http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13405314
Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians—and dangerous for everybody else
STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders arrived for their summit. A sea change in social attitudes that could have profound effects on politics and the world economy is under way.
The rich are certainly not the only targets in the current populist backlash. Frightened by the downturn, people are furious with politicians, central bankers and immigrants. But a rising wave of anger is directed against the new “malefactors of great wealth”. Today’s villains are a larger and more global bunch than the handful of American robber barons Teddy Roosevelt denounced a century ago; and most of them are bankers and fund managers, rather than owners of trusts and railroads. Yet the themes are similar to those at the end of that previous gilded age: rising inequality—the top 0.1% of Americans earned 20 times the income of the bottom 90% in 1979 and 77 times in 2006—and a sense that the greedy rich have cheated decent working people of their rightful share of the pie.
As for heads-I-win capitalism, the problem of asymmetric risk should shrink, because the rule changes needed to make the financial system safer will also remove unwarranted profits. Contra-cyclical capital requirements, forcing banks to build more reserves during good times, will leave them less cash to splurge on bonuses. Many of the sweetest sources of profit sprang up in the cracks between regulatory systems; governments are now filling in these gaps. If central banks focus on asset markets when they rise as well as when they fall, they will remove much of the froth. Treat a bank that becomes too big to fail like a utility, and it will make less money.
Curbing the excesses of wealth, then, will be a side effect of regulations designed to make capitalism work better. Such measures will not provide the lyrics to revolutionary anthems, but they are going to be better than going after the wealthy. The rich are an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.
Originally posted by generalissimoWhile I do think the French overreacted with all the employer kidnappings, I find it great that the workers are starting to think for themselves and overthrow the capitalist system.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13405314
[b]Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians—and dangerous for everybody else
STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders ...[text shortened]... an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.[/b]
That said, the populists were capitalist and lukewarm on labor issues. They had more support from white farmers in the former Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia) and the southern Midwest (southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania). So I think it's slightly misinformed to call this a populist uprising (or even a progressive uprising, as the progressive movement was a sort of urban offshoot of the populist movement later) because these people are trying to end the capitalist system, from my understanding, whatever the conservative economist says.
Originally posted by scherzoI find it great that the workers are starting to think for themselves and overthrow the capitalist system.
While I do think the French overreacted with all the employer kidnappings, I find it great that the workers are starting to think for themselves and overthrow the capitalist system.
That said, the populists were capitalist and lukewarm on labor issues. They had more support from white farmers in the former Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Miss ...[text shortened]... to end the capitalist system, from my understanding, whatever the conservative economist says.
Yeah, I can picture you going "burn baby, burn".
Originally posted by scherzoI think it isn't great, the rule of law is now being replaced with I want
While I do think the French overreacted with all the employer kidnappings, I find it great that the workers are starting to think for themselves and overthrow the capitalist system.
That said, the populists were capitalist and lukewarm on labor issues. They had more support from white farmers in the former Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Miss ...[text shortened]... to end the capitalist system, from my understanding, whatever the conservative economist says.
what I want.
Kelly
Originally posted by generalissimoAnd........just as wrong-headed now. Read 'Myth of the Robber Barons' by professor Bertram Folsom. Learn from history the parts played by business and government at the time. You may learn just who was "feckless."
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13405314
[b]Today’s villains are a larger and more global bunch than the handful of American robber barons Teddy Roosevelt denounced a century ago; bankers rather than owners of trusts and railroads. Yet the themes are similar to those at the end of that previous gilded age:
Originally posted by scherzoI doubt it did to you if all you got is a "get the rich" mind set. The
Well, that made sense!
😕
point is that once you demonize any sector of society, none in
society are safe. We lose the rule of law when people just react on what
they feel they are entitled to, to the point of justifying harming others.
Either the rule of law protects all equally or it doesn't, so if you justify
kidnapping, or all the crap that the AIG people went through you've
lost perspective on keeping society safe. Your fundamental thought
process of fairness and equality is skewed to some narcissistic view of
self importance you seem to possess.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, those poor AIG people who got $165 million in bonuses for destroying a company so badly that they had to come with their tin cup in hand to all of us. How they have suffered!
I doubt it did to you if all you got is a "get the rich" mind set. The
point is that once you demonize any sector of society, none in
society are safe. We lose the rule of law when people just react on what
they feel they are entitled to, to the point of justifying harming others.
Either the rule of law protects all equally or it doesn't, so if you just ...[text shortened]... equality is skewed to some narcissistic view of
self importance you seem to possess.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHey! I'm socialist!
I doubt it did to you if all you got is a "get the rich" mind set. The
point is that once you demonize any sector of society, none in
society are safe. We lose the rule of law when people just react on what
they feel they are entitled to, to the point of justifying harming others.
Either the rule of law protects all equally or it doesn't, so if you just ...[text shortened]... equality is skewed to some narcissistic view of
self importance you seem to possess.
Kelly
Originally posted by scherzoThis has little to do with the credit crisis, though. Striking and protesting are part of French worker culture, they've been doing it for decades in good and bad times.
While I do think the French overreacted with all the employer kidnappings, I find it great that the workers are starting to think for themselves and overthrow the capitalist system.
That said, the populists were capitalist and lukewarm on labor issues. They had more support from white farmers in the former Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Miss ...[text shortened]... to end the capitalist system, from my understanding, whatever the conservative economist says.