Romnesia: Ability of Very Rich to Forget the Context in Which They Made Their Money

[Lakhota]

By George Monbiot

A potent myth is being used to justify economic capture by a parasitic class.

We could call it Romnesia: the ability of the very rich to forget the context in which they made their money. To forget their education, inheritance, family networks, contacts and introductions. To forget the workers whose labour enriched them. To forget the infrastructure and security, the educated workforce, the contracts, subsidies and bail-outs the government provided.

Scarcely a Republican speech fails to reprise the Richard Hunter narrative, and almost all these rags-to-riches tales turn out to be bunkum. “Everything that Ann and I have,” Mitt Romney claims, “we earned the old-fashioned way”(5). Old-fashioned like Blackbeard perhaps. Two searing exposures in Rolling Stone magazine document the leveraged buyouts which destroyed viable companies, value and jobs(6), and the costly federal bail-out which saved Romney’s political skin(7).

Romney personifies economic parasitism. The financial sector has become a job-destroying, home-breaking, life-crushing machine, which impoverishes other people to enrich itself. The tighter its grip on politics, the more its representatives must tell the opposite story: of life-affirming enterprise, innovation and investment, of brave entrepreneurs making their fortunes out of nothing but grit and wit.

There is an obvious flip-side to this story. “Anyone can make it – I did without help” translates as “I refuse to pay taxes to help other people, as they can help themselves”. Whether or not they inherited an iron ore mine from daddy.

In the article in which she urged the poor to emulate her, Gina Rinehart also proposed that the minimum wage should be reduced. Who needs fair pay if anyone can become a millionaire?

In 2010, the richest 1% in the United States captured an astonishing 93% of that year’s gain in incomes(8). In the same year, corporate chief executives made, on average, 243 times as much as the median worker (in 1965 the ratio was ten times lower, namely 24:1)(9,10). Between 1970 and 2010 the Gini coefficient, which measures inequality, rose in the United States from 0.35 to 0.44: an astonishing leap(11).

As for social mobility, of the rich countries listed by the OECD, the three in which men’s earnings are most likely to resemble their father’s are, in this order, the UK, Italy and the US(12). If you are born poor or born rich in these nations, you are likely to stay that way. It is no coincidence that these three countries all promote themselves as lands of unparalleled opportunity.

Equal opportunity, self-creation, heroic individualism: these are the myths that predatory capitalism requires for its political survival. Romnesia permits the ultra-rich both to deny the role of other people in the creation of their own wealth and to deny help to those less fortunate than themselves. A century ago, entrepreneurs sought to pass themselves off as parasites: they adopted the style and manner of the titled, rentier class. Today the parasites claim to be entrepreneurs.

More: Romnesia: The Ability of the Very Rich to Forget the Context in Which They Made Their Money | Alternet

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rich people are way smarter than we're. We should encourage them to breed.

 

[editec]

One cannot help but wonder what percentage of the wealth of the top 1/10th of 1% actually comes from contracts and services provided TO the government.

My guess the total would be it's rather high.

Here's $305,880,000,000 of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT's spending during 2011.

This spending goes to 10 companies. Most of them provide weapons. The DoD is the USA's ULTIMATE PORK BARREL spending system:

10. McKesson Corporation (MCK)
Contracted in 2011: $4.7 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $11.2 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $2.38 billion

9. Oshkosh Corp. (OSK)
Contracted in 2011: $4.94 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $7.6 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $430 million
Company Profile


8. BAE Systems
Contracted in 2011: $6.92 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $30.1 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $2.15 billion
Company Profile

BAE Systems, the 8th-largest recipient of U.S. government contracts, is a British multinational defense, security and aerospace company headquartered in Farnborough, UK. According to USASpending.gov, the company was awarded $6.9 billion in U.S. government contracts in 2011 and has already been awarded $2.15 billion so far in 2012.

The Department of Defense is responsible for BAE’s top 10 contracts from 2011, which ranged between $56 million and $276 million. $2.9 billion arose from the U.S. Navy and $2.6 million from the U.S. Army. Its largest contract was for a combat assault and tactical vehicle.




7. L-3 Communications (LLL)



Contracted in 2011: $7.38 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $15.17 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $2.79 billion
Company Profile

L-3 describes itself as a “prime contractor in command, control, communications, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance systems; aircraft modernization; and maintenance and government services.”

6. SAIC Inc. (SAI)
Contracted in 2011: $7.43 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $11.12
Contracted in 2012, so far: $2.60 billion
Company Profile

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), headquartered in McLean, Va., is the 6th-largest recipient of U.S. government contracts. SAIC is involved in everything from robotics to cancer research and tsunami

5. United Technologies (UTX)
Contracted in 2011: $7.90 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $58.2 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $2.41 billion
Company Profile

United Technologies, headquartered in Hartford, Conn., is a multinational conglomerate that manufactures a wide range of products, from aircraft engines and helicopters to fuel cells, elevators and building

4. Raytheon (RTN)
Contracted in 2011: $14.76 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $24.86 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $5.72 billion
Company Profile

Headquartered in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon’s primary businesses are defense-oriented, with major contracts including several air defense systems, marine combat

3. General Dynamics (GD)
Contracted in 2011: $19.47 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $32.67
Contracted in 2012, so far: $8.79 billion
Company Profile

In 2011, General Dynamics of Fairfield, Conn., engaged in more than 18,000 contracted transactions with the U.S. government, totaling approximately $19.47 billion, with a majority of the contracts awarded by the Navy ($12.9 billion) and the Army ($4.6 billion). Many of its large contracts include the manufacturing of submarines and destroyers, with its largest contract for a submarine worth over $2 billion. General Dynamics saw an increase in government spending from $14.8 billion in 2010 to $19.47 billion in 2011.

In General Dynamics’ 2011 annual report, the company’s first three risk factors highlight dependency on the U.S. government for “a significant portion” of revenues, with more than two-thirds of the company’s sales coming from the U.S. government in each of the past three years. The company says that “A decrease in U.S. government defense spending or changes in spending allocation could result in one or more of our programs being reduced, delayed or terminated. Reductions in our existing programs could adversely affect our future revenues and earnings."




2. Boeing (BA)
Contracted in 2011: $21.45 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $68.73 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $16.03 billion
Company Profile

Although Boeing’s main sources of revenue are commercial airlines, the Chicago-based company’s Defense, Space & Security segment deals primarily with the U.S. government. That segment accounts for approximately $21 billion of the company’s $68 billion in 2011 revenue.

Boeing’s largest contracts in 2011 were for fixed-wing aircraft and airframe structural components. Its top five contracts were worth over $500 million each and the highest individual contract came in at $1.5 billion. Aside from traditional aircraft, Boeing was also contracted for over $1 billion by NASA, according to USASpending.gov.




1. Lockheed Martin (LMT)
Contracted in 2011: $39.98 billion
Total 2011 revenue: $46.30 billion
Contracted in 2012, so far: $18.97 billion
Company Profile

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed’s dependence on contracts from the U.S. government is no secret. The company researches, designs, develops and manufactures satellites, space vehicles, combat aircraft, missile defense systems, aeronautics and intelligence systems, which are essentially out of the scope of non-government consumers.

Lockheed’s biggest contract 2012 was for $3.48 billion with the Department of Defense for a fixed-wing aircraft.

In Lockheed’s 2011 annual report, the company notes that it derives 82% of sales from U.S. Government customers, including 61% from the Department of Defense and 17% of sales to foreign governments. The first entry in the report’s “Risk Factors” section states that “a decline or reprioritization of funding in the U.S. defense budget, that of other customers, or delays in the budget process could adversely affect our ability to grow or maintain our sales, earnings and cash flow.” For the full annual report from Lockheed

source

 

[Claudette]

Loads of folks are rich because they went out and made it happen.

Shitting Bull is obviously jealous because he/she/it ain't rich.

Lordy there Bull baby. Get off your ass and get rich. LOL

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rich people are
-Intelligent
-thinkers
-innovators
-Well spoken

We should pay them more to reproduce and cut all welfare off for the dumb poor amongs us. We would be better off with the higher stock of humanity. lol A eugenics program to advance humanity it can be.

Most rich people believe it or not are better then the vast majority of poor people. Most of the poor population is poor because they're none of the above.

Poor people are
-Lazy
-Stupid
-do stupid things
-mindless=no idea's and just follow the herd


I hope Mitt Romney finds a dozen women and has a hundred children! The guys good stock and his children would do good for this nation .

 

[idb]

Rich people are
-Intelligent
-thinkers
-innovators
-Well spoken

We should pay them more to reproduce and cut all welfare off for the dumb poor amongs us. We would be better off with the higher stock of humanity. lol A eugenics program to advance humanity it can be.

Most rich people believe it or not are better then the vast majority of poor people. Most of the poor population is poor because they're none of the above.

Poor people are
-Lazy
-Stupid
-do stupid things
-mindless=no idea's and just follow the herd


I hope Mitt Romney finds a dozen women and has a hundred children! The guys good stock and his children would do good for this nation .

I never thought about it point-by-point, but now that you lay it out I'm convinced.

Rich people also have better spray-on tans than us.
And better pool parties apparently.

 

[bripat9643]

By George Monbiot

A potent myth is being used to justify economic capture by a parasitic class.



More: Romnesia: The Ability of the Very Rich to Forget the Context in Which They Made Their Money | Alternet

A lame variation on the Obama "you didn't build that" theme.

 

[bripat9643]

I never thought

You would have been right if you had stopped there.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I dont understand this so maybe the Liberals on this board can help me understand it;

Al Gore ran for President in 2000 - he was mega rich, that wasnt a problem
Kerry ran for President in 2004 - he was so rich he makes Romney look like a pauper, that wasnt a problem

Romney runs in 2012 and is rich, thats a HUGE problem.....

I just dont get it. Why is it OK for Al Gore to be rich and Kerry to be mega rich but it isnt OK for Romney to be rich...a man who gives about 1/3 of what he makes each year to charity...thats horrible, thats wrong...he is only out for the rich people.

I just dont understand your logic here.
Please try to explain this.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I dont understand this so maybe the Liberals on this board can help me understand it;

Al Gore ran for President in 2000 - he was mega rich, that wasnt a problem
Kerry ran for President in 2004 - he was so rich he makes Romney look like a pauper, that wasnt a problem

Romney runs in 2012 and is rich, thats a HUGE problem.....

I just dont get it. Why is it OK for Al Gore to be rich and Kerry to be mega rich but it isnt OK for Romney to be rich...a man who gives about 1/3 of what he makes each year to charity...thats horrible, thats wrong...he is only out for the rich people.

I just dont understand your logic here.
Please try to explain this.

The Leftist spin everything to their advantage as most people are too stupid to think through the issue.