Auto-SummaryThis post discusses the Occupy movement and the various perspectives on its goals, methods, and effectiveness. Some key points include:
1. The movement lacks a unified idea, policy, or platform, which may discredit it in the eyes of the masses.
2. Some argue that corporations are necessary for societal advancement, while others believe corporations should not have the rights of human beings.
3. Taxation of corporations and the wealthy is suggested as a potential solution to wealth disparity, but concerns are raised about the negative impact on the economy and the middle class.
4. The importance of sustainable global economic policy is mentioned, with the need for more equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
5. The Occupy movement has at least succeeded in getting people talking about important issues, despite some negative aspects and misrepresentations.
Long winded debate on the occupy movement
This post is incredibly long, and fairly dry, but interesting points are made
Facebook Debate
D:
Kinda wants to put up a sign near the art gallery saying, according to stats Canada 90% of the working population is employed. So actually you people that are busy occupying stuff all day are actually the 9%
C:
Counterpoint: what about the underemployed, the wage slaves and people whose real earnings have been stagnant for the last 30 years in adjusted dollars?
D:
They're probably the 50% but I'm just guessing
Maybe a little less than that, I'd have to look into some stats. Im not denying that bay/wall street, as well as professional athletes, actors, old money, and the other top wage earner's are completely out of whack. I'm just doubting 100 people with signs that say revive tent city, and the government is out to get you, is going to change the world. The revolt seems far from educated, a solid platform of tax reform, more laws around scalping in markets, inheritance tax, and high tax rates on capital gains for earnings over $500,000 might be a start. But blocking off the streets so the people that goto work now are merely annoyed with what you're doing isn't going to prove anything.
C:
That's how things changed in the 60's and civil rights, democracy in Egypt, et al. I think disruptions to the status quo are exactly how things start to change.
Imagine what a general strike in North America would look like... think things would change?
The other side to the argument of 'bring back tent city' is why have we allowed the commons to be coopted by corporate interest? where are people supposed to go to exercise their rigth to protest and demonstrate?
T:
You have no rights.... And no say... The rich have more money... Its the way its always been....as long as human beings have the need for survival and the mindset of competition there will be winners and losers.... The people at the VAG are just upset they didn't win this round
D:
I would love for the revolt to be nation wide, and for the masses to be on board. But I don't think the 99% support the movement itself. I'd say 40% of the Canadian population would be behind sweeping social reform. 50% or so would probably like to make a change, but wouldn't back anything that could affect their middle class lifestyle. The remaining 9% are the those that are really disenfranchised by the current system. I suppose in Canada it's a different set of affairs than the states where the disparity is unparalleled. But the issue becomes incredibly tricky when our relatively cheap goods come from the corporate structures that have been put in place. Unlike the social reform movements you've mentioned, an economic reform seems to be a different issue in the fact that the protestors ironically support those they hate most with the clothes on their backs, the tents their sleeping in, and every facet of their lives are permeated by what they're against. Tax law can help the poor, but yelling for Walmart to stop making money off us by selling consumer goods to the poorest of people just seems to present an irony that I can't conceptually overcome.
I agree that the power and wealth structures of the world need to change. And maybe with some labour unions and lobby groups being on board we can take them seriously. I'm just saying blocking traffic an yelling isn't going to pave the way to economic reform. Getting the 99% on board behind a movement with real, applicable ideas, and a proper platform might do so. The individuals seem to discredit themselves and might even be holding back their movement by their methods.
S:
Hm… we can’t deny that things are pretty good here in Canada (especially compared to our crippled southern neighbours). However, we can thank Paul Martin for implementing sustainable financial policies that saved us from experiencing a similar economic disaster (policies that would likely not be there if the conservative government was in charge). We still experience a huge (and growing) disparity between the rich and the poor despite the fact that we live in a country that has enough to provide for everyone. I’ve worked very hard to get the job I have, but I also won the lottery with supportive family I grew up in and the opportunities I had to get educated… I don’t mind sharing! Our government provides little opportunity for civic involvement (voting once every 4 year, whoop-dee-doo). These people are not just squatting in front of the art gallery but they’re participating in productive dialogue that’s challenging our government’s policies and trying to make them better. I think this is a voice the government will have a hard time ignoring. I congratulate these people for actually trying to do something about the problem rather than sitting on their asses complaining about it.
D:
I'm merely commenting on the signage and the lack of a unified idea, and lack of probable solutions present. The perception of the movement just seems to be that of complaining about people we keep giving money to. Get some real policy change that appeals to the masses. I'm just commenting that the people sitting on their asses infront of the gallery, and the chanting and ranting I hear while they block off streets isn't conducive to creating the change they are trying to initiate. Some real organization and policy reform I'll get behind. Hippies with cardboard signs saying life's not fair isn't going to appeal to the 80% of people sitting rather complacently around these issues.
C:
I can tell you the things I've heard discussed in terms of policy:
1) removal of corporate personhood (one of the greatests signs I saw at the protest was "I'll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one..."
2) a living wage paid out to workers instead of the legally mandated imperative to maximize profitability
3) an outright ban on lobbying and political donations/interferrence
4) fair and open democracy (in Canada I support the move towards a Republic once the Queen is dead)
5) people treated fairly and justly, not just corporations
6) a tax structure that is fair without loopholes available to the superrich or corporate entitities
there are more I'm sure, but those are a good start to recrafting our society that is more equitable to ALL stakeholders, not just shareholders.
D:
I think with the advances in communication we can apply democracy in pure form. Imagine being able to vote online? On every major issue? To actually have your voice heard rather then someone who represents half of what you believe in? I think present day revolutions have been fueled by social media, by facebook, websites, blogging, twitter, what have you. I think through advancement in our communication the power can shift from the few to all of us. Viva la revolution
C:
The ***** Party's innaugeral party leadership vote was all online, hell I voted on my effin' iPhone during the speeches.
D:
1) How is the removal of corporate personhood a problem? In the realm of small business it can mean the difference between a liable few becoming completely broke or falling into financial ruin in the event of a suit. What kind of entity and legal rights should a corporation have?
2) i think there needs to be some kind of wage that makes people not want to work at. If everyone could work at mcdonalds and meet their every need, why would someone get a degree? What is the conscious or even subconscious motivation to become a researcher? Get an MBA? Start your own business?
3) Yah I"ll give you that
4) I'm for it
5) There is definite disparity between the two, and a legal battle between an individual and Walmart is almost always going to favor Walmart, so perhaps lawyers should be government employees?
6) I'm all for corporations not being taxed atall. High wage earners should be taxed. Capital gains should be taxed for individuals. The ability for corporations to reinvest their earnings shouldn't be hindered. There should be taxes implemented on share gains per year, regardless as to whether or not they are drawn out by the individual. In turn tax breaks should be implemented on losses if those occur. I am of the opinion it is the individual wealth that needs to be hindered, corporate wealth should be used to build more job opportunities and increase the relative economic wealth of the country it exists in.
C:
1) corporations were an insignificant business model 100 years ago, yet men became insanely wealthy and powerful. There are a LOT of corporations that are formed to hide behind their limited liability (see: white collar crimes, et al.). The problem is a business climate run by insurance companies and we all know how effin litigious they are. Corporations are not people and should not have the rights of flesh and blood people. To hold corporations accountable fines, etc should be % of profits then you solve the agency problem with mega-corps.
2) a living wage, not "here have some money, now flip me some fries". Media. Wages have been stagnant for the last 30 years when adjusted for inflation. Corporate profits have risen dramatically in those same years and they now sit on record profits with record CEO pay. The average CEO makes more by January 2 than the average worker does all year.
6) WTF??? Corporations, like all businesses should pay taxes. Explain to me why a contractor who is swinging a hammer all year should pay taxes, but Suncor shouldn't? Corporations have an inducement to reinvest because that reinvestment comes off profits BEFORE taxes, everything else is shareholder profits. What they choose to do with those profits is up to them, so long as it's taxed as regular income, I'm good.
D:
1) 100 years ago the world wasn't functioning as a global economy, it is so inherently different from the past that I think corporations are a necessary entity for society to advance in our current set of circumstance. Agreed that the liability is abused, that the criminal code that applies (or doesn't seem to apply) to management, and the board of directors of a business, and the ability for these crimes to go unnoticed needs to change. Also agreed that % profits is a good idea. Still the limited liability has allowed smaller businesses, and entrepreneurs to thrive and create new business, jobs, and opportunities cannot be taken to always be a negative.
2) One of the main principles I believe is that the 1% or even the top 10% need to be taxed more dramatically. Gains on assets (shares etc.) need to be taxed hard. In turn tax breaks, and incentives for the 90% can be more prevalent if the financial needs of the government can be paid for by those who aren't doing anything with their money except making it make more money, to win whatever pissing contest billionaires are trying to win.
Tax the CEO, even if he's at a 75% tax rate, it's still attractive enough to be making 5 million a year rather than the average worker. There's enough statistical support to evidence that the CEO is one of the leading factors in the relative success of a company (in a couple of my business textbooks of years past, I can try and reference that if needed). But I think that talent should be paid for, and that competition can drive wages, but just tax the crap out of it because that wealth isn't be redistributed into the economy.
6)No businesses, or corporations should pay taxes. The shareholders, the CEOs, the top earners should be taxed on their relative gains. If the value of their stock doubles, they should have to pay tax on those gains regardless if they take them out of the market. Be it they have to liquidate some shares, borrow against them, or take money out of the market, pay tax, then reinvest, so be it, but all I'm against is people making too much money than they know what to do with. The shareholder profits should be taxed hard, over whatever arbitrary number we pick (5 million per year?). By taxing corporations and their profits I'd think it would inherently give them the desire to expand less. Potentially creating less jobs, and exacerbating some of the problems we're facing (the 15% unemployment rate in the states). If the incentives remain for starting new businesses, branching out, finding new markets, etc. perhaps a greater good can be created. I.E. well we could get taxed 40% on our earnings, or take that money and start a phone company in whatever developing nation, ideally placing more wealth into the hands of new markets.
Tax the piss out of rich people.
...damnit those protesters got me talking and standing up for change... Well played with your bad signage
S:
The current movement definitely lacks clear goals, outcomes and a vision (this is a grassroots movement after-all, and these things will take time to solidify). Yes, there are going to some idiots getting involved who will misrepresent the cause and who will bitch and moan incessantly… however, I don’t think these individuals alone should discredit the movement. And indeed… the “occupy” movement has at least served the purpose of getting people talking about the issues (such as us right now).
As far as a more participatory form of government is concerned… I feel personally the intricacies of the economy (and many governmental issues) are too complex for the lay-person to truly understand and make an informed decision on. So, I think mass voting on everything would be a terrible idea. I do feel though, that some decision making needs to be removed from the 10,00 foot view (aka. parliament) to more community based, people-centric view (although I don’t quite know what this looks like). We also need to strive to create sustainable global economic policy… although it’s going to be a while till we get here.
Corporations should pay taxes… lots of them. Corporations rely on our transportation systems, a healthy population, an educated population, a healthy economy, and many more things in order to make profits… these things don’t come for free, our taxes pay for it. They are also the largest contributors to environmental degradation, a burden that the public system will have to look after for centuries to come (and that these corporation swon’t have to pay a cent for).
D:
But corporations have contracts that have built our roadways, and provided many of our necessities. The environmental concern could be another valid stance on what this movement should work towards. Tax incentives for better waste solutions, higher grants for green technology implementation. Then just tax rich people :P even if we tax corporations heavily, one of the main problems I think is still just wealth disparity. Rich people don't put money back into the economy. The hoarding of wealth in the accounts and funds of rich individuals propagates this disparity. I think it's the centre of the problem. The rich have a higher stake in corporate activity, and make decisions to benefit themselves. By putting in laws against insane incomes the circulation of wealth should help even the playing field. Governments will get more in debt if money keeps funneling upwards and never downwards. Everyone's debt increases as the rich get richer.
And to be honest I'm in favour of an oligarchy. I think at the least a questionnaire needs to be filled out, or that a vote should be a privilege not a right (I know it sounds harsh). But having people vote for a party without knowledge of platform, or of what theyre voting for/against isnt what I think needs to be represented in those in power. The criteria of who gets to vote is definitely up for debate, but I think a mass voting of an informed populace is better than our party system.
C:
@S - well said.
My question is why are taxing labor (the majority) when we should be taxing those who are exploiting the natural world, pillaging people's pensions, etc.?
D:
In the economic world were faced with, a corporation seems to be willing to move to wherever is cheapest to work in. I think creating an attractive environment for investment is ideal, then taxing those who gain the disproportionate amount of wealth from these activities. But taxing the crap out of a corporate entity will only drive it to work in a more ideal environment; which could very well just further the problems North America faces.
And I'll agree, we should lessen taxes on the labour force. Ill get behind corporate environmental tax only that it serves the masses and the needs of all. And corporate accountability is undeniably something that needs to be addressed.
I just don't think it's deniable that hefty corporate tax will have a negative impact on our lives in the long run.
C:
Citation? They paid a massive amount in tax and the middle class was thriving. Globalization has created a corporate race to the bottom - a bottom where the middle and lower class are exploited to further the plutocracy.
Buy local, buy independent. I've been trying to do it, it's hard but with it.
D:
Was is different than is and will be, in that the variables we deal with now are far different than any other point in history. 40 years ago or whatever point were relating to in with a lessened gap between rich and poor were never encountering problems of worldwide competition. Globalization has presented a new playing field for business, at no other point in history can you order a computer chip, have it made overnight in china, then have it at your door in less than 48 hours. Look at how many economies are emerging in the wake of recent events, Asian countries (Vietnam, Korea, Thailand), brazil, India etc. I think we can probably assume their corporate tax laws are going to be more on the lax side. The world is a new place, and perhaps the solutions to our present set of problems might not lie in the past.
C:
Sigh, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. China is about to tank (look into their bond market and what's going on with their inflation), India is horribly corrupt and has a huge disparity in income between the rich and poor. There has to be a way for the world to operate that is not predicated upon the maximization of quarterly profits. That model is too shortsighted and offers cheap plastic crap no one needs made by highly skilled chinese babys for sale in a Mega-Walmart staffed by people with graduate degrees (because they cannot find work in their field because the jobs were outsourced).
It's a vicious cycle and the world cannot stand a race to the bottom.
D:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/21/corporation-tax-rates-world
But what we have in our current worldwide economic situation is a culmination of high an low corporate taxes, and 40+ years of a changing economy, and I don't know if there's strong enough evidence pointing in the direction that we were any better off with higher corporate tax. Referenced to the linked graph, the states and Japan, two arguably stagnant economies, have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Then looking at Finland, and Norway, often referred to being as some of the highest standards of living in the world, have fairly low corporate tax rates.
Learn from the past, I'm all for it, but we should maybe learn that old solutions might not be what needs to happen for new problems.
Is the average standard of living in India now, despite an increase in wealthy people, better or worse than 40 years ago? Every major indicator (health, infant mortality, employment, lifespan) has increased. Despite corruption, and every economy has its problems, I'd say the average Indian (from India) is better off now than ever before. Despite many problems that stem from corporations, we can't just be angry at the beast, we might as well learn to tame it, and try and make it work for our best interests. We need to remain competitive.
An increase in corporate tax will also affect more than just the wealthy, despite the increasing disparity, a great deal of corporate investment still is in the hands of the middle to upper middle class. The dividend your grandma gets paid from her pension fund, the portfolios of teachers, the vested interests of the millions of people that aren't the 1% but maybe fall into a moderate lifestyle are still in these corporate entities. By increasing corporate tax we hurt more than just the rich. Plus the first thing to do to increase profits, is cut jobs, look at the market crash and compare it to job cuts, and we are where we're at now.
I think a plausible solution to our problems, or what I could stand behind in this movement is:
1) Corporate environmental taxes
2) Much higher accountability in corporate spending and bonus structures
3) Massive increases in taxes for income earners over a certain amount (I'd need some sort of data to try and come up with a number) to try and drive a wealth shift from money that isn't trickling down but trickling up
4) Stricter regulatory laws surrounding markets and securities, especially in the realm of scalping, fast trading, and removing money from markets. Could be helped with increased taxes. This may affect liquidity, but for long term investments, liquidity isn't as much of an issue as people play it up to be.
5) Decrease corporate tax in an effort to spurn job growth and increase employment, and if point 2 and 3 are implemented it should keep our mean tax levels relatively similar, offer the same government support services, and move stagnant rich wealth to the general populous.
I fully realize this is no easy feat, and there will always be problems with offshore accounts, tax evasion, etc. but hey, maybe it's a start.
--------------------
http://debaucherous.wordpress.com
Sex, Drugs, and Philosophical Meanderings
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag
Debaucherous 
ellomello 
Edit 
Reply 
Cornholio
1 2 all )
Ancalagon
CJay
jimsuzo
YouInfoIt
Northernsoul
mjshroomer
Phred