Hard News: Occupy: Don't call it a protest
311 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I don't feel there is much of any worth in Bernard's list.
So you think bailing out failed finance is a taxpayer responsibility? That foreign ownership of them is a good idea?
What do you see as the downside of a Financial Transactions Tax?
I'm not really seeing a "super socialist state" out of the concept of balancing books, encouraging saving, discouraging speculation, and moving away from the wealth of the nation being tied up in wooden shacks. In fact, to even think that strikes me as a perfect statement of what is wrong with our political economic discourse. To make a binary out of socialism vs capitalism, when it's actually just a matter of broken or working capitalism, is precisely the kind of foolishness that put us where we are now.
-
I don’t feel there is much of any worth in Bernard’s list.
More worthwhile than the Vatican calling for “global oversight of the world’s finances”. Perhaps they could start by global co-operation with sex crimes investigations and stop demanding exemptions from civil laws that don’t treat LGBT people like dog shit.
The nauseatingly hypocritical money quote?
“We should not be afraid to propose new ideas, even if they might destabilize pre-existing balances of power that prevail over the weakest.”
What's Latin for chutzpah?
-
DexterX, in reply to
What do you see as the downside of a Financial Transactions Tax?
That it is wishful thinking and won't happen as well as it is just plain bullshit which is why Social credit aren't around.
to even think that strikes me as a perfect statement of what is wrong with our political economic discourse. To make a binary out of socialism vs capitalism, when it's actually just a matter of broken or working capitalism, is precisely the kind of foolishness that put us where we are now.
What put us where we are now and where in fact are we - please tell?
Believe me when I say you don't know what I think and you don't get where I am coming from.
Looking back from that point - the point of where we are now - It is interseting that :
"as a direct result of privatisin public companies through out NZ, the countries debt was reduced from 67% of GDP in 1984 to 60% of GDP in 1994..(Fisher 199)
So what happened to public debt, during the 9 years of Labour, as a % of GDP and why?
Does any of the tinkering suggested in the wish list actually do much of anyhting?
What really drives the economy?
Consider these questions and you might make more sense of things.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
That it is wishful thinking and won't happen as well as it is just plain bullshit which is why Social credit aren't around.
I don't think we're as powerless to change as you think. It only takes a law to pass through parliament, and bang, we've got a transactions tax. As for why it's bullshit, do tell. That was, after all, what I asked. I didn't ask whether it's going to happen, because neither of us has a crystal ball.
What put us where we are now and where in fact are we - please tell?
Certainly. The world is going through the longest, deepest recession that has happened during my or my parent's lives. This has come about because NZ, along with all of the wealthiest countries on the globe (except for China) have been unable to follow fiscally sensible plans. In labeling any number of good ideas as either capitalist or socialist, we have managed to miss the important question about those ideas on their own merits, whether they are good, or bad. We have seconded to idealism, the right to plan our own futures, to take decisive moves that might have averted the steady rise in the basic cost of life for most people.
Believe me when I say you don't know what I think and you don't get where I am coming from.
I believe you. I'm simply reacting to your opening remark:
The list if executed creates, to my mind, a super socialist state that rewards the failure of governance with a larger tax take and thus a greater buffer for bureaucratic incompetence and wastage.
Which struck me as neoliberal garbage, I'm sorry. There has been a failure of governance, for sure. But it's hardly super socialism to make a few changes to get the economy heading in the right direction. Hickey didn't make any mention of increasing social spending. Quite the opposite he said:
8- Balancing our budget as quickly as possible to reduce the burden of debt on future generations.
Which isn't a suggestion to build a war chest for the next Think Big. It's about not hemorrhaging money until we go broke. As any capitalist would, if it was their own money at stake.
"as a direct result of privatisin public companies through out NZ, the countries debt was reduced from 67% of GDP in 1984 to 60% of GDP in 1994..(Fisher 199)
So what happened to public debt, during the 9 years of Labour, as a % of GDP and why?
Yes, Muldoon went nuts and borrowed a ton of money, and Labour was put under enormous pressure to sell, to raise money as quickly as possible. It was a shocking display of the hubris of power and we're paying for it even now. Hickey is not suggesting that.
Public debt under Clark's Labour was brought under control. Why? Because it's the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, private debt went totally unchecked and skyrocketed. That is something legislation could actually make more difficult, if we are capable of learning the lesson that too much debt is a bad thing.
Does any of the tinkering suggested in the wish list actually do much of anyhting?
It does a hell of a lot more than nothing, which is our current alternative. If you have others, table them.
Consider these questions and you might make more sense of things.
Done. They raise more questions. Your turn.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
What really drives the economy?
OK, I left out that question, because it is enormous and inspecific. I guess if you want to get all philosophical about it, I'd say that energy is what drives the economy. There are 2 basic sources of this. Energy coming in from the Sun, and stored energy on our planet (a great deal of which ultimately came from the Sun). One of these is more of less constant, and one of them is running out.
But it's a long explanation from there to money and different ways of organizing society, which is the business of economics, and has huge crossover to politics, morality, science, etc.
I presume you weren't asking for this kind of answer, and instead it was a rhetorical question, and the answer a single word? Jobs? Growth? Liquidity? Investment? Production? Capital? You tell me. I gave the start of my story, but it's pretty long.
To me, economics is a question of fair distribution of wealth balanced against incentivizing work. It's a constant and ongoing question, because the world changes. It's quite possible that in our lifetimes we might have to rethink the whole thing, if an Asimovian future happens, and work becomes something that only machines do. I have put most of my working life into that vision, yet the question of where that leaves human beings is no closer to resolution than it was when I was a boy reading I, Robot (which is, incidentally, nothing at all like the movie).
Perhaps now is the time for us to work it out. Perhaps it can be worked out. Perhaps we can do it. Perhaps the answer is not what any of us think. Perhaps the process does start with people sitting down and blocking further progress until it is resolved. Sometimes the only answer to a tyrannical system is to refuse to be part of it, forcing it to change.
War has been capitalism's traditional response to grinding to a halt, an enormous enforced demand to kick start the economy and occupy surplus labour. But even that is not a viable solution any more, because the capital destroyed is greater than the capital captured, even for the victor, and modern war doesn't occupy First World labour any more, indeed, there are only professional armies left, and they aren't even needed if a really desperate war broke out - instead entire countries can be rendered uninhabitable in minutes. The existing weapon stockpiles are perfectly sufficient to fight any war without gearing any new business at all. The business of war is just another thing bankrupting us.
I believe there are better answers. Some of them are as simple as a collection of tweaks to the existing system. They are worth trying, since the cost is small. But I believe far more major changes need to be made, that impending resource catastrophe should not be taken lightly, nor should the dangers of global warming, that both of these are driven by the very nature of international capitalism. This really is the big chance we've been waiting for, when it has become clear that the system isn't doing right by enough people to justify ignoring the perils.
NZ may not have an enormous part to play in this, but it could still be significant. We are probably in one of the best situations in the world to take a path of sustainable growth, by taking all of the costs into account. We're not bankrupt yet, nor do we answer to a higher power, as the European countries now must. Our Parliament has extraordinary powers by comparison to most countries in the world to make rapid changes. We've already turned our backs on superpower war once. Why shouldn't we turn our backs on a slide into inequitable poverty and reckless resource depletion, and privatization of many things we spent my whole life paying for?
-
An example of the generosity of spirit of the Occupy Wellington group - offering face painting and cups of tea for the RWC parade crowd. BTW the weather in Wgtn is appalling today - gale force northerlies and rain threatening.
-
Sacha, in reply to
reading I, Robot (which is, incidentally, nothing at all like the movie)
True. Some awesome NZ software powered parts of the movie - including the scene amongst the shipping containers at the end (screencapped here), which the software's developer noted was actually populated by AI characters. Asimov would have been proud.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We are probably in one of the best situations in the world to take a path of sustainable growth, by taking all of the costs into account.
Yet we collectively elected a government determined to invest our children's future in highways to nowhere rather than public transport. "Occupy" is at least partly a response to the failure of traditionally-organised resistance to do much about that or anything else of consequence. Look, a panda.
-
It only takes a law to pass through parliament, and bang, we’ve got a transactions tax
And all the speculative trading moves to a state that doesn't have one. Even if the US and EU were to bring in a Tobin tax, there would still be tax havens (which are after all sovereign communities entitled (I suppose) to run their own affairs).
A graduated wealth tax and a corporate turnover tax would be far more effective.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Power annoyer...
...Thus the Federal Reserve has both private and public aspects. The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained..."
That doesn't sound like "privately owned" to me. But then, if one is paranoid enough, one can believe anything.Nonetheless, it doesn't make it, or its officers, any less subject to acts of corruption...
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - A new audit of the Federal Reserve released today detailed widespread conflicts of interest involving directors of its regional banks.
"The most powerful entity in the United States is riddled with conflicts of interest," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after reviewing the Government Accountability Office report. The study required by a Sanders Amendment to last year's Wall Street reform law examined Fed practices never before subjected to such independent, expert scrutiny.(from: GAO report says that Federal Reserve is riddled with conflicts of interest )
almost makes ya worry whether there is a Mole in our system...
John launched his investment banking career in New Zealand in the mid 80s. After 10 years in the New Zealand market he headed offshore, working in Singapore, London and Sydney for US investment banking giant Merrill Lynch. During that time he was in charge of a number of business units including global foreign exchange and European bond and derivative trading. In 1999 John was invited to join the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY and on two occasions undertook management studies at Harvard University in Boston.
In 2001, he headed back to New Zealand to fulfill a long held ambition to stand for Parliament for the National Party.(from: Johnkey.co.nz )
-
merc,
1. The Fed is privately owned.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489And here with advisors like this, why worry?
At present, the Treasury says, "export prices are high, business confidence remains firm and the Rugby World Cup has provided some temporary support for consumption and for services exports".
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10761676 -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Public debt under Clark’s Labour was brought under control. Why? Because it’s the sensible thing to do. Unfortunately, private debt went totally unchecked and skyrocketed. That is something legislation could actually make more difficult, if we are capable of learning the lesson that too much debt is a bad thing.
The same critics who point out the private debt factor under Clark would likely have attacked attempts to control it as nanny statist. It seems some people can't bear to part with the champagne-life-on-beer-income, until they come horribly unstuck. And it goes to show that materialistic excess is the "NZ the way you want it" of the smartphone age.
And I think a Tobin/FT tax has merit, but what it needs is backing from the G8/G20.
-
merc,
Something weird going on here with articles amended, the Stuff response here, http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5848275/Treasury-confirms-Govt-on-track-for-surplus
Treasury facts I did not know here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Treasury
It's all so arbitrary until you realise who is responsible for what Crown entities. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
The same critics who point out the private debt factor under Clark would likely have attacked attempts to control it as nanny statist. It seems some people can’t bear to part with the champagne-life-on-beer-income, until they come horribly unstuck. And it goes to show that materialistic excess is the “NZ the way you want it” of the smartphone age.
To be fair, Labour did benefit from the growth driven by the housing boom -- which was where much of the private debt got racked up. But it was individuals who did the borrowing. And Cullen did get net public debt to about zero before he left office, despite Opposition chivvying to lighten up a bit.
And I think a Tobin/FT tax has merit, but what it needs is backing from the G8/G20.
I recall looking at it when it was Alliance policy and it seemed to me that the problem was the potential perverse impact on the productive sector. It seemed to offer a considerable advantage to large, vertically integrated producers who could run a supply chain with a minimum of transactions. Maybe someone's thought that through a bit better now.
-
Sacha, in reply to
The same critics who point out the private debt factor under Clark would likely have attacked attempts to control it as nanny statist.
The voting public seem more ready now than last term to consider a capital gains tax or other measures to make property gambling less attractive. English even slipped some through in the last Budget without much of a fuss.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
To be fair, Labour did benefit from the growth driven by the housing boom – which was where much of the private debt got racked up. But it was individuals who did the borrowing.
Um, yes... and would it be fair to suggest that it's possibly not such a bad thing if this Christmas folks are going to be a lot less willing to load unsustainable debt on their credit cards? Of course, it's going to suck dick for the retail sector but still...
And I think a Tobin/FT tax has merit, but what it needs is backing from the G8/G20.
Probably not going to happen when the GOP get everything they want (including billions in tax cuts), and still act like Mean Daddy Obama has put a lump of coal in their Christmas stockings.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Interesting choice of authorities there, merc.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18
-
merc, in reply to
Thanks ;-) Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
Board of Governors
The seven-member Board of Governors is a federal agency. It is charged with the overseeing of the 12 District Reserve Banks and setting national monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the U.S. banking system in general.[62] Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms.[38] The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President from among the sitting Governors. They both serve a four year term and they can be renominated as many times as the President chooses, until their terms on the Board of Governors expire.[63]
Balance between private banks and responsibility of governments
The system was designed out of a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation. In 2006 Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors, summarized the history of this compromise:[45]
Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control. But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees. The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.
In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is a part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.I may be wrong in my stating that the Fed is wholly privately owned, it is part privately owned with the Governors (only 5 needed to make a meeting consensus) appointed by the President, and privately.
-
United Future candidate Pete George wants them off his lawn at Dunedin's Octagon.
I don't know what it's been like in other cities, but the growing groundswell of anger at the occupiers "preventing ordinary folk using the octagon/grass" worries me. There's a lack of awareness that a little bit of inconvenience is worth it for the preservation of opportunities for public protest.
-
"Demands" buy into the idea that someone else has the power and that the occupiers are supplicants. In my view the main theme underlying the protests is a breakdown of the social contract. We hear very wealthy people moaning about and avoiding taxes while they drive on roads that we have paid for, hire people whose educations we have paid for, enjoy the protection of police whom we have paid for, use knowledge developed by universities and research institutes that we have paid for, and strip assets that we have paid for. Remember Alan Gibbs in the 80s saying that he shouldn't pay taxes because as a wealthy man he had contributed enormously to society? A change in attitude is required.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
We hear very wealthy people moaning about and avoiding taxes while they drive on roads that we have paid for, hire people whose educations we have paid for, enjoy the protection of police whom we have paid for, use knowledge developed by universities and research institutes that we have paid for, and strip assets that we have paid for.
It depends on your definition of "very wealthy" is, but this is really not true.
While the share of net tax (including GST) paid by $150,000+ pa households isn't anywhere near the 70% claimed by Bill English and David Farrar -- see Rob Salmond's excellent de-bamboozling post for Pundit -- their share of tax paid is greater than their share of income. They contribute about 43% of all net tax paid by New Zealand families. I think this is a good thing.
As the other of the scale, families earning up to $35,000 pa actually make a net gain from tax-welfare transfers. Again, a good thing.
I'd be more concerned that 50-60% of the wealth in New Zealand is controlled by the top 10% of households, but that's a slightly different issue.
OTOH, we are agreed on the matter of Alan Gibbs. He is appalling.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I don’t know what it’s been like in other cities, but the growing groundswell of anger at the occupiers “preventing ordinary folk using the octagon/grass” worries me. There’s a lack of awareness that a little bit of inconvenience is worth it for the preservation of opportunities for public protest.
I still think it's incumbent on the occupiers to always bear in mind, though, that they are occupying space that belongs to everyone. I think they've been pretty good on that score so far.
By contrast, I remember (I think) the CHOGM protests in Melbourne a decade ago, which caused huge disruption, separated parents from their children, etc. The publicly expressed attitude (suck it up, basically) from many of the activists was pretty awful.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
In the UK, there are 54 billionaires. One amongst them, James Dyson, pays more tax than all the others put together. I haven't seen similar figures for here, but I'd suspect the same thing goes on.
I'm sure the many public servants and corporate managers on six-figure salaries pay an unavoidably large amount of PAYE, which would increase the value for tax paid by $150k+ households. The asset rich, OTOH pay virtually no tax in NZ.
-
9- Reducing consumption of imports, and saving, producing and exporting more.
One man's export is another man's import, so I guess this is all fine if you don't particularly care what happens to or in the rest of the world.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I remember (I think) the CHOGM protests in Melbourne a decade ago, which caused huge disruption, separated parents from their children, etc. The publicly expressed attitude (suck it up, basically) from many of the activists was pretty awful.
There was a huge paid disinformation campaign aimed at those protests, involving the notorious Hill & Knowlton among others. Notable slurs, eagerly repeated at the time by partisan commentators and later proven to be concocted, include protesters throwing urine-filled ballons and tossing ball bearing under the hooves of police horses.
It's a disappointingly cheap shot on your part to blame the violence entirely on protesters. There were a number of accounts, which I clearly recollect, of sometimes elderly protesters and family groups being shocked and distressed at the level of police aggression. Being charged by mounted police, as I can testify from an incident in Sydney some years ago, is extremely intimidating.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.