This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Heckler, I don't have time to reply at the moment, but I have a lot of issues with the implementation of some of your taxation and inequity suggestions (notably, points 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7).
(For my reference when I reread this: it's mainly to do with the idea that it's going to force the '99%' to pay more for goods and services, and therefore result in no net improvement, if not a net loss, in purchasing power. Also to do with the fact that the US can't manage international laws, and putting restrictions on companies off-shoring will essentially kill US corporations.)
Post by
Heckler
Heckler, I don't have time to reply at the moment, but I have a lot of issues with the implementation of some of your taxation and inequity suggestions (notably, points 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7).
That's fine, I didn't offer much in the way of elaboration or exploration of the ideas, and that was intended. I didn't intend to spur a policy discussion in this thread, but I do welcome your criticisms -- I make no promises that I'll be able to put up a spirited defense, however -- abstract ideas are very easy to argue against.
The purpose of my list wasn't to say "Here's how to fix everything" -- it was to give some semblance of an answer to MyTie concerning 'goals' (at least as far as I'm concerned). However, making any list like the one I did is just asking for a swarm of rebuttal to why the ideas are wrongheaded. This is fine with me: any idea can be attacked as such, and there's a chance that you'll even convince me I'm wrong. I would be curious to see if anyone agrees with them too though, somehow I think the only response I'll get will be disagreements though ;)
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Also to do with the fact that the US can't manage international laws, and putting restrictions on companies off-shoring will essentially kill US corporations.
I don't think it follows really. The US can prevent American companies from profiting from the drug trade overseas presumably, so why not on other issues which ought to shock Americans, like the use of child labour?
Post by
Squishalot
Also to do with the fact that the US can't manage international laws, and putting restrictions on companies off-shoring will essentially kill US corporations.
I don't think it follows really. The US can prevent American companies from profiting from the drug trade overseas presumably, so why not on other issues which ought to shock Americans, like the use of child labour?
Because restricting the use of child labour in foreign countries will increase the cost of goods in the US, as will any other restrictions on off-shoring for tax avoidance. So, the question then becomes "Are the people / government willing to make the population pay more for clothes and toys and anything else that comes 'Made in China' on moral grounds?' While it's a nice moral position to take, I bet the answer would be a resounding "No," since they already have the option to do so and aren't taking it up in sufficient numbers.
Basically, if people were morally outraged enough, they'd be boycotting it themselves. Instead, they're taking advantage of the cheap production costs and saving money, all the while trying to 'tut tut' at the companies they're buying from. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Heckler - the same points apply broadly to you as well. Do you think that the 99% are really aiming to have the population pay more on moral grounds? Restrictions on off-shoring for tax purposes would kill any prospect of international companies coming to the US to trade. Increases in the top bracket personal tax rate will simply result in high worth individuals continuing to funnel their money out through companies to low-tax jurisdictions, which you can't restrict due to the point above about international companies trading. If it's about equity, the answer isn't to make the top bracket pay more (which encourages avoidance), but rather, to help the poorer build up their wealth / skills and give them the opportunity to earn their money.
On a side note, there was a BBC article I was reading just this week that talked about the definition of the 'rich' or 'wealthy'. Apparently, studies show that the definition of wealthy is incredibly subjective - it's best predicted by doubling the income or net worth of the person being asked (e.g. someone earning 50k thinks that someone earning 100k or more is wealthy; someone earning 100k thinks that someone earning 200k or more is wealthy).
I'm very much a capitalist thinker in that I believe that someone who has worked hard for their money should be rewarded for that, and shouldn't be penalised for the sake of 'equalising' with someone who doesn't work hard. I believe that inequity between the '99%' and the rest is caused by a combination of two things - opportunity, and effort. Neither of those have anything to do with the tax rate. Therefore, why should a government use the tax rate as a band-aid that masks a deeper, core underlying issue? Tax levers and subsidies are not the answer to the problem. The answers are infrastructural issues - free access to healthcare, free access to good education, a culture of 'hard work' rather than 'entitlement' (perhaps via a 'work for unemployment benefits' program that requires the unemployed to engage in 20 hours of council / community service per week before they get any benefits). Anything to drive home the fact that if you have the opportunities, you can only blame yourself for effort if you're behind the Jonses.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
Basically, if people were morally outraged enough, they'd be boycotting it themselves. Instead, they're taking advantage of the cheap production costs and saving money, all the while trying to 'tut tut' at the companies they're buying from. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Two wrongs fallacy. "If the people don't boycott it, we can't make it illegal". The international sex tourism industry is scandalous and is legislated against. The international drug trade... Well, it's legislated against. Heavily. The first war against a concept from the right wing was waged against the drug trade (I think the brief Liberal government in the UK may have instituted a "war" against "squalor, ignorance" and two other things I forget, instituting the NHS and public education, probably in opposition to people saying that it would create a sense of entitlement in the population). Lincoln held that wage slavery was not an actual improvement on indentured slavery. In Capital in a certain state, slaves were limited to 45 hours of work a week (in marshes though, they were essentially expended since there was an inexhaustible supply - comparitive advantage coming into play, local workers must be hale enough to procreate while there is a near inexhaustible supply of slaves), while workers were campaigning for a 60 hour week, with children regularly working longer hours and successive generations having stunted growth.
If it's about equity, the answer isn't to make the top bracket pay more (which encourages avoidance), but rather, to help the poorer build up their wealth / skills and give them the opportunity to earn their money.
Well, the Nordic countries decided in favour of systemic change, though I'm not sure whether that resulted in the prevailing attitude or was a consequence of it. Correlation, causation and all that. Their income is taxed quite heavily and they don't seem to be suffering from it. There seems to be a collective amnesia about taxation during the Eisenhower administration and the resulting GDP growth. There's no economic principle in place that dictates that a high tax rate will lead to a flight of investors. That said, when an opposing principle is in place (i.e purchase labour power in countries where there are no worker's rights), the home bias (I think Adam Smith used this phrase) is overruled and a country's capitalists lead the country to ruin. In fact, Adam Smith recognised this.
Also, the fundamental issue of capitalism isn't addressed: money is made by exploiting another person's labour, deriving succor from the sweat off their back. As Marx put it, given certain variables, a capitalist must put eight men to work in order to double his wealth. If workers had control of the means of production, they would be able to apportion wealth according to the value of their labour.
On a side note, there was a BBC article I was reading just this week that talked about the definition of the 'rich' or 'wealthy'. Apparently, studies show that the definition of wealthy is incredibly subjective - it's best predicted by doubling the income or net worth of the person being asked (e.g. someone earning 50k thinks that someone earning 100k or more is wealthy; someone earning 100k thinks that someone earning 200k or more is wealthy).
Yes, there is a contiguous line and an individual in the 95th percentile may be more exploitative than one at 99.9995 or so. It's more useful to consider control of units of exchange value (purchasing power) and resulting quality of life outcomes though. I think what one will find is that after a certain point the line plateaus. A third yacht will not make a blip on an epidemiology report, while being able to afford life insurance probably will.
ncreases in the top bracket personal tax rate will simply result in high worth individuals continuing to funnel their money out through companies to low-tax jurisdictions.
Except this type of behaviour generally isn't motivated by sanctions, its motivated by greed and the excuse is that they feel persecuted. An obvious example of this would be General Motors deciding to fire workers in a time of great prosperity, making slight adjustments to the corporate balance books: namely, instead of increasing advertising, reducing the price of products or increasing a workers wage, they merely fired the workers to increase their own wealth and decried the welfare system that protected said workers (probably... if Roger Smith's wealth was taxed?). In fact, the welfare system was designed in part to ensure workers could be sustained while they gained skills to join a new industry as their previous one naturally collapsed, not holding into account the fact that unscrupulous individuals would fire workers in a time of prosperity.
Oh yeah,
this video
gives a judicial ruling that pepper spray constitutes unreasonable force when arresting peaceful protestors that are linking arms.
Post by
Heckler
@Squish:
I largely agree with your points about elevating the poor, rather than bringing down the rich. The point of increased taxation on the rich isn't to punish the rich, or anything like that. It's to fund the things you list as necessary. The U.S. government has run massive deficits for the last 30+ years, only
nearing
a balanced budget once in my lifetime (which was promptly destroyed by George W. Bush's tax cuts, which disproportionately favored the richest). My points on increased taxation have very little to do with social engineering, and everything to do with simply funding the government that people want -- the government which allowed the richest few to become what they are in the first place. The behavior of the last 10 years has proven that if anyone has money to burn, it's the richest few who turned our economy into a casino. The economic indicators of the 1950's when paired with the tax rates of the time, should give pause to those who think that a modest income tax increase on the richest 1% will send people running for the border en masse.
Now I do think that in addition to simply raising rates progressively on
income
taxes to a reasonable level (ie. one that creates revenue at least above spending), the
corporate
tax structure needs to be completely reworked. While I would explicitly call for
higher
taxation on income, I don't necessarily think
higher
taxes on corporations are the right decision. Corporate taxation just needs to be streamlined, simplified, and precisely directed at promoting behavior that is beneficial to the overall economy. One of the Right Wing's favorite talking points in America is that the U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world. What this really means is, the tax code is so punched full of holes that Corporations which are able and willing to exploit it fully have a direct advantage over those who try to play by the rules; because the rules are written in a way that still brings in some level of revenue after all the loopholes are found and exploited. The corporate tax code has basically created an industry of tax experts. In the scenario where giant corporations can move all of their labor and profits overseas, and still keep a stranglehold on domestic competition startups -- something is broken.
The only legal motivation for a corporation is maximizing shareholder profit -- therefore, the government has the opportunity to steer corporate behavior through policies which will affect their bottom line. If a corporation is not willing to act as a good citizen of society on their own volition, then a corporate tax code which encourages it is healthy for the society. As for your larger point that a U.S. economy with "larger walls" to economic trade will collapse, I simply don't believe that (ie. I don't believe that many U.S. based corporations could function if they were functionally cut-off from the U.S. through policy changes). I also don't think the correct answer is to wait for the poorest, whose livelihood has been continuously chipped away by bad-citizen corporate policies -- and who are therefore the least able to express their dissatisfaction economically -- to stand up on their own and stop buying imported goods from China. The solution is to make a societal statement that "It is wrong to fund the undermining of our own labor policies and progress in human rights by encouraging behavior that would not be legal in this country," and deal with the consequences as they came. That might mean higher prices (though I think an argument could be made that the net change could be positive when considering domestic wages and increased availability of those things you listed as important above, like health care and education), but it's the right thing to do.
Maybe if unemployment was 2%, you could get the population to agree that it's a simple black and white choice -- allow corporations to dodge U.S. regulations in whatever way they deem most profitable, or pay higher prices for everything. But with unemployment above 10% (perhaps as high as 20% when things like underemployment and discouraged workers considered), I don't think that's such an easy case to make. If corporations can save on shipping costs by keeping more business domestic, and our economy reaches full employment as a result, demand for their goods will rise, and as a result the net payoff could easily offset the cost difference; In addition, the tax base will rise dramatically, increasing quality of life, education rates, public health, etc.
Your other point seems to be that multinational corporations have no intrinsic reason to act in a "patriotic" way (ie. if America, where they were born and became successful, begins to threaten them, they'll just move out of America into the international market where America can't regulate them). I do tend to agree with this, but I don't think it's just a natural unavoidable truth that the people of the World are incapable of fighting against. I actually think finding the means to weaken this sort of leverage (through empowering People) is one of the larger motivators for the Occupy movement as a whole.
Post by
MyTie
. . . I had a chance finally to go back and reread this thread
The taxation post was on page 2, and your quote above was pulled from page 4. While I'm not saying that I expect you to memorize my posts, I honestly thought that if you actually had read the post twice (and by read, I mean carefully paid attention to each idea, followed links provided for elaboration, and arranged the concepts somewhere in relation to your own for contrast and analysis) -- you would have at least retained enough of the information to prevent you from posting the exact same talking point.
Dude. Last time I'm going to say this: I have no interest in talking about taxation. That isn't the main idea in this thread. Your taxation post on page 2 is a great post, and I've read it a handful of times, and I remember it well, but it didn't answer my question. If you posted an answer to "conclusion of OSW" before page 22, then I apologize for asking you to repeat it, but I still have yet to read it (I still don't think it exists before page 22). However, if you DIDN'T post about the desired conclusion, the please stop with the 'why don't you read my posts' gripe. As I said numerous: The thrust of my earlier post was NOT income tax debate, but was about the conclusion of wall street.Moving on. I would like to thank you for this well thought out response to my question about the conclusion of OWS. I understand that you don't feel this to be a 'conclusion', but more like a list of beneficial ideas you would like to see enacted. I'll respond to each individually.
Reinstate common sense financial sector regulations (ie. Glass-Steagall separation, or at least the Volcker Rule).I would agree with this, if you could somehow give domestic banks some sort of leverage to compete with foreign sector banks not working under Glass-Steagall. I don't know how you would do that without nationalizing the banks.Strictly enforce corporate regualtions, even to the point of arresting violators and revoking corporate charters.I agree with this.Clean up housing through forced arbitration of mortgages which meet certain criteria.What would those criteria be? Would this be used as a tool to prevent evictions? I think evictions are necessary to a point.Enforce anti-trust acts (ie. The Sherman Act) to encourage competition and stifle monopoly.I don't entirely agree with this. I don't believe in breaking up monopolies that act in the best interest of the populace and market. I don't think the government should go about breaking up monopolies for the sake of breaking up monopolies. If there were some way to gauge popular opinion before government action, such as make the enforcement a ballot option each time.Constitutional Amendment which overturns the rulings of Citizens United v. FEC (ie. puts an End to corporate personhood).I'd rather see corporate funding to campaigns end than I would like to see federal regulation of campaign speech. You tread dangerous waters when you argue that the federal government can censor what pols say.Explore public financing of campaigns as an option (to allow a more vibrant field of candidates for office, and weaken the powers of special interest).No no no. You are giving federal government the power to control who gets into federal government. Any corruption element in that and you pave the way for a totalitarianism state.Enact strong campaign finance regulations written under the new amendment (to include severe limitations on non-persons like Corporations and Unions, and major transparency requirements).I see the finance regulations part of this as a possible necessity, but we MUST balance regulations, lest they become campaign control. Again, this is a dangerous road to look down.Stop the "revolving door" between Congress and Lobbyists which toxifies our Representative Democracy.Not just congress, but the executive branch as well. I think congresspersons should be among the financially poorest of the people. It should be a public service performed, not taking advantage of the public.Remove all Election activities from the private market (voting machines, ballot counters, etc).I don't understand the logic behind this.Restore proper progressivity to total taxation (ie. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, perhaps even roll back the Reagan tax cuts).Increasing the amount of taxes gathered will cut revenue gathered, and further depress the economy.Increase the progressivity of long-term capital gains.This will discourage long term investment, such as retirement funds.Consider the enactement of a STET to "slow" the speculative influence of the stock market.This would cripple domestic investments in the stock market. Foreign markets would trounce us.Redefine the "top marginal" brackets and rates of income tax (ie. add more brackets). Through progressive increase, raise the new top bracket at least above 50%.So, return their tax rates to a higher level, tax their investments, and then raise their taxes? Why not just buy business owners plane tickets to China?End corporate subsidies that don't make sense (ie. Farm subsidies which give Large AgriBusiness the leverage to put small farmers out of business; Oil subsidies on the front and back end which allow Exxon to not pay for half of their operations, none of their environmental externalities, no U.S. taxes, and even recieve tax refunds), and encourage those that do make sense.I applaud this. I don't agree with subsidies. However, just axing the oil subsidy will be a painful experience at the pump. I don't understand the gax tax and oil subsidy programs, going hand in hand. We will give the oil market money taken from those who buy oil?Redesign the corporate tax code in a way that encourages manufacturing and the growth of exports, and discourages (or even punishes) off-shoring, and removes the "cheating" of the tax code as a requisite to corporate success with competitors who also cheat.I agree with strengthening exports. Putting strict punishments in place for off shoring could end in foreign investors being reluctant to import businesses to the US. Also, I don't know what you mean by 'cheating'. I think the tax code needs to be redone, but if it ends in higher taxes for corporations, you may end with shuttered businesses, and no imported businesses.End Free Trade agreements with Nations that do not have worker's rights laws at least as strong as our own. Renegotiate trade agreements with countries that do not, in a way that uses our economic power to encourage human rights.I'd be happy with this, if I could see a list of countries that would fall into the 'excluded' list. Depending on how strict you want to get, and your definition of human rights, this could be a very long list. For instance, the US allows women to murder their children, and even funds the practice. That's pretty sad in terms of human rights.Enact a public health plan which guarantees some minimum level of care to all citizens.
(secondary effects of these changes would include stronger social safety nets, and increased access to education through lower tuition at public schools, and increased spending on public works projects to keep our economy running smoothly like roads, bridges, power, etc. All of these things will build jobs and a future.)Nationalizing health care (and that is exactly what would happen), will end in lower quality, and higher costs. Sure, the individual doesn't pay the 1000 dollar medical bill, instead they pay the 1700 dollar tax, and they don't get to choose their doctor, and they get to wait in line for 5 or 6 years. What is proposed by nationalizing the health care industry is two things which you should despise: a monopoly, and bureaucracy.
Post by
Heckler
I don't think many of your replies work well for starting a discussion, but these two caught my attention:
Redefine the "top marginal" brackets and rates of income tax (ie. add more brackets). Through progressive increase, raise the new top bracket at least above 50%.
So, return their tax rates to a higher level, tax their investments, and then raise their taxes? Why not just buy business owners plane tickets to China?
If the mass response of the business community to a rise in their tax rates was to flee the country, I would welcome that as an outcome. I think I have way more faith in "American Exceptionalism" than most conservatives who throw the phrase around. Any businessman who leaves America is also leaving behind one of the world's most skilled workforces, most sound legal protection systems for their intellectual property and dealings, and a very functional infrastructure for their logistics. If simply asking them to pay their fair share of the societal contract is enough for them to flush their National pride away and leave, then good riddance. There's plenty more talent in this country that will take their place, and be just as successful while working within the confines of the system as a good corporate citizen.
I refuse to believe that America is so fragile as to be held hostage by threats of "..or else I'll go to China!" The fact is, we've been spending on a Credit Card for 30 years, and its time to start paying the bill. Cut spending all you want, but as long as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Dept. of Defense exist, we need to drastically increase revenue simply to keep our heads above water (much less talk about increasing access to education and other things). Everyone should consider it their patriotic duty to do their part in that regard. There's a reason that we raised taxes to 91% to pay off the WWII debt, and we should consider what it says about our National identity that some are screaming about leaving the country if that same rate is now increased above 35%.
Restore proper progressivity to total taxation (ie. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, perhaps even roll back the Reagan tax cuts).
Increasing the amount of taxes gathered will cut revenue gathered, and further depress the economy.
I was going to type a longer reply, but I started predicting your response would be full of Heritage and Cato dogma, and changed my mind (that sort of discussion is about as worthwhile as a religion debate). I'll just repeat myself that there's a lot of evidence that we're still very much in the "normal" region of the Laffer Curve where increasing the tax rates increases revenue, and decreasing them decreases revenue. Even Art Laffer himself wouldn't agree that it's simply a law of nature that decreasing tax rates always increases government revenue no matter what -- you don't even have to think very hard to realize that pushing tax rates down to 0% couldn't mathematically increase revenue. Recent evidence in the form of Bush's tax cuts utterly destroying Clinton's budget surplus is a good example -- if what you're saying is true, government revenue should have skyrocketed in 2001. It didn't.
Post by
MyTie
I was going to type a longer reply, but I started predicting your response would be full of Heritage and Cato dogma, and changed my mind (that sort of discussion is about as worthwhile as a religion debate).I was under the assumption we were operating on a level of mutual respect. I was mistaken.
Post by
Heckler
I was going to type a longer reply, but I started predicting your response would be full of Heritage and Cato dogma, and changed my mind (that sort of discussion is about as worthwhile as a religion debate).I was under the assumption we were operating on a level of mutual respect. I was mistaken.
That wasn't meant to be a dig (though if you insist on taking it as one, I honestly don't care, it serves as a convenient way to avoid responding to anything else I wrote in the post) -- those are the two largest think tanks who write about taxation and revenue. If you Google just about anything on the subject, they'll be half the top results. In addition, they've been the ones behind the spread of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" story.
It wouldn't be constructive for me to say "Show me evidence, but not from Heritage or Cato," right? A perfectly reasonable response from you (if I would have written two paragraphs about the historical impact of tax rate changes, or the mathematical basis of the Laffer Curve, for example) would be a simple link to Heritage's website. And as I said, taxation debates where it's just theory vs. theory (especially between two armchair economists) are more akin to theological debate than anything -- after all, what right do I have to simply discount Heritage's theories as if they're not one of the Nation's leading think tanks?
To carry the religion analogy forward: I sincerely doubt I have any chance of even slightly altering your viewpoint on the topic by arguing against your "sacred text" (Heritage) and you have very little chance of altering mine by just throwing your sacred text at me. These are the reasons I don't usually take part in religious discussions.
So rather than turning my reply into a 'religious' one by throwing my own "sacred text" at you, I decided to simply state a couple reasons why what you wrote ("
Increasing the amount of taxes gathered will cut revenue gathered
") is at the very least an incomplete statement, and perhaps you'd be willing to explain how the inconsistency in 2001-2002 meshes with your views, or acknowledge that there is a lower rate limit to the philosophy of
lower rates = higher revenue
.
Let me rewrite the part that you quoted in a way that is less likely to appear as an attack, but still carries the same meaning:
"I typed out a longer reply, but I realized I was just typing standard left-wing arguments against standard right-wing ones. Because it felt silly to have a 'proxy' war with stuff that we can both just Google, I decided to start over, because that type of argument isn't worth having."
Post by
MyTie
To carry the religion analogy forward: I sincerely doubt I have any chance of even slightly altering your viewpoint on the topic by arguing against your "sacred text" (Heritage) and you have very little chance of altering mine by just throwing your sacred text at me. These are the reasons I don't usually take part in religious discussions.
I understand exactly what you mean, and I still take it negatively. I AM willing to change my viewpoints. The fact that you wrote me off as a waste of time in your first sentence is the problem. My economic viewpoints aren't a religion. I am more than willing to examine evidence. I'm willing to examine evidence in reference to religion for that matter.
Post by
MyTie
Cut spending all you want, but as long as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Dept. of Defense exist, we need to drastically increase revenue simply to keep our heads above water (much less talk about increasing access to education and other things).
Now we are talking! I'd agree with selling Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to the private sector. If no one buys it, ditch it. Dept of Defense I would agree to an 80% cut. Keep 20% up for nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, subs, long range bombers, and border protection. I'd agree with closing all military bases but 7. 2 in Europe, 1 in Korea, 1 in middle east, 3 in US (Hawaii, Texas, Virginia). Sell all other military assets, stripped of weapons potential (buildings, aircraft, etc). We could also do away with the Federal DoT, DoE, and give DoHS to DoD.
If we did all that, I would agree to a 5% tax increase, but with comprehensive tax reform. I would push for a flat tax.
Post by
gamerunknown
Protesters discover an undercover officer.
Kind of upsetting, the reaction. In my opinion they should have welcomed the guy. I mean, studies show police officers may be more conservative than the population, but if the protesters want to expand support they should show the effectiveness of fraternity.
Post by
Adamsm
Can't believe this thing is still going....
Edit: The 'protest' not the thread.
Post by
gamerunknown
The 'protest' not the thread.
Do you think that the protesters do not have legitimate grievances? I'm hoping they're going to continue until their grievances are addressed by the legislature, because at the moment, that isn't happening. Well, there may be some prospects as banker bonuses are being reduced.
Post by
Squishalot
The 'protest' not the thread.
Do you think that the protesters do not have legitimate grievances? I'm hoping they're going to continue until their grievances are addressed by the legislature, because at the moment, that isn't happening. Well, there may be some prospects as banker bonuses are being reduced.
I don't! :D
Why should others (protesters) be happy because someone else (bankers) is losing out?
Everybody who holds banking shares should be horrified at the idea that their institutions are going to lose talented people who bring in big dollars for their company, all for the sake of appeasing a horde of people who feel that a big salary is unfair.
Let me put it another way. If someone earns (risk-adjusted) $50m for a company, why shouldn't they be paid $10m for their work?
("Because they're taking huge risks," I hear you say!)
Ok, so for those bankers who are lending money to the small businesses of the world, helping people fund franchises, law practices, accounting firms, build homes, purchase cars and pay for groceries, why shouldn't they be paid commensurate to the work they bring in?
Post by
gamerunknown
Let me put it another way. If someone earns (risk-adjusted) $50m for a company, why shouldn't they be paid $10m for their work?
When the fact that the bankers are even employed at the moment is due to the fact that they've relied on the taxpayer to pay for their systemic failures, they should not be rewarding themselves for duping the public. Especially when their methods of wealth generation revolve around financial manipulations entirely independent of production, which is an advance for capitalism over exploiting the surplus-value of labour by controlling the means of production.Edit: The point of banks was originally to give people temporal access to currency to increase their ability to valorise their labour into produce, either by purchasing houres nearer to the means of production, paying for their education so that they could work more efficiently or by allowing them to actually purchase means of production that they could not afford otherwise.
Post by
Adamsm
The 'protest' not the thread.
Do you think that the protesters do not have legitimate grievances? I'm hoping they're going to continue until their grievances are addressed by the legislature, because at the moment, that isn't happening. Well, there may be some prospects as banker bonuses are being reduced.
They may have legitimate grievances....but they are going about it the wrong way; sit in's and the like were appropriate in the 50's in regards to the Civil Rights Movement, to try to get things changed....but these people? Taking over parks and streets, trying to keep the average worker from going to work to feed their family? Yeah...no; I don't support that type of thing. I also think what they are protesting is a little dumb.
Post by
gamerunknown
They may have legitimate grievances....but they are going about it the wrong way; sit in's and the like were appropriate in the 50's in regards to the Civil Rights Movement, to try to get things changed....but these people? Taking over parks and streets, trying to keep the average worker from going to work to feed their family? Yeah...no; I don't support that type of thing. I also think what they are protesting is a little dumb.
I think protests are symptomatic rather than causal. The sit ins were a result of longer term opposition and debate in Congress as well as appeals from all sectors from society, each of which did not accomplish any particular change. You're right to highlight the sit ins of the 50s though, Howard Zinn points out that they preceded the Civil Rights Marches of the 60s with minimal fanfare or attention. Also of note is that Martin Luther King was actually on his way to a demonstration for rights of sanitation workers rather than minorities when he was assassinated.
Besides, in London at least, the protesters are quite out of the way and actually draw attention from tourists and segments of society both supportive and hostile to the cause. I was speaking to a German guy that quite opposed direct democracy but whose primary concern was proportional representation and political involvement, I met an American guy taking a break from his MA that was wearing a windbreaker and said it was far too cold to camp down there and there was a tent of Kurdish exiles that were there in solidarity with global protests. A police presence was required but I think the primary intention was visibility and commitment rather than being an obstacle to the daily activities of others.
As for how dumb it is: well, I pointed out earlier that the Harvard Medical School came to the conclusion that 45000 Americans a year are dying as a result of lack of insurance coverage, in other words 3* as many are murdered each year and 15* as many died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th: but billionaires think it unfair they pay a cent more than the guy working minimum wage to ensure that his fellow citizen wont die. I for one am not going to be telling the Occupy guys that they ought to be complacent.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.