the 1% ... another view

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

Who is the 1% - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-nelson/occupy-movement-are-you-t_b_1110226.html

[lipualipua 4704]

Mighty Pen : excellent! excellent!! excellent!!! is all I can say (or is it write?)

[Lowdark 5613]

I can't add anything to the outstanding post made by Mighty Pen, but I would like to make a suggestion; at your convention, overhaul the Liberal Party and remake it into something that can perform in the 21st century. I am not a card carrying member of any political party but a strong democracy needs strong opposition and options. And with the unfortunate passing of Jack Layton, there is no significant opposition in our Government these days. The Liberal party has suffered it's two worst historic defeats back to back and there's nothing to suggest that they wouldn't fare even worse with Bob Rae at the helm if there was an election today. The Liberals border on becoming politically irrlelvant. If you simply churn out another leader without addressing the reasons why Canadians have abandoned the Liberal fold en masse, you will be repeating the failures similar to the ones made by Wall Street-arrogantly burying your heads in the sand and ignoring the roots of the problems, inviting them to happen again.

[ostirch 1668]

I got nothing against capitalism or a free market economy as long as the rules apply to everybody.

 

-When Nortel executives fuck up and run the company to the ground, they should heed their obligations to former employees who had insurance and a pension, not collect bonuses.

 

-When respected rating agencies give AAA ratings to junk bonds, their CEO's should be fired, not receive bonuses.

 

-When Goldman Sachs fraudulently sells junk derivatives as AAA bonds, they should be prosecuted like any common fraudster, not bailed out by the tax payer.

 

-When Sun Media uses the airwaves to whine about the CBC's federal funding in the name of the taxpayer, they should look at themselves and give back all government subsidies they have received over the years.

 

-Why is it that rich CEO's that failed, get government bail-outs and bonuses, but everyday-people who can't pay their mortgages, are evicted from their homes.

 

-When people line up at Citibank to close their accounts, they should be allowed to do so, not get arrested by authorities. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049976/Banks-country-refuse-let-customers-close-accounts-protest.html)

 

-Why is it that Hugh Heffner can legally pay for sex with his Playboy bunnies under the cover of his Playboy mansion, but when I ask to pay, the state government of the same country says it's a crime?

 

It's not capitalism I am against, it's what has become of it.

[Guest ma***sf***x]

"Capitalism is fascism in decay"

 

"People like capitalism until they suffer from it"

 

Vladimir Lenin

[Lowdark 5613]

I got nothing against capitalism or a free market economy as long as the rules apply to everybody.

 

-When Nortel executives fuck up and run the company to the ground, they should heed their obligations to former employees who had insurance and a pension, not collect bonuses.

 

-When respected rating agencies give AAA ratings to junk bonds, their CEO's should be fired, not receive bonuses.

 

-When Goldman Sachs fraudulently sells junk derivatives as AAA bonds, they should be prosecuted like any common fraudster, not bailed out by the tax payer.

 

-When Sun Media uses the airwaves to whine about the CBC's federal funding in the name of the taxpayer, they should look at themselves and give back all government subsidies they have received over the years.

 

-Why is it that rich CEO's that failed get government bail-outs and bonuses, but everyday people who can't pay their mortgages, are evicted from their homes.

 

-When people line up at Citibank to close their accounts, they should be allowed to do so, not arrested by authorities. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049976/Banks-country-refuse-let-customers-close-accounts-protest.html)

 

-Why is it that Hugh Heffner can legally pay for sex with his Playboy bunnies under the cover of his playboy mansion, but when I ask to pay, the state government of the same country says it's crime.

 

It's not capitalism I am against, it's what it as become of it.

 

Perfectly stated. This is what the (true) movement is about. There is a different set of rules for the wealthy 1%, many of whom got their wealth through unethical or illegal means (or were simply born to it) then the rest of us. It's not as bad in Canada as the U.S., but tuition rates are climbing enough that one's level education is becoming more determined by their income than by their intelligence or their work ethic. There should have been a condition on all that stimulus money the "too big to fail" companies got from various governments-no bonuses for your CEOs and minimize your layoffs. As it stood, how many companies and corporations collected stimulus money and paid their CEOs million dollar bonuses (for running their companies into the ground or knowingly participating in illegal practrices) while they laid off thousands of workers? And if it were up to me, the price of doing business in Canada would include obeying a law that if a major company or corporation goes under, then the pensions they owe their employees is creditor number one-how many Nortel employees are now left without hard earned pensions they invested in?

[Kubrickfan 12836]

I agree completely with baileydog except that he's being too apologetic for "capitalism." Its not perfect, but if anyone has a better solution it certainly hasn't proven itself yet.

 

Any economic system has its faults, but to paraphrase Milton Friedman, no other economic system has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to so many. Nothing else even comes close. Ignore this, belittle this, quote Lenin (how did Communism work out for you, btw?), etc., etc. at your own economic risk.

 

Now everybody stop yer whining and get back to work!! :icon_smile: :icon_smile:

[Lowdark 5613]

I agree completely with baileydog except that he's being too apologetic for "capitalism." Its not perfect, but if anyone has a better solution it certainly hasn't proven itself yet.

 

Any economic system has its faults, but to paraphrase Milton Friedman, no other economic system has ever brought so much wealth and prosperity to so many. Nothing else even comes close. Ignore this, belittle this, quote Lenin (how did Communism work out for you, btw?), etc., etc. at your own economic risk.

 

Now everybody stop yer whining and get back to work!! :icon_smile: :icon_smile:

 

 

To quote a previous post, it isn't capitalism that should be railed against, but unchecked capitalism. Current capitalism is creating a class system and rewarding illegal behaviour. The 2008 economic meltdown was the result of unchecked and unregulated markets and what has the world learned as a result? Nothing. There are no new checks and regulations to prevent another collapse on the same scale, mostly because the interested parties have blocked it through the politicans they own. That is the objection. Not the body of capitalism, but the greedy cancer that has invaded it.

 

And while communism may be a politically reprehensbile system, it must have its economic perks. Last time I checked, China, the world's largest Communist state, owns the majority of the U.S.'s staggering debt.

[thedriver 6179]

My personal feelings is not against capitalism in favour of a different system but rather a critic against what it has become.

 

To me the 1% are not the ones who make over $250K but rather CEO's who make millions in salery and bonuses by increasing the billion dollar profits of thier companies by increasing the cost of living of the middle class. We all know that the 1% are the ones who contribute vast sums of money to the political parties to ensure that the government will pass laws that will protect them and thier ever increasing profits through tax exemptions and tax shelters.

It may not seam like much when a company increases its consumer rates by a few dollars to increases its profits by millions but when many companies do it it translates to greater expense and greated dept for the average consumer. Our economy is based on consumption and if large corporations want to continue to sell there products they have to make them more afordable to the average consumer. If they fail to see the logic in reducing there billion dollar profits they will cause the crash of the world economy.

An economic crash resulting from greed!

Greed at its most primitive leval!

Greed at its most distructive!

[loopie 15358]

Milton Friedman was one of the most destructive men of the 20th century. The countries in South America and Asia that implemented his vision of extreme capitalism all became crime-ridden third world dictatorships. Not even a rightwinger like Dick Nixon would dare unleash Friedman's version of capitalism on the USA. Nixon exported Friedman's vision to other countries to keep them weak.

 

Friedman's legacy of nation crushing is one of the best cases in favour of the need to regulate capitalism.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

To quote a previous post, it isn't capitalism that should be railed against, but unchecked capitalism. Current capitalism is creating a class system and rewarding illegal behaviour. The 2008 economic meltdown was the result of unchecked and unregulated markets and what has the world learned as a result? Nothing. There are no new checks and regulations to prevent another collapse on the same scale, mostly because the interested parties have blocked it through the politicans they own. That is the objection. Not the body of capitalism, but the greedy cancer that has invaded it.

 

And while communism may be a politically reprehensbile system, it must have its economic perks. Last time I checked, China, the world's largest Communist state, owns the majority of the U.S.'s staggering debt.

 

The markets are quite regulated, but I would admit that there have definitely been abuses. The problem is that the government swooped in to protect those companies rather than the companies having to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government had stayed out of it, the markets would have finally "cleared," in an economic sense, and we woudl all be better off. Also, the people who caused the problem, be they a*holes or idiots, would have been held accountable for their actions.

 

And you cant really believe that China's communism has anything to do with its current economic success (which is probably being highly overstated). It has everything to do with highly un-regulated free markets and the availability of cheap and reasonably-educated labor.

[Lowdark 5613]

The markets are quite regulated, but I would admit that there have definitely been abuses. The problem is that the government swooped in to protect those companies rather than the companies having to deal with the consequences of their actions. If the government had stayed out of it, the markets would have finally "cleared," in an economic sense, and we woudl all be better off. Also, the people who caused the problem, be they a*holes or idiots, would have been held accountable for their actions.

 

And you cant really believe that China's communism has anything to do with its current economic success (which is probably being highly overstated). It has everything to do with highly un-regulated free markets and the availability of cheap and reasonably-educated labor.

 

The reason the government was so quick to swoop in was because Wall Street owned plenty of politicans, as they continue to do. And they own them on both sides of the aisle. There was no higher moral principle about Universal Healthcare, merely the Health Insurance companies puting the policians they owned into service against it. It can be argued that every major policy decision in living memory is based on pure economics. Wall Street has a significant ownership stake in the White House, plain and simple. I would also argue that the laws regulating the markets proved inadequate since the practice of selling toxic investments and then betting against them went on for years and regulatory bodies looked the other way. And China's communism may not have much to do with their economic propsperity, but the simple fact is that the largest stakeholder in American debt is the largest Communist country in the world. Every bubble bursts, the question is can this one be prevented?

 

Additional Comments:

I get the idea that you and i would differ greatly on matters of politics Bailey Dog, but you have the right idea in helping-get involved and change the beast from the inside.

[MightyPen 67414]

Would love too. Unfortunately, the police at the G20 summit in Toronto conducted a mass arrest of over 1000 Canadian Citizens, who for the most part wanted to get involved by peacefully protesting. They lined them up, strip-searched them, and put them in makeshift detention centers without access to water, a lawyer or contact to family members.

Yeah... that was bad. Really, really bad. Same thing happened in Quebec City in 2001, by the way. I remember a colleague of mine had gone to join the protests in Quebec and came back deeply disturbed by the needless violence she saw the police employ.

 

Institutions protect themselves. Government + money is a formidable institution. I still hope something can be done, but we'll see. The Internet is changing things; masses of regular people are able to share and coordinate as never before. If things aren't changed soon, there might be an Arab Spring waiting for us around the corner.

[Lowdark 5613]

We do have one thing at our disposal countries like Cuba and China do not; we can vote. Didn't like what happened at the G20 in Toronto-you can vote against the governing Conservative party and the provincial Liberal party (yes, the McGuinty government had a part in that too). The federal political landscape changed in Canada after the Sponsorship scandal broke and it cost the Liberals the government. We also saw some blowback against the provincial Liberals last fall. Just as similar controversies could (and should) cost the Conservatives power. Want to protest-vote. Get informed, do your research engage yourself, encourage others to vote and get yourself to a voting booth sometime that day. By refusing to vote, you are letting the politicans forget they are answerable to us, the citizens.

 

As for the protests, yes many police tactics were appalling and there should have been a public enquiry called, but the protesters were hardly innocent angels themselves. There is no shortage of people showing up with black masks and carrying explosives and combustibles. Even "peaceful" assemblies can break out into violence (remember Vancouver last June with nary a police officer around?). Regardless of what you do, there will be violence between police and protesters. If we are going to contiue holding these types of summits, they should be held in an aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean or a military base in the arctic. The people I felt sorry for the most in Toronto were the small businesses that were vandalized. You can bet their insurance companies were doing back flips to get out of any kind of settlement and the government refused to compensate them in any way. That was the real tragedy.

[etasman2000 15994]

And while communism may be a politically reprehensbile system, it must have its economic perks. Last time I checked, China, the world's largest Communist state, owns the majority of the U.S.'s staggering debt.

 

The Motley Fools address this in Oct 2011. See their article.

[ostirch 1668]

Didn't like what happened at the G20 in Toronto-you can vote against the governing Conservative party and the provincial Liberal party (yes, the McGuinty government had a part in that too).

 

All parties were pretty much silent on the issue. Jack Layton briefly mentioned it in a local interview. It was never mentioned in the Leader's debate. As far as this issue is concerned, it was like voting in China or Cuba.

 

There is no shortage of people showing up with black masks and carrying explosives and combustibles.

I respectfully do not agree here. Arguing that you have to arrest over 1000 people to weed out the few criminals is really what a democracy should safeguard against! We can always arrest everybody on my street and we will surely be safe!

 

The overwhelming, overwhelming, majority of those arrested were peaceful protestors. This was clearly a case of the state overstepping it's bounds.

[Lowdark 5613]

Thanks Estaman. I usually pride myself on being informed but I dropped the ball on that one. I admit I was wrong. We now return to regular scheduled programming. . .

[Kubrickfan 12836]

But modern Socialism is just regulated capitalism, which I do think is the best way to go.

 

Please, do explain.

 

:icon_rolleyes:

[Lowdark 5613]

All parties were pretty much silent on the issue. Jack Layton briefly mentioned it in a local interview. It was never mentioned in the Leader's debate. As far as this issue is concerned, it was like voting in China or Cuba.

 

 

Arguing that you have to arrest over 1000 people to weed out the few criminals is a common argument in totalitarian countries. We can always arrest everybody on my street and we will surely be safe!

 

The overwhelming, overwhelming, majority of those arrested were peaceful protestors. This was clearly a case of the state overstepping it's bounds.

 

 

You are absolutely right, the state did overstep its bounds. Stephen Harper, Dalton McGuinty, David Miller and Toronto's police chief at the time should have all found themselves answering some very difficult questions in front of the public and media. I won't argue that in the slightest. Much of what went down was wrong and an abuse of power that no one has ever been held accountable for. The system (as well as the media) failed the public big time.

 

But neither can it be argued that the protesters are innocent. Without a doubt, the vast majority are peacefuland intelligent, articulate and deserve to be heard, but when they sit silently by and watch those wearing black masks light cars on fire and deliberately destroy public and private property with silent approval, they are empowering the violent element that give the police an excuse to go to such appalling extremes. And by silently approving the violent minority, the majority loses credibility and their message is lost in the media noise that results in 24 hour coverage of burning police cars and mask wearing "protesters" throwing molotov cocktails through Starbucks windows. The majority of protesters will only be taken seriously when they are seen on camera denouncing and criticising the black masks during a protest.

[loopie 15358]

Please, do explain.

 

:icon_rolleyes:

 

I think the best society is the one that invests in itself and provides the most opportunities for its members to make a future contribution. When opportunities to gain knowledge and training are restricted to a small elite, then only that small elite stands a chance at contributing ideas that will lead to future progress. In the long term I feel this limits the potential of the society because groundbreaking ideas can come from any mind regardless of what family they happen to be born into.

 

The best way to ensure that people have those opportunities to contribute is for the state to provide stability to people as they make their way through life. When people don't have to worry about violent unpredictable fluctations in the price of things such as water, food, rent, electricity, medical attention etc they can focus better on developing the ideas that will improve quality of life and make their society stronger. The only way I know of to avoid violent price fluctuations is through state control, either direct state ownership of key sectors or heavy state regulation.

 

I thank you for your interest and for your sarcastic eyeroll.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

At least in the US, water, electricity and other utililties are already, from a price standpoint, controlled by the government as any price increases need to be approved by the respective public utilities commissions. But those commissions cant control all of the "inputs" (for instance, coal, gas or uranium) needed to produce those utilities... its simply less efficient from an economic standpoint. I think most governments that have tried to nationalize those sorts of things have found it doesn't work and actually costs more, not less, and results in a poorer delivery of those goods or services. Same thing for socialized medicine and the other things. When you try to control those things, even with the best of intents, it will have the opposite effect, as certain as gravity.

 

The standard of living for a society, or a country, is going to be directly related to the amount of economic activity occuring in that society. Without that activity, there is no "1%" ... or at least a much smaller 1% ... and therefore less tax revenue from that 1% that has to be borne by the balance of the population. Again, as certain as gravity.

 

And I'm still trying to figure out how socialism is like regulated capitalism, but out of respect to roaminguy and the subject of his original post,

I'll drop the question.

[Guest s******ecan****]

the "occupy" movement is a response to the income inequality present in the US> In Canada we really have no clue of just how much things have changed in the US over the last 20 years with regards to tax policy, regulation, and political representation.

[MightyPen 67414]

I think most governments that have tried to nationalize those sorts of things have found it doesn't work and actually costs more, not less, and results in a poorer delivery of those goods or services. Same thing for socialized medicine and the other things. When you try to control those things, even with the best of intents, it will have the opposite effect, as certain as gravity.

Wasn't the California energy crisis all about the disastrous consequences of letting private industry run the production and sale of energy? They had people shutting down power plants for "maintenance" in order to reduce the supply of energy, jack up the price accordingly, and reap astronomical profits from the public who had nowhere else to buy power. And that's just the first example that comes to mind. Then there's privatization of the water supply in Bolivia...

 

Private industry can possibly do a better job than government with utilities, but only if there's competition. With a monopoly, you just create another California. And how to ensure there's no monopoly, or simple collusion between profit-oriented corporations? I'd rather have the government running utilities inefficiently, than monopolies running them to maximize profit.

 

I don't have figures handy, but I seem to recall that the Canadian healthcare system is cheaper and more efficient than the American one. That probably depends how we frame the question and measure efficiency/cheapness, though -- I'm not sure offhand.

 

The standard of living for a society, or a country, is going to be directly related to the amount of economic activity occuring in that society, etc.

Somewhat true. A nation of slaveowners might achieve great economic output but not necessarily a good overall standard of living, right? So the one doesn't automatically lead to the other, but I agree it's a necessary precondition. But... I don't think anyone has disputed this, right? Is anyone here advocating less industry, production, or national prosperity?

 

And I'm still trying to figure out how socialism is like regulated capitalism, but out of respect to roaminguy and the subject of his original post, I'll drop the question.

I thought Loopie took a pretty good stab at the answer. Definitions of "socialism" (like "capitalism") vary, but nothing about capitalism is antithetical to socialism. Socialism as a political philosophy ("we should all contribute somewhat to our collective interests") works perfectly well with capitalism as I defined it earlier in the thread. Capitalism is about how a society generates wealth. Socialism is about how a society employs that wealth.

 

I'll be honest though, I'm approaching the limit of how deeply I want to pursue this issue on CERB. It's fun and rewarding to throw ideas out there, but it's not something we're all likely to agree on in the end. We could waste a lot of letters without coming close to a resolution. :)

 

Thanks to everyone for their contributions -- it's been interesting.

[ostirch 1668]

This last post reads better than some pornography that is out there. I love it.

[baileydog 9367]

Capitalism is about how a society generates wealth. Socialism is about how a society employs that wealth.

 

yes, but ... too much of the later stifles the former ... when England still had a 98% top tax rate (in the '70s) many/most of those who could moved elsewhere, taking their economic input out of the English economy