December 22, 2006
Of Wealth and Death
The headlines read:
Richest 2 Percent Own Half the World's Wealth;
Richest 2% Hold Half the World's Assets;
India's 40 million shopkeepers brace for Wal-Mart effect;
Nike's dilemma: Is doing the right thing wrong? - child labor in Pakistan;
The real price of cheap clothes: Bangladeshi sweatshop labourers paid just 3p an hour.
So should we be surprised when ...
Rich Nations Put Global Warming Burden on Africa;
Nepal's farmers on the front line of global climate change;
Poorest countries will pay highest price with global warming;
The Last Tide Could Come at Any Time. Then These Islands at the End of the Earth Will Simply Vanish;
Or, Flu 'could wipe out 62 million' - "And 96% of these deaths would occur in the poorest countries."
Is there any connection between the concentration of wealth and the broad reach of poverty? Is there any connection between the massive consumption of "rich" nations, and the massive risk faced by "poor" nations? It seems highly likely to me.
Figures drawn from the first two articles listed (OneWorld and the Financial Times), to be in the top 1% in terms of wealth you would need more than $500,000 in assets; 10% is above $61,500 in assets, and top half is $2,200 in assets. While the wealthiest 2% control 50 per cent of the world's wealth, the top 1 percent control 40% of the worlds wealth. The top ten percent control 85% of global wealth. Please keep in mind that wealth is assets - not income.
Besides the United States, only Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000.Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, many former Soviet Republics, and most of sub-Saharan Africa showed average personal wealth of under $2,000. (Glanz, OneWorld)
So pick your crisis - environment, climate, health, war, resources, poverty - and those with the least are the first hit, the hardest, hit, and the most likely to die. Why? Because they have the misfortune of living in "vulnerable" regions and have "bad" governments? No ... because they, and their resources, are exploited and expropriated by the few.
David Loyn, in a BBC article on 12/18/06, writes "Migrants 'shape globalised world'." He details a couple of examples - Doha and China. His focus is on the use of migrant labor and the use of international labor (including human trafficking). He conveniently points at China as a "driver" of these woes, and conveniently leaves out The U.S., Canada, and Western Europe. This is not to say that China (and India) are not up and comers, but the issues of exploitation are hardly confined to them - or the "oil" states.
At protests against the Iraq occupation, there are numerous signs of "no more blood for oil." While I whole heartedly agree with that statement, it does not recognize that it is blood - other people's blood - for virtually everything, It is certainly blood for "our way of life," and that "blood" goes far beyond "war." It goes to a structured and increasing inequality which is concentrating the world's wealth (and that is not just economic) into the hands of very few. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of the majority - regardless of nation - increases with each passing day.
I wonder if we are even capable of envisioning a world that does not operate by the principles that have brought us to the precipice.
Posted by rowan at December 22, 2006 9:45 AM | [eMail this article!] |I think the answer is we are not, so long as Brittany, Paris and Lindsay are alive.
I say that out of disgust not to be flippant !
Not only do we not see what is happening right before our eyes we are, in fact, feeding the machine that is devouring the world as we have known her.
Posted by: bell hooked at December 22, 2006 10:50 AM"Is there any connection between the concentration of wealth and the broad reach of poverty? Is there any connection between the massive consumption of "rich" nations, and the massive risk faced by "poor" nations? It seems highly likely to me." -- Rowan
Charles Dickens thought so. "Well let them die and let them be quick about it!" (parahrased) - Ebenezer Scrooge
And didn't the French Revolution make an enlightened statement?!
Remember the Potimkin?
Posted by: Ed at December 22, 2006 2:48 PMmovies like..."Sparticus!"
..."Cool Hand Luke"
..."The Hill!"
Then...Ghandi leading his people to salt...
...early union organizers vs Pinkertons beating workers to death...
...and media enhanced hatered of Labor supposedly inspired by 'un-American' ideals...
...Macolm and Parks, and MLK, leading their people (us all) into the jaws of brutish dog handlers and club wielding thug cops...unless we rather side with the brutes.
Our so-called Leaders have systematically trained us to hate ourselves and our own best interests in the name of so-called "Patriotism!"
Posted by: Ed at December 22, 2006 3:02 PMOf course there is a connection, it is all interconnected. One thing I would like to note because I haven't seen any coverage on ("All They Called Them Was Deportee's" Pete or Woody or both), the workers at Swift.
Six out of seven of the plants were UNION, sure it just happenstance, Swift is owned by an investment group.
I see this as a double-play, they (Swift) gets rid or diminish the union, republicans get the press, they are after in regards to "illegals) plus a Homeland Security boost as well. Is there a connection I would bet on it. Bush signs on the minimum wage so long as "small" business gets a tax break, it is on going.
Speaking of movies how about "On the Waterfront" by Kazan to compete with Arthur Miller. HUAC anyone !
Posted by: bell hooked at December 22, 2006 6:58 PMControling assests is a small part of wealth and I think the curent system of rating wealth is over rated. What we should be looking and and mad at is the uncountable homeless population who are not counted in any catagories. The data used to create the asumtions above are completely inaccurate if you also measure income from government subsdies and hidden assests. If yoiu want to be mad be mad at the jerks who are knowingly feeding you misinformation just to stir up emotions.
Posted by: Jack at December 25, 2006 10:05 AMWhen I was a kid, my parents and I went on vacations that always targeted historic sites and persons, but would invariably take us close to one or more relative we only knew through my folks relatives and/or Christmas cards, and being only one or two generations off the farm, I felt at home during that hour of forced courtesy. Then after showing off my mass manufactured souvenirs from this and that stand near this and that historic spot, I would get fidgety and eventually told if I wanted I could go outside to play, where I would always find a herd of Chickens. Then as luck would often take me, I would, during the course of chasing the Chickens, lose my Juicyfruit gum out of my mouth. Believe me, it only takes once making the mistake of picking up the wrong thing that looks like gum in a chicken yard to never trust what others feed you again. The comment has no basis in reality!
Posted by: Ed at December 25, 2006 2:21 PM