We're Enmeshed in the "Spoils" Society? Think Instead of the LOW Grade Oil & Debt Society!

WaPo Neoliberal hack Robert J. Samuelson is at it again, this time condemning what he calls a "spoils society" approach ('Here Comes the Spoils Society'), which takes from the poor widdo rich 0.1 percenters  to slightly lessen some of the nation's gross inequality. According to Samuelson:

"We are, I fear, slowly moving from “the affluent society” toward a “spoils society.” In 1958, Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith published his bestseller, “The Affluent Society,” which profoundly influenced national thinking for decades. To the Great Depression’s survivors, post-World War II prosperity dazzled. Suburbia offered a quiet alternative to crowded and noisy cities. New technologies impressed — television, frozen foods, automatic washers and dryers. Never, it seemed, had so much been enjoyed by so many."

Unstated by Samuelson is how Galbraith deplored the excesses of a consumptive society and in particular the pernicious influence of the advertising complex which confused wants and needs. As Galbraith put it, the basis for this complex was purely to make Americans confused over what was really a need, and the luxuries (large or small) they desired. Meanwhile, the objective of Madison Avenue was to brainwash the hoi polloi into believing luxuries were really essential needs that they were obligated to satisfy via purchase. In this way, the energy depletion of resources took on a new head of steam and now, some 60 years later, we find ourselves mired in 'stuff' (55 million square feet thus far devoted to storage mods, according to a recent Denver Post piece) and having to dredge up ever more degraded forms of energy to support our unsustainable consumption.

So, let's not hesitate to note Samuelson is already off base in his adulation of 'Murica's cornucopia of goods, especially, and that Galbraith in any way extolled or endorsed it as a permanent feature. Galbreath, in fact, evinced a basic distrust of the advertising complex and its pathological ability to persuade people to spend beyond their means. As he wrote (p. 147):

"In a society where virtuosity in persuasion must keep pace with virtuosity in production, one is tempted to wonder whether the first can ever keep ahead of the second. For while production does not clearly contain within itself the seeds of its own disintegration, persuasion may."


 But, knowing Samuelson, it isn't surprising he distorts it like he did JFK's deficit spending in the early 60s. Samuelson writes:

"This explosive abundance, Galbraith argued, meant the country could afford both private wants and public needs. It could devote more to schools, roads, parks and pollution control. Economic growth became the holy grail of government policy. Production was paramount. It muted social conflict."


In fact, Galbreath implicitly questioned the excess materialism of the country in terms of producing consumer items that weren't genuinely needed and which could be projected to add to debt, if people purchased items they couldn't afford.  As he observes (p. 146):

"...we should expect that every increase in consumption will bring a further increase - possibly a more than proportional one, in consumer debt. The evidence is already impressive. ......From 1952 to 1956, total consumer debt increased from $27.4 billion to $42,5 billion or over 55%....although those were prosperous years, disposable income of individuals increased by only 21 percent."

And what, pray tell, is the consumer debt picture today? According to the site nerdwallet.com it stands at a total of $11.13 TRILLION or orders of magnitude larger than Galbreath cited by 1956. In other words, what he foresaw as the metastasizing cancer of wants converted to needs by clever advertising has come to pass. Indeed, $898.4 billion of that debt is in credit card debt while some $7.81 trillion is in home mortgages. Most of the latter owing to the American penchant to purchase way too much home, far beyond what they can afford.

Hitherto uncited, but vastly worse than the era of Galbreath's mere "21 percent increase in individual disposable income", is the fact that incomes in the U.S. have remained stagnant since 1973. This, in tandem with Americans' over-consumption (buying what they don't need), has incepted the massive debt load. It also begs the question of how any serious writer or Neoliberal hack could complain of WHY there exists a "spoils society".

Samuelson writes, on the heels of his claim that production was paramount earlier:

The “spoils society” reverses this logic. It de-emphasizes production and fuels conflict. Here’s why: There are two ways to become richer. One is to provide more goods and services; that’s economic growth. The other is to snatch someone else’s wealth or income; that’s the spoils society. In a spoils society, economic success increasingly depends on who wins countless distributional contests — not who creates wealth but who controls it. This can be contentious. Winners celebrate; losers fume.


He then complains that the country  "is losing ground to predatory behavior (grabbing existing wealth and income)" and that what was once 3% growth per year (since 1950) is now projected to be 2% or less. And this degradation of growth heralds smaller gains, so that  "more people will fight over existing income and wealth, because — as has been said — that’s where the money is. "

Samuelson, oblivious as he is to the energy factor underlying production, has no clue, not one, that the degradation of economic growth is inextricably tied to the decreasing energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of fuel sources. In other words, our energy-dependent civilization is becoming ever more impoverished as the efficiency of the energy to run it diminishes over time. As it becomes more impoverished, production becomes more costly as well as inefficient and energy-intensive at all levels. As a result, growth decreases while debt increases except for high end rentiers and labor expropriators - who prosper (and hence deserve to have their wealth redistributed). All of this was explained in detail in my earlier blog post: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

As I noted therein, essentially, a nation which had become addicted to energy delivering 20 to 30 or even 40 times as much energy as it costs to extract, now faces a future with energy return 5 to 8  times less. This spells monetary-economic disaster because at the end of the day it is energy which  determines wealth of nations, money is only the medium to represent it.  Dilute the energy sources and money's value must be diluted also, what the wonks call "debasing the currency". The alteration of the EROEI fuel projections also translates to less growth. If Samuelson really knew about this fundamental underpinning of economics he wouldn't be so mystified as to why growth must diminish as high EROEI fuel sources do.  He also would be less surprised that we have now entered more into a redistributive society.  

Since assets must remain basically fixed as high EROEI energy stores plummet, it means that a fixed resource 'pie' is all we have to divide, and there is no "adding" to it. We have entered what we call a "zero sum" economy.  If the richest have more resources, then we must redistribute their excess resources and wealth  to ensure all citizens are able to meet their basic life needs. It's as simple as that. Samuelson can squawk all he wants about taking spoils, but all the foot stomping in the world will not repeal the diminishing energy future with which we are faced. At least the guy is honest about one thing, when he admits: "The promise of economic growth was oversold."

As for those who may be mesmerized by the recent report that the U.S. is now "the greatest oil producer in the world" (on account of oil shale) don't make me laugh.  If you really, truly believe that low EROEI shale oil (kerogen) provides a way out of the debt, low growth and lower production morass (and hence 'spoils society')  then I have five acres of choice beach land in Barbados to sell you for a song.

As Richard Heinberg notes (Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future', page 110 ):

"Kerogen is not oil. It is better thought of as an oil precursor that was insufficiently cooked by geologic processes. If we want to turn it into oil, we have to finish the process nature started: that involves heating the kerogen to a high temperature for a long time. And that in turn takes energy- lots of it, whether supplied by hydroelectricity, nuclear power plants, natural gas, or the kerogen itself. Therefore the EROEI in processing oil shale is bound to be pitifully low. According to the best study to date, by Cutler Cleveland and Peter O'Connor, the EROEI for oil shale production would be about 2:1. That tells us that oil from kerogen will be far more expensive than regular crude oil."

And oh, btw, if more expensive it is not going to solve either our lower growth problem, or our higher debt problem. As for fracking, that's no savior either. As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):


"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."


In other words, like it or not, we are indeed enmeshed in a veritable  "spoils society"- but not out of spite or envy of those who have the "most toys" - as Samuelson asserts. But rather on account of a declining energy base for us all. And unless Neoliberals like Samuelson know where we can find another Earth to populate with plenty of resources and energy (and the least energy intensive way to get there), or know how we can downsize our current system to accommodate lower energy sources  - he better just shut up and learn to like it. Meanwhile, we need progressive and even socialist thinkers to conceive of improved ways of resource re-distribution from the hyper-rich to the struggling citizens who can now barely feed their families because of the sequester and government shutdown.

Christian Charity Hypocrites are a JOKE!

Atheist students in Denver get banned books after delivering food items and cash donations. Most are committed to such donations but also to government as being a lever for social justice- unlike the fundies who squawk about government - but are first at the door for their own handouts, benefits!  

Hypocrisy is always a peculiar infection because the person most afflicted doesn't see himself as anything like a hypocrite. Because of that, his writings, blogs or whatever, come across as jokes because he himself doesn't fit within the parameters he names.  Consider the fundie blogger who recently lambasted "Obummer" as a "Socialist" and any who follow the social justice theme as being demonic tools.

Immediately, one must roar in laughter at his ignorance because Obama is in no manner, shape or form a "socialist" even by the most daft, stretched definition. Only an ignoramous would label him so. He is a centrist, and that's being generous. No one who's a true Socialist would remotely consider putting Social security on the federal cutting room floor, or Medicare. Nor would a true Socialist have set up any "Deficit Commission" to afford the looney tune deficit hawks an inroad into possible social cuts. So Obama is only a Socialist in the minds of the intellect -gutted who also believe Hitler was a Socialist. (He was a National "Socialist" but the name was a ruse to deflect attention from his fascism.)

Anyway, these same flakes that can't get right Obama's political-economic orientation, then have the chutzpah to rail against Social Justice imperatives, as being "unbiblical". They claim - and cite chapter and verse - to show that people are to donate via charity to assist the poor, and not depend on the government. Yet they themselves are first in line waiting for their disability or other benefits - from the GOVERNMENT! What's at the basis of such cognitive dissonance?

Well, the same dynamic that rails and howls for Veterans' benefits to be protected, while glossing over everyone else's benefits. As if the rest of the nation doesn't count, and those who served in Peace Corps, or in Doctors without Borders, or taught in poor schools are simply 'citizens non grata'.  Zeros.  Hence, it is their very near -sightedness and prejudice which blinds them to the truth.

The other irony is that they are foursquare ready to defend and protect the riches of the wealthiest, forgetting the ancient biblical warning that "it is easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven".  

Meanwhile, under principles of Social Justice one has the concept of "excess wealth": i.e. owning or possessing material or wealth abundance far in excess of one's normal human needs. I gave examples of this earlier, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/wealthiest-one-percent-get-even-more.html

Thus, when the average American CEO earns 346x more than the average American worker, he is plausibly accumulating excess wealth. The likely way they are gaining such enormous advantage is via the expropriation of worker labor.

By way of example, Marx in his work Kapital  postulated a theory of labor expropriation by which all those who labored in whatever form were made poorer and expendable at the hands of owners and their capital. If the labor value sold as a product was L, and V is the labor value embodied in the production of the item, then the surplus value S is:

S = L - V

Let us say, as an illustration, that a craftsman working for a company is paid $10 an hour to make beautiful mahogany chairs by hand. He takes 10 hours to make one chair, thereby imparting a discrete labor value of 10hr x $10/ hr = $100 into the chair, invested in his blood, sweat and maybe tears. The chair is then sold at retail for $1,000 by the company. Then the surplus value S is:


S = $1,000 - $100 = $900

Hence, in this light, V is the paid labor and S is the unpaid labor. The amount of labor expropriated is therefore equal to $900.

Meanwhile, the rate of surplus value, or the rate of exploitation is:

S/ V

In this case: S/V = $900/ $100 = 9

The appeal to charity or charitable giving as a substitute for government, is meanwhile appealing to certain Xtianoids, but alas impractical. About as much so as Newt Gingrich's idea (in the 2012 campaign) to set up bases on the Moon, given our budget deficits....thanks to unpaid for wars, tax cuts. The facts, however, show it is impossible to sustain all those in need (and these are mainly working poor, not "welfare queens" as the Right seeks to portray) merely by charity.

First, the amount of charitable giving would have to increase nearly 350 times to even meet half the needs of those who regularly need food stamps or medical interventions, because their $8.15 /hr Walmart checks can't cover all expenses. Second, charitable giving by its very nature is external condition dependent. Thus, we beheld after the 2008 market crash it fell more than 40% and food kitchens, pantries ran bare because so many were unable to give - having lost up to half of their 401ks. Thus, unless charitable giving is regimented and rendered predictable - like a gov't VA disability check- it can't be depended upon. "Salvation" will only get you so far in this world, and no where in the next.

The nasty facts of a nation like the U.S. boil down to one: because we have such a miserly social welfare net, people are led to seek a mythical entity for their relief of earthly sorrows. The primary finding of recent research (e.g.  FREE INQUIRY, Vol. 29, No. 1, ‘The Future of Religion’) is that religious belief and activity is a superficial coping mechanism easily cast aside when the majority in a given society enjoy true (not faux) democratic government, and a secure, comfortable and middle class lifestyle.

The core of research (largely statistical) also hows the primary reason the U.S. is a statistical outlier in its hyper- religious belief is income inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient).  This index has seen inequality increase ever since Bush Jr. was handed his presidency, compliments of the five Supremes, in 2000. (Gini coefficient’ registers the degree of economic and income inequality in any given nation, referenced as a decimal, or more often (in non-technical venues) as a plain number between 0 and 100.)

While Euro nations with greater government protections, services prosper, the U.S., with its historically lower taxes, fewer public safety nets, and more poor than rich (by more than a 25:1 ratio) displays a greater disparity than any other nation. Moreover, it displays a much greater social pathology. Understanding the basis of this pathology doesn’t take a genius. As anyone with more than air between the ears can see, on examining state by state budget deficits now exploding, in every case “re-balancing” is being done on the backs of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the homeless. The results are predictable: loss of health care, loss of jobs and loss of overall security, as well as increase in drug use, violent criminality and prostitution.

Other factors and pathology –distress indices have already been well documented by Michael Parenti in his book, The Dirty Truth, and these include the U.S. having the highest rates in: teen pregnancies, STDs, infant mortality, suicides, homicides, rapes, incest, child abuse, marriage failure, alcoholism and drug use, as well as industrial accidents and disabling outcomes,  establishing a large population of the chronically disabled and poor. The conclusion is inescapable: given the mass insecurity and economic discomfort:  the victimized citizens will turn to the aid and protection of specious supernatural powers since they can’t expect any relief from government. Fundagelical religion is one of the worst to feed this meme, since it claims to have the sole lock on truth and boils it down to a simple formula: Believe in the Lord JC.  British philosopher Nicholas Humphrey, in his superb book Soul Searching, has an excellent explanation for this clinging to God and religion in the U.S. :

"Religions and quasi-religions offer remarkably effective medicine for orphaned minds. As Jung said: 'They give a human being that sense of wholeness, which he had as a child, but which he loses when he leaves his parents"

In other words, these fundy and other religions keep people in a state of infantilization. In this state it's easier to blame the weak or the poor for their own predicaments, than it is to stand behind government doing the right thing. As the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Because most of these blinkered religous zealots consume most of their free time wallowing in their good book, they have no time to read widely or beyond it to learn the facts....hence their dumbed down notions, i.e. that Obama and Hitler were "Socialists", and Social justice is a "creation of Satan", etc.
The hard core fundy nut, rejecting government for his sustenance or support, thereby seeks God and religion for solace and a sweet teat to provide the comfort and nurturance otherwise missing in his arid life. The irony is that these same sufferers pillory Europeans as having a “Nanny state”,  but at least the Europeans have a genuine entity from which to elicit assistance, as opposed to a phantasm of the mind.


It is no coincidence that religiosity is low in every first world nation with universal health coverage and high in the only without it. What else can the hapless, beaten-down American do when denied coverage for serious illness? What else besides seek the assistance of his imaginary god, who now also becomes his cost-free healer? (Btw, I don't regard "Obamacare" as true universal health care, since people must pay for their own private insurance as opposed to being covered by one single payer-gov't agency.)

But never mind, in his febrile delusions he will be sure to insist on the rights of the richest to amass more wealth. Never mind they're doing it at HIS expense!

The Wealthiest One Percent Get Even More Ridiculous!

One of the newest toys for the wealthy: A designer dining table with built-in waterfall for only $50 grand!


The wealthiest 1 percent grow more ridiculous by the second! As time goes on ever more evidence grows that they have so much money they simply don't know what the hell to do with it (but one thing you can be sure they won't do is pay their fair share in taxes!). The latest evidence of excess wealth concerns the latest toys, appliances and goodies with which the richest now ply themselves and that they regard as necessities.

Case in point: the dining table equipped with its own built-in waterfall (see attached image). The rich guy whose home currently featured this gizmo noted that he got bored just dining poolside so decided to purchase this special "waterfall table" for a cool 50 grand. As he put it: "No biggie, really. It was barely one tenth of what I get back from the Bush tax cuts each year!"

Of course, no truly rich fucker - especially if he has dogs- can afford to be without his own "Forever Canine Lawn" featuring a high-end astroturf surface that has a flow through backing which drains effluent from doggies plus - get this, anti-microbial blades chemically treated to quickly (within ten seconds, break down pet waste and whisk it away. Out of sight, out of mind, and no poop scoops for the rich to have to dirty their dainty little hands. Plus....no more urine burns for their special chemically -treated lawns. (Oh, don't worry about them getting cancers from the chemicals like ordinary mortals, they all have Cadillac health insurance plans).

Oh....oh....wait! Am I waging "class warfare"? Tough shit! In this country one must wage it wherever and however he can to re-instill a sense of class consciousness to replace the false consciousness that has inundated so many!

But let's carry on.

Obviously, if Mr. or Mrs. One Percent has such fancy dancy stuff to take care of dog doo, you can be sure they have even fancier gadgets, errr.....toilets...to take care of their own business. So no surprise that the 150 grand all-purpose commode is a current fave among the jet set and other one percenters that take off each weekend for St. Kitts or St. Martens for a lobster thermidor feast, or 18 holes.

The special commode apparatus is designed to accommodate any 1,200 sq. foot "Master Bathroom" and includes a "wall-mounted LED pad that looks like an i-phone" (Denver Post,Feb. 18, p. 8D) and which "auto-magically raises and lowers the toilet seat or lid" without having to actually touch it. Just imagine, folks, fellow 99 percenters, how many gazillions of nasty microbes the wealthiest can now avoid thanks to this 'must have' commode!

Once the rich mount the seat they then have the option of using a remote to automatically heat the seat, lest their heinies gather wrinkles from the too cold surface. We can't have them freezing their little butts off, after all. In addition, the remote allows music - classical or jazz- take your pick, to be played as the seat is warmed and presumably while the wealthiest churn out their wealthy "products" from all that foie gras, lobsters, calimari, shrimp cocktails, and whatnot they've consumed.

No doubt while they are cogitating on the poor 99 percenters who don't even have jobs...or in many cases homes...

After conducting their business, the rich need not mess with toilet paper since the special commode - at one touch of the remote - "sprays and dries" and even features "adjustable flushing".

Now, the PR circulating is that these are merely "showcase homes" and the doodads featured are not meant to be taken seriously. In other words, we aren't to actually literally believe that anyone actually possesses them. Don't believe this for a nanosecond! If they exist, and are now in showcase homes, some one - of the one percent persuasion, already had them and merely lent out a few appliances for display purposes, or gave an older version away.

All of which entices us, the 99 percent, to return to the issue of "excess wealth". While Karl Marx never really specifically addressed it, a whole group of Caribbean Socialists based at the Univ. of the West Indies did in the late 1970s. Their main theme was that any capital used for "frivolous" purposes could be regarded as excess, and they generally set a criterion that in a nation such as the U.S. - anything over $10 million had to be excess wealth. Making allowances for where one lived, if one had money left over to burn ...say on $150 grand commodes, one was awash in excess wealth.

Religions commonly retain the notion of "tithing" or giving away at least ten percent of earnings, including capital gains. But the Caribbean socialists of the 1970s, including Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, maintained that 50% ought to not be too much to part with for a hyper rich capitalist. For the top one percent in the U.S. one may argue that anything over what those Bush tax cuts provide is definitely excess wealth....and hence,...if they don't voluntarily give that money back in some way, say to homeless charities, then Uncle Sam needs to help them out.

Towards that objective, let us hope the Bush tax cuts finally meet their justified end by December of this year!