Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Demeter
Demeter's Journal
Demeter's Journal
November 23, 2012
Lambert here: Occupy’s public discussions on “diversity of tactics” have often lacked historical perspective; discussions, at least online, have tended to degenerate to “Ghandi!” “No, ANC!” Now, however, Erica Chenoweth has developed a dataset and analyzed the historical record. Below the fold are slides summarizing the results of her study of 323 non-violent and violent campaigns from 1900‐2006. (There are twenty slides, so anybody with a slow connection may prefer to download a zipped file of the original PDF). Here’s one key slide:
I’m sure, readers, that like any study, Chenoweth’s work is open to challenge on any number of grounds. That said, surely looking to the historical record to see what’s worked isn’t such a bad thing?
* * *POWER POINT PRESENTATION FOLLOWS***CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK AND THEN ON THE FIRST IMAGE:
Confronting the myth of the rational insurgent By Erica Chenoweth, Ph.D
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/erica-chenoweth-confronting-the-myth-of-the-rational-insurgent-2.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29Lambert here: Occupy’s public discussions on “diversity of tactics” have often lacked historical perspective; discussions, at least online, have tended to degenerate to “Ghandi!” “No, ANC!” Now, however, Erica Chenoweth has developed a dataset and analyzed the historical record. Below the fold are slides summarizing the results of her study of 323 non-violent and violent campaigns from 1900‐2006. (There are twenty slides, so anybody with a slow connection may prefer to download a zipped file of the original PDF). Here’s one key slide:
I’m sure, readers, that like any study, Chenoweth’s work is open to challenge on any number of grounds. That said, surely looking to the historical record to see what’s worked isn’t such a bad thing?
* * *POWER POINT PRESENTATION FOLLOWS***CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK AND THEN ON THE FIRST IMAGE:
November 22, 2012
IT'S LONG AND READ-WORTHY
The inherently symbiotic relationship between banks and governments recently has been reversed. In medieval times, wealthy bankers lent to kings and princes as their major customers. But now it is the banks that are needy, relying on governments for funding – capped by the post-2008 bailouts to save them from going bankrupt from their bad private-sector loans and gambles.
Yet the banks now browbeat governments – not by having ready cash but by threatening to go bust and drag the economy down with them if they are not given control of public tax policy, spending and planning. The process has gone furthest in the United States. Joseph Stiglitz characterizes the Obama administration’s vast transfer of money and pubic debt to the banks as a “privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a ‘partnership’ in which one partner robs the other.” Prof. Bill Black describes banks as becoming criminogenic and innovating “control fraud.” High finance has corrupted regulatory agencies, falsified account-keeping by “mark to model” trickery, and financed the campaigns of its supporters to disable public oversight. The effect is to leave banks in control of how the economy’s allocates its credit and resources.
If there is any silver lining to today’s debt crisis, it is that the present situation and trends cannot continue. So this is not only an opportunity to restructure banking; we have little choice. The urgent issue is who will control the economy: governments, or the financial sector and monopolies with which it has made an alliance.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Already a century ago the outlines of a productive industrial banking system were well understood. But recent bank lobbying has been remarkably successful in distracting attention away from classical analyses of how to shape the financial and tax system to best promote economic growth – by public checks on bank privileges...
Michael Hudson: Banks Weren’t Meant to Be Like This
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/01/michael-hudson-banks-weren%E2%80%99t-meant-to-be-like-this.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29IT'S LONG AND READ-WORTHY
The inherently symbiotic relationship between banks and governments recently has been reversed. In medieval times, wealthy bankers lent to kings and princes as their major customers. But now it is the banks that are needy, relying on governments for funding – capped by the post-2008 bailouts to save them from going bankrupt from their bad private-sector loans and gambles.
Yet the banks now browbeat governments – not by having ready cash but by threatening to go bust and drag the economy down with them if they are not given control of public tax policy, spending and planning. The process has gone furthest in the United States. Joseph Stiglitz characterizes the Obama administration’s vast transfer of money and pubic debt to the banks as a “privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a ‘partnership’ in which one partner robs the other.” Prof. Bill Black describes banks as becoming criminogenic and innovating “control fraud.” High finance has corrupted regulatory agencies, falsified account-keeping by “mark to model” trickery, and financed the campaigns of its supporters to disable public oversight. The effect is to leave banks in control of how the economy’s allocates its credit and resources.
If there is any silver lining to today’s debt crisis, it is that the present situation and trends cannot continue. So this is not only an opportunity to restructure banking; we have little choice. The urgent issue is who will control the economy: governments, or the financial sector and monopolies with which it has made an alliance.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel. Already a century ago the outlines of a productive industrial banking system were well understood. But recent bank lobbying has been remarkably successful in distracting attention away from classical analyses of how to shape the financial and tax system to best promote economic growth – by public checks on bank privileges...
November 22, 2012
DISCUSSION ON HOW PLANTS MADE MUD, ATMOSPHERE, RIVERS, AND MORE...
"Plants are not passive passengers on the planet's surface system," Gibling says. "They create the surface system. Organisms tool the environment: the atmosphere, the landscapes, the oceans all develop incredible complexity once plant life grows." So as Nature Geoscience's editors state in an editorial for their special edition, "Even if there are a number of planets that could support tectonics, running water and the chemical cycles that are essential for life as we know it, it seems unlikely that any of them would look like Earth." Because even if plants do sprout, they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.
Thanks to Plants, We Will Never Find a Planet Like Earth
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=plants-created-earth-landscapel&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_EVO_20120206DISCUSSION ON HOW PLANTS MADE MUD, ATMOSPHERE, RIVERS, AND MORE...
"Plants are not passive passengers on the planet's surface system," Gibling says. "They create the surface system. Organisms tool the environment: the atmosphere, the landscapes, the oceans all develop incredible complexity once plant life grows." So as Nature Geoscience's editors state in an editorial for their special edition, "Even if there are a number of planets that could support tectonics, running water and the chemical cycles that are essential for life as we know it, it seems unlikely that any of them would look like Earth." Because even if plants do sprout, they will evolve differently, crafting a different surface on the orb they call home.
November 22, 2012
So, the upshot is, Thanksgiving is what you make of it. If you like, list a few things you are thankful for, this day of our Lord November 22, 2012....
WEE Gather Together, November 22, 2012
http://gardenofeaden.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-first-thanksgiving.html#ixzz2CyScylmJThanksgiving, or Thanksgiving Day, is a holiday celebrated in the United States on the fourth Thursday in November. Historically, Thanksgiving had roots in religious and cultural tradition, but nowadays Thanksgiving is primarily celebrated as a secular holiday. It has officially been an annual tradition since 1863, when, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of -
The first Thanksgiving
Long before settlers came to the East Coast of the United States, the area was inhabited by many Native American tribes. The area surrounding the site of the first Thanksgiving, now known as southeastern Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island had been the home of the Wampanoag people for over 12,000 years, and had been visited by other European settlers before the arrival of the Mayflower. The native people knew the land well and had fished, hunted, and harvested for thousands of generations.
The people who comprised the Plymouth Colony were a group of English Protestants who wanted to break away from the Church of England. These ‘separatists’ initially moved to Holland and after 12 years of financial problems, they received funding from English merchants to sail across the Atlantic to settle in a ‘New World.' A ship carrying 101 men, women, and children spent 66 days traveling the Atlantic Ocean, intending to land where New York City is now located. Due to the windy conditions, the group had to cut their trip short and settle at what is now called Cape Cod.
As the Puritans prepared for winter, they gathered anything they could find, including Wampanoag supplies. One day, Samoset, a leader of the Abenaki, and Tisquantum (better known as Squanto) visited the settlers. Squanto was a Wampanoag who had experience with other settlers and knew English. Squanto helped the settlers grow corn and use fish to fertilize their fields. After several meetings, a formal agreement was made between the settlers and the native people and they joined together to protect each other from other tribes in March of 1621.
One autumn day, four settlers were sent to hunt for food for a harvest celebration. The Wampanoag heard gunshots and alerted their leader, Massasoit, who thought the English might be preparing for war. Massasoit visited the 53 strong English settlement with 90 of his men to see if the war rumor was true. Soon after their visit, the Native Americans realized that the English were only hunting for the harvest celebration. Massasoit sent some of his own men to hunt deer for the feast, and for three days, the English and native men, women, and children ate together. They also played ball games, sang, and danced.
The feast consisted of fish (cod, eels, and bass) and shellfish (clams, lobster, and mussels), wild fowl (ducks, geese, swans, and turkey), venison, berries and fruit, vegetables (peas, pumpkin, beetroot and possibly, wild or cultivated onion), harvest grains (barley and wheat), and the 'Three Sisters' - beans, dried Indian maize or corn, and squash. Clearly this meal was far from today's traditional Thanksgiving feast as much of what most modern Americans ate on Thanksgiving was not available in 1621.
The History of Thanksgiving
Considering the strong English roots of the early settlers, it is no surprise that the Thanksgiving holiday's history in North America is rooted in English traditions dating from the Protestant Reformation. It also has aspects of a harvest festival, even though the harvest in New England occurs well before the late-November date of the holiday.
In the English tradition, days of thanksgiving and special thanksgiving religious services became important during the English Reformation in the reign of Henry VIII and in reaction to the large number of religious holidays on the Catholic calendar. Before 1536 there were 95 Church holidays, plus 52 Sundays, when people were required to attend church and forego work and sometimes pay for expensive celebrations. The 1536 reforms reduced the number of Church holidays to 27, but some Puritans, the radical reformers of their age, wished to completely eliminate all Church holidays, including Christmas and Easter. The holidays were to be replaced by specially called Days of Fasting or Days of Thanksgiving, in response to events that the Puritans viewed as acts of special providence.
Unexpected disasters or threats of judgment from on high called for Days of Fasting. Special blessings, viewed as coming from God, called for Days of Thanksgiving. For example, Days of Fasting were called on account of drought in 1611, floods in 1613, and plague in 1604 and 1622. Days of Thanksgiving were called following the victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588, and following the deliverance of Queen Anne in 1705.
An unusual annual Day of Thanksgiving began in 1606 following the failure of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, and developed into Guy Fawkes Day...
'Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.'
The first Thanksgiving
Long before settlers came to the East Coast of the United States, the area was inhabited by many Native American tribes. The area surrounding the site of the first Thanksgiving, now known as southeastern Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island had been the home of the Wampanoag people for over 12,000 years, and had been visited by other European settlers before the arrival of the Mayflower. The native people knew the land well and had fished, hunted, and harvested for thousands of generations.
The people who comprised the Plymouth Colony were a group of English Protestants who wanted to break away from the Church of England. These ‘separatists’ initially moved to Holland and after 12 years of financial problems, they received funding from English merchants to sail across the Atlantic to settle in a ‘New World.' A ship carrying 101 men, women, and children spent 66 days traveling the Atlantic Ocean, intending to land where New York City is now located. Due to the windy conditions, the group had to cut their trip short and settle at what is now called Cape Cod.
As the Puritans prepared for winter, they gathered anything they could find, including Wampanoag supplies. One day, Samoset, a leader of the Abenaki, and Tisquantum (better known as Squanto) visited the settlers. Squanto was a Wampanoag who had experience with other settlers and knew English. Squanto helped the settlers grow corn and use fish to fertilize their fields. After several meetings, a formal agreement was made between the settlers and the native people and they joined together to protect each other from other tribes in March of 1621.
One autumn day, four settlers were sent to hunt for food for a harvest celebration. The Wampanoag heard gunshots and alerted their leader, Massasoit, who thought the English might be preparing for war. Massasoit visited the 53 strong English settlement with 90 of his men to see if the war rumor was true. Soon after their visit, the Native Americans realized that the English were only hunting for the harvest celebration. Massasoit sent some of his own men to hunt deer for the feast, and for three days, the English and native men, women, and children ate together. They also played ball games, sang, and danced.
The feast consisted of fish (cod, eels, and bass) and shellfish (clams, lobster, and mussels), wild fowl (ducks, geese, swans, and turkey), venison, berries and fruit, vegetables (peas, pumpkin, beetroot and possibly, wild or cultivated onion), harvest grains (barley and wheat), and the 'Three Sisters' - beans, dried Indian maize or corn, and squash. Clearly this meal was far from today's traditional Thanksgiving feast as much of what most modern Americans ate on Thanksgiving was not available in 1621.
The History of Thanksgiving
Considering the strong English roots of the early settlers, it is no surprise that the Thanksgiving holiday's history in North America is rooted in English traditions dating from the Protestant Reformation. It also has aspects of a harvest festival, even though the harvest in New England occurs well before the late-November date of the holiday.
In the English tradition, days of thanksgiving and special thanksgiving religious services became important during the English Reformation in the reign of Henry VIII and in reaction to the large number of religious holidays on the Catholic calendar. Before 1536 there were 95 Church holidays, plus 52 Sundays, when people were required to attend church and forego work and sometimes pay for expensive celebrations. The 1536 reforms reduced the number of Church holidays to 27, but some Puritans, the radical reformers of their age, wished to completely eliminate all Church holidays, including Christmas and Easter. The holidays were to be replaced by specially called Days of Fasting or Days of Thanksgiving, in response to events that the Puritans viewed as acts of special providence.
Unexpected disasters or threats of judgment from on high called for Days of Fasting. Special blessings, viewed as coming from God, called for Days of Thanksgiving. For example, Days of Fasting were called on account of drought in 1611, floods in 1613, and plague in 1604 and 1622. Days of Thanksgiving were called following the victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588, and following the deliverance of Queen Anne in 1705.
An unusual annual Day of Thanksgiving began in 1606 following the failure of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, and developed into Guy Fawkes Day...
So, the upshot is, Thanksgiving is what you make of it. If you like, list a few things you are thankful for, this day of our Lord November 22, 2012....
November 21, 2012
In part one of this series http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-one-the-simple-answer/#comment-20703 I suggested that the simple reason we were bailing out the banks and simultaneously cutting public spending was because,
In part two http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-two-theory-ideology-and-failure/ I argued that while the simple selfishness answer is true there are also theoretical justifications (albeit flawed ones) for the bail and cut policy.
I argued that one of the legion problems with this world view is the fact that whatever the ideology says should happen, the reality is that giving money to the banks for them to invest has simply not worked. It was never going to work because it is founded on a misapprehension about the nature and business of modern banks. Namely – that they invest for growth. They do not – certainly not in the broader economy during a recession. Banks used to ‘invest’. Today they much prefer to speculate. Investing is long and slow and does not make big bonuses. Speculating on food prices, currency fluctuations and sovereign debt, lending for leveraged, debt ladened buy-outs - now these things can all provide the quick returns and big bonuses which old fashioned investment does not...The idea that ‘we are all in this together’ coupled with the other idea that the banks are there to help – or are ‘there for the journey’ as a UK bank advert claims, is wishful thinking at best. These notions may make snappy sound bites but that is all they make. Banks are not there to help. They are NOT a service industry. Banks exist to make a profit as fast and as often as possible for those who own them and large bonuses for those who run them. Which is fine. They are a business. As long as we remember that and treat them accordingly I have no problem. I have a massive problem when, in the good times, the banks insist on being recognized as a business in the free market, to be treated with a laissez faire, light touch. But then in bad times insist even more fervently that they are not just a business to be allowed to live and die by the rules of the market like any other business, but claim instead to be an essential, – no, THE essential public service which must be protected above all else. So essential, in fact, that all ‘other’ public services must be cut in in order to better save the banks....Let’s be clear the banks are not a public service. Banking – rather than the banks – could be a public service, but it is not run as such today. The banks are run as ruthless businesses. They exist according to an almost entirely selfish philosophy which extends from how they imagine human nature to be – no one, they think, would even turn up for work let alone do a good job unless rewarded more than anyone else – to justifying any and all fraud on the basis that if it makes a profit then who could blame you for trying. Be that as it may…
In part three http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-three-lies-and-opposition/ I suggested that the official policy with its armature of ideological justifications and soundbite explanations was today’s Big Lie and looked at how and why Big Lies work.
In this last part, having looked at the origin and ideological justifications for the ‘bail the banks and cut everything else’ policy, I want to look at where the policy goes now. Because I believe the policies of the last four years have brought us to a critical and unstable juncture.
.......................................................................................................................
For the last four years our Dear Leaders, political and financial, have been labouring to push everything back up the hill from which it slipped. As they have neared the top, however, I think they have come to see that the policies they have forced upon us can do much more for them than simply restore what they had before. Why stop there, they now wonder? The top of a hill is a place of fantastic opportunity. l think our leaders have come to see that shoved hard in the ‘right’ direction they could propel our societies in almost any direction they desired. But this state of potential is also perilous. The top of a hill is the place and the moment when the forces are all finely balanced and almost any ‘unauthorized’ push could send the system off in a direction the Dear Leaders would not like. Victory for the powerful and wealthy seems so close at hand and yet the crisis, far from being over, is also at its most critical juncture. So many possibilities exist together, like overlaid quantum states, in this one moment.
Just as our rulers prepare for one last push, to enforce one more round of austerity and bank bail outs upon us, to propel us more firmly to their desired future, they find there is a building and spreading opposition to everything they are doing. I believe we are at, or very near, that place of maximum potential and maximum uncertainty where things could tumble down any number of quite different paths. Irreversible victory is within our leader’s reach. Yet at the same time they are only a stumble, a determined opposing push away, from irrevocable disaster.
MORE AT LINK
AND FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IRREVERSIBLE VICTORY"
ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WE HAVE SEEN SUCH EFFORTS FAIL. AND EACH TIME, THEY FAIL QUICKER, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, GREATER THAN "POWER" GREATER THAN "WEALTH" GREATER THAN ANYTHING, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE, ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN LEARN HOW TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WE WILL HAVE TO. AND THAT WILL PUSH THE 1% OFF THEIR MOUNTAIN TOP FOREVER.
Why are we bailing out the banks? – Part Four – What happens now?
http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/11/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-four-what-happens-now/In part one of this series http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-one-the-simple-answer/#comment-20703 I suggested that the simple reason we were bailing out the banks and simultaneously cutting public spending was because,
If the banks were to be wound up it is the wealthiest 10%'s credit/debt backed ‘money and the assets held in it, which would burn to ash….So the simple reason our rulers insist on bailing out the banks is that by doing so the wealthy and the powerful are simply bailing out themselves and guaranteeing the continuation of a system which suits them perfectly.
In part two http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-two-theory-ideology-and-failure/ I argued that while the simple selfishness answer is true there are also theoretical justifications (albeit flawed ones) for the bail and cut policy.
The two aspects of their policy ‘bail and cut’, they will insist are not contradictory at all. Simply put, they will say they are loosening or increasing the money supply (QE) in order to invest in growth (classic Keynesian) while simultaneously cutting those expenditures which they feel do not generate growth and which are in fact ‘drains’ on productivity – in their view any ‘public’ expenditure (Classic Free-market). Growth, for them, equals the free-market/private sector, while drains on growth equal government, public spending….Basically – Private Debt good, Public Debt bad.
I argued that one of the legion problems with this world view is the fact that whatever the ideology says should happen, the reality is that giving money to the banks for them to invest has simply not worked. It was never going to work because it is founded on a misapprehension about the nature and business of modern banks. Namely – that they invest for growth. They do not – certainly not in the broader economy during a recession. Banks used to ‘invest’. Today they much prefer to speculate. Investing is long and slow and does not make big bonuses. Speculating on food prices, currency fluctuations and sovereign debt, lending for leveraged, debt ladened buy-outs - now these things can all provide the quick returns and big bonuses which old fashioned investment does not...The idea that ‘we are all in this together’ coupled with the other idea that the banks are there to help – or are ‘there for the journey’ as a UK bank advert claims, is wishful thinking at best. These notions may make snappy sound bites but that is all they make. Banks are not there to help. They are NOT a service industry. Banks exist to make a profit as fast and as often as possible for those who own them and large bonuses for those who run them. Which is fine. They are a business. As long as we remember that and treat them accordingly I have no problem. I have a massive problem when, in the good times, the banks insist on being recognized as a business in the free market, to be treated with a laissez faire, light touch. But then in bad times insist even more fervently that they are not just a business to be allowed to live and die by the rules of the market like any other business, but claim instead to be an essential, – no, THE essential public service which must be protected above all else. So essential, in fact, that all ‘other’ public services must be cut in in order to better save the banks....Let’s be clear the banks are not a public service. Banking – rather than the banks – could be a public service, but it is not run as such today. The banks are run as ruthless businesses. They exist according to an almost entirely selfish philosophy which extends from how they imagine human nature to be – no one, they think, would even turn up for work let alone do a good job unless rewarded more than anyone else – to justifying any and all fraud on the basis that if it makes a profit then who could blame you for trying. Be that as it may…
In part three http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2012/10/why-are-we-bailing-out-the-banks-part-three-lies-and-opposition/ I suggested that the official policy with its armature of ideological justifications and soundbite explanations was today’s Big Lie and looked at how and why Big Lies work.
In this last part, having looked at the origin and ideological justifications for the ‘bail the banks and cut everything else’ policy, I want to look at where the policy goes now. Because I believe the policies of the last four years have brought us to a critical and unstable juncture.
.......................................................................................................................
For the last four years our Dear Leaders, political and financial, have been labouring to push everything back up the hill from which it slipped. As they have neared the top, however, I think they have come to see that the policies they have forced upon us can do much more for them than simply restore what they had before. Why stop there, they now wonder? The top of a hill is a place of fantastic opportunity. l think our leaders have come to see that shoved hard in the ‘right’ direction they could propel our societies in almost any direction they desired. But this state of potential is also perilous. The top of a hill is the place and the moment when the forces are all finely balanced and almost any ‘unauthorized’ push could send the system off in a direction the Dear Leaders would not like. Victory for the powerful and wealthy seems so close at hand and yet the crisis, far from being over, is also at its most critical juncture. So many possibilities exist together, like overlaid quantum states, in this one moment.
Just as our rulers prepare for one last push, to enforce one more round of austerity and bank bail outs upon us, to propel us more firmly to their desired future, they find there is a building and spreading opposition to everything they are doing. I believe we are at, or very near, that place of maximum potential and maximum uncertainty where things could tumble down any number of quite different paths. Irreversible victory is within our leader’s reach. Yet at the same time they are only a stumble, a determined opposing push away, from irrevocable disaster.
MORE AT LINK
AND FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "IRREVERSIBLE VICTORY"
ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WE HAVE SEEN SUCH EFFORTS FAIL. AND EACH TIME, THEY FAIL QUICKER, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE A FORCE TO BE RECKONED WITH, GREATER THAN "POWER" GREATER THAN "WEALTH" GREATER THAN ANYTHING, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE, ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN LEARN HOW TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE, AND WE WILL HAVE TO. AND THAT WILL PUSH THE 1% OFF THEIR MOUNTAIN TOP FOREVER.
November 21, 2012
1. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.
According to both Market watch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds.
2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.
In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland.
3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans.
The Tax Justice Network estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that's $8 to $12 trillion in U.S. money stashed in far-off hiding places. Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion.
4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession.
After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. U.S. corporations have shown a pattern of tax reluctance for more than 50 years, despite building their businesses with American research and infrastructure. They've passed the responsibility on to their workers. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 22 cents.
5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year.
That's enough to pay the salaries of over a million nurses or teachers or emergency responders. That's enough, according to 2008 estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN's World Food Program, to feed the 870 million people in the world who are lacking sufficient food. For the free-market advocates who say "they've earned it": Point #1 above makes it clear how the wealthy make their money.
6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.
Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers.
7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH.
The Insight Center for Community Economic Development reported that median wealth for black and Hispanic women is a little over $100. That's much less than one percent of the median wealth for single white women ($41,500). Other studies confirm the racially-charged economic inequality in our country. For every dollar of NON-HOME wealth owned by white families, people of color have only one cent.
8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has dropped significantly over the past 15 years, serving only about a quarter of the families in poverty, and paying less than $400 per month for a family of three for housing and other necessities. Ninety percent of the available benefits go to the elderly, the disabled, or working households. Food stamp recipients get $4.30 a day.
9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984.
21- to 35-year-olds: Your median net worth has dropped 68% since 1984. It's now less than $4,000. That $4,000 has to pay for student loans that average $27,200. Or, if you're still in school, for $12,700 in credit card debt. With an unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds of almost 50%, two out of every five recent college graduates are living with their parents. But your favorite company may be hiring. Apple, which makes a profit of $420,000 per employee, can pay you about $12 per hour.
10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.
That's about the same amount of money made by America's richest 10% in one year. But we all paid for the bailout. And because of it, we lost the opportunity for jobs, mortgage relief, and educational funding. Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S.
The world derivatives market is estimated to be worth over a quadrillion dollars (a thousand trillion). At least $200 trillion of that is in the United States. In 2011 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reported a trading volume of over $1 quadrillion on 3.4 billion annual contracts. A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO. It's not surprising that the very rich would like to fudge the numbers, as they have the nation.
Ten Numbers the Rich Would Like Fudged By Paul Buchheit
http://www.nationofchange.org/ten-numbers-rich-would-fudged-13533352251. Only THREE PERCENT of the very rich are entrepreneurs.
According to both Market watch and economist Edward Wolff, over 90 percent of the assets owned by millionaires are held in a combination of low-risk investments (bonds and cash), personal business accounts, the stock market, and real estate. Only 3.6 percent of taxpayers in the top .1% were classified as entrepreneurs based on 2004 tax returns. A 2009 Kauffman Foundation study found that the great majority of entrepreneurs come from middle-class backgrounds, with less than 1 percent of all entrepreneurs coming from very rich or very poor backgrounds.
2. Only FOUR OUT OF 150 countries have more wealth inequality than us.
In a world listing compiled by a reputable research team (which nevertheless prompted double-checking), the U.S. has greater wealth inequality than every measured country in the world except for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Denmark, and Switzerland.
3. An amount equal to ONE-HALF the GDP is held untaxed overseas by rich Americans.
The Tax Justice Network estimated that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world's Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that's $8 to $12 trillion in U.S. money stashed in far-off hiding places. Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion.
4. Corporations stopped paying HALF OF THEIR TAXES after the recession.
After paying an average of 22.5% from 1987 to 2008, corporations have paid an annual rate of 10% since. This represents a sudden $250 billion annual loss in taxes. U.S. corporations have shown a pattern of tax reluctance for more than 50 years, despite building their businesses with American research and infrastructure. They've passed the responsibility on to their workers. For every dollar of workers' payroll tax paid in the 1950s, corporations paid three dollars. Now it's 22 cents.
5. Just TEN Americans made a total of FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS in one year.
That's enough to pay the salaries of over a million nurses or teachers or emergency responders. That's enough, according to 2008 estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UN's World Food Program, to feed the 870 million people in the world who are lacking sufficient food. For the free-market advocates who say "they've earned it": Point #1 above makes it clear how the wealthy make their money.
6. Tax deductions for the rich could pay off 100 PERCENT of the deficit.
Another stat that required a double-check. Based on research by the Tax Policy Center, tax deferrals and deductions and other forms of tax expenditures (tax subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes), which largely benefit the rich, are worth about 7.4% of the GDP, or about $1.1 trillion. Other sources have estimated that about two-thirds of the annual $850 billion in tax expenditures goes to the top quintile of taxpayers.
7. The average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 IN NET WORTH.
The Insight Center for Community Economic Development reported that median wealth for black and Hispanic women is a little over $100. That's much less than one percent of the median wealth for single white women ($41,500). Other studies confirm the racially-charged economic inequality in our country. For every dollar of NON-HOME wealth owned by white families, people of color have only one cent.
8. Elderly and disabled food stamp recipients get $4.30 A DAY FOR FOOD.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) has dropped significantly over the past 15 years, serving only about a quarter of the families in poverty, and paying less than $400 per month for a family of three for housing and other necessities. Ninety percent of the available benefits go to the elderly, the disabled, or working households. Food stamp recipients get $4.30 a day.
9. Young adults have lost TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR NET WORTH since 1984.
21- to 35-year-olds: Your median net worth has dropped 68% since 1984. It's now less than $4,000. That $4,000 has to pay for student loans that average $27,200. Or, if you're still in school, for $12,700 in credit card debt. With an unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds of almost 50%, two out of every five recent college graduates are living with their parents. But your favorite company may be hiring. Apple, which makes a profit of $420,000 per employee, can pay you about $12 per hour.
10. The American public paid about FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS to bail out the banks.
That's about the same amount of money made by America's richest 10% in one year. But we all paid for the bailout. And because of it, we lost the opportunity for jobs, mortgage relief, and educational funding. Bonus for the super-rich: A QUADRILLION DOLLARS in securities trading nets ZERO sales tax revenue for the U.S.
The world derivatives market is estimated to be worth over a quadrillion dollars (a thousand trillion). At least $200 trillion of that is in the United States. In 2011 the Chicago Mercantile Exchange reported a trading volume of over $1 quadrillion on 3.4 billion annual contracts. A quadrillion dollars. A sales tax of ONE-TENTH OF A PENNY on a quadrillion dollars could pay off the deficit. But the total sales tax was ZERO. It's not surprising that the very rich would like to fudge the numbers, as they have the nation.
November 21, 2012
SEE RUNNING TOTAL AT ROLLING JUBILEE WEBSITE:
http://rollingjubilee.org/
WHICH IS NOW UP TO $7.5 MILLION...
Occupy's Rolling Jubilee Has Raised Enough to Forgive Almost $7 Million of Debt
http://www.alternet.org/occupys-rolling-jubilee-has-raised-enough-forgive-almost-7-million-debt?akid=9697.227380.IBR5OG&rd=1&src=newsletter746912&t=16SEE RUNNING TOTAL AT ROLLING JUBILEE WEBSITE:
http://rollingjubilee.org/
WHICH IS NOW UP TO $7.5 MILLION...
November 21, 2012
As laid out in the previous article, Anonymous, Karl Rove and the 2012 Election Fix?, http://truth-out.org/news/item/12871-why-anonymous-claims-about-election-rigging-cant-be-ignored it’s possible that Karl Rove used SmartTECH’s servers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to flip the vote totals in Ohio in 2004 and thus steal the election that year for George W. Bush – and just as possible that he tried to do the same thing this year on Romney’s behalf but was thwarted by the hacktivist group Anonymous.
Many people have responded to these claims with a variation on: “That’s impossible. A presidential candidate committing treason? That would never happen, and, if it did, it would be front-page news. Everybody would know about it, right?"
Wrong.
Consider some simple history.
In 1952 Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidency – and there’s not a hint of scandal associated with that election. Maybe that’s because he supported a 91% top marginal income tax rate on the rich and approved of very popular New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment benefits. As he told his brother in a letter in 1954, “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things…a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
But Eisenhower was the last legitimately elected Republican president.
Richard Nixon, who won the 1968 election against Vice President Hubert Humphrey, followed Eisenhower. At the time, the Vietnam War was raging, millions of students were in the streets, and President Lyndon Johnson, throughout 1968, was working desperately to bring a negotiated end to that war. He’d gotten both the North and the South Vietnamese to agree to terms of peace, and, by late September, there was only a meeting in Paris to seal the deal. And then the CIA brought LBJ a wiretap they’d intercepted between the Nixon for President Campaign and the office of the President of South Vietnam, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu. Nixon basically told them that if they refused to go to the peace talks, or at least refused to go along with the peace agreement Johnson had worked out with them, then Nixon would give them a much better deal after the election.
LBJ was furious. This was treason, and because he could listen to the CIA phone intercepts, he knew that Richard Nixon was at the heart of it....MORE
AND IF ANYONE ASKS WHY YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT, THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT...
Why Anonymous’ Claims about Election-Rigging Can’t Be Ignored
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12871-why-anonymous-claims-about-election-rigging-cant-be-ignoredAs laid out in the previous article, Anonymous, Karl Rove and the 2012 Election Fix?, http://truth-out.org/news/item/12871-why-anonymous-claims-about-election-rigging-cant-be-ignored it’s possible that Karl Rove used SmartTECH’s servers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to flip the vote totals in Ohio in 2004 and thus steal the election that year for George W. Bush – and just as possible that he tried to do the same thing this year on Romney’s behalf but was thwarted by the hacktivist group Anonymous.
Many people have responded to these claims with a variation on: “That’s impossible. A presidential candidate committing treason? That would never happen, and, if it did, it would be front-page news. Everybody would know about it, right?"
Wrong.
Consider some simple history.
In 1952 Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower won the presidency – and there’s not a hint of scandal associated with that election. Maybe that’s because he supported a 91% top marginal income tax rate on the rich and approved of very popular New Deal programs like Social Security and unemployment benefits. As he told his brother in a letter in 1954, “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things…a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
But Eisenhower was the last legitimately elected Republican president.
Richard Nixon, who won the 1968 election against Vice President Hubert Humphrey, followed Eisenhower. At the time, the Vietnam War was raging, millions of students were in the streets, and President Lyndon Johnson, throughout 1968, was working desperately to bring a negotiated end to that war. He’d gotten both the North and the South Vietnamese to agree to terms of peace, and, by late September, there was only a meeting in Paris to seal the deal. And then the CIA brought LBJ a wiretap they’d intercepted between the Nixon for President Campaign and the office of the President of South Vietnam, Nguyễn Văn Thiệu. Nixon basically told them that if they refused to go to the peace talks, or at least refused to go along with the peace agreement Johnson had worked out with them, then Nixon would give them a much better deal after the election.
LBJ was furious. This was treason, and because he could listen to the CIA phone intercepts, he knew that Richard Nixon was at the heart of it....MORE
AND IF ANYONE ASKS WHY YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT, THIS ARTICLE WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT...
November 20, 2012
No rumor is true until it is officially denied
and I think we have reached that point.
As far as I can tell, Anonymous is under no obligation to "prove" anything. They are private individuals, not funded by anything other than their own resources, supported by nothing but their own intellect.
If they were able to defeat the forces of evil, more power to them! If they are able to instill in an apathetic nation the idea that Evil can and should be overcome, even better, whether or not the previous sentence applies.
November 20, 2012
...workers need more than coffee to see them through. They
need wages and pensions. How big do they need to be? In a time of
drooping wages and wavering pensions, we need to know. Let’s approach the wages, retirement and pension discussion by simplifying it as much as possible. Let’s assume that the work life extends from age 20 to 60. The work that people do before and after those ages is balanced by people who are not able to work at all, for whatever reason. We’re talking averages here, spread across 33 million Canadians. So for half your life you work, and for half (birth to 20, and 60 to 80) you don’t. As you can see, on average every person working must earn double what it costs him to live. That extra money pays for the child the worker is before he goes to work, and the senior he is afterwards. For the population of Canada to stay level, each Canadian must raise one child, and he must support himself once he retires. What it costs to do that is the “lifetime wage.”
How can we calculate that?
Well, to start we can set a lower limit. Each individual must earn or
somehow acquire no less than what he needs to stay alive. A rough
guess for that number is around $800/month. That’s in the range of
what single welfare recipients receive. I have no idea how they live
on that, but thousands of them do. Full time minimum wage is roughly double that, about $1600/month before taxes, about $1350 after. (Manitoba minimum wage currently $10/hour.) This is still not enough to be a lifetime wage. Also, most minimum wage jobs are not full time or continuous employment, so the effective income from minimum wage employment is closer to welfare rates.
Canadians are being exhorted to live responsibly, only bearing
children if they can afford to raise them, saving for their education
and also for the their own retirement. The smallest sufficient income
to accomplish this seems to be about double current minimum wages, or about $20/hour in Manitoba, $35,000 to $45,000 per year averaged over a working life. Business won’t pay such wages if they aren’t forced to. But somebody must. Why? Not for moral reasons, we’re not dealing with morality here, just practicality. Whatever way you try to jig the numbers, half the population depends on the other half just to live. In a nation, these life-stages overlap so the burden levels out over time, but effectively one half is always supporting the other.
Paying out to each worker less than double the bare cost of living in
a closed system will result in collapse or shrinkage of the system.
But suppose you don’t treat your nation as a closed system? Maybe you can outsource some of the cost at the two “nonproductive” ends of the lifespan. If you want to cut your costs to the bone so your workers
can be paid only their immediate costs of living, you have to tackle
the problem at the child end and the senior end.
At the child end, you can outsource the production of new workers to
other, poorer countries – i.e. depend on immigration for population
growth. That’s one thing Canada is doing...The hard lifting of childbirth and childrearing and child mortality was done by other countries with no cost to Canada. In fact, immigrants pay a small but significant landing fee, $500 to $1000 depending on entry class. We further maximized the value of the outsourced new citizens by selecting capable applicants free of serious medical problems.
At the senior end of the lifespan, you can cut elder supports as much
as possible. This is harder to do because elders are aware of the
process and often have younger relatives to advocate for them, but
though it’s going slowly, it is a work in progress. A maximally efficient economy in a non-closed system would be one where you import all your workers, keep them as long as you need them, and repatriate them afterwards. But that is not a nation. Nations grow their own people, they don’t rent them.
ANOTHER KEEPER-IT CUTS THROW ALL THE BS
MORE AT LINK
Double Double -- The Absolute Simplest Look at Wages and Pensions
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/02/double-double-absolute-simplest-look-at.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/Hzoh+%28Angry+Bear%29...workers need more than coffee to see them through. They
need wages and pensions. How big do they need to be? In a time of
drooping wages and wavering pensions, we need to know. Let’s approach the wages, retirement and pension discussion by simplifying it as much as possible. Let’s assume that the work life extends from age 20 to 60. The work that people do before and after those ages is balanced by people who are not able to work at all, for whatever reason. We’re talking averages here, spread across 33 million Canadians. So for half your life you work, and for half (birth to 20, and 60 to 80) you don’t. As you can see, on average every person working must earn double what it costs him to live. That extra money pays for the child the worker is before he goes to work, and the senior he is afterwards. For the population of Canada to stay level, each Canadian must raise one child, and he must support himself once he retires. What it costs to do that is the “lifetime wage.”
How can we calculate that?
Well, to start we can set a lower limit. Each individual must earn or
somehow acquire no less than what he needs to stay alive. A rough
guess for that number is around $800/month. That’s in the range of
what single welfare recipients receive. I have no idea how they live
on that, but thousands of them do. Full time minimum wage is roughly double that, about $1600/month before taxes, about $1350 after. (Manitoba minimum wage currently $10/hour.) This is still not enough to be a lifetime wage. Also, most minimum wage jobs are not full time or continuous employment, so the effective income from minimum wage employment is closer to welfare rates.
Canadians are being exhorted to live responsibly, only bearing
children if they can afford to raise them, saving for their education
and also for the their own retirement. The smallest sufficient income
to accomplish this seems to be about double current minimum wages, or about $20/hour in Manitoba, $35,000 to $45,000 per year averaged over a working life. Business won’t pay such wages if they aren’t forced to. But somebody must. Why? Not for moral reasons, we’re not dealing with morality here, just practicality. Whatever way you try to jig the numbers, half the population depends on the other half just to live. In a nation, these life-stages overlap so the burden levels out over time, but effectively one half is always supporting the other.
Paying out to each worker less than double the bare cost of living in
a closed system will result in collapse or shrinkage of the system.
But suppose you don’t treat your nation as a closed system? Maybe you can outsource some of the cost at the two “nonproductive” ends of the lifespan. If you want to cut your costs to the bone so your workers
can be paid only their immediate costs of living, you have to tackle
the problem at the child end and the senior end.
At the child end, you can outsource the production of new workers to
other, poorer countries – i.e. depend on immigration for population
growth. That’s one thing Canada is doing...The hard lifting of childbirth and childrearing and child mortality was done by other countries with no cost to Canada. In fact, immigrants pay a small but significant landing fee, $500 to $1000 depending on entry class. We further maximized the value of the outsourced new citizens by selecting capable applicants free of serious medical problems.
At the senior end of the lifespan, you can cut elder supports as much
as possible. This is harder to do because elders are aware of the
process and often have younger relatives to advocate for them, but
though it’s going slowly, it is a work in progress. A maximally efficient economy in a non-closed system would be one where you import all your workers, keep them as long as you need them, and repatriate them afterwards. But that is not a nation. Nations grow their own people, they don’t rent them.
ANOTHER KEEPER-IT CUTS THROW ALL THE BS
MORE AT LINK
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Sep 25, 2003, 02:04 PM
Number of posts: 85,373