Leaked Citigroup Memo shows economic domination agenda of the Top 1% wealthiest

A blast from 2005, I can't believe a search here at ATS turned up no results. Being directed to the top wealthiest, this document calling 'our' system a "Plutocracy" could arguably be viewed as more official than a White House press release.

The irony that the most noise about this memo has come from Michael Moore's new socialism propaganda smut piece, but this is straight from the mouth of the Ruling Elite.

"A Love Story" mentions in particular their wording that the top 1% have more Net Worth than the bottom 95% combined:

It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together. This is data for 2000, from the Survey of Consumer Finances (and adjusted by academic Edward Wolff). Since 2000 was the peak year in equities, and the top 1% of households have a lot more equities in their net worth than the rest of the population who tend to have more real estate, these data might exaggerate the U.S. plutonomy a wee bit.

Moving on, its a rather long document (with second and third companion memo's). Some random quotes:

We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

With the exception of the boom in the Roaring 1920s, this super-rich group kept losing out its share of incomes in WWI, the Great Depression and WWII, and till the early eighties. Why? The answers are unclear,
...
The rich in the U.S. went from coupon-clipping, dividend-receiving rentiers to a Managerial Aristocracy indulged by their shareholders.

Pre-Plutonomy
Income Savings rate Savings
Top 20% $20 10% $2
Next 20% $20 10% $2
Third 20% $20 10% $2
Fourth 20% $20 10% $2
Poorest 20% $20 10% $2
Total $100 10% $10

Plutonomy Emerges:
Income New savings rate Savings
Top 20% $60 5% or 8% or 9% $3 or $4.8 or $5.4
Next 20% $10 11% $1.1
Next 20% $10 11% $1.1
Next 20% $10 11% $1.1
Poorest $10 11% $1.1
Total $100 7.4% or 9.2% or 9.8% $7.4 or $9.2 or $9.8
Source: Citigroup Investment Research

Again, plutonomies like the U.S., Canada, and the UK have lower household savings rates than the more egalitarian countries like France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, and Japan.

At the heart of plutonomy, is income inequality. Societies that are willing to
tolerate/endorse income inequality, are willing to tolerate/endorse plutonomy.
Earlier, we postulated a number of key tenets for the creation of plutonomy. As a
reminder, these were: 1) an ongoing technology/biotechnology revolution, 2) capitalistfriendly governments and tax regimes, 3) globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants, 4) greater financial complexity and innovation, 5) the rule of law, and 6) patent protection.
We make the assumption that the technology revolution, and financial innovation, are likely to continue. So an examination of what might disrupt Plutonomy - or worse, reverse it - falls to societal analysis: will electorates continue to endorse it, or will they end it, and why.
Organized societies have two ways of expropriating wealth - through the revocation of property rights or through the tax system.

And this says a lot, so true:

A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Plutoparticipant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”.[/quote

GOOD they work hard and deserve it with how hard they work!
Capitalism pays as does hard work!

Maybe they will hire you one day,,, never know,,,I'm going to celebrate!

off hand, I am slightly skeptical of the origin of this memo, the language just doesn't seem to be in the nature of a corporation such as Citigroup. I have no doubt about the statistics, I'm sure that the top 1% old all control of the US financial/political system, just not sure if this is genuine....

well citibank is feelin a little off the highs lately, I'd say.

next week should be interesting.

and really - I thought that october would be bad for the economy - so what do I know. but cnbc was all about how bad september is usually. then october can and things went up till the last week blew it all back to square one... so what do I know.

But at some point all this crap has to hit the fan. the banks have to report losses or I suppose they could lie about them some more. but year end is coming up fast. but citibank just begged for its billion and it still looks sickly for Monday.

but we've been this close before and we're still kickin' in the US... so what do I know.

Originally posted by Janky Red
GOOD they work hard and deserve it with how hard they work!
Capitalism pays as does hard work!

Maybe they will hire you one day,,, never know,,,I'm going to celebrate!

God - you are one brainwashed peasant.

They don't deserve anything. They don't produce anything, they just shuffle money around - and they stuff money in political pockets to get the laws changed to suit them. Or they just get to steal directly from the common man - and call it a bailout.

I made a post on here that I will link - it got zero response, I can only assume the subject matter was too dry, the post too long, or perhaps too technical.

Regardless - I present an argument that taxation can solve a lot of problems if it is correctly applied.

Link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Amagnon]

Originally posted by Janky Red
GOOD they work hard and deserve it with how hard they work!
Capitalism pays as does hard work!

Maybe they will hire you one day,,, never know,,,I'm going to celebrate!

clearly you have no understanding of the corporations that control global monetary policy, please educate yourself before posting... Its all here on ATS!

Ouch, guys. I thought he was being sarcastic before you guys posted. But now that I think about it, maybe it was serious. I guess he may have skipped the part right in my quotes thatmentions we'd all accept and promote Plutocracy.

Well people who work hard should not be punished for working hard.
Thats the problem with socialists in America who think everything is free.
These people went to school and work long hours so that you have goods and services, they provide you jobs and this is the thanks they get? Its FREEdom not because you get things for free (socialists), but because people are free to work hard and earn money,
they are also free to control people who need jobs and money because they HAVE IT.
America is based on hard working producers who create real jobs and goods and sell them. We are free to make as much money as we can and that is what separates America from the evil countries! So heres what, you are also free to move if you want to, but if you choice to make $10 an hour its not my fault! Same thing with the healthcare, if you didn't want a heart attack eat better foods, or if you don't want colon cancer be healthy
instead, simple, choose.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Well people who work hard should not be punished for working hard.\

No the problem is your interpretation of 'hard work'.

If hard work is what makes people wealthy then what happened to the slaves?

It's not about punishing anyone for 'hard work', if I worked really hard at killing people would it be wrong to punish me for my 'hard work'?

Your outlook is pretty naive, or extremely biased. I don't care how 'hard' you work if you're stealing from the rest of the world then you're wrong, period. Wealth is not 'created', it is re-distributed. Always re-distributed upwards. That is why the wealthy keep getting wealthier, not because they keep working harder but just by the very nature of the system. Wealth creates wealth, if you have none to start with the odds are stacked against you, and the odds keep rising against you as the rich become richer and poor become poorer. Many, many people 'work hard' all their lives and end up with nothing but a cheap gold watch and a barely livable pension.

You must live in a bubble, you have never been in the real world.

Socialism is not about getting things for free, it's about a society based on the needs of a SOCIETY, not the greed of 1% of that society.
This amount of wealth distrusted in a very small percentage of society is what is creating our societal problems. It's a vast amount of money that no one person could ever need in a thousand lifetimes, that could be put to use to help SOCIETY. You all complain about schools and infrastructure, and bad police, and closure and no jobs, and this and that, but fail to see where the problems stem from. All the wealth created by society is being distributed ever upwards, creating more wealth for private individuals and letting society fall behind due to a lack of funding.

The problem lies in this mindset of society not being important, it's a selfish outlook that is destroying your society, and when society falls apart no matter how wealthy you are it's not a place you'd want to live.
Your society will become a cesspool of crime and corruption. Oh wait it already has...

[edit on 11/1/2009 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Janky Red
Well people who work hard should not be punished for working hard.\

No the problem is your interpretation of 'hard work'.

If hard work is what makes people wealthy then what happened to the slaves?

It's not about punishing anyone for 'hard work', if I worked really hard at killing people would it be wrong to punish me for my 'hard work'?

Your outlook is pretty naive, or extremely biased. I don't care how 'hard' you work if you're stealing from the rest of the world then you're wrong, period. Wealth is not 'created', it is re-distributed. Always re-distributed upwards. That is why the wealthy keep getting wealthier, not because they keep working harder but just by the very nature of the system. Wealth creates wealth, if you have none to start with the odds are stacked against you, and the odds keep rising against you as the rich become richer and poor become poorer. Many, many people 'work hard' all their lives and end up with nothing but a cheap gold watch and a barely livable pension.

You must live in a bubble, you have never been in the real world.

Socialism is not about getting things for free, it's about a society based on the needs of a SOCIETY, not the greed of 1% of that society.
This amount of wealth distrusted in a very small percentage of society is what is creating our societal problems. It's a vast amount of money that no one person could ever need in a thousand lifetimes, that could be put to use to help SOCIETY. You all complain about schools and infrastructure, and bad police, and closure and no jobs, and this and that, but fail to see where the problems stem from. All the wealth created by society is being distributed ever upwards, creating more wealth for private individuals and letting society fall behind due to a lack of funding.

The problem lies in this mindset of society not being important, it's a selfish outlook that is destroying your society, and when society falls apart no matter how wealthy you are it's not a place you'd want to live.
Your society will become a cesspool of crime and corruption. Oh wait it already has...

[edit on 11/1/2009 by ANOK]

You should read Ayn Rand and Join a Tea Party and see what real America is about.
Its not about socialism, its about working hard and not punishing hard work, because then the hard working people will stop working because they are being punished.
NExt thing you know you won't have anything that is made with hard work.
If people want healthcare they should wok hard for it, even if it takes two jobs.
The founding fathers didn't expect free healthcare, why should we? Our just be healthy.

nevermind.

[edit on 11/1/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss




i think ther old document was intended as a macro view of western business practices...an abstraction of the vehicle that can be sold,
& to whom marketing these products should be focused on.

in a very general way, the document is is an academic analysis
& not intended as a policy in the corporate culture....



but IF some execs' can cultivate business transactions using this narrowed view, and playing on the hubris of the client with a pocket full of cash that can be spent on Citigroup products......then that's butter on their bread


[edit on 1-11-2009 by St Udio]

Originally posted by Janky Red
You should read Ayn Rand and Join a Tea Party and see what real America is about.
Its not about socialism, its about working hard and not punishing hard work, because then the hard working people will stop working because they are being punished.
NExt thing you know you won't have anything that is made with hard work.
If people want healthcare they should wok hard for it, even if it takes two jobs.
The founding fathers didn't expect free healthcare, why should we? Our just be healthy.

What you need to do is stop listening to OTHER PEOPLES biased ideas and opinions, read some history and get some perspective on what is happening in the real world, not the biased fantasy world of people like Ayn Rand.

Why should someone work two jobs to pay for health care? That is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard of. You think it's fair to exploit the sick, and make as much money off their misfortune as possible?
I guess that's the American way isn't it, money and profit before people? Who's side are you on, the unfortunate who get sick, or the very few who are benefiting from this for profit system?

What's more important to you, people or money?

And it's NOT about socialism, that is a totally different subject. Free health care is NOT socialism, even though under socialism it would be free. Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. A society that benefits the majority, not the minority rich.

Your idea of 'hard work' is a myth and you completely missed my points on this. As I said the rich are not the only ones who work hard and wealth is not a good indicator of how hard you worked. If I could take a million $ and invest in something and get a good return, what 'hard work' did I really do? Now when I was in the Navy I worked 7 day 12 hour shifts on the flight deck, THAT was hard work, so where are my millions? Do you see my point? Hard work is not rewarded fairly as you are claiming.

Most of the wealth America enjoys was created during the slave trade years and is passed down wealth, that is why most of the wealth is still in the same group of families. It's not your hard work, but black slaves hard work that created most of the wealth America now enjoys.
It takes money to make money, and your money was made from slavery, and exploitation of third world resources. You don't work hard for the wealth, sweat shops in third world countries do, most of the wealth now comes from consumerism not 'hard work'. That is why your economy is going to crap, money has been spent on products putting profits into the hands of corporations etc., but no money is being replaced by production. You are not a producing country anymore, you are living off of old money that is running out fast. America has spent years shuffling money around, taking loans, etc., to cover that fact that it's broke, and all it's wealth is in the hands of a minority leaving the rest of us in deep crap.

well, the amount or "hard work" should be directly related to how many calories are burned......

ummm.....appears by the amount of obesity in this nation, there's not that many working hard!!!

but, well, let me ask you this, reckon which would burn the most calaories??
pushing files across a desk all day, typing into a keyboard, talking on the phone? or....moving a couple tons of magnetic stock through a print shop in a day's time???

obviously, it isn't hard work that is valued in this country!

work smart, not hard!!

find ways to make your work easier and faster, maybe the management will take notice!

Originally posted by dawnstar
ummm.....appears by the amount of obesity in this nation, there's not that many working hard!!!

Hehe good point!

Capitalism tends to make people lazy, especially if you have money. It's easier to pay some than do it yourself.

People tend to be more creative when they are in need.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dawnstar
ummm.....appears by the amount of obesity in this nation, there's not that many working hard!!!

Capitalism tends to make people lazy, especially if you have money. It's easier to pay some than do it yourself.

Huh? A big nanny state that takes care of you would make you lazy. Compare that to the idea that the harder you work, and more creative you are the more you can prosper. Practice makes perfect, and not even all the talent one could have matters without practice. But why practice when all you can look forward to is the same amount of rations from your loving central planners?

Instead, TV propaganda... Welfare handouts... A sense of entitlement... Lack of incentives... Being spoiled... Knowing the tax gestapo government is going to steal half your money... Knowing lazy people will get some of that money... A lack of ambition since ambition would be pointless... Lack of creativity from lack of there being any point... makes one lazy. Any objections?

And it's NOT about socialism, that is a totally different subject. Free health care is NOT socialism, even though under socialism it would be free. Socialism is 'the workers ownership of the means of production'. A society that benefits the majority, not the minority rich.

First of all, nothing is "free". Immediately, when health care is mandatory since I'll be taxed anyways, the freedom to save the money for health whatever, perhaps to invest in my future prosperity, is finished. Your so called "free" healthcare instantly eliminates a freedom I exercize. And the part about it NOT being "free" should go without saying from even an elementary level understanding of economics.

"Ownership": Please explain a model where it doesnt involve a Big Government to be the ones to ration things out. A government monopoly. In Moore's new film, he shows an example of a co-op run manufacturing company. That would be the model, that in fact a couple-fews years ago I argued for in an old blog as Ideal: You have individual companies who still compete with their competitors (drive down consumer costs, etc), but the workers 'are in control' etc. Explain how to do this in a total national health care system without a government monopoly.

If hard work is what makes people wealthy then what happened to the slaves?

They weren't free. They had no access to the profits their hard work created. But regardless the harder they worked the more their slave masters did make, which could explain their foul treatment, and ours today. Today its not much different. But none the less your example here is deeply unsound for what youre arguing for. Like Moore does in his last 2 films: apparently your answer to the criminally corrupt system we live under is "socialism" (aka government monopoly which hands total control to our controllers). Hand over freedom to those who already squander and even attack it the most.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Good lord. Why does everything on this board have to be "Socialist Worker's Paradise" versus "Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko's hypercapitalist phanstasy playground for sullen teenage boys?"

Almost any viable system will be somewhere between these two cartoonish extremes. Want "pure capitalism?" Buy a ticket to Sierra Leone or Kyrgizistan. Don't forget to pack your AK-47. Want "pure communism?" Pol Pot had everyone wearing glasses shot because they were "intellectuals," and had the cities emptied.

One of the big problems in America these days is loss of RULE OF LAW. During the few magic years in the middle of the last century when capitalism actually seemed to be running corectly, there was strict accountabilty and respect for law. It was harder to run a scam on a high level, and the old bedrock companies at the top of the food chain conducted business (mostly) with honesty. Today, companies make up stats, lie to their clients faces, cut backroom deals with politicians and regulators, and have gotten so brazen about it that they are now rubbing our faces in it. A bit more accountability, transparency, and so on would go a long way to getting us back on an even keel.

And as for "hard work making you rich"...That's about 40 years out of date. Knowing how to use and abuse debt and connections seems to be more at the root of American wealth creation these days.


[edit on 11/1/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Sorry but you have a very skewed idea of what socialism is, and are making mass assumptions about my thinking.

Who said anything about a nanny state?

Socialists are ANTI state. It's conservatives who want to maintain the state because without it their capitalism, and the control of the many by the few, would not be possible to maintain.

A socialist system is one in which the workers own the means of production, in other words instead of a private owner who takes the profits and then pays the workers an hourly wage, the workers themselves (you and me) would receive the profits directly. The private owner is just an unnecessary middle-man, and controls the workers right to resources for their survival. It has nothing to do with getting anything for free, or anything that is now called 'socialised', or 'socialized' for those using simplified English.

What has any of that got to do with a 'nanny state'? You have to stop listening to what the state system is telling you, through it's school and media, about 'isms'. They are using 'isms' to create reactions, not to educate you on what they really mean. All it's doing is creating confusion, so that society has no real idea what's going on, or what it supports. Look at Nazi Germany as a good lesson on how the state can lead a population in any direction it wants. Socialists cannot support a state system, as that is in contradiction to it's opposition of private ownership of resources.

Learn what socialism really is, and capitalism for that matter, and not the hysteria fueled crap the politicians and the media feeds us.

This document is totally fake... The word choice as well as punctuation is odd. For example "ir(relevant)" and there are many things in quotes that don't need to be and the whole memo is written more poetically than a professional business document would be written (meaning the writer's choice of adjectives and nouns). ie. calling a particular group of people "a different kind of animal"...it doesn't add up.