Respectfully Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
After the news over the past few months about the global uprisings against tyrannical and non-responsive governments, I have pondered why the United States has not had more people in the street protesting the economic inequality that we are facing here at home?
We have seen uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Spain, Greece and many more places, but at best we have seen large numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio protesting about State governments trying to remove collective bargaining rights away from state employees. One group of dedicated and non-violent protesters is especially interesting to me since they have taken to the streets and they have stayed there to press their fight. It is a group in Spain called the Indignados. They are camped out in various areas of Spain in an attempt to draw the country’s and the world’s attention to what they see as the Spanish government’s attempts to cater to the bankers and not to Main Street.
“Thursday night Madrid’s city centre offered a glimpse of what Western democracies have become, as thousands of unarmed nonviolent civilians with their hands up in the air shouting “these are our weapons” and “this is a dictatorship” were beaten by police commandos in full riot gear. This event was the culmination of a month of intense mobilizations across the country by the popular movement known as the ‘Indignados’. People, whom despite being ignored by the government have made their voices heard, as banking cartels, European bureaucrats, rating agencies and the country’s elites continue in their frantic push to sell-off Spain’s remaining public wealth, and persist in the implementation of drastic cuts to the welfare state. The ‘Indignados’ are fully aware of the fact that their government does not represent them, whenever they congregate they shout that loud and clear. They know that only popular unity will salvage them from the train wreck, which complicit speculators and politicians have created, and as they read the financial news, they know things can only get worse. When the EU announced today that the economic crisis is no longer restricted to the Euro-zone periphery countries, people in the movement understood that this could only mean bad news for them.” Truthout
Now, we have had some Tea Party protests, but their numbers were paltry in comparison to the Spanish protests. The numbers in Wisconsin and Ohio were the closest to the Spain numbers, but those protesters were not met with wide-spread beatings at the hands of the government and police and they are still not camping out in Madison and Columbus as they are in Madrid.
Would protestors in the United States ever commit to a continuing protest for months in Washington, D.C.? These Indignados in Spain, are continuing to protest what they see as government attempts to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class. Why haven’t we seen tent cities springing up in Washington, D.C. and in state capitals across the country? Many progressives and liberals have claimed that Washington is working only for the bankers and Wall Street barons, so why aren’t our streets filled with dedicated people who are willing to nonviolently protest against the Rich getting richer, while the middle class and poor seem to get poorer? Is the claim of rising inequality between the rich and poor true?
Where is the evidence that the income disparity is growing in the United States? … “in dollar terms, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are falling further behind them. The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.” Huffington Post
With those depressing numbers, why haven’t American “Indignados” taken over Washington, D.C. like their Spanish counterparts did in Madrid? Are Americans just too lazy or indifferent to their plight? Have they given up being able to make a real difference in Washington? Why aren’t you and I there in Washington pressing our claims for economic equality? Finally, what will it take for the American poor and jobless to stand up and say, enough is enough? Maybe you have the answer for these American Indignados!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty-Guest Blogger
@AY, it looks like you didn’t read down as far as i did in the Wiki article.
kderosa,
Back down? That’s pretty funny. You can tell yourself that little story and continue to evade defending your ridiculous assertion that democracy is a legal fiction if it makes you feel better but the facts are that you’re the one who just backed down. I told you to bring it. I still am telling you to bring it.
As far as what I do to bring you back to JT’s attention? Time is on my side. If I don’t raise the issue first, another guest blogger will, but it will be raised again eventually. Your behavior guarantees it.
AY, I am dismissing it based on the Swartz Study which found that:
+ The Pinto Memo wasn’t used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
+ The Pinto’s fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was “commonplace at the time in American cars” (p. 1027).
+The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).
What you think you know about the Ford Pinto affair is largely an urban myth. Nonetheless, did pay a heavy price for their “mistake.”
Ekerya,
Now, since Bob already addressed the incompatability of “People Lie,” “I trust people to make their own decisions” and “buyer beware”.
I have a question to ask you, who’s more free, the person that doesn’t get to decide if each and every law applies to them, or the ape that has to do what the bigger ape says or get it’s throat torn out?
I ask, because the trend evident in the history of law is governments putting more and more restrictions on themselves. That’s actually part of what a law is, it’s the government limiting it’s actions. The code of Ur-Nammu wasn’t just saying “If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver,” it was also saying “If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man can only be fined five shekels of silver.” Sometimes there’s a steps backwards, or the moment seems to stall, but over all more people have more freedoms than they used to.
On the other hand we have several examples of what primate societies look like without a a framework of laws. Some of them human, some of them not, but a large percent of the social structure in ALL of them can be reduced to “I’m meaner, you do what I say.” Heck, that’s what most of the social structure with every social animal I can think of is.
Your argument seems to be that because you weren’t present for every single decision about what limits were placed on people in your society, you get to chuck it all away. Personally, I’m glad we split off far enough from our evolutionary cousins to have any decision about how our tribes function, and I’m not willing to throw that away because I didn’t get consulted on every single decision.
Ford Pinto
Further information: Ford Pinto
In September 1971 the Ford Motor Company launched the Pinto for the North American market. Through early production of this model it emerged that design flaws could result in fuel tank explosions when the vehicle was subject to a rear-end collision. Some sources even allege this safety data was available to Ford prior to production, but was ignored for economic reasons.[52] Either way, a major scandal followed with the leaking to San Francisco magazine Mother Jones of the notorious “Ford Pinto Memo”, an internal Ford cost-benefit analysis showing that the cost of implementing design changes to the subcompact’s fuel system was greater than the economic cost of the burn injuries and deaths that could be prevented by doing so. Subsequently some have played down[53] the importance of this case, as Pinto explosion fatality estimates range widely from 27 to 900,[52] with the lowest figures being allegedly in line with comparable fatality statistics for other car models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ford_Motor_Company
Bob,
“And your observation that the public sector is rife with incompetence is duly noted. I firmly believe in the idea of the government offering ‘comfortable’ salaries and huge tax breaks to lure in competent workers who prefer to follow their conscience in lieu of selling out.”
I think you misunderstand me, but there is alot of subtlety. It is not incompetence qua incompetence, it is the reality that government workers, even with the best of intentions lack the neccessary information to make informed economic decisions because they are completely removed from the profit and loss feedback loop of private enterprise. Some may see this as exactly the proper enviroment from which to provide oversight, but I see it as trying to play darts blindfolded. They make bad decisions, not because they are dumb or unqualified but because by the very nature of public employment they lack any ability to collect the neccessary information.
In other words, yes consumers can be uninformed and defrauded, but at least they have a personal stake in the outcome. The further you remove economic incentives from decision making the worse those decisions become precisely because those decisions lack even the limited economic information available to consumers.
I also have to question why “selling out” depends on one’s choice of employers, rather than the price of one’s integrity regardless of who is making the offer.
“Nonetheless, while I’m a complete novice when it comes to economics, I can ascertain that this fairy tale of a completely free market simply does not and cannot exist in a civilized society. ”
I dont mean to be dismissive, but you are hardly the first person to express that opinion. My only rebuttal is that we are in a free market now. Government actions can distort prices, redirect capital and drive some businessmen into black market operations ( ala drug cartels), but it cannot stamp out the basic nature of economic activity. Ive always been fascinated by the rise of economies in prison enviroments and their adaptation of cigarettes as currency. Obviously prisons arent the greatest example of a free society, but they are a society and the evolution of their economic activities is often astounding.
“Accordingly, It’s my life and I refuse to sacrifice my time to exercising any sort of due diligence that can’t be handled by routine government regulation ensuring a fair bargain. ”
Whether or not you see it this way, that is an economic decision on your part. And as far as it concerns your life, time and property it is your decision to make, however you have no authority to apply that decision to anyone else.
They have mentioned the Pinto, you seem to dismiss it.
AY, enlighten me with your wisdom.
Kd,
Just does not get it.
BTW, GeneH, noting your personal attacks isn’t being disruptive. you’ve noted some things yourself:
Were you being disruptive?
And if I am being disruptive, then you certainly have cause to bring it to JT’s attention. Why haven’t you?
@GeneH
I knew you’d back down.
I told you I would explain the concept to you, but I am busy right now. You’ll have to wait to later.
Happy shopping, Bob.
kderosa,
Due to your lack of willingness to take action and continue to disrupt, it only casts you in the light of a purposeful disruptor without a leg to stand on. Just one more reason to not take you seriously. Now, do you care to justify dismissing the fundamental tenet of the form of democracy as a legal fiction in defense of the actual legal fiction of a corporation?
@Mike Spindell
Why so bitter?
@Bob, Esq
“I see no utility in adopting an ideal that forces me to put the weight of the world on my shoulders for no other reason than pride in said ideal.”
Ultimately, whether you like it or not, the weight of the world will remain on your shoulders regardless of the regulations. Though, you can be sure, those regulations will impose costs on the manufacturers that will be passed on to you, the consumer, with little benefit and they will often be used unfairly by some businesses to gain a competitive advantage over others, thus serving to also increase the price to you, the consumer.
Having said this however, there is a place for regulations in commerce provided that government can show a legitimate state interest and evidence that the regulations serve to improve that interest. Few regulations meet this standard.
“Name a few. And, provide clear evidence that they were “producing products they knew to be harmful but promoting them anyway.”
I was discussing this with Ekeyra, who I respect, not you.
Let’s face it Gene,
People working for the SEC should be making triple of what members of Congress make.
On a completely different note, I’ve been putting off going to Office Max all day.
Gotta jump.
kderosa,
Regulations are most conducive to all my time saving needs because it saves me time in court or having to initiate a solution on my own.
Whether or not it worked in a particular case, i.e. Pinto, does not change the fact stated above.
I see no utility in adopting an ideal that forces me to put the weight of the world on my shoulders for no other reason than pride in said ideal.
“I firmly believe in the idea of the government offering ‘comfortable’ salaries and huge tax breaks to lure in competent workers who prefer to follow their conscience in lieu of selling out.”
I like it, Bob. Combine that with substantive campaign finance reform and that could offer a real remedy to what ails our democracy.
@GeneH
As I stated, your personal attacks remain petty. The serve to cast you in a bad light and that is sufficient for me and nothing that JT need be disturbed over. But, you can be sure that when you escalate your personal attacks I will mention your petty personal attacks as well. So, go ahead and bite, you’ve been barking all day now.