Inequality New main 10

DOCUMENTS ON INEQUALITY

28.10.11

INEQUALITY IN INCOME.

"The top 10 percent of US households had 46 percent of the nation's income, their biggest share in all but two of the last 70 years."

Extracts from "The rise of the super rich", Economic Reform Association Bulletin, 3, 26. Sept-Oct, 2006. p. 7.

The top 1% in the US owned 39% of total wealth and received 16% of total income.

R. Marshall, Ed., Back to Shared Prosperity, Armonk, New York, 2000.

There is near-unanimity that the real incomes of most Americans has stagnated since 1970. .

J. Slemrod, Does Atlas Shrug?, Harvard Univ. Press, 2000.

The share of profits in GDP in the late 1970s was 14%…and by 1990s, 17%. The share taken by wages fell from 60% in the 1960s to 56% in the 1990s.

D. Bryan and M. Rafferty, The Global Economy in Australia, Allen.

INEQUALITY IN WEALTH.

If houses are excluded, i.e., taking only financial wealth, the top 12% of Americans have more than four times as much wealth as the bottom 80%.

J. B. Foster and F. Magdoff, (2008), “Financial implosion and stagnation” Monthly Review, Dec., 1-29.

Estimation of wealth in the US;

The top 1% of people have 33% of US wealth. The top 5% have 47% of it. The bottom 60% have 4.3% of it.

D. North, The Crisis of American Democracy, 2004, Oak Part, Mekering Park.

"The top 1 percent of US households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, generally dividends and capital gains, up from 53.4 percent a year earlier."

"…the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans accounted for 33.4 percent of total net worth in 2004, compared to 30.1 percent in 1998….the bottom 50 percent accounted for just 2.5 percent of the wealth…

Extracts from "The rise of the super rich", Economic Reform Association Bulletin, 3, 26. Sept-Oct, 2006. p. 7.

1% of Americans own 68% of business equity and 50% of stocks and bonds.

P. Kivel, You Call this Democracy?, New York, Apec Press, 2004.

In 1980 in the US 1% had 20.5% of wealth.

In 1989 31.9%

In 1997 40.1%

T. Ale, “Blair Kitch Project”, Monthly Review;, Jan. 2000, p. 19.

In Australia,

10% of people have 45% of wealth, 20% have 59%.

The top 20% increased their wealth $250,000 in the 10 years to 2004.

The bottom 20% ……………………… $3,000…………………………….

But the proportion of wealth going to the poorest 20% didn’t increase.

F. Stilwell, Who Gets What, p. 5.

If houses are excluded, i.e., including only financial wealth, the top1% of Americans have four times as much wealth as the bottom 80%.

In the US 1% of households have half the wealth.

J. H. Eintz and N. Folbre, The Ultimate Field Guide to the US Economy, 2000.

1% of Americans hold 47% of shares. The poorest 80% hold only 2%.

P. Hellyer, Evil Empire, 1997, p. 10.

1% of Americans have more wealth than the bottom 90%. 60

J.McMurtry, The Cancer Stage of Capitalism, London, Pluto, 1999.

In 1998 … Bill Gates, with a net worth of $90 billion, Warren Buffet, with $36 billion, and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, with $30 billion, achieve a combined income that was greater than the total combined income of the 600 million that live in the world’s 48 least developed countries...

W. Bello, From Melbourne to Prague, in ERA Email Newsletter, 2,

"In the United States 1 percent of the population now has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent."

The Editors, :"The Nader campaign…", Monthly Review, Feb., 2001, p. 19.

In UK 99% of shares are owned by 1% of people. 13. Most people have little wealth apart from their house. The lowest 90% of people in terms of wealth have 78% of their wealth in their house. However their average debt is 43% of their wealth…meaning their net wealth is low. 13.

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

INHERITANCE OF WEALTH.

We are returning to feudalism via inheritance. A caste system of wealthy and poor is emerging, because the rich are able to pass on their wealth to their children. A new feudal aristocracy is developing. This is facilitated by low taxes, low inheritance taxes etc.

 In the US in 1973 56% of the wealth of people between 35 and 39 had been given to them by their parents. By 1986 the percentage was 86%. 72  Note how inheritance contradicts the enterprise ideology they espouse. The rich oppose the payment of income as welfare to poorer people, on the grounds that they haven’t worked for it…but provide to their children opulent lifestyles for which they don’t have to work.

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

THE INCREASE IN INEQUALITY.

Reference to recent “…decades of increasing inequality” in the US. (17)

Real wages in the US for most workers have not increased in decades. The deflated average rate in 1972 was $8.99 per hour, and in2006 it was $8.24, “…despite enormous growth in productivity and profits over the past few decades.” (18)

This was part of a massive redistribution of income and wealth”

“Over the years 1950 to 1970 for each additional dollar made by those in the bottom 90% of income earners, those in the top .01% received an additional $162. In contrast, from 1990 to 2002, for each added dollar made by those in the bottom 90%, those in the uppermost .01% (today around 14,000 households) made an additional “$18,000.” (p. 19.)

J. B. Foster and F. Magdoff, (2008), “Financial implosion and stagnation” Monthly Review, Dec., 1-29.

Over the past 30 years the real income of the top 1% in the US doubled, of the top .1% trebled and of the top .01% quadrupled. Meanwhile the real income of the bottom 90% fell.

In the period 1979 to 1998 productivity increased 44.5%. In other words ,the output by the average worker rose almost 50%... yet their incomes did not rise, and those of the super-rich skyrocketed. The rich took all the benefit of increased productivity.

D. Monkerud, US Inequality Continues to Grow, The Capital Times (Wisconsin), 17^th July, 2009.

Between 2000 and 2006 in the US the economy grew 15% but the real income of the average worker fell .7%. Those in poverty rose from 11.3% to12.3%.

J. Bernstein, Crunch, San Francisco, Berret-Koehler, 2008.

In 1980 the average income for a CEO was 42 times that of the average worker; by 1997 the multiple was 326.

Wealth and health, Third World Resurgence, 108/109, 1999.

In the US over the past three decades the top few have become much richer but “…income has stagnated for the vast majority of Americans while the bottom twenty percent is actually worse off than in 1970.”

Between 1966 and 2001 the median wage in the US has hardly increased in real terms. By contrast, average earnings of the top decile increased by 58%...the real earnings of the top 1% increased by 121%...the top .1% increased 256%...and the top .01% increased 617%.

(Author lost), Post-Autistic Economics Review, 43, p. 6.

In 2003-4 "…the richest Americans pulled far ahead of everyone else…real average income for the top 1 percent of households, those making more than $315,000 in 20043, grew by nearly 17 percent. For the remaining 99 percent the average gain was less than 3 percent." "…the top 1% enjoyed 36 percent of all income gains in 2004, on top of an already stunning 30 percent in 2003".

Since the late 1990s the real incomes for the bottom 60% of American people have not increased.

Since the 1970s only the top 25% of households have significantly improved their economic fortunes, while income and wealth have declined for the bottom half of the population. The big winners are the owners of capital and those with post-graduate degrees.”

Extracts from "The rise of the super rich", Economic Reform Association Bulletin, 3, 26. Sept-Oct, 2006. P. 7.

“America is one of the most unequal societies on earth, but virtually all countries have seen inequalities increase over the past twenty years because of neo-liberal policies.”

Reference to Susan George, A Short History of Neo-Liberalism.

Inequality in Australia has increased dramatically since 1983. By1997 the number of wage earning poor and salary earning rich doubled. The salaries of the top 10% increased $200 per week. They control half the nation’s productive wealth.

R. Manne, Sydney Morning Herald, 26^th June, 2000.

Increases in family income in the US from1979 to 1997… top 1%, 157%, top 10%, 85%, bottom20%, a fall of 1%.

D. North, The Crisis of American Democracy, 2004, Oak Part, Mekering Park, p. 83.

Increases in family income in the US from1979 to 1997… top 1%, 157%, top 10%, 85%, bottom20%, a fall of 1%.

D. North, The Crisis of American Democracy, 2004, Oak Part, Mekering Park, p. 83.

In 1982 the US had 13 billionaires; it had 170 by 2004.

J. Faux and L. Mischel, “Inequality in the Global Economy”, In W. Hutton and A. Giddens, On The Edge, Vintage, London, 2001. p. 56.

In 1995 there were 3 Australian billionaires. In 2001 there were 11.

F . Stilwell, Privatisation, ERA Newsletter, Sep[t-Oct., 2001, p 5.

Between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1% of US families rose 157%, compared with only a 10% gain for families near the middle of the income distribution…60% of the gains of the top 1% went to the top .1%, those with incomes of more than $790,000. "This transformation happened very quickly, and it is still going on."

-----

"Over the past 30 years the average annual salary in America (in 1988 dollars) rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999 ---about a 10% increase. Over the same period, according to Fortune, "…the average real annual compensation of the top 100 CEOs went from $1,3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker --to $37.5 million, more than 1000 times the pay of ordinary workers."…

 The major tax cuts of the past 25 years, the Reagan cuts in the 1980s and the recent Bush cuts, were both heavily tilted toward the very well off; "…more than half the Bush tax cut will eventually go to the top 1% of families." The major tax increase over the same period, the increase in payroll taxes in the 1980s, fell most heavily on working class families.

 Future Survey, Nov., 2002, reporting on P. Krugman, "The End of Middle Class America (and the Triumph of the Plutocrats", New York Times Magazine, 20, Oct., 2002, 62-77.

"…the 30 largest US family and individual fortunes in 1999 were roughly 10 times as big as the 30 largest had been in 1982."

From the Nov 2002 Future Survey review of K. Phillips, "The New Face of Anther Gilded Age", The Washington Post, 26, May, 29

US average weekly earnings have fallen since 1973.

Blumfeld, Ed., Scanning the Future, 1999, p. 250.

The extreme inequality now evident can be expected to accelerate under globalisation. When all are "free" to compete the rich and powerful are free to take more and to push many into exclusion. Note how tax arrangements, and the share of profits vs wages have moved in favour of the rich recently.

Stable societies, especially tribal societies, have strong mechanisms to regulate against the development of significant inequality. As inequality becomes more extreme social cohesion is threatened.

J. H. Eintz and N. Folbre, The Ultimate Field Guide to the USEconomy, 2000.

"…it is perfectly evident that under turbo-capitalist conditions growth yields more inequality…" 232.

E. Luttwak, Turbo-Capitalism, Harper Collins, 1999.

"…the richest are becoming richer very rapidly." 19 Between 1983 and 1999 the richest 200 in Australia multiplied their wealth by 6, in deflated terms. 19 The number of Australian millionaires multiplied by 2.5 in 5 years. 35

Median Australian annual income was 2% less in 1996-7 than in 1982-3. The living standards of the bottom half of Australians was 7% less. For the top half it was 25% higher.

Tax on a $2million income in 1987-8 was 54%. In 1996-7 it had fallen to 21%…lower than the tax on low income earners. 61.

L. Aarons, Casino Oz, Goanna Books, 2000.

Inequality is increasing rapidly. Between 1989 and 1995 the top ..5% of Americans (the super rich in Haesler’s terms) increased their proportion of all income from 23% to 27.5%. The lowest 90% fell from 32.5% to 31.5%. 10

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

"...virtually all countries have seen inequalities increase over the past twenty years because of neo-liberal policies."..."There is nothing mysterious about this trend towards greater inequality. Policies are specifically designed to give the already rich more disposable income..."

S. George, "A short history of neo-liberalism", The Global Policy Forum, reported in, ERA Email Network, 17th July, 1999.

The rich in the US are getting richer. In 1983 the richest 1% of households had 43% of all wealth; by 1997 it was 49%

Average CEO income in 1998 was $10.6 million; average worker production income was $23,000.

US household debt as a percentage of income, 1950, 35%, 1997, 100%.

J. Heintz and N. Folbre, The Ultimate Field Guide to the US Economy, New York, Free Press, 2000.

In 1991 there were 274 billionaires in the world. In 1996 the number was 447. 80.

D. Korten, The Post-Corporate World, Kumarian, 1999.

"Since 1983 the standard of living in Australia has increased by 50%. During the same period, however, the levels of inequality have also dramatically increased…the numbers of both the wage-earning poor and the salary-earning rich almost doubled.

R. Manne, "Two nations replace the lucky country", Sydney Morning Herald, 26.6.2000.

CHANGING TAX RATES.

After the Second World War the top US tax rate was 84 – 94%. Under Reagan in 1988 it was down to 30%. p. 7.

(Author lost), Post-Autistic Economics Review, 43, p. 6.

In 1955 in the US the richest paid 51.2% of income as tax; by 2006 they paid only 17.2%.

In 1955 the proportion of federal tax paid by corporations was 33%. By 2003 it was down to 7.4%.

D. Monkerud, US Inequality Continues to Grow, The Capital Times (Wisconsin), 17^th July, 2009.

 The middle class is being eliminated"…the new global economy is leading to the destruction of the traditional middle-class way of life." 62

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000

There is clear evidence now of falling living standards for many in UK and US. The 1997 US minimum wage was 25% lower than in 1970. 52. Between 1979 and 1989 the US inflation adjusted wage for the bottom 10% fell 16% 53 UK average real incomes are falling.   The official rationale is that to have more "flexible" labour hiring arrangements increases economic efficiency. "There is no evidence whatsoever that the hire and fire economies have done any better than those with more regulated labour markets. " 56

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

Liberalisation in the US has caused "...drastic worsening of the distribution of income." 97% of the increase in household income between 1979 and 1994 went to the richest 20%." (141)

J. Rapley, Understanding Development Theory and Practice in the Third World, London, Riener, 1996.

Despite more than five years of economic growth, one in seven Australian residents rely on welfare for at least 90 percent of their income. No less than 860,000 children—17 percent of Australia's children—are living in jobless families. The inescapable conclusion is that the much-heralded economic prosperity of the past five years has worsened poverty and inequality, not alleviated them. And this is part of a longer-term trend. Over the past 30 years the proportion of the workforce-age population receiving income support has quadrupled from 5 percent to 22 percent, even though the proportion of paid work has risen from 66 percent to 69 per, cent. The number of two-income couples has soared, but so has the number of families where no one has a permanent job.

What the report does not say is that these statistics point to two general trends: a general lowering of wages so that two incomes are needed to sustain a family, and the replacement of secure jobs by casual, temporary and part-time labour. Adding to the resultant social distress has been the slashing of spending on essential social services such as public housing, health care' government schools, child care, legal aid and community facilities, driven on by the demand of big business for ever-lower, more "competitive" corporate and personal tax rates. The welfare budget—the largest remaining item of social spending—has now become the central target.

M. Head, "The Australian government prepares to abolish social security system, Sustainable Economics, 8, 2000, p. 81.

Measured in terms of after housing costs the poorest tenth in 1991-2 were 17% lower in real terms than in 1979. Thatcher minister Lawson's 1988 budget cut tax rates for the rich from 69% to 40%, Corporation tax in 1979 was 52%, now it is 30%, the lowest in British history.

Nick, S., "Battling for Britain", Sustainable Economics, 8, 3, May, 2000, p. 71,

In 1980 CEO salaries in Australia were 10 times the income of the average worker. By the 1990s the multiple was 400. Incomes for the lowest 20% have fallen. 2% of Australians are millionaires.

ABC Background Briefing, c 5^th Feb., 2000.

In 1957 the top marginal tax rate for Americans was 91%. By 1993 it was 39.6%. (Under Reagan it went to 28%.)

J. Slemrod, Does Atlas Shrug?, Harvard Univ. Press, 2000.

The number of homeless in the UK has doubled in the last twenty years…The number of children in the country who are dependent on social benefits has risen from 7% in 1979 to 26% in 1994 and the number of people who are now officially living below the poverty line (defined as half the average income) has gone from 5 million in 1977 to 13.7 million today….Since 1972 the number of millionaires has doubled…

Freedom, 26.4.1997.

A number of studies have identified a trend towards rising inequality of earnings in Australia throughout the 1980s" See ABS catalogue 6306.0 "…the trend has continued throughout the 1990s."

Between 1985 and 1998 the level of real income declined for the poorest group. Since then their situation has improved a little, but "Lower paid employees are still slightly worse off relative to the CPI in 1998 than in 1985."

P. Saunders, "Earnings inequality still rising", Social Policy Research Centre Newsletter, 77, Oct, 2000.

POVERTY AND EXCLUSION.

A study by the University of Melbourne, March 1998, found that 30% of the Australian population were living below the poverty line.

E. Fayner, Globalisation and the Australian economy", ERA Newsletter, 12, 17, March-April, 2001, p. 4

28 million Americans were in paid jobs but living under the poverty line income for a family of 4. p. 87.

D. North, The Crisis of American Democracy, 2004, Oak Part, Mekering Park.

Between 1980 and 2000 the number of children in the US living in poverty rose from 1.4 million to 4.4 million.

(Author lost), Post-Autistic Economics Review, 43, p. 6.

Among the rich industrialised countries, the United States, at 22.7%, has the highest child poverty rate defined as the percentage of children in households with disposable cash income of less than 50% of the median disposable income for all, adjusted for size of the household. The United Kingdom has a 17.9% rate, Canada 13.9% and Australia 14.3%. The Russian Federation, with 19.9%, comes second after the US in terms of child poverty.

"Globalisation has unleashed extraordinary inequality and insecurity", Third World Resurgence, 118/119, 2000, p. 36.

Poverty in the US has become worse since the 1970s. The "winner take all" attitude is increasing. Government is reversing its previous anti-poverty concern.

F. Ackerman, Ed., The Political Economy of Inequality, Washington, Island Press, 2000.

600,000 to 700,000 Americans are homeless on a given night.

J. Heintz and N. Folbre, The Ultimate Field Guide to the US Economy, New York, Free Press, 2000.

"The US economy is working well, but only for the well-off…one quarter of all children live in poverty." 20

T. Ale, "Blair kitch project", Monthly Review, Jan, 2000.

"The US economy is working well, but only for the well-off…one quarter of all children live in poverty." 20

T. Ale, "Blair kitch project", Monthly Review, Jan, 2000.

Australia is developing an underclass of the dispossessed and hopeless. This is especially evident amongst the young, who are increasingly turning to drugs, crime and violence, making our cities unsafe and our homes like prisons to keep them out. This is the model provided by countries like Mexico, Brazil and the Philippines, which are saddled with a small class of super-rich and a large class of ever growing poor. This is something that Australia has largely been able to avoid, but which is becoming a greater possibility every day.

A. David and E. L. Wheelwright, The Third Wave,

INEQUALITY IN THE WORLD.

Davies et al. state the following extremely skewed distribution of world wealth;

The top 1% have 40% of household wealth.

The top 2% have half of it.

The top 10% have 85% of it.

The lowest 50% have 1% of world household wealth.

J. B. Davies, et al., The World Distribution of Household Wealth, 2006, http://www.iariw.org/papers/2006/davies. pdf

Milanovic concluded from data on ninety-one countries that “ global income polarized starkly from 1988 to 1993…the richest quintile enjoyed a 12% increase, the poorest half saw no growth, and the bottom 5% saw a 25% fall. The richest 1% now earn more than the bottom 60% of the world’s people. Inequality was stable from a1960 to 1980. (Note that this is from within the World Bank.)

B. Milanovic, Two faces of globalization; Beyond Golobalisation As We Know It, World Bank Research Group, Washington, 2002.

India’s economic growth benefits the top stratum of 4% in urban areas, with little or negative spin off for 80% of the population in the countryside.

J. Pietierse, Globalisation: The Next Round, Futures, 40:8, Oct 2008,707 – 720.

…reference to “…the massive redistribution of income taking place in the Anglo-Saxon world since 1980.”

(Author lost), Post-Autistic Economics Review, 43, p. 20.

In 1998 the Human Development Report stated that 100 countries had lower real income than 10 years before.

Wealth and health, Third World Resurgence, 108/109, 1999.

If China and India are excluded, the number of people living in poverty increased between 1981 and 2004, from 855 to 857 million.

Fotopoulos, T., The “elimination” of poverty, The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, 4, 1, Jan., 2008.

The world's richest 20% have 150 times the income of the poorest 20%. The proportion has doubled in 20 years.

T. Clarke, "Twilight of the corporation", The Ecologist, 29.2, May/June, 1999, p. 158.

DETERIORATING SOCIAL CONDITIONS.

In 1996 the average work time in the US was 148 hours longer than in 1973.

Wealth and health, Third World Resurgence, 108/109, 1999.

Inequality promotes strategies that are more self-interested, less affiliated, often highly anti-social, more stressful and likely to give rise to higher levels of violence, poorer community relations, and worse health. In contrast the less unequal societies tend to be much more affiliative, less violent, more supportive and inclusive and marked by better health…

“Inequality seriously damages social health.” 21

(Author lost), Post-Autistic Economics Review, 43, p. 6.

Wilkinson and Picket in The Spirit Level, show that more equal distributions of income benefit everybody, not just the poor. The worse the distribution the worse societyis, with respect to e.g., mental illness, obesity, cardiovascular disease, unwillingness to engage with education, misuse of illegal and prescription drugs, teenage pregnancy, lack of social mobility, neglect of child welfare and violence ranging from school bullying to murder. “The prevalence of smoking and suicide were the rare indicators on which more equal societies fared sores.”

Australia rated near the bottom on most factors.

The more inequality the more stress everyone feels. This leads to behaviour that is destructive the individual and to others.

Neo-liberalism has caused a big increase in inequality in Australia, and other countries.

R. Wilkinson and K. Pikett, The Spirit Level: Why Equal Societies Always Do Better,

There is no evidence for the claim that inequality increases productive effort, nor that it increases savings, investment or trade. P 186.

F. Stilwell, Who Gets What.

Ralf Dahrendorf argues that the process of neo-liberal economics and globalisation has resulted in greater social exclusion. He agrees with Will Hutton that even in developed countries, 40% are fairly secure middle class, 30% in a precarious and shifting position, and 30% are excluded in some way. Dahrendorf argues that the problem is 'in the most serious sense of the word, moral. A society which claims to be civil but tolerates the exclusion of significant numbers from its opportunities, has betrayed the values on which it is based'.

Dahrendorf, Ralf 'Prosperity, Civiiity and Liberty Can We Square the Circ!e?' The British Academy, 1996 www.vIadrina.euv-frankfurt-o.de/~julis/ideen/dahrendorf.html

There are 30,000 walled and gated housing estates in the US. One third of all new houses built are behind walls.

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000

There is decreasing concern with equality; R. Dworkin says "Equality is the endangered species of political ideals." Two decades ago an egalitarian society was a major goal, but not now.

R. Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue; The Theory and Practice ofEquality, Harvard Univ. Press, 2000.

The estimated assets of the super rich doubled between 1986 and 1995. By 2000 this will be 50%. "The super rich are becoming m ore demanding." 11 They are also abandoning the concern for social obligation, religion , philanthropy that the old rich had. They are decreasingly involved in society. "Robber barons with a social conscience …have become a historical curiosity." 122  

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

The "winner take all" attitude is increasing. Government is reversing its previous anti-poverty concern.

F. Ackerman, Ed., The Political Economy of Inequality, Washington, Island Press, 2000.

In pre-Thatcher Britain, about one person in ten was classed as living below the poverty line, not a brilliant result but honourable as nations go and a lot better than in the pre-war period. Now one person in four, and one child in three is officially poor. This is the meaning of survival of the fittest.

S. George, A short History of Neo-liberalism, ERA Email Netowork, 17.7.1999.

THE WORLD WORKS FOR THE SUPER-RICH ELITE.

"…less than 1% of the world’s people would have a consequential participation in corporate ownership" 62

"…more than half the world’s hundred largest economies are centrally planned for the primary benefit of the wealthiest 1% of the world’s poor." 62

D. Korten, The Post-Corporate World, Kumarian, 1999.

 Polarisation occurring; "…a two class world of super-rich investors and their professional advisers on the one hand and the rest on the other." 66

S. Haseler, The Super Rich, St. Martins, New York, 2000.

"The US economy is working well, but only for the well-off…one quarter of all children live in poverty." 20

T. Ale, "Blair kitch project", Monthly Review, Jan, 2000.

"…the great majority of the benefits of global economic growth have gone not to the poor but to those who already have far more than they need…" 79

D. Korten, The Post-Corporate World, Kumarian, 1999.