Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Behind the Wall Street Protest

... are these economic factors.  Basically it boils down to rich people and institutions tying up so much of the country's capital that the rest of the country can't function properly.
Tags: economics, news
Subscribe

  • A Little Slice of Terramagne: YardMap

    Sadly the main program is dormant, but the YardMap concept is awesome, and many of its informative articles remain. YardMap was a citizen science…

  • Goldenrod Gall Contents

    Apparently all kinds of things go on inside goldenrod galls, beyond the caterpillars who make them. Fascinating. I've seen the galls but haven't…

  • Science and Spirituality

    Here's an article about science and spirituality, sort of. It doesn't have a very wide view of either. Can you be scientific and spiritual? This…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 36 comments
I don't think this is just a problem with reduced supply of jobs by multinational organizations that can just put their factories in another country where the labor is cheaper. I think the problem is that businesses can't sell because nobody is confident in buying. The nation's money isn't in the lower half of the system any more... perhaps much of the world's money, if you look at Europe and other regions.

If the resources don't exist, they can't be used, and people fall into a more survival-focused mindset. The only way out is to find a new way to obtain necessary resources, or otherwise change the system (that is, the environment rather than the nature of markets) so that more effort flows where it's needed for a person to survive.
If the resources don't exist, they can't be used, and people fall into a more survival-focused mindset. The only way out is to find a new way to obtain necessary resources, or otherwise change the system (that is, the environment rather than the nature of markets) so that more effort flows where it's needed for a person to survive.

I agree with this. But change the system to WHAT? Do we tax the 1% and give everyone a subsistence-level allowance, a human dividend? But doesn't that just devalue our currency which has already lost substantial value since it became a fiat dollar in 1971?

And what does it do to human dignity to be GIVEN the basic goods of human life?

And what does it do to immigration if one society offers this and the others don't?

And what does it do to our balance of trade when the other countries get sick of loaning us money to live so much better than them?

And what does it do to the richest 1% if you seize their money?

These are real issues and I'm not sure we've got a plan that can work. Any ideas on how to avoid a race to the bottom?

Another person in another thread suggested tariffs. I'm a bit dubious, but still listening.
Free social services won't necessarily devalue the dollar, or lead to an imbalance in trade -- not if the whole point is that you need to do it because all the work is being done by robots now.

The taxes needed for it probably aren't excessive, if the level of support you're offering is minimal. And by 'not excessive' I mean 'we had them in the past and it worked out okay'.

Human dignity and immigration are real concerns, though. Especially since the first turns into crime pretty easily.

OTOH telling people to go fuck themselves in the hopes that they'll get desperate and come up with some new worthwhile thing to do (which is the default option if you *don't* provide services, and is what has actually been working pretty well until recently, and I think it's a bit early to go all gloom and doom on its prospects) also leads to crime.

Anyway -- the optimistic viewpoint would be, if people didn't need money to live, they might be willing to work for lower wages. The pessimistic viewpoint is that if people don't need money to live NO ONE is going to do certain jobs which are just that unpleasant. x.x

Maybe those are jobs for robots?
A lot of the problem seems to be about wealth distribution.

If we provide a basic subsistence level income for 80% of the population and 20% still have jobs then we continue to have unacceptable levels of wealth distribution.

Wealth is the accumulation of income over time: someone who makes very little and can save very little will save it in a low-income-producing vehicle like a savings account or maybe their house. Someone with more income will save in those places PLUS a pension plan. Someone with even MORE income will save in both those places PLUS some riskier stocks.

Over time, the rich get richer just by mathematical progression: if you all start out with the same $4,000 to invest and one invests it at 5% and the other invests it at 10% this will happen.

Same story with someone who makes $20K/year and another person makes $120K/year. The rich will get richer every time, even if they spend every dime they have, because inevitably some of their spending will be on tangibles that they will continue to have.

I don't think anyone is REALLY all that upset about the amount of money one person can acquire in their lifetimes, though: I think they're mostly upset about dynastic wealth. (I could be wrong.)

I feel quite gloom and doomy about people wanting to solve wealth disparity. It isn't a problem that can STAY solved. The highly skilled or higher risk-taking will get richer again by next week.

But I like that you are okay with waiting for the creative destruction to work its way through. I like that idea. We really do need to have some new energy solutions and perhaps that bubble of spending will inflate our middle class again. That would be nice.

I think we've been sick so long now that we've forgotten that we can ever be well again.

I'm not even mad at millionaires. I'm angry at people whose wealth does nobody any good, and those entities (mostly corporations) refusing to support the societies which spawned them, instead drawing off as much wealth as possible while directly intervening to remove and alter laws that require giving any back.

The rich will always be rich, as long as they learned how. But you can't stay rich forever, neither individually nor dynastically, in a society that's otherwise starving. The people will demand what you have.

I could be happy with a hundred thousand dollars. I could support myself for almost ten years on that if I had to; with a few good investments, perhaps much longer. But nobody's going to outright give that to me. I don't mind working for it, but what does it mean when I don't live in a society where I'll ever be able to earn it?
>>I'm angry at people whose wealth does nobody any good, and those entities (mostly corporations) refusing to support the societies which spawned them, instead drawing off as much wealth as possible while directly intervening to remove and alter laws that require giving any back.<<

Basically I'm bothered by parasitic behavior. Some people and corporations just suck up wealth without contributing anything to society, and some of them do outright damage. They don't care who gets hurt or what gets broken, as long as they get More. And that's the philosophy of the mosquito.

>>I don't mind working for it, but what does it mean when I don't live in a society where I'll ever be able to earn it?<<

I believe that people have a right to do something productive and to be compensated accordingly. Nobody should be shut out of the job market. Nobody should be forced to be poor and unemployed. It's destructive for people to be made to feel useless and denied a chance to participate in society.
After a certain point excessive wealth that someone personally 'earned' gets into the same 'no, they don't really deserve that' category that dynastic wealth does. IMO anyway.

And one generation of dynastic wealth doesn't bother me at all, since everyone wants to care for their kids. OTOH taxing inheritance wouldn't stop one generation of dynastic wealth because people can care for their kids by actually caring for them while they're alive.

Plus the person who 'deserves' the money is dead at that point and doesn't care who gets it.

OTOOH trying to limit people to what they deserve probably isn't going to lead to a world that you want to live in. Especially if who deserves what is determined by a political process. I can't see that working any better than the chaos of the market.

So, really, I'd want a solution based on practicality and not morality. v.v
I'm less concerned with when money was earned than in how it's distributed. If someone earns a lot of money but keeps it cycling, that's not a problem. If they tie it up so other people can't use it, that's a problem. If the total wealth in a society is so tightly condensed in a few hands that many people can't meet basic needs and the economy collapses as a result, that's a problem.

Money is rarely going to spread exactly evenly, and that's okay. Making it perfectly even is a pain in the ass that appeals only to a few people. Most folks like the idea of having some range. The problem occurs when the range gets so wide that some people don't have enough to meet basic needs while others have more than they could possibly use for personal needs.

The idea is to spread the available money around enough that people can meet their needs and, with a little care, some of their wants. People who want to work harder should be rewarded for that. I don't think people should be rewarded beyond reason, though. One job might be 10 times harder than another job. Nobody's job is 350 times harder than anything.

Re: Well...

gwendally

9 years ago

So, really, I'd want a solution based on practicality and not morality. v.v

That's where I stand, too, which is easy because I find so often that other people's morality is pretty shocking.

All this talk about "redistributing wealth" sort of sends shivers up my spine. Our we really giving up the concept of Rule of law now? Private property? To help the ECONOMY?!??

I have been listening very closely to a lot of far left people talk about Occupy Wall Street and I've been trying to hear what specific things are being requested. So much of the laundry list is just children flailing in the dark without a clue about what they're talking about. I'm sympathetic, these issues are HARD.

But you know what happens next after you forgive student loan debt? No one ever gets a student loan again. When they say "ban the corporations" and "give us good jobs" it just makes me want to bang my head against the desk. I have to wonder how many of them are using their Bank of America debit cards while they protest against banks being too powerful. It is easy to mock. Really really easy to mock.

But at the core of it, even if people don't seem to be able to articulate what changes they'd like that could result in beneficial outcomes, they are right that things are broken. Really really broken.

We're past peak oil. Our fiat currency is in its frail old age. Our democratic republic was replaced by an empire. (I wonder how many of those protesters voted in the primary elections? That is the only remaining place where democracy has any power. Turnout was 10% in my precinct, where we immediately voted to return the inept or corrupt - can't tell which - octogenarian to office.)

Yes, there is income inequality, but that's partly because the fiat currency killed savings and apparently also killed capitalism. All that's left is gambling in commodities and bubbles to try to stay ahead of inflation.

There are no political solutions to these problems. We're past the point of no return. We lost our country. Rioting makes sense.

But empires don't have to be that bad. A regime falls somewhere on the planet pretty much once a month. Currencies fail and new ones are created. It's going to be okay-ish. Not great, but okay.

Rioting won't help, though. That was the thing I was happiest about when Obama was elected: I thought perhaps the sheep would stay complacent a bit longer because of the Hope & Change Yes We Can thing. It was all nonsense, but I had *hoped* it would forestall riots.

Poor Obama. He never knew what he was getting into.
I think the first thing we can do is to codify in law that corporations are not persons. Every person has the right to support causes that are important to them; this does not mean that every person has equal resources to devote to that support. For-profit corporations in particular have no obligation to humans aside from the ones that run them (that is, sit on their boards and operate at their highest levels). Everything a for-profit corporation does is about profit, and whether they can get away with something.

Even not-for-profit corporations end up suspect in this.

One good thing we could do would be to reduce the impact the wealthy have on elections, by reforming election funding and adjusting our electoral system to a form of proportional representation (instead of first-past-the-post). This would both give us one vote per person instead of one vote per dollar, and provide us with a greater variety of views instead of two increasingly polarized factions moving in the same general direction.
Corporations are ENTITIES. That is what "incorporating" means, it means that an association of persons joined together to form an entity that exists apart from them, with unlimited life and transferability of ownership.

Corporations are derivatives of people: persons one step removed. They exist as a tool of persons.

The concept of Corporate personhood is tied up with the concept of campaign contributions, right? I mean, your issue isn't that corporations don't get jail time or get executed for murder, it's that they have rights as entities that you wouldn't give them?

If that's the case then we can leave corporate law alone and concentrate on campaign reform and the electoral system changes you propose. I think these both have a lot of merit. The corporate personhood thing just muddies the waters in my opinion.

Almost every person I know is a shareholder in a corporation. They and us are the same. Every CEO run amuck gets to do this because the corporate shareholders - their BOSSES - don't show up to bitchslap them at the annual meetings. Go look at your retirement savings: own any stock? Show up at an annual meeting lately? My point is that we as a citizenry are SO CULPABLE in the misdeeds of corporations that it's fruitless to pretend it was only evil CEOs (selling us the goods we were demanding to buy of our own free will.)

No, let's leave the corporation stuff out of it. But, yes, electoral reform. Got any more on that? Links?
>>The concept of Corporate personhood is tied up with the concept of campaign contributions, right? I mean, your issue isn't that corporations don't get jail time or get executed for murder, it's that they have rights as entities that you wouldn't give them?<<

I find that corporate personhood has far more problems than campaign ones. They have the advantages but not the disadvantages of personhood. So they are encouraged and rewarded for doing things that would be considered psychopathic in a human being. This harms everyone.

>>Almost every person I know is a shareholder in a corporation. They and us are the same.<<

Well, there's a key reason for the differences of opinion. Almost nobody I know is a shareholder. They don't have that kind of money. What retirement? People who aren't making enough to live on -- or who are unemployed altogether -- don't have the luxury of retirement. I think that's wrong.

>>But, yes, electoral reform. Got any more on that? Links?<<

Let's see ...
http://tcf.org/elections
http://www.fairvote.org/
http://www1.american.edu/ia/cfer/
Almost nobody I know is a shareholder. They don't have that kind of money. What retirement? People who aren't making enough to live on -- or who are unemployed altogether -- don't have the luxury of retirement.

This sentence has stayed with me all day.

The secret to success in a capitalist world is to save 10% of everything you make. Get a check for $1000? Put $100 in the bank.

It doesn't MATTER how much you make. Save 10% of it. I did this as a babysitter. I did this as a grocery store clerk. I saved and saved and saved and when I was 24 I had a 10% downpayment on my first house.

It hurts my brain to hear you say you don't have enough to live on and so can't save. There is not such THING as "enough to live on". NO one EVER has "enough". There is ALWAYS something more you need or want. If what you're saying is that you don't want to work 10% more so that you could save for retirement then SAY THAT. Admit it to yourself. It would be ANNOYING to scramble together 10% more hours, 10% more clients, a job paying 10% better. Admit this to yourself and be content with it.

If you are injured or unable to work and living off of savings or as a dependent on someone else then, yes, it's possible that you don't have enough to live on: that's why someone else is supporting you.

But if you are "supporting yourself" then you are BADLY mistaken to think that you have some excuse for not saving 10%. And it will bite you in the butt because you are human and frail and shit is going to happen and you'll wish you had some savings, even if you never desire to accumulate capital for anything (like putting your kids through college, or buying an income-producing property, or any of a number of things where having money means you can make money.)

We don't know each other and I'm probably stepping over a line by scolding you like this. I walked away at first. But "unable to save" is a lie you are telling yourself and I don't care if you lie to me, but please don't lie to yourself.
Actually, I do support a more severe punishment for corporations that deliberately kill people. Let's not even bother with fines; save that for the wrongful death lawsuits. Instead, halt operations at those sites where the corporation deliberately took actions that led to death, such as refusing to provide or maintain safety equipment. Confiscate and auction off the property involved if necessary.

Yes, that would punish the workers; but it also provides an incentive for the workers to push the company for better behavior alongside the shareholders.

As for links to material concerning electoral reform and proportional representation, I don't have any I can dig up offhand. I can point to Australia's electoral system and say they do it pretty close to right as far as counting the votes and determining who will serve.
>>Actually, I do support a more severe punishment for corporations that deliberately kill people. Let's not even bother with fines; save that for the wrongful death lawsuits. Instead, halt operations at those sites where the corporation deliberately took actions that led to death, such as refusing to provide or maintain safety equipment. Confiscate and auction off the property involved if necessary.<<

I'm in favor of the corporate death penalty. A corporation that causes major damage or death should be disbanded and its assets sold off to cover expenses. Its place can be taken by someone more competent.

  • A Little Slice of Terramagne: YardMap

    Sadly the main program is dormant, but the YardMap concept is awesome, and many of its informative articles remain. YardMap was a citizen science…

  • Goldenrod Gall Contents

    Apparently all kinds of things go on inside goldenrod galls, beyond the caterpillars who make them. Fascinating. I've seen the galls but haven't…

  • Science and Spirituality

    Here's an article about science and spirituality, sort of. It doesn't have a very wide view of either. Can you be scientific and spiritual? This…