| YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:10 PM I'm going to take a stab at explaining what's going on from a more "structural" perspective. I want to steer clear of the more lurid conspiracy theory aspects of my understanding to this point. I will explain why. The first structural feature: the concentration of worldwide wealth, first to a small number of nation states; then, within those nation states to a remarkably small number of individuals. The second structural feature: globalization as a fait accompli. It is a done deal now and the global economy and political organization is the reality. Most of what we grew up believing about the economy and political organization (the nation state, democracy, totalitarianism, or communism-- you name it-- it is all obsolete.) About the first structural feature: concentration of wealth. What I want to call attention to is a phenomena we can all agree on: the emergence of a single man named Bill Gates as a world leader of epic power and sway. When I say we can all agree on it, I mean no one doubts Gates is one of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world. (Some people claim he is the second most wealthy--it wouldn't surprise me.) It is not controversial he is heavily invested in vaccines: vaccine research and development, production, and dissemination. This investment is both through his charitable foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and in for-profit private companies. (I recall several years ago reading he'd invested 11 billion in a for-profit private company. He likely has increased this. I need to check to see if I can find out where he's at now.) It is not controversial this one man, Bill Gates, contributes more to the funding of the World Health Organization,(WHO) than all but one of the 193 nation-state members. As an aside, note the confluence of structural element number one and number two in this truly extraordinary state of affairs: One man contributing more than all of those nation-states to an organization which is an outgrowth of the United Nations, a signal or earlier attempt (failed) toward a global governance. |
The vast importance of corporations in the process of globalization became evident following the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which 128 countries were a party. Under that agreement, great corporations based in Europe, America and Japan were free to move capital and technology to where labor was cheapest, environmental and workplace safety regulations were least onerous, while shipping goods to where prices were highest, and taking profits where taxes were lowest.
Since 1994, however, there has been a further evolution of the Money Power, as vast personal fortunes have been accumulated by entrepreneurs such as Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and dozens of others. What we are seeing now, as you show in the case of Bill Gates and global health policy, is that the globalization project is taking on a more idiosyncratic course as individual plutocrats are able to impose their personal judgment on how the future of the world should unfold.
Second:
| YusefJuly 18, 2020 at 12:11 PM Now we have this one man, Bill Gates, exercising influence and power. The exact nature of the way Gates is exercising influence and power IS CONTROVERSIAL. I don't deny it. What needs to be remembered, though, is something which wasn't controversial very long ago in the US, Canada, Britain or any other western democracy: systems of checks and balances and other forms of restraint on ALL exercises of public power and influence. I have to wonder how hard it would be to get people to see, in the case of Bill Gates and this pandemic, we do not have such systems in effect. We don't need the idea of Bill Gates as a psychopathic madman conspiring to depopulate the planet and make himself a trillion dollars richer by manipulating a crisis. All we actually need is recognition he is no longer "one man throwing his two cents into the pot, along with everyone else's two cents." We don't have a war of, or marketplace, of words and ideas duking it out on a level playing field so that in the long run the better ones win. We have one guy, who may very well have the best intentions, pulling strings here and there in the way he thinks is best-- but without any contest of ideas-- not likely the best FOR EVERYONE or, failing that, FOR THE GREATER GOOD. He can't! He has his narrow perspective, his personal experiences, his unconscious desires and drives, his imperfections, limitations, defects of character, intelligence, and personality-- just like all us slobs. (Here and there he may have some quality to recommend him so what, but I alone know at least a dozen smarter and better men.) There are corollaries to this. Gates is not where he is due to his merits. (Not really.) The people beneath him aren't necessarily there due to their merits, either. Gates has business skills, I would say, probably some very rusty computer skills, and he has less knowledge of biology and medicine, I think, than you or I. He is to some degree or other unable to evaluate who is best and what is best. (This is true for so many of our "leaders". They are so out of their depth it is painful. I even felt sorry for Trump. He just plain doesn't know what's going on and he's too old and too stressed to learn.) Gates is going to feel comfortable working with some people, not others, and will, as we all may tend to do, think those are the best. He is going to have, as many wealthy and powerful people do, a bias in favor of those who obtain access to him personally. These people are also not necessarily the best and may be among the worst. They may very well have access because they are powerful enough, or corrupt enough, to get it. I have to stop here. Hopefully you can see where I am going. Every time I have seen a goof-- and there have been so many-- (the 20% hospitalization rate for those infected is an example; so are Neil Ferguson's modeling results), I have been angered and seen it all as a hoax (and conspiracy.) There is plenty of evidence of hoax, conspiracy, gross negligence, and corruption, but what I am thinking now is it has more to do with our global abandonment OF WHAT WORKED WELL ENOUGH for what we all knew had to be avoided and guarded against. |
Unfortunately, there seems no obvious way back. Money has always had political influence, and with so much money held by so few, the influence of egocentric, idiosyncratic, or truly insane individuals seems certain to grow.
But Bill Gates`s strange, not to say Strangeloveian manner and impulses, gives warning to the world, so none can claim ignorance of what may lie ahead.
But what to do?
What do others think?
Meantime:
Related
Tom Chivers: Why Covid will become the new common cold
National Post: Does humanity have an unseen ally against COVID?
