Oxfam International interim Executive Director Amitabh Behar said: “Runaway corporate and monopoly power is an inequality-generating machine: through squeezing workers, dodging tax, privatizing the state…corporations are funneling endless wealth to their ultra-rich owners.” According to the press release show below from Oxfam: “The wages of nearly 800 million workers have failed to keep up with inflation and they have lost $1.5 trillion over the last two years, equivalent to nearly a month (25 days) of lost wages for each worker.” “Wealth of five richest men doubles since 2020 as five billion people made poorer in “decade of division.”
“Fortunes of five richest men have shot up by 114 percent since 2020,” says their report. Some of those richest people in the world are here in the U.S. and are invested in factory-built housing, including manufactured housing.
Note that Oxfam’s research is useful even if their policy stances are arguably NOT the best way to solve the issues that they spotlighted. So, in sharing their press release and research paper, it should not be construed that their views reflect those of MHProNews.
That said, several of the facts Oxfam has once again spotlighted – when the proverbial wheat is separated from the chaff – are useful in several respects. More on that in Part II of this report, commentary, and analysis.
“We have the evidence. We know the history. Public power can rein in runaway corporate power and inequality — shaping the market to be fairer and free from billionaire control. Governments must intervene to break up monopolies, empower workers, tax these massive corporate profits and, crucially, invest in a new era of public goods and services,” said Behar.
While Oxfam is an apparently left-leaning organization (more on that in Part II), several of the points they have made have been advanced by voices that span the left-center-right divide. That is one of several reasons to examine their findings more closely, which will be explored in Part II.
Oxfam timed the release of their report to coincide with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos again this year.
Part I
Wealth of five richest men doubles since 2020 as five billion people made poorer in “decade of division,” says Oxfam
- Fortunes of five richest men have shot up by 114 percent since 2020.
- Oxfam predicts the world could have its first-ever trillionaire in just a decade while it would take more than two centuries to end poverty.
- A billionaire is running or the principal shareholder of 7 out of 10 of the world’s biggest corporations.
- 148 top corporations made $1.8 trillion in profits, 52 percent up on 3-year average, and dished out huge payouts to rich shareholders while hundreds of millions faced cuts in real-term pay.
- Oxfam urges a new era of public action, including public services, corporate regulation, breaking up monopolies and enacting permanent wealth and excess profit taxes.
The world’s five richest men have more than doubled their fortunes from $405 billion to $869 billion since 2020 —at a rate of $14 million per hour— while nearly five billion people have been made poorer, reveals a new Oxfam report on inequality and global corporate power. If current trends continue, the world will have its first trillionaire within a decade but poverty won’t be eradicated for another 229 years.
“Inequality Inc.”, published today as business elites gather in the Swiss resort town of Davos, reveals that seven out of ten of the world’s biggest corporations have a billionaire as CEO or principal shareholder. These corporations are worth $10.2 trillion, equivalent to more than the combined GDPs of all countries in Africa and Latin America.
“We’re witnessing the beginnings of a decade of division, with billions of people shouldering the economic shockwaves of pandemic, inflation and war, while billionaires’ fortunes boom. This inequality is no accident; the billionaire class is ensuring corporations deliver more wealth to them at the expense of everyone else,” said Oxfam International interim Executive Director Amitabh Behar.
“Runaway corporate and monopoly power is an inequality-generating machine: through squeezing workers, dodging tax, privatizing the state, and spurring climate breakdown, corporations are funneling endless wealth to their ultra-rich owners. But they’re also funneling power, undermining our democracies and our rights. No corporation or individual should have this much power over our economies and our lives —to be clear, nobody should have a billion dollars”.
The past three years’ supercharged surge in extreme wealth has solidified while global poverty remains mired at pre-pandemic levels. Billionaires are $3.3 trillion richer than in 2020, and their wealth has grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.
- Despite representing just 21 percent of the global population, rich countries in the Global North own 69 percent of global wealth and are home to 74 percent of the world’s billionaire wealth.
- Share ownership overwhelmingly benefits the richest. The top 1 percent own 43 percent of all global financial assets. They hold 48 percent of financial wealth in the Middle East, 50 percent in Asia and 47 percent in Europe.
Mirroring the fortunes of the super-rich, large firms are set to smash their annual profit records in 2023. 148 of the world’s biggest corporations together raked in $1.8 trillion in total net profits in the year to June 2023, a 52 percent jump compared to average net profits in 2018-2021. Their windfall profits surged to nearly $700 billion. The report finds that for every $100 of profit made by 96 major corporations between July 2022 and June 2023, $82 was paid out to rich shareholders.
- Bernard Arnault is the world’s second richest man who presides over luxury goods empire LVMH, which has been fined by France‘s anti-trust body. He also owns France’s biggest media outlet, Les Échos, as well as Le Parisien.
- Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest person, holds a “near-monopoly” on cement in Nigeria. His empire’s expansion into oil has raised concerns about a new private monopoly.
- Jeff Bezos’s fortune of $167.4 billion increased by $32.7 billion since the beginning of the decade. The US government has sued Amazon, the source of Bezos’ fortune, for wielding its “monopoly power” to hike prices, degrade service for shoppers and stifle competition.
“Monopolies harm innovation and crush workers and smaller businesses. The world hasn’t forgotten how pharma monopolies deprived millions of people of COVID-19 vaccines, creating a racist vaccine apartheid, while minting a new club of billionaires,” said Behar.
People worldwide are working harder and longer hours, often for poverty wages in precarious and unsafe jobs. The wages of nearly 800 million workers have failed to keep up with inflation and they have lost $1.5 trillion over the last two years, equivalent to nearly a month (25 days) of lost wages for each worker.
New Oxfam analysis of World Benchmarking Alliance data on more than 1,600 of the largest corporations worldwide shows that 0.4 percent of them are publicly committed to paying workers a living wage and support a living wage in their value chains. It would take 1,200 years for a woman working in the health and social sector to earn what the average CEO in the biggest 100 Fortune companies earns in a year.
Oxfam’s report also shows how a “war on taxation” by corporations has seen the effective corporate tax rate fall by roughly a third in recent decades, while corporations have relentlessly privatized the public sector and segregated services like education and water.
“We have the evidence. We know the history. Public power can rein in runaway corporate power and inequality —shaping the market to be fairer and free from billionaire control. Governments must intervene to break up monopolies, empower workers, tax these massive corporate profits and, crucially, invest in a new era of public goods and services,” said Behar.
“Every corporation has a responsibility to act but very few are. Governments must step up. There is action that lawmakers can learn from, from US anti-monopoly government enforcers suing Amazon in a landmark case, to the European Commission wanting Google to break up its online advertising business, and Africa’s historic fight to reshape international tax rules.”
Oxfam is calling on governments to rapidly and radically reduce the gap between the super-rich and the rest of society by:
- Revitalizing the state. A dynamic and effective state is the best bulwark against extreme corporate power. Governments should ensure universal provision of healthcare and education, and explore publicly-delivered goods and public options in sectors from energy to transportation.
- Reining in corporate power, including by breaking up monopolies and democratizing patent rules. This also means legislating for living wages, capping CEO pay, and new taxes on the super-rich and corporations, including permanent wealth and excess profit taxes. Oxfam estimates that a wealth tax on the world’s millionaires and billionaires could generate $1.8 trillion a year.
- Reinventing business. Competitive and profitable businesses don’t have to be shackled by shareholder greed. Democratically-owned businesses better equalize the proceeds of business. If just 10 percent of US businesses were employee-owned, this could double the wealth share of the poorest half of the US population, including doubling the average wealth of Black households. ##
Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary
More facts and insights first, then the analysis deeper into this segment of this report and analysis.
From Oxfam’s 15-page 2024 Inequality and Davos executive summary are the following. In no particular order of importance are these items that will be unpacked later in this segment of today’s report.
We are living through an era of monopoly power that enables corporations to control markets, set the terms of exchange, and profit without fear of losing business. Far from being an abstract phenomenon, this impacts us in many ways: influencing the wages we are paid, the foods we eat and can afford, and the medicines we can access. Far from being accidental, this power has been handed to monopolies by our governments.”
- If each of the five wealthiest men were to spend a million US dollars daily, they would take 476 years to exhaust their combined wealth.9
- Seven out of ten of the world’s biggest corporations have a billionaire CEO or a billionaire as their principal shareholder.10, 11
- At the time of writing, 4.8 billion people are poorer than they were in 2019.19
- Low- and lower-middle-income countries are set to pay nearly half a billion US dollars a day in interest and debt payments between now and 2029, and they are having to make severe cuts to spending to be able to pay their creditors.24
Sharply increasing billionaire wealth and rising corporate and monopoly power are deeply connected. The profits of mega-corporations are in turn used to benefit shareholders, at the expense of workers and ordinary people. This paper reveals how corporate and monopoly power has exploded inequality – and how corporate power exploits and magnifies inequalities of gender and race, as well as economic inequality.
A principal shareholder’s voting shares allow the shareholder to vote on who should be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and who should sit on the company’s board of directors. Billionaire owners use this control to ensure that corporate power is constantly growing through increasing market concentration and monopoly, enabled by government. This increased corporate power is in turn focused on providing ever-greater returns to them, the shareholders, at the expense of everyone else.
We are living through an era of monopoly power that enables corporations to control markets, set the terms of exchange, and profit without fear of losing business. Far from being an abstract phenomenon, this impacts us in many ways: influencing the wages we are paid, the foods we eat and can afford, and the medicines we can access. Far from being accidental, this power has been handed to monopolies by our governments. In sector after sector, increased market concentration can be seen everywhere.
Globally, over two decades, 60 pharmaceutical companies merged into just 10 giant, global ‘Big Pharma’ firms between 1995–2015.34 Two international companies now own more than 40% of the global seed market.35 ‘Big Tech’ firms dominate markets: three-quarters of global online advertising spending pays Meta, Alphabet and Amazon;36 and more than 90% of global online search is done via Google.37 Agriculture has seen consolidation within Africa.38 India faces ’rising industrial concentration’, especially by the top five firms.39
Monopolies increase the power of corporations and their owners to the detriment of everyone else. Bodies such as the IMF agree that monopolistic power is growing and contributing to inequality.40 Average markups for mega-corporations have ballooned in recent decades;41 while monopoly power enabled large firms in many concentrated sectors to implicitly coordinate to increase prices to drive up their margins since 2021,42 with energy, food and pharma sectors seeing huge price hikes.43
Private equity firms, backed globally by US$5.8 trillion of investors’ cash since 2009, have used privileged financial access to act as a monopolizing force across sectors.44, 45 Beyond private equity, the ‘Big Three’ index fund managers – BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard – together manage some US$20 trillion in people’s assets, close to one-fifth of all assets under management,46 which has deepened monopoly power.47 …
Aggressive tax planning, abuse of tax havens, and incentives result in tax rates that are much lower, and often closer to zero.59”
About Oxfam – per Influence Watch
“Oxfam America is the American nonprofit arm of the worldwide group Oxfam International.”
“Oxfam America advocates for a left-of-center agenda 3 that cites inequality as a catchall justification to support left-leaning domestic taxation, 4 climate policies, 5 immigration policies, 6 and labor policies 7 among other things.”
“Oxfam America boasts that it does not take U.S. Government grants, but other Oxfam organizations in its international network have received nearly $100 million in U.S. government grants from USAID. 12”
“Oxfam America’s current “values” statement emphasizes three liberal policy areas: “inequality,” “climate change,” and “threats to minorities, refugees, and immigrants.” 19”
“In each of these issue areas, the group has advocated for extremely liberal policy prescriptions, leading one critic to write that Oxfam America is “a left-wing hack organization” and “should end the pretense of being a charity.” 20”
“Oxfam America has taken left-wing environmentalist positions.”
“Similarly, Adam Smith Institute Fellow Tim Worstall argued that Oxfam America’s published reports about corporate tax dodging failed to account for the different tax statuses of corporations, skewing the data. 40”
Funding for Oxfam, per Influence Watch
“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has given over 40 grants to Oxfam America worth at least $10.6 million in total, including over $500,000 in 2017 alone. 73 74 75 76”
The following inquiry was put to Bing AI powered Copilot.
> “Has Oxfam received funding from Warren Buffett connected nonprofits? Has Oxfam received funding from the Tides nonprofit?”
According to the Oxfam website, the organization receives funding from various sources, including individual donors, foundations, corporations, governments, and multilateral institutions1. However, Oxfam does not disclose the names of all its donors or the amounts they contribute.
One of the foundations that has supported Oxfam is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was co-founded by Warren Buffett. In 2021, Buffett announced that he had donated nearly $3.2 billion to the Gates Foundation, bringing his total funding to nearly $33 billion2. The Gates Foundation has given grants to Oxfam for various projects, such as improving food security, promoting gender equality, and responding to humanitarian crises.
Another foundation that has funded Oxfam is the Tides Foundation, which is a nonprofit and philanthropic organization that supports social justice causes. According to the Tides website, the foundation has partnered with Oxfam on several initiatives, such as advocating for climate action, protecting human rights, and strengthening civil society3. The Tides Foundation also provides fiscal sponsorship to over 140 partners based in the United States, some of which may collaborate with Oxfam on different issues3. …”
More Information…
Per mainstream media reports, Elon Musk has periodically been at the top of the ‘world’s richest men’ list. Musk has investments in factory-built housing, as MHProNews has reported.
Routinely in the top 10 of global wealth, and always in the top ten of U.S. billionaires since 2000, is Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. As the reply from Copilot above indicated, Gates and Buffett essentially co-founded the Gates Foundation in terms of funding. Buffett was long on the Gates Foundation board. Gates in turn has investments in stocks in Berkshire Hathaway, beyond the sums held by the Gates Foundation. Berkshire Hathaway owns Clayton Homes, 21st Mortgage Corporation, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance (VMF), and own and/or have investments in several other firms that broker manufactured home communities (MHCs), offer financing in and for land-lease manufactured home communities (MHCs), or supply the production of housing, including HUD Code manufactured homes.
Note: to expand this image below to a larger or full size, see the instructions
below the graphic below or click the image and follow the prompts.
Next, consider these follow up inquiries to Copilot and the responses.
> “Per Oxfam’s 2024 report, who are the 5 richest men?”
According to the Oxfam report “Inequality Inc.”1, the five richest men in the world as of 2024 are:
- Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, and owner of X, with a net worth of $287 billion2.
- Bernard Arnault, chairman and CEO of LVMH, the world’s largest luxury goods company, with a net worth of $203 billion3.
- Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer, with a net worth of $196 billion4.
- Larry Ellison, co-founder, chairman and chief technology officer of Oracle, a leading software company, with a net worth of $97 billion5.
- Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder, chairman and CEO of Facebook, the world’s largest social media platform, with a net worth of $86 billion6.
> “Who are the twenty-five richest men in the U.S.? What is the net worth of each?”
According to Forbes, as of April 2023, the 25 richest men in the U.S. are as follows1:
Table
| Rank | Name | Net worth in billion US$ | Source of wealth |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Elon Musk | 180 | Tesla, SpaceX |
| 2 | Jeff Bezos | 114 | Amazon |
| 3 | Bill Gates | 135.8 | Microsoft [personally has BRK stock; plus Gates Foundation has BRK] |
| 4 | Larry Ellison | 119.5 | Oracle |
| 5 | Mark Zuckerberg | 117.5 | Meta [i.e.: Facebook, Instagram, etc.] |
| 6 | Larry Page | 117.3 | Alphabet Inc. [i.e.: Google, YouTube, etc.] |
| 7 | Warren Buffett | 115.6 | Berkshire Hathaway |
| 8 | Sergey Brin | 113.1 | Alphabet Inc. i.e.: Google, YouTube, etc.] |
| 9 | Steve Ballmer | 99.9 | Microsoft |
| 10 | Michael Bloomberg | 69 | Bloomberg L.P. |
| 11 | Jim Walton | 67.2 | Walmart |
| 12 | Alice Walton | 66.3 | Walmart |
| 13 | Rob Walton | 66 | Walmart |
| 14 | Michael Dell | 59 | Dell |
| 15 | Phil Knight | 57.9 | Nike |
| 16 | MacKenzie Scott | 54.7 | Amazon |
| 17 | Charles Koch | 54.2 | Koch Industries |
| 18 | Julia Koch | 54.2 | Koch Industries |
| 19 | Len Blavatnik | 36.8 | Access Industries |
| 20 | Stephen A. Schwarzman | 34.5 | Blackstone Group |
| 21 | John Franklyn Mars | 33.9 | Mars |
| 22 | Jacqueline Mars | 33.9 | Mars |
| 23 | Leonard Lauder | 29.8 | Estée Lauder Companies |
| 24 | Miriam Adelson | 28.1 | Las Vegas Sands |
| 25 | Dan Gilbert | 26.6 | Rocket Mortgage |
Note the shifts between the two lists in the top 5? Note too the presence of Gates at #3 and Buffett at #7 in April of 2023. But as of Jan 27, 2024, Buffett’s wealth is said by Bing to be “$127.18 billion USD” (U.S. Dollars). The pitch given by Copilot about Buffett on this date is: “He is the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, one of the most successful investment companies in history2. He is also one of the most generous philanthropists, having pledged to donate over 99% of his wealth to charitable causes3. He is widely regarded as one of the best investors of all time and has earned the nickname “The Oracle of Omaha” for his remarkable business acumen4.” Unprompted, there is no mention of Buffett on “the moat” or what his son Peter Buffett revealed about the woes connected to so-called philanthropy, which were referred to as philanthro-feudalism and the charitable-industrial complex. That is apparently how paltering by AI and other sources work. The aura is created, the downside of that aura are ignored unless prompted.
The wealth of the wealthiest in the world shifts minute by minute with stock prices and the value (often depreciating) of the currency that the wealth is being measured in. None of these lists shown above per Oxfam, Bing or Forbes top 25 mention Vladimir Putin, who CNN once mentioned was actually the wealthiest on earth, but due to how he structured his assets that is often not shown by conventional reporting sources. But it is routine, as Oxfam duly noted in Part I and in their executive summary that tax avoidance strategies are part of the game the wealthiest play. See what Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki had to say in a video with partial transcript about investing, taxes, and tax avoidance.
Per Copilot:
“…According to OpenSecrets1, a website that tracks money in U.S. politics, the 25 richest men in the U.S. gave a total of $1.2 billion to federal candidates, parties, political action committees (PACs), and other groups in the 2020 election cycle. Of this amount, $1.1 billion went to outside groups, such as super PACs and nonprofits, that can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.” Per George Soros funded Open Secrets, who is solidly leftist in his contributions, this is the breakdown of 2020 dark money contributions.
Observations, Analysis and Commentary
Let’s sum up some points from the above. In no particular order of importance are the following points.
- Oxfam is left-leaning.
- Oxfam is largely funded by left-leaning individuals and organizations.
- While there are right- or libertarian leaning billionaires in the top 25 wealthiest in the U.S., the group is dominated by people who support left-leaning groups. That would include Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and others – like often mentioned Democratic Party and left-wing causes supporting mega donor George Soros.
- While the more recent data may reveal a shift, per Copilot, Elon Musk leans left in his donations and contributions.
Oxfam timed its report to the meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Voices on the left and right have decried the power and influence that those who traveled to Davos wield. So, while Davos certainly has its defenders, there are numerous voices that have expressed concerns that the WEF and their annual Davos conference represents some of the most powerful people on the planet, in or out of government.
Per Oxfam:
- 5. “Monopolies increase the power of corporations and their owners to the detriment of everyone else. Bodies such as the IMF agree that monopolistic power is growing and contributing to inequality.40″
- 6. Private equity firms, backed globally by US$5.8 trillion of investors’ cash since 2009, have used privileged financial access to act as a monopolizing force across sectors.44, 45 Beyond private equity, the ‘Big Three’ index fund managers – BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard – together manage some US$20 trillion in people’s assets, close to one-fifth of all assets under management,46 which has deepened monopoly power.47 …
- 7. Aggressive tax planning, abuse of tax havens, and incentives result in tax rates that are much lower, and often closer to zero.59“
8. MHProNews has previously noted tax avoidance strategies, such as what was revealed by the Panama Papers and other reports.
9. According to a memo previously leaked concerning Citi Group‘s view of the shift in the U.S. and leading so-called Western nations was this thesis.
…Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it. We will posit that: 1) the world is dividing into two blocs – the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest. Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?”
…
4) In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in
number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. Consensus analyses that do not tease out the profound impact of the plutonomy on spending power, debt loads, savings rates (and hence current account deficits), oil price impacts etc, i.e., focus on the “average” consumer are flawed from the start. It is easy to drown in a lake with an average depth of 4 feet, if one steps into its deeper extremes. Since consumption accounts for 65% of the world economy, and consumer staples and discretionary sectors for 19.8% of the MSCI AC World Index, understanding how the plutonomy impacts consumption is key for equity market participants.
5) Since we think the plutonomy is here, is going to get stronger, its membership swelling from globalized enclaves in the emerging world, we think a “plutonomy basket” of stocks should continue do well. These toys for the wealthy have pricing power, and staying power. They are Giffen goods, more desirable and demanded the more expensive they are.”
10. Per Investopedia: “Plutonomy is a term that refers to the science of the production and distribution of wealth.” Investopedia then cited the very document quoted in #9 above previously reported by MHProNews, saying in part: “In modern times, Citigroup analysts…have used the term to describe an economy in which the rich are the driving forces and main beneficiaries of economic growth. Others, including Noam Chomsky, have used the term to refer to a nation or economy in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.” MHProNews carefully examined Chomsky in the recent report linked below.
Note the following Q&A with Copilot, and those who want to dig deeper can probe the more detailed report linked above.
> “What is the thesis for Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky?”
11. Certainly, a sizable chunk of the U.S. population has at least an inkling about these issues. Because for some years, Pew Research (2020 and since) and others have reported that some 70 percent of the population believes that the system is rigged. Indeed, the appeal of deposed President Donald J. Trump for many is precisely because millions believe he is fighting a rigged system which he admitted helped enrich he and his family.
Another study conducted by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation in February 2020 found that non-voters in America are more likely to think that “the system is rigged” 2. The study also found that if non-voters all turned out in 2020, non-voter candidate preferences show they would add nearly equal share to Democratic and Republican candidates (33 percent versus 30 percent, respectively), while 18 percent said they would vote for a third party 2. …“
12. MHProNews has noted that billionaire Nick Hanauer warned his fellow ‘oligarchs and plutocrats’ that there will be an uprising – people with pitchforks, he colorfully said – would come for the wealthy if this pattern persisted. OR, said Hanauer, there will be a police state.
‘Punishment the Wise Suffer;’ Sam Zell’s Contrarian Investing View – When Everyone Is Going Left, Look Right – 2022 Facts Reveal Potent Insights for Manufactured Housing in 2023″ https://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/punishment-the-wise-suffer-sam-zells-contrarian-investing-view-when-everyone-is-going-left-look-right-2022-facts-reveal-potent-insights-for-manufactured-housing-in-202/
13. Much of this is in keeping with what Buffett and Gates themselves have said in the 21st century. Some examples.
![DidntWantToMeetWarren[Buffett]BecauseGuyBuysSellsFoundImperfectMarketNotValueAddSocietyZeroSumGameParasiticBillGatesPhotoMicrosoftLogoGatesFoundationLogoQuoteQuotableQuoteMHproNews](http://www.manufacturedhomepronews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DidntWantToMeetWarrenBuffettBecauseGuyBuysSellsFoundImperfectMarketNotValueAddSocietyZeroSumGameParasiticBillGatesPhotoMicrosoftLogoGatesFoundationLogoQuoteQuotableQuoteMHproNews.jpg)
That moat – or the “castle and the moat” that Buffett has used as a metaphor for a durable competitive advantage has been described as a coy way of steadily monopolizing a market, perhaps in an oligopoly fashion (see Sam Zell’s quote in #12 above). It is a way that arguably seeks to avoid antitrust enforcement, but still yields monopoly style profits and defenses. Kevin Clayton has referred to it, as has Clayton’s general counsel, Tom Hodges. Hodges has served as MHI’s chairman. So, the macro-picture of how this “rigged system” operates in a national or international sense can be traced to how it operates in the manufactured housing industry more specifically.
To Bill Gates’ point about Buffett finding weaknesses in markets that he exploits in an “almost parasitic” fashion, that is arguably what has happened in manufactured housing. See the legal arguments in the reports linked below.
a) By allowing manufactured housing to underperform in the 21st century, a ‘barrier against entry’ to the industry is fostered.
b) Through regulatory challenges, smaller companies may get wearied by the battles. In family businesses, they younger generation may not have the appetite for continuing such a struggle.
c) Through a variety of means and motivations, a percentage of people will decide to sell out. The consolidators will pick up those pieces, as if this industry was a real-life version of the game of Monopoly. But meanwhile, smaller players are denied potential opportunities. Potential newcomers are limited and de facto barred. While this may not be the most profitable way, in the view of the Buffett-moat-minded, it may seem to them like a safer way to protect and slowly grow their investments.
d) But it isn’t just smaller businesses that are being hurt by this “rigged” economic and political pattern. Millions of people are denied the wealth building opportunities of owning an affordable home. While many on the left talk a good game about helping minorities, they are often disproportionately harmed by this pattern. But ironically, in many cases the very people that say they are helping minorities are in reality the ones profiting while harming them. They get the illusion of being a ‘good guy’ – ‘a philanthropist’ who supports “Democrats” and their “programs.” But in reality, tens of millions are denied the life that they could be living. As the Anglican bishop said in the documentary Poverty Inc, shown in the quote image above, “They make you a slave, an economic slave.” But there is an illusion of freedom. There are subtle controls, not an openly (at least often or yet) police state like controls. It is a system akin to the Communist Chinese social credit system.
14. Pulling various threads of this fact and evidence-backed report and analysis together. Buffett and Gates bucks to nonprofits have apparently helped fund Oxfam’s report, as the sources cited above reflect. If it seems odd that they might be on both sides of the information battle (i.e.: both on the side of the Davos/WEF elite crowd and supporting Oxfam which is ‘exposing’ them), keep in mind that people like Buffett are big readers. Odds are good that Buffett is well aware of the principle Vladimir Lenin, an early Russian Marxist-Bolshevik-Communist leader espoused on leading the opposition group, not just your own group. Regardless, the facts are what they are.
15. Oxfam proposed 3 things on page 11 of the executive summary of their report. They are as follows.
A strong and effective state is the best bulwark against corporate power. It is a provider of public goods; a maker and shaper of markets; a corrector of market failures; and an owner and operator of national commercial ventures, accounting for up to 40% of domestic output worldwide in 2018.80 Governments need to take a proactive role in shaping their economies for the common good. …”
That is paltering and/or naïve. While state intervention can be useful, it is obviously the state that has thus far failed to stop this rise of centi-billionaires, big corporations, and their dominance of the big media-big tech and politics of the U.S. (or other countries).
The language used is that of the political left, i.e.: Marxist-socialist. Keep in mind what Hanne Nabintu Herland, Dr. Kevin Roberts and others have to say.
Justin Haskins said it well. “The Great Reset [a plan advanced by the World Economic Forum during the declared COVID19 pandemic], like so many other movements in history, is all about money and power – and these days, there’s plenty of both available for ruling-class elites to get their fill.”
Returning to the three big points from Oxfam ‘solutions’ page.
Governments need to use their power to rein in the runaway power of corporates and prevent injustices across their supply chains, nationally and internationally. They must: • Break up private monopolies and curb corporate power. Governments can learn from current anti-monopoly cases, such as those in the USA and Europe, and from the lessons of history where wealth concentration was successfully tackled.82 They must also stop the monopoly over knowledge…”
Certainly, Oxfam has a point about the “monopoly over knowledge” or information. It is a point that MHProNews and MHLivingNews has illustrated for years with this pithy pull quote from Danny Glover. But it isn’t that Glover is alone in his assertions, as the other quotes reflect.
But once more, Oxfam’s pitched solution to “regulate” is either paltering and/or naïve. The regulators have not entirely failed, because from time to time someone does get charged, prosecuted and goes to prison. But there are MANY such individuals who need to be probed, charged, and convicted. The case can be made that among them are Buffett, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Soros, Larry Fink and others. Buffett’s now late partner, Charlie Munger, said that the regulators aren’t regulating (properly). Munger had a point.
“Break up private monopolies and curb corporate power.” Breaking up monopoly power has been suggested numerous times in various reports by MHProNews, for reasons like the one in the quote shown below by Scott Galloway posted by MHProNews on March 14, 2018. We’ve clearly been on this issue of runaway monopolist power for years, both in MHVille and beyond it.
What is not specifically mentioned by Oxfam is the need to prosecute criminally those who have engaged in what Samuel Strommen has alleged is FELONY antitrust violations. What may seem to be big bines and case settlements are often little more than a slap on the wrist for corporate giants. Putting people into prison as merited along with fines is a better step.
But there is more that could be done. Watch for a planned report on what is known as Judicial dissolution, sometimes called the “corporate death penalty.” When a corporation has egregiously violate the laws for years, a mere fine is not going to be a solution or sufficient deterrence. Some of the prior cases in the 21st century weren’t severe enough. Perhaps the example of Madoff was closer to what must occur. Imprisoned until he died, and some of what was lost was clawed back through the legal system.
Perhaps more could have been done in the Madoff case.
But the point is that Oxfam’s solutions thus far seem to be less than what is legally possible. This could be why Buffett, Gates, Soros and others who have donated to Oxfam are arguably pushing a less than complete narrative. Oxfam postures solutions that may not actually solve the issues, while some potentially criminal centi-billionaires get to evade the full force of the law, by posturing and manipulating the system.
The third part of Oxfam’s ‘solution included the following.
Governments can use their power to reinvent and repurpose the private sector. They must: • Use all their power to create and promote a new generation of companies that do not put shareholders first…”
Ironically, that is a page out of the WEF playbook. The Davos/World Economic Forum crowd have been preaching reinventing the corporation for years.
16. Laws against monopoly power have long existed in the U.S. Arguments for limiting monopoly power go back to the founding of our Republic. Several of the big antitrust cases that have emerged in recent years were launched during the Trump Administration. Some of that activity was launched by DOJ’s then-Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, who shared this quote. Delrahim, an Iranian- (or Persian) American, also shared an interesting talk called “November Rain” while Trump was in office.
17. Per sources, Delrahim held a sizable meeting to discuss possible antitrust investigations into purported wrongdoing by Clayton and others in manufactured housing. It is unclear how that may have proceeded, had Trump remained in office. But certainly, the fact that other antitrust civil suits have emerged, along with other problems being increasingly unearthed since Trump was deposed, and the fact that antitrust actions launched under Trump have proceeded may give a clue that manufactured housing could have – or still could become – one of the areas of antitrust action.
19. It is increasingly apparent that the system is rigged. That doesn’t mean that people can’t get ahead, but it does mean that it is more difficult than it otherwise could or should be. The Oxfam report is insightful. When unpacked, as in this report, it reveals just how much the uberwealthy have tried to play both sides of the fence on numerous issues. People like Buffett, Gates, and others funding Oxfam shows just how apparently devious these individuals are. Recall the Dark Triad report from a year ago?
- The Iron Triangle is a term used to describe the relationship between interest groups, congressional committees, and bureaucratic agencies in the U.S. political system . These three actors form a stable and mutually beneficial alliance that influences policy outcomes in favor of their interests .
- John Kenneth Galbraith was a Canadian-American economist and public intellectual who coined the term regulatory capture to describe the phenomenon of regulators being influenced or controlled by the industry they are supposed to regulate . He argued that this leads to a situation where the public interest is subordinated to the private interests of the regulated industry . …”
20. The monopolization of capital, information, legal and political resources has been a tactic used by ruling elites for centuries. Weakening the Constitutional system under President Woodrow Wilson and since has been in evidence.
21. Manufactured housing has been fortunate to have the Manufactured Housing Association for Regulatory Reform (MHARR). But even MHARR says that yet another national trade group is needed.
22. It is not just our industry, but our nation that has been hobbled by the problems caused by monopoly power. More on the solutions in a planned follow up to this report. But until then, see the linked items to learn more. Because Oxfam is correct about this: “Runaway corporate and monopoly power is an inequality-generating machine: through squeezing workers, dodging tax, privatizing the state…corporations are funneling endless wealth to their ultra-rich owners.” It is the vast majority of the population – including employees, contractors, smaller businesses, and smaller investors – that are suffering from the lack of enforcement of antitrust, RICO and other laws. ###
Again, our thanks to free email subscribers and all readers like you, as well as our tipsters/sources, sponsors and God for making and keeping us the runaway number one source for authentic “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.
For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.
This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.’
