Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[Rocky Road]

Ya I have seen that before, the exponential growth of population, debt, resource depletion, all of it is enough to make you lose sleep at night.

What really shook me up about Chris M's ideas are how they are all grounded in observable fact, and backed up.

Anyone else hear that the Wall Street protests have spread to LA?

[CitizenX]

Anyone else hear that the Wall Street protests have spread to LA?

No, but good to hear. What's happening on Bay St.?

[Rocky Road]

No, but good to hear. What's happening on Bay St.?

Well aside from the Tar Sands protests on the Hill not much that I am aware of,

it seems the mainstream media isn't covering the protests in the states ...

here is a snippet I thought I would share:

from Chris Martenson's Forum:

"...Corporate Capitalism is supranational in the sense that it has no loyalty to any nation state. It seeks to inflict a kind of worldwide serfdom. You tell American workers that they should be competitive. Well, competitive with whom? ... With sweatshop labor in Vietnam, prison labor in China - that's the real message and that's what they're doing. All energy has to be focused against corporations who have seized control of our economic and political systems and our educational systems. That's what charter schools and the destruction of teacher's unions are about. It's about imposing rote learning where people are taught what to think, not how to think. The tentacles of corporatism have now reached so far and so deep into our society that the only hope is to have them rooted out...

Globalization is imploding; it's destroying itself. What we're watching in the Middle East and countries like the Ivory Coast and others is the breakdown of globalization. It's a dead system... The systems managers of globalization and corporate capitalism know only how to serve that system. Lawrence Sumners is a perfect example of a [globalist] figure. As Treasury Secretary for Clinton, he deregulates the banking system which leads to the banking collapse, and then he's brought back into the White House with Geithner and all these sort of tools for Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.. to ostensibly fix the mess they [created]. They don't know how to do anything else. They know only how to serve a dead system. So that when Wall Street implodes and $40 trillion in worldwide wealth evaporates, what do they do? They loot the U.S. Treasury to bail out Wall Street. And now a few blocks from where I am sitting, Wall Street is engaged in precisely the same games that it played in 2008 which will lead to precisely the same mess. Will they be able to suck us dry again? Given the conclave of advisors around Obama, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. They're not trained to challenge or question structures and assumptions. They're only trained to serve that system and keep it alive, but it's very clear that the system is dying because it's unsustainable... we have to begin to prepare."..

[bush_cheney2004]

Well aside from the Tar Sands protests on the Hill not much that I am aware of,

it seems the mainstream media isn't covering the protests in the states ...

Yeah...pretty much a non event media-wise. How many Canadians have ever been to Wall Street?

[cybercoma]

it's very clear that the system is dying because it's unsustainable...

Have we learned nothing from Hegel and Marx? Of course the system is unsustainable; it's constantly evolving. While they believed that there was an end in sight, subjective in the case of the former and objective in the case of the latter, I don't think there ever will be. The social thesis and antithesis will resolve themselves into a synthesis that becomes the thesis of a new epoch and this will continue forever and ever, both in the realm of ideas and our material existence. Edited September 27, 2011 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Have we learned nothing from Hegel and Marx? Of course the system is unsustainable; it's constantly evolving....

Right you are...but alas...the poor dears are very afraid of what is next because they had it so good for so long.

[jacee]

http://www.aei.org/article/104156

Raising millionaires' taxes may seem fair--they can obviously afford to pay more. But, this policy has significant economic costs Higher tax rates will encourage millionaires to report less taxable income imiting the revenue inflow.

Ahhh ... can't tax the rich more cos they'll just lie about it anyway ... cheat on their taxes. Mhmm ... so we can't catch the criminals or tax them.

So why bother.

Great argument.

And we're supposed to trust people like this?

I don't think so.

Edited September 27, 2011 by jacee

[Jack Weber]

Have we learned nothing from Hegel and Marx? Of course the system is unsustainable; it's constantly evolving. While they believed that there was an end in sight, subjective in the case of the former and objective in the case of the latter, I don't think there ever will be. The social thesis and antithesis will resolve themselves into a synthesis that becomes the thesis of a new epoch and this will continue forever and ever, both in the realm of ideas and our material existence.

Wait a minute...

Heglian Dialectic and Marxist theory aside,both advocate for what is essentially an extreme.A pure Marxist state would be a nightmare scenario for most people.Just as a pure Capitalist state would be.Pure,unfettered Capitalism is also an extreme.Sadly,this world seems to be headed towards less and less regulation and checks on Capitalism.If I did'nt know better,it seems that advocates for this want some sort of global redux on European Mercantilism of the 18th and 19th century.Of course,Marx' theories were based on seeing the bad side of that economic system.

The problem with both,at least to me,is that they are infantile and the results are poorly thought out.Both simply refuse to take into account human nature as it relates to the seductiveness of power and greed.As I understand it,the "revolution" Marx talked about had 3 phases...

1.The violent revolutionary phase where the bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie would be violently overthrown.

2.Marx felt a "Dictatorial Phase" would be necessary to stop the violence and bring order to chaos.

3.Once the "Dictatorial Phase" was ended,Marx felt that the "Workers Paradise" would take hold and flourish.

The problem with the entire thing,and we have massive amounts of historical evidence to prove this,is that Marx never took into account that people who were in positions of power and influence in the "Dictatorial Phase" would actually give up that power and influence.Hence why,in every Marxist revolution,it never gets past the "Dictatorial Phase".I suppose the best excuse any of these Marxist dictators ever come up with is constantly referring to the "ongoing revolution" a la Fidel Castro.

The advocates for global free markets are equally infantile.They seem to assume that business is allowed to operate completely unhindered,individual wealth and prosperity will abound.Where ever in history this has happened,the exact opposite has taken place.In fact,very few prosper and most end up even poorer than they were before.In fact,Marxist theory was a response the inherent unfairness and poverty inducing economics of that old mercantilist system.

[eyeball]

http://www.aei.org/article/104156

Ahhh ... can't tax the rich more cos they'll just lie about it anyway ... cheat on their taxes. Mhmm ... so we can't catch the criminals or tax them.

So why bother.

Great argument.

And we're supposed to trust people like this?

I don't think so.

No kidding...they're going to take their money and leave, in a globalized economy? Were they thinking of moving to Mars or something?

Higher tax rates will discourage saving by the group that finances much of the investment that growth and wages depend on.

Good, that means they'll spend it, thereby flooding the economy with the cash it needs to get rolling again.

Use it or lose it.

[jacee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/20/income-inequality-economic-growth_n_969933.html.

The widening gap between the wealthy and everyone else in the United States may be hindering a broader economic recovery, according to a new study. The study out of the International Monetary Fund found that greater income equality positively correlates with stronger economic growth Released in September, the study more specifically concluded that a 10 percent decrease in inequality ncreased the expected duration of economic growth by 50 percent.

...

And so long as Americans don't spend like before, the economy may not be able to fully recover. Historically the backbone of the U.S. economy, the eroding middle class has created an anemic economy Robert Reich recently wrote. He emphasized that the spending of the richest people alone is not enough to lead to "a virtuous cycle of more jobs and higher living standards."

Income inquality hinders economic recovery and growth. Can't be much clearer than that.

Turns out that by conducting a war on unions and middle class workers, the wealthy were chewing off their own feet.

"Stupid is as stupid does."

Edited September 27, 2011 by jacee

[Bonam]

Good, that means they'll spend it, thereby flooding the economy with the cash it needs to get rolling again.

Use it or lose it.

What kind of standpoint is that? People shouldn't be allowed to be prudent and save money? You two are so freaking messed up.

[jacee]

Dp

Edited September 27, 2011 by jacee

[eyeball]

The problem with both,at least to me,is that they are infantile and the results are poorly thought out.Both simply refuse to take into account human nature as it relates to the seductiveness of power and greed.As I understand it,the "revolution" Marx talked about had 3 phases...

Don't forget the problem of no longer having a planet for the easy taking. What is everyone thinking of filling the gap in with anyway?

[eyeball]

What kind of standpoint is that?

A flippant one, you see them a lot in these sorts of debates don't you?

Edited September 27, 2011 by eyeball

[jacee]

What kind of standpoint is that? People shouldn't be allowed to be prudent and save money? You two are so freaking messed up.

The richEST hoard their money at the expense of economic recovery and growth. The middle class consumers have been decimated and aren't spending. The retiring baby boomers aren't spending. If the rich aren't spending, nobody is.

Good luck with that.

[cybercoma]

Wait a minute...

I just want to make it clear that I wasn't proposing a Marxist solution to the "problems" we have today. I'm just saying that the system we have is indeed unsustainable and, in my opinion, unlike the theories of Marx and Hegel, the system will never be sustainable. I don't believe there will ever be an end to the dialectic. Marx took his cue from Darwin's philosophies of evolution. He believed society would evolve into this Marxist paradise, but I'm claiming that just like evolution, there is no end. Society (the sum of all ideas, relationships, and productive capacities) will continue to adapt to its elements and evolve with no end.

Marx never took into account that people who were in positions of power and influence in the "Dictatorial Phase" would actually give up that power and influence.

All of this is beside the point, but in addition to that, Marx never really outlined what society would look like after the Revolution, period. He spent a lot of time talking about what he considered pre-history, or the time before the Revolution. However, any descriptions of what society would be like after the revolution have been inferred by later thinkers, scholars, and theorists.

One other thing, you mentioned somewhere in your post--I must have deleted it when I was picking parts to quote--that the system is becoming more deregulated. Although regulations have changed somewhat in the last 20-30 years, the height of liberal economics was the 19th century. The system is actually way more regulated than it has ever been at any other point in history, so I don't exactly agree with that. Nonetheless, I get where you were going with your post.

[Rocky Road]

What we need is a leader who doesn't coddle the rich.

Someone who champions middle-class people and sees the wealth of the whole as a priority.

I see bottle pickers every day in my neighborhood, I realize some people fall through the cracks and

end up on the streets, but one would think more could be done to reduce things like homelessness, substance abuse,

illiteracy, and most of all, hunger.

[CitizenX]

What we need is a leader who doesn't coddle the rich.

Well you will never find one in the Conservative/Neo-Liberal Party. People voted for Harper because they thought he was fiscally Conservative, and they still have a hate on for the corrupt Liberals.

I'm not a Liberal or an NDP supporter, I'm just Anti-CPC. The Liberals need a leader with some sort of plan, any type of plan at least.

I'm all for a Liberal-NDP merger.

[CPCFTW]

Of course the gap is rising. The rich are working 50-100hr weeks and investing, the poor are protesting, chanting stupid slogans, getting arrested, having sex on cars, and blowing all their income on pot and munchies.

Edited September 27, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Black Dog]

Of course the gap is rising. The rich are working 50-100hr weeks and investing, the poor are protesting, chanting stupid slogans, getting arrested, having sex on cars, and blowing all their income on pot and munchies.

And yet they say it's the left that's perpetuating so-called class warfare.

[Michael Hardner]

the poor are ... having sex on cars

Cite ? Can you show that a significantly higher number of low income Canadians have sex on cars than middle- or higher- incomes ? And what is the sample size for your study ?

[CitizenX]

What we need is a leader who doesn't coddle the rich.

Someone who champions middle-class people and sees the wealth of the whole as a priority.

Here are two of the greatest speeches I've ever heard

The climax to the 1940 Charlie Chaplin film "The Great Dictator".

Mouseland - Famous speech by Tommy Douglas about rich fat cats in government.

[CPCFTW]

Cite ? Can you show that a significantly higher number of low income Canadians have sex on cars than middle- or higher- incomes ? And what is the sample size for your study ?

I forgot about throwing bags of urine and feces.

[bush_cheney2004]

I forgot about throwing bags of urine and feces.

Yeah...real classy!

[eyeball]

I'm all for a Liberal-NDP merger.

I don't care what the hell they call it but what we have now ain't Canada's natural governing ideology no matter how you slice it.

I guess the only hope of checking the absolute power Harper has over Canada now is some kind of schism in the CPC. Maybe it'll be between those who feel entitled to their entitlements and those who feel entitled to other people's entitlements too.

A Gap within the Gap so to speak.