Η Citigroup τα λέει "έξω από τα δόντια"

Citigroup: 

Εμείς κάνουμε κουμάντο, το πολίτευμα είναι "πλουτονομία" (plutonomy). Τουλάχιστον είναι ειλικρινείς βέβαια, σίγουρα περισσότερο από πολλούς και διάφορους που κοροϊδεύουν και τον κόσμο και (πολλοί εξ αυτών) και τους εαυτούς τους


Γράφημα για τις ανισότητες στις ΗΠΑ, που σπάνε κάθε ρεκόρ:
Παρατηρήστε το πως μας έχουν γυρίσει στην κατάσταση τις δεκαετίας του 1920-1930.
Αντίθετα, παρατηρήστε το γράφημα τη δεκαετία 1960-1970, όπου οι μεγάλοι λαϊκοί αγώνες έχουν φέρει το λαό σε πολύ καλύτερη θέση

Τώρα, δείτε από επίσημο έγγραφο (εδώ και το δεύτερο μέρος, που είναι εξίσου ενδιαφερον με το πρώτο) της Citigroup του 2005 την άποψη της άρχουσας τάξης επί των πραγμάτων:

Το έγγραφο αυτό μοιράστηκε αρχικά στους "high-class" πελάτες της citigroup, αλλά διέρρευσε, και πρόσφατα έγινε και ευρύτερα γνωστό, καθώς αναφέρθηκε και στην ταινία-ντοκιμαντέρ του (ελαφρώς λαικιστή αλλά και αρκετά εύστοχου σε πολλά θέματα) Μάικλ Μουρ:

Όπως λοιπόν διαβάζουμε στο έγγραφο της Citigroup, έχουμε την εμφάνιση της πλουτονομίας, που την ορίζει ως "μια οικονομία που κουμαντάρεται από τους πλούσιους":

"The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S.,UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy...... "We should at this point make clear that we have no view on whether plutonomies aregood or bad, our analysis here is based on the facts, not what we want society to look like.".... In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie." ... the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households puttogether. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawedfrom the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together."

Το έγγραφο αναφέρεται σε άλλο σημείο και στα πρώτα σημάδια της κρίσης που τότε (5 χρόνια πριν περίπου) είχαν αρχίσει να φαίνονται στον ορίζοντα, και λέει όμως στους πελάτες της citigroup ότι "the so called "global imbalances that worry so many of our equity clients who may subsequently put a lower multiple on equities due to these imbalances, is not as dangerous and hostile as one might think". Δηλαδή, "μην ανησυχείτε, δεν είναι και τόσο χάλια τα πράγματα".

Γιατί όμως αυτό?

Μα απλούστατα διότι εμείς κάνουμε κουμάντο (και άρα ακόμα και αν πάνε και χάλια τα πράγματα, θα πάρουμε και μερικά "πακέτα σωτηρίας" από τα "κορόιδα'):

Most “Global Imbalances” (high current account deficits and low savings rates, highconsumer debt levels in the Anglo-Saxon world, etc) that continue to (unprofitably) pre-occupy the world’s intelligentsia look a lot less threatening when examined through the prism of plutonomy. The risk premium on equities that might derive from the dyspeptic “global imbalance” school is unwarranted - the earth is not going to be shaken off itsaxis, and sucked into the cosmos by these “imbalances”. The earth is being held up by the muscular arms of its entrepreneur-plutocrats, like it, or not."

Πρόβλεψη για το μέλλον: Οι πλούσιοι θα συνεχίσουν να γίνονται πλουσιότεροι εις βάρος μας:

"We think the rich are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years......... .......These“content” providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution ("pipes" = τηλεοπτικά κανάλια, μμε), the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge inconverting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker ofthe NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US. ( See “Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income”, NBER Working Paper 11842, December 2005)."

Πιθανοί κίνδυνοι για την "πλουτονομία":

Ο βασικός κίνδυνος είναι βέβαια μια εξέγερση των εργατών ("labour backlash"):

"Plutonomy, we suspect is elastic. Concentration of wealth and spending in the hands ofa few, probably has its limits. What might cause the elastic to snap back? We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy.The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing,offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs."

Ειδικά μάλιστα αν συμβεί μια κρίση (που πλέον συμβαίνει), και δεν υπάρχει καπιταλιστική ανάπτυξη, ώστε να ξεγελιέται ο εργάτης ότι μπορεί και αυτός να γίνει μέλος της "πλουτονομίας", τότε υπάρχει σοβαρό πρόβλημα, διότι θα πάψει να υποστηρίζει/δέχεται την "πλουτονομία' και θα διεκδικήσει μια πιο ισομερή μοιρασιά της πίτας:

...the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich. Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society doesnot believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is athreat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy - judging by how tight electoral races are. But asyet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground. Our overall conclusion is that a backlash against plutonomy is probable at some point. However, that point is not now. So long as economies continue to grow, and enough of the electorates feel that they are benefiting and getting rich in absolute terms, even if they are less well off in relative terms, there is little threat to Plutonomy in the U.S., UK,etc. Απο ciaoant1 στο :