The US Is #1 (In Global Income Inequality)

Tyler Durden's picture

Widening income disparity has been a feature of many advanced and developing economies for the past few years and has myriad investment implications. As we noted yesterday, the USA is at levels of income disparity not seen since the roaring 20s (and by some counts worse) but how does that stack up to the rest of the world? Fed fans will be proud to say that once again USA in Number 1... in global income inequality.

Consumer-facing businesses are naturally among the most directly exposed to shifts in income distribution, while new revenue opportunities in welfare areas, such as education, should emerge as policy focus increases on solutions to ease income inequality. On the other hand, steps taken by governments to restore more equitable income distribution can foster new risks for corporates, in the form of higher taxes, restricted access to global goods, talent and capital.

As Goldman notes,

Where has income inequality changed?

In most countries it has widened over the past two decades, and in a few it has narrowed from high levels (Latin America). But global income inequality between people of different countries has narrowed, as China’s and India’s middle-class income growth has outpaced the West’s.

What has caused this?

Globalisation and technology have been two drivers: wages for highly skilled labour expanded as demand exceeded supply, while lower skilled labour has been arbitraged globally, damaging middle incomes in DMs.

What are the investment opportunities?

Providers of education and broader welfare, and consumer-facing companies that are favourably exposed to changes in real growth for different income levels (trading down to discounters) and ongoing income growth for higher earners (prime residential real estate, high-end retail and luxury)

The investment risks?

Restricted people, capital and goods flow; higher taxes, either indirect or direct for individuals and corporates. An exodus of talent from countries with less opportunity can have long-term negative consequences too.

Unequal income, unequal risks

There are also numerous risks that arise from responses to wide income and wealth disparity, both at a micro and macro level. There is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here – the very high focus on inequality means it becomes a very important issue and policy challenge. And in democracies, voters can force the hand of the government to act.

A minimum wage, or incorporating limits on pay, are perhaps the most direct way of shrinking the range of income distribution in an economy, given that they apply a floor or a cap to incomes.

If globalisation is seen as one of the causes of widening income inequality then it is possible that deglobalisation is seen as a solution to it. i.e. limiting the flows of goods, people and capital across borders. This would be damaging to many industries and companies, particularly those that have invested much capital in global assets and facilities.

Taxation is the most commonly used means of redistribution and there is much debate here around its effectiveness and fairness.

Social Unrest

A sweeping look at longer-run history tells us that income disparity has been much higher in earlier societies. England in the early 19th century had a GINI of around 50% as a consequence of the industrial revolution, while if we look further back, Holland had even greater inequality (estimated at 55%) prior to the Dutch Revolt in the 16th century. Today, South Africa is the only country with a population of more than 10 mn with a GINI co-efficient higher than that. But, in terms of assessing where sustained and rising inequality may result in social unrest, historical ranges may be less relevant now, as the spotlight of transparency shines brighter thanks to the ubiquity of information and in particular the torchlights of social media.

And the myriad connections and speed of communication means that people can come together quicker and organise themselves more efficiently. Protests can also leap across borders with greater alacrity and the beacons of protest can form a global chain within hours

Of course, it seems Goldman is a little shy of pointing out the true driver of this...


Thank you Ben!

As a reminder, we explained before how Central Banks are among the major culprits...

Submitted by Frank Hollenbeck via the Ludwig von Mises Institute,

The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow. The wealthiest 1 percent held 8 percent of the economic pie in 1975 but now hold over 20 percent. This is a striking change from the 1950s and 1960s when their share of all incomes was slightly over 10 percent. A study by Emmanuel Saez found that between 2009 and 2012 the real incomes of the top 1 percent jumped 31.4 percent. The richest 10 percent now receive 50.5 percent of all incomes, the largest share since data was first recorded in 1917. The wealthiest are becoming disproportionally wealthier at an ever increasing rate.


Most of the literature on income inequalities is written by professors from the sociology departments of universities. They have identified factors such as technology, the reduced role of labor unions, the decline in the real value of the minimum wage, and, everyone’s favorite scapegoat, the growing importance of China.

Those factors may have played a role, but there are really two overriding factors that are the real cause of income differentials. One is desirable and justified while the other is the exact opposite.


In a capitalist economy, prices and profit play a critical role in ensuring resources are allocated where they are most needed and used to produce goods and services that best meets society’s needs. When Apple took the risk of producing the iPad, many commentators expected it to flop. Its success brought profits while at the same time sent a signal to all other producers that society wanted more of this product. The profits were a reward for the risks taken. It is the profit motive that has given us a multitude of new products and an ever-increasing standard of living. Yet, profits and income inequalities go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other, and if we try to eliminate one, we will eliminate, or significantly reduce, the other. Income inequalities are an integral outcome of the profit-and-loss characteristic of capitalism; they cannot be divorced.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher understood this inseparability well. She once said it is better to have large income inequalities and have everyone near the top of the ladder, than have little income differences and have everyone closer to the bottom of the ladder.

Yet, the middle class has been sinking toward poverty: that is not climbing the ladder. Over the period between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the middle 60 percent increased less than 40 percent while inflation was 186 percent. According to the Saez study, the remaining 99 percent saw their real incomes increase a mere .4 percent between 2009 and 2012. However, this does not come close to recovering the loss of 11.6 percent suffered between 2007 and 2009, the largest two-year decline since the Great Depression. When adjusted for inflation, low-wage workers are actually making less now than they did 50 years ago.

This brings us to the second undesirable and unjustified source of income inequalities, i.e., the creation of money out of thin air, or legal counterfeiting, by central banks. It should be no surprise the growing gap in income inequalities has coincided with the adoption of fiat currencies worldwide. Every dollar the central bank creates benefits the early recipients of the money—the government and the banking sector — at the expense of the late recipients of the money, the wage earners, and the poor. Since the creation of a fiat currency system in 1971, the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value while the banking sector has gone from 4 percent of GDP to well over 10 percent today.

The central bank does not create anything real; neither resources nor goods and services. When it creates money it causes the price of transactions to increase. The original quantity theory of money clearly related money to the price of anything money can buy, including assets. When the central bank creates money, traders, hedge funds and banks — being first in line — benefit from the increased variability and upward trend in asset prices. Also, future contracts and other derivative products on exchange rates or interest rates were unnecessary prior to 1971, since hedging activity was mostly unnecessary. The central bank is responsible for this added risk, variability, and surge in asset prices unjustified by fundamentals.

The banking sector has been able to significantly increase its profits or claims on goods and services. However, more claims held by one sector, which essentially does not create anything of real value, means less claims on real goods and services for everyone else. This is why counterfeiting is illegal. Hence, the central bank has been playing a central role as a “reverse Robin Hood” by increasing the economic pie going to the rich and by slowly sinking the middle class toward poverty.

Janet Yellen recently said “I am hopeful that … inflation will move back toward our longer-run goal of 2 percent, demonstrating her commitment to an institutionalized policy of theft and wealth redistribution.” The European central bank is no better. Its LTRO strategy was to give longer term loans to banks on dodgy collateral to buy government bonds which they promptly turned around and deposited with the central bank for more cheap loans for more government bonds. This has nothing to do with liquidity and everything to do with boosting bank profits. Yet, every euro the central bank creates is a tax on everyone that uses the euro. It is a tax on cash balances. It is taking from the working man to give to the rich European bankers. This is clearly a back door monetization of the debt with the banking sector acting as a middle man and taking a nice juicy cut. The same logic applies to the redistribution created by paying interest on reserves to U.S. banks.

Concerned with income inequalities, President Obama and democrats have suggested even higher taxes on the rich and boosting the minimum wage. They are wrongly focusing on the results instead of the causes of income inequalities. If they succeed, they will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If they are serious about reducing income inequalities, they should focus on its main cause, the central bank.

In 1923, Germany returned to its pre-war currency and the gold standard with essentially no gold. It did it by pledging never to print again. We should do the same.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
22winmag's picture

L.A. riots to the power of 10 in 3... 2... 1.


Inequality kills...

Timmay's picture

There it is for the whole world to see, Global domination secured after 1971.

RevRex's picture

This is the Hoax and Chains America voted for.


Trusting the Socialist Semite democrat Media has it's consequences.

lordylord's picture

Inequality results from central control and too much government.  What we need is a return to free markets and sound money.  Too bad the mindless votes always vote for more socialist/fascist government policies.

SmackDaddy's picture

well, as much as people around here like to blame everything on jew bankers, i guess there has to be some mechanism to direct capital in society.  if not particularly pleased with how they are doing that, but i can accept that there will always be an "elite" in the paper economy 

but in the real economy, the one that has implications on my daily life, that jew banker doesnt eat eat any more than a welfare recipient.  the free shit army are the people creating more work for me.

adr's picture

But who is supplying the free shit army?

During the mass expansion of the ghetto state in the 1970s-80s it was the jew who was bankrolling it. Many jews got rich off buying the cheap property and flipping it after the blacks decimated the first ring suburbs.

When jews weren't allowed to join a country club, they just bought surrounding land amd moved im ghetto blacks to kill the club. Members didn't want to cross through ghetto to play a round.

Look at Blackstone today. Nothing different than what went on in 1977.

remain calm's picture

 For all you Hope and Changers, congratulations, you got what you deserved (fucked) and BTW thankyou. If the USA graph was representative of your erection then you should be damn proud.

SmackDaddy's picture

Interesting.  What you describe certainly seems to have played out in my hometown, right down to the country club reference.  Although the Jews have hunkered down in their enclave as they have become completely surrounded by slums....

What specifically are you referencing in 1977?  Are you from Columbus?   Penick v. Columbus Board of Education?

So hard to have an honest intelligent converstion even about hte history of my own community...


buzzsaw99's picture

end the fed. their maggot guarantees have caused this. let the maggots die upon their own petard.

AmericasCicero's picture

I can't look at that chart and not have the number 1971 pop into my head

quasimodo's picture

Same here. I never thought I would woe the year of my birth

tickhound's picture

Instead the solution is to "find opportunities." These are in "broader welfare" or any consumption that's being subsidized and the "providers" of this welfare, according to Goldman.

And Goldman's right. The subsidy of consumption is growth we can count on.

trader1's picture

The ‘communism of capital’ – what could this awkward turn of phrase, this seeming paradox, mean? What might it signify with regards to the state of the world today? Does it have any relationship with the concept and reality of what we understand to be communism, and to what extent does it relate to the ways in which communist ideas, language and forms of organization are used presently? We can begin exploring the significance of the phrase by identifying some of the many conspicuous contexts in which elements of communism and capital meet today.

One such example can be found in the habit of major philanthropists today to see themselves as ‘liberal communists’, insinuating thereby that only the success of capitalism allows the promotion of classic goals of communism, such as the eradication of world hunger through the charity of the wealthy (see Žižek, 2008). In these instances it appears as if capital operationalised precepts of communism, such as the famous dictum popularised by Karl Marx: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!’ (2010: 347).

The frequent use of communist imagery in marketing provides another example, such as in Mercedes-Benz using the image of Che Guevara to promote car sharing (see Cederström and Marinetto, 2013). Here, the implication is that by relying on the world of commodities we can not only avoid environmental catastrophe, typically associated with unbridled capitalism, but even help overcome private property itself by way of sharing.

Yet another example concerns the rise in production that relies on ‘free work’ (see Beverungen et al., 2013). This includes, most prominently, peer production of open source software and other Internet-based collaborative work, but also more widely work associated with creativity, intellectual labour, and explicitly collaborative production and decision-making (see Ross, 2004; Terranova, 2004). The discourse of authenticity in the workplace (Fleming, 2009) likewise reiterates communism’s promises of free and non-alienated work.

The task of this issue, then, is to take stock of these developments of a contradictory, sometimes promissory, typically incomplete, elusive and complex, but also often hypocritical communism of capital. This, if not to recover the rational kernel from its mystical shell, then at least in order to shed light on its political implications.


The recognition of the communist foundations of capitalist production today and its communist inflections bring us to two standpoints. One is marked by optimism: a hope that the increasingly shared nature of work and insights from the current failure of neoliberal capital might lead to a new and better mode of production. The other is marked by scepticism: a fear of the strength of capital’s power of recuperation. The truth may well lie not in either side of this dialectic, but in the confrontation between the two.

chinoslims's picture

I thought Obama was a socialist.  I guess he still is.  He believes in socialism for the rich!

Obama can now proclaim we're #1 (in income inequality).

NoDebt's picture

He certainly TALKS like a socialist.  But then again, so does everyone seeking absolute centralized control.

You know how somebody is going to screw over their people?  They use the phrase "the people" a lot.  In Obama's case it's "the folks".  Spoken out of his mouth it sounds like an obscenity, which is probably how he means it.  If he used the phrase "the great unwashed masses" it couldn't sound any worse.

gbresnahan's picture

Or they use the word "we" a lot.

mccvilb's picture

"The American People" - that's the meme that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Always uttered by someone representing anyone but the American people.

wmbz's picture

Obozo doesn't give a crap about anyone but himself. He is a socialist sociopath that millions of morons voted for twice, thinking they were sticking it to the "man". The dumb asses did nothing but screw themselves over... bigtime!

GeorgeHayduke's picture

"He believes in socialism for the rich!"

So did Bush W, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc... Socialism for the rich has been around a long time. So long, it has been institutionalized to the point that tons of working poor serfs in the US stridently believe it's always been that way, so we should keep the socialism flowing upward. The trick used to keep these idiots in line is the belief that they too will be rich one day.

MFLTucson's picture

If you remove this courrpt Federal Reserve from the picture, things would have been fine but,  this Jewsih mononoply on money needs to end now!

CCanuck's picture

The Poor Jews, just think if the US did not send 3 billion+ a year to the Jewish State of Isreal, how poor they would really be.

Fighting evil islam for scraps of food, I feel bad for them "Poor Jews"

Mabey someone should call them rich bankers, to help them "Poor Jews", send more than 3 billion.

How can the world stand by and let the "Poor Jews suffer"



FightingtheFed's picture

I often think the same thing.. .I sent a G over to Israel about 10-15 years ago before I really understood what in the hell was going on and now I want to puke everytime I think about how I was swindled then and about each and every day since by these f'ing maggots!


Let me just reiterate and ampfly  what you are saying.. Instead of all of these Billionaire/Millionaire Jewish crooks who have gotten filthy rich off the backs of and at the expense of the Middle Class sending donations or aid to Jews they want to swindle even more money from the American non Jewish Middle Class..


OMG!! I feel your disgust and raise you x1000!

disabledvet's picture

Yet another "commie post" at the ZH.

Income inequality does not create massive quantities of debt. Only the State and it's pre-pubescent functionaries can do that. These guys are cutting 100 billion dollar checks a month and they have zero clue where a penny of that money is going.

"If your enemy only needs ten bucks to beat your billion dollar tower of terror" the one spending a billion bucks is the one with the problem.

FieldingMellish's picture

"Income inequality does not create massive quantities of debt."


No but the massive amount of debt is the source of the income inequality.

GeorgeHayduke's picture

Government is just the tool of the ultra wealthy. You guys talk as though everything will just work itself out perfectly with government gone.

If the ultra wealthy didn't have government, they would still impose their power through other means. Warlords, serfdom, peonage, gangs, etc... these seem to be the norm in places without government as this point in time. Perhaps we're not as advanced of a species as we like to think we are.

JR's picture

Fabians aka Keynesians, dv, always flock to the defense of the Communists.

George Bernard Shaw, a key leader of the Fabian Society along with Sidney and Beatrice Webb, after a trip to Russia, praised Lenin as “the greatest Fabian of them all.”

They used, Shaw said, the Fabian methods of stealth, intrigue, subversion, and the deception of never calling socialism by its right name. (Henderson, GBS, Man of the Century, pg. 316)

robertocarlos's picture

Breakfast in Africa costs only 2 cents. Maybe some people should move to Africa. The weather there is better too.

Seasmoke's picture

Watch Brother Nathanael last few videos. He speaks the truth. He knows the problem. 

q99x2's picture

This is the result of the United Nations. With the backing of the Rockefeller and Rothschilds they have worked hard for nearly 100 years to starve and kill any and all human beings that stand in their way. Now they going in for the big one. The end of planet earth. 

Harriet Wanger's picture

Profits do not go hand in hand with inequality. Companies like Microsoft that have markups over 200% on $77BN in sales go hand in hand with inequality. Disproportionate taxation on wage earner and investor alike go hand in hand with inequality. Moronic regulation and lax enforcement go hand in hand with inequality. What a load of malarkey.

Inspector Bird's picture

Globalization and technology is the cause?

WTF?  Seriously?

Income inequality is worst where governments are getting most heavily involved, until they reach a point of time where the impact of driving down incentive is such that it begins to even out.  This is being caused by government intervention.  It's happened fastest the last 5 years - which have NOT been the fastest years of globalization or tech adoption!

Besides, I'm less concerned with inequality of income and MORE concerned with the issue of mobility.  Government policies have reduced mobility, too - which is a bigger issue.  I don't care if someone earns 100 times more than me if they had a great idea and worked hard.  That's their benefit.

I do care if they made 100 times more because they cozied up to a politician and got a favor or knew the central banker(s).  

That's what the bigger problem is.

royal's picture

Note when the US moved into first place...right after the end of the gold standard.

Fiat money = wealth inequality


Sudden Debt's picture

Well, i work for a company that employs 2900 people in europe.

Now... my boss makes a shitload of money
and as he told me :
If he had time to do it all, we would only need 2 more people.

that fucker said that exactly.

And I love crisises!! The time when bosses get to be bosses again!

now there you have it. The rich make so much because they practically do all the work!!

And the kicker?!

You know... for when stuff get lost and stufff.

that guys background?! FORMER CIA SECURITY!
Straight from America...
Oh yeah... might as well use him to "check out" the employees.

It's a trust thing.....

These last few years have been so much fun to be a "EM PLO YEEE"

SheepDog-One's picture

Like George carlin said, you've got to be asleep to believe in The American Dream, and that was before 1990 when things really went full regard and became obvious except to the absolutely brain dead.

Let them eat iPads's picture

Something went horribly wrong with the country when that asshole Reagan came along.

SheepDog-One's picture

LOL. I'd say things really went all wobbly back in the early 1900's when tthe banisters staged a hostile takeover and instituted Tha FED.

seek's picture

Yes, there's just a handful of key pivotal events, and they all occurred long ago with fairly little presidential involvement.

We all know about the Fed and 1913 already, as well as going off the gold standard, both which are cornerstones of the abomination of government today. However... a couple years ago I chatted with some lawyers online and they hit me with an enlightened 2x4. A truly huge portion of our current issues goes back to the legal ruling known as Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard is pretty much the sole reason we have the out of control federal government we have today. Remove that one ruling and our government would look more like it did in 1800 than in 2014. You want to blame someone, blame the supreme court of 1942, and tangentially FDR for packing the court with the cronies that did this.

I am Jobe's picture

USA USA USA Number 1, Fuck Yeah, More socialism bithchezz. 


JR's picture

We’re taking data on the wildfires from the arsonist, Goldman Sachs.

And, one wonders why the arsonist is worried.

Perhaps Goldman has a conscience after all, that in stealing the money, it’s getting difficult to look itself in the mirror; but not so much as to give any back, of course.

The arsonist has a motive.

What has caused this? Globalisation and technology have been two drivers: wages for highly skilled labour expanded as demand exceeded supply, while    lower skilled labour has been arbitraged globally, damaging middle incomes in DMs.

(Technology jobs have increased, yes, but the multinationals met this increase with constant increases in foreign workers, brought to the U.S. or working in their offshore facilities, to keep American engineers and other tech workers from demanding a share in the increased profits.)

And a solution:

If globalisation is seen as one of the causes of widening income inequality then it is possible that deglobalisation is seen as a solution to it. i.e. limiting the flows of goods, people and capital across borders. This would be damaging to many industries and companies, particularly those that have invested much capital in global assets and facilities.

Taxation is the most commonly used means of redistribution…

IE: The solution is the business of rape and plunder around the world as usual. It’s the banker-financed multinationals who seized and offshored America’s manufacturing prowess along with her hard-won middle class jobs, not only exporting these jobs but bringing in lower-paid foreign workers in massive immigration waves to further undercut America's middle class. These borderless internationalists are the ones who have both destroyed America’s sovereignty and the individual rights of her citizens for their own and exclusive profit.

Americans must heed the warning of Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos in his essay The Fourth World War Has Begun:

“Each day the big finance centres impose their laws on countries and groups of countries all around the world. They re-arrange and re-order the inhabitants of those countries.  ... 

"The objective of neoliberalism’s migration policy is more to destabilise the world labour market than to put a brake on immigration. The fourth world war - with its mechanisms of destruction/depopulation and reconstruction/reorganisation - involves the displacement of millions of people. Their destiny is to wander the world, carrying the burden of their nightmare with them, so as to constitute a threat to workers who have a job, a scapegoat designed to make people forget their bosses, and to provide a basis for the racism that neoliberalism provokes…”

trader1's picture


it's a proactive response to the mass migratory movements and chaos that would result from a continuing, upward trend of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere and continued denial of the fact that lifesyles of the "richest" nations are responsible for AGW.

JR's picture

“The IMF’s bitter ‘economic medicine,” outlined in Prof. Michel Chossudovsky’s book,  The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, took place in large part when authority over the economy and allocation of resources as they began to develop were financed by the World Bank with large inefficient infrastructure projects…and fraud.

Lord Aikins Adusei, a political activist and anti-corruption campaigner, additionally makes the case in IMF and World Bank: Agents of Poverty or Partners of Development? that the aim of the IMF and its mega financial institutions is to keep the world’s poor in debt and in poverty.  

“At best,” he writes, “what the Bank and IMF have helped the poor countries to do is to build up massive debts that they may never be able to pay.”

The IMF/World Bank was birthed as a creature of the Federal Reserve System (aka Goldman Sachs et al.) in 1944 at Bretton Woods, NH.  

Here are details of the creature’s voracious appetite as it now feeds on Ukraine, given by Chossudovsky in a recent Global Research article:


The IMF does not wield “sound economic governance” nor does it protect the vulnerable. It impoverishes entire populations, while providing “prosperity” to a small corrupt and subservient political and economic elite.

IMF “economic medicine” while contributing to the enrichment of a social minority, invariably triggers economic instability and mass poverty, while providing a “social safety net” to the external creditors. To sell its reform package, the IMF relies on media propaganda as well as persistent statements by “economic experts” and financial analysts which provide authority to the IMF’s macroeconomic reforms.

The unspoken objective behind IMF interventionism is to destabilize sovereign governments and literally break up entire national economies. This is achieved through the manipulation of key macroeconomic policy instruments as well as the outright rigging of financial markets, including the foreign exchange market.

To reach its unspoken goals, the IMF-World Bank –often in consultation with the US Treasury and the State Department–, will exert control over key appointments including the Minister of Finance, the Central Bank governor as well as senior officials in charge of the country’s privatization program. These key appointments will require the (unofficial) approval of the “Washington Consensus” prior to the conduct of negotiations pertaining to a multibillion IMF bailout agreement.

Beneath the rhetoric, in the real World of money and credit, the IMF has several related operational objectives:

1) to facilitate the collection of debt servicing obligations, while ensuring that the country remains indebted and under the control of its external creditors.

2) to exert on behalf of the country’s external creditors full control over the country’s monetary policy, its fiscal and budgetary structures,

3) to revamp social programs, labor laws, minimum wage legislation, in accordance with the interests of Western capital

4) to deregulate foreign trade and investment policies, including financial services and intellectual property rights,

5) to implement the privatization of key sectors of the economy through the sale of public assets to foreign corporations.

6) to facilitate the takeover by foreign capital (including mergers and acquisitions) of selected privately owned Ukrainian corporations.

7) to ensure the deregulation of the foreign exchange market.

While the privatization program ensures the transfer of State assets into the hands of foreign investors, the IMF program also includes provisions geared towards the destabilization of the country’s privately owned business conglomerates. A concurrent “break up” plan entitled “spin-off” as well as a “bankruptcy program” are often implemented with a view to triggering the liquidation, closing down or restructuring of a large number of nationally owned private and public enterprises.

The “spin off” procedure –which was imposed on South Korea under the December 1997 IMF bailout agreement– required the breakup of several of Korea’s powerful chaebols (business conglomerates) into smaller corporations, many of which were then taken over by US, EU and Japanese capital.. Sizeable banking interests as well highly profitable components of Korea’s high tech industrial base were transferred or sold off at rock bottom prices to Western capital. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003, Chapter 22).

These staged bankruptcy programs ultimately seek to destroy national capitalism. In the case of Ukraine, they would selectively target the business interests of the oligarchs, opening the door for the takeover of a sizeable portion of Ukraine’s private sector by EU and US corporations. The conditionalities contained in the IMF agreement would be coordinated with those contained in the controversial EU-Ukraine Association agreement, which the Yanukovych government refused to sign…

trader1's picture


this is the seed for a next world order, which will be ___________.

JR's picture

...kings and peasants, the old world order.

Schmuck Raker's picture

+1 JR, thanks for the excellent link, and reminder.

MedicalQuack's picture

Inequality is all modeled, by those who have the money to create the's a new one to discuss..."Hospital Inequality"...that's a really big deal too

500 people out of jobs as a hospital closed on Friday in Massachusetts...and the Governor pretty much stood there helplessly talking about saving it, but that's as far as it still talks and in a very sad way here.

Just like markets what we get in heatlhcare and cost, all running on servers 24/7 making life impacting decisions all over the place.  Maybe we have some high frequency health insurers developing out there:) 

snr-moment's picture

Wow, only 10 countries on the planet.  Who knew?  How does Colombia, Bolivia, Cameroon, South Africa, and say, Indonesia stand up in this chart?  How about Nigeria?

Whoa Dammit's picture

Coca-Cola wants to pay its management an additional $13 Billion over the next 4 years. Coke believes it is reasonable because it will be paid to 6,400 management employees. But this is an average of over $500K per eligible management employee per year.

A friend who is an executive admin there says that all her boss does is go to lunch, play golf, and write thank you letters to the people who took him to lunch or took him golfing. But surely that warrants an additional $500K, per year as it would be difficult to find anyone else who could do his job.

JR's picture

Thanks for this vital information. The outlook for the world with the multinationals in charge, is dark.

Governments and exploiters have nothing to give "without first taking it away from somebody else."