What the 1% don't want you to know. Maybe Toma isn't totally nuts.

[benyl]

92308666

http://vimeo.com/92308666

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/business/international/taking-on-adam-smith-and-karl-marx.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=0


But he accepts that his work is essentially political, and he is highly critical of the huge management salaries now in vogue, saying that “the idea that you need people making 10 million in compensation to work is pure ideology.”

Inequality by itself is acceptable, he says, to the extent it spurs individual initiative and wealth-generation that, with the aid of progressive taxation and other measures, helps makes everyone in society better off. “I have no problem with inequality as long as it is in the common interest,” he said.

But like the Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, he argues that extreme inequality “threatens our democratic institutions.” Democracy is not just one citizen, one vote, but a promise of equal opportunity.

“It’s very difficult to make a democratic system work when you have such extreme inequality” in income, he said, “and such extreme inequality in terms of political influence and the production of knowledge and information. One of the big lessons of the 20th century is that we don’t need 19th-century inequality to grow.” But that’s just where the capitalist world is heading again, he concludes.

[Modelexis]

We don't currently live in a capitalist world, we live in a world of bureaucracy teaming up with capitalism to make a super mutant of power.

The only inequality that we should be railing against is the fact that a small number of people in our society can print money and create wealth out of thin air and flood the market with counterfeit money while the rest of society would be locked in a cage if they attempted to counterfeit even a 20$ bill.

Democracy is just 'two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner'
Democracy is mob rule, a majority of power can gang up and steal from a minority.

Capitalism is not to blame for the slow growth of the economy, that's government and currency manipulation.

[Toma]

I'm not nuts. Every "smart" economist that is worth his salt has said that Extreme wealth and "corporatism" does nothing for society but transfer wealth to the top, and the inequality results in a huge loss of democracy.

Common sense. Who is a politician gonna "listen" to and "lie" for? Oridnary people, or the lobby groups, or private and corporate donors?


Here is a Facebook post from Robert Reich (Economist and Labour minsiter under Clinton, AND producer of "Inequality for All"


“The most anti-business president in history” says Mitch McConnell about Barack Obama. Corporate leaders agree. “He’s a socialist,” they say. But corporate profits under Obama have surged to the highest share of the U.S. economy in history, and CEO pay has never been higher. The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and other right-wing billionaires are pouring tens of millions of dollars into Senate and House races to elect Republicans. But their fortunes have grown faster under Obama and the Democratic Senate than at any time since the 1920s. Wall Street CEOs say new regulations are stifling them but bank profits and CEO pay have soared to record levels, especially now that the banks are too big to fail. The barons of the oil and gas industry complain about “excessive” regulation but oil and gas has never done as well (including their $7 billion a year in tax subsidies).

So why are they complaining? I think it’s a smokescreen designed to hide from the rest of America the reality that more income and wealth are going to the top than ever before, and corporate welfare is out of control. What’s your explanation?

and from the other day


Anyone who’s watched our film “Inequality for All” knows that the distribution of income and wealth in America over the last century resembles a suspension bridge: Before the Great Depression, the top got a huge share. Then for the next fifty years America became more equal. Starting just about the time Ronald Reagan entered the White House, the top’s share kept growing again – until it’s back to where it was. (The graph below represents income shares; wealth shares follow the same pattern.)

But new research by Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics shows it's even worse than that. While the share of wealth of most of the top 1 percent hasn't changed all that much over the century, the real change has been at the top of the top 1 percent: The richest 1/10th of one percent of Americans (average current wealth of about $20 million) are back to the same share of total national wealth they had in the 1920s, before the Great Depression. And the top 1/100th of one percent’s share (average wealth of $100 million) has grown even more rapidly, quadrupling since Ronald Reagan entered the White House.

In other words, the so-called "Reagan Revolution" was a revolution of, by, and for, the richest of the richest Americans. We knew that before, and now there's proof.

[Toma]

And we aren't talking the one percenters.

We are actually talking the 0.003% lol.

500 people in American have wealth equal to the "bottom" 150,000,000

oh... ps... "Inequality For All" is now on netflix.

Of course, the very old Michael Moore movie "The Corporation" is good, as is the Matt Damon narrated one "Inside Job"

[Toma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwFRjbR14J4

nwFRjbR14J4

Incomparable Noam Chomsky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mhj-j0z-fk

6mhj-j0z-fk

[frizzlefry]

All this is American though. Everyone knows the yanks are fucked up six ways from Sunday. From their capitalism to health care to crime rate to religion.

Using American examples to highlight economic issues on a Canadian forum is simply misleading and irrelevant. I mean, if you want to get into how fucked up the yanks are go ahead but I am assuming, at some point, you guys are going to try and make these arguments relevant to Canada.

Here is an article relevant to Canada. Top Canadian 1% earners.

Link (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-are-canada-s-top-1-1.1703321)


Almost two of every five members of the one per cent club occupy management jobs, with senior managers in this group averaging a juicy $466,300 in total compensation.

About one in seven one percenters have occupations in the health field, with doctors, dentists and veterinarians figuring prominently in the top income group. A similar share of one percenters came from business and finance areas.

Professional occupations in the legal and scientific/engineering fields round out the top five. Average incomes of each of the above occupations in the one per cent club top $300,000.

And then there are the one percenters who appeared to have no employment at all. Fully 5.6 per cent of those who reported income of at least $191,100 — the one per cent club — said they didn't work for pay in either 2010 or 2011. The only job they had, it seems, was to cash some rather large cheques for dividend income, capital gains, interest or rental income and other private income.

Seems the majority of our 1%, like, work 'n stuff. Many in health fields or engineering. Using the yank 1% to...cause doubt...with capitalism in Canada is misleading. Not that we are without issues but at least use Canadian examples.

The yanks are from another planet. We all know that. :)

[Toma]

lol.... ahh, to be young and naive
lol

1% is just a generalization, and isn't literal.

The virus and contagion is world wide.

Any country that resists, is destroyed to allow the virus to spread.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Toma
And we aren't talking the one percenters.

We are actually talking the 0.003% lol.

500 people in American have wealth equal to the "bottom" 150,000,000

oh... ps... "Inequality For All" is now on netflix.

Of course, the very old Michael Moore movie "The Corporation" is good, as is the Matt Damon narrated one "Inside Job"

The corporation isn't a Michael Moore film.

[Toma]

Originally posted by FixedGear


The corporation isn't a Michael Moore film.

hahahahha

Musta got it confused with "Capitalism, a Love Story"

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Toma
lol.... ahh, to be young and naive
lol

1% is just a generalization, and isn't literal.

The virus and contagion is world wide.

Any country that resists, is destroyed to allow the virus to spread.

To some it is literal. To Michael Moore, and others that have made movies about it, it is often treated as literal. Has more "umph" that way. That's how they rally the troops. There has to be clearly defined (small) portion of the population ruining everything. "1% of the population controls all the resources! Not fair!" But if you say its a generalization, that its not "the 1%" ruining everything than what is it? Is it 10%? 20%? 50%? Anyone who profits off capitalism?

If people caught on that American propaganda (relevant or not) is being used to target half the population of Alberta for being successful, for example, than the movement has no traction as the current situation in Alberta benefits the majority. Of course I'm pulling numbers out of my ass but I think that 50% of Albertans saying they would rather be here than New Brunswick or Ontario is reasonable as they chose to stay here.

I know that people running high consumer debt here tends to lead to folks not being able to save. That's not an issue with the economy. That's people who can't manage their finances. They still chose to live here. They could not over spend and get away with it elsewhere where the economy is not as strong.

[Toma]

Good grief Charlie Brown.

[Arash Boodagh]

Ill just leave this here
Why you are a slave & how to become free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DotonW49o

[Maybelater]

Regardless what is happening in America is happening in Canada too. In fact, all OECD countries are suffering wealth and income distribution issues. The IMF has commented on it: http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2014/inequality/ The IMF has itself argued in favour of increasing income taxes to deal with the issue because wealth taxes are rarely effective.

The 0.01% are often the ones that are depicted in media reports about the 1%.

Nonetheless, Canada has reached a point where income distribution has become so skewed that it is getting close to the inequality that existed in the 1920s and great depression: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2010/12/Richest%201%20Percent.pdf

One issue isn't just distribution, everyone but the bottom 10% has seen an increase in wealth/income, it is where it is going, with the very vast majority going to the top. This isn't normal.

I find if funny how being critical of the status quo in this matter often gets you labeled a crazed communist, we can argue until the cows come home about why this is happening, but as Toma said pretty much all the worlds economist agree there is a growing issue. If you interested in further reading about economic issues check out writings by Joseph Stiglitz or Ha-Joon Chang.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
Ill just leave this here
Why you are a slave & how to become free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DotonW49o

Oh shit. Arash is here.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Toma
Good grief Charlie Brown.

Good grief indeed.

Alberta has the highest rate of small business in Canada. Not a sign of a weak or oppressive economy. Small Business is always a good indicator of a healthy economy.

But now Arash is here. And he has instantly ruined everything.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/abandon-thread-gif-cats.gif

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by Maybelater
Regardless what is happening in America is happening in Canada too. In fact, all OECD countries are suffering wealth and income distribution issues. The IMF has commented on it: http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2014/inequality/ The IMF has itself argued in favour of increasing income taxes to deal with the issue because wealth taxes are rarely effective.

No argument from me. Has to happen.

Originally posted by Maybelater

I find if funny how being critical of the status quo in this matter often gets you labeled a crazed communist.

To be fair, most of the links/videos posted are from crazed socialists with crazed American conservatives. Kind of sets the tone. Toma has made points I agree with, mainly that inflation in Alberta fucks shit up for people on the bottom. It's part of capitalism. It happens. But the remedy often proposed requires people to give up something. I'm not talking about taxes, tax the rich more and they could easily carry on. I'm talking about reducing entire industries. Changing the very existence of people's jobs.

People in manufacturing have lost jobs due to auto makers simply choosing to go elsewhere. That's one thing. But to propose government or special interest group intervention to kill a job to balance things out...well...that's another matter entirely. Hence the resistance.

Wealth in Canada tends to flow toward educated, working people in a variety of industries. Finance folks, which fucked the USA, are actually in the minority here.

[M.alex]

I see poor people......

[Feruk]

I think what's driving the rot in both countries (but certainly more in the USA) is political contributions. Wealthy people or groups are allowed to donate to politicians who will push their agenda. The better funded candidate wins something like 80% of the time. Worse, this blatant vote buying has somehow become a "freedom of speech" issue. IMO if you want a fair democratic system, you start with elections. Political parties should be alotted very limited (but equal) PUBLIC funding and not be allowed to take any private money at all.

[themack89]

Government was initially created the protect the wealthy (this is seriously the truth), and it is still doing that job today. I think the illusion that this isn't supposed to be the case is brought about by the sheer number of people complaining about it now.

Basically what M.alex said haha. If the rich were smart they would continue the game as they are, making sure that wherever their interests lie or are strongly tied to, the common people there aren't hungry (literally) and angry enough to start a revolt. Revolts are when people realize they have the physical power to change their system of governance. Reminds you to ask the question "who put these people in charge anyways?" ... Oh, wait.

Even just nationalizing one corporation (cough, Apple, cough) and shelling out their cash would solve heaps of problems.

[Maybelater]

Originally posted by M.alex
I see poor people......

Haha see, it is comments like this that I am talking about. You're trying to delegitimize the voices of pretty much an entire school of thought that has a general consensus of an issue by making a personal attack. As I said we could talk forever about why it is happening, economists are already doing this, but it is generally agreed an issue is there. Also, you can't say that the economists that are worried about this issue are poor as a graduates degree that would make you a full-fledged economist shoots you right into the 1%. Bernake, Stiglitz, Chang, Krugman and all of them are full fledge 1%ers.


Originally posted by Feruk
I think what's driving the rot in both countries (but certainly more in the USA) is political contributions. Wealthy people or groups are allowed to donate to politicians who will push their agenda. The better funded candidate wins something like 80% of the time. Worse, this blatant vote buying has somehow become a "freedom of speech" issue. IMO if you want a fair democratic system, you start with elections. Political parties should be alotted very limited (but equal) PUBLIC funding and not be allowed to take any private money at all.

100% A form of crony capitalism is developing in the United States where the wealthist can donate unlimited sums of money to political parties which parties won't forget. Who are you going to be more interested in keeping on your side, average joe/jane who donated you $500 or XYZ Corporation who donated you $5'000'000.


Originally posted by themack89
Government was initially created the protect the wealthy (this is seriously the truth), and it is still doing that job today. I think the illusion that this isn't supposed to be the case is brought about by the sheer number of people complaining about it now.

Basically what M.alex said haha. If the rich were smart they would continue the game as they are, making sure that wherever their interests lie or are strongly tied to, the common people there aren't hungry (literally) and angry enough to start a revolt. Revolts are when people realize they have the physical power to change their system of governance. Reminds you to ask the question "who put these people in charge anyways?" ... Oh, wait.

Even just nationalizing one corporation (cough, Apple, cough) and shelling out their cash would solve heaps of problems.

Honestly, Canada would do real good for itself if it tried to follow the Norwegians and worked towards a national oil company. At this point the Norwegian government has a surplus so high that it translates to almost $180'000 per citizen. Yet, Alberta is billions in debt making the same mistakes Norway made when the oil industry first started there.

For what you said earlier, yah Toma makes good points but then his really outlandish opinions and conspiracies don't really do anyone justice as most people here just automatically believe anything he has to say is totally nuts.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by themack89
Government was initially created the protect the wealthy (this is seriously the truth), and it is still doing that job today.

Even just nationalizing one corporation (cough, Apple, cough) and shelling out their cash would solve heaps of problems.

Your post confused me and I don't know if I'm just misunderstanding you but you start by pointing out the corrupt nature of government and you close with a statement that advocates taking a corporation and shelling out their cash. I'm assuming that you mean having the government seize their cash.

That's why I'm confused, it seems like your solution to a corrupt government is to steal some of the largest private profits and hand them over to government.

[themack89]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Your post confused me and I don't know if I'm just misunderstanding you but you start by pointing out the corrupt nature of government and you close with a statement that advocates taking a corporation and shelling out their cash. I'm assuming that you mean having the government seize their cash.

That's why I'm confused, it seems like your solution to a corrupt government is to steal some of the largest private profits and hand them over to government.

Umm, the first half of my post was supposed to be an objective reflection on the position of Govt and Wealthy.

The second half is my personal view. And it isn't "stealing," its nationalizing. :rofl: I wasn't presenting a solution to corrupt government (I don't honestly think that will ever go away), I was trying to propose a solution to ameliorate inequality. Granted, a very crude and [probably] short sighted solution.

[Modelexis]

Again, just to be slightly annoying, even if your goal is to lessen the inequalities in society, I still don't see how handing free money over to an entity with nukes and submarines and fighter jets and aircraft carriers will do anything but increase the gap of inequality when it realizes it can now afford to get involved in another war without having to raise taxes.

We don't have to worry about Apple invading Syria or deploying fighter jets to a conflict they have no business in. If apple ever tried to buy fighter jets their profits would drop and it would open the door to their competitors to steal those profits by offering products without a fighter jet premium added to the price.

Apple is one of the companies responsible for poor people obtaining computers and smart phones, which I would argue has done a massive amount to bring poor people technologically to the same level as the rich.

To me, the guy with the nukes and fighter jets is maybe not the best person to be trusted with large sums of money. It's kinda like hiring a crack head to deliver an envelope full of cash to the local animal shelter. You know he's just gonna spend it on crack. No matter how good your formal contract is or how many lawyers are involved, that guy is gonna get some amazing crack for himself.

[themack89]

It was based on the assumption that the people who actually needed the money would reliably receive the money. I don't disagree with your points at all.

It is my opinion that, although Apple certainly has contributed to our society in immeasurable ways, they don't need to hoard 100b+ in cash.

I am a capitalist, but only up to a point. Undeniably it is the best working system for resource allocation, but it penetrates too far into people's minds and attitudes towards society that is sufficiently removed from our scope of recognition.

Capitalism has served me, and I just want to reasonably ask how can I serve back? If I earn 100,000 a year, would it really kill me to give back even just a little bit of that to someone who isn't as fortunate as myself? The loss of utility of $1,000 to me is significantly less than the gain it would bring to someone who earns peanuts. I use the word reasonably because invariably someone will respond "then why don't you donate 80% of your pay check to charity?". :facepalm:

So yeah, fucking compete Ape to Ape, thats what got us this far. But the "fuck that, eat shit, I earned it, its all mine" attitude I think has gone too far.

(Was this too off topic?? lol)

*Edit. A thought just occurred to me, I shouldn't have used Apple as an example, because its hard to attack a company who makes products that the entire planet loves. I should have used Halliburton or Monsanto. :poosie: And I also share the sentiment expressed in your signature towards the Govt. Though I am indifferent towards the troops.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Modelexis]

I think as technology grows so will the incentives to do good in the world, to help others, to donate etc.

You see this in kickstarters, in youtube give-back videos. It's easier and easier to make money by helping others, by donating money and helping people directly with no third party.

If some guy develops a technology software network that somehow allocates donations to retirees and people who are between jobs it could render government welfare obsolete and evil compared.

If we threaten to steal money from wealthy people are we removing an incentive for some guy to spend energy to come up with the next big thing that will make him a billion dollars and solve a major social problem?

One thing is for sure, you cannot rely on government to achieve these great things, you have to rely on the dreams of someone with the passion to make a fortune by coming up with the next revolution.