All your base are belong to us.

This particular conversation in The Matrix Reloaded is pretty relevant:

Councillor Harmann: Down here, sometimes I think about all those people still plugged into the Matrix and when I look at these machines I… I can’t help thinking that in a way… we are plugged into them.

Neo: But we control these machines; they don’t control us.

Councillor Harmann: Of course not. How could they? The idea is pure nonsense. But… it does make one wonder… just… what is control?

Neo: If we wanted, we could shut these machines down.

Councillor Harmann: [Of] course. That’s it. You hit it. That’s control, isn’t it? If we wanted we could smash them to bits. Although, if we did, we’d have to consider what would happen to our lights, our heat, our air…

Neo: So we need machines and they need us, is that your point, Councilor?


It’s definitely true. The best way to [time to play the “what’s the word?” game] exercise your control is to threaten to destroy and mean it, and be able to do it, easily if possible.

And more control is secretly what people seek when they aspire for more power, and in the modern context, more money/assets. But let’s play a simple thought experiment here.

If money is used to purchase things, and you save up so you can afford to purchase things in an emergency, then do you really need more money in your savings account than the cost of the most expensive thing in the world? [I’m talking about individual wealth, not corporate/state wealth] Ok, not only is it illegal in most countries to own/purchase radioactive ore [I hope], it’s also not very likely that any emergency will require that material, or even in significant quantities. So more realistically, the most expensive consumer items cap off at 70mill pounds [a big castle-house I think]

Yeah, basic/advanced healthcare is getting expensive too, but if you had 70 million pounds, a month-long stint in a C-ward would be the Christmas bonus for each of your slaves maids, cooks and chaffeurs.

So currency is a capitalist invention and capitalism encourages buying and selling of consumer items to keep the economy from stagnating. So if the richest people had 70mill in savings and a normal yearly income [in individual wealth], wouldn’t that be more than enough?

But that’s not what we see. [Take note the units are in millions. So when you see 43,000, it means 43,000,000,000. Which would be 43bn.]
And that’s not reflecting the real-life equivalent of the Majestic-12. I want to believe.

I mean, if you can already afford the most expensive thing in the world, what more could you possibly want to afford?
Don’t answer that. TWO of the most expensive items? Or quite simply, one more than everybody else?

The rich-poor disparity is higher now than ever before. In places like Nigeria, where oil deposits were found and subsequent development was supposed to improve the region’s economy and standards of living, it didn’t. A combination of corporate bias/greed excluded the Nigerians from enjoying the profits of the oil in THEIR land, while the MNCs and the corrupt government literally “swim” in the spoils. To make matters worse, the disruption/destruction of the local landscape also took away the locals’ means of livelihood like farming, logging and fishing.

But some people disagree. They claim the the wealthy becoming wealthier [and investing heavily] is actually stimulating the open economies, keeping them running, consequently providing the jobs and opportunity for the lower-income groups to maintain or improve their current standing. Phrased in this way it sounds true but it’s not. The writer openly quotes and justifies that First World countries do NOT advance/get richer by exploiting Third World countries. Yeah the countries don’t do that at all. Politics is not business. Politicians support businesses, and in some cases, give unfair benefits to corporate power and repress labour power [two of the 14 symptoms of a fascist state]. The countries themselves don’t backstab each other; corporations do that. And just so happens that the more successful ones are based in the First World countries.

And it’s not entirely true that this competitive rise in wealth is 100% helpful. The rich don’t become wealthy by being philanthropic. We’ve all heard horror tales of how excess grain produced is not stored, not given to the needy, but BURNT to maintain buoyant prices. And the sicker fact is that, even if the excess were say, donated to a needy region, there’s no guarantee it will reach them in time, if at all. The same faulty corrupt system would seek to make even more profits than help its own people.

What I think it all boils down to in the end, all this megalomaniacal thirst for power and wealth, is penis envy [the following link is not for the frigid or conservative. No images though. Just frank opinions –>metaphorically / literally].

To be able to say to anyone else, “Whatever you have, I can have a better one. What you can do, I can do better. Or I can pay people to do it for me. Or I could buy your soul and make you do it for me. Therefore my balls are bigger. Muahahaha.” That is true power today.

This is very obvious because the entire concept of franchising [which is just another way to get filthy rich] depends on it. Brands don’t necessarily promise you quality or function as much as exclusivity. What does a “Enik” brand shirt offer the user compared to a local market t-shirt? I think I’ve already mentioned this.

Fact: Tiger Woods gets paid $55,000 a day to wear Nike products. Thai workers get paid $4 a day to make them.

There can’t be any other reason. Some of these people won’t ever manage to spend all that moolah. If they stopped working now [and assuming no major economic upheavals take place, they have amassed enough to last at least 5 generations. Now how is that for equal rights and starting on the same foot for peers in a the new genrations? Democratic equality wasn’t even around when it first got started, now it’s just a vestigial ideal.

I’m not jealous. I’m not saying all rich people deserve to burn in hell. Some do, but who am I to judge? If I had my way, there would be a limit to personal bank accounts. [So be very glad it’s not up to me].

The rich shouldn’t be THAT rich, is all I’m saying. Whether the remedy is to remove the excess from them and re-distribute it in a way that does NOT cause inflation, or ensure the lower-income start earning more [yes, they’ll still BE lower-income groups, but they should NOT be earning less than equal to a revised minimum wage figure] is up to the ministers of world finance to figure out.

Advertisements

About this entry