SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
consumption
The Ultra-Rich Are Running Scared, for Good Reason
Budding entrepreneurs worldwide are devoting their time and talents to making our Earth as safe as possible for our planet’s top 1% that now holds more wealth than the entire bottom 95% combined.
Sep 29, 2024
Have our world’s super rich become absolutely paranoid about the future? Or do they, deep down, understand that our exceedingly unequal global distribution of income and wealth has placed them—and everyone else—in ever-present danger?
The Robb Report, a news service that offers our most awesomely affluent the ultimate in consumption advice, has no interest in psychoanalyzing what the wealthiest among us believe. But Robb Report analysts certainly do enjoy chronicling how these rich behave.
“Forget Butlers,” a Robb Report headline has just pronounced. “Private Security” has now become “the Ultimate Service for the Ultra-Wealthy.”
Real progress on the environmental and every other major problematic front, the new Oxfam report sums up, “will require all countries—both in the Global North and Global South—to realize that they have a common interest in tackling extreme concentrations of wealth.”
The Samphire Risk insurance firm, the Robb coverage goes on to relate, specializes in policies that insure the rich against the dangers that our world visits only upon them. Say, for instance, two monied motorcyclist pals get involved in a crash that leaves one of them badly injured and the other kidnapped amid the accident’s chaos. Samphire prides itself on providing “the connective tissue between the problem and the expertise needed” to solve whatever dilemma the rich may encounter.
The AHNA Group run by a Dubai-based former military operative from South Africa last year provided top corporate execs protective services for over 500 trips into more than four dozen countries. AHNA, says its mover and shaker Mac Segal, always goes the extra mile and even takes the time to prep its operatives on how to make conversation with their rich clients.
“You should speak in short sentences,” Segal advises, “so the client can stop the conversation whenever they want to.”
Still another new security service available for the fretful rich offers “a bodyguard in your pocket,” an artificial intelligence-powered mobile phone app that can tell if a deep pocket’s limo is following its normal daily route.
Budding entrepreneurs worldwide, in short, are devoting their time and talents to making our Earth as safe as possible for our planet’s most comfortable, that top 1% that now holds more wealth, relates a just-released report from the global humanitarian group Oxfam, than the entire bottom 95% combined.
This “immense concentration of wealth,” notes Oxfam’s new Multilateralism in an Era of Global Oligarchy analysis, has allowed large corporations and the ultra-rich “who exercise control over them to use their vast resources to shape global rules in their favor, often at the expense of everyone else.”
How dramatic has this wealth concentration become? Since 1987, as economist Gabriel Zucman has detailed, the combined wealth of the world’s 3,000 richest households—in effect, our richest 0.0001%—now stands at about $14 trillion. Their share of the world’s wealth has over that timespan more than quadrupled.
About 46% of the world’s population, meanwhile, lives on less than the local equivalent of $6.85 per day.
Our contemporary wealth inequality, Oxfam’s research details, connects up neatly with growing global corporate concentration. Seven of the world’s 10 largest corporations now have a billionaire either as CEO or top shareholder. Our wealthiest, Oxfam shows, don’t just benefit passively from all the corporate stock they hold. They’re increasingly shaping—in sectors ranging from pharmaceuticals to global digital advertising—exactly how corporations exercise their market and political power.
The ultra-wealthy and the corporations they dominate, as Oxfam puts it, are using “their vast resources to pressure governments”—through everything from lobbying and campaign contributions to influence over the media and threats to withhold investment—to lower the taxes rich people pay, weaken labor protections, and privatize public services.
In 2022, Oxfam points out, 182 of America’s largest corporations, spent $746 million on lobbying alone. For every lobbying dollar the nation’s 50 largest publicly traded corporations spent, they averaged back $130 in tax breaks and over $4,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees, and bailouts.
One consequence of this ultra-rich political influence: The Covid-19 pandemic, observes Oxfam, left in its wake at least 40 new billionaires.
The most dangerous long-term consequence of ultra-rich influence? That may well be environmental. The dollars of our global ultra-rich, notes Oxfam, continue to be “disproportionately invested in the companies driving climate breakdown.”
What can we do to break down this climate breakdown threat? Real progress on the environmental and every other major problematic front, the new Oxfam report sums up, “will require all countries—both in the Global North and Global South—to realize that they have a common interest in tackling extreme concentrations of wealth.”
“A more equitable international order,” as Oxfam’s latest research powerfully reminds us, “benefits everyone.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fast Fashion Harms Workers and the Planet
To cheaply and quickly reproduce the latest styles, manufacturers contract to companies in some of the poorest countries in the world where wages are low and standards of protection for the workers and the environment are ignored.
May 17, 2023
We all like to get something new, be it clothes, a house, a car, or something for the home. It gives us a feeling of a new start. And with the many forms of shopping through commercial centers, stores, catalogs, and the internet, we have an enormous selection from which to choose. To make buying even easier, there are numerous ways to pay. We have credit cards, debit cards, and digital and telephone transfers so that we don’t have to worry about not having money. Our happiness is guaranteed.
The most common purchases are clothes, and now we have Fast Fashion, a system where we can be up to date on all the latest styles. What does this mean and how does it impact us and the rest of the world?
It’s natural for us, at any age, to want the “latest” model, a sign to others that we are modern, in-the-know, and prepared for the world of work, recreation, the beach, or the city. To that end textile manufacturers can rush into production the same styles worn by influencers and people of fashion in the most rapid way and keep the prices low so that you will be tempted to buy. Also supporting the Fast Fashion trend are the free trade treaties that reduce or eliminate tariffs, which also keep down prices. But in reality is Fast Fashion a benefit?
Fast Fashion may seem like a good thing in providing a constant supply of the newest designs, but it takes its toll on the environment, labor practices, and our own comfort.
A report in Treehugger, an environmental magazine, says that Americans buy an average of 70 items of clothing a year, and later much of it remains forgotten in the closet. A similar study by a German university estimated that 60% of clothing purchases are not necessary and are seldom worn. In rapid time the style passes and the garment loses it’s charm.
Fast Fashion may seem like a good thing in providing a constant supply of the newest designs, but it takes its toll on the environment, labor practices, and our own comfort. Fast Fashion means that manufacturers contract to companies in some of the poorest countries in the world—Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, and others where wages are low and standards of protection for the workers and the environment are ignored—and they use the cheapest of synthetic materials. The waste products—the dyes and chemicals and byproducts—are often pitched into the environment, the waterways, and the air, causing health problems for the people and the environment of the area. Workers, mostly women, work long hours without benefits or safety measures.
Because the fabrics and the process of producing all these new clothes are of poor quality, they soon lose their “fresh look.” They stretch out of shape, and the colors deteriorate. Synthetic fabrics cause skin allergies for many wearers. The cloth traps heat inside, making the garments uncomfortable. Styles pass, the items are no longer worn. Low prices are offset by the product’s short life span.
Fast Fashion has also created an environmental hazzard. Tons of discarded, unwanted clothes have become a serious problem as the synthetic materials do not break down. Tons of used, unwanted apparel are shipped to poor countries to be distributed, but much is waste because of its poor condition. Areas in Kenya and Chile and other poor countries have become dumping grounds for those formerly high-fashion products.
How can we help create a more postive environment and still be “well dressed?” By being prudent when shopping, whether it’s for clothes or household products such as curtains or bedsheets. Ask yourself if the purchase is really necessary, or do you buy on impulse? Look for quality. Check labels for fabric content and where the garment was made. Is it an item that will last?
Buying in “used shops” can yield quality items at comfortable prices. It’s a form of recylcing. Buy clothing made of natural fibers, although cotton and denim also contaminate from their use of fertilizers and water in production. Parents can teach their children that they do not need to have the latest style all the time.
A good sign is that there is a growing consciousness among major stores and brands to check the abuses caused by Fast Fashion by carrying only products made under just and safe conditions for workers and the environment. Through the use of careful buying habits we can help improve conditions for workers and the environment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Processed Meats Pose Severe Cancer Risk, Says WHO
Bacon, sausage, ham labeled "carcinogenic to humans" by World Health Organization's cancer research arm
Oct 26, 2015
Processed meats have been placed in the same health risk category as smoking and asbestos by the cancer research body of the World Health Organization (WHO) on Monday.
Products salted, cured, or otherwise processed to enhance flavor are "carcinogenic to humans," the Paris-based International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found in its report, published in the Lancet Oncology. That puts processed meat in the Group 1 carcinogenic category alongside substances like tobacco, alcohol, and plutonium. And non-processed fresh meats like beef, pork, and lamb, among others, are "probably carcinogenic to humans," the agency said.
According to the IARC's report, Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily—including bacon, sausages, and ham, as well as canned meat and meat-based sauces—increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent. The report was crafted by 22 international health experts for the IARC Monograph Program, which evaluates environmental causes of cancer in humans.
"For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because they consume processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed," said Dr. Kurt Straif, head of the IARC Monograph Program. "In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance."
The IARC's findings (pdf) come just months after the top U.S. nutritional panel, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, reported that Americans must reduce their meat intake and switch to sustainable, plant-based diets to curb greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the rise of preventable chronic diseases like diabetes and certain types of cancer.
President Obama responded to that report in February by vowing to consider the environment in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), due later this year. However, heavy lobbying by the meat industry in the intervening months led the Obama administration to rescind its promise, a move that climate and public health advocates called "disappointing" and "politically motivated."
The IARC stated on Monday that meat consumption is increasing in low—and middle-income countries (pdf). Citing the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent research organization, the IARC reported that diets with a heavy intake of processed meat can cause about 34,000 deaths per year.
"These findings further support current public health recommendations," said IARC director Dr. Christopher Wild. He added that global governments and regulatory agencies should also use them to provide the best dietary guidelines.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular