over the relationship of church and state in Virginia. continue reading
Henry A. Wallace
crossposted from newdeal.feri.org
Delivered at San Francisco on Monday, February 7 1944
From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 24.
At Los Angeles I sketched briefly what America wants. Here at San Francisco I propose to describe what we can get if we really want it badly enough to plan and work for it.
Let me first do what I can to kill the myth that the gigantic war debt will stand in our way. We can pay the interest an this debt and have a standard of living at least fifty percent higher than in the decade of the thirties. With seasonably full employment we can have a national yearly income of more than 130 billion dollars. We can produce 170 billion dollars of goods and services annually. This is no dream, for in 1943 we produced mare than 190 billion dollars of goods and services. With such an income we can carry the interest on our war debt and still have a whole lot more left over than we had at the top of the boom in 1929. The interest charge on all debts, private and government, in 1944 will represent only seven percent of our national income or no more than in the decade of the twenties. continue reading
This article is part of the Real Economy Project. Take action at BanksterUSA.org
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
The Glass-Steagall Act, also known as the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162), created the regulatory framework for banking following the depression-era collapse of much of the banking system. It established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and included other banking reforms, and placed legal restrictions on combined banking and financial service firms.
The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed much of the Glass-Steagall Act and is credited with being a contributor to the 2008 financial collapse. continue reading
crossposted from newdeal.feri.org
Henry A. Wallace
An article in the New York Times, April 9, 1944.
From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 259.
On returning from my trip to the West in February, I received a request from The New York Times to write a piece answering the following questions:
What is a fascist?
How many fascists have we?
How dangerous are they?
A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.
Cross posted from newdeal.feri.org
Henry A. Wallace
Delivered at Los Angeles on Friday, February 4, 1944
From Henry A. Wallace, Democracy Reborn (New York, 1944), edited by Russell Lord, p. 17.
On this trip to the West Coast, I propose to talk about America Tomorrow. Today I shall speak about what America wants. Later on at San Francisco and Seattle I shall discuss what America can have and how America can get it. We want many different things and some of these are in conflict with others. But let me point out right at the start that the sum total of what we Americans can have is immense. Only a few years ago, when the President said we wanted fifty thousand warplanes a year, some people thought he was being visionary. Today we know that the production of a hundred thousand warplanes a year is a hard reality. So I tell you we can have twice as much far civilian living after the war as we ever had before the war, and you know that is no dream: There are limits, but they are much higher than most people even yet realize.
You’d think that getting the names of the shareholders of a company would be fairly easy. Such information should be routinely available.
In fact in many parts of the world, it isn’t. Not if you’re talking about private companies, which have managed to elude public scrutiny even in an era of increasing transparency. To be sure, there’s a wealth of information on listed companies. But good luck researching a private firm. A recent World Bank study looked at the information stored by corporate registries in 40 jurisdictions. Its findings were pretty pathetic: Only a third of the registers required companies to release the names of their shareholders. Only one registry, Jersey, collected information on the beneficial or real ownership of a company. Everywhere else, the real owners can hide behind nominees. Continue reading
Offshore Players Revealed
OVERVIEW: The existence of a global network of sham company directors can now be revealed. This is the first installment of ICIJ’s worldwide research which will identify, country-by-country, thousands of the true owners of offshore companies. Go to site