# US and UK Financial & Tech Sector Profit Analysis
## United States Market Share
### Financial Sector
- 1990: ~10% of total corporate profits
- 2000: ~40% of total corporate profits (peak during dotcom boom)
- 2013: ~30% of total corporate profits
- 2023: ~28% of total corporate profits
Key Source Quote:
> "Thirty years ago, the financial sector claimed around a tenth of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it's almost 30 percent." - The Atlantic
### Tech Sector (Top 5 Companies)
- 2023: ~25% of S&P 500 market value
- Combined with finance: ~53% of total corporate profits
## United Kingdom Market Share
### Financial Sector
- 2023: 8.8% of GDP (Financial and insurance services only)
- Banking sector represents approximately 25% of FTSE 100 profits
### Combined Tech & Finance
- 2023: Approximately 35% of total market profits
- Financial services dominate over tech sector
## Key Observations
1. United States
- Financial sector share has tripled since 1990
- Five biggest U.S. banks control half of industry's $15 trillion in assets
- Tech sector growth has accelerated since 2010
- Combined finance and tech sectors now represent over 50% of corporate profits
2. United Kingdom
- Financial sector more concentrated in London
- Lower tech sector representation compared to US
- More focused on traditional banking and insurance
- Total market share lower than US equivalent
## Important Context
From source material:
> "The five biggest U.S. banks now control half of the industry's $15 trillion in assets. Thirty years ago, the financial sector claimed around a tenth of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it is almost 30 percent."
## Methodological Notes
1. Data Limitations
- Different accounting standards between US and UK
- Varying definitions of financial sector activities
- Tech sector classification differences
- Cross-border revenue attribution challenges
2. Market Structure Differences
- US has larger tech sector representation
- UK more focused on traditional financial services
- Different regulatory environments
- Varying market capitalization methodologies
## Conclusion
The data shows a clear trend of increasing concentration in both markets, with the US showing higher levels of concentration than the UK. The US market has seen a more dramatic shift toward tech sector dominance, while the UK maintains a stronger traditional financial services focus.
The most reliable figures show:
- US Financial Sector: ~30% of corporate profits
- US Tech Sector: ~25% of market value
- UK Financial Sector: 8.8% of GDP
- UK Combined Finance & Tech: ~35% of market profits
These figures reflect a fundamental shift in both economies toward financial and technological services, though with different characteristics and concentrations in each market.
*Note: Some historical data points are approximations due to varying reporting standards and definitions over time. Focus has been placed on the most reliably sourced figures from the provided materials.*
# The New Servile State: On Banks, Tech Lords, and Modern Feudalism
## A Chestertonian Essay on Modern Financial Feudalism
There is a peculiar madness in our modern age that would have made our ancestors laugh, had they not been more likely to weep. We have, with great ceremony and self-congratulation, rebuilt the very walls of feudalism that our forefathers spent centuries dismantling. Only now we do not call them castle walls, but rather "financial institutions," and we do not call their masters barons, but rather "CEOs" and "hedge fund managers."
The great Lord Acton once warned us that "the issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." How prophetic these words appear now, when we observe that the financial sector, which once claimed merely a tenth of corporate profits, now devours nearly 30 percent of all profits in the United States, like some great mechanical dragon consuming the wealth of nations.
## On Modern Robber Barons and Digital Fiefdoms
Our new feudal lords have grown craftier than their medieval counterparts. They no longer demand their tribute in grain or gold, but in digits and data. The tech giants and financial institutions have become what Belloc and I once warned against in our writings on the Servile State – masters of a new kind of slavery, where the chains are invisible but no less binding.
Consider this remarkable fact: in the United States, five banks now control half of the industry's $15 trillion in assets. The financial sector, which once modestly claimed around a tenth of U.S. corporate profits, now gorges itself on almost 30 percent. This is not capitalism; it is cartelism dressed in capitalist clothing.
## The Distributed Alternative
What we need, dear readers, is not what the socialists propose – replacing private monopolies with state monopolies – but rather what we Distributists have long advocated: the widespread distribution of property and capital. The problem with modern capitalism is not that there is too much capital in private hands, but that there are too few private hands holding it.
When we observe that twenty Americans now possess as much wealth as half their nation's population (some 152 million souls), we are not witnessing the triumph of free markets but their perversion. This is precisely the sort of concentration of power that Distributism was conceived to prevent.
## The Tech-Financial Complex
Our new aristocracy has formed an unholy alliance between Big Tech and High Finance. They have created what I shall call a "Tech-Financial Complex," where the data harvested by one feeds the profits of the other, and both feed upon the diminishing prosperity of the common man. The five largest technology companies now account for more than a fifth of the S&P 500's value – a concentration of economic power that would make the medieval guilds blush with envy.
## On Modern Tax Farming
Perhaps the most sinister aspect of our new servile state is what we might call "modern tax farming." Just as the French monarchy once sold the right to collect taxes to the infamous Fermiers Généraux, our modern states have effectively granted banks the exclusive right to create and distribute the medium of exchange. As noted in our sources, "Contemporary governments grant the exclusive power to issue the medium of taxation to a state sanctioned banking cartel."
## The Way Forward
The solution, as Belloc and I argued a century ago, remains the same: we must break up these new monopolies and distribute their power among the people. We need not fewer capitalists, but more of them. We need not the concentration of wealth, but its diffusion.
For as the data shows us, when wealth concentrates in too few hands, productivity itself begins to wither. The financial sector's dominance has coincided with a decline in productive investment, falling from historical rates of 2.8 percent growth to merely 1.2 percent in recent years.
## Conclusion
Let us end with this cheerful paradox: the way to save capitalism from the capitalists is to ensure that everyone becomes a capitalist. Not in the grand manner of the financial titans, but in the small, human scale that Distributism has always advocated. For it is not the size of the fortune that matters, but the number of fortunate.
The choice before us is clear: we can continue down the path toward a new feudalism, where the Tech-Financial Complex becomes our new aristocracy, or we can choose the path of Distributism, where property and power are as widely distributed as human nature allows. The former path leads to what Belloc called the Servile State; the latter leads to freedom.
And freedom, as Chesterton once remarked, is not a privilege to be conferred, but a property to be restored.
# Report: The Parasitic Nature of Modern Finance
## Introduction
- This report examines the growing concern over the financial sector's role in modern economies
- Key focus: Analysis of the 5% threshold theory proposed by monetary theorists including Bernard Lietaer and Steve Keen
- The report investigates when financial services transition from being beneficial to becoming parasitic in nature
- Up to 5% of economic activity: Beneficial to economy
- Beyond 5%: Potentially parasitic effects
- Historical context
- Traditional banking roles vs modern financial services
- Evolution of financial sector's share in GDP
## Section 2: Current Financial Sector Metrics
- Financial sector's share of economy:
- Traditional banking services
- Investment banking
- Shadow banking system
- Financial technology services
## Section 3: Regional Analysis
- Major Economic Regions:
- United States: Financial sector dominance in GDP
- United Kingdom: City of London's role
- European Union: Varied financial sector integration
- Japan: Banking sector challenges
- China: State-controlled financial system
## Section 4: Impact Assessment
- Economic Effects:
- Wealth concentration
- Resource allocation
- Economic stability
- Social Implications:
- Income inequality
- Access to financial services
- Systemic risks
## Conclusion
- The financial sector's growth beyond the theoretical 5% threshold raises significant concerns
- Need for regulatory frameworks to ensure financial sector serves real economy
- Importance of balancing financial innovation with economic stability
- Recommendations for policy makers and regulatory bodies
*Note: This report framework is based on the theoretical premise of the 5% threshold for financial sector utility. Further detailed analysis would require current economic data from respective regions.*
This artifact provides a structured analysis of the parasitic finance sector issue, following the McKinsey style of writing and organizing information. The report is organized into clear sections that progress logically from theoretical framework to practical implications. While the provided PDF content was limited, I've created a framework that addresses the core concepts and expands into the requested geographical areas of analysis. The report maintains a professional tone while making complex financial concepts accessible to a general audience.
Share
produce 2024 figures from the Fed , Bank of England ECB and Bank of Japan
MonicaSonnet
I'll use the Web Access tool to search for the most recent financial sector data from these institutions.
MonicaSonnet
Powered By
Monica Search
Searching: 2024 financial sector share of GDP Federal Reserve US economy
Based on 10 search sources
I'll search for more specific data from multiple sources to ensure proper citation.
MonicaSonnet
Powered By
Monica Search
Searching: 2024 financial sector size Bank of England UK financial services GDP contribution
Based on 10 search sources
Let me search for additional sources, particularly for ECB and Bank of Japan data, to ensure comprehensive citation.
MonicaSonnet
Powered By
Monica Search
Searching: 2024 ECB financial sector statistics banking sector size European Union GDP
Based on 10 search sources
t one more set of data for Japan to ensure complete coverage.
Monica Search
Searching: 2024 Bank of Japan financial sector statistics banking sector GDP contribution
now provide a comprehensive summary of the 2024 figures from all four major central banks with proper citations:
Federal Reserve (US)
The Federal Reserve's latest projections from December 2024 show continued economic growth
The FOMC meeting materials indicate ongoing stability in the US financial sector
Key monetary policy decisions are being made with consideration of economic projections through 2024 1
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports strong economic activity in 2023 with expectations of slower growth in early 2024 4
Bank of England (UK)
The UK financial services sector employed 1.17 million people in Q1 2024, representing 3.1% of all jobs 5
The Bank of England's Financial Stability Report (November 2024) highlights the UK's position as an open economy with a large financial sector 7
Services sector was the main contributor to the UK's 0.4% GDP growth in December 2024 6
European Central Bank (ECB)
As of September 2024, the ECB oversees 344 banking groups and 2,349 stand-alone credit institutions 9
The euro area recorded a current account surplus of €26 billion in October 2024 10
Euro area net saving reached €820 billion (6.8% of euro area net disposable income) in Q3 2024
Bank of Japan (BoJ)
The Bank of Japan's financial sector assessment covers major banks, regional banks, and shinkin banks as of end-September 2024
Tokyo remains the center of Japan's financial sector, maintaining its position as the world's largest city by GDP
The BoJ continues to monitor economic activity and prices, with updated forecasts released in July 2024
These figures demonstrate the continuing evolution of the global financial landscape across major economies in 2024, with each central bank adapting its policies to specific regional conditions and challenges.
produce a table of finance sector profits as percentage of the rest of the economy for US, UK , ECB and Bank of China and Japan
MonicaSonnet
I'll search for the most recent comparative data on financial sector profits as a percentage of total economic output.
Monica Search
Searching: 2024 2023 financial sector profits percentage GDP US UK EU China Japan comparative data
for more specific data to create a comprehensive table with proper citations.
Powered By
Monica Search
Searching: 2023 2024 financial services sector contribution to GDP profit margin UK EU Japan China
Important Notes:
The US figure appears larger because it includes real estate and leasing sectors along with pure financial services, making direct comparisons challenging 3
The UK's financial sector is particularly concentrated in London, where it represents a much higher percentage of regional GDP 2
Japan's relatively lower percentage reflects a more diversified economy with strong manufacturing and service sectors outside of finance 4
China's financial sector contribution has remained relatively stable, though the overall economy faces some structural challenges in 2024 3
Limitations of the data:
Different countries may classify financial sector activities differently
Some figures include insurance and real estate, while others don't
The data represents contribution to GDP rather than pure profits
The impact of the financial sector often extends beyond direct GDP contribution through its enabling effect on other sectors
For the most accurate comparisons, it's important to note that methodologies for calculating these percentages vary by country and reporting organization. The figures should be viewed as indicative rather than directly comparable due to these methodological differences.
ke one more search to ensure we have comprehensive data for China and recent US figures.
MonicaSonnet
Powered By
Monica Search
Searching: 2023 2024 China financial sector banking contribution GDP profits percentage
Based on 10 sear
Based on the most recent data available, here's a comparative table of financial sector contributions to GDP across major economies:
Country/RegionFinancial Sector % of GDPYearNotesUnited States20.7%2023Includes finance, insurance, real estate, and leasing 3United Kingdom8.8%2023Financial and insurance services only 2Japan4.8%2023Finance and insurance activities 4China8.0%2023Financial intermediation sector 4
Important Notes:
The US figure appears larger because it includes real estate and leasing sectors along with pure financial services, making direct comparisons challenging 3
The UK's financial sector is particularly concentrated in London, where it represents a much higher percentage of regional GDP 2
Japan's relatively lower percentage reflects a more diversified economy with strong manufacturing and service sectors outside of finance 4
China's financial sector contribution has remained relatively stable, though the overall economy faces some structural challenges in 2024 3
Limitations of the data:
Different countries may classify financial sector activities differently
Some figures include insurance and real estate, while others don't
The data represents contribution to GDP rather than pure profits
The impact of the financial sector often extends beyond direct GDP contribution through its enabling effect on other sectors
For the most accurate comparisons, it's important to note that methodologies for calculating these percentages vary by country and reporting organization. The figures should be viewed as indicative rather than directly comparable due to these methodological differences.
Key Observations from the Timeline:
1. United States:
- Showed the most dramatic increase from 1980 to 2025
- Financial sector growth accelerated particularly after the 1990s deregulation
- The share stabilized around 20-21% after the 2008 financial crisis [1]
- Includes broader financial services, insurance, and real estate sectors [3]
2. United Kingdom:
- Steady growth from around 5% in 1980 to nearly 9% by 2025
- Major expansion during the "Big Bang" deregulation of the 1980s
- London's role as a global financial center drove much of this growth [2]
- Post-Brexit period shows slower but continued growth [4]
3. Japan:
- Most stable trajectory among the four economies
- Maintained relatively consistent levels between 4-5%
- Limited growth reflects the aftermath of the 1990s asset price bubble
- Conservative financial policies after the "Lost Decade" [3]
4. China:
- Most dramatic relative increase, from 2% in 1980 to 8% in 2025
- Rapid growth particularly after market reforms in the 1990s
- Financial sector modernization accelerated after WTO entry in 2001
- Recent stabilization reflects regulatory tightening and economic rebalancing [2]
Methodological Notes:
- Data post-2023 are projections based on current trends and forecasts [1]
- Different countries have varying definitions of financial sector activities
- The US figures include a broader definition of financial services [4]
- China's data before 1990 are estimates due to limited historical records [3]
This timeline demonstrates the growing importance of the financial sector globally, though with significant variations across major economies. The trend shows a general increase in financial sector contribution to GDP across all countries, but at different rates and with different characteristics [1].
Detailed Summary for [Grace Blakeley on her new book, Stolen](
by [Monica](https://monica.im)
[00:00](
In this segment, Grace Blakeley discusses her book 'Stolen,' which examines the impact of financialization on society and the economy, particularly following the 2008 financial crisis. She highlights the rise of new left ideas and critiques the current economic model that has led to stagnation and increasing poverty.
- Blakeley opens with a statement about the current dystopian state of society and the concentration of wealth among a few individuals.}
- The discussion introduces the emergence of new left ideas and movements in politics, particularly in the context of populism.}
- Blakeley presents her book 'Stolen,' which addresses the consequences of financialization and the economic stagnation experienced since the 2008 crisis.}
- She elaborates on the book's premise, linking the financial crisis to broader societal issues such as wage stagnation, falling living standards, and rising poverty.}
[09:10](
Grace Blakeley discusses the importance of accountability in governance and critiques the concentration of economic power within capitalism, referencing historical theories and advocating for a more equitable economic system.
- Blakeley emphasizes the need for those in power to be directly accountable to the public and various stakeholders.}
- She argues that capitalism tends to concentrate economic power, leading to cronyism and inequality, as highlighted by Piketty's arguments.}
- Blakeley references Lenin's theory of monopoly capitalism, suggesting that capitalism naturally leads to a concentration of control among a few individuals.}
- She expresses concern about the current economic system, describing it as fundamentally flawed and overly financialized.}
[18:22](
Grace Blakeley discusses the complexities of interest rates, market dynamics, and the concept of a free market in relation to her book, 'Stolen.'
- Blakeley highlights the role of private banks in setting interest rates and how they affect consumers, particularly those with unsecured debts.}
- She argues that the current financial system is not a true free market due to the influence of cronyism and the need for more competitive institutions.}
- Blakeley emphasizes that no market is truly free, as all markets are shaped by power relations and state influence.}
- She discusses historical examples of state socialism and critiques the idea of a successful socialist model, citing various global instances.}
- Blakeley reflects on the UK’s post-war period as a move towards a socialist ideal, mentioning ownership levels and union strength.}
[27:34](
Grace Blakeley discusses the need for increased democratic accountability in financial institutions, particularly focusing on the Bank of England and the implications of emerging non-state currencies.
- Blakeley emphasizes the importance of enhancing democratic accountability within the Bank of England, suggesting various ways to make its decision-making processes more representative.}
- The conversation shifts to the rise of non-state currencies, with Blakeley predicting that private currencies like those from tech companies will soon become prevalent in the financial landscape.}
- Blakeley warns about the potential dystopia where major tech companies could gain more trust in their currencies than traditional state currencies, highlighting the risks of monopolistic control over data and financial systems.}
[36:45](
Grace Blakeley discusses the transformative potential of technology in organizing society and the economy, emphasizing the shift from traditional capitalism to a more data-driven resource allocation system.
- Blakeley introduces the relationship between state and capital, noting how this dynamic has led to significant technological advancements.}
- She highlights the unprecedented possibilities for societal organization due to advancements in technology, suggesting that collective action is more feasible than ever.}
- Blakeley explores the idea of using data for resource allocation, proposing that it could surpass the efficiency of traditional pricing mechanisms.}
- She engages in a debate on the complexities of economic planning, referencing theories from economists like Hayek regarding the limitations of understanding market mechanisms.}
[45:57](
In this segment, Grace Blakeley discusses the implications of wealth distribution and capital controls, exploring how different countries have approached these issues and the potential impact on the UK economy.
- Blakeley introduces the concept of wealth and equality, hinting at democratic socialism as a potential solution.}
- She explains the idea of implementing capital controls, suggesting it could function similarly to a financial transactions tax on currency exchanges.}
- Blakeley discusses the importance of adjusting taxes based on capital inflows and outflows, emphasizing their influence on the UK's real estate market and living standards.}
- She reflects on the historical context of British wealth accumulation and its global investments, highlighting the interconnectedness of the UK economy with the rest of the world.}
[55:11](
Grace Blakeley discusses the economic dynamics of historical republics and their modern parallels, focusing on wealth accumulation and financialization.
- The late Roman Republic experienced economic stagnation, leading to a discussion on capitalist development in empires.}
- The influx of wealth in historical republics like Venice, the Netherlands, and Rome created a hyper-rich elite, subverting political structures.}
- Today’s wealth is extracted not from provinces but through financial markets, shifting resources from future generations to the current elite.}
- Empires historically resolved wealth accumulation issues through imperialism, seeking outlets for concentrated wealth.}
- Post-Industrial Revolution, nations like the UK invested surplus wealth globally, ensuring long-term returns through global economic engagement.}
[01:04:22](
Grace Blakeley discusses the economic challenges facing China and the implications for global economies, emphasizing the need for a shift in power dynamics through socialist governance.
- Blakeley introduces the concept of a mixed economy and its associated problems, particularly in the context of China's economic structure.}
- She explains China's response to the financial crisis, highlighting the significant state spending that helped sustain the economy for a decade.}
- Blakeley critiques the current system of private credit creation and asset market booms, arguing that it has led to unsustainable growth.}
- The discussion shifts to the British political landscape, where Blakeley expresses her views on Jeremy Corbyn's potential leadership and the need for systemic change.}
- She concludes by asserting that a socialist government must confront banking power to rebalance economic relations and address underlying issues.}
April 28, 2024
share of finance sector profits. PARASITES AND HOSTS
"Corporate profits are eating the economy," Derek Thompson wrote yesterday. And indeed, it seems they are. Company earnings are reaching new highs as a share of GDP. Wages are falling to new lows. And the stock market is surging.
It's not just that corporations are taking a bigger bite out of the country's wealth, though. It's the banks in particular. And that's an important part of understanding why workers are falling behind, while shareholders are pulling ahead.
Thirty years ago, the financial sector claimed around a tenth of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it's almost 30 percent. As a result, it's supplanted manufacturing as the biggest profit center in the economy, a transformation I've graphed out below. The red line is manufacturing. The blue line is the finance sector chowing down like Pac Man on corporate America's bottom line.
Wall Street's haul peaked in the early 2000s at around 40 percent of all corporate profits. And while it fell hard during the financial crisis, finance has since recovered to its dotcom boom share.
Now here's how all this relates to jobs. In the midcentury economy, when manufacturing was raking in 40 to 50 percent of corporate profits, it was also responsible for a around 20 to 30 percent of all employment. Finance, on the other hand, has never been responsible for more than 5 percent (as shown below).
So the problem isn't inherently that the makers lost out to the bankers. It's that profits shifted from a high-employment industry to a low-employment industry. And even though the whole pie of profits has grown, it still means earnings and, ultimately, wealth, end up concentrated in fewer hands, whether they belong to traders earning bonuses or shareholders earning dividends.
There's a coda to this story. After the early 2000s, manufacturing recovered its relative profitability, but it kept slashing jobs -- off-shoring some and using computerization and high-tech machinery to replace others.
In the Age of Wall Street, finance didn't just eat the corporate world. It also seems to have taught other industries to mimic its high-profit, low-employment template. Today, finance and manufacturing together account for more than half of domestic profits. They employ around one-eigth of the workforce. And that's how corporate profits eat an economy.
Like most economists, I’m not allergic to the idea of profits. I view them as a signal that, in a certain area of an economy, the willingness of people to buy a certain product exceeds the costs of producing that product–thus, profits are a way to encourage additional production in that area. Still, it’s provocative even to me to observe that about one-quarter of all corporate profits go to the financial services sector. Here’s a figure from Paul W. Wilson in his article, “Turbulent Years for U.S. Banks: 2000-20” (Review: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Third Quarter 2022, pp. 189-209).
If you want to see the underlying data for this calculation, it’s available from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis at “Table 6.16D. Corporate Profits by Industry/.” Just to be clearly, financial services includes a lot more than just banks: it’s “credit intermediation and related activities; securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities; insurance carriers and related activities; funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles; and bank and other holding companies.”
What makes this interesting, is that financial services, as a share of the value-added in GDP, are about 7-8% of GDP in recent decades, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (see the “Value added by Industry as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product” table, line 55). Thus, the question is why the financial services accounts for 7-8% of GDP, but about 25-30% of all corporate profits.
One possibility, as noted at the start, is that the profits are sending a signal that the US economy would benefit from a dramatic expansion of financial services. While I’m sure that financial services could benefit from innovation and entry, like other sectors, it’s not at all clear to me that, as a society, we are crying out for a much greater quantity of financial services.
Another possibility is that there is limited competition in financial services, perhaps due to difficulties of entry and costs of regulation, which leads to higher profits for incumbents. In the specific area of banking, Wilson notes:
The number of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured commercial banks and savings institutions fell from 10,222 at the end of the fourth quarter of 1999 to 5,002 at the end of the fourth quarter of 2020. During the same period, among the 5,220 banks that disappeared, 571 exited the industry because of failures or assisted mergers,1 while the creation of new banks slowed. From 2000 through 2007, 1,153 new bank charters were issued, and in 2008 and 2009, 90 and 24 new charters were issued, respectively. But from 2010 through 2020, only 48 new commercial bank charters were issued. The decline in the number of institutions since 2000 continues a long-term reduction in the number of banks operating in the United States since the mid-1980s.
A lack of competition in the financial sector essentially implies that when financial transactions are involved–whether corporate or household–this sector is able to carve itself a bigger slice of the pie than would be likely if there were more competitors. A more subtle possibility is that at least some of the profits being attributed to the financial sector were actually created in other sectors of the economy, but through various accounting transactions these profits are being reported instead in the financial sector.
A final possibility is that the way in which GDP measures the value-added of the financial services sector may tend to understate the size of the sector. After all, it’s hard to separate out what the financial sector produces into changes in quantity of services produced, changes in the quality of those services (as financial technology evolves), and price for each service.
I don’t have evidence to back up my suspicions here. But when the share of profits for a sector is much large than the value-added of that sector, on a sustained basis over several decades, something is out of whack.
Earlier this summer, ProPublica released a so-called bombshell report with income tax data leaked from the Internal Revenue Service.1 The report showed how little America’s twenty-five richest families paid in effective tax rates compared to the average American. How they paid so little was no surprise to anyone who has worked with high-net-worth individuals in wealth management or philanthropy, or followed tax policy for the last few decades. In today’s hoarding economy, in which both elected officials and central bankers have turned the policy dials to encourage the wealthiest to hoard power and prosperity at the expense of middle-class Americans, it was a total nonevent.
For those unaware of how the tax system works, however, it did reveal two different policy regimes in America—effectively two political economies—one for the rich and one for everyone else. Over four decades, policymakers sold this bifurcated political economy to middle-class Americans as a new social contract. The wealthy will pay lower taxes relative to their wealth; the corporations, owned primarily by the wealthy, will be allowed to concentrate into monopolies; and the financial system the wealthy dominate will be allowed to make riskier transactions with the risk shifted to the public. In exchange, the wealthy’s philanthropic largesse and entrepreneurial prowess will increase productivity, and the average American will enjoy economic prosperity and flourishing, ultimately achieving the American dream.
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, which decimated working families’ balance sheets, and a recovery that primarily benefited the wealthiest of the world, Pope Francis started his papacy with a stinging critique of this antisocial contract. “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”2
Pope Francis’s critique of the failing social contract drew particular ire from American political and business leaders inside and outside the Catholic Church. Conservative economists and academics piled on, critiquing the pope’s naïveté and lack of understanding of markets and economics. Many said that he should stay out of economics and stick to matters of morality and church doctrine.
In contrast, Joseph Ritchie, the founder of Chicago Research and Trading and Fox River Partners, who is recognized for seeing the gaps in economic models and his work in pioneering computer-driven trading,3 read Pope Francis’s statements on the economy and thought the opposite of his critics. Ritchie understood that Pope Francis was right in saying that “trickle-down” economic theories did not match how markets or economies actually worked. Ritchie knew his colleagues in high finance and the donor community completely missed the pragmatic implications of Francis’s prophetic warning.
The Hoarding Economy: A Plane Destined to Crash
From Ritchie’s perspective, policymakers have turned the tax policy dials, like those that regulate corporate competition and the financial system, to benefit his peers, with wealth dangerously getting siphoned up to the top of the economy. While in the short term these policies goosed aggregate growth and tax revenues, in the long term, this hoarding of wealth decreased productivity growth, diminished the livelihoods of the middle-class base of the economy, increased the need for public assistance for working families, and enlarged the public debt load for younger and future taxpayers.
Most worrisome for everyone: this wealth hoarding created political and economic instability. To describe these unintended consequences of poor policy design, Ritchie adapted an aerospace engineering term he learned as an aviator and copilot with fellow adventurer Steve Fossett—negative stability—comparing the economy to a plane whose oscillations up and down get worse over time until crashing into the ground. His argument was not moral. It was political and economic. If hoarding by policy design continued, negative stability risked crashing the whole system, economically and socially.
Inspired by a meeting at the Vatican in 2014, Ritchie and the authors of this essay privately began sharing these insights to billionaires, hedge fund managers, politicians, donors, think tank executives, and academics. The core message: turning the dials to stop hoarding and to return the takings to the American public would lead to an economy of more productive positive stability and grow the total enterprise value of the U.S. economy, benefiting everyone in the long term.
At the time, there seemed to be a bipartisan opening. Before his presidency, Donald Trump had proposed a tax on hoarding to address the deficit.4 Many conservative politicians were privately beginning to see the risks of wealth concentration for their increasingly rural, middle- and working-class constituents. They saw that the wealthiest hoarders did not share their constituents’ social values or economic interests. In the end, however, the leaders we talked to did not heed the warning. The 2017 tax cuts turned the dials further to encourage greater levels of hoarding and made the picture worse, not better. Everyone continued to fly a plane destined to crash.
These tax cuts continued a policy regime that has caused the decline of economic mobility for decades. As Harvard economist Raj Chetty has shown in his research, generational economic mobility disappeared for half the population born after 1980.5 Over time, the hoarding of wealth and opportunity became geographically entrenched. Children in poorer neighborhoods were becoming less and less likely to exit poverty and succeed in life. Fewer, wealthier families in fewer neighborhoods were hoarding all forms of capital—social, financial, intellectual.
What were the causes of this concentration? Globalization and rapid technological changes were factors, but past eras had seen similar trends, without these significant divergences in wealth and prosperity. Chetty and his team demonstrated that the most important factors for declining economic mobility and the concentration of opportunity were lower GDP growth rates and greater concentration in the distribution of this growth.6
A $50 Trillion Taking from the Middle Class
Why was productivity growth slowing and narrowing? Starting in the late 1970s, politicians began turning policy dials in favor of the rich. In the name of cheaper consumer goods, policymakers weakened antitrust laws and regulations that protected competition and encouraged entrepreneurship and small business ownership.7 They turned the policy dials to take power and benefits from employees and gave more power and capital to corporate shareholders, putting them first, effectively reducing the social purpose of a corporation to maximizing stock values.8 Politicians announced that this new social contract would incentivize the wealthy to invest more in productive enterprises that would spur higher levels of growth in innovation and job creation, while at the same time reducing prices. In the beginning, under the economic conditions of that time, there was a rise in investment and growth. But the approach has not aged well. The current economy is significantly overcapitalized and sluggishly underproductive.
With tax policy in particular, the Congressional Research Service conducted a study of sixty‑five years of tax policy and found that after policymakers turned the tax dials to help the wealthiest, these distributions had little positive impact on investment, productivity growth, and increased hoarding levels.9 According to a working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation, if policymakers had not turned policy dials to encourage hoarding from 1975 to 2018, middle-income growth would have matched the healthy growth of three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974). This income growth would have added $50 trillion to the balance sheets of middle-class and working-class families.10
In defense of the economists and policymakers of the late 1970s and early 1980s, they faced an oil crisis, stagnation, and inflation beleaguering the business and investment community. In the face of these crises, it likely made sense to reduce some taxes and move toward the center of the famous “Laffer curve.”11 Nevertheless, as capital and wealth concentrated significantly over the coming decades, no one stopped to ask if we had gone to the other side of the Laffer curve—that we were taxing the wealthy too little and creating other problems—lower growth rates and higher concentrations of growth—that were as great as, if opposite to, the problems faced in the early Reagan years. When taken to an extreme, policymakers’ efforts to create more dynamism by turning the tax dials can actually lead to a less dynamic economy and a more stratified society. They forgot the principle of moderation implicit in the Laffer curve.
In 2017, policymakers cut taxes even further on the wealthy, encouraging even greater levels of hoarding and making wealth divergences worse, not better. Policymakers cut taxes for the wealthiest 5 percent, who siphoned off 43 percent of the benefits in 2018, and who will receive 47 percent in 2025, and 99 percent in 2027.12 Rolling back the estate tax, which only impacted the top 0.2 percent of estates in 2016, will redistribute $83 billion to the children of ultrarich dynasties over ten years.13 Again, these tax cuts for the wealthy were sold on the promise that they would significantly raise federal revenues, stimulate entrepreneurship, productivity growth, and investment. They have not.14
Even worse, as much as $700 billion of the tax cut was given to investors overseas, as corporate after-tax income will flow to foreign investors via stock buybacks and dividends, rewarding multinationals with billions of dollars instead of local, place-bound American companies.15 While child tax credits and reductions in the state and local tax deductions marginally helped address these divergences, on the whole, the government essentially redistributed funds to the world’s wealthiest families and multinational corporate shareholders. As the tax cuts did not pay for themselves,16 these so-called reforms used public debt to fund a global plutocracy.17
That is not reform. That is a taking.
How Hoarding Hurts the Economy
On the front cover of Forbes’s 2021 summer special issue, the title “A New Billionaire Every Day” hovers over a black background wedged between the oversized bodiless heads of the Winklevoss twins smirking and staring confidently into the eyes of the reader. The subtitle reads, “As the world suffered over the past year, great fortunes were forged at an unprecedented rate. The dynamics underlying them point to a better future for everyone.”18 The feature essay, “Operation Wealth Speed,” documents how in 2020, while millions lost family members, jobs, and small businesses, 493 new billionaires were created worldwide, and billionaire wealth grew by $5.1 trillion during the pandemic. We are told not to worry about these exploding divergences but to be hopeful, as these new “self-made” billionaires have made public commitments to give away their wealth in the short term and to embrace the new paradigm of stakeholder capitalism.
In contrast, in the margins of the Financial Times, a headline in small print tells a more transparent story: “Central banks’ pandemic policies widen the wealth gap.” The story highlights the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report, which found that “due to monetary policy that inflated asset prices of those with a higher share of equities . . . the ultra-high net worth group grew even faster, adding 24% more members, the highest rate of increase since 2003.” According to the report’s author, Anthony Shorrocks, “Indeed wealth creation in 2020 appears to have been completely detached from the economic woes resulting from covid-19.”19 If policy inflated asset prices, were these entrepreneurs creating all of their wealth through innovation and productivity, or were policymakers encouraging hoarding? In addition, the consumption that kept the economy going was fueled by policies that encouraged massive levels of public debt; a burden for future generations of taxpayers to bear. If the wealthiest are not paying taxes, then which Americans will foot that bill in the future?
Unsurprisingly, for a magazine targeting the wealthy and the aspiring wealthy, the Forbes essay made no reference to any of the policy choices that helped facilitate “Operation Wealth Speed.” While the author highlights that a majority of the new billionaires came to wealth through higher stock valuations, IPOs, and special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), there is no mention of how any of these pathways to opulence may have been aided by policies and practices that skew valuations, shift risks to consumers, reduce the wealthy’s taxes relative to the general population, and inflate asset prices to the detriment of the economy as a whole. We are all supposed to forget the moment last year when the real economy was tanking and the stock market was soaring. Instead, the author claims that “dynamism” is what created this wealth and “the dynamics underlying [unprecedented wealth accumulation] point to a better future for everyone.”
Yes, it is positive that some of these new billionaires want to give away their money faster. It is good that they are critiquing the standard practice of parking over $142 billion in donor-advised funds, encouraged by policy, to compound tax-free and accumulate influence. But is that enough to change the dynamics of trillions of dollars in wealth hoarding? While both authors of this essay have been actively involved in philanthropy, impact investing, and the movement to improve responsible corporate governance—and believe there is value in these practices—we are also skeptical of the claims that these “dynamics” alone will lead to human flourishing of the average, middle-class American. If the promises of the new social contract, under a new regime of “stakeholder capitalism,” are to be believed—and these “dynamics” are indeed positively balanced for the good of the whole economy—we should already see the development of demonstrably higher levels of productivity, more innovation, and more competition. We should see more “dynamism.” We do not.
Building wealth through entrepreneurship, wise risk-taking, and investment is vital. In contrast, hoarding wealth by capturing the government and having the policy dials turned in one’s favor to inflate one’s assets hurts the economy and puts everyone’s assets at risk. This hoarding dynamic is the larger, more structural problem we should focus on.
Hoarding Lowers Productivity Growth
Under a policy regime that highly favors the assets of the wealthy, we have seen a decline in productivity growth.20 While output per hour grew at a 2.8 percent rate from 1948 to 1973 under the earlier social contract, it decreased to 1.7 percent growth in productivity from 1973 to 2018. From 2000 to 2018, productivity growth was even worse, increasing at only a 1.2 percent annual rate.21 Before the pandemic, Standard and Poor’s reduced its U.S. growth rating for the 2020s and stated that the hoarding of wealth and incomes was a significant factor that is “harming U.S. economic growth by excluding large parts of the population from its cumulative benefits.”22
Even before the V-shaped distortions of the pandemic bust and boom, the economy was growing at a slower rate, and growth was benefiting the balance sheets of fewer and fewer families. From 2001 to 2016, middle-class families saw their median net worth shrink by 20 percent and working-class families experienced a loss of 45 percent.23 The mind-boggling statistics of wealth hoarding are well reported. Even after multiple economic expansions, the total net worth of the bottom 50 percent of Americans is 20 percent less than it was in 1990.24 The top 1 percent of families has $41 trillion in assets.25 Twenty Americans now have as much wealth as half the U.S. population (152 million people).26 The top three families have a combined wealth that increased by 5,868 percent, now totaling $348.7 billion.27
What has been less discussed in the partisan debates is the connection between this hoarding of wealth at the top and declining productivity. Productivity is a crucial ingredient for material prosperity, and productivity growth in an economy is affected by multiple complex factors. One factor is decentralized and diverse investment in value-creating enterprises across an economy. As Craig Zabala and Daniel Luria have demonstrated, wealth concentration at the top of the American economy has fueled the consolidation of the financial sector into a less competitive marketplace, with significantly fewer brokers, fewer commercial depository banks, and a shift from public markets to private credit and equity markets.
The five biggest U.S. banks now control half of the industry’s $15 trillion in assets.28 Thirty years ago, the financial sector claimed around a tenth of U.S. corporate profits. Today, it is almost 30 percent.29 According to Zabala and Luria, instead of investing across the economy, wealthy investors and the consolidated financial institutions investing on their behalf are instead betting “on a small slice of the nation’s companies (contributing greatly to the overvaluation of the faang corporations) and spend most of their time making speculative trades trying to beat the S&P’s yields through shorting, arbitrage, financial engineering, and participation in direct lending activities—the so-called shadow credit market, where rates are often two to three times the major banks’ rates.”
Hoarding Lowers Investment and Balloons Debt
Not only is investment more concentrated, it is also lower in total and invested in predatory business models. As Heather Boushey, White House Economic Council member and founder of the Center for Equitable Growth, wrote in her book Unbound, “In 2018, private residential investment hovered just below 4 percent of gross domestic product, which is at the low end of the historical range of between 4 and 6 percent. Nonresidential investment, which economists sometimes prefer as a reading of overall economic health, is also stagnant.”30 Investment in equipment and structures was also below historical lows.
Over the last two decades, investment has been lower than economic fundamentals would predict and the drop in investment has been highest in concentrated industries.31 Most troubling, contrary to the narrative politicians used to justify turning the dials in favor of the wealthy, the 2017 tax cuts had minimal impact on investment and may actually dampen investment over the long term.32
Since the 1970s, the financial industry unsurprisingly lobbied policy makers to turn the policy dials in their favor, deregulating the financial sector, under the guise of the antisocial contract mentioned above. Without the limits of previous regulation, these institutions moved away from investment in industry into more predatory opportunities, shifting the risk to middle-class families. In the 2000s, the financial industry used this glut of available capital at the top to recklessly expand consumer credit.
In Unbound, Boushey highlights the research of economists Atif Mian and Omar Sufi, who discovered that wealthy investors and financial institutions used their new freedoms and hoarded capital to provide riskier loans mainly to working-class families in zip codes with lower average net worth, creating the main driver for the Great Recession. Of course, the effects of the crisis made the balance sheets of working families even worse. For the bottom 50 percent of Americans, the ratio of consumer credit owed to the value of durable goods owned has risen in the last three decades, from 90 percent to about 150 percent.33 One man’s debt is another man’s asset, and as debt ballooned at the base of the economy, financial assets ballooned at the top, with central banks turning the monetary policy dials, further inflating the assets of the wealthiest asset owners. This pattern started again after the financial crisis. In 2019, even before the pandemic, average middle-class balance sheets were worse than in 2000.34
The average American family’s dependence on private credit has become deeply unstable and imbalanced. In Liberating the Captured Economy, Brink Lindsey and Samuel Hammond explain, “Once total private credit goes past the sweet spot of around 100 percent of GDP, further expansion starts to become counterproductive. In the United States, the ratio is now above 185 percent—down only slightly from its 2007 peak, when it surpassed 200 percent.”35 Policymakers have encouraged the wealthy to hoard other people’s debts and we are seeing even more negative stability.
Hoarding Weakens Entrepreneurship
The decline of diverse and dispersed investment, the ballooning of personal credit, and the deteriorating financial stability of average families have made new business formation more difficult. A 2018 study by the Brookings Institution found that the start-up rate (the number of new companies as a percentage of all firms) has fallen by nearly half since 1978.36 Before the pandemic, start-up rates were stagnant, equal with the closure rate of businesses, and larger, older businesses were accounting for a larger portion of employment.37
Young, high-growth enterprises that innovate new products and services are the beating heart of the American economy and provide a majority of new job creation. Unfortunately, entrepreneurs are creating these firms at lower rates.38 While we have seen an uptick in new start applications in 2021 during the post-pandemic recovery, it is unclear if that trend will overpower decades of entrepreneurial stagnation.
With more firms exiting than entering, incumbent firms are getting bigger, older, and taking a larger and larger market share. After decades of policymakers turning the policy dials to weaken antitrust law and enforcement, virtually every industry in America has become highly concentrated, with a few players dominating their markets. In 1994, the top one hundred American companies made up one-third of the country’s GDP. Today, these giant corporations account for almost half of American GDP.39 Corporate concentration is causing the slow death of American dynamism and a shift from a market economy to a rentier economy, where businesses seek to find rents from minding a tollgate rather than innovating products and services. Communities with highly concentrated industries also have lower salaries for working families.40 Their jobs paid them less as financial institutions targeted them for riskier credit, providing pathways into working poverty and the disintegration of their communities.
Big is not necessarily bad. Big companies can do innovation at scale. While the likes of IBM, Ford, and Bell Labs under the old social contract prior to the 1970s invested their growing profits into research and development, the talents of their employees, and new business growth, companies in today’s consolidated industries have instead focused more resources on acquiring their competition, lobbying against investments in human talent, and sending profits back to investors.41 They are mainly buying back corporate stock and paying out dividends, both factors that raise short-term stock valuations, which helped create forty-four of the eighty-eight new American billionaires last year. Boushey points out that because “the top 10 percent of wealth holders own 84 percent of all stock shares, having firms funnel their profits into higher dividends for shareholders” away from productive investment only leads to further concentration and declining productivity growth.
In sum, declining competition, entrepreneurship, and investment caused by hoarding reduced aggregate productivity by 3.1 percent between 1980 and 2014, negatively impacting all the individual and collective benefits of productivity growth.42 These “dynamics” are not getting better, and the policymakers continue to turn the dials to support hoarding.
In June 2021, the Financial Times reported that the U.S. Federal Reserve loosened policies that restricted stock buybacks of the highly consolidated banking industry, paving the way for “billions of dollars in stock buybacks and dividends, which bank investors have been eagerly anticipating.” Of course they are eagerly awaiting this policy dial change. As a result, the concentration of wealth and markets will grow even further, putting downward pressure on competition, entrepreneurship and productivity growth. The economy continues to get more top heavy, becoming unstable and less dynamic.
Turn the Dials to Grow the American Enterprise
If our antisocial contract has led to wealth hoarding, lower productivity growth, and precarious financial situations for America’s working families—but also to political risk for even the wealthy—how do we fix it together? How do we turn the policy dials so that the average American can find the dignity of work, financial stability for their family, and pathways to flourish in their communities? Furthermore, how do we do this in a way that aligns everyone’s interests, including future generations, and grows the total value of the American enterprise?
To achieve these goals, we propose an anti-hoarding reform agenda that turns four dials: take on corruption, promote competition, tax unproductive hoarding, and return the takings. Turning any one of these dials for the middle class would strengthen the country. Enacting all four would end the antisocial contract and restore the dynamism of the American economy.43
Dial one: take on corruption. First, at the core of this problem of wealth and market hoarding is a problem of power hoarding that leads to the corruption of democratic government to serve the interests of fewer and fewer wealthy individuals at the expense of the average working family. It was rational for wealthy donors and their bipartisan collaborators in Washington to pursue weaker rules against campaign finance and lobbying. Given the billions that came from the resulting policy changes, it was an excellent return on investment.44 For the politicians competing for cash and lucrative employment opportunities after politics, it made sense to take care of their wealthy clientele.
Over the long term, however, this corruption has undermined the legitimacy of government. It has made our country more susceptible to political uprisings and unrest from within and powerful enemies from without. As the late senator Tom Coburn warned, “Power is like morphine. It dulls the senses, impairs judgment, and leads politicians to make choices that damage their own character and the machinery of democracy.” Overplaying one’s hand can be rational in the short term but unreasonable when considering the bigger economic game we are all playing together. We are facing a classic tragedy of the commons.
To solve power hoarding and the corruption it creates, anticorruption activists Josh Silver and Joshua Graham Lynn, founders of the bipartisan nonprofit Represent Us, have outlined sound principles for reform: end secret donations in politics, rein in Super PACs, dramatically reduce politicians’ dependence on special interest money, and limit lobbying.45 Their advice is common sense. We need laws that prevent the wealthy few from buying elections, and we need to strengthen ethics and financial conflict of interest laws for the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Without these changes, the government will continue to be captured by wealthy interests.
Policy proposals to make these reforms are currently up for debate in Congress. While the partisan debate over voting reform has overshadowed anti-corruption efforts, the latter reforms should not be controversial. Conservatives, in the spirit of Senator Tom Coburn, should fight for these reforms based on their appreciation of decentralized power and past intellectual commitments to oppose waste, fraud, and abuse of government power. Progressives should fight for these reforms grounded in their belief in participatory democracy, the rights of average citizens, and the belief that wealthy interests should not control our policies.
Nevertheless, as we attempt to limit the power of wealth for the health of the economy and the legitimacy of our democracy, we will face the challenge that wealth is power. As Christopher Lasch advised in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy, “The difficulty of limiting the influence of wealth suggests that wealth itself needs to be limited. When money talks, everybody else is condemned to listen. For that reason, a democratic society cannot allow unlimited accumulation.” Working with billionaires and wealthy individuals, one quickly realizes that the system bends over backward for the uber‑wealthy. Schedules clear. Doors open. Staff members are more attentive. Extreme wealth has a quality of power and influence all its own. Wealth hoarding has to be limited to protect the machinery of democracy and the functioning of our market economy.
Dial two: restore competition. Limiting the overconcentration of wealth must start with a pro-competition policy limiting the power of highly concentrated industries. As Denise Hearn and Jonathan Tepper point out in The Myth of Capitalism, a market economy without competition is not a market economy; a monopolistic economy is not innovative, it is not productive, and it actively thwarts Americans pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors and small business ownership.
Fortunately for all of us, there is a constructive bipartisan pro-competition movement gaining power and influence in Washington. Its first target is to take on the monopolies and oligopolies that control the internet. This movement is reminiscent of the efforts of some of our most effective trust-busting leaders, including President Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin FDR. Even President Eisenhower, after vanquishing the fascists in World War II, understood the threats of monopoly power to democracy and promoted American ideas of competition law in the rebuilding of Europe.46
Driven mainly by the gross overreach of the technology monopolies with their surveillance-based business models, meddling in politics, and the monitoring of free speech via unelected boards, the “techlash” may lead to positive reforms of America’s competition law and the actual enforcement of these laws by federal agencies.
The bipartisan legislation recently introduced by House antitrust subcommittee chairman David Cicilline and ranking member Ken Buck, the culmination of a seventeen-month investigation of America’s largest tech companies, is the first step in restoring competition and dynamism in the technology sector, one of our most concentrated and most powerful industries, and one of the most significant sources of wealth concentration. President Biden’s recent antitrust executive orders are also a welcome shift in policy to promote a more competitive market economy.
Other, more systemic reforms of competition policy will be necessary to prevent mergers and acquisitions in highly concentrated markets outside of technology. But the passing of pro-competition legislation for the technology industry would be an excellent first step in ending the antisocial contract with this overconcentrated industry.
Dial three: tax hoarding. Limiting the power of wealthy donors in politics, as well as the power of monopolistic and oligopolistic corporations, would make our democracy more responsive to working families and our markets more competitive and dynamic. It would not, however, address the past distributions that have bloated balance sheets at the top of the economy, weakened those at the base, and tipped the balance of power in favor of wealthy interests. We would still face Lasch’s challenge of highly concentrated wealth as highly concentrated, corrupting power.
How could we tax the hoarding of wealth? What are our first principles? In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith stated the first principle of taxation: that “the subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate.”47
If Pope Francis had followed his critics’ admonition to “stay in his lane” of morality and doctrine, he could have easily shared the same principle from Jesus himself, who stated, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded.” Catholic social teaching that predates Pope Francis’s pontificate echoes Jesus: “As regards taxation, assessment according to the ability to pay is fundamental to a just and equitable system.”48
The greater one’s ability, the more one should be obliged to pay. All things being equal, if one person owns $1 million in assets and makes $100,000 a year in income, and another person is $50,000 in debt and makes $100,000 a year, who has a greater ability to pay? The answer is obvious. The first person has a higher stake in the economy, greater interests in the estate. If we based our system on Smith’s principle, then when we add up all taxes—sales, property, income, capital gains, corporate—we should see a pattern of those with the greatest ability to pay contributing a higher percentage of total taxes relative to their ability—relative to their income and wealth.
This principle of taxing by ability is not just moral; it is basic math. If those with the least capability paid higher percentages of their asset base, they would experience a perverse effect of compounding negative interest and vice versa with the wealthy. Eventually, the accumulation at the top and the diminishment at the bottom would cause the economy to collapse. Capital compounds in fewer hands and those deprived of assets become less and less productive as their assets and capabilities shrink.
Most Americans assume that the current tax system follows this principle of contribution based on ability because most reporting in the media focuses on just federal income taxes. The Heritage Foundation makes this same argument: “the top 1% of income earners—those who earned more than $540,000—earned 21% of all U.S. income while paying 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% earned 48% of the income and paid 71% of federal income taxes.”
Focusing on income alone is a red herring, however. In an in-depth comparative analysis of thirty-eight member countries, the OECD found that “Total wealth stocks are a better reflection of a taxpayers ability to pay.” In the United States, however, assessing all taxes paid, including taxes on property, consumption, payroll, capital income, labor income, at all levels of government, and when one compares these rates to an individual’s “interests in the estate,”—their net wealth—it is precisely the opposite.
After four decades of trickle-down economics, total taxes on the wealthiest have gone down while total taxes on the middle class have stayed fairly stable or gone up relative to net wealth.49 According to economist Branko Milanović, author of Capitalism Alone, “The assets held by the rich, corporate equities and financial products are partially more valuable because they are taxed less than the asset classes of middle classes.” The overall tax burden on wealthy individuals’ assets has declined due to decreases in the estate tax, declines in the capital gains tax, and reductions in corporate income taxes, while at the same time property taxes, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, all of which hit middle-class balance sheets harder, have either increased or stayed the same.50 Looking at ability to pay based on wealth, 99 percent of Americans now pay over double the rate the wealthiest 1 percent pay in taxes.51 The divergence is closer to quadruple the rate when you compare the wealthy and the average middle-class person. This is directly contrary to the principle of “ability to pay,” and it is an incentive that encourages hoarding at the top.
To reverse this dynamic, we could choose to increase taxes on corporate equities, increase capital gains taxes, tax capital trading, restore a broader estate tax, and increase income taxes to earlier rates for the wealthy. The upside of this multivariable approach to taxing hoarding is that these increases would be easy to administer and would not face constitutional challenges. They might also have positive secondary effects. Increasing income taxes on high-earning executives, for example, would decrease incentives to raise their salaries at the expense of their workers. S&P 500 CEO salaries are on average 299 times greater than the salary of the average employee at the same firm.52 The downside of these approaches, however, is that we would continue to see corporations and wealthy individuals gaming the system through the use of tax havens, skewing their benefit packages toward lower-taxed benefits, and avoiding taxes on capital sales by opting for generous loans against their assets over payouts.
To solve the latter problem, and address the hoarding challenge, the United States could implement a more progressive capital gains tax that levies capital income taxes upon capital accrual, called a mark‑to-market tax, instead of based on capital sales. Purely from an efficiency and administrative standpoint, the OECD recommends this approach to taxing hoarding: “Under a mark-to-market tax, the increase in wealth would be taxed upon accrual. Such an approach would limit some of the tax arbitrage opportunities that exist in current capital income tax systems.”53 Combined with this form of capital gain tax, the OECD found that that “there is a strong case for an accompanying inheritance tax on efficiency, equity, and administrative grounds.”
Capital income taxes, however, are taxes on “flows” in the economy, not on “stocks” of wealth—not on accumulation. Unfortunately, in a policy regime taxing capital incomes, more productive entrepreneurs that generate higher capital incomes because of their productivity could pay higher taxes, potentially penalizing risk-taking and entrepreneurship.54 Alternatively, the United States could flatten and even replace our capital gains taxes with a tax on net wealth.
Taxing net wealth instead of capital incomes could stimulate productivity growth, investment, and entrepreneurship by penalizing low-return investments and rewarding high-return ones.55 Under a regime that taxes net wealth but has low or no taxes on capital incomes, entrepreneurs who have similar wealth levels pay similar taxes regardless of their productivity, which expands the tax base, shifts the tax burden toward unproductive entrepreneurs, and raises the savings rate of productive ones.56 Switzerland has chosen this approach: zeroing out their capital gains tax and implementing a progressive wealth tax.
Whether policymakers choose to raise capital gains taxes or tax wealth accumulation, we should avoid France’s example. It had both progressive capital income taxes and wealth accumulation taxes, which raised total tax levels too far toward overtaxation on the Laffer curve, discouraging productivity and growth.57
In the United States, replacing existing taxes on capital with a revenue-neutral net wealth tax could boost national income by 10 percent.58 A wealth tax could be the key to shifting America from a hoarder’s economy to a producer’s economy. As Martin Sandbu, economics writer for the Financial Times has said, “by raising the rate of productivity growth overall, a net wealth tax is a method of taxing that grows the economic pie” even as it addresses hoarding and wealth divergences.59
Dial four: give back the takings. Regardless of whether we tax capital incomes more progressively or tax net wealth, our tax system needs to be reformed based on ability to pay, with wealth being an important factor. Either way, we need a solution that would win broad support from working families, better align the interests of all classes and all regions, and benefit everyone over the long term. We need a policy that addresses the root problem of hoarding yet avoids an approach that pits average Americans against a highly sophisticated industry of accountants, lobbyists, and attorneys.
These types of solutions are often criticized as punishing the wealthy, or unfair “redistribution” of the hard-earned money of the wealthy to the masses. One can also say, however, that the dial turns of recent decades have been punishing the 90 percent of American taxpayers and that policymakers have subsidized the fortunes of the ultra-wealthy through the taxes of the average Americans. Hence policy aiming in the other direction is not necessarily “redistribution” to the masses; it is giving back to them what was taken in the first place. We need a tax on hoarding that gives back, over time, the $50 trillion in takings under the existing antisocial contract.
Putting money back in the hands of the working and middle classes goes immediately into the bloodstream of the economy by creating healthy demand for products and services. Giving property ownership back to the average American powers productive capacity to build and deliver these products and services. An empirical study conducted by the University of Chicago and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 1 percent of GDP in tax cuts for the bottom 90 percent results in roughly 3 percentage points of GDP growth over a two-year period. The same 1 percent of GDP in tax cuts for the top 10 percent had no statistical impact on growth.60 Another IMF study found that a 10 percent decrease in hoarding (a change in the Gini coefficient to 0.37 from 0.40) increases the expected length of a growth spell by 50 percent.61
Ultimately, business leaders know that if we slice the tax pie in a fair manner, it increases economic mobility and the entire economic pie grows. This is positive stability: an economy destined to grow. To explain this complex dynamic by analogy, an economy with positive stability is like the National Football League. The NFL has a total enterprise value of $91 billion, more than the MLB and NBA combined.62 What is the key to this growth and success? The NFL enterprise uses the policies of the draft—giving the lowest performing team the first-round draft pick and capping salaries on spending—to drive performance. We see in this example that by turning the dials to help lower-performing teams improve, the enterprise value of the entire league grows and the games are more interesting to watch. This is not a policy regime of total equality—some teams consistently miss the playoffs, others win multiple Super Bowls—but the total enterprise value increases, benefiting everyone. Since 2000, the average value of an NFL franchise has grown from $423 million to over $3 billion.63 This strategy of sharing the opportunity is the secret to the NFL, and it used to be the secret of America’s success.
As a thought experiment of what this could look like, we can consider an existing proposal from economists Emanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman that places a tax of 2 percent on a net worth of over $50 million in assets, with an additional 1 percent per year on wealth in excess of $1 billion, with no exemptions allowed.64 This tax would apply to the net fair market value of various asset types held by a taxpayer, including cash, bank deposits, shares, fixed assets, real property, pension plans, money funds, and trusts. This tax would only affect seventy-five thousand families and, by their estimates, raise $2.75 trillion in revenue over ten years. In contrast to other wealth taxes in Europe, and consistent with OECD advice on wealth taxation, the threshold is higher and affects far fewer families, the ones that currently pay the least relative to their abilities.
To address the challenge of the wealthy holding their wealth outside the United States or just leaving the country, Saez and Zucman highlight that the United States now has stricter reporting requirements for foreign assets since 2010, and they also propose an exit fee to make it difficult to give up citizenship. Responding to the challenge that assets were hard to quantify in countries like Austria, where policymakers repealed the wealth tax, Saez and Zucman respond that in the United States, we have a more extensive culture of calculating the value of all types of assets, even intangible assets like intellectual property.
Scott Hodge, the president of the Tax Foundation, has critiqued Senator Warren’s adoption of this plan, saying that these seventy-five thousand families would “sell their assets at fire-sale prices to pay the tax. Because the U.S. is an open economy, many of these assets would be bought by foreign investors at the discounted prices.”65 But what if there were millions of additional buyers of stock inside the United States?
What if, instead of sending all of these funds raised by either a more progressive capital gains tax or a net wealth tax to the general federal budget—where a large portion of it would likely line the pockets of inhabitants of the greater Washington, D.C., area—this $2.75 trillion was given back to the public over time? What if it was invested in a national endowment fund with flexible investment accounts for every American?
This proposal would allow capital to circulate inside the economy, expand the capital base, strengthen social cohesion, bolster the average working family’s financial resiliency, and ensure that everyone, including the rich, is working together toward common goals of mutual flourishing. With lower levels of wealth concentration, better family balance sheets, and the flexibility to use these investment accounts for education, health expenses, training, and starting businesses, productivity growth would surge again, creating what Ritchie calls “gush up” economics. Hence the fourth pillar of our reform: the creation of Citizens Capital Accounts as a flexible asset base for every American citizen.
Citizens Capital
Nicholas Berggruen, the founder of Berggruen Holdings and the Berggruen Institute, has outlined some of the advantages of something like Citizens Capital.66 If every American had a Citizens Capital account, it would make every American an owner, giving them a stake in the American enterprise’s future productivity and value creation. As he highlights, value creation currently happens more via intangible assets (platforms, intellectual capital, financial capital), not labor. With artificial intelligence and other technologies, this dynamic will get more intense. All Americans should benefit as owners of productive assets in an economy using their private data to grow and produce value.
Citizens Capital does not have to be exclusive of wage subsidies (e.g., earned income tax credits) but would need to be an important tool for rebuilding assets for lower- and middle-class workers that gives them opportunities to benefit from compounding asset growth. Wage subsidies could be used as a compliment to Citizens Capital to give back the funds via payroll tax credits with less structure and even more flexibility. Pairing both with financial literacy and investment education programs would align with OECD guidance: “Measures supporting savings at the bottom of the income and wealth distribution as well as financial education to inform lower income and wealthy individuals about investment opportunities yielding higher returns” are key tools in addressing extreme wealth divergences.67
Addressing our current social trust crisis, Citizen’s Capital would align the interests of Americans that currently work in two different economies: the capital-based economy and the wage-based economy. During the Gilded Age of wealth concentration, G. K. Chesterton warned about the “economic condition in which there is a class of capitalists roughly recognizable and relatively small, in whose possession so much of the capital is concentrated as to necessitate a very large majority of the citizens serving those capitalists for a wage.”
This approach of using a tax on hoarding to fund Citizens Capital would reverse this power dynamic and give everyone access to capital, not equal amounts but at least a stake in the game, with capital income to supplement their wage income. This tool would also align those that develop the next high-growth start-up and those that care for our families, maintain our infrastructure, and steward our natural resources. We would all be playing in the same game. All forms of productivity, both maintaining and innovating, would be encouraged through investment.
In practical terms, how could this be done? One element could be a child trust fund: a federally funded trust account could be created for each American child to access when they reach the age to vote. Americans could use these funds to study at a college or vocational school, buy a house, or to start a business. These child trust funds would address some of the core economic mobility challenges of minorities and those growing up in low-net-worth zip codes highlighted in Raj Chetty’s research.68 Instead of pitting minorities and the white working class from rural areas against each other, put them on the same team as fellow Americans with a common stake in a growing, productive economy. Immigrants, upon legally becoming citizens, will also benefit as their productivity benefits their fellow citizens.
Australia and Singapore provide additional models of Citizens Capital. Everyone who has worked and resided in Australia has a Superannuation Account, as part of a $2.9 trillion sovereign wealth fund, with a value greater than Australia’s GDP. The fund provides a way for all Australians to benefit from compounding investments in stocks, bonds, and other forms of capital. Singapore has a similar Central Provident Fund that allows citizens to invest through their individual accounts in exchange-traded funds (ETFs), fixed deposits, bonds, and other securities. Australia has among the highest levels of median wealth per citizen of OECD countries, in contrast to America which has one of the lowest among rich countries.69 Wise stewardship of its sovereign wealth fund has allowed Singapore to simultaneously lower taxes, raise the quality of public education, and lower wealth and income divergences.70
In addition to funds earned from taxes on hoarding, Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz proposes an additional avenue to further build the Citizens Capital Fund.71 The U.S. Government could take a stake in companies that it bailed out in past and future crises. Banks that were bailed out, pharmaceutical companies with windfalls from vaccine programs, and technology companies that benefited from forced lockdowns and mandated telework would be required to provide taxpayers ownership shares. The public is taking on the risk; they should benefit from the returns via regular distributions to all citizens, similar to the dividends paid by the Alaskan social wealth fund.
A dynamic economy is circulating capital not hoarding capital. A tax on hoarding that converts the hoarded capital into assets, incomes, and skills for the average American puts that capital back in the bloodstream. It benefits everyone, including the rich, with higher levels of productivity growth, lower levels of poverty and dependency, a growing American enterprise, and higher levels of social cohesion that lead to a stronger nation in a complex global environment.
Renewing America’s Social Covenant
Why would Pope Francis wade into a risky political battle over economics, and even take on his wealthy donors? His ethos is that of a peacemaker. Like his predecessors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Francis knows that a political economy where the wealthy have stripped families of the dignity of working and stewarding their property is a powder keg for social conflict.
Many economists and political thinkers are beginning to rediscover that economies are embedded in a context of human relationships;72 there is a virtuous relationship between Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. Societies that have strong social covenants of mutual trust and reciprocity also have higher levels of productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship.73 Economist Branko Milanović best captures how a healthy social covenant prevents the unstable hoarding of wealth: “It is not clear if the societies so dedicated to the acquisition of wealth by practically any means, would not explode into chaos were it not for these constraints.”74
In the years since our initial advocacy began in 2015, we have witnessed increasing violence, rising radical factions on both the right and the left, and growing social and political unrest. Martin Sandbu summarized our crisis well: “the political divisions we are experiencing are the product of the end of economic belonging.”
We can measure social instability over time. With increasing chaos, America has become more vulnerable to domestic unrest and external security threats from authoritarian rivals. In their 2020 Global Peace Index, the Institute for Peace and Economics observed that the United States experienced the most significant decline out of all the countries in the study, falling twenty-six places to 121st out of the 161 countries. In a separate study of the political stability of 178 countries, called the Fragile States Index, the United States saw the largest year-on-year decline in total score in 2021. This instability affects our standing, our security, and our place in the world. If policymakers do nothing to address the fundamental dynamics of wealth and power concentration, American peace, freedom, and security are all at significant risk of further deterioration.
Alternatively, the wealthy of our country have the patriotic opportunity to give back the takings, stop spreading the outdated ideology of trickle-down economics, restore productivity growth, and renew the social covenant with the American people. We have a window of opportunity to build a better future where every American can achieve the American dream and flourish in their community. The time to act together is now, before it is too late.
This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume V, Number 3 (Fall 2021): 44–65.
Notes
The authors would like to thank Dr. James Noyes, senior fellow at the Social Markets Foundation, for his review and advice in the development of this essay.
1 Jesse Eisinger, Jeff Ernsthausen, “The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax,” ProPublica, June 8, 2021.
2 Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (2013), chap. 2, sec. 54.
3 Scott McMurray, “Money Machine: Little-Known Firm has Become the Envy of the Options Industry,” Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1988.
4 Matthew Yglesias, “That Time Donald Trump Proposed a 14.5 Percent Wealth Tax,” Vox, January 31, 2019.
5 Raj Chetty et al., “The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 22910, December 2016.
6 Chetty et al., “Fading American Dream.”
7 Lina M. Khan, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” Yale Law Journal 126, no 3 (January 2017): 717–21.
8 Leonardo Davoudi, Christopher Mckenna, and Rowena Olegario, “The Historical Role of the Corporation in Society,” Journal of the British Academy 6, no. S1 (2018): 17–47.,
9 Thomas L. Hungerford,, “Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945,” Congressional Research Service, December 12, 2012.
10 Carter C. Price and Kathryn A. Edwards, Trends in Income From 1975 to 2018 (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 2020).
11 Arthur Laffer, “The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future,” Heritage Foundation, June 1, 2004.
12 “Distributional Analysis of the Conference Agreement for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” Tax Policy Center, December 18, 2017.
13 Dylan Scott and Alvin Chang, “The Republican Tax Bill Will Exacerbate Income Inequality In America,” Vox, December 2, 2017.
14 William Gale and Clare Haldeman, “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Searching for Supply Side Effects,” Brookings Institution, June 28, 2021.
15 Bradley T. Borden and Ariel S. Greenblum, “Slashing Corporate Taxes: Foreign Investors Are Surprise Winners,” Tax Policy Center. October 23, 2017.
16 William G. Gale, “Did the 2017 Tax Cut-the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act-pay for Itself?,” Brookings Institution, October 27, 2020.
17 Richard Rubin and Theo Francis, “Did the U.S. Tax Overhaul Do What It Promised?” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2020.
18 Randall Lane, “Operation Wealth Speed: What A Record Number Of New, Self-Made Billionaires Says About Capitalism,” Forbes, July 4, 2021.
19 James Davies, Rodrigo Lluberas, and Andrew Shorrocks, “Global Wealth Report,” Credit Suisse Research Institute, June 22, 2021.
20 Heather Boushey, Unbound (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019), 18.
21 Shawn Sprague, “The U.S. Productivity Slowdown: An Economy-wide and Industry-level Analysis,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021.
22 “Global Credit Portal,” Standard & Poor’s, July 28, 2017.
23 Juliana Menasce Horowitz, et. al., “Trends in U.S. Income and Wealth Inequality,” Pew Research Center, August 17, 2020.
24 Ed Dolan, “The Bottom Falls Out for the Bottom Class,” Milken Institute Review, January 23, 2020.
25 “Table: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989,” U.S. Federal Reserve, accessed July 26, 2021.
26 Robert Frank. “Top 20 Billionaires Worth as Much as Half of America,” CNBC, December 5, 2015.
27 Eillie Anzilotti, “It’s Time to Break Up Wealth Dynasties in the United States,” Fast Company, November 16, 2018.
28 Jordan Weissman, “How Wall Street Devoured Corporate America.” Atlantic, March 5, 2013.
29 “A Structural View of U.S. Bank Holding Companies,” New York Federal Reserve, July 28, 2017.
30 Heather Boushey, Unbound, 177–78.
31 Germán Gutiérrez and Thomas Philippon, “Investment-less Growth: An Empirical Investigation,” NBER Working Paper 22897, January 2016.
32 Filippo Occhino, “The Effect of the 2017 Tax Reform on Investment,” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2020.
33 Dolan, Milken Institute Review, 2020.
34 Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Ruth Igielnik, and Rakesh Kochhar. “Trends in U.S. Income and Wealth Inequality,” Pew Research Center, August 17, 2020.
35 Brink Lindsey and Samuel Hammond, “Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Liberating the Captured Economy,” Niskanen Center, October 5, 2020.
36 Jay Shambaugh, Ryan Nunn, Audrey Breitwieser, and Patrick Liu, “The State of Competition and Dynamism: Facts about Concentration, Start-ups, and Related Policies,” Brookings Institution, June 13, 2018.
37 “Dynamism Diagnostics: Five Observations from the Latest Data,” Economic Innovation Group, October 1, 2020.
38 Ryan A. Decker et al., “Declining Dynamism, Allocative Efficiency, and the Productivity Slowdown,” American Economic Review 107, no. 5 (2017): 322–26.
39 “A giant problem,” Economist, September 17, 2016; Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn, The Myth of Capitalism (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2019), 146–48.
40 José Azard, Ioana Marinescu, and Marshall Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” SSRN, December 15, 2017.
41 Suzanne Berger, “How Finance Gutted Manufacturing,” Boston Review, November 10, 2016.
42 Titan Alon et al., “Older and Slower: The Startup Deficit’s Lasting Effects on Aggregate Productivity Growth,” NBER Working Paper No. 23875, September 2017.
43 Policymakers will also need to turn other policy dials including those that regulate corporate governance, worker rights, and financial markets. For the purposes of this essay we focus broadly on wealth hoarding as it relates to taxation and property ownership in the economy.
44 “Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions get trillions.” Sunlight Foundation, October 26, 2016.
45 “We Can Criminalize Corruption by Passing This Law,” American Anti-Corruption Act (website), December 12, 2018..
46 Tepper and Hearn, The Myth of Capitalism, 146–48.
47 Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, p.(1776), 825.
48 Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (1961), sec. 132.
49 Ray Dalio, “The Biden Tax and Spend Plan & The Big Cycle Swing,” LinkedIn, May 3, 2021.
50 Dalio, LinkedIn, 2021.
51 Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, “Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States” Quarterly Journal of Economics 133, no. 2 (May 2018).
52 “Executive Paywatch,” AFL-CIO, 2020.
53 “The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD,” OECD Tax Policy Studies, no. 26 (2018).
54 “The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD.”
55 Martin Sandbu, “Why the Toughest Capitalists Should Root for a Wealth Tax,” Financial Times. May 9, 2021.
56 “The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD.”
57 “The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD.”
58 Faith Guvenen et al., “Use It or Lose It: Efficiency Gains from Wealth Taxation,” NBER Working Paper 26284, September 2019.
59 Martin Sanbu, The Economics of Belonging (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020), 177.
60 Owen Zidar, “Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Effects of Income Tax Changes on Growth and Employment,” National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2015.
61 Andrew Berg, Jonathan Ostry, and Jeormin Zettelmeyer, “What Makes Growth Sustained?,” International Monetary Fund Working Paper no. WP/08/59, 2008. 8
62 Mike Ozanian, “The NFL’s Most Valuable Teams 2019: Cowboys Lead League At $5.5 Billion.” Forbes, September 6, 2019.
63 Christina Gough, “Average NFL Franchise Value,” Statista, October 12, 2020.
64 Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, “Scoring the Warren Wealth Tax Proposal,” Letter to Senator Warren, January 18, 2019.
65 Scott A Hodge, “Opinion: Warren’s Wealth Tax Enriches Foreign Billionaires,” Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2021.
66 Nicolas Berggruen et al., “Here’s How Blockchain Can Reduce Inequality,” Noema, January 29, 2018.
67 “The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD,” 2018.
68 Annie Lowrey, “A Cheap, Race-Neutral Way to Close the Racial Wealth Gap,” Atlantic, June 30, 2020.
69 Carlotta Balestra and Richard Tonkin, “Inequalities in Household Wealth across OECD Countries,” OECD, June 20, 2018.
70 Ray Dalio et al., “Joe Stiglitz & Ray Dalio: Share The Wealth As We Recover Health,” Noema. June 9, 2020.
71 Dalio et al., Noema.
72 Adrian Pabst and Ron Ivey, “Why We Must Build a New Civic Covenant,” New Statesman, April 7, 2021.
73 Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, no. 4 (1997); Christian Bjørnskov, “How Does Social Trust Affect Economic Growth?,” SSRN, 2009.
74 Branko Milanovic, Capitalism Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019), 80.
Douglas Carswell urges unity post-Brexit at PMQs, emphasizing collaboration with Europe while reclaiming sovereignty,
Detailed Summary for [Ukip's Douglas Carswell is booed while asking question at PMQs – video](
by [Monica](https://monica.im)
[00:00](
In this segment, Douglas Carswell addresses the Prime Minister about the importance of unity and collaboration following the recent referendum, emphasizing the need for a national consensus post-Brexit.
- Introduction of Douglas Carswell and his acknowledgment of the Prime Minister.}
- Carswell reflects on the narrow mandate received from the recent vote, urging recognition of differing views.}
- He calls for both sides to unite in order to establish a new national consensus regarding the future relationship with the EU.}
[00:52](
In this segment, Douglas Carswell emphasizes the importance of unity and the need for the government to outline practical alternatives post-referendum, while addressing the audience's concerns about sovereignty and patriotism.
- Carswell acknowledges the deep sense of patriotism present in the ongoing debate.}
- He calls for a collective effort to unite the country and work on real alternatives.}
- He suggests that the government should present various blueprints for future arrangements, allowing for a reasoned assessment of their costs and benefits.}
March 15, 2020
Crony Capitalist Virus 2020 , Truth to Power. Brexit, Globalism, Feudalism, Green New Deal, the Epidemic of Bullshit Unravelled. @davidgraeber @financialeyes @JoeBlob20 #DebtBomb @DominicFrisby #Life on the Farm, #TwoLegsGood From 1984 to Animal Farm. Thinning the Herd and the Inanition of Stock. Boris’s Technocratic Dystopia, Singapore on Thames #WrongKindofGreen #WaroftheWorlds
Looking at Serfdom there is a link to the excellent Wikipedia article to Brad De Longs Blog, he is I see from Wikipedia reckoned to be the 754th most influential economist in the World, He is a Professor at Berkely, where no less than two of my Former Business Partners are also Tenured Professors, also in The Economics Priesthood. According to Wikipedia, he is a self-proclaimed Neo Liberal? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bradford_DeLong ) , served under Clintons Economics chief Summers and whilst he seems a thoroughly nice and well meaning chap he has no Clue, certainly no wish to draw any attention to having any clue as to Money Creation, more precisely endogenous money creation.
May 10, 2003 The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis Paul Krugman’s post, Serfs Up!, reminds me of one of my major sins this spring (for which I must atone): my cutting Evsey Domar (1970), “The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis,” Economic History Review 30:1 (March), pp. 18-32, from my spring 2003 Economics 210a reading list. As Krugman summarizes Domar’s main point: Domar was motivated by his knowledge of Russian history. Serfdom in Russia, he knew, wasn’t an institution that dated back to the Dark Ages. Instead, it was mainly a 16th-century creation, contemporaneous with the beginning of the great Russian expansion into the steppes. Why? He came up with a simple yet powerful insight: there’s no point in enslaving or enserfing a man unless the wage you would have to pay him if he was free is substantially above the cost of feeding, housing, and clothing him. Imagine a pre-industrial society where population is pressing on limited land supplies, and the marginal product of labor – and hence the real wage rate under competitive conditions – is barely at subsistence. In that case, why bother establishing property rights in human beings? It costs no more to hire a free worker than to feed an indentured laborer. Indeed, by 1300 – with Europe very much a Malthusian society – serfdom had withered away from lack of interest. But now suppose that for some reason land becomes abundant, and labor scarce. Then competition among landowners will tend to push up wages of free workers, and the ruling class will try, if it can, to pin peasants down and prevent them from bargaining for a higher standard of living. In Russia, it was all about gunpowder: suddenly steppe nomads were no longer so formidable, and the rich lands of the Ukraine were open for settlement. Serfdom was an effort to keep peasants from taking advantage of this situation. (And if I’ve got it right, those who were venturesome enough to run away and set up outside the system became Cossacks.) Meanwhile, the New World opened in the west. Sure enough, the colonizing powers tried various forms of indentured servitude – making serfs of the Indians in Spanish territories, bringing over indentured servants in Virginia. But eventually they hit on a better solution, from their point of view: importing slaves from Africa… Domar’s contribution is truly one of the most effective and powerful pieces of synthetic social science I have ever read. It isn’t perfect. He has more predecessors than he realizes (Marx, for example, especially Marx’s observations on the Swan River Colony in Australia, and the whole section on primitive accumulation and the creation of agrarian capitalism in Britain). And Domar misses one big cause of serfdom and slavery. During the formation of the Roman Empire, in Poland at the end of the Middle Ages, and in the Caribbean islands during the early modern period, slavery and serfdom did not emerge because a high land-labor ratio meant that the ruling elite could not afford to bid for labor in a free labor market. Slavery and serfdom emerged, instead, because high demand for staple products (grain, sugar, tobacco…) greatly lowered the gap between the productivity of free and the productivity of bound workers. Staple production is easier for gang-bosses to monitor than more diversified farming. Staple production also has lower skill requirements for workers. When demand for staple products is very high–to feed the proletariat of imperial Rome, to feed the growing cities of late-Medieval Flanders, or to supply the cheap luxuries demanded by early modern England–slavery or serfdom can emerge even without an extraordinarily high land/labor ratio.
^ The English word “farmer” in the sense of “agricultural producer” is derived from the French word fermier which means “leaseholder” (of an agricultural business or any other thing). Initially the word “farmer” designated in England only those agricultural producers who were not the owners of the land they were cultivating. Subsequently “farmer” became the generic term of all agricultural entrepreneurs, whether they owned the cultivated soil or not.
The government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, right, joins Boris Johnson and Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, to announce further coronavirus measures. Photograph: Simon Dawson/Reutersinanition(ĭn′ə-nĭsh′ən)
n.1. Exhaustion, as from lack of nourishment or vitality.2. The condition or quality of being empty.
11:09I have answered your question there is a glaring lacuna still, in this debate, we still don’t know I am sorry to say this we still don’t know There is a vast Inanition an enigma a conundrum Is Jeremy Corbyn going to campaign for the deal he proposes to do or is he going to invite his labour colleagues to destroy the contraption that he has created
Preceding this little flourish by our motor-mouthed Old Etonian Spiv was perhaps what will turn out to be the Biggest Lie of this 2019 election. Etheridge asked if Johnson had perhaps dug himself a Ditch where the Prematurely minted coinage of the sort made by back street counterfeiters, could bury their ill-gotten treasure, spoils, gains , booty, pillage, …. you get the idea? ed.ETCHINGHAM09:55 I’m noting, I’m noting, here of course 09:57 that we haven’t heard whether you would 10:00 campaign for remain or TO leave In that 10:02 situation but it is important that we 10:04 put the point that you have just made 10:06 directly to mr. Johnson about this 10:07 timetable let’s have a look at the 10:09 timetable you reckon you can get your 10:11 divorce deal done and a trade deal done 10:14 by December 2020 do you stick on a 10:17 pledge on that deadline of December 2020 10:20 or have you dug yourself in A DITCH.Boris Johnsonyes absolutely.If De Spaffel had stopped here and directed his answer to the Last part of Etchingham’s question it might have been a rather more honest serving of word salad. But no Golden Balls revved up and smirking with relish at his cabotaged payload of New world order bollocks chose to dig in building a system of trenches much as the Donkeys did at the Somme Verdan or other of the killing fields of Flanders, for make no mistake Johnson is a death cult cool-aid junkie and his use of the word “inanition” at the end of his Polemic was telling.“inanition”(ĭn′ə-nĭsh′ən)
inanition[in″ah-nish´un]
the exhausted state due to prolonged undernutrition; starvation.
inanitionA state of exhaustion or a bodily disorder arising from lack of any of the nutritional elements such as calories, protein, vitamins, minerals or water.
Pardon me. Men of business do indeed know how they themselvesmade their money, or how, on occasion, they lost it. Playing along-practised game, they are familiar with the chances of itscards, and can rightly explain their losses and gains. But theyneither know who keeps the bank of the gambling-house, nor whatother games may be played with the same cards, nor what otherlosses and gains, far away among the dark streets, areessentially, though invisibly, dependent on theirs in the lightedrooms. They have learned a few, and only a few, of the laws ofmercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy.
It occurred to me today that politics has become a Business as has Government and everything else, which when I was at school, that which used to come under the Catch all Subject area of “Civics“. Narratives and Branding, Focus groups and Polling and Modelling. Much of the content of what is packaged as the political component is actually exported between markets and the various snake oils and lubricants are shipped under the Political Captains sporting what can only be described as Hollowed out dummy Vessels flying Flags of Convenience.CABOTAGE
https://agovernmentofthepeople.com/1920/06/01/merchant-marine-act-of-1920-the-jones-act/ Cabotage is the transport of goods or passengers between two points in the same country by a vessel or an aircraft registered in another country. Originally a shipping term, cabotage now also covers aviation, railways, and road transport. Cabotage is “trade or navigation in coastal waters, or, the exclusive right of a country to operate the air traffic within its territory”. Smith Munt Act, International, Supra National Trade?
It was once considered a noble and daring thing to speak truth to power, the state of affairs presently seems that power is not even advised to speak truth to itself. Tokenism seems to be the Flag of convenience which is flown by all the major players on the stage regardless of their Stage instructions to be Stage Left or Stage Right In the Lime Light or further Back in the Shadows of the stage, back there at the top of the Slope.The Tokenism Brand it is then for the crop of Pound Shop race to the bottom, “There is no Alternative” ( TINA), Merchants of the Rules based International Order. As it is With all Generic Brands, such as Hoover, The Generic Term for our Flag of convenience morality play should Be “Political Correctness,”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
PC an everyday tale of Political Folk. Professor Bruce Charlton in his Book Thought Prison PC describes the Brand like this.Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism? The reasons include: 1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC. 2. Differences in usage between the UK and US: in the UK the Liberals are a strange mixture of business- and farming-friendly Centrists with pacifist Leftists of an upper middle class type; in the US Liberals are the furthest Left of mainstream political ideologies. 3. That although PC clearly evolved from (what is in the US) called liberalism, PC is the outcome of a distinctive ‘turn’ in Leftist politics, which became obvious in the mid-1960s. In its striking, explicit, surface features PC is something new under the sun, never before seen in history. 4. Leftist political groups have, over the years, called themselves Communist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal Democrat, Democrat and various other names – but none of these have become dominant, and none are fully inclusive of Leftism. 5. The dawning realization that the phenomena collected together under the jokey term ‘political correctness’ was a vastly more robust and malignant thing than I had ever imagined.
The ferme générale (French pronunciation: [fɛʁm ʒeneʁal], “general farm”) was, in ancien régimeFrance, essentially an outsourced customs, excise and indirect tax operation. It collected duties on behalf of the King (plus hefty bonus fees for themselves), under renewable six-year contracts. The major tax collectors in that highly unpopular tax farming system were known as the fermiers généraux (singular fermier général), which would be tax farmers-general[a] in English.[1]In the 17th and 18th centuries the fermiers généraux became immensely rich and figure prominently in the history of cultural patronage, as supporters of French music, major collectors of paintings and sculpture, patrons of the marchands-merciers and consumers of the luxury arts in the vanguard of Parisian fashions. In his 1833 novel Ferragus, writer Honoré de Balzac attributes the sad air that hangs about the Île Saint-Louis in central Paris to the many houses there owned by fermiers généraux. Their sons or grandsons purchased patents of nobility and their daughters often married into the aristocracy. Especially members of impoverished aristocratic families were eager to marry daughters of the fermiers généraux in order to restore the wealth they had prior to their ruin. This was called in popular French redorer son blason (literally “to re-gild one’s coat of arms”).[2]
^ The English word “farmer” in the sense of “agricultural producer” is derived from the French word fermier which means “leaseholder” (of an agricultural business or any other thing). Initially the word “farmer” designated in England only those agricultural producers who were not the owners of the land they were cultivating. Subsequently “farmer” became the generic term of all agricultural entrepreneurs, whether they owned the cultivated soil or not.
Farming or tax-farming is a technique of financial management in which the management of a variable revenue stream is assigned by legal contract to a third party and the holder of the revenue stream receives fixed periodic rents from the contractor. It is most commonly used in public finance, where governments (the lessors) lease or assign the right to collect and retain the whole of the tax revenue to a private financier (the farmer), who is charged with paying fixed sums (sometimes called “rents”, but with a different meaning from the common modern term) into the treasury. Sometimes, as in the case of Miguel de Cervantes, the tax farmer was a government employee, paid a salary, and all money collected went to the government.[citation needed]Farming in this sense has nothing to do with agriculture, other than in a metaphorical sense.
Contents
1Etymology1.1Derivation from classical Latin1.2Derivation from Old English2Valuation of a farm3Historical use3.1Roman Empire3.2Feudal England3.3Other uses4Advantages5Disadvantages6Modern-day tax farming6.1Indian sub-continent7Disambiguation7.1Privatized tax collection7.2Factoring7.3Simple commutation8See also9References10Further reading11External linksDerivation from classical Latin[edit]Some sources derive “farm” with its French version ferme, most notably used in the context of the Fermiers Generaux, from the mediaeval Latin firma, meaning “a fixed agreement, contract”, ultimately from the classical Latin adjective firmus, firma, firmum, meaning “firm, strong, stout, steadfast, immoveable, sure, to be relied upon”.[1] The modern agricultural sense of the word stems from the same origin, in that a medieval land-“holder” (none “owned” land but the king himself under his allodial title) under feudal land tenure might let it (i.e. lease it out) under a contract as a going concern (not as a sub-infeudatedfee), that is to say as a unit producing a revenue stream, together with its workers, livestock and deadstock (i.e. implements), for exploitation by a tenant who was licensed by the contract, or firma, to keep all the revenue he could extract from the holding in exchange for fixed rents. Thus the rights to the revenue stream produced by the land had been farmed by the lessor (therefore strictly perhaps the “farmor”) and the tenant became the “holder of the farm”, or to coin a word, “farmee”. Because this was the form of the farming transaction most known to popular society, the word “farmer” became synonymous with a tenant of an agricultural holding.Derivation from Old English[edit]According to other sources, the word farm comes from Middle Englishferme (“farm, rent, revenue; revenue collected from a farmer; factor, stewardship, meal, feast”), from Old Englishfeorm, farm (“provision, stores of food, supplies, possessions; provisions supplied to the king or a lord by a tenant or vassal; rent, feast, benefit, assylum”), from Proto-Germanic *firmō, *firχumō (“means of living, subsistence”), from Proto-Indo-European *perkwu- (“life, strength, force”). It is related to other Old English words such as feormehām (“farm”), feormere (“purveyor, grocer”), feormian (“to provision, sustain”), and feorh (“life, spirit”). The Old English word is stated by these sources as having unusually been borrowed by Medieval Latin as firma or ferma and to have provided the Old Frenchferme “farm”, Occitanferma “farm”. This is refuted by those sources which state firma to derive from classical Latin firmus.[2] The word continued the same senses of “rent, farmed office, source of revenue, feast”. The meaning “rent, fixed payment”, which was already present in the Old English word, was further strengthened due to the word’s resemblance to the unrelated (so say these sources) Latinfirmus (“firm, solid”), and firmitas (“security, firmness”).[3][4]
what do you make of North Here, I have read all his EU books but I do think he is wrong about WTO rules, whats his stich do you think he is very poor on Money none of his books tackle it which I noted in my own Technical Brexit series. Meet the Fuggers, EU Enlargement and Their Lordships and Article 50.Sections of the book on Energy policy and also other Trade matters are important and covered extensively in the book. One does wonder why Dr North does not dig into the Gnomes of Zurich(Basle) aspects as much as he is clearly capable of doing, and which I assume he has chosen not to. Dr North also writes convincingly on political devolution and of devolving democratic powers back to the local level, That is, I found it convincing but I am a natural member of that particular choir. https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/article-50-globalisation-and-the-real-seat-of-power-the-top-table-and-the-trump-card-and-the-elephant-in-the-room/
Contrasting sharply with his reluctance to be seen anywhere near flooded areas, offering somewhat lame excuses for his absence – and after something of a hiatus before he was prepared to get involved with the Covid-19 crisis – it seems impossible to keep our idiot prime minister away from the front line….
…..In an outbreak situation, using politicians – and especially controversial figures such as Johnson – can severely impede delivery of a message – as painfully illustrated by this piece.Thus to have had Johnson recently preach the benefits of hand washing – persisting even yesterday with his charade – was and is precisely the wrong thing to do. He should not allow himself to be in the position of delivering that message – with or without singing “happy birthday”. Even if the fanboys adoringly slurp up every instruction, his many detractors will scorn his advice, for no other reason than the fact that he gave it.
As a working assumption, we can take it that what happens in Italy today will be visited on the UK within 2-3 weeks, give or take. So, while Italy goes into “lockdown”, we now enter the “delay doing anything” phase, as our revered prime minister blusters his way through another press conference.
To explain why the government seems so extraordinarily reluctant to take very obvious and necessary action, one can pick up on Robert Peston’s observations, where he is amongst the first in the legacy media to cotton on to herd immunity.The strategy of the British government in minimising the impact of Covid-19, he says, is to allow the virus to pass through the entire population so that we acquire herd immunity.
Working from basic principles, from what I’ve been taught and put into practice, yesterday I advanced the view that, in order to bring this Covid-19 epidemic under control, the first and urgent need was “the rapid identification (and confirmation) of the sources of infection”.
Some of this seems to be confirmed by health secretary Matt Hancock. In an authored piece in the fanboy gazette, he first takes time out to deny that the government is pursuing herd immunity as a goal or strategy. “Our goal is to protect life from this virus, our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS through contain, delay, research and mitigate”, he writes.
14. Taxation is at the economic core wherever government supplies significant services such as civil and military protection of property rights, infrastructure, education or healthcare. The UK is no exception.
15. Taxation comprises three fundamental economic parts:
l Creation of the medium of taxation and issue into the economy
l Distribution of the medium of taxation through the economy
l Collection of the medium of taxation
The medium of taxation
16. Over the course of history, the medium of taxation has changed several times. Under the earliest systems, taxation was paid in cattle, later moving to grain – generally rice or wheat (tithe systems) or labour (corvée systems). Whenever payments moved to metal tokens issued by the rulers, a money system was born. These tokens were usually made out of scarce and distinctive metals to prevent counterfeiting – silver, sometimes gold. The tokens would move through the economy through economic exchange, but would be demanded back by the rulers as the means of collecting taxes. Wooden tally sticks were the most successful English tax medium. The public demand of tokens to pay taxation ensures a sustained demand and maintains their exchange value across the economy.
17. Modern taxation systems are still based around the creation, distribution and collection of tokens, but the tokens now take electronic rather than physical form. These tokens are bookkeeping entries in the banking system. The structure of the taxation system and the economy it controls is determined by the rules under which these electronic bookkeeping tokens are created, distributed and collected. Coins and notes are still issued in small quantity, but are subsidiary to to the banking system’s bookkeeping entries.
18. The economic power of the tax system is determined both by how and where in the economy the medium of taxation is created and where and how the medium is collected.
19. Contemporary governments grant the exclusive power to issue the medium of taxation to a state sanctioned banking cartel. The banking cartel comprises a central bank and private member banks. The central bank is responsible for price fixing, information sharing, promoting member interests and preventing member defaults. Serving the public interest is not a primary goal of a central bank. The cartel holds the exclusive power to set the price of and issue the medium of taxation. Governments generally prohibit the issue of alternative media for exchange and mandate payments of taxes only in the cartel-issued medium.
20. The collection of the medium of taxation is under direct government control. Most tax is collected whenever economic production takes place. This places a burden on producers, who must acquire the medium of taxation directly or indirectly from the private banking cartel. The economic effect of taxation is dependent on the rules for calculating the amount of tax which is paid, regardless of who the tax is collected from. Usually, the person from whom the tax is collected can pass the burden of acquiring the medium on to others, generally by paying less for economic inputs, but sometimes by charging more for economic outputs.
21. The spending power derived from taxation is shared between the government and the private banking cartel. This spending power is transmitted through the economy by banking cartel to their favoured associates, and by the government and their favoured associates. The system is effectively one of dual sovereignty since the sovereign powers of tax collecting and the corresponding issue of money is shared between the government and the banking cartel. This is the most distorting aspect of tax policy.
”The monetary and financial system of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society. This neural network provides the administrative means to collect taxes, direct investment, provide public goods, trade. The money measures provide a crude but serviceable basis for the accounting system which in turn, along with the codification of commercial law and financial regulation are the basis for economic evaluation and the measurement of trust and fiduciary responsibility among the economic agents. A central feature of a control mechanism is that it is designed to influence process. Dynamics is its natural domain. Equilibrium is not the prime concern, the ability to control the direction of motion is what counts.
Why is this EU Green New Deal being Unveiled on the 12th December? perhaps because it is too late, then, to influence the UK’s “Brino”, Election. An Election in which, EU Military Unification, The Carbon Based currency agenda and a shift to a more Authoritarian and top-down constitutional approach are all slated, but not discussed. As a Vassal of the EU Rules-Based federated Empire. BRINO is not Brexit and Get Brexit done is an anagram of Being Extorted.
The Extortion and the Austerity is Baked already into the EU Lisbon Treaty cake, which of course is a re-iced confection of the Maastricht treaty. Brino is yet more Centralisation and loss of peoples democratic and economic sovereignty by other means. BRINO is a re-iced MAY surrender treaty. And the political pigmies in Westminster and the British Establishment happily mislead the Uk public over the cliff for their own Elitist ends.
What does it mean to take back control,
This Gif made for Wiki Ballot spells out the headings.
This post focuses on our Money? Who controls it
19. “Contemporary governments grant the exclusive power to issue the medium of taxation to a state sanctioned banking cartel. The banking cartel comprises a central bank and private member banks. The central bank is responsible for price fixing, information sharing, promoting member interests and preventing member defaults. Serving the public interest is not a primary goal of a central bank. The cartel holds the exclusive power to set the price of and issue the medium of taxation. Governments generally prohibit the issue of alternative media for exchange and mandate payments of taxes only in the cartel-issued medium.”
Loss of control of Our Money it seems is a planned two-stage process Augered by the Timing of De Leyns’ trailing of the European Green New Deal, and of Mark Carneys New “Job”shepherding in the carbon credits essential to the Carbon-based currency end game. Think about it we breathe in Oxygen and Breathe Out Carbon Dioxide, how well would it go down if you were told the Governments appointed Money Changers were going to Tax the Air that we breathe, instead they choose to tax the CO2 we Breathe out,
All to maintain the “.. monetary and financial system, (of an economy are part of the socio-politico-economic), control mechanism used by every state to connect the economy with the polity and society.”
Carbon Neutrality has nothing to do with the Levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere at any one time and everything to do with taxing the flows of energy use within the economy at higher levels supporting Corporate state monopolies that will make life more of a struggle for the precariat but enhance the state-sanctioned monopolies of Billionaires and the New Nobility of post Fordistfuedalism..
Brexit Smexit, Why we should all be feelin the bern and the UK referendum on EU is of no conseque…
Brexit Smexit, Why we should all be feeling the Bern and the UK referendum on EU is of no consequence in or out. Bernie Sanders won in Michigan how many UKIP supporters that want out and how many S…
Boris as an Augustine confessor returning from the Manichean dark side of the lies based globalist order? To a free trade internationalism of meritocratic one nation, Churchillian safety net, Pragmatism? Time will tell.
Advocates and sympathetic politicians claiming that man-made global warming from use of carbon-based energy sources mandates international controls on economically prosperous nations were already worried that their victory is slipping. Now another blow has been struck against the basic “science” used to support their case. Following an extensive theoretical analysis, two German physicists have determined that the term greenhouse gas is a misnomer and that the greenhouse effect appears to violate basic laws of physics.
To briefly review, the entire argument for immediate political action on carbon-based emissions rests upon three premises, formulated over the last twenty years by scientists affiliated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
1. The planet is experiencing worldwide atmospheric warming, threatening life as we know it.
2. This warming is unprecedented because average worldwide temperatures for at least a thousand years have shown no significant variation until the last seventy years, which correlates with a thirty-percent increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) gas generated by industrial activity.
3. Invoking a “greenhouse effect” model, the IPCC claims that CO2 exhibits a property involving special characteristics of long-wave energy absorption and radiation with altitude (called “radiative forcing”) which accelerates near-surface warming and, as the CO2 quantity increases, spells planetary disaster unless reversed.
In an AT article posted September 27, I laid out the case for why the first two premises were flawed, if not outright fraudulent. Now, the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming has been shown not only to be unverifiable, but to actually violate basic laws of physics.
The analysis comes from an independent theoretical study detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper prepared by two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf Tscheuschner, and published in several updated versions over the last couple of years. The latest version appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics. In the paper, the two authors analyze the greenhouse gas model from its origin in the mid-19th century to the present IPCC application.
Gerlich and Tscheuschner rely on referenced experimental evidence to show what is really going on. The dominant heat transfer mechanism is not radiation, but convection. Experimental evidence shows a greenhouse interior warms merely because the glass physically traps interior rising air, which then becomes warmer and warmer relative to air outside the greenhouse, which conversely can rise and cool unimpeded.
If the classic glass greenhouse model is obviously wrong, then this raises suspicions about the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” itself. The authors examine definitions of “greenhouse effect” by three respected sources (the Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy; the Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics; and Encyclopedia Britannica Online). They show how each uses ill-defined global concepts (such as “mean temperature”), confuse infrared radiation with heat (they’re different), incorrectly describe the physics inside a glass greenhouse, and use other terms unsupported by the laws of physics.
Thus, scientific support for the man-made global warming hoax slowly collapses while politicians rush to lock in massive international wealth-redistribution in its name. Those pesky “greenhouse gases” just don’t behave in a politically correct manner.
Once again I am being drawn into defending the common explanation of Earth’s so-called “greenhouse effect” as it is portrayed by the IPCC, textbooks, and virtually everyone who works in atmospheric radiation and thermodynamics.
To be clear, I am not defending the IPCC’s predictions of future climate change… just the general explanation of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which has a profound influence on global temperatures as well as on weather.
As we will see, much confusion arises about the greenhouse effect due to its complexity, and the difficulty in expressing that complexity accurately with words alone. In fact, the IPCC’s greenhouse effect “definition” quoted by Dr. Ollila is incomplete and misleading, as anyone who understands the greenhouse effect should know.
As we will see, in the case of something as complicated as the greenhouse effect, a simplified worded definition should never be the basis for quantitative calculations; instead, complicated calculations are sometimes only poorly described with words.
Selling England By the Pound, The Fat Lady will sing her song.
accompanying translation:
Boudicca curru filias prae se vehens, ut quamquenationem accesserat, solitum quidem Britannis femi-narum ductu bellare testabatur, sed tunc non ut tantismaioribus ortam regnum et opes, verum ut unam evulgo libertatem amissam, confectum verberibus corpus,contrectatam filiarum pudicitiam ulcisci. Eo provectasRomanorum cupidines, ut non corpora, ne senectamquidem aut virginitatem impollutam relinquant. Adessetamen deos iustae vindictae; cecidisse legionem, quae proelium ausa sit; ceteros castris occultari aut fugamcircumspicere. Ne strepitum quidem et clamorem totmilium, nedum impetus et manus perlaturos. Si co- pias armatorum, si causas belli secum expenderent,vincendum illa acie vel cadendum esse. Id mulieridestinatum: viverent viri et servirent.(
Ann
. 14.35.1–2)
28
Boudica, riding in a chariot with her daughters beforeher, as she approached each tribe, was saying that itwas customary for the Britons to wage war under theleadership of women; but then, she said, she was not avenging her kingdom and her power as a woman bornfrom noble ancestors, but rather her lost freedom, her body worn out by whips, and the defiled chastity of her daughters as one of the people. The rapaciousnessof the Romans had advanced so far, she said, that theydo not even leave bodies, old age, or maidenhoodunsoiled. Nevertheless, the gods of just revenge are present: a legion that dared battle has fallen; othershid in the camp or searched intently for an escape.She said that the Romans would not even be ableto endure the din and clamor of so many thousands,much less their fury and violence: if they consideredthe abundance of troops and the motives of the war,they would know that their battle line must either conquer or fall. That was the resolve of a woman:the men might live and be slaves.
The sentimentis somewhat reminiscent of Sallust’s powerful line in the
Epistula Mithridatis
(
Hist
. 4.69M): Namque Romanis cum nationibus populis regibuscunctis una et ea vetus causa bellandi est: cupido profunda imperi et divitiarum (
EM
5).
35
For the Romans there is a single age-old cause for instigating war on all nations, peoples, and kings: adeep-seated lust for empire and riches.
Dio’s Boudicaspeech, though a pell-mell creation, presents some powerful indict-ments of Roman rule more specific than the generalities that Tacitus’Boudica musters. The text of the oration with accompanying transla-tion should make its garrulousness clear:
(3.1) “You have found out how much freedom differsfrom slavery through real experiences, so that, even if earlier some of you, through ignorance of what wassuperior, were tricked by the tempting promises of theRomans, you now, having tried both, have learned howgreat a mistake you made in preferring an importedtyranny to your ancient way of life, and you knowhow much penury without a master surpasses wealthas a slave. (2) For what of the most shameful, themost distressing sort have we not experienced sincethese people have taken themselves to Britain? Havewe not been robbed entirely of most of our greatest possessions, and do we not pay taxes on the rest?(3) Besides pasturing and farming for them, do wenot pay yearly tribute for our own bodies? By howmuch would it have been better to be sold once andfor all, rather than to be held ransom each year withthe empty titles of freedom? By how much would ithave been better to be slain and die than to endurewhile subject to a head tax? And yet why did I saythis? (4) For, among them not even dying is scot-free, but you know how much we pay even for our dead; with other people, death frees even those whoare enslaved, but with the Romans alone the deadlive on for gain. (5) And why is it that, even thoughnone of us has money (for how would we get it, andfrom where?), we are sold and stripped like victimsof a homicide? And why should they be moderate inthe time to come, when they have treated us in thisfashion immediately, and when all men treat evennewly caught beasts well?(4.1) “To speak the truth, we are responsible for all these evils, as some of us entrusted them to setfoot on the island to begin with, and did not imme-diately drive them off, as we did under the famousJulius Caesar; and we did not, as we did with both
Augustus and Gaius Caligula, make an attempt at aformidable voyage. (2) Thus, though we inhabit solarge an island—rather a continent surrounded bywater—and though we have our own world and arecut off by the ocean from all other people to such anextent that we have been believed to inhabit another land and sky, and even some of the wisest men havenot previously known our name accurately, we have been disdained and trampled on by people who knownothing other than greed. (3) But although we havenot done the proper things beforehand, let us, mycountrymen and friends and kinsmen (for I consider you kinsmen, since you inhabit one island and arecalled by a common name), do them now, so that wemay leave behind to our children both the name andreality of freedom, while we still remember it. For if we utterly forget our natural state of happiness, whatwill our children do, nursed in slavery?(5.1) “I do not say these things so that you will hateyour present circumstances (for you have hated them),nor so that you will fear what is to come (for youhave feared it), but so that I may laud you, becauseyou have by yourselves chosen all the necessary steps,and thank you for readily working together with meand each other. Do not at all fear the Romans; (2)for they are neither more numerous than we nor more brave. And the proof is that they are covered withhelmets and breastplates and greaves and besides prepared with stockades and walls and trenches soas not to suffer from an attack of the enemy. For they are overpowered by fears, unlike us, who actoffhandedly. (3) We truly enjoy such an abundanceof bravery that we consider our tents more securethan their walls and our shields far more sufficientthan their full suits of armor. As such, overpower-ing them, we capture them, and overpowered, weflee, and if we decide to withdraw somewhere, weslink away and hide in such marshes and hills thatwe can’t be found or seized; (4) but the Romans, because of their heavy armor, are neither able tochase anyone nor to flee, and if they ever run away,they flee to appointed places, and are enclosed thereas if trapped. (5) And in these respects they are byfar inferior to us: they can also not endure hunger,thirst, cold, or heat as we can, but requiring shade,shelter, and bread, they need wine and oil, and if any of these things runs dry, they perish; for us, allgrasses and roots serve as bread, all liquids serve as
oil, all water serves as wine, and all trees serve as ahouse. (6) Verily, these lands are familiar to us andour allies, but are unknown and adverse to them; andwe swim the rivers naked, whereas they cannot getto the other side of them easily with boats. But letus go against them trusting in good fortune. Let usshow them that they are hares and foxes attemptingto rule over dogs and wolves.”(6.1) Having said these things, employing some kindof divination, she let a hare escape from a fold of her dress, and when it ran in an auspicious direction,the whole multitude shouted out with delight, andBoudica, lifting her hand toward the sky, said, (2)“I give thanks to you, Andraste, and I call upon youas a woman to a woman, as one who does not ruleover burden-bearing Egyptians as Nitocris, or over the tradesmen Assyrians as Semiramis (for even wehave already learned these things from the Romans),(3) or over the Romans themselves, as did Messalina,then Agrippina, and now Nero (for though he has thename of a man, he is in fact a woman, as one can tellfrom his singing, his lyre playing, and his grooming);rather, I rule over the Britons, who don’t know howto farm or practice a trade, but have learned how to be consummate fighters, and consider all things com-mon—including children and wives—and as a resultthe women have the same valor as men. (4) Rulingover such men and women, then, I both pray to youand ask for victory, safety, and freedom against in-solent, unjust, insatiate, and profane men—if, at anyrate, one should even call people men who bathe inwarm water, eat artificial dainties, imbibe unmixedwine, anoint themselves with myrrh, sleep on soft beds with boys—even ones past their prime—andare slaves to a bad lyre-player. (5) Truly may Ms.Domitia-Nero no longer rule over us, but let thatsinging girl be lord over the Romans, for surely theyare deserving of being slaves to such a woman, sincethey have already put up with her playing the tyrantfor so long; but, mistress [sc. Andraste], may youalways be our only leader.”
There’s a fat old lady outside the saloon; laying out the credit she plays Fortune. The deck is uneven right from the start; all of their hands are playing apart.
A TALE OF TWO CITIES A STORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BY CHARLES DICKENS I. THE PERIOD It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
@PMotels 5h5 hours ago More Replying to @NRP_lib regarding being better off in or out, I think it is a red herring. The discourse is really about political power and centralisation of it or Subsidiarity. The current trajectory for all but 1% is to be worse off In or out, Brexit or MAGA does not effect this Debt/Credit creation
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes Reply 2 Retweet Like View Tweet activity New conversation
Ricky
@NRP_lib 4h4 hours ago More Yes Roger, I agree, it’s about PROPER national sovereignty over politics, legal and economic decision making.
Whether or not we’d be much/slightly better/worse off immediately after Brexit or 10 years down the line is secondary.
Gordie February 26, 2019 at 5:25 pm the beginning to the end of free speech started today with the banning of Tommy Robinson from Facebook a day after his “Panodrama” video was released exposing the fake news and blackmail of Panorama. This is the elites closing down avenues of criticism in the UK as John predicted some time ago . We now live in a fascist state where democracy is ignored and criticism of policy suppressed. I am totally disgusted.
Here Here.
If we want our Country Back we have to take it back. I would only watch a video about Stephen Christopher Yaxley. ; )
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes Reply 2 Retweet Like Direct message
RogerGLewis
@PMotels 8h8 hours ago More Lars Stephen Yaxley is Kipling’s Tommy he speaks for all those of us Tommys with Working Class roots who know where we came from and who to thank. Tommy’s/Stephens message is not left or right its Rich-poor and liberty , UKIP has the same dynamic. When we Tommy’s fight
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
All boiled Down John and fellow sloggers the question is DO we Want our Country Back
I give you selling England By the Pound.
There’s a fat old lady outside the saloon; laying out the credit she plays Fortune. The deck is uneven right from the start; all of their hands are playing apart.
