Russell Brand Revolution

[ReeferMadness]

I agree with most of what he says but I'm not sure he has much to say that is new or different. And he doesn't seem to have a lot to suggest.

[Mighty AC]

Capitalism is a great system as long as the rules are defined by a devoted and zealous advocate for the public interest.

I agree that with proper rules in place capitalism will work just fine, but what do we do about the fact that big business owns the politicians that make the rules? We're fairly familiar with the cozy relationship between our current government and Enbridge. This video highlights how Citi group wrote the bill that repealed the few regulations put in place after the recent financial crisis in the US. http://www.upworthy.com/something-really-insane-just-happened-in-congress-and-you-probably-havent-heard-a-word-about-it?c=ufb1

What is the best way to insulate policy makers (as much as possible) from the money of big corporations?

[TimG]

We're fairly familiar with the cozy relationship between our current government and Enbridge.

It would help if people separated their partisan myopia from actual examples of corporate cronyism (i.e. your claim is really nothing but environmentalist whining because the current government was elected by people that want it facilitate resource development and carrying out that mandate from the voters is not corporate cronyism).

The best way to insulate policy makers is to do what we have already done: ban large donations.

Edited November 4, 2013 by TimG

[Wilber]

It would help if people separated their partisan myopia from actual examples of corporate cronyism (i.e. your claim is really nothing but environmentalist whining because the current government was elected by people that want it facilitate resource development and carrying out that mandate from the voters is not corporate cronyism).

The best way to insulate policy makers is to do what we have already done: ban large donations.

Ya but the BC ridings that stand to suffer the most environmentally due to Northern Gateway did not elect members of the current government.

[Michael Hardner]

As I've told you many many times before...for the same reason they mounted a camera on me.

They put a camera on your boat, I presume, not you.

As usual all I can do is assume the thought of monitoring our betters is just so audacious to you that you're blind to the reasons why you should.

I have explained that until the public pays attention to the errors and incompetence that is before their very eyes I don't see the need to monitor private conversations.

And, again, if there is such a problem why not just have the government nationalize whatever business they suspect is corrupt ?

[GostHacked]

I agree that with proper rules in place capitalism will work just fine, but what do we do about the fact that big business owns the politicians that make the rules?

Then it stops being capitalism and becomes something else. Combining corps and government is called fascism.

What is the best way to insulate policy makers (as much as possible) from the money of big corporations?

I could say regulations, checks and balances. But that does not mean much. Not enough honest people calling out the bad ones. Stop the revolving door of business CEO turned Senator then back to business CEO, this should be illegal. Don't give a little slap on the wrist, throw the freakin book at them.

We don't have leaders that want to make these changes, it would upset their own gravy train.

[Mighty AC]

To say we're worse off across the board is incorrect.

This is the old playbook. Crime is going down all the time.

I didn't say we are worse off across the board, though that may be the case. By removing middle class wealth and increasing the wealth of the upper class, we are increasing income inequality. Income inequality is strongly correlated with many social problems including health, education and crime.

This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies

So, what's the answer ?

That's what I'm asking in this thread. There are multiple problems that need to be addressed in order to ensure that policy makers act on behalf of all of the people and not just those that contribute to their reelection.

[Mighty AC]

It would help if people separated their partisan myopia from actual examples of corporate cronyism (i.e. your claim is really nothing but environmentalist whining because the current government was elected by people that want it facilitate resource development and carrying out that mandate from the voters is not corporate cronyism).

I don't think the government was given a mandate to gut environmental protections and turn the science budget into an industry subsidy.

[Mighty AC]

Then it stops being capitalism and becomes something else. Combining corps and government is called fascism.

I could say regulations, checks and balances. But that does not mean much. Not enough honest people calling out the bad ones. Stop the revolving door of business CEO turned Senator then back to business CEO, this should be illegal. Don't give a little slap on the wrist, throw the freakin book at them.

We don't have leaders that want to make these changes, it would upset their own gravy train.

Some good ideas and I agree with your last statement...which is why some talk of revolution.

[TimG]

I don't think the government was given a mandate to gut environmental protections

Except they have not "gut environmental protections". All they did was eliminate duplication with the provinces who have the constitutional authority over environmental regulations in any case.

and turn the science budget into an industry subsidy.

Directing R&D investment into areas of use to business is what many people expected. It is mystery why people expect government to exclusively fund science that serves no useful purpose. Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Directing R&D investment into areas of use to business is what many people expected. It is mystery why people expect government to exclusively fund science that serves no useful purpose.

This is hilarious. The Harper government has decided to use the science budget to fund short term commercial interests and hopes the private sector will find it in its heart to kick in funding for long term research. What a joke! I have to ask again...do you work for the party?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/05/13/harper_governments_nrc_makeover_is_shortsighted_and_wrongheaded_editorial.html

The government has said that as it does more to commercialize science, industry should be picking up the slack on basic research. But that’s backwards. Why is government pursuing short-term economic gains and leaving the long-term public interest to the private sector? No CEO in his right mind would invest millions in a particle collider whose indeterminate dividends may not pay off for decades.

Meanwhile, cash-strapped universities can’t afford to build the infrastructure necessary for ambitious work in, say, particle physics or lake ecology. Only government can provide the funds and the foresight to ensure that Canadian science continues to be fertile ground for industries to till.

[kimmy]

Those who don't like it can move to Somalia and really get their hate on for wealthy people.

I would think that the wealthy would be the ones moving to Somalia, so that they can live in a country where Big Government™ isn't trying to Redistribute Their Wealth™, and where they are Free To Create Jobs™ without the Shackles Of Regulation™.

-k

[kimmy]

But too much regulation will kill jobs. You seem to love trite slogans. Here is one for you: everything comes with a price. All regulations increase costs which cumulatively will strangle business even if every one of the individual regulations seems to be justified. In many places in the US businesses have to hire outside consultants that do nothing but manage the paper work required for compliance. This favours large incumbents corporations and hinders new start ups from entering a market. This is bad for the consumer and bad for the economy.

It is inevitable that this kind of paperwork is part of the cost of doing business. You already agreed that you don't want to do away with all regulation, so you're not going to be eliminating those consultants.

In the US the Coke and Pepsi parties are equally guilty of corporate cronyism and I oppose it no matter which party is to blame. My solution to corporate cronyism is to reduce what government is allowed to do since a smaller government reduces the opportunities for corporate cronyism.

This seems to suggest that you realize that the influence of corporations on government is, indeed, a real problem.

-k

[Peter F]

. It is mystery why people expect government to exclusively fund science that serves no useful purpose.

"Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it."

-- Micheal Faraday to William Gladstone, Chancellor to the Exchequer, when asked about the practical worth of electricity.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Peter F

[Bonam]

I would think that the wealthy would be the ones moving to Somalia, so that they can live in a country where Big Government isn't trying to Redistribute Their Wealth, and where they are Free To Create Jobs without the Shackles Of Regulation.

-k

I often see this brought up, but there's one problem: Somalia isn't capitalist or libertarian, it's a failed state where anarchy reigns supreme. Even the staunchest sane libertarians, conservatives, objectivists, etc, will tell you that government has a role, and that that role is to uphold law and order, to protect the right to private property, etc. In Somalia, that does not exist.

[Bonam]

It is inevitable that this kind of paperwork is part of the cost of doing business. You already agreed that you don't want to do away with all regulation, so you're not going to be eliminating those consultants.

Some paperwork and administrative overhead is inevitable, perhaps, but there is the matter of quantity. The startup I work at has 10 people, our annual revenue is like $1.5 million, so money is tight.

We had to ship an item to Europe for display at a conference... it took about a day for our VP to figure out that to legally ship said item, there was no way we could figure it out ourselves and we would have to hire a shipping consultant and lawyer to appropriately do all the paperwork, then it took about a week for them to get all the necessary documents together. And then it was a week later so we had to ship it by the fastest method possible. Altogether, instead of paying like $300 for international shipping, the total cost was closer to $10,000. Why? A lot of silly regulations.

The company had to sponsor the green card process for me. The US immigration system is complex enough that it is impossible to correctly fill out the forms in a way to get a high probability of success without involving a team of lawyers experienced in doing so. So.. another $15k in lawyer fees, and 2+ years to get it all processed. Meanwhile, we lose more money as efficiency is decreased since I am not allowed to work on (or know about) ITAR restricted projects, and other personnel have to do work that I would be better suited for.

DOE funded projects require a yearly audit of company finances, and so we have one in May. But then, since we also have a DOD funded project, and they have slightly different audit standards, a completely separate audit has to be conducted, also of all company finances. In each case, the agencies require the audits, but its the company that pays for said audit. Why not combine the audits, halving the cost? Sorry, regulations don't allow for that.

Budget tracking requirements under NASA funded programs require that each individual expense receipt be accounted for. Many of these receipts are for ordering products from various electronics distributors. We routinely order parts from these distributors for many different projects. It would be most efficient if all these orders could be combined and shipped together, saving on shipping costs (and would also be more environmentally friendly in terms of packaging). However, regulations require that items for each individual project be part of separate individual orders, each order placed separately, with a separate receipt, and therefore also shipped separately. Last Thursday, we needed to order ~2000 of a certain part, but it was for three different projects. So... three different orders. Each year, we spend probably an extra $2000-3000 in shipping costs due to these regulatory requirements.

All these little things add up, and our founder spends probably half his time on all the minutiae of dealing with this stuff, even though he is a brilliant scientist and would much rather be working on research, design, and marketing of the products that we develop.

That is just a few examples from a long long list.

The overall costs of all these regulations to small businesses are already astronomical and stifling. More than that, they are just plain frustrating and ridiculous to deal with when you are trying to run a start-up, which has so many important things to worry about, to have this whole extra layer of complexity and overhead.

Another one that cracked me up: Compliance with fire codes... fire marshals inspect the premises every few months for compliance and check things like not having extension cords permanently plugged into AC outlets, having appropriate exit signage on doors, etc. At the same time, they totally ignore the giant cylinders of pressurized hydrogen gas in close proximity to high voltage plasma arc sources and discharges... a fire hazard if I ever saw one. After all, pressurized explosive gases aren't on their checklist.

Frivolous and cumbersome regulations are something that we as people should continue to rail against, rather than meekly accepting.

[Moonlight Graham]

There's a huge middle class being created on the other side of the world.

What "huge middle class" in the developing world (I assume that's where you meant)? Show me some evidence of this.

If you're talking about China, many workers there went from decent, secure jobs with benefits in the government (referred to as the "iron rice bowl") to crappy jobs with no benefits making 50 cents an hour. Many others went from working on farms to those 50 cent-an-hour jobs. There's hardly any domestic consumption in China. Most manufacturing workers in China can't afford to buy the very things they are making, it's all being shipped back to the West for sale. People are making money in China, but the workers aren't getting much of it. Workers are a dime a dozen in China, there's 1.3 billion people there, that's not what you'd call bargaining power when workers with no skills are so easily replaceable and willing to work for next to nothing.

The West is exploiting cheap labourers around the world. Western companies pay them inhumane wages to work in inhumane conditions (Bangladesh is just the tip of the iceberg) to produce products that we consumers can gobble up for cheap. I can buy a nice pair of pants at Wal-Mart for $15 for a reason. Our standard of living is rising on the backs of the world's poor. Capitalist relations between rich and poor countries are horribly unequal, just like capitalist relations between rich and poor (or "middle class") within countries are horribly unequal. In unfettered markets, it becomes a game of power, and the wealthy will almost always win that game of power over the non-wealthy and the poor, with a few exceptions (ie: labour unions, Arab Spring)

Edited November 6, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[carepov]

What "huge middle class" in the developing world (I assume that's where you meant)? Show me some evidence of this.

You will find these articles interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/datablog/2013/jan/30/developing-world-middle-class-growing

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/3/china%20middle%20class%20kharas/03_china_middle_class_kharas.pdf

In these articles there is plenty of evidence of a growing middle class in the developing world. There is also a good description about consumption in China. There is plenty of good news but there are also many valid concerns (inequality, environmental issues).

Our standard of living is rising on the backs of the world's poor.

Your turn, can you show any evidence of this?

[GostHacked]

Your turn, can you show any evidence of this?

You are kidding right? It may increase out standard of living short term, but that won't last long. The rise of middle class in China and other areas, means that they will demand more and a better living standard. Wages go up, and the idea of using China as cheap labour comes to an end.

The situation in Bangladesh is deplorable. The clothing industry is making a literal killing off the backs of these people. I mean you have poor, destitute, and then you have Bangladesh.

I can afford all the cheap stuff from China, when most of them can never hope to ever afford the product they are making. That is a problem.

[Michael Hardner]

What "huge middle class" in the developing world (I assume that's where you meant)? Show me some evidence of this.

If you're talking about China, many workers there went from decent, secure jobs with benefits in the government (referred to as the "iron rice bowl") to crappy jobs with no benefits making 50 cents an hour. Many others went from working on farms to those 50 cent-an-hour jobs.

Well, not exactly. "Working on farms" is explained here:

More recently, structural transformation has taken place in China, India, and Thailand, where workers have left subsistence farming to take jobs in factories and other modern industries. - See more at: http://insights.ifpri.info/2012/06/development-in-reverse/#sthash.q8D2n9sc.dpuf

'Subsistence farming' is worse than working in a factory, and as carepov has pointed out the middle class is growing in places like China, India and so on. One could expect that, as with S. Korea, political power and stability could follow that trend.

[Michael Hardner]

You are kidding right? It may increase out standard of living short term, but that won't last long. The rise of middle class in China and other areas, means that they will demand more and a better living standard. Wages go up, and the idea of using China as cheap labour comes to an end.

Then what ? Your assessment sounds very zero-sum game to me...

The situation in Bangladesh is deplorable. The clothing industry is making a literal killing off the backs of these people. I mean you have poor, destitute, and then you have Bangladesh.

Bangladeshis themselves were commenting on the situation on The Current. Garment jobs have helped them, and given women more power. They don't want trade to stop. The current situation is deplorable, but also seems to be improving. Would that happen as quickly without Western engagement ?

I can afford all the cheap stuff from China, when most of them can never hope to ever afford the product they are making. That is a problem.

The factory workers send money home to the non-industrial zones to help their families who are still subsistence farming.

[carepov]

You are kidding right? It may increase out standard of living short term, but that won't last long. The rise of middle class in China and other areas, means that they will demand more and a better living standard. Wages go up, and the idea of using China as cheap labour comes to an end.

No I am not kidding, but surely you jest when you predict a long term decline in living standards due to a rising middle class and increased worker wages.

The situation in Bangladesh is deplorable. The clothing industry is making a literal killing off the backs of these people. I mean you have poor, destitute, and then you have Bangladesh.

Yes the "situation in Bangladesh is deplorable". Moonlight and I had this discussion in the Bangladesh thread. However, forty years ago life was much worse than deplorable:

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/BGD.html

[dre]

No I am not kidding, but surely you jest when you predict a long term decline in living standards due to a rising middle class and increased worker wages.

How much all this of this trade helps countries like China in the long term depends on how sustainable their economic growth is.

The massive flow of goods from places like China to places like the US is a temporary phenomenon. Its not economically possible for real goods to flow in one direction, while nothing besides bits of paper and electronic IOU's flow in the other because the longer countries like the US run huge trade defecits the less value their bits of paper and electronic IOU's have.

Most of this trade is going to dry up... China has been able to keep the party going for a while, by printing massive ammounts of yuan and using it to purchase US securities, which keeps the value of their currency low, and helps keep the value of the dollar high.

The real test will be what kind of shape we are in after trade equalization.

What usually happens after a big false boom? A great big bust.

Edited November 6, 2013 by dre

[carepov]

How much all this of this trade helps countries like China in the long term depends on how sustainable their economic growth is.

The massive flow of goods from places like China to places like the US is a temporary phenomenon. Its not economically possible for real goods to flow in one direction, while nothing besides bits of paper and electronic IOU's flow in the other because the longer countries like the US run huge trade defecits the less value their bits of paper and electronic IOU's have.

Most of this trade is going to dry up... China has been able to keep the party going for a while, by printing massive ammounts of yuan and using it to purchase US securities, which keeps the value of their currency low, and helps keep the value of the dollar high.

The real test will be what kind of shape we are in after trade equalization.

What usually happens after a big false boom? A great big bust.

Things are already changing in China, it is becoming a middle-income country and labour costs are already more expensive than many other countries. As I learned in the previous link, the key to continues economic stability and sustained growth is increased consumption of the newly created middle-class.

"In our scenario, China, which accounts for only 4 percent of global middle class spending

today (enough to be the 7th largest middle class country in the world) could catapult up the global

table to become the largest single middle class market by 2020, surpassing the United States."

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/3/china%20middle%20class%20kharas/03_china_middle_class_kharas.pdf

There are no certain outcomes, but Japan did it, South Korea did it, other Asian Tigers did it. Mexico and Brazil are doing it too. Yes there were economic setbacks, and yes there will likely be a "bust", but the standard of living in these countries is a story of impressive progress over the last 50 years.

[Moonlight Graham]

Your turn, can you show any evidence of this?

How much do you think a $30 pair of jeans would cost if the cotton were not grown and harvested and final product not assembled in places like China or Bangladesh by workers who make 50 cents an hour or less, but instead these workers made $8/hour US (California's minimum wage) with a few benefits and what Canadians would consider humane working conditions?

Edited November 7, 2013 by Moonlight Graham