--- Carl Remick <carlremick at gmail.com> wrote:
"I have come to the Balzac-ian conclusion that "behind every great fortune there is a crime."
Kevin Phillips' *Wealth and Democracy* traces the origins of the big fortunes in America from the beginning, and demonstrates that a good portion of them came from war profiteering.
BobW
> On Nov 16, 2007 9:36 AM, ken hanly
> <northsunm at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > The URL is...
> >
>
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/kenneth_rogoff/2007/11/to_have_and_to_have_not.html
> >
> > To have and to have not
> > Fundamental tax reforms and open markets are
> needed to
> > balance the global distribution of wealth. It
> doesn't
> > look likely in our lifetime.
> > Kenneth Rogoff
> >
> > Lately, I have been trying to explain to my
> > 11-year-old son Gabriel the astronomical
> differences
> > between people's income. ...
>
> Hey, I've been trying to explain this to myself for
> decades, to no avail.
>
> > ... Gates is not the only one who can easily buy
> teams and
> > paintings. The latest Forbes list of America's
> > wealthiest individuals showed that last year's
> highest
> > nine earners, whose ranks include New York City's
> > mayor, Michael Bloomberg, managed to increase
> their
> > wealth by $5-9bn last year. Yes, that is just the
> > annual increase in their wealth. Collectively,
> their
> > $55bn in earnings outstripped the entire national
> > income of more than 100 countries. ...
>
> Astonishing. There is no way to cure anomalies like
> this through
> superficial measures like fiddle-farting around with
> the tax code. I
> have come to the Balzac-ian conclusion that "behind
> every great
> fortune there is a crime." (Note to lbo-list
> nitpickers: Balzac
> never made this exact remark, but it's usually
> associated with him so
> I will maintain the customary citation.)
>
> Since every great fortune is a capital offense, I
> believe it deserves
> capital punishment -- preferably death by
> spectacular and lingering
> means. This would address the current main problem
> with
> wealth-distribution reforms -- i.e., that there are
> no *serious*
> disincentives for amassing great wealth.
>
> Even heavy taxation is a joke if you steal enough
> money. Enormous
> wealth can buy anything, including a good
> reputation. Large-scale
> philanthropy -- whether practiced by Andrew
> Carnegie, John D.
> Rockefeller or Bill Gates -- has been the most
> successful
> money-laundering scheme of all time. It allows
> monopolists and human
> exploiters of arch-evil proportions to: (a) don the
> mantle of social
> benefactor and venerable role model, and (b) still
> maintain tyrannical
> exercise of power and unchecked indulgence of
> personal whims.
>
> Anyone (which includes all of us) who has been
> forced to do business
> with Microsoft knows deep down that Bill Gates'
> "business model" is
> the habitual practice of felonious chicanery. But
> because Gates is
> willing to give away a few oodles of the countless
> zillions of
> ill-begotten dollars he has acquired, he is hailed
> as humankind's
> greatest hero while *still* living a life of
> outrageous
> self-indulgence that would make King Farouk look
> like Mother Teresa.
>
> The lesson this provides the world's youth is
> appalling, i.e.: If you
> are guileful and unscrupulous enough to steal
> yourself a vast fortune,
> you will -- through flashy displays of philanthropy
> -- become the
> cynosure of every simpleton in the world and praised
> endlessly for
> your selfless sanctity, while still retaining wealth
> and power enough
> to satisfy your grossest, cruelest, most selfish
> appetites.
>
> That's why, instead of twiddling around with the tax
> code, I favor
> more direct -- some might say brutal --
> disincentives to
> over-accumulation of wealth. I call this the
> "Countdown to Civility."
> The remedy is simplicity itself: Every year, the
> top 10 wealthiest
> individuals on the Forbes 400 list should be
> publicly put death by
> drawing and quartering. Simply doing charitable
> "good works" would
> offer no of mega-plutocrat any protection from the
> spectacular
> humiliation and unimaginable agony of such a demise.
>
> I think this would do wonders in reducing the allure
> of wealth and
> improving the prospects for socialism. Even the
> most severe critics
> of this proposal would have to concede that it is a
> quite an original
> "thought experiment" and a more potent alternative
> to the typical
> proposals for redistibuting wealth by dicking around
> with tax code.
>
> Carl
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>