Apologize for the excessive posts, but figured this was timely.
I know U.Eric, you are a big fan of Michael Moore. Is this class warfare in your view? These protestors are outside my building as well in San Francisco, most of their signs read "Destroy Capitalism" and "The Greedy Rich have killed us". None of this makes any sense, but Michael Moore just cheers them on. Is there an analogy here to the communists in Russia demonizing Mennonite and other wealthy farmers?
Here is the video to cut and paste:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/03/moore_the_rich_are_out_of_control_kleptomaniacs_sociopaths.html
I wish I had posted this before "Occupy Wall Street." I thought it then, but did not post. It would have sounded a little different.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw what was happening this spring in the Arab world, I thought it is only a matter of time before it happens in the US, Canada, and other western countries. The oppression and exploitation of the working class by the "top 1%" in the Arab world is of the neanderthal kind. In the West it is much more Machiavellian, but just as real nevertheless.
It does not have to be that way. But in the end, the top 1% are going to determine how its going to be. It may not be pretty.
I agree with you, this mentality is tied to the Arab Spring. In fact, many of the signs outside my building say something to the effect of "We support our brothers in Egypt, Libya.." etc. The difference is in the US and Canada, if you destroy the top 1%, the bottom 50% will LOSE their benefits (as the top 1% finance it) and they will be much worse off. A capitalist economy is not a zero-sum game. In other words, because the top 1% have a lot of money, does not imply the bottom have less. It is actually the exact opposite, because the top 1% have a lot, means others have more. How? They employ many people, pay high taxes, invest in businesses, start foundations, etc. If the top 1% disappeared, everyone would be worse off.
ReplyDeleteIn the Middle-East, the top 1% are exploiting their people as they are the ruling class. They are not the tax payers, but the tax recipients in those countries. That dynamic is not the case in the US and Canada, as we know that the top 1% pay nearly 50% of income taxes.
1. Whether one believes in trickle down economics (as you do) or not (as I do), a truth we can all agree on is that if the people are content there is stability, if they are not, instability can easily ensue. I have referenced The Equality Trust before. I am more convinced now that they are on to something today than I was a week ago.
ReplyDelete2. Before one ridicules the people on the street too much, one should remember that although these people do not face real bullets (at this time) as they do in Syria, but they do face pepper spray and arrest. We would do well to try to understand them. Try this for starters: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_best_among_us_20110929/
3. I agree that in the French Revolution and the Russian revolution, the top 1% disappeared, and those countries were worse off -- much worse. But it does not have to be that way. And the top 1% determine how it is going to be. Whether you agree with FDR's or R.B.Bennet's economics, they conveyed to the people that they cared. The 1% have the choice: they can continue with their bonus culture, or they can restructure corporate America to recognize the needs of the bottom 40%.
btw I never post a comment without first copying it. I have lost too many absolutely great comments that way.
btw Yeh, we should use labels, although the comments sometimes go all over the place.
But to address the issue, do you believe that Michael Moore is fanning the flames of class warfare? I believe he is fanning those flames, and doing so wrongly. There are ways to more honestly protest income inequality, than falsely accusing Wall Street of being a bunch of thieves.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good example of providing clarity to some of the protestors. I credit CNBC, and i credit this protestor for listening to reason.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/erin-burnett-calls-out-wall-street-protesters-2011-10
For the record, I would not describe myself as a "big fan" of Michael Moore. I would reserve the "big fan" designation for people like Greg Boyd, Brian Mclaren and Tony Campolo, Mark Van Steenwyk and Shane Claiborne. Basically, I agree with his perspective on gun control, health care, and capitalism, but would not take him as an authority on any of them. He is a film maker.
ReplyDeleteYes Michael Moore is fanning the flames of class warfare. But as I tried to say above, I belive there is class warfare in the US (and Canada today) , and the top 1% are winning. My prayer is that they see this and begin to take some corrective action while there is still time. Otherwise my fear is that we are heading for a period of incredible instability. Is this hysteria on my part?
btw did you go and talk to some of the demonstrators outside your building?
I think your last comments make sense and are not hysteria.
ReplyDeleteAs you can perhaps tell, I enjoy lively discussions, hence every day I go down and interact with the protestors. From the conversations I have had, there are two conclusions; the people are well intentioned and confused. Why do I say that? Well the conversation always starts with their claim that "bank X got $25b bailout which isn't fair" to which I retort "that is true, but they paid it back, and the government has made profit on it". They have never heard this before, and I give them credit that they seem open to listening to me and not simply yelling. They usually say something to the effect of "we don't have to agree on everything, but we can use your help, as we are on an unsustainable path". I say "I agree, the path is unsustainable, but you have a website with 11 solutions, and I believe i disagree with at least 10 of them". For example, one claim is "forgiving all debts", would simply cause a big moral hazard and would bankrupt the banking system and thus would destroy the economy for everyone. Anyway, I could go on, but in general they are nice people but extremely radical. The lady I spoke with today (her name was Magic) said she wanted to "abolish all private property". When I asked to her if she could site an example of where that model has worked successfully, she admitted she couldn't.
Anyway, what do you propose the top 1% do? I believe that if the environment is more clear from a tax and regulatory standpoint, they would begin to create more jobs. I believe that politicians that quit falsely demonizing the top 1% would also reduce the hatred of the rich by these people. Taxing the top 1% at 80%, will simply hurt everyone. As Lincoln said "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich".
I am surprised that you have said repeatedly that the rich are hated. Maybe they are envied. If I were aspiring to riches, I would envy them. I think the Wall street protesters more commonly refer to the rich as greedy, which of course they are. This is the nature of capitalism: it extols greed, and makes this characteristic which the bible describes as a sin into a virtue.
ReplyDeleteWhat can the top 1% do [the question you are asking is not "what can the government do"]? The answer is ridiculously easy. Abandon its culture of entitlement, abandon it's bonus culture. This culture says, in essence, that because I have the power to draw a multi-million dollar salary while others in my company draw a poverty wage, it is right for me to do so.
Embrace Warren Buffet, rather than ridicule him with respect to his attitude towards taxation.
By coincidence, Mary and I were with our small group bible study last night. We are taking a look at Psalm 23, and the discussion leader had us examining the role of the shepherd. In the course of that discussion we were referred to Ezekiel 34, the whole chapter. Wow. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2034&version=TNIV
Do I think this will happen? Who knows. History tells us it could go either way.
Well when people on the far left like Michael Moore call bankers "kleptomaniacs" largely because they are rich, sounds more like hatred than envy to me.
ReplyDeleteAs to your second paragraph, I thought we addressed this issue. I understand your preference for a company where everyone gets paid $20,000 a year, to a company where the CEO gets paid $100 million, and the lower employees get paid $100,000 a year. We have a point of clarity were you and I disagree.
Warren Buffet is being very dishonest, and his solution of raising income taxes, would actually have no impact on him, as his taxes are all capital gains. I am happy to expand on this.
I think you are making two flawed assumptions overall. One, that a capitalist economy is a zero-sum game, and therefore if a rich man has money, it implies someone else has less. That is not how an economy works, rather money is created by providing goods and services people need. If you limit this creation incentive and ability, and redistribute, we know that a society is more equal, but in general more equally poor (and as the paragraph above shows, you and I disagree on what is better). Two, you link rich with greed, and that rich people are greedy and poor people are not. The Bible clearly teaches that being greedy is a mentality of living for money. It never suggests having wealth is a bad thing. Given the protestors want money for nothing (their demands are that people deserve a living wage, free eduction, free health care, etc.., even if people do nothing) and stats show that as a % of their wealth, the bottom 20% in the US give much less than the top 20%. I think Biblically, one can make a case that the bottom 20% of our society, are more greedy than the top 1%.
Kleptomania: "An obsessive impulse to steal regardless of economic need." "Steal" can mean many different things. Hosni Mobarak made the rules, so he did not have to "steal" anything. It was all legal. Ditto for Mabutu sese Seko, und und und. If you make the rules, there is no need to steal anything. Yet that's what it is!
ReplyDeleteWhere we agreed to differ is that I prefer to work for a company that is more egalitarian, you prefer to work for the company that pays you the most. But you said yourself that you appreciated your company because your CEO was compassionate when the going got tough. You asked "What can the 1% do?" I say become more compassionate, like your boss. Very simple! What governments should do is a much more complex question.
I would be interested in more about Warren Buffet. I don't know much about him.
You MAY be correct about money. There SEEMS to be no limit to the amount of money that can be created. Time will tell. Regardless, physics and biology don't follow that rule. Even you don't believe the planet could tolerate everyone consuming at the rate North Americans consume. In other words, we can consume at the rate we do in part because the rest of the world consumes less.
Regarding greed, I am not clear why you are suggesting the wealthy are not greedy. Since reading Ayan Rand, I have been convinced that capitalism extols greed. Correct me if you don't agree.
I wonder where you get your stats. Below are stats I found quickly. I do not say mine are right and yours are wrong, but it raises serious questions about sources.
Tithing and Income: “In general, the more money a person makes the less likely he/she is to tithe. While 8 percent of those making $20,000 or less gave at least 10 percent of their income to churches, that proportion dropped to 5 percent among those in the $20,000-$29,999 and $30,000-$39,999 categories; to 4 percent among those in the $40,000-$59,999 range, down to 2 percent for those in the $60,000-$74,999 niche; and to 1 percent for those making $75,000-$99,999. The level jumped a bit for those making $100,000 or more, as 5 percent of the most affluent group tithed in 1999.”
Source: http://library.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161
The web site is not always clear whether they are talking about charitable giving or giving to churches.
Then from the NY Times:
In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.
This from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html
Well it is good to get clarity, that you find that top 1% kleptomaniacs as well - is that a fair read of your first paragraph?
ReplyDeleteGreed being good, is simply the notion that if I want money in a capitalist system, I need to provide goods or services others want. If build cars, I have to build cars people want in order to make profits (unlike the soviet system of building Lada's which constantly broke down). That benefits all in theory. The alternative, is to have the government decide, and that meets needs less efficiently. It has never been meant to suggest greed is a good trait.
I do believe the entire world could consume like North America, if productivity levels were at our level. We have been through this topic two years ago.
I appreciate the data on giving, I am going off memory from an article I read in the Wall Street Journal. If I dig it up, i will attach.
But net, I still am unaware of one tangible thing the top 1% should do, to make things better. They already pay most of the taxes, they employee alot of people, and as I have tried to show raising taxes on them will cause less money to come in due to elasticity. Yes, every person regardless of income can do better to be a good person, but what specifically should the top 1% do, or are they held to a higher standard of morality?
If the answer needs to be yes or no, the answer is no. In normal English usage, Kleptomania describes a particular compulsion people get arrested for. Psychologists help people deal with kleptomania, and it does not help the English language to use this word to describe the super rich. Having said that, I have trouble understanding many things the very wealthy do. Some of their activity, no doubt results in the goods and services you refer to, but a lot of it is blatantly destructive and self serving at the expense of others.
ReplyDeleteYou are describing a perfectly functioning free market, capitalist system. But you know that western economies are now dominated by monopolists, oligopolists and oligarchs.
Only an economist or someone immersed in financial dealings could possibly believe that. Money (and gold) don't make a tasty breakfast. But at least we have clarity.
And I am repeating myself. It is the top 1% who determine how the worlds goods are distributed. They are the ones who set the rules that govern that distribution. History (and the Equality Trust) teach us that the more uneven the distribution of goods, the greater the discontent which, all too often leads to instability and revolution.
Have you read Ezekiel 34?
What can the 1% do? I was just reading up on one of my heroes, Julius Nyerere. This is one report of his funeral.
ReplyDelete"Nearly a million people filled the streets of Dar es Salaam Monday to pay their last respects to former Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere.
Huge crowds lined the route from the airport to his home. His body was carried on a military gun-carriage.
First-aid workers had to treat hundreds of people for heat exhaustion and emotional stress. Dozens of others were slightly hurt when they were trampled by crowds trying to see the funeral cortege.
Nyerere died in London last week after a long battle with leukemia. He was 77.
Nyerere was president of Tanzania for 24 years. He not only led his country to independence from Britain in 1961, but had a hand in reshaping the entire continent by fighting for people's rights and freedoms.
At the end of his political career, Nyerere showed no interest in the lavish lifestyle favoured by some other African leaders. He lived modestly on a government pension."
How the rich and powerful live is a choice they make, but it also follows from a culture we all participate in forming.
The one point of clarity that feel I have, is confirmation of the Dennis Prager quote that conservatives divide the world in terms of good and evil, while liberals do it in terms of rich and poor.
ReplyDeleteYour basic solution appears to be to have the top 1% redistribute more income, to even things out, even though you implicitly acknowledge it will ultimately bring everyone down. We both agree that it would be preferable if the gap between rich and poor was more narrow, but I want to focus on bringing the poor up (Charter Schools, elimination of minimum wage which limits initial job experience, work training for those receiving government assistance, etc.), whereas it appears you want to bring the rich down. Certainly the wall street protestors have that one goal in mind.
Yes, I did read Ezekiel 34. I believe that through most of the history of the world (and in particular the world 3000 years ago) people’s wealth level in life was largely determined at birth, and the top 1% truly did rule over the people. I don’t believe that we live in that kind of society (although sadly most of the world still does). We touched on this earlier, by your perspective on randomoness vs my perspective on persistence, in playing a central role in our lives.
I have often wondered if it would be productive to do an organized Bible study on this blog. I think if we both took different sections to support our views, that would likely be counterproductive, but perhaps there is a systematic way of doing it.
In light of the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors being in front of my office, I thought I would rely two quick anecdotes.
ReplyDeleteSo there are now barriers outside the doors of the Fed building (the building beside mine in San Francisco). I asked what caused that, and the police told me that the protestors went to the bathroom (their terminology was more vulgar) on the doors and walls of the building. So now some of the protestors outside are handing out pamphlets to their fellow protestors reading “Feel Free to use the bathrooms of the local businesses, without obligation to buy anything”. I do think this summarizes their thinking, and the thinking of many on the left. The mentality is that they have no obligations, just rights, and society owes them.
I do not understand the charter school situation. I agree with you that there are better ways of supporting low income families than minimum wage. The last time I read about minimum wage (which is not recently) the Left was very much divided on the issue of minimum wage. I very much favour work training for those receiving government assistance, but how that is structured is extremely important.
ReplyDeleteYou believe in trickle down economics. I believe in bottom up economics. I very much doubt that one can PROVE one or the other. As one looks for data sets, there simply are too many other variables affecting well being that probably cannot be eliminated to make the data convincing.
And yes, I believe the size of the pie is fixed. Not absolutely, there is some growth here and some shrinkage there, but basically fixed. I believe technology is a wonderful thing, and it has done much to make this world a better place, but technological progress has a price tag and its limitations, which unfortunately many ignore. You may want to reread what I wrote about "Energy for Power", "Phosphate" and "Nitrogen".
My first reaction to your anecdotes was surely you are speaking only of a few protesters. It does not take many to derail a "peaceful" protest.
But then Mary and I went to watch "The Help" last night showing in our local theatre. An evening well spent. The movie depicts the journey of a writer as she comes to understand the situation of a domestic servant (help) in Georgia.
What's relevant to this discussion is that one of the domestics is abused by her employer. She sees no way of righting the score, so she backs a pie with her own "shit" and tricks that employer to eat it. Did she do the right thing? Watch the movie and let me know. I can tell you she is not the first domestic to use this means to get even. Futile -- of course. Understandable -- I think so. Justifiable -- I'm not sure.
You were disappointed when Obama got elected. I understand that. But there were a whole lot of people who had felt disfranchised who campaigned vigorously for him because of his message of change and "yes we can". They have been much more disappointed, because they thought they had won, but in fact he has come through on virtually none of the change he promised. So what recourse do they have, if the ballot box does not work.
My reading of Ezekiel 34 is that the measure of the integrity of the shepherd (government) is how well he looks after the weak sheep (note: not the strong, fat sheep). These weak sheep are weak for a number of reasons, but one of them is abuse by the strong, fat sheep. I fail to see the relevance of whether the wealth is inherited or acquired.
I'm always interested in Bible Study. I'm not sure what you have in mind. You say organized and systematic. Please elaborate. Do you mean that we would seriously dig into what the Bible has to say about good and evil, rich and poor. How would one do that in a "systematic way"? One idea, not even a suggestion: I have recently pointed to Ezekiel 34 and Leviticus 25. You have recently said that what the bible has to say about tithing is relevant to tax policy today. Are you suggesting that each of us expound on our understanding of those passages?
Well I think we have reached a few points of clarity. You value equality, I value equal opportunity. You believe in bottoms-up, I believe in top-down. I think you in general see the world in terms of rich and poor, and I in terms of good and evil. Is that a fair summation of what we have accomplished in differentiating you and I, Left and Right?
ReplyDeleteEither way, I think we have accomplished reaching points where we can agree to disagree, and we are starting to both repeat prior arguments (plus others are no longer responding, so we may have successfully bored everybody). That is why I was thinking that the Bible is a book you and I both respect more than any other source of data or wisdom. I am not sure just yet how we accomplish a study of it. What is important is to capture the full picture but keep the arguments focused, and perhaps my desire is too ambitious. But I figure there are many people that have at times read this blog, that are more knowledgeable on the Bible than I, and I would enjoy learning from others perspective.
A nice short article to remind people want caused the financial collapse.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
What caused the financial collapse? Having read the article you mention, I struggle with the appearance of "passing the buck". It's all the governments fault. To me it sounded a little like it's all the women's fault Lord , she tempted me with the apple. At what point do we accept responsibility for our own actions? Individually and as a society. What responsibiity do the richest 1% bear to the rest of society? What is fair taxation for oil companies that in essence control the lifestyle of the "developed" world. Recall the golden rule..He who has the gold makes the rules. How fair is that? How just is that? In my mind a benevolent dictator is the most efficient and effective form of government, but that doesn't mean I want it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway - if this gets through another miracle happened as several of my responses have been lost and yes I have been chided on using a wp program and transfering it, but I have moments of inspiration and then they are gone. But I will learn
Big Kudos to Karl for engaging demonstrators in discussion
Bibe Study - open to various ideas - great concept - read an interesting article on tithing recently and short version is that the more affluent the people the less inclined they are to tithe. Now why is that. The more you have the more you hoard?
kk
RE Tithing article - Now I remember where it was. Must have been a fantastic point. It was in the prosper blog! Now how exciting is that. Fun and educational too.
ReplyDeletekk
I 100% agree, we need to take personal responsibility for failed policy. Individually, many should not have borrowed money they could not afford to pay back. Collectively, we need to realize we elected incompetent politicians, that pushed an agenda, encouraging a lack of responsibility by borrowers. Unfortunately, most have not learned those lessons, and instead blame the banks and the rich. Why not, politicians and the media largely beat the drum of that false message.
ReplyDeleteWe have a lot of foreign born employees at our firm, from third world countries. I went down with them to watch the protestors today. They cannot understand, how in a country with so many opportunities, that so many protestors choose to play the victim card, instead of taking advantage of opportunities that don't exist in the vast majority of countries.
I don't believe the top 1% have a different responsibility than anyone else. Perhaps I am not thinking it through logically. I believe those that take money from the government, rich or poor, should ask themselves if they are being responsible or simply a mooch.
Oil companies pay the highest taxes the US - to me that seems high enough.
I agree completely, a benevolent dictator is the best system.
Regarding comments lost in cyberspace, I now never post a comment unless I have it saved somewhere. Either in my word processor or, simply on my clip board (ctrl A, ctrl C).
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Wallison article, thanks for posting that. Interesting. I have no doubt that regulation favouring home ownership (which increased from 65% to 69%) contributed to the collapse, which is the point Wallinson is wanting to make in light of the protests. But surely that's not the whole story.
What I would like to see is a comprehensive analysis that includes Willinson's perspective, but would also include Alan Greenspan's insight. Recall he said after the collapse "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief." And add another perspective that world oil prices peaked at almost exactly that time as well.
Regarding the taking of responsibility:
- those who borrowed beyond their means, have lost their homes.
- those who chose to work for a company that functioned within the housing bubble have lost their jobs.
- the bankers who made the bad loans and sold the derivatives were given bonuses.
- financial advisers who worked with Bush and Clinton and did not see the burst bubble coming, were hired by the Obama administration.
Regarding Ford: I have no idea whether there is any relationship between Ford not needing a bailout [in 2008] and Fordism. Goggle for it. I like to think there is a relationship, but maybe that's just my bias showing. Ford pioneered the idea that increased efficiency should lead to increased wages so the workers could purchase.
To your point of taking responsibility. First, 8.1% of homes in America as of August 2011, where overdue on their mortgages (well over half of those above were overdue more than 90 days). Therefore, many of those not paying for their homes are not taking responsibility. Second, the notion that bankers are getting paid for bad loans is wrong (or an minimum very misleading). At any bank, there are thousands of employees. In certain years, certain divisions or employees do extremely well, in other years they don’t. Therefore, the while there are reports that “banks are stilling paying bonuses”, but the ones getting paid are changing constantly – and certainly not those in the mortgage origination. Additionally, most of that bonus money is paid in stock. The stock price of many banks (take Bank of America) are down nearly 90% since 2007. So bankers have suffered immensely, even though certain groups within the bank are very profitable this year.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I implied that all those who borrowed beyond their mean lost their homes or that all bankers received bonuses. Obviously there are very significant exceptions.
ReplyDeleteRegarding a possible bible study, I have only been a part of two kinds: one is where we decide on a specific biblical passage to study, to try to understand it, and then explore for ways of applying that today. The other is to decide on an issue, and then try to understand what the bible speaks to that issue. Both can be very meaningful, and I have learned a great deal from both. I'm open to either. What passage, or what issue?
Were we to study a CS Lewis book, that would then be a book study. I love CS Lewis (although not as much now as I used to) and would be very open to that. What book?
I am not sure how this works and if I am allowed to comment on this post anymore. Additionally I am new to this blog and I am sure if over the years you guys have discussed this stuff to death but it is a bit of new thinking for me. Obviously I have had my father's influence with thinking about rich and poor and I have friend's influence who would differ significantly from my point of view, but I do not have friends that actually know much about it. So I have to ask here.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to the topic of Occupy Wallstreet. I find myself identifying with the protestors a bit. I have not read their 11 demands and I think that I would probably disagree with many of their demands as does Karl, as these groups can be a bit unrealistic from time to time. I do find myself identiying with their sentiment though. I will try to explain why. Also, I am not one of the 1% here in Canada, but worldwide I probably am one of the 1%, so I am one of rich in many instances.
I think this is what is at least somewhat frustrating to the protesters on Wall Street. I also know, as has been said often lately, that the top 1% pay 40% of the taxes. The frustration I think comes from the fact that in the late 80's the top 1% paid around 25% of the taxes. The bottom 99% paid 75%. Today as we have seen the top 1% pays more and bottom 99% less. Logically this means, since taxes are not 100% for the rich, that they have increased their income by 3-4 times. If taxes are around 30% of their income. I obviously I haven't done any of the actual math here and could easily be 2 times or 6 times. That also means that the bottom 99% make less. They pay less in taxes so their income has dropped.
I obviously realize that the 1% are the ones that do the employing and the wage paying (as well as the most tax paying). I think the frustration for the protesters is that the 1% have increased their income a lot in 20 years while simultaneously decreasing the wages of their own employees. Also since the unemployment rate in the late 80's was 5% and has more then doubled lately, it stands to reason that the 1% have essentially increased their income many times while decreasing the wages they pay their employees and firing people. Obviously this is a very simplistic look at things but I think this is what the protesters are seeing.
I think that many people who contribute to this blog would disagree and that the protesters are not seeing it this way. What do others think is the sentiment behind Occupy Wallstreet?
I also won't be offended at all if one of you says we have talked about this already and I really need to catch up!!
Mark
I may take back my entire comment. I reread this entire post and almost all of it has been talked around but I am not sure if the sentiment was addressed.
ReplyDeleteMark
Wow, since i never comment on any blogs I am feeling the need to really qualify my comments. No facial expressions or tone in a comment. I realize there are many arguments to what i stated above and some I would even agree with, but I think that is what the protesters are seeing and reacting to.
ReplyDeleteHoping this is making sense.
At the very least I am making the number of comments increase significantly just by myself and I am filling up your email box if you subscribe with my useless comments after the comment. As I carry on with my day I am sure i will think of all the different ways this could be taken and thoughts different then the one I posted and I will simply fill your emails with that as well!!
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI think you make an excellent point. While the top 1% pay far more taxes than the bottom 90%, and they pay far more as a % of their wealth than others, the top 1% has seen a much larger improvement in their incomes the past 5, 10, 30 years than the bottom 50%. Why is that? I believe it has little to do with power or politics. I think the primary issue is that in a global and technology rich economy, lower skilled jobs have competition from cheap foreign labor. Meanwhile, specialized skills benefit because you can now use those skills to benefit on a global scale. So in other words, the guy making t-shirts won’t be paid well as somebody in China can do it cheaper, and therefore they will continually face increased global competition. But for the person that builds a great phone, like Steve Jobs, can now quickly sell that phone globally and reach 6 billion people.
So the times we live in, benefit skilled labor at the expense of unskilled, more than ever. While the unemployment rate in the US is over 9%, the unemployment rate for college grades is a low 4.5%. I don’t blame Bush, Obama, or any politician in general for the unemployment gap between the educated and uneducated (although I do blame Obama in particular for the high level of overall unemployment). The solutions have to be how do we build up the skill levels of the poor, and simply spending more money I don’t think is the answer (the US already spends the second most per capita on education, and the results are terrible).
Unfortunately, the solutions by the protestors are dominated with thoughts of tearing down the rich – instead of building up the poor. I know of no examples in history, where tearing down the rich, benefitted anyone. To the extent the protestors complain about bail-outs, they are ill informed that such money has been paid back by the banks.
I thorougly enjoyed this exchange between Mark and Karl and learned a thing or two.
ReplyDeleteYou and Monica, just keep on commenting wherever you wish, we have no rules and regulations and time limits, ha ha. It is refreshing to have you both here.
Sorry I have been dominating lately. It will stop soon I hope, when the EU crisis settles down, till then I need to ask ?'s , I need this outlet.
Are the protestors still outside your bldg Karl?
in other words, globalization has been an unequivocal blessing for the multi-nations, and by extension for the very rich, but mixed blessing for the ordinary Joe. I mean, so I can now buy a cheaper sweater at Wallmart, but if I'm without a job, that does not do me much good -- net I am not a happier person.
ReplyDeleteKarl, your reading of history and your reading of the protesters may be correct, but is it relevant? In my opinion, a more relevant reading of history, is that there are probably no cases where increasing disparity of wealth has lead to stability, in fact there are oh so many cases where wealth disparity has to instability and unrest - indeed revolution.
My reading of protest is that the protester is fed up with the status quo -- period!!! To expect protesters to have a unified voice, or for that matter even to be able to articulate persuasively is expecting too much. That is simply not the nature of protest.
But the ruling elite ignore or stifle protest at their peril.
OK so here is my new theory formed while i was riding my bike to work yesterday. My bike ride is about 15 minutes so this is a well thought out and very well researched theory. I am sure no one will be able to find a hole in the argument but you are welcome to try. Also it is a bit bleak.
ReplyDeleteMark
We have some friends that moved to this area this year after working for a number of years in the US. He is a Phd trained chemist and she is masters degree trained chemist. They worked for a pharmaceutical company. They left because they "saw the writing on the wall". The company could hire 6-8 chemists in India for the price of one chemist here. The company was no longer hiring research chemists and were not replacing those that left. Although chemists trained in India are not as well trained as their Canadian or US counterparts they are not 6-8 times less trained. That got me thinking.
Karl then said that the college educated jobless rate is 5% which doesn't sound bad, although that is the highest jobless rate for that group in history. That got me thinking.
THEORY: We are going through a big market correction. Canada, the US, western Europe has too high of a standard of living and wages are too high. China and India have now caught up in terms of infrastructure and education. Since they can produce a much cheaper product they have already cornered the market on unskilled labour. With the higher education and better infrastructure there is no reason for most of the skilled jobs to go there too. We will continue to lose jobs and money to India and China until our wages are less then theirs. This recession will continue with brief blips of growth until we become much, much poorer than most of the world. At that time the market will correct again and jobs will start coming back to us because we will be willing to work for $1 a day again.
I cannot see a hole in this theory. Sounds a bit bleak but since I spent 15 minutes thinking about this and could not see anything wrong with it, it must be right.
You may try and poke holes in this theory but it will be pointless
okay it must be right and I definitely would not poke holes into a 15 minute bike ride to work theory. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour even if the analysis was definitely bleak. I could totally see me in this posting, the bike ride fileed with many thoughts.
ReplyDelete