Occupy Wall Street has forced into the average person's consciousness the stark inequality of our times. It is through this movement that the exploitation by the rich of the majority of the population came to the forefront of the discussion about economics in this country. While there are many horrible stories to illustrate this fact I was recently watching the Michael Moore documentary Capitalism: A Love Story and he cited a (not so) shocking document by Citigroup which lays out an explicit plan to exploit the 99% via the power of government lobbying.
A few years ago these leaked Citigroup reports lit up large portions of the internet and caused quite a bit of protest.
This created a lot of havoc within Citigroup and they have tried hard to suppress these memos by using government thugs and immoral law firms to threaten those who have posted these reports online. To download your own copies, you can find them at various places on the internet and the previous links may still have some working download links so I'd try there first. 
Here are few key quotes from some of the reports:
In a section from one of the reports titled “Is there a backlash building?”:
A third threat comes from the potential social backlash. To use Rawls-ian analysis, the invisible hand stops working. Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich. Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society does not believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is a threat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy - judging by how tight electoral races are. But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground.
Our overall conclusion is that a backlash against plutonomy is probable at some point. However, that point is not now. So long as economies continue to grow, and enough of the electorates feel that they are benefiting and getting rich in absolute terms, even if they are less well off in relative terms, there is little threat to Plutonomy in the U.S., UK, etc.
Here is a summary of one of the reports:
The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.
Equity risk premium embedded in “global imbalances” are unwarranted. In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc. This imbalance in inequality
expresses itself in the standard scary “global imbalances”. We worry less.
There is no “average consumer” in a Plutonomy. Consensus analyses focusing on the “average” consumer are flawed from the start. The Plutonomy Stock Basket outperformed MSCI AC World by 6.8% per year since 1985. Does even better if equities beat housing. Select names: Julius Baer, Bulgari, Richemont, Kuoni, and Toll Brothers.
What this all means is:
Let’s dive into some of the details. As Figure 1 shows the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households put together. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawed from the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together. This is data for 2000, from the Survey of Consumer Finances (and adjusted by academic Edward Wolff). Since 2000 was the peak year in equities, and the top 1% of households have a lot more equities in their net worth than the rest of the population who tend to have more real estate, these data might exaggerate the U.S. plutonomy a wee bit. Was the U.S. always a plutonomy - powered by the wealthy, who aggrandized larger chunks of the economy to themselves? Not really. For those interested in the details, we recommend “Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich” by Kevin Phillips, Broadway Books, 2002.
Finally, the thing these elites fear most is:
Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich.
And, from another document...
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth.
It should be strikingly clear that this is truly a war. A war against the majority brought about by the minority, and this is accomplished largely via the US government, as I've argued over and over again.
1. To help in your search for the memos, the three leaked documents are titled as follows:
a. “Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances” (October 16, 2005)
b. “Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer” (March 5, 2006)
c. “The Plutonomy Symposium: Rising Tides and Lifting Yachts” (September 29, 2006)