The new global elite: classic or dud

Spinning off from the US politics thread, I wanted to talk about the topics raised by this article, from a recent issue of the Atlantic. There's much there of interest & I'd like to talk about any of it, but what struck me the most (& is most consonant with the present thrust of the US politics thread), is the following:

The good news—and the bad news—for America is that the nation’s own super-elite is rapidly adjusting to this more global perspective. The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.

I kinda want to poll that: is that such a bad trade? On what grounds? Why is the status of the USA's middle class important, relative to the world at large? Should it be particularly important to Americans, even? To all Americans? To aspirational Americans? What responsibility do aspirational Americans have to the American middle class at large?

Let's start there, but if there's interest there are many other things I want to raise here.

don't follow the politics thread at all but this was a p good and v scary article

my first thought is that I hope their bank accounts will keep them happy when the poor and formerly middle class are tearing down their gates and sacking their pantries in about 20 years

You mean the poor / formerly American middle class? The people the article's about will just move somewhere else, then: they're not particularly connected to the USA except as a source of capital, so I don't see them too broken up about leaving.

bank accounts will pay for other poor and formerly middle class people to shoot the angries

hah, I was thinking about that - when I think about the success of these people and their willingness to assign all of their success to personal qualities of perseverance/intelligence/various other masturbatory factors, and none of it to the country that they grew up in, the institutions that enabled them to have their opportunities, it makes me a little mad. but if it's true that they truly view themselves as belonging to a rarefied upper strata that has no national ties and allegiances, well best of luck to a happy life in an airship floating 20 miles above the scorched and salted earth of the former united states of america. I hope your self sustaining sun-algae proves to be a delicious replacement for steak.

Can't they just move to South America, though, or Singapore, or Switzerland?

Whilst I'm by no means one of these people, I live a pretty transnational life & can kinda relate to not really knowing what my ~home~ is (first generation American also), so for me there's a bit of personal ~exploration~ in raising this; but first & foremost I was struck by this consequence of globalization: why should any particular country's people stand out in importance, if you've already bought into globalization?

“His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,”

There's something missing in this mental map of the class system... can anyone spot it?

But like... listening to hedge fund CEOs opine about the class system and/or geopolitics is really a recipe for either deep sleep or body-shaking rage so I don't usually attempt it without warning my doctor first

I heard a similar sentiment from the Taiwanese-born, 30-something CFO of a U.S. Internet company. A gentle, unpretentious man who went from public school to Harvard, he’s nonetheless not terribly sympathetic to the complaints of the American middle class. “We demand a higher paycheck than the rest of the world,” he told me. “So if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value. It sounds harsh, but maybe people in the middle class need to decide to take a pay cut.”

tracer otm: rationalizations can be fun to make, but they are rarely fun to listen to.

if you’re going to demand 10 times the paycheck, you need to deliver 10 times the value

When lording over financial institutions that control the world economy, you are exempt from this qualification.

a gentle, unpretentious man

A merchant, Stephen said, is one who buys cheap and sells dear, jew or gentile, is he not?

But so it goes. Is globalization - which I would place as beginning historically a couple of thousand years earlier than most comedy anarchists seem to think it did - only a tool in the service of mega-Capitalists? Socialists were calling for internationalism whilst the other dicks were still bleating for tariffs and the Gold Standard.

totally, NV; what interests me most about this is whether there's any link b/w being "progressive" & being (economically) nationalist.

The U.S.-based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds told me that his firm’s investment committee often discusses the question of who wins and who loses in today’s economy. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.

But what if every four people in India and China lifted out of poverty meant one hedge fund manager dropped out of the upper class? I think that might be a more meaningful debate for these guys to have.

xp

Yeah I think it's quite interesting. Ignoring the history of global economics and thinking about globalization as it exists now raises a bunch of questions. There are the obvious environmental concerns about food flying half way round the world but it seems to me that in terms of economic development globalization has more positives than negatives. The problem is good old-fashioned exploitation - governments using all kinds of muscle to tilt the balance of trade in their favour, so that the market never has been or will be free.

Part of what's different is that states are losing their ability to control this global elite, and the big "Western" economies are ceasing to be the only game in town. Nationalism is a dying discourse in those countries, which applies at least as much to people who do business in a global market place as to other citizens. So your exploiting class don't really see "us and them" in national terms any more (if they ever really did).

From a Leftist perspective I do think that this special use of "Globalization" is stupid and focuses on the wrong target.

but to a answer the thread title, the new global elite are pigs like all oligarchs and monopolists of power

Whilst I'm by no means one of these people, I live a pretty transnational life & can kinda relate to not really knowing what my ~home~ is (first generation American also),

You're like a bird; you'll only fly away.

The problem is good old-fashioned exploitation - governments using all kinds of muscle to tilt the balance of trade in their favour, so that the market never has been or will be free.

But unless and until you have some kind of enforceable global trade and competition standards, why shouldn't nations do this? If you're the government of the US or India or China or whoever your job is to advance the interests of your citizens, not of the world's citizens. In fact if you don't, you are actually screwing your citizens because other governments will be doing what you're not doing.

I don't say what nations should or shouldn't do, morality doesn't come into power. But we shd recognise trade as war by less aggro means and I could do without hearing lying liars in positions of authority bullshitting about how important free trade is.

oh and I think nations are becoming less able to control this, like the elite troops of economic warfare are fucking off to form their own deterritorialised nation

what's to be done about it, NV?