This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A Democracy Where Less Than 0.1% Control a Quarter of the Jobs
Last week I
discussed how the US has shifted from a Democracy to an Oligarchy. Today I
thought we’d look at some facts detailing some clear numbers that support this
claim.
The classic
paradigm for thinking of the “American experience” involves the use of a
“melting pot” or “patchwork” metaphor. The basic idea is that the US is a
single entity comprised of a wide variety of ethnic/ social groups. This
metaphor in turn is used to support the view that the US is a Democracy: a
place where “your vote counts” no matter who you are.
However, to
me, an examination of the real socio-political hierarchy in the US reveals that
this entire “patchwork” ideology is a myth perpetuated in order to convince the
general populace that they somehow matter or have an impact on the US political
structure and proposed legislative policy.
Indeed,
dividing the US population based on issues of race or gender means breaking it
into fairly sizable groups. Indeed, even the issue that produces the largest
single majority (race) still has a sizable percentage of the population (25%)
in the minority category.
In contrast,
dividing the US population between individuals and large businesses involves
splitting it into a MASSIVE majority (greater than 99%) and an extremely tiny minority (less than 0.1%).
And while
dividing the population based on race/ gender/ etc. produces a majority group
that is generally believed to have greater political clout/ influence, when you
divide the US between big business and individuals it is an extremely small minority that maintains an exorbitant amount of power.
Let’s take a
look at the numbers…
According to
the latest census data, there are roughly 900 companies that produce annual
revenues of $2.5 billion or more (the largest revenues bracket for any US business).
These are the “big boys” in the US economy. And when I say “big,” I mean BIG
both in terms of size and political clout.
Collectively
that these firms:
§ Control
roughly 25% of US jobs (26 million jobs out of 112 million total).
§ Pay
out nearly 30% of US salaries ($1.1 trillion out of $3.9 trillion).
§ Produce
42% of all revenues ($9.3 out of $22 trillion).
Control at
most large-scale corporations is based on a centralized hierarchy in which the
most critical decisions are decided by a select group of individuals. For
simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use Exxon Mobil’s corporate structure as a
proxy for large-scale corporate management numbers.
According to
its latest 10-K, Exxon has 19 Executive Officers (CEO, CFO, etc). When you add
in Exxon’s Board of Directors, you’re looking at roughly 30 individuals “at the
top of the corporate food chain.”
Multiplying
this number by the number of large-scale corporations in the US (900) we arrive
at a number of roughly 27,000 individuals who “call the shots” for large US
businesses.
I realize
this is very selective analysis, but even if we choose to assume 100
individuals at the top, (rather than 30), AND include smaller US-based
companies (those that produce annual revenues of $500 million or more), we’re
still talking about only 3,000 companies and 300,000 individuals “in charge.”
Now, the
total US population is roughly 308 million, so we’re talking about less than
0.1% of the population dictating the primary business/ economic/ political
decisions.
Now you realize what I meant when I said
that issues of race, gender, and the like are Shadow issues that distract us
from the real issues of power/control in the US.
I believe
these Shadow issues elicit strong emotional responses from all of us, but in
reality all they do is distract us from the fact that roughly 0.1% of the
population controls the US’s economic policy in the private sector, as well as
in the public sector (via lobbying efforts, campaign donations, etc).
Thus I
propose that big business is the man behind the curtain, the “individual”
moving various puppets (the politicians) via monetary-based “strings”
(donations and lobbying efforts).
We are told
that have a primary role in the election process in the US due to it being a
voter-based Democracy. This much is generally true. However, it is large-scale
corporations that make the largest donations to political candidates. And
unlike individual voters who can only pick one
candidate in the voting process, Big Business can back both parties financially
to insure that whoever wins will look upon them and their ideas favorably.
And they
usually do.
While most
of us have to choose which candidate to vote for, big business typically backs
both parties to insure that whoever wins is “in their pocket.” Consider the donations from Commercial
Banks in the 2008 election:
|
Total Donations |
Donations to Democrats |
Donations to Republicans |
% to Democrats |
% to Republicans |
|
$37.5 |
$17.9 |
$19.5 |
48% |
52% |
The public
consensus is that Republicans are the “big finance” party, but the above
numbers clearly show commercial bank contributions are split evenly between the
two parties.
This is
nothing new. Indeed, even if we include all commercial bank contributions going
back to the 1990 elections, the total amount ($221 million) is still split 41%
vs. 59% between Democrats and Republicans: hardly a skewed breakdown. And when
you’re talking about donations in the hundreds of millions, even 10% of this is
still a HUGE amount of money compared to what US individuals donate.
Below is a
list of the top 25 corporate donors from 1989 -2009. Only a third of these are
uneven (those are bolded). The remainder (2/3) of contributions are roughly
equal (anything greater than a 60/40 split was deemed uneven).
|
Rank |
Organization |
Total '89-'09 |
Dem % |
Republicans % |
|
1 |
AT&T Inc |
$44,361,209 |
44% |
55% |
|
2 |
Goldman Sachs |
$31,612,375 |
64% |
35% |
|
3 |
Citigroup Inc |
$27,179,418 |
50% |
49% |
|
4 |
United Parcel Service |
$24,333,183 |
36% |
63% |
|
5 |
Microsoft Corp |
$20,221,604 |
53% |
46% |
|
6 |
JPMorgan Chase & Co |
$20,129,053 |
51% |
48% |
|
7 |
Time Warner |
$20,059,030 |
71% |
27% |
|
8 |
Verizon Communications |
$18,868,752 |
40% |
58% |
|
9 |
Morgan Stanley |
$18,585,734 |
45% |
53% |
|
10 |
Lockheed Martin |
$18,545,123 |
43% |
56% |
|
11 |
Pfizer Inc |
$18,355,232 |
29% |
70% |
|
12 |
General Electric |
$18,172,909 |
51% |
48% |
|
13 |
FedEx Corp |
$18,134,041 |
40% |
59% |
|
14 |
Bank of America |
$17,316,442 |
47% |
52% |
|
15 |
Blue Cross/Blue Shield |
$16,670,269 |
40% |
59% |
|
16 |
UBS AG |
$15,571,924 |
40% |
58% |
|
17 |
Merrill Lynch |
$14,336,680 |
37% |
61% |
|
18 |
Boeing Co |
$14,224,472 |
47% |
52% |
|
19 |
Reynolds American |
$13,417,652 |
24% |
75% |
|
20 |
BellSouth Corp |
$12,993,782 |
45% |
54% |
|
21 |
Credit Suisse Group |
$12,634,176 |
44% |
54% |
|
22 |
General Dynamics |
$11,909,089 |
46% |
52% |
|
23 |
American Financial Group |
$11,474,005 |
18% |
81% |
|
24 |
GlaxoSmithKline |
$11,167,939 |
29% |
70% |
|
25 |
Altria Group |
$11,025,201 |
39% |
60% |
With this
understanding of the US political process, it is obvious to me why every major
economic policy introduced or maintained in the last 30 years has largely
benefited Big Business, specifically executives, and no one else.
Best Regards,
Graham
Summers
PS. The above is an excerpt from a report I published showing the US political system for what it is: a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy. To download the whole article for free and discover other hard-hitting insights on how the world really works, go to www.phoenixworldviewsdigest.com
- advertisements -

