By Andre Damon and Joe Kishore
Two reports last week, just over one year since the onset of the financial crisis, shed light on the nature of American and world capitalism.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday (“Wall Street on Track to Award Record Pay”), the top 23 Wall Street banks and financial firms are expected to hand out a record $140 billion in compensation this year—$10 billion more than the previous record year, 2007.
The rapid recovery in bank pay has been “boosted by a stronger stock market, thawing credit market, a resurgence in deal making and the continuing effects of various government aid programs,” the Journal noted.
The Journal article came as the largest banks posted their third-quarter earnings. Banks most heavily involved in trading and other forms of speculative activity fared the best, with Goldman Sachs reporting $3.2 billion and JPMorgan Chase $3.6 billion in profits.
On Friday, USA Today published a front-page article (“Wages Head to 20-Year Tumble”) reporting that average weekly wages for non-management workers in the US have fallen by 1.4 percent so far this year. If wages continue to fall at this rate, it will be the sharpest decline since 1991.
"Wages are usually the last thing to deteriorate in a recession," economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute told USA Today. "But it's happening now, and wages are probably going to be held down for a long time."
This report only hints at the social crisis facing millions of people. Official unemployment is close to 10 percent, and real unemployment is much higher. Employers are seizing on the weak labor market to cut benefits and reduce hours across the board. Initiating a trend that could well catch on, Colorado last week became the first state to lower its minimum wage since the federal law was introduced in 1938.
The coming together of record Wall Street profits and the soaring stock market, on the one hand, and increasing unemployment, falling wages and growing social misery, on the other, has prompted some liberal supporters of the Obama administration to express concern about the social and political implications of these trends.
Several commentators have warned that unless Wall Street develops a social conscience and Obama shows more “backbone,” the divergence in the “two Americas” could have explosive results. Such appeals ignore the real character of the American and world capitalist economy and the role of the Obama administration as the representative of the US financial aristocracy.
The economy of the entire planet is subordinated to the interests of a tiny layer of the population. The interests of this parasitical financial elite can be guaranteed only at the expense of the productive sections of society, principally the working class.
As the financial crisis erupted last year, it became clear to the American ruling class that nothing short of a massive diversion of public resources to the banks could stave off a collapse. The decision to let Lehman Brothers fall was bound up with a deliberate campaign, led by the Bush administration and backed by then-presidential candidate Obama, to create a climate of panic. The aim was to create the political conditions for Congress to sanction a series of bailout measures. The Treasury was placed at the disposal of Wall Street and trillions of dollars were handed over to the financial institutions.
The big banks have used government money to return to profitability and the stock market has risen more than 50 percent since last March. The market has been pushed up by investors awash in cash who have no productive outlet for their money. But its extraordinary rise is also a vote of confidence in the Obama administration by bankers and big investors who have been reassured that it is fully committed to protecting their interests.
And no wonder. Obama has opposed all caps on executive compensation and rejected any serious reform of financial regulations or restraints on the banks, including those bailed out by the government. The Obama administration has blocked bills in Congress to stop AIG and other companies from paying hundreds of millions in bonuses to its traders and executives.
At the same time, the administration continued and expanded the government bailout programs, pledging up to $23 trillion. In doing so, it has extended an implicit guarantee that the largest financial institutions are “too big to fail,” and that their bad debts will be covered once again in the event of a new crisis.
These resources will be paid for, in one way or another, by the working class. Obama pushed through the forced bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, demanding that workers accept sharp cuts in wages and benefits, along with the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs. This was a signal for corporate America as a whole to use mass unemployment to carry through similar measures.
The administration has refused to give any aid to the states, forcing them to balance their budgets by cutting their workforces and slashing spending on education and health care. At the federal level, the government is determined to reduce spending on social programs, including a health care overhaul principally aimed at eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stressed this point on Friday, when he said that the US must "live within its means.” In response to a record $1.4 trillion deficit—due in no small part to the bank bailouts—and in order to preserve global confidence in the dollar, Geithner said, “The president is committed to working with Congress to bring [deficits] down to a sustainable level…” This can only mean cuts in social programs upon which millions of people rely.
A solution to the crisis facing working people must be based on: 1) A political break with and struggle against the Obama administration and the two-party system; and 2) a program that directly attacks the financial elite and the capitalist system on which it is based.
This requires the confiscation of the wealth of the financial aristocracy, accumulated by fraud and parasitism, through a massive increase in taxes on the wealthy. Control over the main economic levers of society must be taken out of private hands and placed under the democratic control of the working class, so that they can be directed to meeting social needs, rather than generating corporate profits and ever greater wealth for the rich.
If there is one lesson that must be drawn from the experience of this crisis, it is that the interests of the working class—in the US and around the world—cannot be advanced within the framework of the present economic and political system. It is necessary to fight for the only alternative to capitalism—that is, for socialism.


Comments: 38
Many of these banks would have failed last year, and their top management crooks would have been getting a deserving salary this year: $0
Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism and free markets and everything to do with oligarchy, tyranny, and centralized power.
The same thing that caused the first depression has just caused a second one.
Unfortunately many people are blaming capitalism for problems it never created.
The euro is going to be the next world currency that's why Cheney and his gang started to sell their dollars for euros two years ago.
We can and should reinstate those restrictions and regulations.
There were controls that made certian acts illegal and held capitalism in check butstill encouraged people to be prductive and innovate.
High taxes on big industry and the rich do nothing but raise prices of the goods we buy. Remember the Consumer pays ALL taxes.
I know folks on the right dread hearing about higher taxes. But that is exactly what we need for the rich. They have taken more than their share of the wealth produced by all. Honestly, the only purpose the rich serve is as an example of what people can achieve in a monetary way if they work hard enough, are innovative enough and lucky enough. If they didn't serve that purpose there would be no need for them. Every other purpose they currently serve could be served by non government organizations or the government.
We have to get a BIG chunk of wealth out of the hands of the rich and keep it out of their hands. the controls you talk about are necessary. But we need to tax the fat cats, too.
If I have a big estate and leave it to my heirs haven't I distributed that wealth? When my heirs go they will leave it to their heirs and the origional welth is distributed to even more people and so on. After a few generations my big estate is distributed to hundreds of people.
Wealth redistribution ideas are nothing but Socialism. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Wealth redistribution should not even be considered.
You assume something shady if a person is rich. That is Socialist propaganda. Unless you are a Socialist consider your statements.
You say you are not saying everyone should be paid the same and then claiming everyone should be paid the same or just a little more in some instances.
You really need to realize ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE CONSUMER I can't emphasise that enough. The cost of taxes are figured into every item you buy if they were not no one would make any money.
The worst thing this country ever did to its citizens is imponse an income tax.
No, I don't consider Joe shady on the face of it and I don't think that people should make -very close- to the same amount. I consider pure capitalism to be very imperfect. The government can and should act to correct those imperfections. It is imperfect that capitalism can reward a CEO with several hundred times more pay than the average worker at the same company makes. Government can help correct that problem. But what is the problem? The problem is that our capitalist system requires that companies compete with one another for the best talent. Especially for jobs that require specialized training and experience. So the companies do what is natural to do in capitalism. Company A wants CEO Z. So does Company B. They both start negotiations with CEO Z to get him to work for them. CEO Z in general will go to the company that offers him the most money/benefits/etc. The competition for CEO Z will drive up what CEO Z is really worth to either company. So let's say Company B outbids and gets CEO Z. Now Company B will have to find the money somewhere to pay CEO Z the salary they agreed on. Where do they get it? They get it by keeping the salary of other workers low. On average these workers whose skills are not as specialized as CEO Z are just as dedicated, productive and have a similar work ethic as CEO Z. OK. Perhaps they aren't as dedicated or productive or even as innovative. That's what the difference in pay should be based on, extra dedication, productivity and innovation. It should not be based on supply and demand because in the case of specialized employees supply and demand results in unjust enrichment of the specialized employee.
No. It never occurred to me that anyone in a company is worth paying hundreds of times more than the average worker in that company. All the people working for a company work to create the wealth that company creates. Some should be rewarded more than others. But there should not be the crazy discrepancies that we see in America. Again, I support rewarding innovation and dedication above and beyond the call of duty. But not to the point where some people that work in the same successful company as CEO Z (who is making money hand over fist) can't afford to live a decent life.
Its is company profits George by the same scam artists you keep supporting.
Col. the wealth created by a company may be the legal property of the the owner. That doesn't mean it is morally the property of the owner. Laws can be changed. However the best way for a proper distribution of wealth is for the owner to recognize that everyone in his company creates the wealth. Everyone in his company has a stake in the success of his company. Everyone in his company has a risk in the failure of his company.
Of course the employer negotiates or decides on a salary for each employee. He does this based on Supply and Demand. If there was an overwhelming supply of CEOs, they would get paid very little under Supply and Demand, no matter how important their job was to the company.
Supply and Demand may be a fair and good way to price products. It is not a fair way to determine salaries. S&D does have a place in determining salaries. But so does fundamental fairness. It is fundamentally unfair for any employee of a company to make three, four, five or more times the salary of the average employee.
Since the individual owners do not act responsibly and because this irresponsible behaviour affects so many people making them either under paid or unemployed, the government has a legitimate role to play in redistribution of wealth. The government has obviously played a role in taking from the middle class and giving to the rich. It's time to correct government's role so that it acts to properly redistribute wealth to those who help create it, but who are not compensated fairly for their contribution.
Jack I did not say you were Socialist I said R. F. was and I got that from his own statement.
You own a business? Web site? I'll do business with you if I have a need you supply.
Right on Jim. The rich did not create their wealth alone. They did it with others and many of those others deserve more of the wealth they helped create. If the rich will not share it with them, then the government should take an appropriate amount away from the rich in taxes.
After Obama and his socialist crew seize all the wealth of those evil rich people- seize the evil profits from corporations- take 60/70% of your paycheck away from you, and spread it around to some dependent druggie- bigger weight rooms for our prisons- a better Koran for all Muslim killers- and the situation in America just gets worse, which it will, than what, who is next in line to blame Fox News-Insurance companies-Teabaggers- whites are all racist race card play- Reagan- W.-Cheney.
Socialist and Marxist and Barack Hussein Obama Jr. are out of other peoples money to steal- Socialism's proven end. UM-UM-UM.
After agreeing with you Colonel, about 100 times on the issue of immigration and illegal aliens, I hate to have to disagree with you, but as a former economics college teacher, right now, I must. The above statement is false.
In almost all commodites, businesses CANNOT raise prices in response to tax hikes, raises in the minimum wage of most any other reason. In business, prices are set at the
MARKET PRICE. This is the highest price a business can charge without it's sales dropping off to the point that it's business income would also drop (and thus, profit as well). If not for this, maybe every product would be selling for a million dollars (joke).
Only a very few products are insulated from this thousands year old, bell-shaped curve rule of prices vs. business income. These are the items that people feel that they HAVE TO HAVE, and therefore will continue to buy even when prices go up a lot (ex. gasoline, car repairs, some foods, electric power). Even these, though, can be lessened as people change their living habits (drive less, use less electric, etc.), and sellers' sales can drop.
As a former business owner I am very aware of the bell-shaped curve I taught the kids in college Economics 101. I had nothing much to say about my prices. We dont set them. The MARKET does.
Why do you think companies favor carbon credits? Its because they will be able to pass the cost onto the consumer not because it will make them clean up their act.