Who is "benefiting" from the present economic crisis in the world?

In most of the world’s “developed” economies unemployment rates continue to rise. That is no longer news. However, according to Robert Reich, since 2000 corporate earnings have doubled. Reich was U.S. secretary of labour under the Clinton administration. His data certainly come from reliable sources.

What is the conclusión?

The “solution” to the economic crisis advocated by Banks, the IMF, corporations and most conservative political groups is…belt tightening. What does this mean? The crisis was set off by the world’s corporate giants; they are asking that workers and salaried persons foot the bill.

As is frequently the case when the economic system (capitalism) goes flip-flop, corporations and top finanacial interests are investing more in technology than in the welfare of workers and employees. It is simple: they get tax credits, deductions and enjoy other benefits for investing; improving the standard of living of workers is not deemed profitable—on the contrary corporations now operate with fewer people on their payrolls.

It is apparent that the corporate world is not very concerned about joblessness: the more people unemployed the easier it is to replace them with technology and thus keep wages in the trash can. Furthermore, multinational business takes advantage of “globalization” to produce more for less in “under developed” economies where wages are in the basement.

Other sectors of the “corporate class” have discovered that in spite of crashing markets, some pretty good Money can be made through speculation. Why invest in a factory if you can get a good haul speculating on the stock market and in other lottery type ventures?

Another question which is not usually mentioned in the mass media has to do with the policy of finance capital to collect enormous profits from indebted “developing nations.” During the 1960’s and 70’s Banks and financial investors discovered how to make incredible profits while at the same time creating the conditions for political dependency. Enormous loans were granted to poor nations, under the guise of cooperation for economic development. That sent most of the world’s poor nations into a spiral of indebtedness from which they are still unable to free themselves. The multiplying interests of the indebted nations continue to fill the pockets of those interests who provoked the present financial crisis.

Consider likewise the affirmation of Immanuel Saez, who recently declared that economic gains between 2009 and 2011 filled the pockets of the richest one percent in the United States, while the bottom 99 percent has continued to lose ground.

The inability of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S.to agree on how to deal with the crisis will end up benefiting the rich even more.

According to information in the press about the cuts, some $1.9 billion low income rental subsidies will be eliminated; an estimated 100,000 formerly homeless personas might well be removed from their current emergency shelters; there is threat that diverse programs of a social nature will be whacked to pieces. Should the economy not recover with these measures, the vast majority of the population in the U.S. (and in the world) will be asked to make even greater sacrifices—in the name of economic “reforms” supposedly designed to bring greater wellbeing to the people.

In practice these policies will no doubt do exactly the opposite: they will allow the world’s economic elite to continue increasing its wealth, while the vast majority of the world’s population will find its possibilities of progress stagnated.