James, would you mind sharing what politicians you might be leaning toward supporting in 2012?

Originally Posted by James50

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

No, it is the idea that extreme inequality is evil. Try to understand the difference.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, it is the idea that extreme inequality is evil. Try to understand the difference.

I am reminded of Alinsky's rules for radicals - number 11.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Note the personalize part and don't forget that the name of the movement (Wall Street) itself narrows down the evil. BTW, it appears lawyers and doctors are much more likely to be in the 1% than those working in the financial industry.

Perhaps this movement will be different from all successful protest movements in history. We will see.

James50

Originally Posted by Deb C

James, would you mind sharing what politicians you might be leaning toward supporting in 2012?

I think I have explained previously my feelings about the election and having no party. I will say I am glad that the operating left in this country is not as radical as the left on this forum.

I am like Amy in that my vote in Georgia will make little difference to the final outcome. Georgia will go for the Republican - whoever that may be.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's a circular argument. If nobody believes it, then it can't happen.

You speak the truth.

Originally Posted by James50

I am reminded of Alinsky's rules for radicals - number 11.

Note the personalize part and don't forget that the name of the movement (Wall Street) itself narrows down the evil. BTW, it appears lawyers and doctors are much more likely to be in the 1% than those working in the financial industry.

Perhaps this movement will be different from all successful protest movements in history. We will see.

James50

That's nice, James. You're using that rule very well in your screeds against Elizabeth Warren.

But, again, you're missing the point. It's about a system of inequality.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The reality is that a large portion of that 99% prefer choosing one side and attacking the other.

You have no argument from me there. We have a mentality in this country of "my good guy" against "your bad guy". And it sucks. I'm so sick of the bi-partisan crap in this country that I'm feeling more and more apathetic and I'm pretty close to the point of feeling...Whatever, it's hopeless. Why even bother getting all worked up about it anymore? No president (regardless of who it may turn out to be) is going to be able get congress to work together to fix all these problems. So who cares who the next president is? It's not going to make one bit of difference anyway.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If it were really true that 99% of Americans were ready to say goodbye to the two-party dictatorship, then of course it would happen.

The reality is that a large portion of that 99% prefer choosing one side and attacking the other.

If you refer to the Occupy movement as the 99%, they do have a vision for true change. If you just include every citizen as the 99%, then no, not everyone is ready or believes that change is possible. We have been on a political merry-go-round for years and years because not enough of those who are in the 99% believe, or are willing, to buck the system.

I often indicate that keeping the two sides of the aisle fighting instead of joining forces, keeps the PTB very happy and in charge of our country. It doesn't have to be this way. (See my post about Norwegians gathering together to change the paradigm)

EDIT: As long as we keep voting for corporate owned politicians, we will keep giving away any citizen power that we have. Too many of us are loyal to a political party instead of a true democracy.

A solution to our corporate owned government?

"Although Norwegians may not tell you about this the first time you meet them, the fact remains that their society’s high level of freedom and broadly-shared prosperity began when workers and farmers, along with middle class allies, waged a nonviolent struggle that empowered the people to govern for the common good."

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

That's nice, James. You're using that rule very well in your screeds against Elizabeth Warren.

It works, doesn't it?

But, again, you're missing the point. It's about a system of inequality.

I am not sure you are right about that. That sounds very abstract. No one who has studied human nature believes inequality is avoidable. The OWS complaint is that we have too much of it. The problem is that it becomes impossible to define what is the correct level. Would you like to give it a try?

James50

I avoided responding to this last night when I was tired. I'll try now. Note: paragraph number assignments are mine

Originally Posted by James50

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would hope that we can support a large part of our intelligencia through non-business related instiutions, because we are already tilted far too much in the pro-buisness direction today. We need a brain trust dedicated to the commonweal. This may not be the ideal way to accomplish it, but until a much better alternative arrives, I'll settle for this.

The last thing we need in this country is universal group think. We already have too much.

1. The costs of things provided by business have trended downward for some time. There are two areas which have maintained a growth rate greater than the economy as a whole for many decades. They are health care and higher education. If you are looking for parts of the economy that need to be cut down to size, you should start with these two sectors.
2. Heck, I would be satisfied if people would just recognize that these two sectors are in fact businesses. They have economic interests which they pursue with the same vigor as the most self-interested for-profit entities you can imagine. Both of them will eventually need to be brought to heel or they will continue to grab a greater and greater portion of whatever pie is left for the rest of us.
3. Elizabeth Warren and her ilk have supped at the table of government provided credit for many years. She has benefitted enormously from this government created bonanza. It is unlikely she would ever do anything to jeopardize it. In that respect, she is no different from any other part of our current plutocracy.

James50

1. There has been an almost frentic resistance to contolling healthcare costs. I don't see this changing as long as one party is adamently opposed. As far as higher-ed is concerned, this is a case of who pays and for what. Basic education is now the nearly exclusive domain of community colleges. Beyond that point, four-year colleges and universities are less about educatoin and more about financial gain. Hence, research, publishing and consultive services are given priority over educating students. Of course, the same often applies to collegiate athletics. What was limited to private schools in the past is now the default. A large part of the failure is the failure of state governements to maintain real state university systems. In any case, both institutions are extremely complex and in dire need of reform.
2. Here we disagree. Education doesn't fit the business model, nor does healthcare. They are services. That they have been forced into a model ill suited to their respective missions is the fault of the Business Excessives^TM, who see everything in business terms. I should also note that the miltary is not a business either - the MIC to the contrary. FWIW, the BEs are found everywhere.
3. Harvard and the other non-affiliated high-end schools, are mostly beneficiaries of Big Business. They live on their endowments to the point that a Harvard educatoin may be cheaper for some students than Good Old State U. This isn't right, but it's reality. A recent study here in Virgina tried to determine the highest and lowest cost load instate-sited colleges. The result was Wadshington & Lee, in both cases. The list price was $54,000 a year, but the actual expected cost was roughly 10% of that. In short, the system is broken.

Originally Posted by James50

It works, doesn't it?


I am not sure you are right about that. That sounds very abstract. No one who has studied human nature believes inequality is avoidable. The OWS complaint is that we have too much of it. The problem is that it becomes impossible to define what is the correct level. Would you like to give it a try?

James50

To name a few examples of the divide:

Our health care is considered poor in this country, compared to other industrialized nations.

Poverty is and has been increasing.

More and more people are homeless. Many are children.

More children are hungry.

Food pantries have had upward of at least a 30% increase in people asking for assistance.

Meanwhile, the 1% who actually run this country are making hand over fist profits.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If "99%" of the people really felt the way that you claim they feel, none of that would matter. Those guys would be out.
There are already plenty of third party candidates on the ballots, at all levels of government.

That's only true if the 99% agree on who should be elected in their stead. It takes someone charasmatic to trigger the enthsuam needed to get elected from the outside. Even then, that outsider needs to appeal to enough voters to make a difference. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by James50

And how do we find these people? I see no reason to exclude Elizabeth Warren from this group. She is filthy rich and is no doubt using her money to seek power. Folks who support both OWS and Elizabeth Warren are making the assumption that she will voluntarily act in ways that will reduce her wealth and power. I don't know that that is a good assumption. In particular, she is extremely unlikely to act in ways to rein in the higher ed industry. I don't mean to make a pinata out of Elizabeth Warren, but am only trying to point out the totally selective nature of the 1% moniker.

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

So no matter how much good she does, if Elizabeth Warren fails to attack a sacred cow or two, she's scum. H-m-m-m. That is the height of rejectng the good for failing to be perfect. If, as you say, she fails to attack the higher-ed power structure, she still gets a bye from me. She's one person. Her area of expertise is finance - especialy personal finance. Let her tilt at those windmills. There's plenty to do in addressing them. On the other hand, if she works against reform, I'll be the first to judge her. First, she needs to be in a position to be judged.

So far, she's made a valiant effort to get the government in the people's corner. Her personal history suggests that this is a heatrfelt effort on her part. She deserves a chance. Scott Brown isn't a bad Senator, but he's not a shooting star either. EW has the potential to be that kind of leader.

Originally Posted by James50

I am reminded of Alinsky's rules for radicals - number 11.

Note the personalize part and don't forget that the name of the movement (Wall Street) itself narrows down the evil. BTW, it appears lawyers and doctors are much more likely to be in the 1% than those working in the financial industry.

Perhaps this movement will be different from all successful protest movements in history. We will see.

James50

Lets' talk about the concepts developed by Saul Alinsky. Where is there any indication that his techniques are only suited to fighting the ruling class? Targetting and personalizing issues is exactly what the right has done so well for the last 40 years. I'm sure that, having fully appreciated the vaule of his ideas, they are unwilling to have those ideas used against them. They are working hard to prevent that possibility by personlizing the ideas as being the product of that hated radical Saul Alinsky.

See how well they learned!

Originally Posted by Deb C

To name a few examples of the divide:

Our health care is considered poor in this country, compared to other industrialized nations.

Poverty is and has been increasing.

More and more people are homeless. Many are children.

More children are hungry.

Food pantries have had upward of at least a 30% increase in people asking for assistance.

Meanwhile, the 1% who actually run this country are making hand over fist profits.

These are problems needing solutions and not an outline for how wealth should be distributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are assuming that the solutions to these problems involve lowering the income and wealth of the 1%? If so, then are you willing to say what would be fair?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I think I have explained previously my feelings about the election and having no party. I will say I am glad that the operating left in this country is not as radical as the left on this forum.

I am like Amy in that my vote in Georgia will make little difference to the final outcome. Georgia will go for the Republican - whoever that may be.

James50

There is no operating left in this country, only a party nominally associated with but not in support of the non-powerful and non-rich. When even the Australians see how far to the right the Democrats are, you know someting has to be amiss.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Targetting and personalizing issues is exactly what the right has done so well for the last 40 years.

Like I said, it works. Take an abstract problem and the first thing you have to do is identify a villain (or a hero). Both sides know this. Ever wonder why the President always has some person in the presidential box at the SOTU? Its pretty classic stuff now.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's a circular argument. If nobody believes it, then it can't happen.
If it were really true that 99% of Americans were ready to say goodbye to the two-party dictatorship, then of course it would happen.
The reality is that a large portion of that 99% prefer choosing one side and attacking the other.

No, the majority prefer not taking risks. That alone guarantees that nothing will change, at least for now. You more than anyone here should know the resistance of belief to change, unless a traumatic event triggers one in response. It's comfortable to stay where you are. Venturing away is scary.

Originally Posted by James50

Also, its clear to me, that the power of OWS is precisely the idea that the rich are evil. I don't see how you can deny that. Without that motivating moral judgement, the movement would collapse.

James50

I can't speak for OWS, but my POV isn't that the rich are evil. Rather, its simply that they aren't paying their fair share of taxes. I'm a strong believer in progressive taxes, for the simple reason that a marginal additional dollar of income is worth less than the first dollar of income, so that marginal dollar should be taxed at a higher rate. The higher income groups benefited from a lower tax rate starting in 2002; with a government deficit, they should be expected to pitch in by paying more in taxes.

The second problem that I see is that too often policy benefits the rich at the expense of lower-income individuals and families. The decision makers are overwhelmingly wealthy and if government policy then benefits the rich, that naturally causes resentment.

Originally Posted by James50

It works, doesn't it?


I am not sure you are right about that. That sounds very abstract. No one who has studied human nature believes inequality is avoidable. The OWS complaint is that we have too much of it. The problem is that it becomes impossible to define what is the correct level. Would you like to give it a try?

James50

This guy did a good job of it, and even delineated the pont where the level becomes dangerous. Note: this is not a new idea. Corrado Gini died in 1965.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is no operating left in this country, only a party nominally associated with but not in support of the non-powerful and non-rich. When even the Australians see how far to the right the Democrats are, you know someting has to be amiss.

Like I said, I am glad the operating left is not as radical as the left on this forum.

James50

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

And let's not focus exclusively on NASA. Here in New Mexico we are kept pretty much aware of the great role wealthy space enthusiasts are now playing in the development of spacecraft and everything that goes with it. I find this to be a healthy development, and dimly think this parallels the development of aircraft early in the Great Power Saeculum.

Pat, from over 100 miles north of the New Mexico Spaceport.

Oh, of course. Which is why I think NASA needs to focus on science and exploration, and which is why I think the Shuttle program and the ISS have been a waste of time and money. Leave the commercial earth-orbit stuff to the private sector and quit making NASA use its our resources to lanch Military and CIA sats.

Originally Posted by James50

These are problems needing solutions and not an outline for how wealth should be distributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are assuming that the solutions to these problems involve lowering the income and wealth of the 1%? If so, then are you willing to say what would be fair?

James50

No one is suggesting a modern Robin Hood effort. All that's needed is a demand boost that places a similar demand on the labor supply. Given time, the problem will resolve itself. The real issue is how much time.

Targetting a growth rate of 8%, it shouldn't take longer than 10 years (GDP_T+10 = 2.16 * GDP_T), if that long. Everyone will want a piece of the action, so tax rates will have to rise to keep the growth focused away from the already wealthy, and it will also help to pay for the growth.

Of note: the rich will still be richer at the end of the process than they are today, just not so much in comparison to eveyone else. To those among the rich who find that broadly shared welath is impoverishing - too bad.

Originally Posted by James50

I am reminded of Alinsky's rules for radicals - number 11.

Note the personalize part and don't forget that the name of the movement (Wall Street) itself narrows down the evil. BTW, it appears lawyers and doctors are much more likely to be in the 1% than those working in the financial industry.

Perhaps this movement will be different from all successful protest movements in history. We will see.

James50

James, some TP groups give out Alinsky's book to their members, it's not just the left that uses his community organizing tactics.

Personalizing is necessary because the vast majority of people are concrete thinkers, too many of my fellow leftists fail to get support of the average person because they go over their heads.