Serious issues regarding Owen Glenn
Today’s further revelations about Labour’s expat billionaire major funder, Owen Glenn, raise more questions than they answer. Let’s take them in three areas:
The Loan
Owen Glenn says he made the loan (said by Mike Williams to be $100,000) after the election. Williams says it was not made until 2007, and that it has already been repaid. It is confirmed that this is an interest-free loan, and the value of the foregone interest has to be included as a donation.
Now recall Mike Williams on the 2nd of January said “Mr Glenn had not made any donations to Labour since 2005″. No he had not made a donation, just an interest free loan which qualifies as a donation under the law passed by Labour. I quote s21(2) of the Electoral Finance Act 2007:
party donation means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) that is made to a party … and includes … where credit is provided to a party on terms and conditions substantially more favourable than the commercial terms and conditions prevailing at the time for the same or similar credit, the value to the party of those more favourable terms and conditions
So the Labour Party President was being deliberately misleading, at best, when he made that statement. The interest free loan is defined by his own party’s law as a donation.
Now also recall that Owen Glenn got a gong in the Honours list at the end of 2007, just a few weeks after Labour had voted to change the then Electoral Finance Bill to allow Glenn to keep donating. Now we also know that he was not just a past donor to Labour, but at the very time when they were voting to give him an honour, they were the secret recipients of an interest free loan.
Now this doesn’t mean that Glenn got his gong for his $500,000 donation and $100,000 loan to Labour. But it does mean it was highly unethical for Labour to give him a honour without revealing the interest free loan he had made to them.
The Job
Helen Clark is reported in the NZ Herald as saying “it never happened” in respect to Owen Glenn’s claim Clark offered him the role of Minister of Transport.
But note in Fran O’Sullivan’s column that Clark is refusing to talk to the media directly on this, and “it never happened” is attributed to the spokesperson not the PM. There is quite possibly a reason Clark herself doesn’t want to directly say those words which may just mean she never formally offered him the job – which s a truism – you can not offer a non MP a Ministerial role. What Clark has not denied is that they had a discussion along the lines of what Owen Glenn claims.
Now Glenn is either telling the truth, is a liar, or is mistaken. But as Fran notes he offered a massive amount of detail to merely be mistaken:
But Glenn’s recollection of the conversation was sufficiently full that he could relate to reporter Kim Ruscoe just where the conversation took place (Kawau Island after the Millennium Cup Super Yacht regatta). He also recollected his reasons why he wouldn’t want the job (assets like the railways were sold … Qantas was closing in on Air NZ … what would he do?) and her rejoinder (these things might not have happened if we had people like you).
The Donation
There has been no suggestion from Glenn that the Dominion Post story is incorrect, in him attributing the motivation for his $500,000 donation to the Exclusive Brethren campaign which happened 10 months after his donation. I never seriously thought it was incorrect, but as it was so damaging to his credibility wanted to leave that option open.
Is Mr Glenn just a seriously confused person, or is Labour’s major donor a liar? And if his claimed rationale for donating to Labour is totally false (as it clearly is), then what was his rationale? Is it just the previous one of admiring Helen, or something else?
The Taxes and The Girls
Not really relevant to the main points of this post, but can’t help but notice Cactus Kate has a fascinating post on Mr Glenn, the pinup donor boy for Labour whom she met in 2002. Some extracts:
Glenn at the time I was certain wasn’t resident anywhere for tax purposes, let alone a tax haven like Monaco, slumming it on his rather nice yacht with different women at every port. While I find this a totally suitable and ethical outcome of cleverly utilising the tax rules of the world, Labour are of course a party who hates “rich pricks” who “dodge tax”.
Glenn is the ultimate personification of it. I would be PROUD to have him as a client. He has paid less tax in New Zealand than ANY, I repeat ANY member of the Business Roundtable. Even the ones now based overseas who were vilified for upping sticks.
I had noted he is officially resident in Monaco. Kate carries on:
He was right wing enough to despite all the tittie on offer in the bar with less than 100 IQ points, spend the best part of all night speaking with me. He did not seem to like the “sisterhood”, unless they were hot and invited him to watch. He bemoaned the lefties in New Zealand and their sexual habits. One of his harem came over and “twirled” for me, his “Personal Assistant”(I kid you not) who bore a striking resemblance to Miss Stacey from WWF/WWE wrestling. She was the LEAST attractive of the obviously imported harem.
There may be more to Mr Glenn than meets the eye!
February 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thers’s certainly more to Labour than meets the eye!
February 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Wondering what Klark may be up to today? Emergency spin meeting perhaps?
And Goff, what might he be doing?? Playing a counting game perhaps??
February 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Why does this suprise you DPF? NZ Labour have made a point of copying the British Labour Party.
So a cash (sorry- an undeclared interest free soft loan) for honours scandal is only to be expected.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Here is a comment I posted on the earlier thread. I think the argument is relevant, and I can’t be bothered restating it in fresh words, so here it is.
# PhilBest Says:
February 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Yesterday at 12.50 PM I posted a link to an essay on the phenomenon of rich people in the US financially supporting Leftwing causes. The total substantially outweighs the funding of “right wing” causes, by the way – so much for the myths.
(Here’s the link again:)
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz012500.asp
Several comments have been made above about “rich pricks” who actually support Labour in NZ, as if this is something surprising. Do read the essay. There are numerous reasons for “rich pricks” to support leftwing politics. They often have less to risk and more to gain. If they are seen supporting rightwing causes, they put voters off, and leftwing governments are notoriously mean-spirited towards rich supporters of their political opponents. Our own Klarkists and Kullenists being no exception.
As Don Brash (a notoriously naive politician), found out, the road to power for anyone identified with the wealthy “right wing” is blocked with almost insurmountable obstacles, thanks to the kneejerk reactions of our left-dominated MSM. It is in fact much easier for “rich people” who are out to feather their OWN nests via political power, to make devil’s bargains with the main LEFT wing party. Don Brash and John Key, on the other hand, and in fact MOST “rightwingers” have genuine desires to bring about real improvements in the whole country, that will benefit everyone.
This phenomenon is seen strikingly in George Soros and other super rich supporters of leftwing causes in the US and internationally. Note that Leftwingers statistically are far less generous regarding CHARITABLE causes than Rightwingers, at EVERY INCOME LEVEL, but ESPECIALLY among the most wealthy. (”Who Really Cares: The surprising truth about compassionate conservatism”. Look it up on Amazon yourself.) But they DO GIVE a LOT MORE to POLITICAL causes.
Basically, they have realised long ago that the march of soft leftist propaganda through society has blocked their chances of achieving any sort of political influence via traditional rightwing parties. They certainly do not care about the continuance of conditions and freedoms that will enable OTHERS to become wealthy too, in fact they would prefer others to be locked out of their exclusive “club”. Even more beautifully, they get much more credit from the Left by supporting the Left financially, than they would ever get from any amount of outright charitable good works and helping the poor. The very cause they support, stands for the financial support of the poor with taxation gouged out of the hardworking MIDDLE CLASS – NOT THEM. THEIR billions are securely locked away in Monaco or the Bahamas.
But as long as the Left controls journalism and the other “institutions’ of society, the ignorant masses will have views of the wealthy people on each side of the political divide that do not reflect reality, all the more convenient for the political parties who stand to benefit thereby in terms of power and the advancement of their program.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I have posed a couple of questions over this….
* Why would Owen Glenn lie about this?
* Who has more to lose – Owen Glenn or Helen Clark?
February 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Davey, I assume that you will also be doing a similar piece on all the big name donators to the National party, oh that’s right they all give their money via secret trust funds.
Am I also right in saying that if a political party accepts money from an individual then they 100% endorse that persons lifestyle and ethics?
If you were being fair about things (and that would be a first) you might want to mention the other large donations that Owen Glenn has made and how these have contributed to the community.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Your comment really is not germane to the questions raised Rocket Boy.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
The Owen Glenn saga irks me, because the huge up roar by Liarbour regarding a handful of dreadful Christians called EB’s made them change the law so the regime could maintain power. But, they accept substantial donations from a tax dodging hypercritical socialist, who is sun bathing in the Caribbean? He could have been our new Tranny Minister? Shifty Mike said the chap has got his dates wrong and the Klarkula calls him a liar. What a bloody shambles! Pass the pill bottle girls and put yourselves on Trade Me now. I doubt you’d fetch more than 1 cent.
Monty Python couldn’t write a more hilarious script, as this gummint are as crazy sods that resemble headless chook’s that just had a serious bong session with philu!
February 16th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Phil Best
It seems 1984 has arrived in the form of Phil Best.
Would you care to explain the amount of “extra” money George W Bush had for his 2000 and 2004 campaigns? Or the dominance of Congress of the Republican Party of Congress in the 1994-2006 period, despite the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer?
February 16th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Can I ask the “sisterhood” for a gong on the head? Did the water spurt cause a crime wave today or did the cow fart on the moon again? Where are the lefty turd tossers?
February 16th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
A strange bedfellow for a party wanting to limit the influence of “big money” in politics. Cactus’ last “throwaway” line has me intrigued.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
What can be said about those who hate, is that when they have expressed it all out, often repetitively and in their own attempt to provoke others into a conflict with them – is that it is often to satisfy a need they have to have someone to hate and to assert their hate at.
I guess such people are tossers, both in personal relationships and political debate.
Those who cannot live without control over others, live without love, living to divide against and hate others.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
SPC: I think Phil is with some of the rest of us in saying that money doesn’t buy elections. I guess that if the Republicans dominated Congress it is because people voted for them. The American system does have some flaws such as allowing gerrymandering of boundaries, which helps, but ultimately I believe that the US public liked the policies on offer, or (more to the point) liked them more than what the Democrats offered. You should also recall that the Democrats are the party of lawyers, so whilst they have a lot of money, they are also in the pockets of one of the least liked professions. In short, your question has nothing to do with what Phil posted.
Rocket Boy: there would be no need for such a piece on the National secret donors. Being secret, they wouldn’t have been able to be offered Ministerial positions by the Prime Minister, they couldn’t get gongs as payoff for their donation, and they couldn’t give press interviews that made them fair game for everyone to comment on. That is, in fact, the advantage of making secret donations. I also note that you have never provided any information suggesting that any individuals or companies have secretly given donations to National of the size that Owen Glenn has given to Labour.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
The touchy souls at The Standard are getting nervous about this scandal developing legs. They have banned more than one opponent lately and continue to wave the stick at dissenting opinion.
Just found this example of their kind of “tolerance”:
Blogger: Your faith in Helen Clark appears to know no bounds. You’d do a good impersonation of a Pretorian Guard (Al Capone’s bodyguard also comes to mind).
Blog Admin: Directing baseless insults at one of the blog owners is a good way to get banned. You’re on warning.
Bloody priceless!
February 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Fred
What’s more interesting is the contact with a Labour leader – people with money (who avoid tax so easily) are always handing over money here and there to provide them with the sense of making a contribution to a wider community than themselves. The donation is less surprising.
PaulL
What Phil posted is little supported by the article he linked to. Which by the way was one from January 2000. Hardly recent.
Unless you are going to post evidence to back up your claim that Republicans don’t outspend opponents in election races – I’ll disagree.
What is known is that in 2000 and 2004 Bush had more money. And that is relevant given Phil is claiming the left donate moire money to politics than the right.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
PaulL
“I also note that you have never provided any information suggesting that any individuals or companies have secretly given donations to National of the size that Owen Glenn has given to Labour.”
I guess as you explained
“That is, in fact, the advantage of making secret donations.”
No one but the people who know who set up the secret trusts and those in National they told about it know.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
You really don’t understand how secret trusts work, do you?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Britain’s had an independent enquiry into Blair/Labour’s “Cash for Honours” scandal.
Anyone want a bet on the chances of getting anything similarily cleansing here?
One problem – Scotland Yard still has credibility as independent of Labour. Sadly the NZ Police in recent electoral matters have been disgraceful.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I guess Mr Glen is feeling a bit fragile tonight.
Disowned by Michael Cullen as a ‘Rich Prick”
Disowned by Helen Clark as a “liar”
And all he got from his $600k was a mid ranking ‘bauble’.
Gueez you guys really know how to massage those whose generosity kept you on the treasury benches.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Manolo said “The touchy souls at The Standard are getting nervous about this scandal developing legs. They have banned more than one opponent lately and continue to wave the stick at dissenting opinion. ”
They do indeed Manolo – here’s an exchange I had with IrishBill today:
““IrishBill says: so by “Literal or not” are you are implying you don’t care if it’s true or not but it’s a good chance to smear the government? I’m assuming you are a Herald subscriber?”
Bill – that’s pretty rich coming from one of the authors of a blog whose sole purpose seems to be to smear the National Party and its leadership. To use one of Robinsod’s favourite words, that’s – ironic – don’t you think
IrishBill says: let’s see you provide an example of a Standard post that states something that is not fact or is otherwise not clearly marked as rumour or genuinely held opinion before you go quoting the ‘Sod on this one IV2.”
For anyone who’s read the anti-National, anti-Key diatribes that the Standard publishes on a daily basis, IrishBill’s comments are laughable – a dose of “faux-outrage” methinks!
February 16th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
SPC 7:07: You have no evidence whatever that the secret donors told anyone in National who they were. That would be against the law, if you had evidence of that sort you should go to the police. You like to cast aspersions because it suits your prejudices, I note that Labour also receives secret donations (and in fact were very careful with the new law to preserve their secret donations). Do you believe that they know who their donors were? If you don’t, then it is only prejudice that leads you to that conclusion.
SPC 7:03: Phil’s article provides some studies and evidence, and I believe shows a trend of increasing donations from rich individuals to the left. Do you have any competing studies that suggest it has changed in the last few years? Or are you just trying to ignore information that you don’t like. I note that Phil never claimed that the left had more money, just that they had more donations from rich individuals. The right have a far greater number of small donors, I believe that is true in NZ as well. DPF has posted on that a number of times – the membership for Labour is declining, that for National increasing.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
This man who lives in a sunny place for shady people is proving to be an embarrassment to Labour. The denial “it never happened” is nicely ambiguous, it depends on what “it” is. Of course he did not get a job. I suspect there was a flippant conversation on a boat, money was offered and jobs were traded but nothing serious was intended except paying the money. She will run for cover and stick to the curt ambiguous comment through her flunky.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Actually Ross MIller it was John Key who Michael Cullen called a ‘rich prick’ and that was after Key had dragged Michael Cullen’s wife into a parlimentary debate.
I think one of things that sticks in DPF throat is that there are a few rich pricks out there who support the Labour party and one of those is Owen Glenn.
And for those who suggest Owen Glenn got his ‘gong’ because of his dontations to the Labour Party, what about his $7.5 million donation to the Auckland business school? It makes his Labour Party donation look like small change.
[DPF: Don't invent things. I have no problem with Glenn donating to Labour. I do have a problem when his rationale for doing so is clearly wrong and false. I also have a problem when Mike Williams states he has not made a donation since 2005, and under the law he has. I also have a problem with him getting an honour at the same time as he has made a secret no interest loan to Labour. I also have a problem with the PM offering major donors jobs in Cabinet]
February 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Paul L
“Phil’s article provides some studies and evidence, and I believe shows a trend of increasing donations from rich individuals to the left.”
Really? It actually only refers to causes, not political campaigns.
The elections in 2000 and 2004 indicated Republicans had a funding advantage. You say it’s because of lots of little donors. But do so without evidence.
As to the identity of the donors and party knowledge – its not a big deal with Labour – the amounts being so much lower than for National.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
SPC: so you are saying that Labour know who “secretly” donated to them but that it doesn’t matter because it was only $200K?
Rocket Boy: the Auckland Business School didn’t have the power to give Owen Glenn a gong. And I don’t think it is written anywhere that giving money away gets a gong, it is supposed to be more than that. Are you telling me that all the other people who have donated money of that amount and didn’t get a gong had something wrong with them, and that Owen Glenn just happened both to be the one that had some other goodness, and also coincidentally donated to the Labour party, the leader of which has the ability to give out gongs? Sorry, you’re trying (badly) to deflect legitimate questions.
February 16th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Control of the House in the US greatly accelerated fundraising success for the Dems because corporates tend to give to gatekeepers. Here’s a WSJ story you should read. http://tinyurl.com/2mvjf2
And here’s another, from CQ Politics, about the shift in PAC giving from Republican to Democrat http://preview.tinyurl.com/366oc8
February 16th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
And here’s the ultimate tool for preventing campaign finance abuse in the US:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml
February 16th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
You lefties must be getting cramp in your tongues, so much arse licking. One would hope that Owen Clenn has a smooth arse and Dear Leader puts a drug subsidy on pills for blistered tongues.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
francis
Yes there is a long term tradition of favour to incumbency – the chairpersons and generally Democrats of the right sort get some corporate money (the others don’t) – the Republicans however are rarely at a funding disadvantage, even when challenging for positions (unless it’s a district they have no hope of winning).
But the other issue is of course the ability to resort to personal wealth …, this reminds one of Greece and buying office (and then using ones own money to fund projects)
February 16th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
SPC at 6.51pm – your reference to those who hate, and who can’t live without control over others, being tossers in personal relationships and political debate, seems to be all about Clark and Cullen without naming them.
Although this is an accurate appraisal of them, this seems inconsistent with your comments elsewhere.
February 16th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Where is the standard crew? Oh yeah, that’s right…
February 16th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Helen Clark is reported in the NZ Herald as saying “it never happened” in respect to Owen Glenn’s claim Clark offered him the role of Minister of Transport.
In other words she can’t remember. Typical. This, from a woman who met Mr Glenn in Sydney and after he told her he would donate to the party she got back to New Zealand and couldn’t even remember his name
February 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Talk about a horse with no name . Klark is a stable hack who has plays the can’t remember card all so well. No Helen, a blind man can see thru you’re crap.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
So it’s loans for honours is it? I wonder if norightturn cares?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Give me the money honey and I’ll smack you with a gong.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:40 am
The commentator above who pointed out that this is the Blair songbook is right on the money (sic)
we now have our very own cash for honours scandal, with a bit of buying political policy thrown in.
How cute, we’ve finally made it as a nation, I feel so proud.
Of course in the UK, as Rex and others pointed out, this was generally thought of as a bad thing, was investigated by Scotland Yard, and caused bad things to happen to those involved.
In NZ, meh, not so much. Who in the police would dare summon her majesty to be questioned? There is no serious fraud office now, either, so that avenue is gone. Royal Commission, yeah right.
So what is most interesting is that all of the paranoid contentions spread by labour about national and its backers at the last election are now understandable. Because labour was doing every single one of them itself.
policy written offshore – yup
secret foreign bagmen – yup
business buying influence – yup
media kept on a leash of favour and access – yup
plus honours for sale
and, the greatest number of cabinet ministers stood down or sacked for dubious ethics in living memory.
but wait, there’s more! If you look at South Auckland you will see US Democratic get out the vote tactics – might be time to have a good look at the enrollments and see how many of those “voters” really existed.
Must be that new standard of transparency and accountability I recall someone talking about a few years ago?
February 17th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Quite a few very rich people support left wing parties because…..
Left wing parties are prone to bringing in programmes that involve moving a lot of money around (I think its called redistribution), or protecting various sections of the community, and other schemes that have various needs and consequences. The needs are services to make the programme work and the consequences are that there will be some very big money making opportunities that those with money and resources are able to capture.
The health system is a good example. We have more DHB’s than we should ever have, and they all need information systems (when one would do the whole country) and consultants to help the DHB’s and advisors, etc. These are all provided by the various ‘rich pricks’ who own the providers.
And should Clarks “stay at school til youre 18″ ever be put into place, they will need school rooms and more land and more teachers trained – and the ‘Rich pricks’ will be the ones who provide this. (Keys scheme will esentially use existing providers – they are already out there now. All his scheme will really cost is to bring the couple of thousand real problem buggers into a programme of some sort and frankly that will be mostly boot camps because all the others are already training)
February 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am
very true barry, you can get very very rich servicing a government which has little real understanding of incentives, and a strong redistributive bent. The DHB fiasco is a classic example.
“Affordable housing” will be another, how does the government think Fletchers got to be as big as it is now – it climbed into bed with the labour government and built state houses for them. Actually I believe he got a knighthood for it too! (what goes around etc)
February 17th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Rocket Boy said …. “I think one of things that sticks in DPF throat is that there are a few rich pricks out there who support the Labour party and one of those is Owen Glenn”
Brilliant own goal fella. So, any ‘rich’ person who supports Labour is a “rich prick” (your words).
As I said earlier. You guys certainally know how to bite the hand that feeds you.
Well done, keep it up and you might even make it as Labour’s ‘Wally of the Week/Weak” (but you do have a lot of competition).
February 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
the irony is that Helen Clark was merciless on Jenny Shipley in the late 1990s about what was discussed at a supposed dinner with Kevin Roberts
Helen Clark should live up to the same standards of honesty and accountability she expected of Jenny Shipley
… if she is capable of doing so
February 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I bet this issue will be brushed away by the MSM. TVNZ and Radio NZ will have received their instructions.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Bill English has issued a press statement seeking answers on a number of points from Clark and Labour
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00266.htm
February 17th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Dog tucker…..just dog tucker.
Classic!
February 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Adam Smith said “Bill English has issued a press statement seeking answers on a number of points from Clark and Labour”
I’ve linked to English’s statement via The Hive (fast becoming essential daily reading – http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/) on Keeping Stock. I particularly liked English’s references to Labour’s hypocricy in light of the Electoral Finance Act. English says:
“This whole saga reeks of hypocrisy. At the same time as the Prime Minister was pushing through the draconian Electoral Finance Act to supposedly inject more transparency into election financing, Labour appears to have done a deal to conceal support from a major donor who then received a New Year’s Honour.”
Nice one Bill!! Meanwhile, The Hive seems to have christened this “Glenngate” – as if Helen hasn’t got enough “gates” already!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/02/glenngate-bill-english-weighs-in.html
February 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
And James Sleep says “zzzzz zzzzzz
February 18th, 2008 at 8:12 am
An ode to Nicky Hagar
Should we have a Chapter Ten?
To your book “The Hollow Men”,
To include Williams and Glen,
or is there nothing here,
and we should we just move on again.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
SPC, sorry I’ve been absent for so long. PaulL, thanks for arguing on my behalf. The point is that even when the Bush campaign raised the most money, LEFTWING THIRD PARTIES, like Moveon.Org, raised far MORE money than Rightwing third parties – and third party advertising is HUGE in the US.
Third Party advertising is something that we in NZ are blissfully ignorant about. Hence the EFB.
The trend in the US described in the Horowitz article is now so much further advanced that the Democratic Party Candidates themselves raise far more money than the Republicans, even before we start to look at the “Third parties”.
So “1984″ hasn’t arrived in the form of PhilBest. “2008″ has arrived, and Schumpeter’s predictions about wealthy people support for Socialism is well and truly coming to pass in the USA. Schumpeter contradicted Karl Marx. Marx said that exploitation of the proletariat would ultimately lead to the overthrow of the bourgeois. Schumpeter said that the proletariat would actually become less and less downtrodden and exploited the longer the engine of Capitalist growth went on, but that Socialism would become increasingly popular with wealthy people, as wealth and wealth creation would become increasingly taken for granted.
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is actually only true in systems where political patronage and oligarchy and high levels of State control serve to lock the poor into poverty. It is not true in the US today or at any time. Inequality might increase, but that is not “the poor getting poorer”. This debate has been carried on at great length on previous threads and I have posted numerous links concerning the improvements in the circumstances of the poorest sectors in the US, especially in the last 30 years and the last 8 years.
Look at the articles of the economist Thomas Sowell in particular.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
The interesting thing is that it is wealth increase that has enabled the increased funding of leftwing causes in the US. NZ actually does not have AS MANY of the Owen Glenn type, because we’re not as wealthy!