> But this would suggest that 2% of the US pop can outweigh the
> influence of the US capitalists taken as a whole? That's
> really hard to believe.
Not necessarily if one considers that there's division of labor, comparative advantage, and the like. What percentage of the U.S. population is really driving (and benefiting from) the changes in fiscal policy introduced in the last 5 years (tax cuts, etc.)? Doing what they do best when others are minding their own business allow the parasites to amass much power.
In "normal" times, the expected return (positive or negative) on foreign policy in the Middle East would be negligible for most U.S. capitalists. I imagine that even for large U.S. capitalists, it will be rather modest. But even then (in "normal" times), the return can be huge for each individual in a smaller group. The few will go to great lengths to influence foreign policy in the Middle East. It's a cost-benefit calculation. A big plus for each in the smaller group matched by a tiny minus for each in the much larger group.
Suppose the net return on foreign policy in the Middle East for most large U.S. capitalists is negative. Still, it'll be like a tiny tax. No problem. They'll pay it, since the bulk of their income comes from activities other than that particular type of rent seeking. So they will let the parasites do. Only when things get spectacularly out of hand, they will have a stronger incentive to intervene. Still, even though the individuals are many, their individual incentive is still relatively modest. So, it may be hard for them to get their political act together, which may -- temporarily -- give the impression that the parasites are invincible. Plus the parasites will be well entrenched.
But think of what might happen if, say, a conflict with Iran gets seriously out of hand. Even if the probability is small, the expected loss associated with such event is large enough to make it worrisome. If a "tiny" little thing, like the foreign policy in the Middle East, is going to seriously threaten their way of business and their way of life, they will have the incentive to overcome the myriad of prisoner-dilemma situations that arise whenever a larger group tries to marshal its collective political strength.
I'm not saying the outcome of this conflict is predetermined, because it's not. (I believe that we, regular working people should intervene in this mess to advance our own interest.) I'm just suggesting that time is not on the side of the parasites. And I'm also trying to make sense of M&W's paper.
Julio