Ok not communism just bad theory. Smaller business and less profit does not equal higher employment.
|
|
|
Occupy Bay street
- Thread starter thebigwoof
- Start date
Ok not communism just bad theory. Smaller business and less profit does not equal higher employment.
Oohh big headlines I love it. Yes there is a huge gap. So what. If you cut the CEO pay down 90 percent the company still wouldn't hire more people they would still reinvest the profit or distribute it to the shareholders. You only hire as many people as you need to do the work regardless of 1 dollar in profit or 100 billion.
Many reasons from their local economy, to lack of updated skills, obsolescence, mental issues, health issues sometimes just lazy
Excellent...head in the sand tactics...bravo. Now I guess you see why there's protests then eh? QED.
Because to money managers on wall street that's exactly what they are. Duh.
Head in the sand? I acknowledged the issue. I just said it doesn't matter.
Now the millionaires are getting in in the protest. Alec Baldwin,Russell Simmons, Naomi wolf and Susan sarandon have all gone and joined in. What a joke
Here is a great article in the paper today to crush all the dummies
“We are the 99 per cent,” the protesters chant, eyes aflame with reformist zeal. It’s a compelling slogan, well-suited to the times and to the social-media soup in which we are increasingly immersed.
The wrinkle: It’s not true. North America and Europe, geographic epicentres of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are the fattest of fat cats, globally speaking. For any North American, least of all a Canadian, to claim economic kinship with the globally disadvantaged is silly. Mention that to an Indian. Mention it to a Chinese. Cry me a river, will be the likely response. Followed by a wry chuckle, or perhaps an expletive.
The Occupy movement, we’re told, is truly global, welded together by global social media. Everywhere the protesters repeat this statistic: one per cent of the world’s people own 40 per cent of the world’s wealth. The remaining 99 per cent must scrape by on the remainder. The usual suspects — greedy business leaders, backside-covering CEOs, pinstriped, blue-suited, squeaky-shoed bankers — are collectively to blame.
The data cited by the protesters can be found in a groundbreaking analysis carried out by an international team of economists in 2005-2006. The study of household wealth distribution among 229 countries (using the year 2000 as a baseline) was the largest ever of its kind. It was carried out by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research, under the auspices of the United Nations University.
The team of authors — led by a Canadian, University of Western Ontario economist James Davies — found that adults in North America, Western Europe and a few Asian countries, most notably Japan, together possess almost all the world’s household wealth (a measure of total assets, including real estate, investments and all other property, net of any debt.), about 88 per cent. Everyone else, the majority of the world’s people, share the remaining 12 per cent.
Drilling in, the numbers are striking. For example: North America accounts for only 6.1 per cent of the world’s adult population. But North Americans (again, as of the year 2000) held 34.4 per cent of the world’s household wealth. Europeans, with a much larger share of population, 14.9 per cent, held 29.6 per cent of the wealth. And rich Asia-Pacific nations, just five per cent of the global population, accounted for 24.1 per cent of household wealth.
Canada on its own remains a bit player, with only 0.6 per cent of the world’s adult population. But our share of global household wealth is, no surprise, disproportionate, at nearly two per cent.
Broken down differently, the data shows that the United States accounts for 25 per cent of the world’s wealthiest 10 per cent. Japan accounts for 20 per cent, Germany eight, Italy seven, Britain six, France four, Spain four, and Canada two per cent. Taiwan, Australia, the Netherlands, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Switzerland together account for an additional 12 per cent. The rest of the world together, comprising the balance of 213 countries, is home to just 13 per cent of the world’s wealthiest people.
In other words, recession or no, we still have it plenty good. North Americans have little cause for complaint in a global context. Based on the UN data, bragging rights for the disenfranchised belong to the Chinese, Indians and Africans. Not to us. Not to anyone protesting on Bay Street, or in St. James Park, or anywhere in Western Europe, for that matter.
For although China is home to 22.8 per cent of the world’s adults, the Chinese collectively hold less than three per cent of the world’s wealth (though that has no doubt grown since 2000). The Indians, with 15.4 per cent of the global population, have just 0.9 per cent of global household wealth. And Africa, with 10.2 per cent of the world’s adults, is home to only one per cent of the planet’s wealth.
The irony? The financial districts of Beijing, Mumbai and Nairobi, last time I checked, aren’t teeming with people yearning for the downfall of capitalism. Indeed, an attempt to launch Occupy Mumbai this week fizzled and died. That’s because, to most Indians, capitalism means investment and the possibility of a better job.
In an era of debt retrenchment, Canadians have good reason to fear declining living standards — but only compared to ourselves, and only in the context of a golden age of prosperity, perhaps just now waning, unlike anything the world has ever seen.
“We are the 99 per cent,” the protesters chant, eyes aflame with reformist zeal. It’s a compelling slogan, well-suited to the times and to the social-media soup in which we are increasingly immersed.
The wrinkle: It’s not true. North America and Europe, geographic epicentres of the Occupy Wall Street movement, are the fattest of fat cats, globally speaking. For any North American, least of all a Canadian, to claim economic kinship with the globally disadvantaged is silly. Mention that to an Indian. Mention it to a Chinese. Cry me a river, will be the likely response. Followed by a wry chuckle, or perhaps an expletive.
The Occupy movement, we’re told, is truly global, welded together by global social media. Everywhere the protesters repeat this statistic: one per cent of the world’s people own 40 per cent of the world’s wealth. The remaining 99 per cent must scrape by on the remainder. The usual suspects — greedy business leaders, backside-covering CEOs, pinstriped, blue-suited, squeaky-shoed bankers — are collectively to blame.
The data cited by the protesters can be found in a groundbreaking analysis carried out by an international team of economists in 2005-2006. The study of household wealth distribution among 229 countries (using the year 2000 as a baseline) was the largest ever of its kind. It was carried out by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research, under the auspices of the United Nations University.
The team of authors — led by a Canadian, University of Western Ontario economist James Davies — found that adults in North America, Western Europe and a few Asian countries, most notably Japan, together possess almost all the world’s household wealth (a measure of total assets, including real estate, investments and all other property, net of any debt.), about 88 per cent. Everyone else, the majority of the world’s people, share the remaining 12 per cent.
Drilling in, the numbers are striking. For example: North America accounts for only 6.1 per cent of the world’s adult population. But North Americans (again, as of the year 2000) held 34.4 per cent of the world’s household wealth. Europeans, with a much larger share of population, 14.9 per cent, held 29.6 per cent of the wealth. And rich Asia-Pacific nations, just five per cent of the global population, accounted for 24.1 per cent of household wealth.
Canada on its own remains a bit player, with only 0.6 per cent of the world’s adult population. But our share of global household wealth is, no surprise, disproportionate, at nearly two per cent.
Broken down differently, the data shows that the United States accounts for 25 per cent of the world’s wealthiest 10 per cent. Japan accounts for 20 per cent, Germany eight, Italy seven, Britain six, France four, Spain four, and Canada two per cent. Taiwan, Australia, the Netherlands, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Switzerland together account for an additional 12 per cent. The rest of the world together, comprising the balance of 213 countries, is home to just 13 per cent of the world’s wealthiest people.
In other words, recession or no, we still have it plenty good. North Americans have little cause for complaint in a global context. Based on the UN data, bragging rights for the disenfranchised belong to the Chinese, Indians and Africans. Not to us. Not to anyone protesting on Bay Street, or in St. James Park, or anywhere in Western Europe, for that matter.
For although China is home to 22.8 per cent of the world’s adults, the Chinese collectively hold less than three per cent of the world’s wealth (though that has no doubt grown since 2000). The Indians, with 15.4 per cent of the global population, have just 0.9 per cent of global household wealth. And Africa, with 10.2 per cent of the world’s adults, is home to only one per cent of the planet’s wealth.
The irony? The financial districts of Beijing, Mumbai and Nairobi, last time I checked, aren’t teeming with people yearning for the downfall of capitalism. Indeed, an attempt to launch Occupy Mumbai this week fizzled and died. That’s because, to most Indians, capitalism means investment and the possibility of a better job.
In an era of debt retrenchment, Canadians have good reason to fear declining living standards — but only compared to ourselves, and only in the context of a golden age of prosperity, perhaps just now waning, unlike anything the world has ever seen.
Last edited:
When Hyperinflation hits because of the trillions of $ that central banks are pumping into the system, people will go hungry. This is when you will see the REAL protesting. This Occupy stuff is a plain joke.
If you want to hit these bankers/governments hard. This is how you do it. Close your banks account, spend on stuff you need, don’t go into debt and buy gold/silver.
Silver is the achilles heal of these vampire squid banks. JP Morgan silver derivatives is alone over $78 trillion. Taking physical possession of silver slowly destroys these vampire banks.
I think what you meant to say was that the article is great to you but found in a ****** paper written by a hack with a biased viewpoint. For every one article like that you'll find 10 with the protesters views. Some of them are even explained in simple terms should you require them.
You've mentioned several times that things have always been like this in terms of inequality. That's a piss poor argument for sitting around and doing nothing about it though. Using that argument we'd still be burning witches.
Some people seem to be doing something about the rampant greed we see around us. They are not anti-wealth, they aren't anti-achievement....they are anti-inequality and anti-greed. That's a big difference. If you're OK with apathy and you've bought into the capitalist dream that if you work hard enough you'll join them, then congratulations to you. However, I'm willing to bet that no matter how hard you work you'll never join the upper echelons of society because our society isn't built that way. There are plenty of people that work hard, work extra shifts, work two or more jobs...and they will never see their salaries even get close to what their CEO or even his underlings will make. It's not just money...security too is a concern. Fat cats in certain industries get rewards whether their company succeeds or fails, they don't often get sacked. A worker fails at his or her job and they are on their way to getting a pink slip. It might be a warning or two away but they certainly won't get a multi-thousand dollar bonus that's for sure.
You can whine about how the hippies are taking over but to be honest the cross section of people fed up with the status quo is quite wide. There were all kinds of people in Bay Street, teachers, accountants, students everyone. Many were concerned about what kind of world the older generation (you I'm thinking) will be leaving them and rightly so. This planet doesn't belong to any one generation, a generation has stewardship of it for a certain short period of time and it's supposed to be handed over to the new generation in a good state of repair. I think the young people are getting ****** off because they see what's being handed over to them is a fraction of a planet covered with a thick layer of crap. The really nice bits have been kept by some other greedy ****ers.
You've mentioned several times that things have always been like this in terms of inequality. That's a piss poor argument for sitting around and doing nothing about it though. Using that argument we'd still be burning witches.
Some people seem to be doing something about the rampant greed we see around us. They are not anti-wealth, they aren't anti-achievement....they are anti-inequality and anti-greed. That's a big difference. If you're OK with apathy and you've bought into the capitalist dream that if you work hard enough you'll join them, then congratulations to you. However, I'm willing to bet that no matter how hard you work you'll never join the upper echelons of society because our society isn't built that way. There are plenty of people that work hard, work extra shifts, work two or more jobs...and they will never see their salaries even get close to what their CEO or even his underlings will make. It's not just money...security too is a concern. Fat cats in certain industries get rewards whether their company succeeds or fails, they don't often get sacked. A worker fails at his or her job and they are on their way to getting a pink slip. It might be a warning or two away but they certainly won't get a multi-thousand dollar bonus that's for sure.
You can whine about how the hippies are taking over but to be honest the cross section of people fed up with the status quo is quite wide. There were all kinds of people in Bay Street, teachers, accountants, students everyone. Many were concerned about what kind of world the older generation (you I'm thinking) will be leaving them and rightly so. This planet doesn't belong to any one generation, a generation has stewardship of it for a certain short period of time and it's supposed to be handed over to the new generation in a good state of repair. I think the young people are getting ****** off because they see what's being handed over to them is a fraction of a planet covered with a thick layer of crap. The really nice bits have been kept by some other greedy ****ers.
mma01
Well-known member
It goes without saying that we are not born equal, so its ridiculous to expect that we can achieve the same things out of life. There are going to be winners and there are going to be losers. I can accept the fact that no matter how much I work out at the gym, I'll never be able to slam dunk or bench press 400 lbs. Similarly, I can accept the fact that no matter how hard I work I'll probably never join the super elite. In life we are all given a set of cards to play with consisting of our physical/mental abilities, what class we were born into, the country we grew up in and just plain luck. Between the alternatives of trying to change the game and learning to play the cards I was given according to those rules, I have found a lot more success in the lattter.
And you don't think these 'badges' of the middle class have become harder to achieve over the years? At one time a family could own a home (and actually pay off the mortgage before retiring), own a vehicle, put good food on the table all on a single salary. That is completely unachievable anymore. The 'middle class' lifestyle is much harder to achieve than it was before. I'm not talking about median salary I'm talking about those achievements you mentioned.
Each year inflation rises and outpaces salaries. House values are through the roof making owning your home outright almost a fantasy for most. The recession hurt the middle class the most in terms of impact not total $$ lost on investments. The wealthy were diversified enough or had enough income beyond basic necessities to survive or even profit because they had money to invest while stocks and capitalize on others misfortune. The middle class person who puts the little extra into investments or the middle class person on the verge of retiring got hit hard. This is what I mean by war on the middle class.
The difference is that the rules to the game are changing and that is what the people are angry about. Using the card analogy if someone goes all in on a hand and loses but takes your chips to cover the loss instead of theirs that is cool? That is how the system is being set up. The wealthy gamble and are not on the hook when it fails. CEO's get fired with massive bonuses while others are left to pay back the debt they have created. These private executives complain against unionized labour and the guaranteed costs that aren't tied to performance yet can sink a company losing many jobs and walk away with millions in severance. Seems to me the issue isn't unionized labour costs that ensure a decent wage it is the corporate funneling money between CEOs.
You love preaching failure don't you? If you buy a house with a 25 year mortgage even when you are 40 it will be paid off worst case when you are 65 which is a a totally reasonable retirement age. So it's very acheivable
What bias?.?the article quotes studies and facts and I like he points out that the poorest countries in the world aren't having protests in their financial centres. Proves in north America and Europe it's all whining. Where are the articles with facts from the protesters? By the way I'm not concerned about joining the upper echelons of society, I'm already connected to that group and rejected it. I love money and security not living in the same neighborhood as all the other wasps. Going to the same places, supporting the same cause and marrying an anorexic bleached out over tanned wasp hag. And I'm considered the older generation?? I'm 42 calm down
Last edited:
And if you can afford to not work, pitch a tent and feed yourself it's almost a vacation! They aren't starvng
mma01
Well-known member
My point is that there are things readily within your control (what you choose to study, what field of work you want to get in, what you spend on, how you manage your money) and things that are not readily in your control (the inqualities of the world). I have a finite amount of time on this earth - Id rather focus my energies on the things I have control over. Seems to have worked so far....
|
|
|
|
|