The "Occupy" Movement

[Nemo888]

I see more likely a version of the British East India Company. The guys who addicted Chinese to opium so the could get the silver to buy local porcelain. The ones who drove armies around to subvert countries so they could rape them for profits. Globalization being beneficial is not a given. It can go in any direction.

 

[ballz]

This is where to find hans Rosling's excellent graphs.'

By the way, Chinese labour laws and the roles, rights and duties of trade unions is more complex than most of us realize - especially if we rely upon ignorant American journalists for our "news."

Thanks for the link. Could you elaborate on that Chinese stuff? I'll admit to being ignorant about China's way of doing things.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Trade unions exist in China, but not independent ones; they are all affiliated with this organization which is, de facto, an arm of the CCP. The main role of the Chinese unions is to force employers to pay the legislated (province by province) minimum wage and obey the hours of work laws. This (slightly outdated) article provides a pretty good overview.

Strikes do happen, but rarely and, usually, with the government's approval. It is fairly important to understand that the Central Committee is not monolithic. Post Deng Xiaoping the leadership has switched between two factions:

1. The fairly right wing, tooth and claw capitalist Shanghai Gang led by Jiang Zemin; and

2. The new left, more socially conscious group led by Hu Jintao.

The role and rights of trade unions contracted under Jiang and have expanded, somewhat, under Hu who uses labour unrest as a prod to encourage better social services.

It is not clear, not to me, anyway, just where on the political spectrum the Party's (apparent) next leader, Xi Jinping, will operate. He is reported to have not been Hu's candiate but he appears not not be a Jiang favourite either. No matter how he governs, the Chinese social safety net is expanding and labour laws are a cornerstone - the welfare state, as we see it, clashes with Confucian values but Zhou Enlai's social reforms, primarily in education, health care and women's rights, are too firmly entrenched to allow much, if any backsliding.

The big issue, as far as I have seen, over the past few years for the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, at the government's behest, has been workplace health and safety - a much needed focus, to which anyone who has seen inside a Chinese factory or building site (as I have) will attest. Other issues, including wages for migrants are way down the priority list.

Just for interest: the minimum wage in China ranges up from about $(US)50.00 to $(US)200.00. $(US)80.00 per month is, probably, fair general figure. The standard work week, in most provinces, is 40 to 44 hours before time and half kicks in. None of that, of course, applies to the many tens of millions of migrant workers in China.



Edit: typo

 

[ballz]

What a perfect video for our talks of China and the US

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-on-cnn-us-in-a-converging-world/

Very interesting how the best parts of China are already basically on PAR with income and life expectancy as the US.

As I said, eventually, through globalization, wages should hit equilibrium and everybody in the world should end up living in the upper right corner. Africa of course will probably be last to catch up, eventually when all the cheap places to produce in Asia have run out, factories should start springing up in Africa there to take advantage of the only place left to find cheap labour. I won't live to see it but hey...

Of course, the problem with the supply & demand theory is that the environment often changes much too rapidly for equilibriums to ever be met before another change occurs.

 

[Nemo888]

Interesting that extremes always sink the economy. The recession in the 70's  was largely produced by excessive power in the hands of labour. Greedy unions stifling competition. So labour was crushed. Then the financial sector got all the power. Real wages started dropping. Dropping to the point that there was insufficient capital being spent in the economy to keep the system going. So the financial sector stepped in with credit. But this was like deploying flaps to increase lift. Eventually the debt became too large and things came crashing down.

The way out would seem to be increasing wages which get SPENT not invested.  This would feed industry and provide real nutrition to our economy. If we rely on financiers they will try to make another bubble. The equivalent of taking amphetamines when you are hungry. This will only make the system more brittle. The next bubble is already well under way with commodity prices going nuts the last few years. Globalization means labour will keep getting screwed and the buying power of wages will continue to drop. The real economy will continue to wither. This looks like it will get worse not better.

What do you plan for your kids future when things are so screwed?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I can't believe this is still going.

There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.

You're either for the corporate world and everyone else is full of shit, or;

You're a unionist and everyone else is full of shit.

There seems no in between.

So, for the sake of everyone else here that doesn't give a rat's ass or has totally given up on the discussion and with the exception of the very, very, very few posting, that absolutely refuse to budge on their stance..........

Can we give if a friggin' rest!

:trainwreck:

 

[Edward Campbell]

I can't believe this is still going.

There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.

You're either for the corporate world and everyone else is full of shit, or;

You're a unionist and everyone else is full of shit.

There seems no in between.

So, for the sake of everyone else here that doesn't give a rat's ass or has totally given up on the discussion and with the exception of the very, very, very few posting, that absolutely refuse to budge on their stance..........

Can we give if a friggin' rest!

:trainwreck:

RG: if as a member of the staff you think this thread is wasting bandwidth or detracting from the board's aims, etc, then, by all means, lock it. If, on the other hand, as an ordinary member you just don't like then discussion then ...  :ignore:

 

[Nemo888]

Ironically my answer was in between. I indicated that either extreme was ruinous to the economy.  The shenanigans they are up to in Europe with fractional reserve banking are going to cause another crisis. We might as well start dealing with it now. I can't believe CIBC is neck deep in that mess with 72 billion in investor assets. So much for our bullet proof banks.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

RG: if as a member of the staff you think this thread is wasting bandwidth or detracting from the board's aims, etc, then, by all means, lock it. If, on the other hand, as an ordinary member you just don't like then discussion then ...  :ignore:

As a member of the Staff I would sign my post off as Milnet.ca Staff. If that is not there, I'm posting as a member.

We also attempt, through our own devices, not by rules, to not moderate threads we might be engaged in.

As a member, I have as much right to vent my spleen as any other member.

While I do try to ignore threads like this, I still have to look and read them (somewhat), as Staff, to ensure that posters are complying with the rules.

It's not as simple as  :ignore: as much as I wish it were. 

 

[cupper]

There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.

You're either for the corporate world and everyone else is full of shit, or;

You're a unionist and everyone else is full of shit.

I'm on the third train: Everyone is full of shit! :nod:

 

[observor 69]

So, for the sake of everyone else here that doesn't give a rat's *** or has totally given up on the discussion and with the exception of the very, very, very few posting, that absolutely refuse to budge on their stance..........

Twice in two days I love this stuff. Am I changing, what's happening?  ???

 

[HavokFour]

New York University to offer classes on Occupy Wall Street movement​

Source

New York University plans to offer two classes covering the Occupy Wall Street movement next semester, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

A for-credit undergraduate class, offered through the university’s Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, will examine economy and culture and will be called “Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance,” according to the Journal. Another graduate-level seminar on the demonstration will also be offered next semester, the report said.

“The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are catching on across the United states, linking to popular discontent with economic inequality and financial greed and malfeasance around the globe,” the paper reported, citing a flyer for the undergraduate class. “This course is designed to provide a background for these momentous events.”

The Journal says the undergraduate class will bring in guest speakers from Occupy Wall Street to “offer the broad view of the meaning and impact of the movement.”

 

[Robert0288]

They now have classes studying the lazy student who do nothing?  Oh wow, I think I have to go back to school  :

 

[camouflauge]

Will they be offering degrees in occupying? occupation?

 

[ArmyRick]

I am very competent at occupying.....



......occupying defensive positions!  >

 

[OldSolduer]

I am very competent at occupying.....



......occupying defensive positions!  >

Yes, I think I remember something about that.....hey didn't I teach you that at one point?


I can occupy my time....and others time as well!

 

[FlyingDutchman]

So, with a degree in occupying, what kind of job would one get?


I think my irony alarm just exploded.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the "spontaneous" nature of #occupy:

http://datechguyblog.com/2011/12/12/is-conservative-new-media-worth-as-much-as-the-occupods/

Is conservative new media worth as much as the occupods?

I must admit I’m a bit jealous of the occupods in one respect when I see this post at Don Surber’s blog.

Somehow, they were able to spend a few months in the fall camping out and protesting against the working class while not working themselves.

They are in that upper 1% who do not have to work.

I don’t begrudge anyone what they already have, if they are rich enough to hand out then that’s fine. My jealously is based on how, well their friends on the left (and in the unions until the useful idiots were no longer useful) managed to kick in to keep them in tents, food and protests for two months. The tens of thousands of dollars that occupy New York, Occupy Oakland and occupy Portland (before their 20 grand was stolen) came from somewhere.

The left makes an effort to keep those who fight their battles supplied and ready to fight. On the right it is a bit leaner. Consider when New York Magazine mentioned Mitt Romney raised over 10 million in under 8 hours what Stacy McCain wrote:

we are struck by the sharp contrast between how George Soros employs his wealth — to build a media infrastructure for advancing his broad political agenda — and how wealthy Republicans spend their own money: To advance the narrow personal ambition of Mitt Romney.

Why are rich Republicans so clueless? They are shoveling money at a candidate who suffers tepid support among the GOP grassroots and is therefore unlikely to win the nomination.

And lets remember when Jimmie Bize crunched the numbers further based on not even Mitt’s 10.3 million or Herman Cain’s 7 million sitting in the bank but on Charlie Crist’s 4.3 million dollar quarter from 2010:

Do you know how much good reporting we could get with a budget of just $500,000 a year? Think about it. Play with the numbers. You think I couldn’t land Vadum and McCain for 70 grand a year, plus add in Ace and Moe Lane for blogging power at the same amount? That’s only $280,000. Set aside fifty grand for tech stuff (hosting, design, troubleshooting) and advertising, another 60K for expenses (to pay reporters to go on the road and for freelancers), 60K for an editor, and 50K to me for supervising the whole operation and there you go. There’s $500,000 a year. And that doesn’t count any potential income the site might get from outside advertising, which you know it’ll get. As the site grows, the budget can creep up, but only for people who will add direct value to the site, but we add on as advertising revenues warrant the increase.

Think of a major league team building a farm system and look at the long terms from those numbers as Jimmie Does

Divide $500,000 into $4.3 million. That’s how long I could run a hypothetical conservative news site with the money dunderheaded conservatives gave Charlie Crist in just three months. Meanwhile, Stacy had to rattle the tip jar so hard his teeth ached to get just a few hundred bucks to do some original reporting in rural Kentucky. That’s ridiculous.

No what’s ridiculous is what happened a few days ago. Before the blogger conference call with Rick Santorum Friday Stacy McCain suggested I should make a point to record the call so I can use clips on the radio show. I replied I don’t have the necessary equipment for my line. He mentioned it is available at any Radio Shack for $50-75 bucks and I was forced to reply that I don’t have the $50-75 to spend for it.

The left is funding it’s occupods and its new media to the point where TPM is getting question time on GOP candidates conference calls. Meanwhile forget the $70K in Jimmie’s example. Since June I covered the St. Anselm debate in NH, the Dartmouth debate from the spin room, reported live from blogcon including reports on the occupods, Covered Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum in NH, Barney Frank’s press conference and teaparty and GOP events and more. Yet although the radioshow is managing to cover its expenses the results of my November fundraiser were so dismal that I’ve closed out my 401k (tax hit not withstanding) to keep up with the house bills for the next several months.

Forget the 70K that Jimmie was talking, for 70% of that I could not only support the blog and the house but travel to cover the candidates without wondering if Freedomworks can help with the cost of a plane ticket. For 40% of that I could support the blog and house for a year and still cover events in a 150 mile radius without help and with the 10K that Mitt is willing to bet that pays for 3 months and 300 posts not counting the Under the Fedora Column at the Minority report and the Conservatory.

It’s a frustrating thing. In 2011 so far over 560,000 visits have been recorded on this site and the old. There has been a lot of words both written and quoted in support of conservatism, here on the blog, elsewhere on the net and even a piece than ran in the New York Post during Weinergate. How much is that worth to the conservative movement? How much is a radio show that reaches six states featuring and highlighting conservative writers from all over the nation? You would think it would be worth at least as much to the conservative movement as the occupods are to Soros and the left.

Yet, as a conservative I understand that my work is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It doesn’t matter if I drive north to check out the Gingrich Huntsman debate today, the question is. What is that growing set of eyeballs on the blogs and ears on the radio worth to the conservative movement?

I submit that it’s certainly worth the $200 a week I need to pay the house bills, or the $500 a week that can support the blog for a year. In fact I’d dare to say it’s worth the $800 a week it would take to finance 6 trips a year to cover big events.

And I’m just one blogger, there are at least a dozen other bloggers on the right worth at least as much if not more. Stacy again:

For the $4 million that the permatanned RINO Charlie Crist collected during that single three-month span of 2009, you could fund eight spiffy little New Media operations for a year (or four such operations for two years). And FEC contribution limits do not apply to people making “investments” in news operations, so that the rich Republicans would not be restricted in their generosity toward New Media, as they are toward political candidates.

Soros has figured this out. Rich Republicans have not.

As I’ve said before my advertisers are looking for a return on their investment and that what they should be looking for, but if you are looking to advance the conservative cause in both the short term (an election cycle) and in the long term (to get the word out there and change minds) I suggest that if you are a conservative this site and sites like it are an investment in changing the narrative or as Stacy put it:

Does it not occur to you, my clever readers, that these are not merely business losses, but are in fact a sort of charitable endeavor to support the propagation of fashionable liberalism?

There are an awful lot of us working very hard to advance conservatism, I suggest it’s made a difference. If that’s not worth conservative support and conservative dollars I’d like to know what is?

Update: How Ironic is it that this post gets an Instalanche while I’m up at St. Anselm College covering the Gingrich Huntsman debate

Second sidebar; Cora's restaurant is accepting donations for a school breakfast program. We don't need to wait for a government program....

 

[camouflauge]

Look at how well the lefts investments have done in radio. Air America anyone? It’s easy to criticize right leaning funders when the left already dominates the news.

 

[a_majoor]

A better understanding of the issue. The countervailing position would be to sharply reduce the reach of the State so these concentrated pockets of 1% would not be able to access taxpayer money or use the armed power of the state to enforce their desires on the "99%".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/12/12/occupy-wall-street-and-the-myth-of-the-99

Occupy Wall Street And The Myth Of The 99%
Todd Henderson is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

The ‘Occupy’ movement will never succeed against its “one percent” adversaries until it begins to understand that there is not a single one percent, but rather many.

An entire field of economics, known as “public choice,” studies how small, concentrated groups with similar interests generally prevail politically against larger groups of diffused interests. And, in our society, these concentrated interests – like unions, defense contractors, religious groups, farmers , etc. – are not necessarily part of the “one percent” Occupy talks about, and several have even joined or co-opted the Movement. But they are part of the broader one-percent problem.

I recently participated in a debate about the Occupy Movement at the university where I teach. The representative from Occupy Chicago claimed to be speaking on behalf of the 99 percent, but the problem is that there is no single coherent 99 percent.There are many 99 percents depending on the issue at stake, and any successful 99 percent movement must be more nuanced and draw finer lines than the Occupy Movement has so far.

When focused broadly on just income or wealth, the message of Occupy is too radical to represent anything close to 99 percent of Americans. The representative of Occupy in the debate identified himself as a Marxist,claimed that the American dream is dead and buried, and argued the only way to solve our problems is for the government to overturn Citizens United and dramatically regulate political speech. The problem with this, of course, is that 99 percent of Americans do not support any of these assertions, let alone all of them together.

Even during the height of the recent financial crisis, about 60 percent of Americans still supported capitalism. Most Americans believe the American dream is still alive, and in a 2009 Gallup poll, nearly 60 percent agreed with the Supreme Court that spending on political issues is political speech. At best, about 40 percent of Americans share some of the views of Occupy.

The timing of the Movement is also a bit too convenient to be inclusive of Republicans and Democrats who make up the 99 percent. In 2009, the top one percent took a smaller share of national income than in each of the four years of President Clinton’s second term.

But there is something important about rhetoric of the one percent. “Public choice” economics explores the problems of concentrated interests. There are fewer corn farmers than taxpayers, and the gains from ethanol subsidies are large for each corn farmer, while the costs per taxpayer are quite small. The costs of coordination and the financial incentives mean the farmers will get their way so long as the government has the power to subsidize or penalize. This simple dynamic explains much of how our government allocates resources.

And, unlike Marx or Citizens United, it is something the Tea Party and Occupy can agree upon. Although it may seem far-fetched at first glance, if Occupy found common ground with the Tea Party or the sentiments behind it, much could be done politically. After all, there are many 99 percents. But so far, Occupy has absorbed or been co-opted by various one percents.

For example, in education policy, teachers are the one percent, while students and parents are the 99 percent. But it is generally the power of the concentrated teachers’ unions that drives decisions about education spending and policy. The fact that teachers unions support Occupy undermines its power. A true movement of the 99 percents would be on the side of students, not teachers.

Examples abound that cut across typical ideological lines. For instance, military contractors are the one percent, while soldiers and the citizens they defend are the 99 percent. It is for this reason that in the recent census, 7 out of the 10 richest counties surround Washington, D.C.

Although “rich” people are too heterogeneous to be considered a concentrated interest in the same way, this doesn’t mean income inequality gets a free pass. For instance, explicit government policies permit very large banks to borrow at significantly lower rates from the federal government than other banks. The about 0.5 percentage point difference translates into hundreds of millions in subsidies, which, according to a recent academic study, is about equal to the excessive compensation earned by the CEOs of these banks.

Everyone should be outraged by this policy, regardless of whether you are a fan of Marx or Adam Smith. And, if Occupy would find these areas of common ground with the rest of the 99 percent of the population, we could start to fight back against all the one percents that distort policies to their favor and against the less powerful.

M. Todd Henderson is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.