Contributors

Thursday, October 06, 2011

We Are

Over the last few weeks, a growing group of people have occupied Wall Street in protest of the greed and corruption that has run rampant there in the last few years. They have rightfully pointed the spotlight on the organizations most responsible for our economic malaise at present.

Behind all of this is the We Are The 99 Percent movement. . This is their credo.

We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.

What we are seeing here is the beginning of a minority block that will likely eclipse the conservative base. Hell, some conservatives may end up joining them. We've had unemployment for quite a long time in this country and it was clearly a simple matter of time before they organized into a force with which to be reckoned. We may even be seeing the beginning of the end of the self defeating plutocracy that has grown over the last decade.

Now, I've got a few issues with these people that I'd like to get out of the way. First, they remind me a great deal of the WTO protesters (see: Protectionism). VERY bad idea. Look at the world 50 years ago and look at it today. Overall, we are better off. Lifespans are longer in Global South countries and it is because of liberal trade practices. If these people are concerned about world hunger and poverty, the best way to solve it is free trade. No tariffs, quotas, non tariff barriers, or any other government restrictions that impede the global market. This means that the labor pool is going to grow which means demand will be lower thus the growing pains. They are going to have to accept this if they want the world to be better off.

Of course, this doesn't mean that MNCs (multinational corporations) have leave to pillage and burn the world. A completely unrestrained free market easily slides into this due to the basic human impulse of greed. So, there does need to be consequences for those that abuse this freedom. Obviously, this is a very complex issue and I don't think the occupiers fully understand the various intricacies of it.

This brings us to another issue I have with the occupiers of Wall Street. Are they so anarchistic in nature that they can't see the benefits of banks and investments? They are the very backbone of our culture. No doubt, they have been abused by people but that simply means that they should be put in "pound me in the ass prison" for 6 months. That would end this bullshit immediately. That means regulators are going to have to grow a pair and get it done. Tearing down the whole system will make things worse.

The occupiers also seem to not have a central message or leader. That's fine for now, I guess. But they do need to figure how exactly they are going to effect the change they desire. The best way for them to do this is vote and, more importantly, get the 40 percent of the people in this country that don't vote out at the polls every year-including the odd years! It's pretty clear to me which party has more in common with them and that's who they should support. Certainly, there are some Democrats who have supported our slide to malaise in the last decade but it's the near entirety of the conservative base that is fighting tooth and nail to support our plutocracy. Their blind anger (similar to the Tea Party's) is keeping them from seeing this simple fact.

In his piece, "Keeping America's Edge," Jim Manzi talks about the importance of social cohesion. An entire section of his treatise on the sad state of our affairs is entitled "Inequality as a Symptom."

Economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social ­cohesion — but far more important, it is a symptom of our deeper ­problem. As the unsustainable high tide of post-war American dominance has slowly ebbed, many — perhaps most — of our country's workers appear unable to compete internationally at the level required to maintain anything like their current standard of living. And a shrinking elite portion of the American population, itself a shrinking fraction of the world ­population, cannot indefinitely maintain our global position.

There it is in a nutshell, folks. We will not continue to maintain our position in the world unless we take very serious steps to support the 99 percent. And by "we" I mean EVERYONE, not just the government (federal, state, local). Giving more tax breaks and less regulation to the wealthy people in this country is going to make things far worse. As Robert Reich said recently,

This isn't a zero-sum game. A lot of wealthy people are beginning to understand that they would do better with a smaller percentage of a rapidly growing economy than with a big chunk of an economy that's dead in the water.

Indeed they are. The Patriotic Millionaires Club is a fine example of what needs to be front and center in the discussion. People like Doug Edwards, a former Google executive, who stood up at a recent town hall with the president and said, "Will you please raise my taxes?" also need to come forward and demand common sense. Edwards was right when he expressed great concern for the future of federal student loans, infrastructure projects and job-training programs if the government does not obtain new revenue. We're not simply talking about our economy here. We're talking about the erosion of our hegemonic power in the world that has guided the global marketplace towards an LIEO (liberal international economic order).

Imagine if a country like China, for example, was the hegemenon. There's no way to sugar coat this, folks, and this isn't hyperbole: freedom would be lost. The intransigence against spending must stop. Clearly, we can't afford to spend like we did post World War Two but we can't go to the exact opposite of that and become maniacal cutters. We also have to cease the daily beat downs of government because this is the entity that has kept us a major power in the world and will continue to do so in the future. Without our federal government, the freedom of the global market that we created at Bretton Woods will be threatened.

I'm not sure that the 99 percenters see themselves as the large turning point that I do. Thankfully, I'm not the only one. E.J. Dionne, from his latest column

The anti-Wall Street demonstrators have created a new pole in politics. Americans have always been wary of concentrated power. The Tea Party had great success in focusing anxieties on what it argues is an excessively powerful federal government. Now an active and angry band of citizens is insisting that the concentrated power Americans most need to fear exists on Wall Street and in the financial system.

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens next.

23 comments:

juris imprudent said...

Ya know, when Mother Jones concludes you are disorganized and incoherent - you probably ought to reconsider what you are doing.

Juris Imprudent said...

By the way, if that is the definition of the 99%, surprisingly enough I'm a 1- percenter!

rld said...

>What we are seeing here is the beginning of a minority block that will likely eclipse the conservative base.

Doubt it. More wishful thinking on your part. If it eclipses the conservative base, they won't be a minority anymore even though I'm sure you (they) will fight hard to maintain victim status.

Our government is what keeps us a great power in the world? That's what we owe it all to? Wow, revealing.

I think those anti-war folks have been pretty bored the last couple years so now they found something to protest.

Mark Ward said...

Think about it for a second, rld. We are going to have long term unemployment in this country. That's a lot of people, many of whom are a part of these protests. Your derisive comments sadly betray that you don't understand who these people are...

Our government is what keeps us a great power in the world?

Uh...yeah. They'd be the ones in charge of the military and the ones who negotiate trade. Who do you think keeps us a great power in the world/ The Koch Brothers?

Last in Line said...

I don't think you can narrow that down to any one organization, any one entity or any one individual.

6Kings said...

A much better opinion of this movement than your puff piece.

oh, this one too.

Down with Corps!

Takeaway: So how do liberals think they can hurt corporations without hurting people? The sheer stupidity of such thinking is enough to give you a headache.

Mark Ward said...

Yes, 6Kings, because any sort of equality means communism. (shaking head) good grief...

6Kings said...

Equality of opportunity is much different that the equality of outcome which they and apparently you espouse.

Mark Ward said...

In capitalism, there is always going to be inequality. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the gross inequality that we have right now which is eroding our consumer confidence driven economy. We're not simply seeing unfair distribution. We are seeing inefficient distribution.

But you point out your blind spot quite well. You believe that there is equality of opportunity in this country and there isn't. And I'm not just talking about race either. This is a fundamental flaw in libertarian/conservative ideology. It's simply not true, as in, not real.

6Kings said...

So you are not Marxist, just Marxist light - so much better!

Haplo9 said...

>You believe that there is equality of opportunity in this country and there isn't.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that "equality of opportunity" means something quite a bit different to me or 6Kings than what it means to you. What would your definition of it be Mark?

Mark Ward said...

Is there some sort of Marxist version of Goodwin's Law? Perhaps we should call it Markadelphia's Law: mention anything to the left of plutocracy and you are a Marxist.

What would your definition of it be Mark?

I'd start with the Constitution. That would be the document that you and your ilk have hijacked and turned into some sort of bizarre anarcho-capitalist drivel.

We're also getting back into arguing about reality again. You have demonstrated time and again, Hap, that you don't believe in reality. While I think there is more equality of opportunity in this country compared to most others, we're not nearly where we should be. Worse, this inequality is eroding our power in the global marketplace. Of course, any questioning of this results in paranoid ramblings on your (and others) part and we're right back to managing fantasies and wasting time.

Haplo9 said...

>I'd start with the Constitution.

Er, the definition of "equality of opportunity" is "the Constitution"? Er, ok, thats very specific. Must be that clarity of thought you always claim you're good at.

>That would be the document that you and your ilk have hijacked and turned into some sort of bizarre anarcho-capitalist drivel.

Right. We've "hijacked" the Constitution by daring to believe that it means exactly what it says, as opposed to believing that the federal government has virtually unlimited power. We've always been at war with Oceania, right Mark?

>You have demonstrated time and again, Hap, that you don't believe in reality.

While such a claim is entirely subjective, and obviously I think the situation is quite opposite of what you say, I do have to point out - who is more likely to reside in reality: someone who owns a small business, and has to convince others to pay them for their skills, or someone who tells a captive audience how they should think, and has their salary paid for by taking it from the first person?

Anyway, back on topic, given that you still haven't defined "equality of opportunity" aside from some vague handwaving, I have no means to evaluate your claim of the lack thereof. Not that that is unusual for you Mark. :)

Haplo9 said...

Oh, and Mark, I forgot to give you a "well done" on your little drop in to TSM a few weeks ago! Near as I could tell, your sum contribution was "hey guys, the Constitution's purpose was to provoke debate! It doesn't otherwise mean much of anything!", and "hey look guys, I've got a list of standard responses too!" It was very inspiring. I can see why you are a teacher.

Mark Ward said...

This is a fine example of what I am talking about when I say that you can't recognize reality. I dropped in over at TSM to point out an historical inaccuracy regarding a post he made about the Constitution. What was that inaccuracy? I asked him (and others) several questions intended to spark reflection. Instead, I got the usual ad hominem along with typical responses. My point was valid and no credit was given for my entirely accurate points. Then, I was voted off (2-1 by my count) and taunted for slinking away and being chicken. Explain to me how that makes sense.

I have no means to evaluate your claim of the lack thereof.

How about this blog? One of my central themes on here is to show how equality of opportunity has eroded over the years in this country. For example, remember these posts?

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/12/christmas-for-me.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/12/shh-2-of-20.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/12/luck-and-who-you-know-3-and-4-of-20.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-boards-stupid-5-of-20.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/01/perfect-fit-6-and-7-of-20.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/04/oh-really-8-and-9-of-20.html

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/04/perks-are-fun-10-and-11-of-20.html

I never finished going through the list as I got distracted by other things...perhaps I should now that you have brought it up again...but these are but a few examples.

In addition, I'd like to hear what your explanation is for why the unemployment rate for blacks is 15 percent in this country. If they have equal opportunity in our culture, why is it 6 points above the national average? More importantly, what would you do to solve it? Actually, I already know your answers to the last question but let's see if you can surprise me.

who is more likely to reside in reality: someone who owns a small business, and has to convince others to pay them for their skills, or someone who tells a captive audience how they should think, and has their salary paid for by taking it from the first person?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, here. You're going to have to elaborate before I offer further comment.

sw said...

there is no way to solve that 15% unemployment problem, not till a lot of people take responsibility for themselves and their families.

jeff c. said...

I see. Blacks are lazy and it's all their fault. Real nice.

rld said...

Post your solutions then Jeff. You guys are supposed to be the smart, big thinkers. Prove it.

juris imprudent said...

I'd start with the Constitution.

As a definition of equality? I don't know - you think you can get any more vague and evasive? [Hint: that is a challenge.]

Where exactly does the Constitution address "equality of opportunity"? Please don't respond with the 14th Amdt (giving you more credit than you likely deserve) as the Slaughterhouse Cases pretty much demolished that, even before the Progressives did all of their damage.

Mark Ward said...

Hmmm...I'm not going to get sucked into a debate about the Constitution with you, juris. That way lies madness...

A. Noni Mouse said...

That way lies madness...

Being forced to admit you're completely wrong about something would cause you to go mad? That explains a lot…

So you're just gonna stick with 'Cause I Said So again.

Lame, Lame, Lame, Lame.

Mark Ward said...

I would point out that one definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Discussing the Constitution at any great length with "libertarians to anarcho-capitalists" is essentially the same thing.

juris imprudent said...

I would point out that one definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Like govt adding more regulations on corporate behavior - after the previous set failed in some way?