jacee

Even if he's dead? How does that work? There's something out of whack here ...People dying from poisoned products is just a happy opportunity for the market to regulate/correct itself. Regulations, however, are "unfortunate". You see anything there you want to rethink? EG maybe that the market serves the people, and preferably doesn't have to kill people to correct its godly self?

We're not going back there bb.... Beatty leaves it to others to describe the glamour of the Gilded Age. Instead he makes viscerally clear the grinding poverty, the bloody racial hatred, the violent labor strikes, and the corrupt politics that also characterize that era. And he makes clear, too, the parallels with our own time, where once again a yawning gap has opened between ich and poor, and political influence is available for the taking by anyone willing and able to pay. Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." It was an era when government held the keys to corporate and private fortunes—land and subsidies for railroads, tariff protection for manufacturers, mountains for mining companies, timber lands for lumber kings, court orders to prevent strikes, and state militia and federal lawmen and U.S. Army regulars to break strikes and shoot strikers. "Government by campaign contributions," in Henry Demarest Lloyd’s words, gave America the most violent strikes in the industrializing world. http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/6012/ Historian Page Smith examines the industrial revolution in Volume 6 of his People's History of the United States and Volume 6 of his calls the events of that era “The War between Capital and Labor.” It is an apt title: the two sides were indeed at war, Labor.” It is an apt title: the two sides were indeed at war, with armies of armed men fighting on both sides. The level of human violence and destruction of property did in fact often create warlike conditions, a situation exacerbated by the fact that many workers were Civil War veterans. They declared themselves just as prepared to shoot a corporate hireling as they had been ready to kill a Yankee or a rebel. America’s captains of industry, who themselves often rose from very modest circumstances, saw workers as commodities to be dealt with like any raw material. Cold, ruthless, calculating and impervious to the negative effects of what they were doing, they hired their own armies to deal with recalcitrant laborers. http://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedage2.html

I don't think you understand how an economy should work for the benefit of all.Gilded Age - Key Points Rapid economic growth generated vast wealth during the Gilded Age wealth during the Gilded Age New products and technologies improved middle-class quality of life Industrial workers and farmers did not share in the new prosperity, working share in the new prosperity, working long hours in dangerous conditions for low pay low pay Gilded Age politicians were largely corrupt and ineffective corrupt and ineffective Most Americans during the Gilded Age wanted political and social reforms, but they disagreed strongly on what kind of reform. During those years, America's economy did grow at an extraordinary rate, generating unprecedented levels of wealth. Railroads, and soon telephone lines, stretched across the country, creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs and cheaper goods for consumers. But a nation that had long viewed itself in idyllic terms, as a nation of small farmers and craftsmen, confronted the emergence of a society increasingly divided between the haves and the have-nots—a society in which many poor workers struggled just to survive while an emerging industrial and financial aristocracy lived in palatial homes and indulged in opulent amusements. Some Americans celebrated the new wealth, others lamented it; all could agree that profound changes were taking place in the country. http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/summary.html

"Society" DID NOT "PROSPER" as a whole: The Robber Barons prospered while workers died by the thousands and we're disabled by the millions in the unsafe conditions and paltry wages they mostly owed to 'the company store'. The 'gilded age' gave rise to the labour movement because of the slavery/indentured worker conditions that gave great profits to the 1% with no taxation/payment back to the people for the resources being depleted and workers being disabled. From your link: The term "Gilded Age" was coined by Mark Twain and Age: A Tale of Today. The name refers to the process of gilding an object with a superficial layer of gold and is meant to make fun of ostentatious display while playing on the term " golden age." It was no 'golden age', just predatory victimization of workers for the benefit of the 1%. And the "deregulation" since the 1980's brings us to the "gilded age" of false 'prosperity' we have today ... because it was and is ONLY 'prosperity' for the 1%.

Public debt ... that becomes necessary due to predictable market downturns that business refuses to prepare for, instead whinging and whining at jet engine decibels and demanding tax breaks (causing public debt) laying off workers (causing public debt), foreclosing (causing public debt) etc. (Causing public debt) and then, of course, making out like bandits by earning the interest from public debt: For the 1%, it isn't 'production' during the good times that earns them fortunes: They just pretend to be sympathetic to the real small-medium businesses who DO job creation to pressure governments for corporate welfare that benefits them the most. It's recessions and depressions that fuel their gargantuan profits. I think perhaps this is the first time in Canadian history at least, that ordinary Canadians are seeing the pattern of predatory wealth accumulation that benefits ONLY the 1% and victimizes the rest of us. Now we just have to turn the tables of the moneysuckers.

"Growth" for those who have money to spare to pick up the "buying opportunities" that result from bankruptcies, foreclosures and such during recessions. IE, growth only for the predatory 1% who invest in order to reap profits from people's misery but not to create jobs. The real 'job creaters' are the small businesses of the 99% who earn money actually making or producing something of value, and employ people in the process. The fortunes of the real 1%'rs, however, are made on the misfortunes of others, and in influencing law and regulation and policy to their advantage, at the expense of the rest of us. And who benefits from perpetuating that cycle?The 1%.There's a demographic reality that economists and business are once again ignoring, as they wait (and wait) for consumers to start buying again and small businesses to start investing again ... The population bulge that has fuelled economic growth since the 1950's has passed their major buying years and are now approaching 50 and hunkering down and saving for retirement - not spending and investing safely, minimizing their risks. All of this points to a need for better projection models based on future demographics (not the past, a fact that seems to escape our 'tunnel-vision economists), better redistribution of wealth to sustain all of us, not just the predatory wealthy, and better control of public policy by the people, not the self-interested 1%. Look at the chart - the income gap that brought us the depression is back. Can that really be a good thing for "society" as a whole? And btw, where are your "stats" that 'prove' that the freer the market (to predatory practices), the better off "society" is ? Have you forgotten to post it? You should be able to demonstrate that from the above chart ... Waiting ... waiting ...

Just sayin' ... the normal protest blocks traffic. Maybe he should have left well enough alone, since it now appears to be morphing into a prolonged, high profile challenge of constitutional rights which trump bylaws, and which he could lose outright.

http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/the-gap-between-the-top-001-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-big-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg This chart shows the income gap that resulted in the Depression of the 1920's, and the similar gap today. Only the 1% benefit from depression/recession. The other 99% of us suffer. It's easy to see why you encourage conditions that cause depression. However, it is irresponsible.

City's injunction strategy backfires on besieged mayor The City of Vancouver's attempt to win an njunction to evict Occupy Vancouver from the art gallery plaza has backfired, big time The protesters won hugely Wednesday when their lawyer, Jason Gratl, separated the issues of health and safety - the two key prongs of the city's argument for urgent action - from questions of the encampment's legitimacy. the city's argument for urgent action - from questions of the encampment's legitimacy. With an interim order removing the pressing ssues from the table, B.C. Supreme Court Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie had no compelling reason not to give the motley crew a weeklong adjournment to prepare their case. There will be at least three days of argument starting next Wednesday, which probably means the tents and tarps will remain in place until after the Nov. 19 civic election. That can't please Mayor Gregor Robertson. The bright lights at City Hall, however, figured going for one would muddy the waters of responsibility and up the ante for protesters. responsibility and up the ante for protesters. Instead of being ticketed and prosecuted under the Trespass Act, City Land Regulation Bylaw or the Fire Bylaw, if an injunction were granted the demonstrators would face contempt-of-court charges and far more serious punishment. l think the city thought it would quickly win the court's blessing and be on its way. The worst has transpired. City officials find themselves into a corner Any move now by police and city not precipitated by some catastrophe will raise serious questions about wasting the court's time and respect for the process they set in motion That could be more damaging politically to the mayor's administration than leaving the commune standing Robertson must be pulling his hair out. If the protesters start doing street marches and demonstrations that block traffic every day, maybe the Mayor will realize he was better off with a peaceful encampment.

It's really cool how everyone's $100 redistributed themselves so much in the favour of the wealthiest1%. Are we looking at the same chart? if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed kudos to them.Really. But the continuing concentration is unsustainable. Gnight

Bad calculator ... not enough 0's. Using my phone now. But I think we're good now as the totals make sense.

It's how statscan presents it, and it makes sense. 115,000 households share 40% of the wealth of Canada, about $2t out of $5t total.

Look at the data again ... http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed.jpg They're WAY UP THERE, And 99% of us are hugging zero.

My point was that once the mortgages were repackaged, resold and 'hedged' ... they were foreclosed swiftly and with no renegotiation, because they were worth more money if they failed ... so they made sure they failed.

Your claim that children are tax filers is ridiculous. There were 11.5m Canadian households filing taxes in 2005, 1% of them is 115,000 1%'r households with net worth of $17.5m or more.

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages ... ... and then the foreclosures were carried out, swiftly with no renegotiation.

You wish! But it didn't look right to me either... Decimal place corrected now ... In Canada you're a 1%'r household if you have net worth of $17.5m or more.

They're talking income when the issue is wealth. They're talking medians (Canada) vs. averages (US), which can't be compared (averages are inflated). In Canada, you're a 1%'r if you've accumulated Net Worth of $17.5m or more.

About those stats ... you know ... All we need is stats, a the stats show that the closer we are to free enterprise, the more society prospers. Show us how "society" benefits ... when the data shows that we haven't since 1979. ONLY the 1% has benefited so far ... What have you got?

Don't worry, you are.

Oh tricked alright ... You show me your stats. I already showed you mine, but here it is again. if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-of-americas-earners-youre-pretty-much-screwed It is a bit hard to see, but there's one line that's a shooting star - the growth of the wealthiEST 1% - and a bunch of other lines hovering around zero - the other 99% of us. It's really quite clear. And it's about wealth, not income. And if you have to wonder whether you're a 1%'r ... ?You're not. You're just tricked. Now about those stats you want to show us ... ?

No? I'll bet those are their secret favourite treats. the-gap-between-the-top-001-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-big-since-the-roaring-twenties The 1% peak during recessions, which are just buying opportunities to them: It's the massive transfer of wealth (including also huge interest earned on public debt) that is the increasing income gap. It's a scam. And this time the "people at the bottom" will multiply and services - housing, food banks - WON'T keep up. We've reached a threshold, the second coming of the robber barons, holding 40% or more of the public wealth ... Recession is their business. Recovery's not happening.

I hope I don't have to keep explaining this: I HAD insurance. They can't make you take THEIR insurance on top. It was a brief circumstance for me. But the reason I raised it is the issue of the speed and rigidity of these forclosures ... with their insurance. Who profited?

Last time US oil corp thugs threatened the border from Columbia, Chavez called in Russian warships ...Venuzuela owns its oil. Canada should too. And I'm leaning towards building refineries and employing Canadians and doing it by ourselves ... Maybe collectively ...

Not those in the movement, no.