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
Tomato/Tomatoe….No Regulation/Preferential Treatment….really whats the difference?
Care to respond to raffs story?
Still can’t defend your ridiculous assertion, huh?
@AY
“No Kd, I will not. They were making profits head over heels….and still begging for no regulation.”
No, they were begging for preferential treatment under the regulations, which is a very different thing.
A good example of how company’s use regulation to gain advantages is the CFL ban. CFL companies lobbied for and got the ban so they could stop manufacturing commodity incandescent bulbs which yielded small profits, in favor specialty CFLs which carried high profit margins.
@ekeyra, I assure you that no one finds GeneH more tedious than I.
For the purpose of clarifying allegations that the Ford Pinto was as safe as other vehicles and the design of the gas tank location without a shield was normal, the Center of Auto Safety disagrees. I apologize in advance for the length of the quoted article.
“On June 9, 1978, Ford Motor Company agreed to recall 1.5 million Ford Pinto and 30,000 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for fuel tank design defects which made the vehicles susceptible to fire in the event of a moderate-speed rear end collision. The action was the result of investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigations (Case #C7-38), sparked by a petition from Center for Auto Safety, publicity generated by national publication expose of the hazard (Mother Jones News Magazine, “Pinto Madness” by Mark Dowie, Sept/Oct, 1977) and publicity over the largest punitive damages awarded by a California jury to a young man who had been severely injured in a Pinto fuel tank fire (Grimshaw v Ford).
In April, 1974, the Center for Auto Safety petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Ford Pintos due to defects in the design of the strap on gas tank which made it susceptible to leakage and fire in low to moderate speed collisions. The Center’s petition was based upon reports from attorneys of three deaths and 4 serious injuries in such accidents. This petition languished in the NHTSA offices until 1977.
In 1977, Mark Dowie of Mother Jones Magazine, using documents in the Center files, published an article reporting the dangers of the fuel tank design, and cited internal Ford Motor Company documents that proved that Ford knew of the weakness in the fuel tank before the vehicle was placed on the market but that a cost/benefit study was done which suggested that it would be “cheaper” for Ford to pay liability for burn deaths and injuries rather than modify the fuel tank to prevent the fires in the first place. Dowie showed that Ford owned a patent on a better designed gas tank at that time, but that cost and styling considerations ruled out any changes in the gas tank design of the Pinto.
Closely following the publication of the Mother Jones article, a jury in Orange County, Calif., awarded Richard Grimshaw $125 million in punitive damages for injuries he sustained while a passenger in a 1971 Pinto which was struck by another car at an impact speed of 28MPH and burst into flames. Although the award was eventually reduced to $3.5 million by the trial judge, the jury’s reason for the figure of $125 million was that Ford Motor Company had marketed the Pinto with full knowledge that injuries such as Grimshaw’s were inevitable in the Pinto and therefore the punitive damages should be more than Ford had made in profit on the Pinto since its introduction, which was $124 million.
With the publication of the Mother Jones article and the Grimshaw case publicity, the Center for Auto Safety resubmitted its petition for a defects investigation into the Pinto and ODI Case #C7-38 was opened. ODI had crash tests done of 1971-76 Pintos, sedan, hatchback (“Runabout”) and station wagon models, and the results showed significant fuel tank ruptures and leakage, in one case after an impact of 30.31 MPH the entire contents of the fuel tank leaked out of the 1976 Pinto in less than one minute. (Investigative Report, Phrase I, C7-38, 1971-76 Ford Pinto and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat, May, 1978.).
Based upon the tests performed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and by the tremendous publicity generated over the problem, Ford agreed to recall all 1971 through 1976 Ford Pintos and 1975-76 Mercury Bobcat sedan and hatchback models for modifications to the fuel tank. The modifications included a longer fuel filler neck and a better clamp to keep it securely in the fuel tank, a better gas cap in some models, and placement of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and the differential to protect the tank from the nuts and bolts on the differential and another along the right corner of the tank to protect it from the right rear shock absorber. Recall notices were mailed in September, 1978 and parts were to be at all dealers by September 15, 1978. However, between June 9, 1978, and the date when parts were available to repair the estimated 2.2 million vehicles, six people died in Pinto fires after a rear impact.
In one of the instances, an Elkhart, Indiana grand jury returned indictments against Ford Motor Company for three cases of negligence from the deaths of three young women. But on March 13, 1980, a jury found Ford innocent of a charge of failing to warn about or offer to repair fuel system defects in the Pinto before the day the three women were fatally burned. The verdict is not an unfavorable precedent with regard to criminal prosecution of corporations for defective products that kill. Despite numerous mitigating circumstances in the Pinto case-speeding van, hazardous highway, driver in possession of alcohol and illegal drugs, the exclusion of evidence from the NHTSA investigation including the crash tests, the inclusion into evidence of Ford’s exculpatory crash tests, and a local prosecutor with minimal resources-the possibility of successful corporate criminal liability suits in the future remains open.” http://www.autosafety.org/ford-pinto-fuel-fed-fires It seems that several civil juries agreed that not placing the shield was negligence on the part of Ford.
I would also recommend the following link to see additional information concerning the gas tank defect. http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx
The reader can decide it these studies and articles are conclusive or not.
It is not all in the fastest draw, it is the one with the lucky bullet….
For those who, like me, are growing tired of the KD-Gene “I know you are but what am I” back and forth, I leave you with this.
kderosa,
If that’s what you want to think to help you not feel weak, knock yourself out. I don’t you seriously anyway. If you think you can goad me, then that’s just another reason to not take you seriously. You’re the one who is all talk and no action. So one last time, if you think you have a valid complaint, make it. If you can’t make the case, then your complaints about “personal attacks” on you are simply the whining of a loser.
As to what you said: “Speaking of legal fictions, the whole WE THE PEOPLE consent thing is entirely a legal fiction. Though I do not believe we need to reach consent to explain the validity of the social contract that the republic was based on. Nonetheless, it remains a legal fiction.”
Democracy means a government by the people but especially the rule of the majority or a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. In short, a government founded upon the notion of “We the People”. If you think a government founded by “We the People” in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation involving periodically held free elections – which is exactly what form of government the Constitution establishes – is a legal fiction, then you think democracy is a legal fiction.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can try, but when you are dealing with people who know better, it only makes you look less reputable. You clearly cannot back up your words in any meaningful manner. You are not a person to be taken seriously.
AY,
“pollute the water, air and ground…all in the name of Profits….”
Whether your drilling in poland or texas and you destroy or otherwise cause damage to someone else’s property, shouldnt you be held liable for the extent of the damages? If government is restricting the redress of damages by victims perhaps that is the problem, or as in the case of the bp spill, its the government’s “property” and they just dont give a damn?
Gyges,
“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?”
Isn’t that essentially the same situation? Im not trying to be sarcastic here, it just seems to me that if throat ripping happens to be part of the law I have no say over, im still being subjected to the same ultimatum. Law enforcement is the bigger threatening ape. You may see them as defenders of civil society and you have every right to seek out their protection. My only request is to be left alone if i dont see it in my interest to seek their protection, or I have not caused harm or damaged anyone.
“Sometimes there’s a steps backwards, or the moment seems to stall, but over all more people have more freedoms than they used to.”
I would definately have to agree with your overall point of the upswing of personal liberty, however id bet every last, soon to be worthless federal reserve note, that we have wildly divergent explanations for that. Your explanation that governments increased limits on themselves would seem to be almost self-contradicting. Simply observe the monstrous growth of our current government. Governments do not “self limit”. If that were the case why would the founders have gone out of their way to craft the framework they hoped would restrain it? If governments self limit, than why would there be a need for restraint at all?
My explanation would be that with the onset of the industrial revolution, incomes and standards of living rose such that people could use their time much more efficiently. It literally “freed” their time to pursue things other than mere survival. They could educate themselves. They could assemble and discuss ideas. Most importantly, they could produce goods and services for each other instead of having their entire productive capacity directed towards nobility and aristocracy who were the only ones able to afford the prices that would make such work economically sustainable. People are more free because they had more free time, not because the government benevolently chose to use less pressure on the boot on their throat.
No Kd, I will not. They were making profits head over heels….and still begging for no regulation.
I have friends in the oil business. One of them just came back from Poland, he said that he’d much rather drill there than here. I asked why, his response was that all’s they have to do is stick a pipe in the ground and not worry about all of the safety regulations in the US…He was starting a drill in Texas….too many people to deal with….Hell if his company is making 53 billion in Profits a year…I see why…pollute the water, air and ground…all in the name of Profits….
@GeneH
“Care to defend your ridiculous assertion that democracy is a legal fiction?”
That’s not my assertion. Go back and reread what I actually said.
@GeneH
You most certainly did back down. You are afraid to escalate your personal attacks above the petty level they are at currently. You’ve been slapped down before by JT when your attacks were more vicious and you took your ball and ran home for a couple of days. Then, sadly, you returned. So, go ahead and escalate the personal attacks to the level they were at before and we’ll see who gets notified and who gets put in the corner again. Otherwise, try to maintain civil discourse and stick to the issues.
@AY, that is what is known as corporatism. Corporations going to government for favors. And when they do, government tends to comply. That’s why regulations and their enforcement tend to serve decrease competition and raise prices instead of increasing competition and lower prices and profits. Thanks for making my point for me. Now if you could explain that concept to GeneH, I’d be very appreciative.
“The safety issue is particularly important because it is often the subject of heated debate over regulation. Instances where injuries and fatalities occur because of problems in automobiles have caused some to advocate greater regulation, and in some cases, calls for criminal sanctions.
It is necessarily the case that people will suffer inconveniences, injuries and even death in the course of using some products. No product is ever 100% safe. People generally know this and are willing to accept some risks, particularly when they can save money in the process. While it is certainly true that government intervention can ameliorate certain problems, it is equally true that these solutions can raise additional problems.
If the government forces private companies to carry out recalls or to pay for product repairs or replacement, consumers can rest easier. Of course, this peace of mind will not be for free. Entrepreneurs will factor these costs into their prices, fewer trades will take place, and resource allocation will shift accordingly.
Is this arrangement best? There is no clear answer to this. Left to the market, entrepreneurs would perform cost-benefit calculations to see whether attaching product insurance, or warranties, to their products is worthwhile. Consumers would make their own judgments and the resulting demand would impute value to these warranties. By weighing the related costs and benefits entrepreneurs would then determine the most efficient method of supplying their goods.”
http://mises.org/daily/1135/Markets-and-the-Information-Problem
kderosa,
I didn’t back down a damn bit. I still say bring it and I still don’t take you seriously. Either raise the issue with JT, shut your pie hole, or continue to bluster as you run away. The later is the most likely course you’ll take. You remain a purposeful disruptor without a leg to stand on. “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.” That sure sounds like you sticking your tail between your legs and running away to me. If you think you have a case? Bring. It. Otherwise, it’s only more evidence that you are not a person to be taken seriously.
So how about this for a change . . .
Care to defend your ridiculous assertion that democracy is a legal fiction?
Maybe you missed this part:
The critical moment came on April 27, 1971, Robinson says, during a secret meeting held in the Oval Office between President Nixon, auto maker president Henry Ford II and then-chairman of Chrysler Corp. Lee lacocca. The auto makers were concerned because times were beginning to look tough in Motor City. Japanese companies Honda, Toyota and Datsun were introducing curiously small, fuel-efficient cars that challenged the market dominance of the Big Three, Ford, General Motors Corp. and Chrysler.
And the federal government wasn’t helping. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was proposing 70 safety and auto emissions standards that threatened to increase costs and erode the dominance of the Big Three.
Evidence of the closed-door meeting is eerily contained in Nixon’s secret White House tapes and in 1991 depositions taken of domestic affairs assistant and former White House Counsel John Ehrlichman, who would later spend time in prison for his Watergate role and die in 1999.
During the meeting, Ford told Nixon that the auto industry would have to spend one-sixth of the gross domestic product to comply with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s requirements by 1975, according to the Ehrlichman deposition. And, Ford warned the president, the price of the popular Pinto would go up 50 percent in three years if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards were implemented.
“Cool it, or you’ll break us up,” Iacocca complained to the president. Of particular concern were the costs of complying with bumper strength and air bag requirements.
Ford passed away in 1987 and Iacocca, who invented the E-bike, an electric transportation system, now heads EV Global Motors Inc. in Los Angeles and did not return calls for comment.
The entreaties of the auto magnates had an effect on Nixon, according to Ehrlichman’s deposition.
Later in the day, he met with the president. “I’m strongly against them all, it’s not good government,” Ehrlichman testified of Nixon’s reaction to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposals. “Tell [Department of Transportation Secretary John] Volpe to delay all of this.
*********************
Just saying, looks like Corporate Profits over Human Lives…..And the Schwartz papers? Law Review, secondary or maybe even unreliable….never tried to get them admitted as authority….How about ALEC….
@AY you should read the study before you comment.
@GeneH
I meant back down re escalating your personal attacks. If you think your conduct is right and you hold some sway on this blog, you should have no problem escalating your attacks.
I, on the other hand, have no doubt that my conduct falls within the blog’s guidelines, bluster all you want.
So death is ok in your books so long as profits are achieved. That is nice to know.