As President Donald Trump prepares to drastically cut taxes on the wealthy (including himself) it’s well to remember the man whose name defines modern politics.
In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli, the Florentine statesman who has been called the father of modern political science, published his best-known work: The Prince.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Among the issues he confronted was how to preserve liberty within a republic. And key to this was mediating the eternal struggle between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Machiavelli deeply distrusted the nobility because they stood above the law. He saw them as a major source of corruption because they could buy influence through patronage, favors or nepotism.
Successful political leaders must attain the support of the nobility or general populace. But since these groups have conflicting interests, the safest course is to choose the latter.
Writes Machiavelli:
….He who becomes prince by help of the [wealthy] has greater difficulty in maintaining his power than he who is raised by the populace. He is surrounded by those who think themselves his equals, and is thus unable to direct or command as he pleases.
But one who is raised to leadership by popular favor finds himself alone, and has no one, or very few, who are not ready to obey him. [And] it is impossible to satisfy the [wealthy] by fair dealing and without inflicting injury upon others, whereas it is very easy to satisfy the mass of the people in this way.
Machiavelli warns that the general populace is more honest than the nobility—i.e., wealthy. The wealthy seek to oppress, while the populace wants to simply avoid oppression.
A political leader cannot protect himself against a hostile population, owing to their numbers, but he can against the hostility of the great, as they are but few.
The worst that a prince has to expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned, but from hostile nobles he has to fear not only desertion but their active opposition. And as they are more far seeing and more cunning, they are always in time to save themselves and take sides with the one who they expect will conquer.
The prince is, moreover, obliged to live always with the same people, but he can easily do without the same nobility, being able to make and unmake them at any time, and improve their position or deprive them of it as he pleases.
Unfortunately, political leaders throughout the world—including the United States–have ignored this sage advice.
The results of this wholesale favoring of the wealthy and powerful have been brilliantly documented in an investigation of tax evasion by the world’s rich.
In 2012, Tax Justice Network, which campaigns to abolish tax havens, commissioned a study of their effect on the world’s economy.
The study was entitled, “The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for ‘Missing’ Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality and Lost Taxes.”
http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/Price_of_Offshore_Revisited_120722.pdf
The research was carried out by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co. Among its findings:
- By 2010, at least $21 to $32 trillion of the world’s private financial wealth had been invested virtually tax-free through more than 80 offshore secrecy jurisdictions.
- Since the 1970s, with eager (and often aggressive and illegal) assistance from the international private banking industry, private elites in 139 countries had accumulated $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of unrecorded offshore wealth by 2010.
- This happened while many of those countries’ public sectors were borrowing themselves into bankruptcy, suffering painful adjustment and low growth, and holding fire sales of public assets.
- The assets of these countries are held by a small number of wealthy individuals while the debts are shouldered by the ordinary people of these countries through their governments.
- The offshore industry is protected by pivate bankers, lawyers and accountants, who get paid handsomely to hide their clients’ assets and identities.
-
Bank regulators and central banks of most countries allow the world’s top tax havens and banks to hide the origins and ownership of assets under their supervision.
- Although multilateral institutions like the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the IMF and the World Bank are supposedly insulated from politics, they have been highly compromised by the collective interests of Wall Street.
- These regulatory bodies have never required financial institutions to fully report their cross-border customer liabilities, deposits, customer assets under management or under custody.
- Less than 100,000 people, .001% of the world’s population, now control over 30% of the world’s financial wealth.
- Assuming that global offshore financial wealth of $21 trillion earns a total return of just 3% a year, and would have been taxed an average of 30% in the home country, this unrecorded wealth might have generated tax revenues of $189 billion per year.
Summing up this situation, the report noted: “We are up against one of society’s most well-entrenched interest groups. After all, there’s no interest group more rich and powerful than the rich and powerful.”
Fortunately, Machiavelli has supplied timeless remedies to this increasingly dangerous situation:
- Assume evil among men—and most especially among those who possess the greatest concentration of wealth and power.
- Carefully monitor their activities—the way the FBI now regularly monitors those of the Mafia and major terrorist groups.
- Ruthlessly prosecute the treasonous crimes of the rich and powerful—and, upon their conviction, impose severe punishment.

ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AP, BARACK OBAMA, BUSINESS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHANNING DUNGEY, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOZ, EMARKETER, Entertainment, FACEBOOK, FORTUNE, HISTORY, INC.COM, INSTAGRAM, KU KLUX KLAN, Law, MARK ZUCKERBERG, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PEW RESEARCH CENTER, POLITICO, POLITICS, RAW STORY, REUTERS, ROBERT TOWNSEND, ROSEANNE BARR, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SNAPCHAT, TEENAGERS, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UP THE ORGANIZATION, UPI, USA TODAY, YOUTUBE
FACEBOOK, WE’RE GLAD TO LEAVE YE: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, Business, Entertainment, History, Politics, Social commentary on June 5, 2018 at 12:09 amFortune has some bad news for Facebook: “Facebook is losing U.S. teenagers to services like YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat.”
On May 31, The Pew Research Center released its survey of 743 teens and 1,058 parents with children ages 13 to 17. The subject: Which social networking sites are most popular with teenagers.
The survey found:
And worse news may be coming.
According to the research firm eMarketer, in 2018, Facebook will lose two million users under the age of 25. And less than half of Americans between 12 and 17 will use Facebook at least once a month.
According to the website, Inc.com, a major reason lies in the increasing use of Facebook by adults: “What kid wants to hang out in the same place as their parents and grandparents?” On the other hand, Snapchat will gain 1.9 million new users and Instagram will add 1.6 million in the 24-and-under age range coveted by advertisers.
“In general terms we expect social network users under age 24 to show declining interest in Facebook as time goes on,” Karin von Abrams, principal analyst at eMarketer, told The Independent.
“Younger consumers in particular are looking for something beyond utility.
“They want novelty and exclusivity too; the search for the latest buzz in social media will continue to lead them away from Facebook.”
A headline in The Guardian put Facebook’s dilemma in the bluntest terms: “Is Facebook for old people? Over-55s flock as the young leave”.
In a March 12, 2018 story, Guardian reporter Mark Sweeney notes:
“It’s official: Facebook is for old(er) people. Teens and young adults are ditching Mark Zuckerberg’s social network as popularity among the over-55s surges, according to a report.
“…A surge in older users means over-55s will become the second-biggest demographic of Facebook users this year.”
Facebook is by no means in danger yet. As of the first quarter of 2018, it had 2.19 billion monthly active users.
Its creator and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, at 33, is now worth more than $69 billion, according to Forbes. And Facebook’s market value is now $500 billion, although it’s been public for five years. It generates the vast majority of its money from mobile phones.
President Barack Obama speaking with Mark Zuckerberg (right)
But a desire by teens to avoid a social network used by their parents and grandparents isn’t the only reason for widespread dissatisfaction with Facebook.
To cite what should be the Bible among corporate CEOs: Up the Organization: How to Stop the Corporation From Stifling People and Strangling Profits, by Robert Townsend.
First published in 1970, its writing is brisk and its tone is no-nonsense. According to the dust jacket of the paperback edition:
“This is not a book about how organizations work. What should happen in organizations and what does happen are two different things and about as far apart as they can get.
“THIS BOOK IS ABOUT HOW TO GET THEM TO RUN THREE TIMES AS WELL AS THEY DO. The keys that will accomplish this are JUSTICE…FUN…EXCELLENCE.”
One chapter in particular—“Call Yourself Up”—runs only a short paragraph. Yet it is a paragrah that Mark Zuckerberg should tape to his bathroom mirror and re-read every day:
“When you’re off on a business trip or a vacation, pretend you’re a customer. Telephone some part of your organization and ask for help. You’ll run into some real horror shows.”
If Zuckerberg were a Facebook customer, instead of its CEO, he would face “some real horror shows.”
A friend of mine named Dan recently had this experience on Facebook:
“On May 31, I was placed in what Facebook’s users commonly refer to as ‘Facebook Jail’ for 24 hours. My crime: Posting a commentary on the firing of Roseanne Barr for her racist tweet on May 29.
“Specifically: Another Facebook user had already posted a picture of a white woman using a cell phone to call police–and report that a black woman had just wiped out her favorite TV show. (This was clearly a reference to Channing Dungey, entertainment president of the American Broadcasting Company, who made the decision to dump Roseanne after Barr’s racist tweet.)
“Under that photo I had posted a picture of a Ku Klux Klan rally, with a caption to the effect: “Hey, ABC, you can’t fire Roseanne! She’s one of us!”
“Perhaps two hours later I was kicked off Facebook and sent a message that I had violated its “Community Standards.” The picture I had posted of the Klan rally was given, but not the caption I had posted with it.
“Anyone with half a brain should have realized that this was not an expression of support for the Klan but an attack on it—and on Barr for her Fascistic racism.”
Apparently, no one at Facebook had any understanding of irony. Nor could they tell the difference between a post attacking the racism of the Ku Klux Klan and celebrating it.
Share this: