Russell Brand Revolution

[Shady]

Of course, Shady.

I think the point Argus is making is that it's false to think that corporations would hire more people if they just had more money. For reasons that both you and Argus have just explained. You clearly understand that... so perhaps you should go back to Elephant Team HQ and explain it to the rest of the gang.

-k

Sure thing! As long as you explain to the Donkey Party that raising taxes increases the operating costs of business, which absolutely does impact expansion, hiring, etc.

[cybercoma]

Sure thing! As long as you explain to the Donkey Party that raising taxes increases the operating costs of business, which absolutely does impact expansion, hiring, etc.

It's not a zero-sum game. That's the problem with not going past econ 101. You didn't bother to learn that the money goes back into the system by getting people on their feet. Those people go on to create demand for goods and services, which encourages corporate growth. Companies don't grow with welfare. Isn't that what you've been saying about the other end of the spectrum? Stop giving companies breaks. It makes them lazy.

[eyeball]

It makes them lazy.

While cultivating a sense of entitlement.

[dre]

What this guy suggests isnt really that radical. He wants to break up the new aristocracy with taxes and redistribution of wealth because he realizes quite correctly that its impossible to have meaningful democracy under these conditions.

This isnt his idea its been done before. This is exactly how they broke up the english aristocracy, and the robber barons, and the railroad tycoons.

During the period between 1945, and 1975 I think the US DID have functional representitive government, and wealth was DE-concentrating, and we saw the emergence of a large middle class, and unprecidented prosperity.

[Michael Hardner]

During the period between 1945, and 1975 I think the US DID have functional representitive government, and wealth was DE-concentrating, and we saw the emergence of a large middle class, and unprecidented prosperity.

When it came to an end, though, they had to incentivize investment, and that was successful so it became a cure-all.

[bleeding heart]

Brand is neither smart or funny, and seems like a real egotistical d-bag.

I believe he's all three. It would appear from the first few paragraphs of his piece that he somewhat agrees with the "d-bag" assessment himself.

But it seems inconsequential. It's very much beside the point.

Edited October 29, 2013 by bleeding heart

[eyeball]

What this guy suggests isnt really that radical. He wants to break up the new aristocracy with taxes and redistribution of wealth because he realizes quite correctly that its impossible to have meaningful democracy under these conditions.

This isnt his idea its been done before. This is exactly how they broke up the english aristocracy, and the robber barons, and the railroad tycoons.

During the period between 1945, and 1975 I think the US DID have functional representitive government, and wealth was DE-concentrating, and we saw the emergence of a large middle class, and unprecidented prosperity.

The real trick is preventing these aristocracies from forming in the first place.

That would truly be revolutionary.

[Argus]

Of course not. Rich Guy Team is generally much in favor of regulations that make it easier for them to stay rich or become richer. Yes to longer patents! Yes to taxes or levies or barriers to entry for technologies that threaten their own!

You forgot how the banks and credit card companies lobbied congress to make it so much harder for individuals to declare bankruptcy to get out of their debts. Yeah, they wanted stricker laws for their customers, just not for them.

Ironically, not many years before the banks had to go cap in hand to Washington to keep from going into bankruptcy.

[Argus]

Why would you expand? The same reason and only reason any business does. If you're current manufacturing capacity cannot handle current and expected demand.

No, Shady, that is not why companies expand. They expand because it will be profitable to expand. At the moment, due to government tax policy, it is often more profitable to simply sit on the cash or put it into the stock market than to expand, regardless of expected demand.

Of course, if those investment profits were taxed like ordinary income their calculations might change and it might then be more profitable to expand.

[Argus]

When it came to an end, though, they had to incentivize investment, and that was successful so it became a cure-all.

But it's not a cure all. By incentivizing investment in the stock market they disincentivized investing in expansion.

[Michael Hardner]

But it's not a cure all. By incentivizing investment in the stock market they disincentivized investing in expansion.

Tax breaks, I mean, became the answer to everything.

[DFCaper]

I agree. If you bow out of the system then that means you are leaving it for the others to decide.

At this point we typically get 60% voter turnout. I have a hard time believing that 40% of the people don't vote because they don't have someone good to vote for. Rather, they don't vote because they aren't informed enough to make their decision. I would guess that only 5% or less of the 40% would have actually taken the time to inform themselves on the candidates and parties and then decided not to vote.

I personally like the victim role that Brand takes up by saying that 'society' made him additcted to drugs. I have zero respect for the guy.

The sadest part is of that 40% I bet well over half agree with his policy views. And if they would actually voted, the policies we have would be more favourable to the environment & wealth redistribution.

His promoting of not voting, to others who agree with his views, is only going to hurt his cause.

When it comes to voting, I always tell my politically disengaged friends to at least spoil their ballet. That having your name marked off is what matters most, as politicians always target demographics. That policy always favour older voters over youth voters, since one demographic votes and one doesn't.

[dre]

But it's not a cure all. By incentivizing investment in the stock market they disincentivized investing in expansion.

Not only that but all they really did was start funding economic development through monetary expansion. This is what caused the massive concentration of wealth, and its also whats caused all the risky behavior and malinvestment.

It all needs to be rolled back. Theres a window still where it could be done without bloodshed, but its going to close pretty soon.

[Michael Hardner]

Not only that but all they really did was start funding economic development through monetary expansion. This is what caused the massive concentration of wealth, and its also whats caused all the risky behavior and malinvestment.

It all needs to be rolled back. Theres a window still where it could be done without bloodshed, but its going to close pretty soon.

It also supported full employment, and spending spending spending. As much as the wealthy want high returns, the non-wealthy want their "stuff".

What are the key questions we should be asking, though ?

What is "wrong" with what we have today ? I don't see the world through Brand's negative prism - I see more freedom, lower prices, and more stuff but also a big negative: environmental dangers.

I don't see disparity as being necessarily a bad thing as long as lowest earning groups see significant benefits too, such as improved healthcare, lower working hours, improved real wage growth. If that doesn't happen naturally (and I don't think it will, as it hasn't) then we need to create policy that takes the benefits of the new economy and moves some of it to those groups.

[GostHacked]

Schiff weighs in on Russel Brand.

[Boges]

This guy had Katy Perry and divorced her. We should listen to nothing he says.

[dre]

I don't see disparity as being necessarily a bad thing as long as lowest earning groups see significant benefits too, such as improved healthcare, lower working hours, improved real wage growth. If that doesn't happen naturally (and I don't think it will, as it hasn't) then we need to create policy that takes the benefits of the new economy and moves some of it to those groups

You cant have representitive government if you have too much disparity. The more wealth concentrates the more political power is consolidated into the hands of a few, and the more those people are able to keep tweaking the rules to enrich themselves even more. The wealthy are now using their new found political power to cut their own taxes, end estate taxation,

Your argument seems to be that if the aristocracy would have been just fine as long as common people had a bit more to eat year after year. The argument is ignorant of human nature. Such a society will not remain stable for long, and historically these conditions lead to violence.

As the concentration of wealth and political power continues on its exponential curve you are going to start to see more and more problems, and more and more draconian measures used to keep things "stable".

[kimmy]

Tax breaks, I mean, became the answer to everything.

Yeah, man, what economic problems can't be fixed by tax cuts? I mean, it's just obvious!

-k

[kimmy]

Schiff weighs in on Russel Brand.

I watched, and I agree with much of what he says.

His first observation that I agreed with is that it's not so much that Russell Brand is saying anything particularly smart, it's just that he sounds smart while he's saying it. He's able to talk really quickly using high-level vocabulary without pausing or saying "um" or anything, so that you have this avalanche of words coming at you so quickly that it's hard to digest it in real time.

I believe somebody said of Paul Ryan during the election campaign "he's what a dumb-guy thinks a smart-guy sounds like". I think the same can be said of Russell Brand.

I also agreed with what he said when he criticized Brand's views on profit. The idea that profit for somebody is a deficit for somebody else is wrong. It subscribes to a zero-sum game type view that just isn't reasonable.

He made some fair comments on voting as well... I don't agree that voting is pointless because they're equally bad. Even if all the candidates are terrible, they're not terrible in the same ways.

Where I took issue with Mr Schiff is when he just brushed off the main reason that people are so upset right now. "...so you see, profits are good! Now, people are probably mad about the obscene profits that the banks are making, and if it wasn't for crony capitalism maybe we would have less people like Russell Brand getting mad, but let's move on to what he said about voting..." No, let's not move on. That thing you just said? Let's talk more about that.

-k

[bleeding heart]

I think Schiff was the wrong person to go after Brand, because Schiff had nothing really of interest or insight to say. I see better arguments (including similar ones) right here on MLW on any given day.

Having said that, I'm inclined to agree that Brand has not seriously considered all his points. Some of what he says rings true, some of it sounds like the leftist boilerplate of 2nd year undergrads discovering politics for the first time...except that Brand is 38 and is guest Editor of the New Statesman.

I find him engaging and energetic...but then, I find the late Christopher Hitchens engaging and energetic, and I disagreed with probably four-fifths of everything he said.

Where Brand is good is when he speaks from the gut of compassion and humour rather than from pat socialist retreaded theory. He's correct that there's an underclass (a point probably more potent in his native land than here, but I think there is still some application for what he says for us, too). I partially agree with him about voting...though not completely (but then, I'm a consistent voter, personally). I agree with him about the self-generating incestuousness of the political and monied classes...as a generalization, that is, not as in-every-case.

anyway, lots to disagree with, to be sure. But it's good to see discussions and debates of the big ideas, which we need more of...I think we too often ge caught up in the implicit notion that the status quo would be perfect, were in not for the Right, or the Left, or the mushy middle...the (take your pick) wrong people screwing up the sublime system.

[Michael Hardner]

You cant have representitive government if you have too much disparity.

I think the way to look at it, is that representative government will mitigate disparity.

Your argument seems to be that if the aristocracy would have been just fine as long as common people had a bit more to eat year after year. The argument is ignorant of human nature. Such a society will not remain stable for long, and historically these conditions lead to violence.

I don't know that history has any examples of economic disparity on its own leading to violence, when the lower earners are adequately fed and housed.

As the concentration of wealth and political power continues on its exponential curve you are going to start to see more and more problems, and more and more draconian measures used to keep things "stable".

Draconian measures like socialized healthcare and tax increases you mean ? If so, I agree.

[Argus]

I don't know that history has any examples of economic disparity on its own leading to violence, when the lower earners are adequately fed and housed.

Adequate food and housing isn't necessary if you have a draconion system. The North Korean government is in no danger of being overthrown by the starving masses, for example.

In any event, It's not lack of food or housing which causes revolution, it's ideas, and the dissatisfaction which comes from them. Canada's poor, or for that matter, America's poor, are in far, far far better shape than the poor in India or Africa or even China. So what's the difference? Our underclass is exposed on a daily basis to the lifestyle of the obscenely rich through the media. That provokes jealousy and anger at their state. The underclass in places like India and Africa don't even have TVs, or educations, and tend to live in isolated villages, or are toiling away in factories 12 hours a day. They honestly can't even relate, even if they knew, to the lifestyle of some uber wealthy person (or even of the average Canadian). And their lack of education means they don't really even understand there could be anything done about it. The rich are rich, the poor are poor. So has it ever been. It's God's will (whatever your God is called).

[Michael Hardner]

Adequate food and housing isn't necessary if you have a draconion system. The North Korean government is in no danger of being overthrown by the starving masses, for example.

Not forever. See Romania, for example. Anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked: we're talking about what makes fertile ground for a revolution and certainly desperate people do.

In any event, It's not lack of food or housing which causes revolution, it's ideas, and the dissatisfaction which comes from them.

Hmmmm.... will you acknowledge that it's easier for such ideas to take root when there is desperation ?

Canada's poor, or for that matter, America's poor, are in far, far far better shape than the poor in India or Africa or even China. So what's the difference? Our underclass is exposed on a daily basis to the lifestyle of the obscenely rich through the media. That provokes jealousy and anger at their state. The underclass in places like India and Africa don't even have TVs, or educations, and tend to live in isolated villages, or are toiling away in factories 12 hours a day. They honestly can't even relate, even if they knew, to the lifestyle of some uber wealthy person (or even of the average Canadian). And their lack of education means they don't really even understand there could be anything done about it. The rich are rich, the poor are poor. So has it ever been. It's God's will (whatever your God is called).

I understand what you're saying and agree to a degree, but there are lots of counter examples. I think the fact that the 'poor' in America are coveting the rich on wide-screen TVs probably says something about their proclivity to revolt.

[dre]

I think the way to look at it, is that representative government will mitigate disparity.

Yes that would be the political solution which is essentially what happened with the robber barons, railroad tycoons, and british aristocracy. And thats what Brand is saying as well. He has a bombastic way of saying it, but what he really suggests is breaking up the contemporary aristocracy with taxation. Hes not advocating violence.

In any case the opposite has happened. As wealth and political power of consolidated social programs have been cut along side taxes for the wealthy.

As for what he says about profit, I dont agree profit is bad. People who provide goods and services that people need SHOULD make profit and they SHOULD get relatively wealthy. Thats always been the case. The problem is that nowdays so much of the profit is awarded to people that just make bets in a gigantic rigged casino game. A huge portion of the economy does nothing besides shuffle paper around.

And the government creates money to fuel the system, by borrowing, all that money winds up in the hands of a relatively small few, yet the public at large is on the hook to pay it all back. The people that actually got their hands on all that newly borrowed/created money should have to pay off the national debt. Not the people that none of it.

Draconian measures like socialized healthcare and tax increases you mean ? If so, I agree.

No i mean a surveillance state, increased incarceration rates, limits on the right to protest, erosion of privacy, erosion of freedom, agent provocateurs, increased secrecy, etc

Edited October 31, 2013 by dre

[GostHacked]

I also agreed with what he said when he criticized Brand's views on profit. The idea that profit for somebody is a deficit for somebody else is wrong. It subscribes to a zero-sum game type view that just isn't reasonable.

Where I took issue with Mr Schiff is when he just brushed off the main reason that people are so upset right now. "...so you see, profits are good! Now, people are probably mad about the obscene profits that the banks are making, and if it wasn't for crony capitalism maybe we would have less people like Russell Brand getting mad, but let's move on to what he said about voting..." No, let's not move on. That thing you just said? Let's talk more about that.

-k

There is not a problem with capitalism and profit. But what we see is less capitalism and more fascism (corporation + government). Banks made huge profits from hedging against their debts and still got bailouts and still made a profit. That is the real problem people have. It's not profit, it is illegal ill gained profit, which when you get right down to it, is grand theft and fraud on a national scale. In a true capitalistic economy, the bank would fail and close. The market would adjust and correct itself. But instead they get bailed out and are able to continue their horrific accounting practices.

So I think Schiff has it right in my view.