This initial statement was collectively agreed by over 500 people on the steps of St Paul’s on 16 October 2011. Like all forms of direct democracy, the statement will always be a work in progress and is used as a basis for further discussion and debate.
- The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
- We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
- We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
- We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
- We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
- We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
- We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
- The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations. [1]
- We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.
- This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!
Notes
[1] Article 8 was added to the statement following a proposal being passed by the Occupy London General Assembly on 19 November 2011.
We demand the abolition of all debts beginning with governments’ debts.”
All governments, at every levels, in every countries are indebted to banks.
Banks demand that they pay back this debt. This is the untold secret of the “deficit”. And the “deficit” is the justification to cutting social services and benefits.
For example, in the UK, “We owe £15,524 for every man, woman and child” (http://www.debtbombshell.com/). This means if the debts were abolished, each child, woman and man would be better off of £15,524 in cash and services. We demand that all governments debts be wiped out! This is for any governments, at any level in any country.
Then there are individuals’ debts – mortgages and loans of all sorts. We want these debts abolished too. Why should parasites who do nothing make money on our back?
We are angry at banks because they steal our money. And we are angry at governments because they allow the banks to dictate public budgets, money which is ours by right.
Let’s begin by demanding what is ours. Demand the abolition of debts!
I acknowledge some of the merits of the Occupy cause and some of the arguments put forward in support of the mission statement, however the above is a truly moronic suggestion and representative of some of the lack of understanding about how the system actually works……
1) The biggest creditors of the UK government are insurance companies and pension funds, who provide an essential service to individuals (regardless of class) and are a fundamental part of a system which provides basic social security and risk management to members of society. What you are suggesting would wipe these institutions out!
2) Equity is more expensive than debt, so if the government could not raise the incredibly cheap capital it does on a monthly basis there would have to be a hell of a lot more cuts, as the government would be forced to pay a much higher return to raise exactly the same amount. UK plc has had a core borrowing requirement for years before any bail outs were issued (which is not dead money by the way, as I would not be surprised to see the govt make a profit…..eventually!) as a result of one of the most bloated public service sectors and inefficient welfare systems in the developed world.
3) If you did not have a debt market, how would you fund any new infrastructure projects (hospitals, schools, roads, airports etc)? How would you fund anything, if you couldn’t borrow the capital to fund the initial outlay today, based on cash earned from the assets in the future? See point 2 for an explanation as to why funding these projects with equity would lead to even higher costs of these basic services. To reiterate providing debt is less risky, and therefore cheaper, than providing equity.
4) “Money which is ours by right”. This really means, you would buy goods and services on credit, and then decide that actually you would rather not pay for it. That strikes me as a terrible idea, the fact that you are paying the banks (or other creditors) is because you didn’t have access to cash to fund your lifestyle (individual) or policies (governments) and they are taking on the not insignificant risk of not getting paid back in order to advance you the cash and should be appropriately recompensed for taking this risk!
5) The “deficit” is exactly what it says on the tin, if the government couldn’t issue debt (or raise alternative more expensive capital) it couldn’t pay the bills. Are you suggesting teachers and doctors would be happy to work for free (see Greece)?
Individuals, institutions and corporates have borrowed too much to fund a lifestyle they could ill afford and the resulting correction will be painful. I acknowledge those with the smallest incomes will feel the pinch the most, but what you are suggesting would amount to the basic breakdown of primary services, with the very individuals you are campaigning for being the hardest hit…..
If you are going to campaign for far reaching and fundamental structural changes to the UK and the world at least come up with some plausible alternatives and think through the consequences, not this drivel!
PS: Start sleeping in your tents!
Smithy,
I agree the initial statement comes across, can I say slap dash (as opposed to your ‘moronic’).
It is an initial statement and obviously needs a lot of improving as a mission statement which I believe is being worked on in case you are not aware,through the ‘moderator’ pages of occupylsx.
However,
I fear you are missing the sentiment and principle the people of occupy etc are trying to get across, which is at this stage more relevant than the detail you are picking to bits.
This is a shame because having read your comments you could obviously do a much better job it, and I mean this genuinely without sarcasm.
Please look beyond the detail of the statement and lend your voice to help those who want the same for each of us, you included. Maybe ‘life’ is not a struggle for you at the moment, in which case sorry to have bothered you.
Michael.
Human of Planet Earth
Michael.
First, you haven’t replied to any of his points. It’s useless to just dismiss them all as they don’t correlate with yours (otherwise the rest of the population could do the same with yours).
Argue on the merits, not the alleged ideology. Unfortunately for you, Smithy makes some very good points, whether you think they’re right or not. We run on a debt system, and money must be borrowed to fund projects before they can start. A system that cannot do this cannot do anything without having every penny up-front (which isn’t possible without the debt aspect).
To wipe out all debt would literally destroy not only pension funds, but the finances of pretty much everyone. With the greatest respect, I suspect you haven’t looked into how our economic system works in any great detail if you think it’s as simple as just forgetting about debt.
As much as I appreciate your desire for change, I fear that your ideological viewpoint has masked the simple and inescapable fact that what you would like to see is, basically, unattainable. I personally would like to see a guaranteed £1m to every person in the UK every year to wipe out poverty and inequality. However, I am realistic enough to see that such a system is financially impossible to implement.
Now what we genuinely want to see from OccupyLSX are a list of official, clear, defined and measurable demands. Until then, this will not be an effective protest.
Maximus.
(p.s. calling someone’s post “moronic” is childish, rude and totally undermines your position of supposed moral authority. If you disagree, argue on merit, not insult. Otherwise, it’s no better than an infant calling someone a “poo-poo head”)
Chill out poo poo head (joking)
I think Michael raises some interesting points.
Your initial statement needs a LOT of work, it is meaningless in its current form. I agree the world is not a fair place, but you do not have a coherent or even plausible alternative (no matter what you think you might be near to creating).
As for your point “maybe life is not a struggle for you”. I pay a mortgage, income tax, NI, council tax and everything else in between…..so regardless of what I earn, I pay more than my fair share towards society. Life is a meritocracy and if it wasn’t there would be no point in getting up in the morning.
I retract my “moron” comment, but urge you guys to: i) go back to the drawing board and come up with a credible & tangible argument; ii) get rid of the camp; iii) Be thankful for the prosperity, quality of living and social security that the “system”, which you so despise, has bought to our shores.
Ps: the weight of commentary against the Occupy cause is telling on this page, and you have the resignation of a number of high profile clergy to thank for the (temporary) spotlight you are enjoying. (NB: See comment on the 30th for basic economic arguments to consider/understand)
I agree. The initial statement I see as a broad sweep of the fundamental ways in which the economic system needs to change in order to become sustainable and fair. This may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy since the very obvious trend is of a catastrophic domino-effect in the eurozone countries where such a heavily debt laden economic nexus is simply not sustainable. This may in turn affect the larger global economy, mandating that a whole economic modus operandi be ushered in with very different parameters than the present one.
Whether or not this scenario plays out is independent of the fact that the current economic system is blatantly unjust and corporation-oriented, and that needs to change. I personally see this initial statement as a vision of the future than a detailed analysis and plan of action. If all the details and complications of bringing about this future vision were known at present, then there would be no need for the ongoing debate and flexibility that characterizes this movement. If all the intricacies and pitfalls could be transcended and all barriers to progress dismantled then it would have been done by now.
By the way, this comment should have appeared further up, and where I said “I agree”, I meant that I agreed with Michael.
Hi Smithy, Occupy seeks economic justice. Are you against the attainment of economic justice for all? If not, support Occupy and bring the analysis which support and not arid technical arguments intended to oppose it. A virtuous world is possible. It will however not happen unless many of us take a stand against corporate greed. Seeking a virtuous world is noble and not moronic!
To be honest, even though I am completely on side with what you propose / actions you are taking for ‘Change’ i’m glad that smithy is bringing up this point.
Its all fair and good thinking about removing debts from the system but we all know its something that keeps it in place. To remove one fundamental aspect of the monetary system would only cause it to crash further then it has now, also cause more strife among the normal population.
As i’ve had it explained, you remove anything from a mathematical equation it changes the entire thing. Debt should be dealt with also it cannot be ignored, if we are just looking for reform rather then a complete change of our system then it debt will still need to be replaced, but that does not mean that we cannot reform the idea? For example how about we stop making banks earn interest on money that does not even exist? Or possibly cap the level of debt to a certain number so no-one can exceed it?
I’m not saying I have a plan to resolve this issue, but i’m sure someone in this movement has the intelligence to sit down, look at the equation and find some way of manipulating it finally towards the public’s best interest rather then just honest greed.
You need to find these people, if not then we are either doomed to fail or to fall into anarchy if we succeed… So is that it? We are just looking to reform the current system?
There are alternatives, the only ones that could really bring change:
To re-introduce anti-usury laws, create state-run banks that offer credit and services at a fair value and compete with private banks and, ultimately, that the governments issue their own money rather than privately-owned central banks.
A complete change of the monetary system.
@Muhammad – what does economic justice for all actually mean? How do you intend to implement it? A centrally planned economy? This restricts individual freedoms.
http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov11/renounce-debt11-11.html
Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About Writing Off 3 Trillion Euros of Bad Debt? (November 15, 2011)
The only solution to bad debt is to write it off–renounce it all. Why aren’t those who took the risks for their own private gain being forced to absorb the losses?
We all know some 3 trillion euros of debt in Europe is uncollectible. So why isn’t anyone talking about the one and only solution, which is writing off all that debt? Since nobody knows how much bad debt there actually is in the Eurozone–care to guess on the market value of all those underwater mortgages in Spain or the true size of Italy’s debts?–that 3 trillion is just a guess, but it’s probably a reasonable starting point.
Let’s start with the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt: every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset. That’s why there’s no willingness to accept the writedown of debt: somebody somewhere has to suck up 3 trillion euros of loss.
Can we please dispense with the fantasy “solutions”?
There is no way Europe is going to “grow its way out of this debt.” How much of the eurozone’s “growth” was the result of rampant malinvestment and risky borrowing? More than anyone dares admit. It won’t take austerity to crash the euroland economy, all it will take is turning off the debt spigot.
“Restructuring” is a code word for writeoffs. Here, let me “restructure” the euro bond you bought at a 4% coupon yield. Now you’re going to get 2%, and you’re going to like it. Bang, your bond just lost half its market value, but everyone gets to keep it on the books at full value. Nice, until you have to sell it to raise cash. Oops, the euro has slipped in value so you lost more than 50%.
Printing euros to buy the bad debt is just a shuck-and-jive game of transferring the losses to unsuspecting holders of euros or taxpayers. Allow me to reprint a quote from yesterday’s entry, The World Is Drowning in Debt, and Europe Laces On Concrete Boots: as Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Sargent noted: “There’s a fundamental truth that everyone has to understand: what the government spends, the public will pay for sooner or later, whether in taxes or inflation or having their debt defaulted on.” (Source: BusinessWeek 11/20/11).
In other words, if the European Central Bank prints 3 trillion euros to bail out the banks and bondholders, holders of euros will suck up 3 trillion in lost purchasing power, or split the loss with taxpayers who have to pony up cash to give the ECB a threadbare sheen of solvency.
There is no free lunch. And since there’s no free lunch, then we have to ask: who should suck the losses when 3 trillion euros vanish in a massive renunciation/writeoff? Answer: those who took the risk. I know this is a shatteringly obvious conclusion, but it reveals the central flaw in the global financial system: risk has been disconnected from return.
Those who made the risky bets have diverted the risk to others: taxpayers or the general public who holds currency. The gains from the bets are private, and theirs to keep, but all the losses are distributed to the public via government bailouts or money-printing. The first shifts the losses to the taxpayer, and the second shifts the losses to everyone holding the currency being devalued.
Not only has the risk been palmed off onto unsuspecting chumps, the returns have been concentrated into the few hands that control the big bets. This is the ideal setup for the stupendous gains and zero risk that characterize crony-capitalism: make the big bets with leverage and borrowed money, and skim the vast profits. Then when the bets sour, demand a bailout from the Central State, the ECB, the Fed, etc., which promptly socializes the losses and distributes them over the entire populace of taxpayers or holders of currency.
It works beautifully until the debt-serfs rebel. The EU’s politicos are begging to start the printing presses, as that is the only way they can retain their power in the face of the debt-serfs’ revolt. But at least one populace of tax-serfs (Germany) is rebelling against sucking all the losses via a massive reduction of purchasing power.
The apologists for bailouts always whine about poor Jacques Q. Publique, whose pension fund will take a hit if those 3 trillion illusory euros go poof. Here’s reality: everyone with capital or responsibility in the wager has to accept their fair share of the risk and the return. J.Q. Publique risked some capital, even if he didn’t control the bets being made with his money, and so he has to suck up his share of the losses.
Those who made the bets should rightly lose everything–yes, be wiped out. If risk and return are actually causally linked, then this is the only result of a big bet that sours: those who placed the bets should be wiped out. That includes money managers, bank honchos, bond-fund gurus, and everyone else who foolishly bought all this debt without investigating the risks.
Investors in banks made their investment to reap a return; as a result, they are exposed to the other side of return which is risk. They should be wiped out as well.
Who should not suck a loss are those who did not stand to gain: the taxpayers and holders of the currency. To repeat: the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt is that every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset.
There is no way to avoid the 3 trillion in losses. the only question is who should absorb those losses: those who stood to gain, or the innocent chumps whose only crime was being a taxpayer or owner of euros? If there is any justice (or classical Capitalism) at all in Euroland, then those who made the bets and invested capital in the bets to reap a return are the ones who should absorb the losses.
Life will go on if the banks are wiped out and closed, pension funds and insurance companies take losses, etc. In fact, as I noted in The Collapse of Our Corrupt, Predatory, Pathological Financial System Is Necessary and Positive (November 5, 2011), the collapse of the predatory institutions which made all those bets would be a quantum leap forward not just in terms of justice but in the economic recovery everyone pines for.
Ideally, the dominoes will cross the Atlantic and take down the parasitic “too big to fail” banks and Wall Street leeches in the U.S. After all, they too made bets on euro-debt and they should absorb the losses.
If those who made the bets for their own private gain aren’t forced to absorb the risk, then we don’t live in either capitalism or democracy; we live in a financial-fascist tyranny
Where are your solutions? You are achieving nothing, give answers and then people might listen to you…..
I have given you answers Rupert; how and if those goals can be achieved is a completely different matter.
And he is absolutely spot on. We need the government to take back our money supply and start issuing it’s own currency. If we were to audit the BoE/Fed we would probably find that most of our debt is owed to them in one way or another due to the imaginary money that they create when they add interest to the money they print before handing it over. Yes, big investment fnds would dissapear, and some financial instututions would disappear, but most of these are owned by the 1% and the threat by the 1% that if we were to do this that all economys would fail and everyone would lose everything is untrue. The economy would still be there, and although it would take a little time to settle down and those who have invested in the financial markets may lose out, they are the ones that have created the problem by trying to make easy money, and the small print does always say the value of investments can go down as well as up! If you have shares in a viable company that actually does create wealth then as I see it you still would. Banks would still exist, but in a more limited capacity of actually banking and looking after peoples money, not gambling with imaginary, made up money. They would actually have to work and be careful with peoples money to make a profit. People will still borrow money, so investors will still be able to make a return, its just that if we end ‘fractional reserve banking’ then the banks won’t be able to multiply our deposits to gamble with. As for the lie that everyones wealth would disappear, you have to remember that any real wealth would remain, and any illusory wealth created with a pen by bankers would disappear. As 99% of the worlds wealth is owned by the 1%, then it is they that need to worry about fraudulent wealth disappearing not us. This is the answer, it’s not even complicated when you break it down and remove all the lies and smoke screens. It’s not even as if we haven’t been told throughout history either by rich powerful people who fully understood the system and were maybe having 5 minutes of conscience. The question therefore is not what we need to do, but how.
“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity!” -Abraham Lincoln
“That this House considers that the continued issue of all the means of exchange – be they coin, bank-notes or credit, largely passed on by cheques – by private firms as an interest-bearing debt against the public should cease forthwith; that the Sovereign power and duty of issuing money in all forms should be returned to the Crown, then to be put into circulation free of all debt and interest obligations…” Captain Henry Kerby MP, in an Early Day Motion tabled in 1964.
“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing. ” Ralph M Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury.
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.” John Kenneth Galbraith (1908- ), former professor of economics at Harvard, writing in ‘Money: Whence it came, where it went’ (1975).
You could go on and on. It’s alright to sit here saying it though. And yes, a few people in tents in the city centre will make a few people notice, but that will not be enough to change anything. We need to get people elected who believe the same, and are willing to stand up and say as much.
It is so blatently obvious that this country is in profound need of change, and I see this with the eyes of a foreigner, and commentery from a foreigner is highly discarded in this country, but ill give it a try. I am from Sweden and I am certainly not living off of someones back, but paying my way forward through work and paying for my education entirely by myself with money ive earned independently. And what I can say, is that this country has no sense of adaption or responding to critisism, as to wherever you turn with critisism you are turned down with, thats the way it is thats the rules im afraid. The british system is so inadaptable to change that it doesnt know where to put it. In Sweden companies and governments goes down in flames quick as hell if they get a bad word among the people, they dont stand the slightest chance if they dont have a good reputation. Every single time I have lodged a complaint here about anything to anyone, its not been compensated or recognised, or when I react with appaul to some of the structures here and say that ive never heard anything as ridicolous, i get an “well this is very different than Sweden, everything are much more expensive there isnt it? or you are a smaller people, or my favourite : you are used to snow, you are used to dealing with this. as they cancelled all the big airports and transport links for the tiniest amount of snow. Excuses Excuses Excuses, wherever you go no one wants to own up, and take extra responsibillity, rather shut down the whole city during christmas so people cant get home to their families. If that would happend in Sweden, which it does when that tiny peathetic amount of first snow falls, if there is as delays in the traffic, the transport companies has hell to pay, they get buried in such harsh critisism by media and the people. What happens here, the papers write that you were suffering an artic blizzard taking closeups of snowfalls and making it out like it was out of any ones controle. If that would happen for one day in Sweden, the Ceos of the transport companies would get fired, without a doubt, and bare in mind that it has never happend ever and we have been hit with insane winters the last two years and transports are still moving the best they can in -20 degrees and meters of snow. Listend to this, if a bus is late by 20 minutes, people are inclined to take a taxi and send in the reiceipt to the bus company which pays it. Customer.Focus.People.Focus.
In a normal relationship that is healthy, people dont scream at eachother in an argument, it is not comfortable and its not instinctive behaviour…unless we feel unheard, miss understood and ignored, then we scream, then we riot, then we protest. hahaha David Cameron saying its not constructive critisism to tent outside St.Pauls. What a joke. A perfect example of how this country dont know what to do with critism, even when it hits you in the face, try telling the government nicely again and see what happens.
Obviously airports in Sweden will be used to coping with snow more than airports in the UK. I agree UK has pretty bad customer service at times, and it seems like companies have not found it profitable to provide good customer service. How is this relevant?
This is pretty much arguing for the abolition of money, ask the Cambodians how that went. It seems a shame that this idiocy is directly below your initial statement which is reasonable. It makes it very easy for people to dismiss you as crackpots and you don’t need me to tell you that there are plenty of people who jump at the chance to do that.
Having only read a small number of the comments so far (I am currently pretty busy at work, and this is the first break I have had today), I have to say that I agree with what smithy says on the infeasibility of this so far.
That said, although naive (as some of the arguments appear to me) the views of most people seem pretty positive – which is always a good sign!
Unfortunately – as it has been pointed out before – it is not really possible/feasible to just wipe the slates clean and cancel all the debts (for governments and definitely not private debts either)
As I said, I have yet to read through all the comments yet, so please forgive me if many of these points have already been discussed below.
Going through the above list one at a time.
1. The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
Could someone please comment with any of these suggested alternatives – I would love to be able to try and discuss them in more detail (as of yet, I have not come across any real alternatives, but have only had a short time to look)
2. We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
Suggesting using education/support centres/groups/etc. to end racism/sexism/ageism/etc.? Or is this just a off hand statement to suggest that everyone from all backgrounds/genders/generations/sexualities/etc. agree with what you are saying?
3. We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
But unfortunately someone has to. As it has been stated before (by other people and not just me) it is not possible or feasible to just wipe out the banks debts. Nor is it possible or feasible for them to pay the debts themselves. By ‘signing’ (not literal) ourselves up to the societies that we live in, we inadvertently agree to help support the society as a whole. This is why there are taxes/fees etc.. The banks need the society and the society (currently) needs the banks. If one fails, both suffer. Could someone please suggest an alternative to trying to dig the banks out of the hole they are in?
4. We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
I will take these as 2 points.
On the first one (“We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable”): As stated before, the money needs to come from somewhere. If it is not cuts, then it is increased taxes. It all depends on what medicine you find more preferable.
As for the second point (“We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people”): ‘global’ is a hard thing to achieve in practice. But if we just took it at the UK for the moment. Yes, perhaps the few who are earning the most should be taxed the most (already are for the most part), but perhaps they should be taxed more? However the problems with this are that companies will look further abroad to set up their business then the UK (as they will make more money). As for democracy representing corporations rather than people, I am guessing that you are strongly suggesting banks as the main point of this comment? Democracy also unfortunately costs money, there is no such thing as a free democracy. As such, it is difficult to separate the politics from the companies that help to fund it. Sure, the people should have a greater role in democracy (this will always be the case – unless people are willing to all turn up in person to parliament and discuss motions/laws/etc. and change the laws in person. – and I am sure that you can all see what the problems with this would be).
5. We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
Agree. But due to the interconnected society that we currently live in – it would be extremely difficult to completely separate the two without at least one person having a vested interest in something or other.
6. We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
I always think our health system should be defended. The NHS gets far more criticism then it deserves. It is possibly one of the best healthcare systems in the world. Also agree that welfare and education should also be protected – as a healthy, educated, supported populace will help to create and fund a healthy powerful society. I think changes could be made in places, perhaps, but these should be done carefully and slowly. Stopping wars is a difficult point for me, as I am not the kind of person who can see that all wars are inherently pointless, and think some wars may truly be justified/valid (feel free to hate me/disagree all you want on this topic – of course I will be willing to discuss this (like everything else) as long as it doesn’t turn into a pointless flame-fest). Arms dealing should be done much more carefully. But then again, to make a profit, companies will always be willing to trade with those they shouldn’t. : /
7. We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
I do not think this is feasible either. The rich are not just ‘made’ rich. They become rich by doing what they do better than everyone else (or are born into it, and then someone before them did what they did best). If we look at silicon as an example of one of the world’s resources: It is extracted – then possibly refined – then turned into a product/compound – then turned into a product/compound – etc. – then sold to another set of people who will use it in construction/manufacture/etc. – before finally reaching the general public in some form or other.
In every step, the companies need to sell it for more then it takes them to buy/use to make a profit – or else the companies would go bust and someone else who is better at it would take over.
These steps lead to an inequality between people, as some people will inherently earn more than others throughout this process. The world’s resources can not go towards caring for people directly, without helping to generate corporate profits or make the rich richer.
I do think that more effort should be put into caring for the planet, but these changes will take time, and will cost money – if not in the long term at least in the short term. And it is very easy for people to only look at the short term, especially when money is involved.
8. The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations. [1]
Agree. But as stated above – time and money will be involved – and few people are willing to part with what little time/money they have at the moment.
9. We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.
Easy to look at this point using hindsight – but even then it is not that easy, as how long is long enough for benefit to be seen from ones actions? I think this point is very subjective and situational. Sure our government should not be involved in causing oppression to others, but I do think there are times when it should get involved in others affairs. Also it can be hard to see when ones actions may in the future not lead to someone else being oppressed.
Thanks for spending the time to read any of this. Please feel free to respond, I will try to find time to reply if I can.
I agree particularly with clause 8, especially the bit about ruining the planet. An awful lot of money has been pumped into hydrogen fuel cells and now Lithium but it’s obvious that expensive short range electric cars are not viable as a business so why are realistic, zero CO2-free Metail-Air batteries being ignored by both governments and investors?
Compare how fast we got to the iPod4 from the ‘phone in a suitcase’ of the 70′s to the fact that we’re still driving a victorian heat engine when we could have gone truly electric years ago. In my opinion, this refusal to allow the next economic trigger to initiate the next economic cycle is causing the current global recession.
Any thoughts on this?
Can I be so bold to suggest some slight changes to the wordings. I feel some of the points come across as ‘sweeping statements’ and might disregarded to easily because of that.
The current system is unsustainable. IT IS NOT AS DEMOCRATIC AS IT COULD BE. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
We are of all WAGE LEVELS, ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
We SHOULD NOT BE BAILING OUT GAMBLING BANKS AND THEIR BANKERS, THEY COMBINED HAVE ENOUGH WEALTH TO SORT OUT THEIR CRISIS.
We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the ALREADY rich, WE SHOULD ALL BE RICH.
We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.
This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!
Just having a look to see what you are campaignig for…and its a load of tosh!
In fact its communism – which clearly left the East Europeans and the Russians sent of to workers camps in a great position! You basically want an ideal world based on all people working hard and acting fairly…..god gave us all free choice and 99% have faults which mean that this would always fail. History shows this.
As for no debts, so I have to give my house away? Because no one can get a mortgage as they don`t need one. Wish I’d bought a mansion I couldn`t afford as I wouldn`t have to pay it back…no new homes would be built, the economy would grind to a halt as what is the reward for work?
So you’d have millions more unemployed, millions more homeless and millions more starving.
Which bit of this is communism and leave you’re imaginary friend out of this – god might have given you free will, he gave me nothing because there is no god.
So Richard, you are in favour of the status quo, where the rich get ever richer, and the poor ever poorer?
I am no communist. I believe in fair, regulated capitalism, where global multinational companies and the super rich pay their fair share of taxes. I also believe that global leaders should be working together to abolish tax havens, instead of encouraging their use.
For the last 30 years, the tax burden has shifted away from the rich to the poor. This is unsustainable.
Which side are you on?
Well said
Top Man
You know so little about what communism is that you are in no position to seriously comment on the subject.
Im going to post this brief summary of the basics of communist theory in the hope that you can recognise when you don’t have a great knowledge of a subject.
Too understand what happened in Russia, China, you need to understand some of the basics of Leninist and Maoist theory (ill try to explain as unbiased as possible, I am an anarcho-communist so am very critical of these philosophies).
First point is that these countries never were communist, they never reached that point. Communism is defined as a stateless classless society where production and distribution is from each according to their ability to each according to their need with dialogue and direct democracy bridgin the gap between the two.
In Leninist/Maoist/Trotskyist theory the idea is that during the working class revolution the communist party will take over and harness the power of the state to manage the transition from capitalism to communism. This might include changing the infrastructure, changing the education system, and protecting against counter revolution. This transitional period is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat(the working class) as opposed to the dictatorship of the bourgeois(the capitalist class) which is capitalism.
Of course in every single example of leninist or maoist revolution, the workers state has failed to succesfully manage a transition into communism, instead turning into an one party state capitalist dictatorship. Leninist argue that in every example it has been because of outside factors, not that the philosophy is inherently flawed as an anarchist would argue.
Anarchists like myself also want communism, we have the same end goal as these state socialist philosophies. The difference is that we reject the possibility of the state being harnessed for good to create a communist society, we think that the workers state will always become corrupted and that instead to create a better world, we must transition directly from capitalism to communism, immediately dismantling the state with decision making always being kept at a grass roots directly democratic level.
Darthbader and others – why hide behind a daft name? The anarchists I have met have all been very nice people. But never mind the marxist (as a general term) ‘theory’ look at the practice. The standard marxist defence for the fact that no communist state has really worked for the benefit of all is always ‘it wasn’t really communism’. The nearest to a partial succes story might be Cuba but I’d still rather live in England, at least while the Castro’s are still around.
The problem this movement is addressing is exactly what it says on the tin (in the statement), it is the corrupt and unjust capitalist system. But this ‘system’ has been far more successful – at least up until 1960′s – in making the world a better place. Now it is making it a much worse place.
I believe (to some extent) in privacy and private property (do anarcho-communists share toothbrushes?). I believe in freedom and therefore (it follows logically) to some extent in a free market. But the market needs regulation and democratic control (the opposite of both communism and Thatcherism or ‘salt water economics’ – look it up. (Stuff Hayek and Friedman that is, their ‘insights’ are even less use than Marx’s).
I believe in entrepreneurship and invention and reward for effort and some return on investment. 99% do. What we don’t believe in is ‘capital’ taking precedence over people. Let it come in third place after workers/producers and customers/consumers. Put the customer first, then the staff/employess/self-employed, then the shareholder/investor. (And with a co-operative system we can all be, 100%, in all three roles.
We need a ‘re-constituted’ free enterprise with state ownership, community ownership and co-operative ownership where these work best. (Not a ‘reformed’ business/capitalism as it has developed in the last 50-100 years).
We may need to end the banking/credit/debt system as we know it. Usury (charging 18%, 36% or 2000% interest should be illegal). Money should be issued by the community or the state, not private banks.
Or democracy needs to be nearer to the ‘real democracy’ or open democracy followed by the occupation. We will still need representative democracy (with 60 million or 7 billion people it’s common sense if you think about it) but we need to be able to make representations to our representatives; get rid of them when needs must (unlike a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’); share in decision making by referenda and ballot questions (as in the US).
We need the political and economic system to work for all, not just the bankers, super-rich, or marxist ‘theorists’.
We will need differential reward/pay systems (so the talent of a Beckham, Jobs/Gates or your favourite rock star/Artist is suitably rewarded. We don’t need chief-executives paid 250 times or 2000 times (by asset stripping) what their ‘workers’ get – who are the real creators of wealth.
We need a minimum wage which is appropriate for the economy we find oursleves in. (How about 10 pounds an hour in the UK and at least 1 pound an hour worldwide for starters?).
We need David Cameron to listen to Bill Gates (re the ‘Robin Hood Tax – and one day ratchet it up and abolish IVA/VAT maybe). We need to retain the 50% rate of tax and maybe ratchet that up to 99% or maybe 79%.
We need the ‘localisation’ proposed by the Transition Towns movement and free and fair international trade and justice. (Not the ‘Free Trade Agreements’ cooked up by the Americans).
Indeed, we need ‘fair trade’ NOT ‘free trade’ – a regulated fair and reasonably free ‘market’.
We need an end to war – and all these things are possible, even if not in my lifetime, but we must start with a substantial step forward NOW! Support Papandreou (or God help the Greeks).
See you in London tomorrow? 2pm from St. Paul’s.
(PS Does that qualify as a rant and was it long/detailed enough?
Trevor.
PS Sorry about the spelling mistakes (typos) and misplaced bracklets above!
Just as the supposed communist countries never were truly communist, also neither are the supposed free market capitalist ones not free market or capitalist. They are all constrained by limitations.
We do not have a free market in the UK, and nor does anyone actually want one. Big business is against the idea of a free market (see Adam Smith) as it would work against their desires. Jo(e) Public will always need some level of protection from everything (e.g consumer protection laws).
As for unfettered capitalism, you’re living in cloud cookoo land if you believe that.
Richard,
A couple of retorts for you to mull over.
Firstly, is it such a bad and evil thing to ‘want’ an ideal world where all people work hard and fairly, really, ask yourself please ?
Secondly, ‘god gave us all free choice’ , maybe he/she did.
Some obviously chose to be greedy, then they chose to be even more greedy, then with the free choice that god gave them they chose to be greedier than the other greedy bastards, and guess what they have chosen to do now……… they only chosen us special ones, the 99%, to pay their debts off for them, aren’t we lucky !
( you will of course be excluded by your 1% friends ! )
Well i am all up for sharing, but I don’t recall any of the greedy sharing much of their greed with me during my life, so I think they should keep their debts to themselves !
Hi Human,
Some people chose to be greedy: Agreed. But how do you distinguish between greed and working hard to further oneself, acting within whatever moral/legal constraints you choose to impose on them?
I also get the feeling you assume everyone will contribute equally under the ideal system, how would this be enforced in utopia given the removal of the usual incentives? The very essence of the ‘free choice’ you mention is that some people will continue to choose to be lazy, uneducated or stoned (ie non contributors). Why should they be propped up by the rest of the equally hard working society? Surely it is just shifting the focus of ones ire from the rich to the non-reformers?
In response to ‘what is the reward for work?’ …If you cannot think of any other gain than financial from hard work, I deeply pity you. ‘Work’ should be done for pride, for enioyment, jobs that do not provide these to anyone should be fairly distributed amongst all. Then no cleaners/waiters/retail assistants or anyone will feel the need to riot, to protest, why would anyone when everyone is made equal by a fair distribution, it leaves people with time to do what they really really want to do, be that pursuing a creative career, or just spending time with their family. It may sound ludicrous, but surely it’s worth a shot, at the very least a serious debate with fair better and highly skilled expert brains than mine to decide on an equation for such an idea.
I hope if nothing else to arouse your thoughts and hope for a better world were all are equal. No one should have to give their life to working 60 hours for minimum wage on a rubbish job when others go helicopter shopping.
Also, just to add, I am not a low paid full time worker, I am a fairly affluent student, I have not done this work before, but I know it is not right. It is a modern form of slavery, and it has to end.
People do not like changing jobs, it does not make them happy, in my current company they put in a shift system where they all moved job, this started because everyone was moaning about who had it easy and we all were paid the same so why should some work harder than others, it was actually started by the women. Within a few weeks they who moaned the most discovered that the jobs they viewed as easy were not so easy, when they saw people only moving slowly with things they never allowed for weight etc or awkwardness, after only about a month those who moaned the most to start with wanted to put things back to the normal way of set jobs, this then created a new head ache, the ones that were happy doing the harder jobs to start with then never wanted to go back to them as they discovered how easy some of the womed had it doing the packing etc, so then to get them back they wanted pay rises as it was proven they had the jobs no one else wanted, chaos, a complete mess and caused more trouble than it ever gained, the lesson is some people are just better at certain jobs, so you cannot share all the jobs in the world around on a share basis, equally look at the training nightmare.
Most people do not enjoy work, its why we get paid for it, if it was enjoyable people would do more of it and work more, society would stop if no one did jobs that people did not like, I know very few people who like their jobs, but like myself pride themself on the fact they do that job well though.
In fact one of my aunts would be very offended you put cleaning jobs would need to be shared, she in fact again may not like her job but she takes extreme pride in what she does, so I suggest you have a rethink on what you value and what you call slavery, its just real life.
And its nice you come from an affluent family, if you go to a solicitor and sign over any potential inheritence to the state and share some of your wealth now then perhaps you will gain my respect, you should feel lucky you have the chance to be a student and that you have not had to work yet, perhaps if you did you would learn and appreciate that work can be rewarding if if you hate it, and not just for money but for the fact you have actaully earnt your money and not just been given it.
There is nothing stopping people from leaving the system, things such as electricity, hot and cold running water, mobile phones and even the clothes we wear are a modern luxury that most of humankind has survived without for thousands of years. These modern luxuries are not rights and we are all free to cast of the shackles of modern comfort and return to the lifestyles of our pre settler ancestors. Because this ‘modern slavery’ as you call it has existed ever since man built a home next to water and threw seed on the ground.
It is not possible for everyone to have their dream job,
Person A wants to be food critic.
Person B wants to be a food critic.
Person C wants to be a food critic…
and so forth eventually there are too many food critics, the best will gain an audience the ones that don’t make the cut will not. With no audience there is no profit, why should the successful food critic have to give up his/her profit to fund the less successful food critic?
If the end result of a job (an occupation, a career, not choirs) is not profit what purpose does it serve? It would just cost money and waste resources.
To this end there are as only as many jobs as their are demand for them, if no one liked cake would it still get made? What would be the point?
This is why some people cannot have their dream job.
The system is not fair, but nothing in the world is. Is it fair that in the wild some cubs and hatch-lings are killed by predators before they are hours old? Is it fair that one creature is born in a lush green forest of plenty and another is born to a drought stricken barren?
You live with what you have, if you value modern comfort over job satisfaction you will seek financial reward and its benefits over job satisfaction.
If you value enjoyment of work over the financial reward you will seek job satisfaction over the perks of modern life.
And if you are very lucky you will attain both, however that does not mean that if you do not have both you have to choose between one or the other. You can weight your choice more or less to your preference. Want money enough to compromise your dream job slightly but still be around its field? Or want job satisfaction enough that you can get your dream job but will accept a similar one for less pay than a job you do not want to do?
“In response to ‘what is the reward for work?’ …If you cannot think of any other gain than financial from hard work, I deeply pity you. ‘Work’ should be done for pride, for enioyment, jobs that do not provide these to anyone should be fairly distributed amongst all. Then no cleaners/waiters/retail assistants or anyone will feel the need to riot, to protest, why would anyone when everyone is made equal by a fair distribution, it leaves people with time to do what they really really want to do, be that pursuing a creative career, or just spending time with their family. It may sound ludicrous, but surely it’s worth a shot, at the very least a serious debate with fair better and highly skilled expert brains than mine to decide on an equation for such an idea.”
It would help your argument if you could suggest a way this would work instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.
Craig (soon to be unemployed still not bitter)
Keep goings guys! Ignore people that call you communists and say you hate capitalism! They’re ignorant! They don’t understand the idea that you can object to the sort of gangster capitalism we’ve seen since Thatcher and Reagan and at the same time not want to resort to soviet style communism. Their politics are 40 years out of date and all they can do is yell “marxists”, “communism”….They’re incapable of engaging you on any sort of intellectual level.
Between 1980 and 2005 80% of wealth created in the US went to the top 1%. The idea that only a marxist could even question this is idiotic. Notice how countries that didn’t embrace Reaganomics such as Germany, France and Japan have a MUCH smaller wealth gap than the US and UK whilst at the same time the economies of the former have grown just as fast as the latter over the past 30 years? I suppose that EPIC trickle down is going to happen any day now:) Free-market fundamentalism pushed by Thatcher and Reagan is responsible for the econonic crisis we’ve been living for three years and for the unfair, unequal society we see today.
All this means nothing to the right,according to the right wing you either buy into their free-market fundamentalism or you’re a marxist. Facts and logic aren’t important to them….they’re all about the economic dogma handed down to them by right wing politicians and the top 1%.
And how we were told that the end of communism and the victory of capitalism would make the world such a better place ! ! ! Well, it hasn’t been all that long, and an authoritarian state capitalist country has become one of the most powerful economys in the world. And in the West the state has had to step in to bail out capitalism . . . and here in London, the state pays benefits to workers on pathetically low pay so they can afford to live in London to clean the houses of the rich, who, obviously, can’t be bothered paying them enough . . same with all cleaners in this city i guess . . but where is the glorious free market in this instance?
I object to paying taxes to subsidise the wages of those on low pay. Not because i have a thing against the low paid, but because their wages are so low in the first place.
But, we’re all in it together ? Those executive pay figures just released are a kick in the teeth for all of us.
Hang in there !
Very good point
Thank you for keeping this simple and un-wooly. Thank you also for being there in central London fighting for a fairer world. I am not anti-capitalist, but I do believe that capitalism in its current form is broken. This statement speaks for me.
Were not living in broken capitalism, it is merely the inevitable outcome of the processes inherent in capitalism.
The cuts are actually not ideological, despite many on the left claiming they are for propaganda purposes and to build popular fronts.
Marx predicted over a hundred years ago that as the entire world is integrated into the global economy, various processes would come together to make it harder for capitalists to make a good return on capital invested. In capitalism the confidence of investors in being able to actually make money is key to anything in the economy happening at all. In the past crisises were averted by expanding capitalism into more and more markets, often through force, but now there is no more opportunity. In this scenario the only way out is viscious attacks on the working class to prop up the crumbling system- Austerity cuts.
Capitalism comes with a built in time-bomb for the point when capitalists are forced by worse and worse crisises to squeeze the working class so hard that they will rise up in revolution.
maybe we could start by making the law apply equally to all and not allow it to be manipulated by the 1% or those with enough money to muddy it. secondly we could take money out of politics and not allow anyone to make decisions until they had lived a year on the dole and in social housing using public transport so they new what the consequences would be .Just a suggestion love light and truth to all xxx
What a moron.
Mike,
What is it you are afraid of ?
People are trying to do the right thing by each other, is that really such a bad thing ?
Surely even a non-moron like you can see the good in that ?
But maybe you cant I suppose, limited thinking maybe. You should take note of a saying corporations like to use and ‘THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX’
I’m sure it will hurt a bit, but please give it a go and let me know how you get on !
You all live in cuckoo land……..
It seems that a bunch of trust fund kids are trying to clear their consciences by hanging around with the grubby serial protestors of London. What’s on the menu for next month’s march?
If we reduce the great religious leaders of the world to 3 (leaving aside pantheism for the moment) to reflect upon Jesus, Buddha & Muhammad: anyone able to read and comprehend, without interference of organised dogma espoused by church or state, will understand that they embody the move from individual egocentrism to social responsibility, from what Freud termed the id to the superego, from self to selflessness.
Christ, Buddha & Muhammad preached love, tolerance, understanding of ones neighbour and the shunning of the moneylenders/launderers/userers.
Communism as a concept has never been the threat. Capitalism has killed many more in its cruel and greedy gears.
Mohammed preached love alright….to a girl of 7
someone sneezed or farted, can’t tell which end he was emitting sound from…
Richard………………..are you still there ? please come back and enlighten us some more with your understanding of how things work !
I had an argument on Fb with a few of your supporters today. They said they want the world to be a resource based economy with no money and no banks, yet you are saying you are opening a bank account and want donations ! That is hypocrisy.
The system is not broken. Thatcher and Reagan are not to blame for all the worlds issues.
Labour spent all the money and loaded us with debt. You lot were silent when you were creaming huge benefits for the last 12 years and now your party is over you are throwing your toys out of your prams.
Do you have a workable solution – No
Are you contributing to making the world a better place – No
Do the vast majority support you – No
A non hierarchical movement. So basically a bunch of leaderless twerps.
All with an equal IQ of 65
Mike,
when you say an ‘equal IQ’ I take it you are referring to your own being equal to 65 ! Thats a shame because I would have calmly discussed/debated/chatted etc etc with you about the points you make, but not sure my IQ is worthy and don’t know if I would be able to keep up with your level of insults either !
and anyway, it saddens me we ‘have’ the same name, would like to say ‘share’ the same name, but you’re obviously not that kind of human I detect !
By the way, I have had my own business for thirteen years now and been working since before I left school, so not quite fitting in with your stereotyping I’m afraid !
But feel free to get back to me.
His thrust is invalidated by inference, as he’s actually a send-up comedian specialising in self-parody and irony
Mike,
This movement isn’t loyal to Labour. Where did you get that idea? The fact that you would assume that suggests that you have a one-dimensional view of politics and can’t think for yourself hence you fail to think outside the established party-political framework.
Anything left=Labour. Anything right= Con.
This movement rejects all three major political parties. I DON’T vote Labour. I contribute by DD to the Green Party. Infact, if you read the OWS Declaration of Occupation and the Green’s manifesto for the 2010 election you’ll find they read VERY similarly. We’re no more Labour than we are Conservative, UKIP or BNP.
Do we have a workable solution? We’re a broad based, decentralised movment so we don’t have an official agenda. Essentially we want the banks to be properly regulated and protection of the 99% from the 1% . Possisbly… stronger trade unions, up the minimum wage, corporate influence out of OUR politics and a rule of law that applied equally to factory worker and investment banker….They’d be my personal suggestions but like I say “Broad, De-Centralised movement.”
P.s. yes, the problems we’re talking about can be traced back to Thatcherism and it’s impacts years later. We’ve allowed ourselves to be dictated to on economics by people who read the first page of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and figured they were experts.
The whole of the concept that you guys are following is very flawed, just to point out I am not coming at this from a bankers point of view, I rent a small room, I do not live near my family or friends and have lost my licence for medical reasons so I see them rarely now as there is no public transport to my old town where they live, I am on a low wage and I have no savings or very little in the way of things I own.
Anyway to kick off, where does camping outside in London bring strength to your cause? most people are aware of you by now but do not agree you are right, many people know the system is not perfect but its not fixable with your sweeping statements, also it would need a world change to write off debt etc and annoying people in London is not going to make the Chinese or Arabs write off billions in debt.
Equally even if you wrote off all the debt this evening the country is running on a deficit, that means in the morning we would be in debt again, major job cuts and cuts in services would need to happen to balance the books, 2 things you are equally against, so how would you pay for all these people, council workers, firemen, doctors, nurses, policemen, nurses, defence forces, dustmen, teachers well you get the point there are many who are paid from the government and there would not be any cash to pay them.
You cannot just raise minimum wage, as I stated above I am on a low wage but I know for sure that if my wages were raised by very much due to the law my boss would need to make layoffs or shut the company, not every company has huge profits to share, my boss in fact lives in a small house and has a lodger to balance his income.
If you taxed people and companies much more than you do now they would head off to a country where they could run cheaper, again I point out that a few hundred people in London do not cause any stir in Hong Kong or Singapore, Germany or the USA, and in fact its good when a banker gets paid heaps, he will pay 50% tax on his wages straight to the government, if he got paid less then the comapny would keep that at as profit and then they would in fact pay less tax on it as profits are charged less than PAYE, people knock bankers but if you look at what they pay in as a percentage of income its heaps more than the average man on the street, a banker earning £2,000,000 pays £1,021,381.04 in deductions(51%), all of which go to paying and running the country, average man earns say £16,000 pays £2,757.64 (17%) now I personally think if anyone has the right to be camping and protesting it the many paying 3 times a percentage more tax, one could argue a fair tax would tax all evenly at the same rate, this though would again bring in less money and in turn loss more jobs.
Do I think its right a person can earn so much more for what some consider an easy effortless job? no I do think its wrong, the same as I feel footballers and sports people earn to much, in fact most of us have to pay to play sport so that in fact is even worse, so maybe you should be camped outside of Old Trafford to make a point about Manchester Uniteds profits and wage as well, they tower above bankers.
As for the bank bailouts, well again many do not unerstand the system, no oner gave any money to the banks or the bankers, the governemt bought shares in the banks at the bailout, in the future the shares will be sold and the money given back, the government protected itself and the ordernary man as well as the rich, they were not helping out just the rich.
The world is an unfair place but again its what makes the world work, if you wrote off all debt on mortgages as suggested again there would be no point in building any houses, I would be stuck in a rubbish little box room forever without the hope of a new home at any point, after all, who will build if there are no buyers, no one will buy as who has £150,000 laying around, the world needs to borrow or it would just stop.
Stronger trade unions? I myself was a union convenor at my last company, we had 1000 staff, the problem with a democratic union is it does not work, it would be like the country would work, the company was losing money and fast, we got bought out, then in union meetings the staff still wanted pay rises, well aware that the company was losing £10,000′s a month, they wanted to work less hours in the working week so overtime kicked in earlier, and this they wanted at a higher rate, the company suggested that whilst losing money this was not an option, so what do the hard headed think? lets strike! now if you know the company is losing money its silly to want more, especially as the company was in fact even ten years ago paying the staff £8.50 an hour and also £1.80 an hour minimum bonus so all in £10.30 an hour, the company asked for suggestions on where the cash was to come from and in the meetings I chaIred myself, my members help in the problem was that they were not paid to save money or come up with ideas, I even had some people put in for a strike because they did not like the toilet paper, needless to say only a few months later the company decided to make everyone in it redundant and closed its doors, end of problem as 1000 out of work.
I left the union after seeing how stupid they were.
Second example, my aunt worked for a local hospital, they announced lay offs, she did not want to loss job so joined the union, she was given options of early retirement etc which she dismissed as she is only 55, when she lost her job with a few others the union announced in its own new letter that there were no redundancies in the hospital as the union had saved all the positions, my aunt wrote to her MP to point out the lies and the union wrote back to the MP to tell him that the only jobs lost were volentary, which again was a lie as my aunt never wanted to lose her job and in fact wrote it on her form as the options were not applying to her.
Unions are rubbish and liars the same as government and serve only their own interests, hence why you have to pay them, then they actually do more harm than good by sticking the knife in at stupid times and are unrealistic in what they can achieve, sometimes there is no money and the company is being honest.
If people did not see better things and houses etc around them then why would people want to work if they could get it for free or little effort? if people see something and want it why not try to become better and become a banker etc, then you can redistribute the wealth once you are there, I can assure you that many peoples ideals would change once they actually have the wealth they are protesting about.
If you cut the army then how would you defend the weak and oppressed? yes we might not agree with everywhere that we interfer, I know I do not agree with them at all, but without an army etc we would leave ourselves open to invasion by even a weak country, the world will not change because of a few individuals, if you want change and are so sure that people are behind you then why not run for an MPs job and cause change from within? if you are truely democratic and being there for the 99% why not show that as you should have a landslide election.
My thoughts on some of the issues anyway.
Will
an interesting and well though out reply, but it avoids the obvious. The status quo is balanced in favour of the wealthy and powerful, more so then in any time in my life time (I am 55). We all realise that something is wrong with the system and needs regulating/controlling to ensure greater spread of wealth. The real question we should all be trying to answer is What changes are needed and how can we best achieve them
a banker earning £2,000,000 pays £1,021,381.04 in deductions(51%), all of which go to paying and running the country, average man earns say £16,000 pays £2,757.64 (17%)
Yes, 50% …as a percentage sounds like a lot…but put it into real terms…you’re saying it is prfectly acceptable for a banker to live on: £970,729 …whilst someone who probably works harder to life off of just £14,000??? Forget percentages – the bankers wage is more then SIXTY FIVE times the other persons wage…DOes this not make your jaw hit the floor???? How did this happen??? Stop allowing yourself to be brain washed with percentages, put it into people terms (e.g how much it is for a person to live, and how much it is for a person to be considered extremely greedy in ever accepting that amount of money with the argument of ‘well I pay 50%tax – it does not change the fact that it is a lot easier to live on his wage than the take home wage of others, that are still paying tax)…people are what should make the world go around, and our economy should reflect this.
I’m sorry but I simply do not understand why when there is enough food…the only reason people are starving is because there is not enough of the man made concept: MONEY. It’s ridiculous and makes NO sense!!!!
It does make my jaw drop when I see what some people earn, but why single out just a banker? why not footballers? why not doctors? lawyers? in every company I have ever worked people people regrudge anything that people earn if it is more than or even the same as them sometimes, I agree it might seem unfair, but if he only earnt a small amount then he would pay less tax and that would be more profit for the company/bank, who would then pay less tax on the same money you just never paid, if youthen tried to tax them they would just move country to a cheaper one to do business in, not only that but as most bank are still private who are we to dictate how much they pay their staff, in fact we should appluad them for paying them so much as it seems to be the best and most productive way of the tax being collected, the problem would actually seem to be the imbalance in pay, hell if you cannot find work I am sure they would curse the guy earning £16,000 as recieving too much, minimum wage runs at £12300 ish and if your stuck looking for work then you live on £3500 ish, but ultimately life is not fair, I am not a big earner, I have been unemployed before so I know what a struggle that is, but it is fair when you see some people who have no intension of working and you understand why the system sucks a little, if you have a society that gives some one a free wage and a house then you remove the force to strive to better yourself, I would love to earn a bankers wage but again I also know they do not all earn millions of pounds, only the ones thatare used to make a point, many earn an average wage.
How do you fix and correct the issue? there is no point just making a fuss, nearly everyone would agree they feel some people earn too much, I know I work very hard and at times extreme hours, I feel I deserve more, but I look around for the chance and I am just one of many in the same position, all competing for the same.
If however more people trained to be a banker there would be more people in the markert, then the wages would freeze and come down, but most people do not care for the job so demand pushes wages up, they pay for tallent, at the end of the day they do not pay millions because they feel charitable, they are a company trying to maximize profit.
Now when it come to ordinary jobs again there is a wealth of people in the country looking, the only way to raise the pay in ordinary jobs is to reduce the work pool, but you cannoot do that while there are 4 million people in the job pool plus 100,000,000 world wide trying to come to this country and get those jobs as well, the companys do not need to offer the wages for normal jobs, so jobs only tend to pay more if there are fewer people in the pool with no training or the job is not attractive to anyone.
My solution is as mentioned below to have a foreign employee tax to make them look at domestic employees first, this would help reduce the work pool by reducing unemployment, after all if there was no unemployment at all then the workers would have the upper hand as companys would then need to compete for employees and then wages would rise.
This is not going to happen but the tax is a sensible point and is a serious agenda to solve an issue.
The accepting of a higher wage is not greedy, its human nature, we all want to earn a good wage and have security, and I do not know 1 person who would turn down a wage rise, hell I have £1.52 left in my bank, if you have more than that in yours would you give me half? no because you deem you have what you need, even though I have less, and when I go into town in the morning I will see a homeless guy, now when I have cash i will give him some, but should I give him 76p as I have more? no that would be stupid.
Resenting what someone else has is just envy, do not blame them, do not blame their companys, they are after all paying for most of society, instead think about all those who are wanting to strike because they want the public money, they consider their worth to be greater than it is, they will not compromise as they want a bigger share of a pot that is not there, public earn the same as many now and still expect the perks from when it never, now that is where yo should be looking as they are not paid from a private company, they are paid from society, and what they take deminishes the pool of money from other, the pool of money which runs the country needs to come from somewhere, and that somewhere needs to be from someone who will not run off,
If I was taxed over half of what I earnt like the high wage earners I would feel very sorry for myself, in fact high tax is why they probably earn so much now, when they go for a raise it needs to be even more as half of it is not theirs, so they will feel to get the 5.2 inflationary rise they need a real term increase of over 10% to cover it, again I am not saying that is right but I do understand the logic to the position.
So apart from these unworkable suggestions I have seen of cancel debt have you any idea how you would deal with things? there is no point just being negative to people on money.
As well as my foreign employee tax I also after reading the link I got liked the idea of the park money fee, think this would be good if global even if it was a just for a couple of years to get some investment pumping around.
Good point there. It is exactly with how everything is fundamentally viewed, that could provide solutions or identify key areas to resolve some of the current issues. All of what occupy london are, in reference to their list, seeking to achieve, is presumably based on the notion that it is going to involve law changing/abolition of existing policies/laws. So, that would have to rely on an already existing pure and uncorrupt system of law.. hmm. If I am missing something here in terms of realising change and actually implementing this then open to hear how else it will be achieved.
I am also, slightly perplexed, on why there are so many people here that are so keen to pigeon hole any sort of movement and its values, arguing the political irrelevancies of rights or lefts or ideologies of any political framework. Surely the entire point of Occupy is to identify exact social injustices, which individuals, organisations, businesses, goverment or subsidaries of any of the above, are accountable for or cause, support in any measure. An example of which may be vast businesses that have several empty premises accross the U.K. when there are many people that are in need of one of the basic human necessities, shelter. Let’s not try to configure something so precise and explanatory to captivate the whole of the movement, which in essence is dynamic and will inevitably alter, change, develop, as it is supported further.
Some comments I have read are based on some sort of utopia, which yes is akin to being the most true way of living, but is also the most unrealistic, at this point, way of viewing or seeking to alter things towards. Then there are the pessimistics amongst us, who are happy to crack on and strive to make the best of what they have or is available to them. Well I would like to consider myself someone, who although recognises there are many corruptions currently operating and directly affecting us, there is some practical way to make changes. This is bound to be targeting accountable parties.
I suppose to start somewhere specific would be one way of highlighting and working toward change. I personally feel very strongly about the large numbers of unoccupied buildings across the private, industrial, social sectors. People are on the whole, afraid to risk their
Without trying to provide a whole solution, I have below just placed some comments to address a key area of what is effecting us all.
Putting aside taxation for a moment, and to specifically address income thresholds. If one were to compare the variations of money earned/salaries. Then was to devise a system which, due to the overhaul and re-distribution of this, in which there are masses of low-paid occupations against a small minority of excessively paid. Then distributed the salaries fairly (yes this point needs far more thought and technical working out!), one of the negative consequences being that a small number of individuals potentially being penalised for their genius/entrepreneurial excellence, and that is all it took to make things more financially “fair”. Obviously this may be impossible to implement fully, I am under no illusion. But, I would be interested to hear feedback on whether this is a relevant solution, and if so, then steps to actualize it.
As far as taxation goes, does everyone think that it would be fair to individual this into every aspect of purchasing and services with each persons lives. That is to say, someone who goes to purchase their weekly food, would pay what is relevant and appropriate to their income, ergo an apple may cost 80p for someone who earns £50K a year, but 40p for someone who earns half of that! They go home to settle their electricity bill, which similarly correlated to the previous example.
Now, another topic altogether, the current rate at which we are charged for energy usage, petrol, electricity, gas, they seem to be absolutlely excessive and completely unfair.
It is obviously with which we rely on most, that we are going to be exploited. So, if there was some small steps we could implement to reduce reliance on energies, such as installing a wood-burner in place of say central-heating. Please do not make the assumption that I wish to live in a yurt and look like Neil from the Young Ones. Again, let’s not maintain this tendency/obsession with pigeon-holing!
Keep at it
The ‘False Economy’ website provides a convincing argument that the previous Labour government, inspite of their numerous other flaws, did not create this problem by overspending. Rather the deficit is a natural consequence of recession, not the party political propaganda device the ConLibs would like to turn it into. The ‘austerity’ measures are not the only solution – in fact, they are not a solution at all, they are part of the problem.
What is needed is a turn away from the discredited neo-liberal theory of economics (variously also termed neo-con, Reagonomics/Thatcherism, Friedmanism, Chicago Boys economics). All three of the main parties in the UK a adherents to this version of economic theory. This is the model of capitalism that has been ruining countries and improverishing people across the global for decades: except the 1% who have been vampirishly sucking up the fall out. What is needed is not free market fundamentalism but a mixed economy – that is more Keynesianism.
Some specific demands could include:
- The abolition of tax-havens (the UK runs about a half of the world’s tax havens)
- Introduction of the Robin Hood/Tobin tax (which does not have to be implemented globally, as stated in some quarters)
- Total reform/elimination of the Corporation of the City of London
- Separation of investiment and speculative marking
- Tighter controls of factional reserve banking (if I give a bank £1, why should it then be allowed to loan out £10, on the back of this one?)
- A requirement for all political donations to be disclosed, at the very least; but better a cap on campaign spending in any one election campaign.
- Reinvigoration of HMRC to chase down corporate tax dodgers. The current government has gut the dept. previous serving this role; a department that returned orders of magnitude more funds to the public coffers than it cost to run.
- Raise corporation tax (at its lowest level for decades).
- Introduction of 60% and 70% tax bands. Both the US and the UK had there greatest periods of economic growth when the upper tax bands were higher than now.
- Reform of the IMF and WB away from a position dominated by Friedmanite economics.
Tax havens are already being dealt with slowly, its hard for this government or any other to persuade a foreign country to change its reporting of accounts etc to another but it is happening slowly, some countrys have agreed to disclose accounts, others have agreed to collect a tax but without disclosing names, others have refused altogether. I agree more needs to be down overtime to close this problem down.
If you had a Robin Hood tax only in the UK, how would you stop company’s from moving to another country? especially if you were to introduce a 60% and 70% tax on wages and a raised corporation tax, you would see business leave in droves, company’s have already left the UK for cheaper places like Poland, Ireland etc, you would just see mass unemployment then as everything left the country, and then no tax raised from these company’s at all.
It is wrong to blame everything on Labout I agree with that, but they would compound the issue, it is my belief you cannot spend your way out of debt, it would of just dug the whole quicker, also they were not in control of the global market, the LibDen solution may not be ideal but you cannot keep spending and employing people on borrowed money, cuts were and are needed, although not nice to swallow, it is still cheaper to pay unemployment etc than wages, they come from the same pot after all, we do need to force effieciency back into the system whgich had become overgrown.
I also agree about the banking reform, I also think is is crazy a bank can invest or speculate with 90% more money than it has, thus putting itself at grave risk as also others.
I equally would love to see HMRC increase its dept to track and trace tax dodgers, but not just corporate, also individuals, I know a few people who do not pay tax and the system just slapped them when they got caught and makes it easy to not pay, one of them got a bill for £109,000, they just declared bankruptcy and then said they were not working so they never paid a penny back, after they were discharged they started working again and not paying their tax again, I would love to see them hammered as the rest of us pay our way, they need to make it criminal and thhen persue.
I equally agree all political donations should be disclosed openly and would like to see a cap on the cost of campaigns, in fact to make it fairer I think all donations should go into a pool and then it be shared between all candidates, that way everyone is funded in an equal and fair manner, all points and agendas would be given the same voice, I point out that per candidate and not per party or local small partys of 1 would recieve millions.
To get our economy working properly we need to encourage business to come here and stay here, not flee because of high costs.
I listen to the radio at work during the day and the press seems to have manipulated the situation away from the real issues and refocused the public on the fact that the Peace Camp looks a mess and houses unemployed layabouts who live on the dole at the public’s expense. It is also said that you are against the established system but really you dont have anything else to offer in its place. I personally think you need to focus your campaign on a single issue “the failure of capitalism” and offer a coherent alternative scheme that is well thought out and workable otherwise your valid cause will die under the boot of the Establishment. it is the people that you need to convince not the politicians, but at the moment they see you as well meaning idealistic youth who have no real experience of the world. If I can help in any way please let me know how.
Regards Andy K
“…offer a coherent alternative scheme that is well thought out and workable..” here it is folks, the root of the problem exposed (money created as debt) and offer a simple fix in draft legislation http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
Another quick point in which I would be interested to see if anyone has some expertise in.
Although our reliance on actually having bank accounts has reached an excepted, monumental level..
What are the current legalities with demanding our wages in cash format or to be cashed at the end of each month/week.
I realise this would be massively unpractical for most people, as most of the goods and services, especially as many are now electronically managed.
But the point being that we could temporarily, or perhaps on a planned, longer term, completely take away our association and usage of personal banking. If this was done on a certain scale, as part of a scheme to raise awareness and highlight the simple fact to the general public, that banks are businesses and have become, without coincidence(!), deeply ingrained into our lives.
It would be to alter this and remove them from at least our own financial existences, as a start to one specific action.
Yes, paying bills might become a hassle, as physically having to go into a post office to settle your quarterly account would be tough, or going to support your local independent grocers (if indeed, you have one) would be an old-fashioned case of taking a walk and exchanging some cash. As a pose to logging on at home, reliant on supporting a mammoth energy supplier, and spending your hard-earned with one of the many supermarket giants..
I think that this one action could develop and address many key issues, with positive knock-on effects.
My family trade was abliterated years ago, when Tescos opened up nearby, leading to the swift demise and disapperance of a traditionally formed line of shops.
This isn’t to say businesses cant or shouldn’t be successful, or should be penalised for doing so. Just not on the scale and monopoly we now see across every sector.
Please avoid unnecessary critisms of this, unless they are valid, just think into the idea and provide ways of implementing this.
Thanks
Two things: “Animal Farm, A Fairy Story”. and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA
What we have today is better than either of these systems. And either of these systems is what you’re going to get if you avoid the democratic processes we currently have.
Your comments are laughable. Maybe you are one of the few, happy with our present system. Communism has shown to fail as it relies on the philosophy that everyone is equal. Well I know that everyone is different so how can they be treated equally?
Better that those who are better off, look after those that are worse off. This isn’t new, 1000s of years ago a greek philosipher stated an ideal that the richest man should have no more than 4 times the ammount of the poorest. This philosophy encourages the rich man to increase the poor mans existence has he would gain 4 fold the increase in the poor mans fortunes. It is also the basis for how a community should work.
it is a principle that I think John Lewis uses although I believe the CEO earns 75 times that of the lowest paid worker, but the concept leads us in the right direction
Think about it – the “rich” are looking after the poor already in this society. I am lucky enough to be earning enough to pay higher rate tax so I don’t get to keep all the money I earn, the government gets around 45% of it and then spends it on whatever they want which includes a host of benefits, including the armed forces and of course education and the NHS. I have an ordinary job which is easy to tax so I can’t avoid it. Am I the 99% or the 1%?
My seemingly flippant point was serious: democracy is the worse system in the world, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time. Democracy works! if you try something else then your movement will be overcome by either petty schisms or a malign clique of self-interests. Its human nature unfortunately. Join a party, start a party, stand for election and see if the 99% vote for you.
And if you want to talk about Global Conspiracies why is no one talking about the European Union? Why did Greece and Ireland join? why did they join the Euro? Look at them now.
I know Greece is suffering in some ways but they already have had 50% of their private debt slashed, Greece is an example I think of what will end up happening in most country’s at some point, lived beyond its means and went on a spending spree until it could borrow no more, that is down to a deficit, one we have but many seem to not understand, thatys why we are needing cuts etc, but this movement seem against that, they are against fairness and equality, they support high spending and increasing the deficit from what I can see, its unrealistic to expect debt to be wiped out everywhere, someone needs to pay for something, I in fact say well done for being a higher rate tax payer, as i have pointed out with an example else where, whilst they hate bankers and high wages they pay a much higher rate of societys bills as a percentage than a low earner, people might resent it but its what turns the lights of the country on.
They say that this camping out has high lighted the issues, but they are issues which can be highlighted by a public stand by starting a party with good agenda’s, do not go all green with issues as people like green issues until they are asked to pay the difference, just start a party on fair and balanced views, with well thought out policy.
“…well thought out policy…” the root of the problem exposed (money created as debt) with a simple fix in draft legislation http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
To indulge in some cheap point scoring first:
All faiths – including the Aztecs and modern ones that practice human sacrifice?
All sexualities – including paedophiles?
Don’t use words unless you mean them…
For the record: this is not what ‘democracy looks like’ – it’s what ‘freedom of speech and assembly’ look like’. Whilst the two generally coexist, it’s possible to have one without the other.
However my main objection lies in your failure to explain how the cuts in government expenditure are to be avoided. There are only two alternatives:
1) higher taxes. Whilst you hint at trying to capture some of the taxes that corporations successfully legally avoid, you would be assuming that this would be possible in the short term. You offer no other alternative
2) Cuts in other expenditure. Where please? Again you hint at defence – so you would have no problem with leaving Gaddafi to massacre the people of Benghazi? Or the Serbs ethnically cleansing the Kosovans? Or Kim Ill Sung suppressing the free people of South Korea? Just so you know the price – in other people’s suffering – that you are proposing to pay.
Sadly what you’ve said boils down to a primal scream that there’s something wrong with the world. Yup- can’t disagree with that. But the idea that a few institutional changes will make all the difference is… fatuous. The reality that you can’t come up with a coherent set of policies should give you a clue that the problem is far deeper: it’s in us all – as http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/4od#3245576 so elegantly demonstrated. We’ve all got an evil streak: if we don’t ensure that’s addressed, things will only go wrong again.
Yes Enders your points were cheap.
You knock these people for trying BUT atleast they see that things are wrong and are trying to do something about it. Their statements may be broadsweeping and not thought through but it is a start. So why not try helping instead of criticising or are you happy with the inequalities of our present systems?
I logged onto this website to try and find out what you guys actually want. But all I found was some incoherent nonsense about debt and general unfairness – as if anything has ever been fair, ever. I still don’t actually know what you want. What sticks out is someone ‘informing’ another that they didn’t know what communism or anarchism actually was, and they would try and explain but we probably won’t get it anyway. Please….
I still have no idea what you actually want, and now suspect that collectively you don’t either.
Robin, the root of the problem is exposed here http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
with a simple fix in draft legislation that will benefit us all “collectively.”
The whole of the concept that you guys are following is very flawed, just to point out I am not coming at this from a bankers point of view, I rent a small room, I do not live near my family or friends and have lost my licence for medical reasons so I see them rarely now as there is no public transport to my old town where they live, I am on a low wage and I have no savings or very little in the way of things I own.
Anyway to kick off, where does camping outside in London bring strength to your cause? most people are aware of you by now but do not agree you are right, many people know the system is not perfect but its not fixable with your sweeping statements, also it would need a world change to write off debt etc and annoying people in London is not going to make the Chinese or Arabs write off billions in debt.
Equally even if you wrote off all the debt this evening the country is running on a deficit, that means in the morning we would be in debt again, major job cuts and cuts in services would need to happen to balance the books, 2 things you are equally against, so how would you pay for all these people, council workers, firemen, doctors, nurses, policemen, nurses, defence forces, dustmen, teachers well you get the point there are many who are paid from the government and there would not be any cash to pay them.
You cannot just raise minimum wage, as I stated above I am on a low wage but I know for sure that if my wages were raised by very much due to the law my boss would need to make layoffs or shut the company, not every company has huge profits to share, my boss in fact lives in a small house and has a lodger to balance his income.
If you taxed people and companies much more than you do now they would head off to a country where they could run cheaper, again I point out that a few hundred people in London do not cause any stir in Hong Kong or Singapore, Germany or the USA, and in fact its good when a banker gets paid heaps, he will pay 50% tax on his wages straight to the government, if he got paid less then the comapny would keep that at as profit and then they would in fact pay less tax on it as profits are charged less than PAYE, people knock bankers but if you look at what they pay in as a percentage of income its heaps more than the average man on the street, a banker earning £2,000,000 pays £1,021,381.04 in deductions(51%), all of which go to paying and running the country, average man earns say £16,000 pays £2,757.64 (17%) now I personally think if anyone has the right to be camping and protesting it the many paying 3 times a percentage more tax, one could argue a fair tax would tax all evenly at the same rate, this though would again bring in less money and in turn loss more jobs.
Do I think its right a person can earn so much more for what some consider an easy effortless job? no I do think its wrong, the same as I feel footballers and sports people earn to much, in fact most of us have to pay to play sport so that in fact is even worse, so maybe you should be camped outside of Old Trafford to make a point about Manchester Uniteds profits and wage as well, they tower above bankers.
As for the bank bailouts, well again many do not unerstand the system, no oner gave any money to the banks or the bankers, the governemt bought shares in the banks at the bailout, in the future the shares will be sold and the money given back, the government protected itself and the ordernary man as well as the rich, they were not helping out just the rich.
The world is an unfair place but again its what makes the world work, if you wrote off all debt on mortgages as suggested again there would be no point in building any houses, I would be stuck in a rubbish little box room forever without the hope of a new home at any point, after all, who will build if there are no buyers, no one will buy as who has £150,000 laying around, the world needs to borrow or it would just stop.
Stronger trade unions? I myself was a union convenor at my last company, we had 1000 staff, the problem with a democratic union is it does not work, it would be like the country would work, the company was losing money and fast, we got bought out, then in union meetings the staff still wanted pay rises, well aware that the company was losing £10,000′s a month, they wanted to work less hours in the working week so overtime kicked in earlier, and this they wanted at a higher rate, the company suggested that whilst losing money this was not an option, so what do the hard headed think? lets strike! now if you know the company is losing money its silly to want more, especially as the company was in fact even ten years ago paying the staff £8.50 an hour and also £1.80 an hour minimum bonus so all in £10.30 an hour, the company asked for suggestions on where the cash was to come from and in the meetings I chaIred myself, my members help in the problem was that they were not paid to save money or come up with ideas, I even had some people put in for a strike because they did not like the toilet paper, needless to say only a few months later the company decided to make everyone in it redundant and closed its doors, end of problem as 1000 out of work.
I left the union after seeing how stupid they were.
Second example, my aunt worked for a local hospital, they announced lay offs, she did not want to loss job so joined the union, she was given options of early retirement etc which she dismissed as she is only 55, when she lost her job with a few others the union announced in its own new letter that there were no redundancies in the hospital as the union had saved all the positions, my aunt wrote to her MP to point out the lies and the union wrote back to the MP to tell him that the only jobs lost were volentary, which again was a lie as my aunt never wanted to lose her job and in fact wrote it on her form as the options were not applying to her.
Unions are rubbish and liars the same as government and serve only their own interests, hence why you have to pay them, then they actually do more harm than good by sticking the knife in at stupid times and are unrealistic in what they can achieve, sometimes there is no money and the company is being honest.
If people did not see better things and houses etc around them then why would people want to work if they could get it for free or little effort? if people see something and want it why not try to become better and become a banker etc, then you can redistribute the wealth once you are there, I can assure you that many peoples ideals would change once they actually have the wealth they are protesting about.
If you cut the army then how would you defend the weak and oppressed? yes we might not agree with everywhere that we interfer, I know I do not agree with them at all, but without an army etc we would leave ourselves open to invasion by even a weak country, the world will not change because of a few individuals, if you want change and are so sure that people are behind you then why not run for an MPs job and cause change from within? if you are truely democratic and being there for the 99% why not show that as you should have a landslide election.
My thoughts on some of the issues anyway.
Will
While I agree with what you say about unions and understand the arguments you put forward on the other subjects you fall into the trap that those in power have indoctrinated onto the population. In other words “we are not happy with the system but there is nothing we can do about it”.
Look at the problem from the point of veiw opposite to the one you hold and see what answer you can find to solve the problem.
As with the unions, Governments are controlled by the establishment. ie: the civil service, organisations such as this are made up of people that manipulate the system. It is time that this was changed. Maybe we will not have all the answers to solve all the problems but maybe if we all start working together as communities should, then it will be a start. One thing is for sure. Until people decide to change things they will stay in small rooms, in low paid jobs, away from their friends and family. You are a shining example of a person that will be better off from a change in our political and corporate systems.
Yes but that is my point, I would ike change but it needs to be done from within the system, you cannot change it by beating it over the head and pitching tents by the church, I would love to support the movement as such it is but it does not offer anything at the moment, in fact it offers less than nothing, when I looked this site up I was hoping to read something fresh and new, I wanted it to be something people could be behind, but at the moment it is not anything of substance, there is not one thing I can see that will move anything forward, what you need is an agenda and someone to stand by it, they can get elected, first in one seat maybe and then if thats succeeds you can offer up more candidates on these priciples of change, once you are in the big house then you can effect change from within, it is in fact the only way to do it, say you were to topple the government and they said, hey you guys are right the country sucks, we give up, then what would happen? who would lead? what would they be supporting? change needs structure and aims, otherwise it just would be chaos, that would not be good, we can all poke holes in society but it needs someone with some proper well thought out ideas to fix it, and this cannot be done by wishful thinking or broad sweeping staments that are unrealist like cancel all debt.
I am hoping to see something good emerge, and not just because of my small room and distance from family, I could quit work and claim benefit and I would actually probably then get more points and housed in their town.
And I suppose my question is this, what will it take for you guys to pack up your tents and be happy?
Obviously you have a beef with just about everything, normally with a protest you have an agenda, i.e. an oppressor to step down, a company to raise pay or something specific, I have read the site and it lacks what your minimum objective is?
So far you have got a couple of church leaders to stand down, which I am not against as the church is very wealthy and I think the second biggest land owner and wealth in the world, also has about as much proof of god as I have of santa claus therefore in my mind is actually the biggest corporate con of all companies.
I would point out if I maintained people should give me money and I believed in Santa and wanted to fund him I would get arrested and locked up or put in an institution for the insane, but in the god we have no evidence of its ok.
But what is going to bring this to an end?
This is not a “normal protest” and only money reform will “bring this to an end”. The root of the problem is exposed here http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
with a simple fix in draft legislation.
This is all quite simple actually. It’s about a fundamental expression of right and wrong, not an attempt to re-write or construct a political solution. The solution is not political, it’s ethical/moral/spiritual…neglected concepts of the modern age perhaps, but only from sound and shared foundations of sharing and love for one’s fellow man, planet (and self) can more sustainable and balanced politics begin to arise.
Speaking as just an ordinary man I have become very disillusioned by the way the running of this country is going. It is time for a major change in both the way that our political systems work. The people in power are put there to work for the people, it is evident that that no longer applies. So I say that it is time for a rethink on what is important in life. Governments should look after the people of their countries first and foremost. They should provide shelter, food and health care for all and make sure that our country can sustain these commodities without having to rely on other countries exports to support our inadequacies. I believe that this is the organisation to make these changes BUT protests are not the answer. It is better to organise canvassing for support throughout the country and involve other countries to join in these radical ideals. Involve knowledgeable people in the creation of a working manifesto for the future. Have clear and simple explanations for what we need to achieve without going into scientific/ political babble. Most important of all is to be open and honest in all aspects. If your asked a question and you don’t have the answer just say so and don’t try to change the subject like many politicians do.
In an ideal world ALL food, housing, clothing and health care would be free. This is not an ideal world but it could be and isn’t it worth working towards that goal?
The country does need changes, so does the world and this I also agree with, problem is nearly everyone has a sense of entitlement that is not realistic, they will not look at cold hard facts.
There are 5 million people on council waiting lists needing housing, building costs money.
Everyone wants to retire early after paying in very little, i.e. 35 years working paying in a few thousand a year if they are generous and then expect to retire on a full wage or high benefit, this is just not economic or again realistic, where does the money come from when they may live 30 years in retirement.
Families want paying thousands a year for having children, even if they have not put into the system, a classic of this genuine case is my cousin, never worked a day in her life, lives in a brand new 3 bedroom house, paid for on benefit, children paid for by tax credits and child benefit, she get income support amongst other benefits, has not looked for a job as she says she is entitled to have children and not work, she makes no pretence that she wishes to never work and would love to sail through to retire early on benfits, she is not alone in this view as it is shared by many, she has the best house in the family by far, its new so her bills are the cheapest, its in the nicest area of any of my family also, a good reward for never lifting a finger.
I work hard, long hours and always have, my reward is I pay for people like her, I pay into a system which teaches children and students, I do not have children so will never use that system, I am not allowed to drive yet I pay for the roads and structure, I cannot get a bus anywhere I need to go, yet I pay into taxes that pay companies to sub their routes, I have waited over a year to see a specialist for a neuro condition I have so am not getting a return there, I am being prosecuted by a foreign national for something they have had to lie about to make it stick and even with differing statements will be going to court, that person has and is commiting benefit fraud, tax evasion, getting a council house by deception, perjury and lying on police statements, all of which no one will investigate as its not a police matter, again I work and pay tax, this person works and refuses to pay tax as it would stop their ability to claim stuff for free, this country rewards those who play systems well and not those who are genuine and work, if you are honest there is no reward, all of that said pitching a tent is not the way to go for me either, it needs people within the systen to make change, it will be a slow process and will takes dozens of years, already the debt and deficit will bear weight on the next generation as they try to balance the books left from not just our generation but the ones before us as well, my understanding is the bank of England started with a loan and has in fact never been out of debt from that day, the country has in fact run at a deficit pretty much ever since as people always want more services and cash than can be paid for, everyone has ideals until they realise the true costs of what they want, hell look through Russian history as an example, the would have a revolt to oust the leaders and then within a few years be corrupt and need to be ousted themselves. we as a society cannot please everyone, I hate paying towards others children, its my main issue, if you cannot afford them then do not have them, I resent that they can claim thousands a year from tax credits just because they have them, yet I pay my tax and I know thats where it goes, life sucks, its the way it is and we have to go with the majority view.
I hate that churches are tax and rates exempt, more people are into football than worship, yet they do not get the breaks the church does, the church is an old institution, one we all help support, again why? because we do, we cannot all get what we want without upsetting another group who have their own views, so yes get an agenda, canvas a little and see if you can get into power rather than force the current elected government to conform to the wishes of what at the moment is a very small group out of 65 million.
Here here! 1/3 of public spending is on supporting people. Help those in real need but stop helping those who are hiding from the real world.
The very idea of abolishing money, which is at its heart a way of making transactions more efficient, is to put us back to the stone age. How many turnips for that tractor? How much labour washing the windows in exchange for some petrol?
Occupy London are a bunch of dreamers that need to post alternatives that make sense.
I am encouraged by both Williams and Andrews comments and in both cases you identify the main problem with society in its present state and that is the ” I’m all right jack so sod you” culture.
Too many people are out for what they can get and that has to stop. To do this we have to change the way people think. Nothing is for free and if people are not prepared to work for a better society then I expect they should not benefit from living in that society.
Greed is the major problem in the world today and that is what this protest is about. You may think it isn’t solving anything but it has got people talking and that is a start.
I agree that change has to come from within the existing system with nominated representatives being put up for election with a clear manifesto of ideas for change. That said by protesting it gives attention to the problem and the fact that people are not happy.
I would propose that one of the first changes should be the renationalisation of the public service industries as privatisation has not worked in improving ANY of this infrastructure but just helped to line the pockets of the greedy few. Just one idea for a start.
What would you change?
Well I have written this to MPs myslf and it is unpopular because it stops paying people to have children, I would stop benefits and tax credits for children, I would instead give a clothing voucher for their cloths and then I would send some of the stopped money to schools, in return i would like to see the schools offer a free standard uniform so all of the children had the same (this would stop bullying on those with cheaper shoes or cloths as they would have the same) I would then also make the schools in return for this money offer free school meals, consisting of breakfast,diner and evening meal, this could be easily afforded with the diversion of the tax credits direct to the school, this way the school would in effect be offering free child sitting while parents were at work and ensure all children were getting 3 good meals a day, this would help children whose parents use tax credits for fags, drugs and drink, personally I have seen children get nothing from the money the family recieve from them so feel it would be a good way for a school to be the heart of a comunity, parents should not be paid to have children but children should not suffer, this would allow this to happen.
Parents with money of course do not have to use the system.
The government cannot just renationalise everything as that would involve more borrowing or spending, I do however agree it is sad that private companys very often can do the same job for cheaper, but that is the problem with public service work, very often it is not competitive as it breeds ineffient practice as it does not need to turn a profit, that said I would like to things back in the hands of the nation over time, if it can make a profit then why should it not be our profit as a whole, maybe things like the new power stations I would of liked to see public owned, that way we can keep the profit of electric etc which is a growing market, also maybe see the government take back slowly as time allows the public transport etc, but without the huge costs of taking on pensions etc which is what out priced many of the public services in the first place.
I stated already but I would like to see a 100% death duty, people should not rely on thhe death on another to increase their own wealth, also this would pay back a persons share of the accrued national debt that was accrued in their name, and if they are dead then it will not hurt them.
Just a few for now, interesting to see feedback on those couple.
Actually I would stop all public pensions, this is in fact a classic of people wanting something for nothing, public pay now in many cases is higher than their private equavalents, my aunt for instance left her hospital job on £2.00 an hour more than she could get in her new private job doing the same, she also get no pension in her new private position, she had full salary pension at hospital, so to be fair why should they think they are entitled to these hugely supperior pension deals? they should have no automatic pension and subscribe to one the same as the rest of us, years ago the pension was offered to compensate for low wages but that is not the case in most positions now, so they can get the same pension deals as the rest of the majority of us.
Also students, again another group wanting something for nothing, they if they do not get a reasonable job would not need to repay a penny of their college fee’s, yet they object to paying back their fee’s if they eatn over £21000, why? all you are being asked is if your coolge leeds to a decent job, then you would pay for it, I really think that is fair, you are getting the benefit of the education before you even have put into the system, I never got the benefit of college as I was working full time and caring for my mother with cancer, why do you expect that i should have to pay for you to go to college, again there are many genuine cases of people wanting to get the education, but I share this house I am in with 4 others, those have changed nearly every college year so in total I have shared with 12 people here, of those 12 I would say genuinely and fairly that 4 of the 12 only went to college to not attend work, so that was a 1/3rd! so why is it not fair to ask them to pay that back at some point, especially when they are in courses they have no intention of using, one girl who has been around the longest has done 5 years of maths GCSE as she wants to be a teachers, if she cannot pass maths 5 years running how is she going to teach? yet again the majority of people are paying for her to go to those courses, she admits herself that she does not really want to teach either but its easier than many alternatives she could think of.
If people want somehthing then pay for it, stop wanting everything paid for by someone else, stop feeling entitled.
It is also right we all retire late, we are all living longer and that needs paying for, if people do not like it then again get a private pension and pay for it yourself, and women live longer on average to men so stop complaining about the pension ages being balanced, it fair and just.
Our debt based monetary system lies at the heart of many of the issues which anger/concern the occupy movements. It is also unsustainable because the level of debt is becoming unaffordable. When it collapses, we’ll need an alternative monetary system if we are to avoid the bloodshed and dire consequences of the Russian and French Revolutions. In a globalised world, where debt based financing crosses national boundaries, revolutions will roll across the globe. Far better we prepare for planned evolution.
Those interested in resolving issues of injustice and increasing inequality would do well to study Margrit Kennedy’s paper written in 1995, Interest and Inflation Free Money. In it she explodes four popular myths about money and interest:
Myth 1: THERE IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF GROWTH
In the natural world things grow fast in the early stages and then growth ceases as they mature. A child undergoes rapid physical development from birth until around the age of twenty when physical growth ceases and we grow qualitatively through intellect, experience etc. There are organisms which grow exponentially, typically diseases and viruses, eg. cancer which starts slowly and accelerates until it is untreatable and the host or patient dies. Our economic system requires exponential growth. When people talk about growth they visualise a straight line but in fact 3% pa (for example) is a doubling every 24 years and is an upwards exponential curve climbing eventually almost vertically. In order to feed this exponential growth we need to cut down ever more trees and extract ever more resources while consuming yet more stuff we don’t need, just to maintain our 3% rate.
Moral: We need a monetary system which follows a natural rather than cancerous growth pattern.
Myth 2: WE PAY INTEREST ONLY IF WE BORROW MONEY
Every time you buy food, pay your electricity bill, buy a train ticket or pay your council tax, you are paying interest. The figures used by Kennedy are for Germany around the time she wrote the paper. On average citzens paid about 50% in interest on goods and services. In the UK, PFI and PPP schemes and mechanisation mean that we are paying significantly more than 50% in interest on average today.
Moral: We could work half as hard or enjoy twice as much for the same amount of work.
Myth 3. IN THE PRESENT MONETARY SYSTEM WE ARE ALL EQUALLY AFFECTED BY INTEREST
Kennedy’s paper compared the interest payments and income from
interest in ten numerically equal sections of the German population. It indicates that the first eight sections of the population pay more than they receive, the ninth section receives slightly more than it pays, and the tenth receives about twice as much interest as it pays, i.e., the tenth receives the interest which the first eight sections have lost. For the top I% their gain is many multiples of that received by the top 10%. Remember, these figures are for Germany, a country with much less inequality, and from nearly 20 years ago. Since then inequality has expanded exponentially.
Moral: The debt based monetary system expedites the transfer of wealth from the many to the very few at an accelerating rate.
Myth 4. INFLATION IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF FREE MARKET ECONOMIES
From Kennedy’s paper: While the governmental income, the Gross National Product, and the salaries and wages of the average income earner “only” rose by about 400% between 1968 and 1989, the interest payments of the government rose by 1,360%. Studies demonstrate that the difference is reflected in inflation.
Moral: Government debts will sooner or later outgrow government income, even in the industrialized nations and the system will collapse.
If the occupy movements want to energise the 99% to support radical change for a better world for everyone, they need to study Kennedy’s paper and unite behind the development of a new monetary system as the primary goal. Without an interest free monetary system, nothing will change except by revolution. The top 1% (by wealth) need to be aware of the risks of obstructing or resisting change. A new system need not prejudice their dynasty and they could sleep soundly in their opulent beds!
What you say sounds very accurate to me, but in life who would lend money for no gain? people with money always will need to have an incentive to be parted from it, even if its to cover a situation where someone defaults in returning the money, the original lender will want to recover his loss from somewhere.
Nicely written though and very good points above about where money is heading etc.
Of course technology is not helping society, a factory that used to have hundreds of works now needs only a handful, machines make everything quicker, as society develops more and more people are replaced with technology in every walk of life, havesters do the jobs on farms more, typing is being replaced by talking to the computer, computers run hundreds of macines in production facilities, all of this is killing jobs, so society at some point will be unable to sustain its employment needs, already there are 6 workers employed by state to 5 private company employees, now as basically the private sector needs to pay the wages of the state employees its easy to see why the country is in a mess.
The future will be interesting, although I fear not fun for the average man.
Also refer to “Money as Debt” by Ellen Brown
Thanks William. I would urge you to read the paper. We find it hard to conceptualise a world without interest because all we’ve ever known is the current monetary system. It’s been in existence for centuries. However, in the paper (also a book) Kennedy describes various successful experiments with interest free money. In addition to increasing the velocity of money, multiplying economic activity and reducing unemployment the experiments fostered other social and creative benefits.
From Kennedy’s book:
BRAKTEATEN MONEY IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE
Between the 12th and the 15th century in Europe a
money system was used called “Brakteaten.” Issued by the
respective towns, bishops and sovereigns, it not only helped
the exchange of goods and services but also provided the
means of collecting taxes. Every year the thin coins made
from gold and silver were “recalled,” one to three times
re-minted and devalued on an average about 25 % in the
process.
Since nobody wanted to keep this money, people in-
stead invested in furniture, solidly built houses, artwork
and anything else that promised to keep or increase its
value. During that time, some of the most beautiful sa-
cred and profane works of art and architecture came into
existence. “For while monied wealth could not
accumulate, real wealth was created.”
We still think of this time as one of the cultural
culmination points in European history. Craftsmen
worked a five-day week, the “blue” Monday was
introduced and the standard of living was high. In
addition, there were hardly any feuds and wars between
the various realms of power.
–
Kennedy’s ideas are a good starting point to think about what an alternative monetary system might look like and how it could address many of the problems we face. It doesn’t advocate an attack on the 1% but shows they could benefit not least from greater stability and security. The 99% would certainly benefit.
William, it would help if I supplied the link to Margrit Kennedy’s book/paper… d’oh!
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/
Thanks Clive, very interesting.
Whilst I agree and love some of the book and understand it, I equally know how impractable most of it is, I would love in the most part of what I have read to see the global economy decide to charge for the parking of money for a few years as I agree if people did not earn interest on their funds it would move the planet into a giant hive of activity while people invested their moeny rather than sat on it, in practice though alas if it was not global people would just move money elsewhere where there was no parking fee.
Many of the other studys I feel are flawed and I can remember reading opposing study at various times, but that is the joy of modern age, everyone can have those oposing views, the system we have is not ideal or sustainable but I do not think that this book holds the answers, just thought provoking in some areas.
There was a village that adopted a scheme of trade I saw, they decided to trial it, it failed very quickly when people over valued their goods and skills, it failed on its first big project needing to be completed, they had setup what they viewed as a great system, voted in by the village members, it was discussed and mapped out, it lasted I think 6 months.
Cheers though.
William, I suspect the reason many experiments failed was because of their threat to the banking cartels. The current system is undoubtedly flawed and unsustainable. I agree that Kennedy’s paper is a beginning rather than a definitive solution. But hopefully, the occupy movement will rise to the challenge of raising consciousness of the need for an alternative and enlist wide participation in developing a solution.
If you want to open any sort of dialogue, I think you need to offer some kind of realistic suggestions as to how you want society to change.
Clearly some things in society are not fair e.g. all taxpayers have had to pay partly because of reckless behaviour by banks. If you ask anyone, they will agree that is not fair and would prefer it wasn’t the case. That’s not news to anyone. But there is no alternative.
If you can’t offer alternatives then no one is going to listen to you. People can see that the world is not fair, telling people this is not news to anyone.
Saying things like “cancel all debt” harms your cause if you want people to listen to you. Belies an utter lack of understanding of how the world works. If you learnt how the world worked you would be in a better position to engage in a meaningful discussion about change.
I must admit that I have struggled for some time to understand your movement and my views of its aims.
On the one hand. Yes I agree with what sems to be any underlying sentiment of yours. It is an unfair world with many many things that are basically wrong,imperfect and in many cases just horrendous. Humans can be very self interested and very unkind to one another. It always has been thus – but its far far better now than even 100 let alone 500 or more years ago. And I am talking about the UK, the continent and the world in general. Its slow progress but there is progress. But beyond that sentiment I struugle to understand what you are about.
You say that the ‘system’ is unstainable. What system? !!!!!!!!! There is no single system. What we have are many many systems operating at many many levels;in many different spheres, reflecting many many different interests and operating individually, locally, nationally, internationally and globaly. Each with different agendas, drivers etc – and the sum of these ‘systems’ and how they interact gives us the world as we know it.
How on earth you intend to change ‘the system’ beats me.
You talk about not paying for the banks’ crisis. Well I would agree if it was just the ‘banks’ but from what I can see its not just the banks- there some really quite alarming and to me quite irresponsible national debts and budget deficits. I tend to think that all of us have some responsibility in this. We have all been quite happy to keep electing Govmtns that offer us growth (and yes a better society) on the basis of little more than ‘money’ borrowed from others . You say that the cuts aren’t necessary – well somehow we have to cover the debts and deficits accumulated so far. Any suggestins as to how that might be done ?
Puzzled
Equally puzzled… a lot of complaining and no suggestions from Occupy
There are many suggestions from Occupy…just look above ^^
and for the comment: ‘You say that the cuts aren’t necessary – well somehow we have to cover the debts and deficits accumulated so far. Any suggestins as to how that might be done’
..do we have to cover the debts? Think outside the box…what does debt mean in people terms rather than financial – if not paying debt means some figures that don’t exsist (in the same way say friendship or charisma does) don’t add up…then why should we strain and starve to make these, this ‘money add’ up? If not paying debt means people cannot eat, or loose jobs and homes…then we need to work out a way to make sure that no one goes hungry, looses jobs or homes – everyone needs to stop thinking in financial/money terms/ it’s a human concept that was simply put in place for fair trade of REAL things (a cow for example) when you ask ‘how do we change ‘the system/systems’ we need to start by changing the way, unfortunately, you seem to think to think about how things are in PEOPLE terms, because people exists, as far as I’m concerned half of money doesn;t exsist (shares/speculation) so why should everyone be tightening their belts etc to make/generate money, we have enough brilliant man made technology and a brilliantly clever planet to provide for all, and so all should be provided for – reggardles of this rediculous term ‘money?!’
p.s by ‘money’ here I mean all that it has become today – a life style, an absoloute need, the reason that people cannot live as they should be able to, a sole reason to live to gain as much of it as possible – when…it is just curency that was meant for trading equality??????
Its not a question of thinking outside the box, its about real life, one day when we have progressed in technology to create something from nothing, then money and debt will become a thing of the past, but until then all things have a value, its a need and not just because its the way I think, If I have a cow and you have an egg, in food terms my cow will feed me longer, if you wanted my cow and only had 1 egg then you would probably say you would give me an egg a week for a year to make it fair, this would be debt, if I needed to build a house and went to the shop I very much doubt I would have the goods needed to build it straight off, so I would need to incure a debt of some kind, or everyone would be homeless, so as much as you do not llke money its easier to give things and service a value, and as much as you go not like debt it pays for needs we have now with the ability to pay later.
And whiulst we are talking about people starving, yes I agree it is very bad indeed, but on the social responsibility front, would you keep having kids if you had no food or water?
And if we changed to a system where only goods had value themselves, how would a store work? you could not have a shop selling TVs or pay a doctor in cows? think how big the register and wallet would be, money was designed for convience, you try and replace it and tell me a functioning way.
Sorry Wiliam, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am not saying that money is bad, or should be replaced. I am saying that things like: ‘I’d be able to educate myself/feed myself etc but I don’t have enough money.’ It’s a ridiculous reason for someone to miss out on what should be availble to all – not because they are demanding something for nothing, they are just demanding an equal chance to be educated and work hard without having to live in poverty, or next to people that simply have not worked as hard but are swimming in luxuries they could never dream of, and will never have. It should simply never be said by anyone in such an abundant HUMAN world, where we have so much capability to monitor our resources, make predictions and calculations, we have machines to harvest for us etc. As I said to one person at St Pauls who used the same argument as yourself, he said to me: ‘But if I have 9 apples and you have 1, then you would need to trade.’ I replied: ‘Or, you could just give me four apples and then we would both have 5 each. Then the need or conflict involving trade is completely irrelevant, it is simply a case of those with more sharing until everyone has at the very least enough to survive.’ – Did you know a recent economist calculated that if wealth was redistributed equaly – everyone would be able to have £800 a week to live on!!
Now, I am aware the above apple trading story raises two very important subjects:
1. What is that other person worked very hard to climb and pick those 9 apples – whereas the other with one apple, only has one apple because they stayed in bed all day?
2. And this is my main concern – what if the person with 9 apples, was born and raised on an orchard, where as the person with one apple has trekked across a dessert, only finding one apple, to finally find someone that can help them have enough (in this case, for arguments sake I’m just gonna say 5 apples is enough), to then be told they have to trade something? When they have worked so much harder than the other person? (who by all means may have worked somewhat to pick them etc, but by no means is it comparable to the other persons journey)
On the first point, I am someone who could have chosen to, and would be more than entiltled to all kinds of beneifts I’m sure, but I have not. I have worked since I was 13. So I do not think the first point is fair – that the hard worker shoud just give away what they worked hard for – by all means I do beleive a lazy (again for arguments sake, not disabled or had other commitments etc just a lazy lazy person!) person should go without until they learn by the example of others. What I do not believe is that the person with one apple who was geographically unfortunate should have to trade anything to receive the same as someone who was simply luckier than them.
At the moment, money is something that does not often allow for fair trade, it does not often portray a persons hard work – it portrays peoples luck, connections, country they were born in or family wealth. This is what has to stop. At the moment, if you are born on an orchard, people will be indebted to you – it is a cycle, it is what was always going to happen. This is why I do not think debt, as it stands, is a product of fair trade – which is what it should be, which as you pointed out above, is why it exsists in the first place. Currently this is not what debt is used for, it is used to oppress people, that were always going to be opressed or in debt to be able to stay alive. At the moment, this opression is growing and claiming more debtors. I do not have an answer, but as I hope any human being of any intellect and moral grounding can see, the above is just not right, as human beings we should all be working together to change it – isn’t this what sets us apart from animals? We are able to trade globally – no one should be without enough apples!!
Although I do not have answers (please will people stop asking for an answer – an answer must be tried and tested before it is called an answer, at the moment it is impossible to try a PROPOSED ANSWER, as too many people keep asking for an ‘answer’ when it does not exsist by default.
If contributors used there time to test and try suggestions rather than poking holes at the brave people who at the very least are bold enough to come up with an idea in the first place, or simply stand up against mass corruption – maybe there would be an answer a lot quicker. Please try to use your intellect, power and energy for something positive ( – to try and come up with an idea rather than shooting others down negatively.)
My idea, as I am bold enough to say it, as it has never been tried – poke holes all you want, I would listen a lot better if you gave an example/experiement where my idea was proven wrong, rather than guess at it being wrong. This is just an idea from one person, based on my singular experiences and influences: I think money should be based on our resources – so there is only a currency that is in harmony with what is being produced, there should definitely be equality caps for everyone, meaning that even though you can work hard to earn more, no one, absoloutely no one, will ever earn ludicrous amounts that could be shared more effectively amongst many. I beleive everyone should do some meaniale, or volunteer work (NOT like communist camps, before anyone mentions that diabolacle scheme for legal slavery) if everyone had to give, one hour a week – hec there are so many on the earth now, probably even one hour a fortnight, it would mean even if someone earns more than you – they still have to do that hour of volunteer work, the same as everyone else, it means that cleaners and other lowly paid for jobs that no-one wants to do might disappear altogether (it would all be shared equally amongst volunteers) – now I am aware this raises the argument of people loosing jobs made by this type of work – except, these people would now be able to come up with other ideas, have time to do things they really want to do, and if the world allowed for everyone to have the basics to live, then no one, ever needs slave away for 60 hours a week on low pay to pay off inevitable debts to have a miserable life – this simply need not occur. These are small changes, which are ideas that have sprung from trying to make the world more equal, I am more than open to debate, ideas and CRONTRUCTIVE cristiscm – but more than anything I would like someone to reply with: that’;s an idea, but what about this: and post soemthing on the same grounds but on a more succesful or brilliant scale. Get talking about ideas and answers – instead of just criticising those brave enough to at the very least try (even if it is fundamentally wrong, I respect those that try, much more than those that simply except this world they were born in, and shoot down those with big ideas.)
there is a fundamental problem with “the system”. That refers to the socio-economic system we find ourselves in, elements of which are the fractional reserve, debt, and the extreme profit motive that underpins everything.
If you want to point out the problem, organize a massive, coordinated, country-wide, withdrawal of deposits from banks. Financial crisis fever is running high…
Your first point says that we need alternatives. But you still haven’t provided any details about the new Occupy-endorsed system?? This is frightening. You are recruiting people around the world to join a movement with a conveniently vague mission statement.
Learn from history – you can’t achieve successful political or social change without a clearly thought out strategic plan. You’re basically suggesting let’s do away with capitalism and hire some novices with no plan of action to run the world.
Occupy is FRIGHTENING!!!!
Lastly, your claim of representing the 99% majority is an utter falsehood. A lot of us in the West – the majority- are HAPPY – read HAPPY – with the current system. If you don’t like it, run off and start your own system somewhere on the planet. There is plenty of space for you and us. Accept that you are the minority and stop bothering good, hardworking people who have built the infrastructure and heritage you enjoy on a daily basis.
To me it seems Occupy is a huge joke, you have no aim, no objective and no goal, you have a statement backed up by a load of random facts, you’re not suggesting anything to solve the so called “problem” you haven’t even identified (In the UK many economic systems exist yet yu’ve generalised them all, we have a failing Welfare system, Prison system, Energy system) all contributing to our problems yet you don’t seem to be willing to put forward any suggestions which many people have actually called your group out on, it appears to me many of your members only care for media recognition and their egos than any real cause.
Many elements of the Occupy group have called you the Western Arab Spring Ironic seeing as we’re not Arabs nor is it Spring, the difference in those countries was they had a clear goal, reform or remove tyrants, their economy is generally a low grade one, our country doesn’t have tyrants and you can argue that but seeing as we elect officials your arguement is lost and we have such an advanced economy that to many your cause seems childish and dumbfounded, peoples reaction to you is not support its that they see you as the uneducated, enemployed, benefit takers and idle members of our society and given that two weeks have passed and your members have not moved it reinforces this idea you have nothing better to do.
Further I would like to call out that some parts of your group lack a basic understanding of anything, one of your members believed St Pauls was parts of the Roman Catholic Church and asked about the globalisation of their belief when St Pauls is part of the Church of England.
Mr Asange “Wikileaks” when he appeared your edited videos show him preaching his ideals but the extended video uploaded by public members shows he was actually heckled as he arrived and started due to his lack of popularity and who wouldn’t be, a Sex Offender who ran to the one EU country which won’t extradite people hardly makes a respectable figure for your cause, you may as well just have asked Garry Glitter to preach or possibly Col.Gadaffi (He was very Anti – Capitalist)
My end note is that Capitalism works and has worked throughout history it has its ups and down, if you did basic economics its generally the first thing you’re taught, market growth will always follow downturn, give it a year or two and everything will repair itself as it has done, the difference today is mass media and social media has allowed a minority to warp you into rebelling breaking the cycle and if it continues you will be the bringers of your own misery, Socialism never worked as even the USSR were capitalists at heart hoarding luxeries at the misery of the common man and other forms don’t work, name me a non capitalist country which is not in Civil War, Poverty or Accused daily of summay executions of its population to keep it afloat.
From a number of comments above, it would appear I’ve expressed myself badly. I’ll try again.
The occupation movement is comprised of many individuals and groups with a range of grievances. There are a number of themes which are shared by many or most. One major source of anger is the perception that “bankers” have caused an economic crisis which is causing hardship for many and an uncertain future. eg. public service and pension cuts, job losses etc.
Most of the grievances stem from the economic crisis. At the heart of the economy is the monetary and banking system. To summarise the first chapter of Margrit Kennedy’s it is suggested that our debt with interest monetary system has the following consequences:
1. It is like a cancer because debt is expanding exponentially and economic collapse is inevitable because government debt interest is rising faster than the income generated to cover it.
Economic growth has to be maintained at an accelerating rate (eg a growth rate of 3% pa will double the size of the economy every 24 years).
There is a story of a Persian emperor who was so enchanted with a new chess game that he wanted to fulfill any wish the inventor of the game had. This clever mathematician decided to ask for one seed of grain on the first square of the chess board doubling the amounts on each of the following squares. The emperor, at first happy about such modesty, was soon to discover that the total yield of his entire empire would not be sufficient to fulfill the “modest” wish. The amount needed on the 64th square of the chess board equals 440 times the yield of grain of the entire planet.
That is exponential growth.
To sustain growth at say 3% resources need to be extracted at an accelerating rate and we need to consume more and more to “feed” the economy.
2. Debt interest is within the price of everything we buy. Loans (with interest) are used to finance hospitals, schools, transport networks, food production etc. etc. It is reckoned that on average more than 50% of the costs we pay are for interest on debt and the interest cost grows as more debt is added. That means without interest we could work half as hard or enjoy twice as much.
3. 80% of the population pay more in interest than they receive. 10% receive slightly more interest than they pay while the top 10% receive twice as much as they pay. ie. they receive what the 80% lose. The top 1% receive many more times the interest received by the top 10%. In other words the monetary system ensures that wealth automatically moves from those with least to those with the most, again at an exponential rate.
In short debt with interest, combined with fractional reserve banking lies at the root of the economic crisis and is responsible for lost jobs, public service cuts etc.
There are some in the occupy movement who understand this but many who don’t. What we are trying to do is share ideas on how to create a fairer and more stable society. If people understand how the monetary system works against them, they will want change. But it requires thinking differently.
Kennedy’s book “Interest and Inflation Free Money” puts forward ideas as to how such a system could work and how it could benefit everyone, including those with the most.
To those who are happy with the way things are, good for you. But you ought to be aware that when the global economic system collapses, no one will escape the consequences. If you want to know what those consequences might be, read Charles Dicken’s Tale of Two Cities which relates how the vengeance of the masses was pretty random and not only targeted the aristocracy.
To those who seek revenge on bankers, politicians or the “elites”, without a change in the debt with interest monetary system, nothing will change. If we change the monetary system, all other change is possible by democratic agreement. At present politics is in the pockets of banking and financial interests, remove the debt interest monetary system and politics would be released from their control.
It’s not going to be easy or quick spread the understanding that the monetary system is “not fit for purpose”. Many people in the finance world don’t even understand this because they’ve never known anything different.
Our politicians and central bankers have only one answer to the current economic chaos, more debt (with interest).
Or we could try something different.
Like what?!
This is your massive problem. For all your arguments against debt, it is the cheapest most cost effective method of society converting resource or future benefit (both of these are future cashflows) into capital to provide essential services. This is cheaper than someone giving you actual cash (as they would want higher return and/or control in return). Agree that costs are increased as a result of interest…..but let me tell you first hand the reason things are expensive (and people are chasing margin) is because of the desire for Equity return and underlying demand! Not servicing interest.
Your argument is that XYZco borrows money to fund it’s business and as a result XYZco’s goods or services are more expensive as a result of the interest burden…..this is drivel…..most corporate borrowing and relative performance is based on Earnings Before INTEREST tax amortisation & depreciation, your argument again demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about how the system works. Shareholders will seek to set prices based on demand and extract returns accordingly.
So what is your suggestion abolish money? Write off all debts? Let the governments (god forbid) take over…………..don’t just put forward an argument against a system and put up some tents in London, think about it!
smithy, Debate: “Debt is the cheapest most cost effective method of society converting resource or future benefit (both of these are future cashflows) into capital to provide essential services. This is cheaper than someone giving you actual cash (as they would want higher return and/or control in return).”
The relative cost of debt v. equity is more complex. It depends on interest, rates of return, risk premia etc. When interest rates are high, equity is undoubtedly cheaper. How many leveraged buyouts have decimated once thriving public companies? Asset stripping in the 1980s and private equity today are essentially the same thing: gear up with maximum debt to liberate cash for the acquiring party. Good business in the current paradigm but is it in any of our long term interests?
In an Interest Free world, loans for investment with a risk premium and an administrative charge say 2.5% could be a form of financing but the preferred method of capital investment for companies would be equity ie. investors buying shares in a company and receiving dividends. Government funding for infrastructure and other public works would be cost free.
Have you never stopped to ask yourself: why don’t governments issue their own interest free money rather than volunteer, on our behalf, to pay bankers to use money the banks never had in the first place? You couldn’t make it up!
Clive
Something you don’t seem to be grasping is that raising equity capital is FAR FAR more expensive in the long run then debt financing. The return required for the extra risk taken (because you don’t have the structural protections offered by debt. I.e seniority, security, fixed/floating charges) will always be hire than equity. You are right it depends on rates of return, and the rate of return required for equity will always be at a spread OVER the benchmark cost of debt! Investors will always require greater return, through capital appreciation and/or dividends than debt. This is basic corporate finance and you show your clear lack of understanding, which is scary.
Can you explain how an interest free world would involve a risk premium (aka interest rate) and how the governments could possibly find the cash to provide free money to fund capital intensive utility companies? This is lunacy. The government would end up having to print money (which your also suggesting) inflate the currency and the costs of the projects would just escalate, so you would be back to square 1, just with a few more zeros on the end.
PLEASE THINK!
These guy have thought very thoroughly to expose the root problem as private banks creating the money supply as debt http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
and offer a simple fix in draft legislation.
1. Banks should ask our permission before they put our money at risk.
2. Banks should tell us how they use our money that we give them to invest.
3. The power to create money should be kept away from both profit-seeking bankers and
vote-seeking politicians, and placed in the hands of an accountable, transparent body that is sheltered from lobbyists and electioneers.
smithy, if you are really interested in why you are misinformed, read the paper I recommended:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/chap1.htm
The data suggest that you are wrong. Interest is forming a growing proportion of costs.
If you knew about fractional reserve banking you would know that banks loan money out of money that didn’t exist before. ie. they create a debt burden of interest without having created any real value in the first place. The debtor’s signature on the loan creates the money.
I recommend Money as Debt, a 45 minute video which shows how banks create debt money out of nothing:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=money%20as%20debt&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-2550156453790090544&ei=q3CwTr_0C4mt8QPp98CgAQ&usg=AFQjCNGGEnxnfGsFsUSmk4fizDHYjN6jyA
I didn’t suggest abolish money, I suggested we create an alternative money system with no interest. And before you say how would business’s function?
Instead of interest, loans would incur a risk premium and admin fee, say c2.5% and those with money would be encouraged to deploy money rather than hoard it, because holding money would incur a cost.
Let’s also not forget the original concept of a joint stock company: Investors buy shares in a company and if it thrives they receive annual dividends. Surplus income would be ploughed back into the economy. Should the company go bankrupt, investors lose their investment , a novel concept in this post bailout world
I fear that your intentions are good – to see a better world. An intention with which no one would disagree. However, just saying that you want it to be better and asserting this through occupying spaces in various cities really isnt going to make any difference whatsoever. I think that many of us (the majority of the 99% on which you stake your justifucation) would dearly love to see the evolution of better systems of governance, representation, justice, participation, economics and just about any aspect of the ‘system’ you care to name. I wish you well but until you have come up with a well worked out set of proposals for wider disccusion with, dare I say, the real and wider 99% of society I really cant see that you are going to get anywhere. And sorry but just taking and rehashing a few ideas from just one book (one of numerous) isnt going to carry much weight. I wish you well but please bear in mind that so far all that you have achieved is to cause some well meaning and committed people to lose their jobs (and no I am not in any way linked to the church) and if anything to add to the general downside!
Yeah, I’ve a solution.
Just stop paying it back.
If their cock up has cost everyone £15,000 or whatever, take it back.
If you have unsecured loans, credit cards and the likes, cut them up and stop paying.
It’s said that one in three Britons are now in debt, others paint a altogether rosier picture setting the figure at, 7000000 beyond their means.
So tell me, what are they going to do if we all stop paying?
They’re the ones who are frightened, that’s why they show the markets. Oh look, the markets are unsure, do what we tell you or there will be a global economic meltdown and you will all suffer.
Well, I’m already suffering and I don’t really care about your markets and there’s another 7000000 who feel the same.
So I’ll ask again, what are they going to do if 7000000 plus people all stop paying their unsecured loans. What are they going to do if those same people cut up their credit cards and stopped paying them back.
Bloody nothing, because there is nothing they can do.
Passive Non-Compliance is what I call it.
No harm but you could camp out for another 10 years and it ain’t going to change Jack. All you’re doing is giving them time to dream up ways to appear giving, while they’ll continue to take.
Passive Non-Compliance
They’ll sort it out, when we force their hand.
That is not a solution, even as an unsecure debt the bank would just issue court proceeding and soon the baliffs would be round to get their stuff, most people I know with debt have just over spent, bought a car they could not afford, big TV, new computer etc, a couple have spent it on holidays etc they should not of gone on but they would still have to live in fear of the knock on the door when baliffs are ordered to come round from the court to get goods back to the value of what they owe.
Being unsecure just means they will not take your house, after a court hearing then all other options are open, i.e removal of items or a wage garnish or benefit garnish before you are even in reciept of your money.
If as a consumer people did not want to have now and pay later then not so many of them would owe so much money, the current5 government issueis the same, people wanted the services and things the government never had finances for so the government borrowed money to give them these things, now the deficit is huge! so much so that it eats huge amounts of money nefore new services are paid for, I point out again though as no one seems to of clicked still, the country is not in trouble because of the bankers, the defit was there before the banking crisis, the money from the bailout will be paid back by the government selling its shares in the future, the defcit has been growing for years long before the fail, much of the deficit has gone to paying the wages and pensions of the people who are are on about striking in public service who are on about striking because they are being asked to fall in line with my 99% of people who do not have over inflated pensions at stupid final saleriy rates etc, they should be the ones who you have a beef with as they are the ones who have been part of that surplus for all of their working lives and are now demanding to keep beneficial terms of employment, you and I do not pay a banker and as I pointed out above we get a huge cointribution if he is paid well, we get nothing in return for a public service working who out earnt their private sector equavalants the last few years, especially in terms of pensions and contributions.
I agree camping out will gain nothing, they could be there 100 years and the world will roll by, society will get where they want it to go, but on its own and slowly, its a world change that will force it, I read the book I was given the link to, some of it is right and true, some is a little off base, but thats the joy of free thought, we all differ in our opinions.
The problem is many people are unhappy as we are as a society being asked to pay for what we are consuming, asked to live within ours means, yes it hurts but it is a fact of life, my old company supplied office equipment to the MOD and cival civil service, I used to see such waste as they bought things to spend their budgets near end of year, things like that have started to stop now as they are becoming accountable for costs, but a few years back they never had that issue, also if they had slack staff they would just employ more to take the slack, in a private office you would replace them not incress around them, but for years the system was broken again to build in excess jobs and cut unemployment, the problem with these isuues is they all cost money and add to the deficit, also nearly everyone i talk to seem to have a hard time know the difference between THE DEFICIT AND DEBT, if people read into the subject a little more it would help.
We cannot keep increasing the debt with the huge deficit, we need a surplus to do that, I again think there should be a 100% rate of death duty paid, it would stop the entitlement many feel to live off others and would pay back from people their share of the accrued debt from when they were alive, now that to me seems a good policy, if it were taken up I miss out on getting a house in the future but I would rather that then pay all the time for debt accrued in older family members names while they were alive.
I would add I found it interesting to see this “Protester Naomi Colvin told the Today programme the demonstrators wanted any decision to leave to be theirs, and it would come only when they had achieved their objectives in the current location”
As I have asked myself but not seen or got an answer about, what are their objectives? what will it take for them to move off?
“That is not a solution, even as an unsecure debt the bank would just issue court proceeding and soon the baliffs would be round to get their stuff”
So the banks are going to issue court proceedings against 7000000 people and where are the army of Baliffs going to come from? Will they do a mass sweep or sporadically round up, say, 13,500 people a week (that’s every week, for a little under 10 years)? who’s going to buy all these recovered goods? Where will they store them? And don’t start me on the Legal Aid bill or the estimated £1750000000 the Banks would be loosing in revenue every month.
I’m not offering a solution as such my friend, I’m telling you how to bring the present system down.
You fear the unkown, the treat of hardship is enough to make you shut up and put up. You’re not alone, that’s why we are nothing more than slaves for the elite. They live like self proclaimed gods lording over us all, they’ve raped this planet for their own gratification and they have used us to do it.
I would like nothing more than to see a globe busting Asteriod smash into this planet, call it, Factory Re-set if you like,..
In the blink of an eye their lifes work would amount for nothing, in the blink of an eye it would be gone, a tempory insignificance in time and space.
The answer to your question ‘what would they do’ is blindingly obvious my friend. The rest of us would have to pay for those debts and loans. In some way or another, directly or indirectly, we would all pay.
You fear the unknown
Stop playing
Stop paying
I would add that your cause is really not being helped by the ones in the masks, they come across the worst of all, if you believe in a cause rather than just being there to cause trouble then put your face to it, hiding has always being a form of deception and being behind a mask is just that, hell even in the army they are taught if talking to locals to remove sunglasses to remove barriers for trust etc.
Again I would like to know how many of the people there protesting have run for local council or local government? I would be interesting in how many have tried to get into a position where they could effect a change, we all know that in a realistic term most people think that the camp is full of unemployed benefit scroungers or rich kids with nothing better to do other than lie around and play guitar etc, whilst I do not think that is maybe the case it does make me wonder how many people have tried to make a change before they decided to protest, the lake of objectives is the bit that as asked above I find most adding to the maybe false image.
Cheers.
I have been reading through all the comments left and think it is wonderful that people are discussing these issues of monetary and economic injustice in such detail. For me, the most important part of the Occupy movement is discussion. People are having their voices heard. Perhaps not by politicians and financiers just yet, but by each other. And this is the place to start. Yes, the issues are incredibly complex, but this is part of the problem. Transparency and accountability appear to be impossible with such convoluted systems in place. However, the more we, the ordinary public, discuss how we perceive things, the more we can start to find a common ground. I would simply encourage those who base their arguments on the status quo to just take a moment to imagine other possibilities. The world has always changed and will continue to change. Might it not just be conceivable that morals and ethics could one day replace politics and economics? Or at the very least, ethical concerns could have equal weight alongside economics? Its not going to happen overnight and its not going to be easy, but we have to start somewhere. Keep on talking, discussing and exchanging.
May I be so bold as to suggest four practical policies for your consideration. They form just a small part of a system nicknamed Cappedalism – Capitalism but with limits (the capped bit).
1) Most progressive societies have now introduced minimum wages because doing so to prevents unscrupulous bosses from exploiting their workforce. Those intent on maintaining inequality between those at the bottom and those at the top have however worked around this simply by paying themselves huge salaries – thereby devaluing the salaries of their employees. There is though an obvious solution to this problem – the maximum wage.
Critics will immediately say this will deter ambition however this is nonsense for a number of reasons. If the maximum is set at (for example) ten times the national average salary this still leaves a lot of incentives for 98% of the population to work harder. True success can bring it’s own rewards. Would a rock star really stop doing what they loved because they earned a little less – of course not. Why should rewards only be thought of as financial? Please also don’t forget that not all ambition is good. Do we really want to encourage the sort of ambition that wrecks life’s, communities, and whole nations? No of course we don’t, yet currently we do. Ambition to be rich at the cost of others is surely not a virtue. Ambition should not be used as a mask for greed.
I hereby propose a 100% tax on ALL annual income over ten times the national average annual income. There would of course need to be a few specific exceptions to support those with well paid but short careers and genuine entrepreneurs who wisely reinvest what they gain in good causes.
2) Society needs big companies. Advancement comes as a result of the actions of many acting together. One person cannot run a power station or build a rail network. This does not mean though that we need to grant these organisations power beyond that which is needed to fulfil their purpose.
Big organisations need finance and traditionally this has come from the stock market. It doesn’t have to come from the stock market though. There are other ways. John Lewis and the BBC being just a couple of successful examples of the alternatives.
Money from the stock market comes with conditions, most notably that the company from that point on must put the needs of shareholders before that of everybody else. To put that another way a company must NOT do the best for the society it services if that compromises the profit for shareholders. This has lead to some truly shameful behaviour. Here are just a few examples. Drug companies paying huge dividends while people die because they cannot afford the drugs they need. Companies suing their customers for not using their products the way that they intended. The music industry suing young children for sharing the music they love. The phone manufacturers wasting billions suing each other rather than investing that money in bringing us better, safer, products. The energy companies reaping huge profits while pensioners freeze. The list is endless and you don’t need me to provide evidence. Reading any quality newspaper on any day of the week will reveal countless examples of the corporate abuse of position.
We have let corporations gain a life of their own. We have given them rights over the people they serve, and we have created the obscene concept of intellectual property so they can even lay claim to our very knowledge, culture, and understanding. Worst of all we have created a system where they can become too big to fail. Corporations must be allowed to fail otherwise new companies and the new ideas that come with them will never get a chance.
The laws of our country should be used for defence of the individual against those that do wrong, they should not be allowed to be used by organisations as a weapon against us. Power should be given to those elected to have it, not given to faceless corporate lawyers and executives.
To protect itself from those that may wish an alternate system the stock market has been permitted to hold our pensions to ransom. This is very clever because lets face it, non of us want to loose our pensions. If though you are going to retire after the collapses resulting from peak oil and overpopulation (which is most of us) your pension is probably not going to be worth what you’ve been promised anyway. So lets be honest, unless you are about to retire what they are holding for ransom is probably not worth very much. (On a legal note I am not qualified to give financial advice, you should speak to a qualified financial adviser, though I suggest you find one who understands the consequences of our current levels of resource depletion). One further thing – perhaps if we had a system where our jobs were genuinely enjoyable and fulfilling perhaps we wouldn’t want to retire at all.
I hereby propose replacing the stock market with a system of incremental corporation tax reaching 100% for companies which have paid off their initial investment. The income from this this being spent on investment in the new small companies that may one day replace them, on providing every citizen with the right to a guaranteed 20 hours a week of work, and providing every citizen with a good pension. Under this system the banks would return to being what they should be – a utility that manages the flow of money. Storing it for those that have it and lending it out again to those that need it. Banks would no longer be a home for gamblers and cheats. Complex financial engineering would be banned, as would intellectual property and all the other rules and tricks put in place to keep large corporations in business long after their time is up. The courts would be for criminal cases and nothing more. The governments of the world would need to stop borrowing money and live off their income – the tax we all pay. Why should the tax we pay be used to pay interest to foreign banks who then give themselves nice big pay packets?
3) One of the core principles of capitalism is that those that work harder will earn more than those that don’t. So how come one individual can work 50 hours a week and still struggle to feed their family while another can inherit the family business and never have to work a day? The system we have is clearly not capitalism but nepotism.
Inheritance keeps rich families rich and keeps poor families poor. Education on the other hand gives everybody a chance to reach their full potential.
Some will claim that inheritance is natural, but it is not. For other species when an individual leaves the nest it must make it’s own way in life. That is natural. If a parent truly wants the best for their children then they should love them. Just love them.
I hereby propose a 100% tax on all inheritances (including all land, property, businesses and predeath ‘gifts’) of a value over two times the national average annual income. Items of genuine sentimental value of are course excluded. The passing of full ownership of a family home to a spouse (or other such life partner) is also of course excluded. The proceeds of this tax being used to provide every citizen with a totally free education or training to professional level and the option to retrain every ten years as the needs of society change.
4) There is another kind of greed the criticising of which is strictly a taboo, but I will mention it anyway. The earth can comfortably sustain around 2 billion westernised people in the long term and no more (there is evidence for that figure, I haven’t just made it up). Yet there are seven billion and rising. Those who have excessively large families (more than two children) are committing the planet and future generations to a period of indescribable suffering. Having large families IS another form of greed, a very dangerous one.
I hereby propose tax disincentives for families of greater than two children, and every young person should be offered a rewarding career or education so they can delay parenthood until they are have experienced more of life and can make informed decisions. Religious bodies need to start promoting contraception, not discouraging it. In fact now the churches have revealed themselves to be what they truly are – corporations in disguise – perhaps they too should face questions about what role they should play and how much influence they are really entitled to. At it’s core should religion not be about the belief in something better?
Your protests are completely ridiculous and pointless.
The world will never, ever be equal.
To the bums desecrating St. Paul’s Cathedral and camping at Finsbury Square, if you want equality get a job, work hard, have a career, be promoted through the company and then you will be earning a good salary and truly contributing to society by paying taxes.
And yes, I am a Banker and I am PROUD to be a Banker because I contribute more to society than your pathetic protests will ever contribute!
Dear “Proud to be a Banker”, your comments merely demonstrate how detached many people in the financial world are from reality, and how your ideas seem to be inspired by the gutter press rather than by the actual situation. The campaigners are not desecrating the Cathedral. The Church of England supports the campaigners’ desire to open up a dialogue amongst all people in our society about the way we undertake finance and economics. The belief that all value in society only comes from money or can only be counted in pounds, shillings and pence is desperately outdated. Without the contributions of everyone to the work place, be it private, public or voluntary sector, there would be no money for the banks to play with. Without the contributions of everyone to society and community, those who enjoy full time careers would lose this option, needing to spend time looking after themselves and their families. This is called social capital. It is sad when people are arrogant enough to think that they are more important or worthy than others. And this is exactly what the campaign is about. Redressing the imbalance between those who think they have a right to hold the rest of us to ransom and those who have put up with it for far too long.
Actually in a movement which says its about democracy he is allowed his opinion and to state it.
you may not like his job but he is paying his taxes and it gives him a voice, he may be wrong, everyone on the steps may have a job and be paying their tax, all I know and I suspect he thinks is that you guys are not, I know I could not spend all day on the steps of St Pauls, I need to be at work, so on balance it makes your argument look weaker, of course in debted people would not want to repay debt etc, I am not saying thats right but the possibility is if everyone is on benefit down there then then he would be paying for your right to be there, would seem rather unfair to then exclude his opinion.
I do agree that society needs to be measured in more than money, but that is why we pay carers and people, but being in a tent in St Pauls is not solving anything at the moment.
I hate the church as I do not share their hypocracy of values, thay stand in a time of science and proof of which they offer none and churches actually through histroy have taken money from the poorest to stock pile their own funds, also impose its belief systems on others in return for “charity”
They in my mind are worse than you think bankers are, anyway you still closed them down and have made 2 resign, surely you cannot think this was just and fair? no one has still given a minimum of what it will take to leave and every day you cost the business of the church money as people do not want to go there as much due to you guys being there, thats is the point I think he was trying to make.
And well done for him being a banker, there is nothing wrong with any job or career, just because you might not choose that job and wish to blame unfairly all of the countries problems on them does not mean it is so, the deficit was there lond before the banks, as was the national debt, its been there since the bank of England was started and grown ever since, at least he is paying tax and earning a wage to keep his family, that is not just economic but is social capital as well, I am sure he is not holding anyone ransom or sat in his house on a big pile of gold.
I’m in no way detached from reality. I earn an average salary (actually below the average for London). I have working class roots, I’m from an estate in Merseyside. But what I’ve done is not moan and grumble and be all woe is me, what I’ve done is worked and studied my arse off to get the job I have now.
The people at St. Paul’s could actually learn something from me.
A Banker, and PROUD.
Glad you agree with me about the 100% inheritence tax, think this would solve a few issue we both have raised.
Your high wage cap though is something I have witnessed being discussed by MPs, some say 10 times bottom earnerings and others 20, I mayself do not think it would deter for the reasons you think, again because this government has not control over the world i feel that many big companies with profits capped or wages capped would just leave to go else where, even if you just capped wages i think they would feel pressure from its own employees at the top to relocate and they would go with them, this would rob us of all the tax from this company, personally they can pay the wages as high as they like, 50% is taxed straight away so that all helps, I would prefer that to it just being profit for the company and then being taxed at a lower percentage.
I also agree corporations have got out of control and carry to much influence, this needs to be reigned in somehow, not sure how but I would like to see them fined more for damage they cause to environment and society, bringing in foreign cheap workers for example, I would tax them for every foreign worker they bring in, that would deter them employee cheap labour and bring back a balance on fair wages for the people that are here, I would tax them (the company) 100% of the wages they pay any foreign employee, that way they would have to be paying £12.16 an hour for every minimum wage employee not the £6.08 it would cost for a UK employee, you would soon see unemployment drop and more company sponsered retraining etc.
I also agree about tax disinsentives for large family, I already disagree with paying for people to have children, but more than 2, I agree that we should discourage this, we do not have the housing or resources to maintain some large family groups, one of my old bosses had 10 children! think how much that cost the tax payer.
I’m in no way detached from reality. I earn an average salary (actually below the average for London). I have working class roots, I’m from an estate in Merseyside. But what I’ve done is not moan and grumble and be all woe is me, what I’ve done is worked and studied my arse off to get the job I have now.
The people at St. Paul’s could actually learn something from me.
A Banker, and PROUD.
OK. I think that I am now going to bow out of these discussions which I fear are becoming ungrounded flights of fancy. I wish you well and hope that I am proved wrong at some point and that your discussions do move on. I fear however, that you have a long – very very long way to go. Can I suggest that perhaps rather than turning your selves into a ‘feelgood’ talking shop (rehearsing and re-exploring old ideas and discussions ) – why not try to work with the current systems to improve them? You might not get such an immediate collective ‘high’ and feeling of importance from this but in the long run it might be of more use to humanity.
I am fascinated by the discussion going on here. Our society is deeply broken, and something needs to be done about it. But this discussion shows that so many people care about our society. Throughout the history of our great nation, people unhappy with the status quo have done stuff like this because they felt that society could be improved. I blogged my musings on this a few weeks ago. (http://princeofgonville.blogspot.com/2011/10/understanding-times.html). I hope that history can help us find a lasting solution to this and other problems with our society and make Britain Great again.
Have you any idea what a stupid statement that is ?
“Wipe out all debts….” .. yes. Fine. Can we just run over the detail of that before we do so ? Consider:
a. Like it or not we live in a world where monetary exchange is in currency form. We are not about to go back to barter how ever much you might like to. We cannot pay for machine tools with pig’s trotters.
b. In that we do live in a world based on currencies, “..wiping out all the debt..” is the same as saying that all financial institutions (those owed repayment of debt) are instantly now bankrupt. All of them. That includes the ones with your money in them, and your granny’s savings too, and the pension she collects each week. So all your savings are gone, and so are all your friend’s and parent’s and loved ones’. You’re all broke too. And man at the food market wants to be paid.
c. With all the banks bust, the cash machine (ATM to americans) system is also stopped for good. No more hole in the wall, no credit cards, no nothing.
d. With the banks all bust, the paper currency and the coins in your pocket are also worthless. So don’t go into McDonalds even… they’ll want you to wash up for an hour for each cheesburger (until the gas company cuts them off too).
In essence, what you’re calling for is UTTER AND COMPLETE TWADDLE. This is not grown-up dialog. Go back to University, and learn some things and grow up a bit before wasting everyone’s time with this sort of nonsense.
Mike H
London
Well said!
My dear Revolutionaries.
We must not be confused about the problem and its solution.
The problem is the Power to create money out of thin air by a private corporation, and the solution is the abolition of this power, into the hands of the Government.
The bank of England is a private corporation.
Please, please educate yourselves on History and precisely what is going on.
It is a big scam, and the only way we can truly overcome these powerful wealthy interests is by truly UNDERSTANDING the whole scam.
Please visit my website where I have compiled all relevant information for the layman.
Watch the documentaries and videos to gain and understanding of what is going on, and how we are all being duped.
Knowledge is power, and we the people, once we fully understand the full extent of the SCAM, Will prevail.
I cannot stress it enough we EACH need to thoroughly UNDERSTAND exactly what is going on, I’ve been listening to the radio and TV and there is MUCH confusion over the direction and the message of the occupy movement. This needs to change.
Get CLEAR on the SOLUTION to the problem. The solution to the problem needs to be placed on a Monetary Reform page on this website.
You can find such a link on my website below.
Please watch the videos on the problem AND the proposed solution.
We ALL need to be clear on the message, and sing from the same hymn sheet!
Find the information on my website and all over youtube. http://www.moneyexplained.net
We shall prevail!
Educate yourselves.
My god, it was like watching the creation of a cult, offer such a simple problem to such a huge problem, what a load of twaddle, you cannot just create money, that has happened in a few countries over the years and then money because worthless, it costs a million of something to buy a mars bar, that is what happens if you just keep creating money, the more you print then the less its worth.
As for stopping government borrowing, that is the only thing I agree with, but you can only do that with austerity, if you do not cut then you would not have the money to pay wages etc unless you borrow, again I point out that to just print money would devalue everything in the country, we like some other countries would end up with trillion pound notes.
Banks do not control government, government is elected in and follows a policy, no government ignores amazing simple plans as he suggests, if they followed his amazing advice and it was that easy then they would do it and be in power forever, instead they make hard, tough and unpopular choices that gets them kicked out, they do not make cuts because its fun, it is need, this is more ideology that just appeals to conspiracy theorists, I notice Alex Jones name pop up, the moment I heard that my eyes rolled.
The only problem is that governments promise more than they can deliver to appeal to a range of people, we pay thousands of pounds in tax credits to please parents, we raise wages in reward for ineffective working practice that would not be allowed in a private company, we allow the purchase of millions of pounds of equipment just to spend budgets to make sure they are matched the next year or improved on, I have seen this first hand so know this to be fact, not in all cases but some departments employ people just because there was an allowance for it, jobs have to be paid for when created, school fees have to be paid by someone now, therefore someone needs to pay, you cannot just create money and say its new and not debt, that just causes decrease in currency value.
If this guy is the kind of figure you guys think will solve your problems then this country is screwed and we may as well all give up now, he is just selling “Marvins miracle tonic” comes with a gaurentee to solve all your problem lol, still hopefully he will sell a few books, hopefully though he will sell just the one and you can pass it round, maybe return it when you are finished.
We owe money as we use to many resources we cannot afford, plain and simple, you may as well all become anti-techniphobes as well, that is where many of the jobs etc have gone so maybe you should be fighting to stop computers and machinery being used, robots building things people used to etc, its progress but it does reduce the amount of people needed in the workplaces of the world.
William, you state, we cannot create money.
Well that is precisely what the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve DO: print money out of thin air:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8811210/Quantitative-easing-by-the-Bank-of-England-printing-more-money-wont-work-this-time.html
Watch and learn:
http://www.moneyexplained.net/?page_id=236
“you cannot just create money, that has happened in a few countries over the years and then money because worthless”
And what do you think Central Banks around the world have been doing for the past 3 years through the so-called Quantitative Easing? Where on earth were all these bilions , trilions of money stored? They are electronically created; out of thin air.
Just read some of these articles written by a wealthy investor who is not a socialist and is a firm believer of capitalism and the so called “free-market economy”
“Savers Protect Your Deposits From Bankrupting Banks and Quantitative Inflation”
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31124.html
UK Inflation Accelerates to CPI 5.2%, Bankrupt Britain’s Stealth Debt Default Continues http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31032.html
Bank of England’s Quantitative Inflation Bankster’s Paradise Inflationary Depression Economy http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article30989.html
Also interesting that the BND that he holds up as state owned and as an example has all its loans under written by the state, so in other words if the students and farmers default on their loans (the main stay of its lending)then the bill is in effect picked up by the tax payer? that is actually worse than our system because at least there was a choice for the state to pick up the tab, it was not written into their code of practice, we at least got shares when we helped the banks. the only sensible thing they seem to offer is they do not lend much more than they have on deposit, but a default is still a default.
This is my last comment on here now as its clear that there is no agenda and people really have their heads in the clouds if they think half the rubbish some people have come up with, yes the system we have is not perfect, yes it sucks for some more than others, but the choice is there to form a party, run for council and government, get votes, stop saying you are standing up for the 99% when you do not, you stand for a small group of people who do not have any actual idea of the way forward, you are just the same as everyone else, just not happy, but we are in differcult times, no one is denying that, you cannot please everyone and we the 99% get the chance to vote who we want to lead, democratic voting got us here today and camping out is not really democratic, having an agenda and running for a seat would be.
Good bye, a few of you have been interesting and worth a pint.
Worse is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX8pcADnsEs
Bottom Line: The BND WORKS.
This is the REAL Solution, occupylsx needs to update your “Initial Statements” page to show these actions which will free the people of the Debt based monetary system designed to enslave the masses.
Source: http://www.moneyexplained.net/?page_id=183
Monetary Reform
The Solution:
1. Government must retake the power to issue its own currency without debt and not leave it to a private bank cartel to have a monopoly on the creation of currency/money. Pay off the Debt with debt free Notes.
2, Abolish Fractional reserve banking. As the Debt is paid off, the reserve requirements of all banks and financial institutions would be raised proportionally at the same time.
3. Withdraw the UK from the IMF, BIS and the World Bank.
4. Control the amount of money in circulation as Guernsey do.
The bank of North Dakota already creates its money for the people without debt. Study them.
And thus the evil Debt based fractional reserve Money system will be no more and the people will be free from the shackles of these criminals.
Firstly of all the suggestions made on this page for change, this must be praised for at least being specific and clear. That being said your argument is pretty easy to deconstruct. I think we can all see the obvious issues in reducing money supply and thus suppressing aggregate demand. The economy would tank, deflation, company which makes tents for idiot protesters would fold, etc.
Two major points: explain a debt free note? I assume you are talking about equity capital, Google cost of capital. Or are you talking about a sharia finance type structure (no interest paid)? Google zero coupon bond. Please elaborate……
Bank of North Dakota: this is essentially a quasi-monopoly, which benefits from a captive deposit base from all state institutions and thus is able to fund its balance sheet and lending more easily. It is not however debt free you absolute moron. It is a slightly less fractional reserve bank with tier 1 equity capital of 18% (cf RBS with 11%), however this is due to its funding being protected through the monopolistic structure of its deposit base. Notably its also funds it’s balance sheet through (and this will really make you mad I am sure)…..$442m of short and long term debt and $244m of fed repo funding. So over half a billion dollars there……makes you look pretty credible mate, that took me about 5 minutes to find (see link)
http://banknd.nd.gov/financials_and_compliance/pdfs/09-11callreport.pdf
Credibility in tatters?
Bottom Line: The BND WORKS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX8pcADnsEs
A debt free note is money created by the State (not a Private Central Bank) for the State say to pay for a public project, without interest, and without debt.
http://youtu.be/gUHorURbX3M
Currently the government would go to private banks to borrow money they then create out of nothing, loan to the Govt, and then charge interest on it. Sounds like a bum deal to me.
Before you go and hurl insults at people, i’d suggest you go and educate yourself on Monetary history.
Watch the Secret of Oz, by Bill Still.
http://www.moneyexplained.net/?page_id=236
Bottom line it’s a monopoly
Banks fund their balance sheet through deposits, equity capital and short and long term debt (see BND or any other financial statements you clearly have not looked at), so can you explain if they are making up the money for these loans (assets) where it comes from? If it’s not from one of these 3 sources?
The Central Bank controls money supply (making money up as you call it) through reserve requirements, open market operations etc and sets rates accordingly. And I get the system has embedded leverage in it, but its meant to!
I think Occupy should jog on personally and stop cluttering up the streets and the news with their misguided dross!
Hope the Met take a leaf out of the NYPD’s book and bulldoze your tents
Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#bx283545B1
This is a beautiful way of showing the world how peace can be achieved. Let’s stand together…
IT’s A FREE WORLD
IT’s OUR WORLD…
We shall sit where we want and breath what we wish… No man can hold us down.
Get the military out of foreign lands and let LORD ROTHSCHILD fight his own battles against the Muslims…
In defence of working people
Outrage and disgust are filling the hearts of ordinary working people as they see their societies ripped apart by inhuman cuts under the fallacy that the only way to reduce the deficit is by destroying the role of the state. The propaganda of the Conservative/Liberal coalition is exposed in the following
Are the Government cuts necessary? The answer to this question may be no, as there are a number of ways of reducing the deficit. The fairest way would be to substantially raise taxes. Taxes put a higher burden on wealthy people and leave necessary services untouched.
Suggestions like this produce the response by the wealthy “why should I pay more?”. The answer is that nearly all wealth is created by ordinary working people and it is hard to imagine anyone who is self made in economic terms. All wealth appears to be dependant on ordinary working people in the following ways
A. Most company’s need workers to make a profit.
B. Share markets banks etc need company’s to speculate on (Thus Workers)
C. Retailers and wholesalers need customers to make a profit (workers)
There are many more examples where working people provide the means for wealth creation even the unemployed serve an economic purpose by keeping waged labour lower. The aforementioned would appear to suggest that ordinary working people are the bedrock of wealth generation on whom most are dependent. With this in mind, it seems fair and reasonable to make the people who have benefited from others pay more in taxes. This could be done in numerous ways some are listed below.
A. Vat/Tax on private Education.
B. Vat/Tax on private Health.
C. Substantial increase in inheritance tax by introducing a number of tires that progressively take more as the value of the estate goes up.
D. Substantial increase in council tax by introducing a number of tiers above where it is caped at the moment.
I am not an economist and tend to see economics as more of an Art than a Science and can see how easy it is to be lured into the agenda of the right and believe that low tax economies are the only successful way to go. Below are a few suggestions as to why this view may be a fallacy if they don’t satisfactorily answer your response they may at least open up the debate.
1. If you look at America before the economic collapse one can see a low tax economy producing great wealth with the belief that this will somehow trickle down and every one will prosper. This would seem to be a myth as it would appear that a significant part of the population then and now lack sufficient medical cover and welfare provision .
2. Higher taxes it may be suggested can contribute to a system of welfare and education that allow creativity and wealth creation, through that sense of security the individuals feels able to extend themselves. Investment in students brings both individual and economic rewards to society. Investing in arts and sciences fosters both creativity and innovation.. some company’s it may be suggested are only interested in the maximization of profit and not a long term legacy thus the role of the state starts to become apparent
3. I am informed that the UK after the Second World War faced huge debts but was still able to set up the NHS and bring about the Welfare State. This begs the Question how was it done? The answer in large part appears to be through higher taxation
4. After the election both the Conservatives and the Liberals suggested that the basic rate of tax would have to go up by about 6% over a number of years to close the deficit and the only way forward was cuts to welfare and the role of the state. It may be suggested that the above-mentioned figure could be significantly lowered By extending inheritance tax in line with the value of the estate ( The lager the estate the higher the percentage)and higher direct taxes upon the wealthy which seems fair as wealth creation seems in large part dependent upon labour (see above). Closing loop holes in offshore bank accounts may gain more revenue this could be done by making private companies disclose salaries (as the public sector now has to do) and profits and encouraging employees to report tax evasion and abuse by offering a reward and freedom from prosecution
Why don’t you drop the all the new-left dogmatism and make this a broad coalition of ordinary people against the corruption of recent years? Do you think Guardian readers are the only people who are angry?
I stopped at the protest in my own city last week. Many of the comments I heard from passers by were about the appearance of the demonstrators. People tend to join groups made up of people like themselves. Looking like you’ve just got back from Glastonbury doesn’t help your cause.
Thank-you clive, duzzyingcrust and others for the depth of wisdom. Pity about the depth of stupidity/ignorance in other comments. A few at least (some self-descibed as bankers) trapped by an inability to see beyond the status quo and a belief that the future has always to be like the past. (Evidence suggests otherwise).
Of course by ‘bankers’ is not meant hard-working Merseysiders who work for a bank (whether they get obscene bonuses or not.) ‘Bankers’ is just a short-hand for the super-rich (ancient families or new rich) who own the banks (by and large) and whose money (and ours) is manipulated by the system to steal an unfair share from the rest of us.
Is there not a middle way? I take the liberty of re-posting the following rant:)
Darthbader and others – why hide behind a daft name? The anarchists I have met have all been very nice people. But never mind the marxist (as a general term) ‘theory’ look at the practice. The standard marxist defence for the fact that no communist state has really worked for the benefit of all is always ‘it wasn’t really communism’. The nearest to a partial succes story might be Cuba but I’d still rather live in England, at least while the Castro’s are still around.
The problem this movement is addressing is exactly what it says on the tin (in the statement), it is the corrupt and unjust capitalist system. But this ‘system’ has been far more successful – at least up until 1960′s – in making the world a better place. Now it is making it a much worse place.
I believe (to some extent) in privacy and private property (do anarcho-communists share toothbrushes?). I believe in freedom and therefore (it follows logically) to some extent in a free market. But the market needs regulation and democratic control (the opposite of both communism and Thatcherism or ‘salt water economics’ – look it up. )(Stuff Hayek and Friedman that is, their ‘insights’ are even less use than Marx’s).
I believe in entrepreneurship and invention and reward for effort and some return on investment. 99% do. What we don’t believe in is ‘capital’ taking precedence over people. Let it come in third place after workers/producers and customers/consumers. Put the customer first, then the staff/employess/self-employed, then the shareholder/investor. (And with a co-operative system we can all be, 100%, in all three roles.
We need a ‘re-constituted’ free enterprise with state ownership, community ownership and co-operative ownership where these work best. (Not a ‘reformed’ business/capitalism as it has developed in the last 50-100 years).
We may need to end the banking/credit/debt system as we know it. Usury (charging 18%, 36% or 2000% interest should be illegal). Money should be issued by the community or the state, not private banks.
Or democracy needs to be nearer to the ‘real democracy’ or open democracy followed by the occupation. We will still need representative democracy (with 60 million or 7 billion people it’s common sense if you think about it) but we need to be able to make representations to our representatives; get rid of them when needs must (unlike a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’); share in decision making by referenda and ballot questions (as in the US).
We need the political and economic system to work for all, not just the bankers, super-rich, or marxist ‘theorists’.
We will need differential reward/pay systems (so the talent of a Beckham, Jobs/Gates or your favourite rock star/Artist is suitably rewarded. We don’t need chief-executives paid 250 times or 2000 times (by asset stripping) what their ‘workers’ get – who are the real creators of wealth.
We need a minimum wage which is appropriate for the economy we find oursleves in. (How about 10 pounds an hour in the UK and at least 1 pound an hour worldwide for starters?).
We need David Cameron to listen to Bill Gates (re the ‘Robin Hood Tax – and one day ratchet it up and abolish IVA/VAT maybe). We need to retain the 50% rate of tax and maybe ratchet that up to 99% or maybe 79%.
We need the ‘localisation’ proposed by the Transition Towns movement and free and fair international trade and justice. (Not the ‘Free Trade Agreements’ cooked up by the Americans).
Indeed, we need ‘fair trade’ NOT ‘free trade’ – a regulated fair and reasonably free ‘market’.
We need an end to war – and all these things are possible, even if not in my lifetime, but we must start with a substantial step forward NOW! Support Papandreou (or God help the Greeks).
See you in London tomorrow? 2pm from St. Paul’s.
(PS Does that qualify as a rant and was it long/detailed enough?
Trevor.
So if the 2nd richest man on earth thinks some thing is good then it makes sense? yes he knows much about equality, I am sure microsoft cleaners earn a million dollars a year. The tax would not help this country much as it would be pumped into europe, as most on the finacial houses are based in London it would divert funds away from this country which we need as the big house would move to a free trade country, this would not impact Germany or Frace etc just London and UK, when I know Bill Gates is paying his $60 billion out to everyone then his opinion on equality will count.
And on the 50% tax issue, this I see as fair, but if you expected me to pay 99% or 79% of my wage as tax I would ask my company for a transfer and do my work from another office, then get paid there at a lower rate, then you would get nothing from me, and can assure you many people can work out of this country and get paid from abroad, you would lose a fortune, far more than you would ever gain.
May I ask what is a fair reward for Jobs/Gates who were in business and also what yo consider is fair reward for playing a guitar or playing sport? the later 2 I would suggest are worth far less than a police officer or army personel.
Minimum wage of £10 an hour would see millions lose their jobs as many companies cannot hardly pay lower rates now, also it would not encourage any new positions as a company would try to make do more and force extra work onto existing staff, those that did manahe to survive the rise would then hike up the cost of all the goods and services so all you would do is push inflation through the roof.
We do need an end to war, although war makes a lot of money to the UK in trade of arms etc, this is blood money, money we could do without.
We do need fair trade, and this needs to be taken to the door, small things like why does electricity cost more on a key? this seems that you are charging the poorest people more for their electricity? seems unfair and unethical.
Why do stores like Tesco have offers that only kick in when you spend £40 a shop? seem unethical when some people do not have £40 a week for a shop to get the money off petrol etc
Why allow shops to offer 2 for 1 deals, again that encourages a consumer to buy more than he needs, why not just sell 1/2 price?
There are many smaller issues that could start a ball off in the right direction, the bigger issues like debt cancellation and demanding it, and a democracy is run by votes and elected persons, we are living in a democracy now, if you were the 99% you would be in power rather than in tents.
In this modern age though of texting, internet and phones there would no no reason why some policy and issues could not be voted by the population, you could add an X-Factor style voting sytem in to the way some political issues are decided.
I would like to see you guys move though out of St Pauls and maybe to somewhere less of an issue for the church, maybe to parliment square.
I would add that we got back as tax payers nearly £1.5 billion just from RBS today, they were in profit and we own 83% so we will get our money back from the banks over time in profit and the share sales as mention above in others threads.
Thank you Allen
We’re not that far apart perhaps and I’m not ‘one of you guys’. (I’m me just like you’re you). I’m not a protester staying in a tent – just an ordinary member of the public (joe as the Americans say) wondering if I should be on the march tomorrow because enough is enough.
The point of quoting Gates (who nearly persuaded the G20) is just to show that that one idea is not just a ‘loony left’ thing.
The other examples are just to show that I recognise (do you) that there will always be pay differentials, sometimes large.
Our society rewards some guitar players and footballers very well indeed – in which case tax them harder to pay your police offers and soldiers and those I think might be worth more like nurses say.
Many of your ‘small points’ I agree with. I now understand why Tescos are so hated in some quarters. I don’t think millions would be out of work on £10 an hour – yes, if you introduced overnight but not over a reasonable period, otherwise many more would be out of work in Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and the US.
I’m afraid you’ve bought some of the lies and misinformation. It’s partly a matter of how you cut up the cake and who you think makes the cake. Banks don’t really create wealth at all; they act like a lubricant or facilitator and in recent years they have been stealing too much. I say steal because that’s what it is if you take more than your fair share. (Proportionate, not equal). ‘They’ (whoever) have stolen first private sector pensions(which used to be much better than public sector pensions – I know – I’ve worked in both); then private sector wages, shipping jobs out for cheap and sometimes badly treated workers overseas. Now they want to steal public sector pensions too and wages (where many have been paid much less than in the private sector for equivalent work but perhaps more fairly with lower differentials than in the private sector).
Those differentials have gone mad in the last few years both here and in the US – more theft or grand larceny. But it’s ‘legal’ – that’s the problem. (Can we go to Parliament Square? I thought the police state had put it off limits to protesters?
Affectionately
Trevor
Pingback: The Occupy London protest – NightHawk
Do you see the point in a protest though that tells people something they already know?
Its not that the government do not want change, by not doing popular things they will get kicked out again, so its not the 1% they are trying to please, its the 51% but if the money is not there then you have no choice but to save money, the public service increase in staff was 42% in the last period of government, great to those who got the job but bad for society when many of those positions come about from inefficiency, that needs to be trimmed back to a reasonable level and yes it hurts, I know myself of people in the public service, one for example who is in a job centre, he took gradings and is on £30,000 a year, he admits he does no extra than the day he started, he just does admin, also add to that his pension deal and that’s quite a package, when he looked around he admitted he could not leave as many admin roles were only paying around £15,000 – £18,000 in his area, I also appreciate there are those earning less but if you look at it, a cleaner in private or public sector may get minimum wage, the difference is the public sector one has a good pension option, the private one probably has none, even if she does have one she will not meet the same level, seems unfair, I think everyone should have there own pension and there be no requirement to provide past deals, transfer the funds to where people choose and leave at that, all would be equal then.
The argument used to stand that public work was lower paid, but this has not been the case for years, now it is a question of positions being paid at unfair and unequal rates, sales executives earning massive pay because they sell something? That is their job, whilst the cleaner gets a minimum wage? She cannot earn a bonus, yet there are not enough good jobs for all.
I Know its catch 22, that is why its hard to solve, 400 people though do not hold the answers, they highlight nothing new, but if you tried to take too much from a large company they will move, look at my company, we moved much of the operation to Ireland because they were offered good rates and labour was cheapish, we were joined by many a big company, then when the deals ran out they all have gone to Poland, not one company but all of them, and in our case and a few other have taken our Berkshire side as well, all caused by higher rates and labour costs, now they pay much less into the UK economy as its going to Poland, a hike in tax on a company, higher minimum wages or anything that costs a company money will have them looking elsewhere, our call centre went to India years ago, much of the admin was outsourced, even mail shots are collated abroad and then shipped back to be posted, all of this happened on the lower rate of minimum wage imposed, how many call centres moved? Over 70% why? Costs, in fact in India they teach accents now so people do not hear they are Indian, they even change their names! This is the true reflection of imposing unpopular costs on a company.
As for myself, I only need a computer, I can work anywhere, if you tried to tax me more I would move, then my tax would be lost, The range is paid through to 50% on income, then 20% on what is spent, 11% into a pension so I get 19% real usage of my money, if I paid 79% as you suggest then I would get 8% usage, my maths is probably wrong there as I am not good at finance but I have less than a £1000 in the bank, I have no actual savings as I spend my money, all of which is good for society as its taxed, creates jobs and keeps money flowing, look at the other extreme, I know people who earn less than me but sit on all their money, never spend anything unless they have to and have saved every penny, in fact when my best mates brother died he had £100,000 saved, just sat in an account doing no one any good, he was a dustman, but his money was out of circulation, that’s what then kills society, people sitting on their money.
I give probably 20% of my spare cash to charity, charity I like and wish to support, this I like to do, I do not want others deciding who my earnt cash should be supporting.
In my ideal society when we vote we should be asked questions which we feel are important to us, then our money spent in areas we support the strongest, everyone has different views but a democratic view could be taken of what we as voters feel is most important, I do for example think to much is spent on child care and tax credits, a fairer use of that money is pension and unemployment for example, you choose to have children, you do not choose to be old or out of work.
Things like above though would be unpopular so the government throw money at the 51% in the hope they will all tick the box.
From what I remember Mr Brown gave away the pensions and contributions, they are a nightmare to deal with and handle, maybe another way forward would be to scrap all current deals for all, then take a straight maybe 15% off of everyone, no opt out and fair, then put everyone onto the same pension plan, again then no one could argue, then link % payments to life expectancy, what people forget is that small pension pots now need to go a very long way, most people were thought to be in retirement for a couple of years, someone has to pay those costs, my grand paps is still going strong at 90 and my nan died at 92, there is no way they paid in enough to cover 32 years of retirement and who knows with grand paps when he will stop drawing, he is lucky enough to be on a final salary system as well, so you think who is covering the extra payments on that?
I think you are right about parliament square, I think you can go there and protest but not stay, but staying somewhere is not part of protest.
Maybe a good place to protest would be a place though that pays high wages and cannot move country if an effort to wage ratio came in, so a football ground or somewhere like that.
We may not like the way a bank does business but those that manage the huge pension funds need to do a good job, if you had a pension pot that never grew at all, so no interest etc then you would need to cover all your own retirement plans, so if you retire with only say a pot of 10% of £18,000 a year, £1800 x 40 years would be £72000, your want a pension then to pay maybe £10,000 a year, without investment returns and interest etc you would be out of money at 72 years old, it is worth noting that many do not even pay in the 10% of a wage and would like higher returns out.
Ah the only media issue I am stuck with is the pensions so sorry, but they do need cutting to a fair level.
Until nothing has a value there would seem to be no fair answers, until we are global on finance it will be hard to make a company or person pay more of their share, it’s now very easy to move.
I would like to see us adopt some USA style reform, no tax credits, benefits only where needed, food stamps and vouchers not payments in cash, they do however still have huge problems but at least this puts money where its needed.
If there was an easy fix I know the government would do it just to stay in power, lets not forget that, there is a huge difference in pay and power if you are sat as a cabinet minister rather than sat opposite, so its not that they ignore the easy answer, its that it is not an easy answer, I am not a lover of any party though as none speak to me truly, who is best?
Labour? Well I strongly think they did nothing of benefit while in, they never made protection while in and I am sure you cannot buy yourself out of debt, this is shown in Greece.
Lib Dems? Well they always come across as weak to me, also I do not like the open door policy on EU, we have enough people here to cause problems and we are a little island.
Conservative? well the jury is out, bit hard to see what they would do as they are sharing power, they have however failed to deliver on the EU and immigration etc, to boost wages and reduce unemployment requires a smaller labour pool for a company to get staff, if there are 500,000 new jobs created then there is no point allowing in 500,000 people, this does not reduce unemployment or boost wages.
Green party? well they have a good ideology, problem is that they are all way to expensive to pay for at the moment, solar energy is being run at 43p a unit, people are only charged at around 10p a unit, people would riot if their bills shot up 4 times what they cost now, they will have their place but that to me is one example of why that time is not now, they are weak on most other areas.
UKIP? well they really do not have a clue about very much it seems to me, yes Europe is a problem, no we never voted for where we are now, but we are here now and if we cannot get along in Europe then how are we meant to manage in a global dynamic? We need more governments to agree together, if it cannot be resolved just in Europe then what hope is there?
BNP? Well they have some interesting thoughts and policy; problem is they still very often come across as old BNP and again I do not really trust them to run a country.
Others? well this is where I think things would be interesting, if groups like this feel so strong form and put in an independent, hay put in lots, I do think that a government formed of more people able to express their views and not stuck in a party would help policy, problem is creditability, I would not vote for someone in a tent, but I would vote for someone who had some genuine answers that reflected my concerns, in a real way other than just tax the rich, cancel debts, that solves nothing as its unrealistic, and by now you should know will never happen as the rich and business have options the poor do not have.
I also think parents should have to take responsibility for their children more and if they cannot parent 1 child properly they should be banned from more.
I would like to see animal breeding licences needed, this would hopefully cut down on poor breeding by people just after a quick pound at the expense of the animals.
I would like to see an out of town tax on large supermarkets that are draining towns or its customers and killing off our town centres.
I would like to see a larger proportion of road tax go back into public transport and the actual road network.
I would like to see all car tax scrapped and put it back onto petrol, after all, a badly driven small car can emit nearly as much emissions as a well driven large car, they also do the same damage to a road and take up as much room on the road.
I would like a government that stops taxing people high amounts for things because they are bad for you, in this country we say it’s ok to do bad things as long as you have money? i.e. big cars, do not tax them, if they are bad then ban them, smoking, if its bad than ban it, do not just charge more and then say its ok, that just makes things about class and money, rich people can afford to smoke and drive, poor people are not aloud as they cannot afford? The ability to pay should not make it acceptable.
No special offers in shops etc just have an open set of fair prices to start with.
The BBC, well in this day they have grown and become much more than we needed or wanted, they should be forced to become commercial and stop taking a licence fee, this is just a tax really that is used to fund something many now do not use or want, I know many now use sky and not interested in the BBC.
It is not a free world; it has not been for a long time.
It’s not our world, currently there are way too many people’s opinions and interests going on to be our world, it’s currently mostly someone else’s world.
War is nothing to do with people being Muslim, has not been a religious issue for hundreds of years, now in my opinion was is now mostly to do with oil, resources and politics,
I do think there is much misinformation on both sides of the debate, but I do think the truth is that the country has no money, even before the banking crisis the country owed £990 billion, also much of the bank bailout was not actually spent, much is held for liability, also people forget that the shares will be sold, at the moment we own much of those banks, so in effect they we nationalised, RBS just paid nearly £1.5 billion in profit back to the government as we are 82% share holder, that was just from them, if we never sold the shares back then we would be the owners of who people hate, and all profit would always become used for society, surely that was already the first thing people wanted anyway?
Just my own maths of what people pay and what people expect shows a vast difference between government income and expenditure.
Sorry this has grown long but I like debate and expressing my view, thanks Trevor
Again, you two are debating symptoms of the root problem.
All discussion of symptoms are futile.
Government is in more debt than it should be because it borrows its money from a Private Central bank that has a monopoly over the creation of money out of thin air.
This private enterprise then charges interest on the money lent.
Retail banks speculate, lose out, and now government needs to implement austerity measures to gets its books balanced.
Austerity measures wouldnt need to be implemented to such a degree IF the state took the power away from the central bank, and issued debt free money to itself without interest.
THIS IS THE ISSUE.
Everything else is symptomatic of this ONE ROOT ISSUE.
Please please educate yourselves on the History of the conflict between Private central bankers vs the State and its people.
Watch the documentary “The secret of Oz” to gain a full and clear understanding of the ROOT issue.
http://www.moneyexplained.net/?page_id=236
Debating everything else and finding solutions to them are like applying band aids to car crash victim. We’ve got to attack the root.
Once the power is taken away from central private banking cartels, we IMMEDIATELY relieve the government of HUGE amounts of interest payments = therefore minimal austerity measures IF ANY are required.
Please please watch the documentary, so we can have a debate where are participants are fully knowledgeable on the root issues of most of the worlds problems.
All the best to you.
Or being Hypnotised with Futile Economic Deck Chairs
Whilst a Titanic “Ponzi” Fraud is Sinking the Global Economy. Fortunately these guy have also exposed the root problem as private banks creating the money supply as debt and offer a simple fix in draft legislation supported by several MPs
1. Banks should ask our permission before they put our money at risk.
2. Banks should tell us how they use our money that we give them to invest.
3. The power to create money should be kept away from both profit-seeking bankers and
vote-seeking politicians, and placed in the hands of an accountable, transparent body that is sheltered from lobbyists and electioneers.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
“Mike on October 30, 2011 at 7:22 pm said:
Mohammed preached love alright….to a girl of 7″
i hope you’ve said your last prayers.
Trevor b, Thanks for your words. I agree with many of the sentiments you express (in your rant) but take issue with the overall thrust.
Specifically, this is where the problem arises: “But the market needs regulation and democratic control”
Regulation (introduced in the 1988 Financial Services Act) failed to stop Nick Leeson bringing down Barings Bank for £800bn. The subsequent revamp of financial regulation failed to stop Laurent Kerviel taking Soc Gen for $4.5bn nor the sub-prime crisis (estimated to have had a $2trillion impact). It is like trying to stem internal bleeding with a band aid. Regulation doesn’t work because it is always implementing rules to prevent the last crisis. Eg. The credit default swap market was estimated by the Bank of International Settlements to be $20 trillion in 2006, a threefold increase on two years earlier. I’ve heard the figure of $60 trn for today but it is difficult to find out because the transactions are “over the counter” (unrecorded on an exchange) and unregulated. This is an “accident” waiting to happen. Regulators are looking the other way. The Fed regulates banks in the US but the Fed is owned by the banks – go figure.
This is the essence of the cancer of our debt based monetary system. It is corrupting. We saw it in the sub-prime crisis where there was clear evidence of criminal activity. Not only has no individual or organisation been held to account but the systemic flaws, which caused the boom in sub-prime mortgage securities, remain. The Vickers proposals are akin to shifting the deckchairs on the Titanic. We need root and branch reform of the financial system to remove the power from banks to manipulate the money supply and eliminate interest. As I’ve written previously an alternative value based money system would have additional benefits beyond the banking system.
Democratic control is an oxymoron when, like regulation, the banks control the political process. The US is the most extreme example where political fixes beneficial to banking interests have been bought by campaign contributions and lobbyists. In 2008 the banks bounced Congress into approving the TARP relief program ($800bn bank bailout fund). Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Hank Paulson (US Treasury Secretary and ex CEO of Goldmans) held a weekend meeting at around the same time to agree the $128bn bailout of AIG from which Goldman Sachs received c. $13bn and paid $billions in bonuses to themselves in the following corner. Most countries are tainted including the UK. Eg. PFI and PPP contracts which benefit the banks and let’s not forget hedge fund managers, defense ministers and Adam Werrity.
Without abandoning the debt with interest money system and removing the power of the banks, nothing will change. As Amschel Rothschild said in 1838: ”Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”
A new interest and inflation free monetary system would mean:
- over time this value based monetary system will become increasingly attractive because it will also be an inflation free currency against which other currencies will lose their value;
- no longer will narrow banking interests exercise control over politics, media and public institutions:
- no longer will debt finance the military industrial complex with its predilection for perpetual war;
- no longer will the underprivileged go hungry in developing nations as their ruling elites fill their pockets while loading debt on their people;
-no longer will exponential economic growth demand environmental devastation and resource depletion;
- no longer will financial engineering and debt leveraged buyouts export real worthwhile jobs to low wage economies, creating increasingly intractable social problems at home;
- no longer will misery be perpetuated as government and commentators pay homage to the City and financial services’ expanding contribution to GDP;
- no longer will investment markets intimidate governments to do the bankers’ bidding.
Any debate about Tobin Tax, Vickers proposals, bankers’ bonuses, Greece, Italy, bailouts etc. is political puppet theatre which distracts and divides the people, enabling business to continue as usual.
If people want change for the better rather than change for changes’ sake, they need to understand how our system of money drives ever more power and wealth to the rich and the rest of us into debt slavery. It is not the individuals, it is the system.
I’m young, but this affects me. The debate is what is needed – and I agree with comments above remarking on the frailty of the original statement. However – with a realistic strategy and with robust organisation of ideas and principles – surely the global “Occupy” movement can at least encourage better understanding and greater expectations from us all; consumers, firms and government. I’v got an idea, I’m not claiming to have a solution but If one of you learned people would help, I’d appreciate your thoughts on it.
I agree with everything you say but your concept of debt-free money supply, which is unworkable and would lead to massive hyperinflation. The money creation and supply has to be freed from the monopolistic control of the private banking cartel (of which central banks are part); which rests and thrives on extortionate interests levy, the expansion of debts and the assets it confiscates when debts are not served; that has the power to create booms and busts in national and global economies, threatens and blackmails governments with this power and hold every state and citizens in serfdom. Interest rates on credit, however, can be restricted to fairer levels by reintroducing anti-usury laws. State-run banks, as public utilities working for the benefit of society, would return the revenues raised through interests as new credit, salaries of employees, etc, the funding of public enterprises and infrastructure.
Clive is quite correct, fortunately a solution that embodies the idea of fixing the root problem of private banks creating the money supply as debt is in draft legislation supported by several MPs
1. Banks should ask our permission before they put our money at risk.
2. Banks should tell us how they use our money that we give them to invest.
3. The power to create money should be kept away from both profit-seeking bankers and
vote-seeking politicians, and placed in the hands of an accountable, transparent body that is sheltered from lobbyists and electioneers.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
Sorry, should have said; from which Goldman Sachs received c. $13bn and paid $billions in bonuses to themselves in the following QUARTER
I’M COMING TO BURN YOUR TENTS
Allan, that’s what the occupy movement is about, dialogue where everyone has a voice and the process is developed to democratise decision making.
Humans are fallible and most succumb to corruption if the rewards are large enough; many a good man has been led astray. Therefore, relying on individual leaders (be they bankers, politicians, scientists etc.) to speak the truth is dangerous when they are incentivised to lie.
We therefore need a monetary and political system that relies on less on individuals but principles and consensus.
The principles for money would be:
- no interest
- limited to the level required to service a functioning economy
- money supply under the control of a true democratic council, representative of the people
We need to remove banking and big business from the political process. They should have no political voice other than as individual citizens.
We can carry on patching the current economic system until the debt/leverage bubble implodes and takes western civilisation with it or we can work together for an alternative.
Knowledge is power and when the people have the knowledge, evolution will happen. A life of disappointed expectations makes one cynical about politics while radical change appears to be a threat. But it need not be. If people can be energised with optimism and desire, we can look forward to a fairer and more stable society.
Or we could just go back to watching X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing.
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2011/10/11
This hour long program on Occupy Wallstreet will give you a sense of what the movement is about. It is early days and changing minds takes sharing ideas and empowering everyone you know. Get involved, talk to people. If you visit St Paul’s you’ll find a rich mix of people with an ambition for a fairer world and a real sense of optimism. The monetary and banking system is understood by some and they are spreading the word. People working in the City come and discuss the flaws in the system. Many have sympathy with the aims of the occupation but have no expectation that the system can change and they are well placed to exploit it. However, they have children and would embrace the idea of a better, safer world.
These ideas and observations have a lot of detail and explanation behind them but it is better done through interactive dialogue face to face. I’m not an occupier but a visitor and participant. There are workshops and working group meetings and you can watch or join in if you want to. There are many people to learn from. Talking to strangers teaches that we care about the same things and we are all connected, not least because everyone on the planet shares a common African gene. That’s where we came from thousands of years ago. If you want a good perspective on civilisations over the ages of man, I can recommend two books by Jared Diamond, “Collapse” and “Guns, Germs and Steel”; anyone who understands our origins can never be a racist.
Education for the economy rather than life is starving future generations of the means to create a better world and condemning them not to learn from history. What’s the point of democracy if people aren’t able to question the historical context of major decisions. The British suffered a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan over a century ago, the Soviet Union was similarly defeated thirty years ago and yet we rolled into Afghanistan in 2001 on a flimsy pretext with no evidence. Same again for Iraq. We put Saddam in power to unify Iraq and supported him during the Iran/Iraq war in which 1 million died over eight years. By supported, I mean the military industrial complex disgorged its escalating production into the Middle East region. Yet again under a false premise, in we go in 2003. Those wars and Libya were all about oil, resources and geo-politics, ie. the power games of the American empire trying to protect its domination of the world under threat from Russia and China. This has been going on since the Second World War.
You have to join the dots. When you hear a piece of news, reference it against what can learn elsewhere on the same topic. Find the pieces of the jigsaw and how the world works comes into view. No one person can ever complete the picture but with the internet and enough people, we can spread the understanding.
It is ironic in this electronic age that detective series, quiz shows and multilevel computer games have a huge following and yet learning how to change the world which contains elements of all these and more, is thought to be boring. Individuals don’t think it is possible to change the world. They’ve yet to feel the power of the people. It currently resides at St Pauls and all the other occupations around the globe.
If you want some sources of information:
http://www.democracynow.org referenced before is a daily hour long news show Monday to Friday – US centric perspective on the news but US economic and military might dominates the global agenda.
http://www.globalresearch,ca has some good writers on geo-politics and economics
Most of all watch the Money as Debt video and read Margrit Kennedy’s paper on Interest and Inflation Free Money (both referenced earlier in this thread).
Ask questions here. You’ll get a variety of responses and you’ll need to decide for yourself whom to trust.
Finally, it’s great that you’re interested.
Test
Please read and view the following; then continue researching
The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard – essential reading
http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
Money As Debt – essential viewing
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544
The Money Masters – essential viewing
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Publicly-owned Banks as an Instrument of Economic Development: The German Model
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27054
Outraged&Disheartened, we don’t seem to be saying markedly different things although I find your claim, that debt-free money would be hyper-inflationary, interesting. Ignoring the challenge of how one effects a transition from the current system to the new one, interest free money issued for the public good to the level required to satisfy the needs of the economy would be non-inflationary. Inflation, in the long term and fundamentally, is caused by expansion of the money supply beyond what is needed.
The current spiral of debt, resulting in an expansion of the money supply, is undoubtedly inflationary. Currently, the markets believe Mervyn King who says inflation will trend down once VAT and energy price rises drop out of the equation. That, together with governments buying fixed income securities is keep bond yields and interest rates low. However, should the expectation of low inflation be disappointed, which is likely given the rapid expansion of the money supply, inflation will start to tick up and we could approach stagflation. Higher interest rates choke of economic activity because of higher borrowing costs, rising mortgage payments etc. and sterling will weaken adding to the inflationary pressure through the higher cost of imports. We don’t have strong exporting industries like Germany to compensate; a weaker currency makes your goods cheaper but you need a strong manufacturing base to start with. Ours has been exported to the applause of successive governments and the City.
State run banks under the current political system would not be much better than the current system. Centralised control of most activities leads to greater bureaucracy which gathers more power. In time, the idea of central planning of the economy takes hold which history shows seldom produces beneficial results. Some $36million died in China during Mao Tse Tung’s reign of terror and giant leaps forward. Stalinist Russia was similarly fatal for millions.
The state should only play a role where it makes sense, such as healthcare, transport infrastructure and utilities. In an interest free economy, banks would serve two main functions: looking after excess capital which would incur a cost, thereby increasing the velocity of money and stimulating economic activity as it is deployed to avoid it losing value; provide the infrastructure for money transmission etc., foreign exchange etc. If banks are totally divorced from the creation of money and aren’t allowed to charge interest, they are no longer a threat to stability nor will they accumulate wealth and power by virtue of the system.
Other financial services would be required such as investment management, insurance, pensions etc. But there is no reason for these activities to be undertaken by banks and indeed there is much to be said for keeping these activities separate.
We’ve all lived in the current monetary and banking system from birth and it dates back hundreds of years. Most economists and financial professionals only think within the current economic paradigm. We all need to think outside of the box.
Effecting the smooth transition to the new monetary system is a bigger challenge than planning such a system. However, should the current system collapse, as is likely, having a plan B would be much less damaging than no plan at all.
I just spotted a factual error: It is central banks (not governments) buying fixed income securities is keep bond yields and interest rates low.
The New Social Order
The existing socio-economic model has failed. I am sure we can agree with that statement. It is not just the 99% that agrees that the system has failed, but the 1% would also agree, if asked. I am in the 1% and I certainly agree that the Western world has failed both you and me.
What can be done about the failure of the Western socio-economic model? One can debate what alternative system the people want. Since we live in a democracy, if enough people support this new system, whatever it is, we will get it. Political revolutions do not have to be violent; I speak from experience and remember Poland’s regime change in 1989. The people can do it, if they are unified in what they want – and if they can express what they want as a coherent political programme.
So what do you want and what do I want? Is it the same thing?
Philosophers have debated various political systems for millennia. There is no “end of history”, to use a Hegelian term. The political set up is not something like an iPhone with new versions being designed ever so often, each version an improvement upon its predecessor. The choices we face are actually quite basic when you come down to it.
The socio-economic system we chose to arrange our affairs is an extension, a representation, of our moral values. We design the system around what we think is right and wrong, what we think people should and should not do. Man has designed politics based on the prevailing moral order. Our moral code is what shapes the political world around us. Politics is the institutionalization of our morality.
What are the moral values around which we have built our existing socio-economic system? Most would say they include some, or all of the following: equality, egalitarianism, need, liberty, private property, freedom. You can recite a longer list of the moral values around which we have attempted to design our socio-economic system. Some people will have a different list from other people. But most hard working and honest men and women would agree with the moral values listed above. Most people agree with those principles. So why has the system we designed around those values failed? Why, despite our best intentions have we reached this desperate situation where basically nobody is satisfied with the system?
The reason is that when you take these principal moral codes, and think through what they imply, how they interact with one another, you realize that they are incompatible. This may come as a shock to you. It came as a shock to me.
I have been thinking for years about what is wrong with the Western socio-economic system. Why “capitalism” failed. Please understand, coming from Poland, capitalism and freedom were ideals for me. Something members of my family gave their life for. Something we had to fight for. To see the Western socio-economic model fail so spectacularly, completely confounded me; I was at a loss. What happened? Why? I am sure many of you are asking the same questions although each of you will have your own reasons for asking those questions.
I turned to the library for answers. I studied the key political ideas recorded by man: from the writings of Plato, and Aristotle, through Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Hegel, Karl Marx, Hayek and many others. I approached the task with no prejudice and read works by the whole spectrum of philosophers, from left to right. This was a great intellectual discourse, quite satisfying in itself, and it did shed a lot of light on what I did not learn as an economics student at university. But I still did not find the answer. Why has the Western socio-economic model failed?
The answer came to me as I was thinking about Tony Blair’s policies in Great Britain and his concept of the “Third Way”. There is no third way! This is the answer to our dilemma. You cannot create a socio-economic system by mixing and matching key principles from opposing political systems. You cannot have a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism at the same time. The underlying moral codes espoused by capitalism are radically different from the moral codes espoused by socialism. If you design a third way system based on the moral codes underlying capitalism (say “freedom”), then you cannot impose on top of that a system that is based on the moral codes underlying socialism (say “need”). The two are incompatible. Your “freedom” should allow you to pursue your own goals, and someone’s “need” should not force you to sacrifice that freedom. You may of course choose to sacrifice for that someone, but you should not be forced to do so (this would be the capitalist solution), or you can be forced to sacrifice for someone, but then your freedom is only illusory (the socialist solution).
Think again about the moral values most of us believe in: equality, egalitarianism, need, liberty, private property, freedom. Because socio-economic systems are designed around integrated sets of moral values, systems that attempt to combine moral values from unrelated or opposing systems result in failure. Each of the great political thinkers whose systems we may now be debating designed socio-economic systems around a set of integrated, self-reinforcing moral values. Each of those systems can only work if men and women agree to play by those values. We are destined to fail by attempting to pick conflicting moral codes and create a third way. There is no third way – there is only incoherence, moral inconsistency and resulting decay if that route is chosen. The 99% will say that bankers have lost their morality by paying themselves massive bonuses. The 1% will say that the 99% have lost their morality because they want to force others to pay for their social needs. Both sides are right. It is just that they believe in different sets of moral values.
The question we have been asking ourselves becomes a very simple one when you start thinking about the political order on the basis of underlying moral codes. What are the moral codes that you value? Which political system is based on those codes? Pick that system – pure and simple. Do not obfuscate by imposing constraints on that system; the system will then fail as it will lose its integrity.
When Karl Marx designed his system, he did not allow for members of that society to be granted freedom. Freedom would spoil the socialist ideal. People would by definition then choose to do things not accounted for in the plan (ie they would be free to choose something outside of the plan). When Adam Smith designed his system, he did not allow for members of that society to be equal. Equality would spoil the capitalist ideal. People would by definition lose the incentives to create wealth (ie they would see no need to work harder than other men as at the end of the day, all would get the same reward).
We should step back and think about the moral values we believe in. Only on this basis can we set up a coherent political system.
This will of course results in a whole set of new issues, and I am looking forward to debating those with all of you at a later stage. But first, please: tell the world what are the moral values that the 99% stand for. This is the beginning.
The same question applies to the 1%, and to all politicians who are operating our current socio-economic order. What are your moral values?
Mikolaj Kopernik
Thanks for your thoughtful input. It requires a considered response and will take me a couple of days to get back to you.
Mikolaj, while I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments you express, I fear you are putting the cart before the horse. Changing morality (or even gaining consensus on morality, if that were possible), will not facilitate changing the economic system because the monetary system is the corrupting force within our society. Irrespective of integrity, politicians, bankers and many others are induced by structural incentives to compromise their morals. Cumulatively, there follows a collusion of interests (a term coined in Peter Taylor’s “Chill, A reassessment of climate change”) which conspire to act immorally. Relatively few individuals are willfully immoral but financial rewards, kudos, fame etc. are very seductive. Others, less close to where decisions are made, unwisely take much on trust which is unfounded.
If you look back in this thread, you will see the arguments put forward as to why the current debt with interest money system is unsustainable and transfers wealth and power from those who have too little money to those who have more than they need. Debt is growing exponentially and those receiving interest are accumulating wealth faster and faster at the expense of the 80% plus who pay more interest than they receive. Furthermore, the debt money the banks create does not exist before loans are created. As is quoted elsewhere in the thread: ”Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”, Amschel Rothschild in 1838.
Remove the incentive for corruption and morality will have the space to flourish.
Tony Blair’s “third way” was pure public relations and marketing speak and based on many focus group sessions, trying to hit electors’ hot buttons. He succeeded, not just to win power but to hang on to it. The resulting series of short term fixes have been disastrous financially, socially, morally and politically. There was a new law or regulation for everyday he reigned and our lives have become ever more impoverished as a result. His only objective was to make the Labour Party electable. There was no guiding principle or moral compass. Just PR and spin which was his forte. His government’s influence was pernicious and continues to this day.
As far as Poland is concerned, I suggest you read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. In it she explains how the Chicago Business School doctrine subverted and took over the people’s revolution, placing Poland permanently under banking control. This was done in Brazil, Chile, South Africa and many others. Money is what drives morality in our world. Remove interest and money reverts to being a means of exchange, its original purpose.
Margrit Kennedy’s “Interest and Inflation Free Money” provides a good introduction to the subject.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/
A radical but durable reform will be to create an alternative interest free currency which will liberate us from this cancer of fractional reserve lending and banks’ power to control the money supply.
References:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/
http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
http://www.outersite.org/?p=265
Clive,
Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. I have been very busy wrapping up the year before leaving London for Christmas.
Very interesting post. There are areas where I agree with you, and areas where I can see you somewhat missed my point. I am actually quite surprised at some of the authors you read given the position your movement takes on certain issues. I greatly admire Mises for example (and I am surprised he was not required reading during the three years I studied economics), and I see you refer to the website dedicated to his thoughts. I am sure we will be able to develop an interesting dialogue!
Firstly, my argument is not about changing morality. All I am asking is that people, whether it is you, me, the politicians, or the bankers etc. take a step back and evaluate what are the moral values they stand for. I want people to be self-aware and introspective about what they stand for. You can’t do that by recourse to vague, or broad slogans like “we want authentic global quality” or “we stand in solidarity with the global oppressed”. My point is, you need to get back to the basics and evaluate where you stand on the spectrum of the key moral values which determine socio-economic systems. You will then see more clearly what kind of system you want, what you really stand for, and you will be able to make more precise, logically integrated arguments for the creation of such system. To take your demand for “authentic global equality” for example, what does such an outcome require in terms of the pre-requisite moral values? If my understanding of the equality you demand is correct (feel free to correct me) then such a slogan requires: control, tyranny and a lack of property rights. Think about it. How else are you going to achieve “authentic global equality” outside of a society built on those moral values? You presumably need a regulator that controls resources and allocates them so that everybody receives an equal share (control). You require a ruler that commands the regulator where nobody can dissent from the regulators commands to prefer a different allocation of resources (tyranny). And you can’t have property rights, because if you did, some people would by definition start trading and achieve a greater share of resources than the regulated equal amount (lack of property rights). So my point is: please take a step back, and this applies to everyone, not just you and the Occupy movement, but also to politicians, bankers and everyone that forms a part of society, and think about the moral values you stand for. Then analyse the socio-economic system you claim to be supporting by reflecting upon how it fits with those moral values. If it doesn’t fit, well then you must be supporting another system – be honest with yourselves.
I don’t mean to pick on one of your demands.
The same analysis can be done for the current socio-economic system and some of the actions undertaken by our politicians. For example “bail out the banks to prevent an economic collapse”. This action/slogan clearly violates plenty of moral values that both capitalists, socialists and a bunch of other ideologues would stand for. That’s why the system is not working. Our society is currently based on a socio-economic system where the underlying moral values are not integrated, and in fact where they contradict each other. Hence the failures we see every day.
And I am not saying your slogans are wrong. Not at all. I am just saying, please analyse them in terms of what moral values they are based on. If you are still fine with supporting those moral values, then “go get them” and set up a society based on that. Unfortunately, I’d probably have to leave England in such a case, but that’s fine. I’d hopefully find a place where I can live in harmony with what I believe in, and the moral values that I support. Who knows, maybe that place would be in Auburn Alabama, where the Mises Academy you referred to is based.
That was the first point. My argument is not about changing morality, bur about being honest about what those values are.
Your second point is about the monetary system, and its corrupting nature. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. The fiat money experiment which just recently passed its 40 year anniversary has been a complete disaster and will end in tragedy. No need to argue here as we are on the same page. However, in terms of my original post and the concept of moral values as the founding pillars of society, I see no reason why one should not be able to set up a socio-economic model, consistent with one’s views, that is not based on fiat money. Such set ups have worked successfully in the past. Such a set up would certainly be present where I chose to settle. For those that choose to be corrupted by fiat money, their problems are developing as we speak (and they always will). Please note that history is replete with examples of failed fiat money regimes. The outcomes have always been tragic. Check out France before the ascent of Robespierre and then Napoleon, and Germany before the ascent of Hitler. Fiat money regimes both times.
Your overall point about corruption is a good one, and I need to think a bit more about that.
I see we agree with regards to the success (or rather lack thereof) of Tony Blair’s Third Way. Again, the reasons for our agreement are a bit different. I approach the failure from the point of view of moral values. The moral values espoused by Blair’s systems were inconsistent and wrong (in my view), and have led to the decay of British society.
I am not sure why you make the reference to Poland in the way you do at the end of your post. Of course I have read Naomi Klein. And trust me, I can vouch that whatever she writes in the Shock Doctrine about Poland is plain wrong. And I am saying this based on personal experience. People fail to remember, than under communism life was not good. Poland has developed into a thriving democratic society, and the living standards now are not comparable to what they were in the early 1980’s, or in the 1970’s. Is it perfect? Of course it is not. But Naomi Klein’s work is wrong and misleading.
Where does that leave us? I stand by my first post, and urge people to analyse where they stand on the spectrum of moral values. This is the only honest way to have a precise and concrete discussion about the society we want to form, hopefully together.
Mikolaj Kopernik
PS: since you referred to the Mises blog, I hope you have read “Human Action” and “Socialism” by Mises. Two amazing, life changing works.
I wholeheartedly agree with your initial statement and would like to get involved in the occupy movement. How do I get more involved? do I just turn up at St Pauls? Is there space for me?
Si Smith, yes just turn up and talk to people. Pretty soon you’ll be involved.
nice one.
oh dear oh dear! What a lot of hot air blowing through these comments. I came on to try ans get to the bottom of what all the protests are about, have I? No because there are so many people dishing out personal insults at each other. Just because someone thinks differently from you does NOT make them a moron! Nor does it make you an expert in all things. Please can someone just explain in clear terms what it was that made these people feel so strongly they left their homes to camp out? Oh and just for the record I am a CHRISTIAN – that does not make me a moron/idiot or any other insult you wish to throw at me, but feel free to do so – here is my other cheek!
Carolanne, I think you’ve unintentionally struck the nail on the head.
No-one on here can explain what the protests are about because nobody knows what the protests are about, including me!
However, to summarise my humble opinion, the protestors don’t like capitalism so they are protesting because they think it is unfair that some people are wealthy but they are unwilling to work hard themselves to become wealthy so they sit on steps outside a cathedral and expect society to change so everybody is equal and everything is given to them on a plate.
What nobody has told these poor naive souls who are wasting their lives is that it doesn’t quite work like that.
In this country one can become anything one wants to be.
Does one want to become PM? Then go and become PM. One will have to work hard, quite possibly have a stroke of luck, but you CAN do it.
Do you want to become CEO of a Bank? Then go and become CEO of a Bank. You’ll have to work hard, quite possibly have a stroke of luck, but you CAN do it.
Do you want to become a nurse? Then go and become a nurse. You’ll have to work hard, quite possibly have a stroke of luck, but you CAN do it.
getajob, either you are extremely lucky to have avoided the cumulative adverse effects on daily life over the last ten years (and more) or you haven’t noticed. Most people who think like you are relatively well off and reckon they are well placed to weather the current downturn. They have faith that the current system is as good as it gets and they should seek to ensure that they make as much money as possible to insulate them and their children from future adversity.
Why this may not be the most sensible way to look at things:
1. The western economies are in a debt spiral which is out of control for which the only remedy our esteemed leaders can prescribe is more debt. Debt is growing exponentially and drives an economic system which must also grow exponentially. This is unsustainable. ie. the debt/leverage bubble will collapse and the economy with it. If Europe accepts loans from China to bail them out, we’d better learn Chinese because wealth and power gravitates to those who collect the interest.
2. The current monetary system has been in place for over 300 years and facilitates the transfer of wealth and power from over 80% of the population to the top 10% (See Inflation and Interest Free Money elsewhere in this thread. The transfer of wealth is accelerating and inequality is now growing at an alarming rate. In 1792, when inequality reached unacceptable levels in France, the mob turned on the ruling elites/aristocracy in the French Revolution. In the chaos which ensued anyone could be guillotined on an accusation of being a traitor to the people. Nearly 100years ago the Russian Revolution erupted with similar consequences.
These are just two reasons why you may want to think again.
As far as the occupiers and their supporters are concerned many have jobs or their own businesses and are sacrificing their time for something they regard as worthwhile, a better, fairer world. Those that don’t have jobs are the collateral damage of economic mismanagement. They want a society in which relative disadvantage doesn’t mean a life of poverty and low self esteem.
Nothing is given to anybody on a plate. Life is what one makes it.
getajob, exactly, “Nothing is given to anybody on a plate. Life is what one makes it.” I couldn’t have put the case better. The occupiers and their supporters are determined to make life better for all. You can’t rely on leaders to even acknowledge the flaws in the current monetary and economic system and so they are hardly likely to find a viable solution. You can either milk the current system until it collapses and reckon you’ll be OK or work with us for a solution.
So I’m making my life as successful as possible by working my butt off not by sitting on the steps at St. Paul’s or in Finsbury Circus or now, by the looks of today’s activities, Trafalgar Square.
Nothing in my life has been given to me, I’ve worked for it.
Nothing is given to anybody on a plate. Life is what one makes it.
If self-professed “capitalist” entrepreneurs say it as well……
“REAL Capitalists Move Our Money from Big Banks to Credit Unions” http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31397.html
Words of wisdom from Charlie Chaplin
http://youtu.be/WibmcsEGLKo
Right I’m going to have a go at giving my point of arguement as well as incorporating others into it.
In regards to the initial statement, some form so change would be good for society providing it leans the right way into helping society.
Personally I tend to agree with Marxist theory rather than that of Functionalists (being that the lower classes in society -proletariat- are oppressed by the higher classes in society -bourgeoisie- than the idea that society is a meritocracy.
Lets look at the arguement this way, if society was really a meritocracy would we have celebrities making more money than doctors and nurses? Given that from my understanding (this may be a wrong understanding, feel free to correct me) society bases people on their talents and rewards them as such (in a meritocracy) why is it that people who don’t seem to be as useful or have as much talent are getting more money, such as these “fat cat” bankers?
It would be good if we had some form of overhaul or revolution but we have to face facts this isn’t going to happen, so we can either be radical or liberal about this and say, right will the little changes we make in society be enough to adhere to social change, or do we need to totally rethink the system and learn from mistakes made?
What we all have to realise as a group is that it is going to be hard (near impossible) to bring about any form of radical change, because after all as a society we have a hierarchy and what kind of people at the top of the hierarchy are going to say ” sure lets change everything” they are the ones benefiting from this society.
I don’t really know much about politics, I’m not claiming to be an expert in anything, but lets face it the type of left wing government we have at the moment, is making cut after cut after cut. And we are experiencing social divide, and the rich are getting richer and the poor will be poorer, we have already seen a huge drop in the amount of applications to higher education within the UK due to rising fees.
I hope occupy London does make a difference and we do have something positive for EVERYBODY in society not just the rich or those who hold more power but for everybody.
But there’s no reason for the poor to be poorer. Study hard. Get a job. Work hard. Get a promotion. Earn more money. Study some more. Get promoted again. Earn more money. Have more disposable income, etc. etc. Simples!
Dear getajob
There are reasons why the poor are poorer. Most of us are poorer and increasingly so. That is one of the reasons people are protesting. Look at the evidence:
-Social mobility has decreased significantly over just the last 15 years.
- The gap between rich and poor is wider than ever.
- Adjusted for inflation, lower income rates have not increased in 40 years, whereas at the high income end of the scale, incomes have increased significantly.
- Home sale and rental prices are compounding at a higher percentage than lower income rates
- Inflation is more than double the rate of wage increases.
- Inflation is set to go up significantly over the next 5 years.
- Inflation punishes savers and benefits debtors, encouraging debt over saving
- There is a 2m shortfall in the number of jobs available, compared to those seeking work (2.5m) and this is trending to increase.
Not really as simple as you make out, but the outcome is pretty simple to understand.
Not true. The money creation system is a huge “reason”. It drives wealth to the highest earning 10% of the population who scavenge interest that is hidden in goods & services exponentially from the bottom 80%
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/chap1.htm
Not to mention inequality of access to education & employment predicated on family incomes or a myriad of other factors.
Laura Lou Carter, I wouldn’t be so sure that revolution won’t happen. Such inequality in the past has precipitated an abrupt transfer of wealth: the French and Russian revolutions were approximately 200 and 100 years ago respectively. Riots in Greece, Italy and the UK are a foretaste of what could be to come. Revolutions seldom result in improvement.
The occupation is in part about finding an evolutionary solution to avoid chaos and create a fairer society which may begin to look like a meritocracy but one which also supports the most vulnerable.
The issues that you cite are symptoms of a monetary system out of control and we now dance in fear of the markets, creating more debt to enrich banks. It is the root cause of many problems and we need an alternative.
Have a look at this:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/
Sorry for any mistakes made there.
So I have just this weekend watched the film The Secrets Of Oz, this film is a classic in ‘case and point’ of drawing points of opinion, its being heralded as a film showing why free debt free money is good, but I view the film as a case of showing what is wrong with opinion and ideology, I will offer for debate the points I have pulled out from the film and some of the new things posted.
The film is still only an opinion, an opinion shared by a small number of theorists, ideologists or whatever label we stamp people with, it is still also a minority view from one stand point, it draws on selective reasoning and in my opinion, a skew on facts, lets just look at the author, even just before he died, he always maintained the book was never meant to draw any symbolism, for people to insist it did is just showing how stubborn some people are, anyway I divert from where I was going, L Frank Baum is this insightful man who wanted reform and supported the debt free currency etc, he started a shop and went bankrupt (this cost others money) he then started a paper, which went bust (and cost others money) he ran for office and reform etc, but never had much success on what he wanted to see, he writes a book, becomes rich and then he gives up his push for reform and politics, which shows I think the point that money corrupts even the best of us, as he is being used as a flagship person, yet his failure in two business cost his investors and the banks who lent to him money as it was written off? Now if banks never charged interest how would they recover funds from lost investments like these off this great man? They would need to say to all their account depositing clients, “sorry the banks out of cash, we leant it out and it never worked out, sorry” also if they never leant the money to Baum in the first place it doubtful he would ever of started either business, I still think the most important thing is that once he got money and was rich, all his opinions changed and then he become what I would say this movement hates, a rich person who did not worry about others as he sat on his wealth and gave up his social views and opinions for which these movement now stands.
I could make the links with George Lucas and Star Wars, a poor farm boy get fed up with the system, joins a few like minded people because he is pushed by the government because it is unjust and unfair, then they overthrow them and get what they want, its not forecasting anything, its just a good film, a good story, Luke does not represent farmers, C3P0 does not represent industry, the emperor is not David Cameron or Millaband, Han Solo is not a trader, the same as the book The Wizard Of Oz I believe, as Baum stated, it is just a book. Now call me cynical but Bill Still gets to try and support his stand point, but his view comes at a price, he sells films $20 and his books which are $25 soft back and $50 for hard back lol? And Bill Still stresses “lets see what Frank Baum was trying to say in his book” Baum says he was stressing nothing other than entertaining children and there is no hidden message.
Bill Still asks what can we do to improve the situation and says nothing can change, well that is simply wrong to start with, people need lower expectations from government, the government needs to spend less and stop trying to buy the 51% votes, if the country was in surplus for a few generations then the national debt would then be clear, then no interest would be paid to the bankers as there would be no loan, and then at that point all money would be debt free, then with no interest being paid 100% of tax could go on society, its about living within your means, but the reality of it is if you said to a parent, I am stopping your £1055 a year child benefit, I am stopping your £545 family credit and I am stopping your £2555 child tax credit then every parent would lose £4155, then you know that the government would lose the votes of this core section of voters, if they said to O.A.P’s you should have had a private pension or saved more so we are reducing you state pension more, then they would lose the votes of those voters, like when they say to students you need to pay more for your education, they upset them and lose their votes, but if you borrow more and keep payments high, then all are happy and will tick your box in the next election, everyone though it pushes up borrowing, everyone view their need is the highest and they are entitled to the most of what they perceive as their share of this non existent money.
I would also point out its interesting many of the opinions in the film are from authors who themselves are paid for their books sales of their opinions, they are creating their own wealth from selling the idea of reform, my opinion is that if they feel so strongly about reform and feel it’s the only way for moral and economic survival, why are they not expressing their views for free? After all it does not cost $50 to publish a book, nor does it cost $20 to print a CD, and they all are copyrighted, so again why is that? If you want your message to get to the majority then allow it to be reproduced and copied for free, they should be encouraging the spreading of their wisdom.
Byron Dale was correct in a statement though “you cannot borrow your way out of debt, you cannot drink yourself sober” but he himself is another author making a living on telling us something we all know but are not wanting to take responsibility for.
Bill Still and others states that the current system causes hunger, poverty, disease and misery? So are we really saying that none of these issues existed before money was around? That is nonsense, these issues existed long before money was even conceived, there have always been those with and without, with more and with less, that has always been the case, what has changed though is society, we now feel a desire to help more because of media, Romans never worried about people starving outside of their walls, let alone the starving in Africa, but now we have progressed and feel guilt when these images are beamed into our homes, it is not the fault of money or the current system the problems exist, money though is a factor in solving those issues, people would not send food or supplies out just because they could, bill Gates who was used before as a spokesman etc, he could write a cheque today for $50 billion and still have $10 billion left, but will he? After all he can never spend $10 billion, but he will not, he will leave it in trust and do little things, that’s not because he is greedy, it’s just how the world works.
So the first example of a money issue given is the money changers who Jesus chased from the temples? Not a good place to start, the half shekel is used for a temple tax, to get the half shekel people exchanged whatever goods they had to gain the currency, the money lenders negotiated as good a deal as they could for themselves, which is human nature, we do not just give things away, we get the best price, then Jesus got fed up with this happening so chased them away, this was Jesus bullying and getting the monopoly back for the church, if Jesus even existed to make the story correct, think about it, the money changers were getting all the good deals, all the church was doing was supporting itself from the same pool of the poorest people in society, why was the church charging these poor people a temple tax if they were doing gods work? They were however annoyed when they saw these money changers muscling in on their piece of the action, all of a sudden someone else was getting all the profit on those goods being traded, so in reality if the story is in any part truthful they then sent out a big bully to chase away the competition mafia style, in a fair trade world this would have had the church I am sure investigated and shut down.
Second example is Fiat money, well things like this would not work in a trading nations, Rome was wealthy not because of the overlooked money system, it was wealthy because of its might and knowledge, the buildings were built not out of cash but slavery, its slaves kept in fear and not employment, this was a really bad example, also its currency is no good in trade, if you said to a Celt “I want your cow, here is a Roman coin to purchase” he would of received a polite term I am sure to say no thanks, the coin would have no value to him, he lived in Scotland, it was not his currency, also he had no way to measure its value in a comparative way, like in a gold backed system, but in true Roman style what actually happened at the time is they would take the cow, thus increasing the wealth of the empire. I know I have simplified things myself in example as there were many more factors but the point is it was not the currency that made Rome great.
On his next example of the goldsmiths reducing the amount of coins in circulation to control things and then prices fluctuating, this happens anyway naturally, whether it’s a gold backed debt currency or a government issued arrangement, depending on a cycle of business, revenue in taxes change, this varies government income and expenditure, things then fluctuate from what is perceived as needing to be fixed, if revenue is down then the government might need to suspend pay to some staff or cut a service, if it were to just print the missing revenue that would deflate the value of all existing currency in any trading nation, money has measured comparative worth, anyway the moment it spends less then people will perceive this as negative, anyway the point is that if it prints more money you then have comparative goods needing more money to purchase and then you inflate the goods value as you have devalued your currency.
The examples of the failures of different systems again very simplistic, I think again he fails to mention that there were many factors that caused system failures, also Tally sticks were not devised and issued first by Henry, tally sticks had been issued through out Europe, also before wood was used they had been notched onto bones, they were issued by people themselves also to facilitate trade and keep track of just the point that you bought something from someone when you never had currency and then in effect could then sell your debt to another by exchanging the tally stick for someone else’s goods, the notches were there to show the value of the first trade, the notches crossed both sticks to prevent counterfeiting and bore the name of the originating lender, it was advised to be checked before each next new sell of debt occurred, in the end the hope was that someone would return the stick to obtain the payment, but the point is one half was the debt, one half was the loan, the more the value side got passed around the less goods it would attract as more tally sticks were cut and came into existence, not only that but the more that were issued the liability went up on people maybe returning for something more concrete than their pile of tally’s, and they might not of been secured on gold by a bank but when the king issued his they were backed and underwritten by the king, they were not the only currency, they were issued to be just as good as money, and the promise was that if you owed money in tax it would be accepted in the place of other funds, as it had the same value as other currency it could be traded around by anyone in its places, so in effect it was under written the same way as money is now by the treasurer, what is interesting is how he simplifies the system and its own problems, people when trade happened outside of a community could not verify the authenticity of the value of a tally stick, you could add a notch and make it worth an amount of your choice, it would not be until it was reunited with it other half that you could see it no longer matched and was now in fact valueless or deflated in value, the royal house had run out of the ability to match the value of all current tallies in use, the traders and new economy demanded a fairer more accurate form of tradable accountability.
Also tally stick were burnt as they became very clear they were not an asset and needed to be rid of, so parliament burnt them all.
The American civil war did not happen just because of a gold back money system, a debt system or anything of the like, I believe the problem was that they perceived they were paying this stamp tax and getting nothing in return, they were a remote colony which was just being expected to send money back for absolutely nothing, this then left no money to govern the colony with in a decent way, I also like the way he does not labour on the point I am about to express, please consider the statement from George Washington “ a wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions” this was correct, although it was the English printing the currency it was the amount of currency that made it worthless, if a government could just print its own money then to appease the 51% of voters it would not have to curb its spending, it would just print more money and have the same effect, each hospital or road that needed building, print some more money, then it would become subject to this very issue that George Washington faced.
Bill States it does not matter what backs your currency only who controls its quantity, again this is only the case of none trading countries, if you were to back your currency with nothing then no one would trade, if you backed it with grass, then no one would want that but if they had grass they would come and use your system and exchange their grass for your gold, after a while your system would devalue because you had so much grass that it was worthless again, therefore for trade, goods need to be valued on something that is equally shared upon as having a comparative value, something that will not burn, die and is of limited resource, after all if you backed it on grass it could die or be grown in huge fields, you need something stable to be the equal object.
Then we have the period of back and forth about how the banks control people and government by redrawing funds and foreclosure etc, using that to by up property for Cents in the dollar? Well that is simple, if you do not borrow from a bank then they cannot foreclose on you, that is again a symptom of your own making, and if you as a government do not need to overspend, then again the bank would hold no grip, there is no point in overspending or having a deficit and then moaning after it has happened, after al, the whole point of the loan was it allowed you the use of something early, why should you then think its ok to then moan at the bank if you do not or cannot repay? The bank is a business, it is there to make money, how can you expect it not to want to make money, yes its painful to lose your house etc but if you secured it on the loan then you gambled it on the assurance you would make the payments, after all, a gambler cannot say to a casino when he loses he should have a refund.
So we have established when Jackson was in power he repaid all the national debt, so he had returned all the government had borrowed and had the country living on a surplus, so that was fine, but 25 years later the government had borrowed money again it was not raising, it owed the banks again, the banks had not forced the government to overspend, the banks had not forced loans upon them, the government had under budgeted and overspent,
Also it makes me laugh the bankers are made to be blamed for the American civil war, and they use a generalized speech from Jackson 24 years earlier to support their case? So slavery and different views never had anything to do with it? Also the fears were that America was being guided to end up in ownership of Europe? Well I think it’s now actually owned by China and The Arab league rather than Europe, so these European bankers have not planned very well and it shows how little power they have was merely conceived rather than real, when Lincoln went for loans for his war effort they were risk assessed and like now an interest rate was devised for the risk to the bank as a business, if he lost the war then they may never see the money returned, hence the risk was high, this came with a premium of 36% if the bankers had planned and devised the war and the split of the union I really think they would actually of just refused him the loan completely, after all if he had lost the war then they would of received no repayment on the loans at all, it seems like a standard risk/reward assessment to me, he can moan the interest was high but that was his choice.
The start of printing greenbacks to me was clever and inventive but it came about due to a lack of funds to himself at a realistic rate, his plan though was without risk either way to himself, 1st off he flooded the American economy with money, half real and half in effect vouchers under written by the state, if he lost the war then he never cared about the value of either his vouchers or real funds as it would be the problems of the south, if he won such as he did, then he could apply taxes and buy them back out of existence when the economy was better, as it was he had issued many of these green backs, so after the war there was a depression, and the money panics, well there would be, he had doubled the amount of currency in the country by funding his army for free, after the war things then were valued to the currency in circulation, the government decides to pull its vouchers/green backs back out of circulation and then it seems everything is inflating madly in cost, that was market rebalancing.
When banks then withdraw their funding as described, its not about causing a recession, if times are hard and you suspect you might not get your money back you will not lend it, that is basic economics also it common sense, again if you got told you could not have your money when you went to the bank because they had leant it all out to lost causes, you would then blame the bank for lending stupidly, they are a business at the end of the day and will always work to what works for them.
Then we get on again about bankers using there influence to get what they want, well their only power comes from the fact that people borrowed from them, yes they had the power to foreclose but only because people borrowed, yes they had influence in this manner, but that is only the exact power that unions have now, unions which you support yourself in yours statement at the top, when banks are upset they could foreclose, when a group of public sector workers is upset they withdraw their labour, the unions plan this, when a group of factory workers is upset they withdraw their labour, it is exactly the same position, you support the strike of the public sector on pensions etc, but this is just exerting ransom on the government/company, it is in fact going to cause the opposite of what you want, you want an end to debt, well this is only achievable like with Jackson, if you clear the debt first, but it is going to be harder to clear the debt if you raise wages, increase or do not get control of public sector employees and national costs etc, to support strikes is to say the government should not get control of these costs, well if civil servants and unions can excerpt political influence then why not banks?
Again at this point I would point out that the genius Frank Baum who was after reform and was this political force changed his manner and stopped worrying the moment he was rich.
What I did agree with the film about was that banks do need to only be aloud to lend money they have and not money from nowhere, this would mean there was no risk of needing to bailout a bank, and they could just be allowed to fail without it costing the huge amounts of the past.
Again the model of North Dakota is used, this is no different than a state owned bank, which is similar to use owning now 84% of RBS and varying % of the other banks bailed out, in fact if the government could pay off national debt over years of surplus it could buy the shares of any bank and then keep 100% profit, the same as with utilities or anything that turns a profit, but then as we have seen in other public own services inefficiency would kick in as its not striving for a profit.
So that s my film review up, it does not really offer any solution that is viable, it points out merely pieces of history and draws arguable conclusions, it is drawing from opinions from people who write books to create their own wealth, many of who in fact start with the same headline thought and grabber, but they also differ in approach and reason, they just share some points the same as with all walks of life.
I offer again my personal opinion, if it was just this easy then all governments would adopt this way forward, then they would never be removed from power, but free money is not the answer for trade or stability, it has in history always been short lived, but not because of the banks or as Bill likes to keep calling them for biblical support, the money changers.
Some people I agree with their points so there is no point mentioning them or making comment on things debated, I do agree with MoosieLucy on the point that debate is good and as is some suggestions and opinions rather than just criticizing, I have put up a few of my thoughts but here is a question, who would decide on what jobs should be shared and are rubbish? You quote cleaners as menial and a job which should be shared, but that’s just your opinion of a menial job, some people like this style of work, I myself like to change my job sometimes to do something I can just turn off from, yes the more menial type of role, but they are viewed as jobs that some people want, and if you take those jobs out and give them to be shared then what jobs would you give the people who currently do them? No matter how much you train some people, they will never learn the skills needed to improve, and some people just do not want the effort, yes I know some do but not all, I think to declare any position menial would just belittle the people who do those jobs.
I have seen Guernsey held as a working example of debt free money, lets remember though that you are looking at a nation of 70,000 people who are ahead of the game, they make money from encouraging companies there and then tax them, many of their profit making utilities are still state owned and they had good reserves from privateering, I would also argue that as they control much of their needs of growth by strict controls, i.e. who can live on the island and who can qualify for different housing etc it allows them much greater control over how they run and regulate the system, in fact even Guernsey had to sell of some of its public company’s to balance the books and make things tick, this is the start of it, also if we thrust exponential immigration on them they would again very soon need to readdress their situation.
Farce Adentus, its only an opinion that where money is created is the problem, no matter where money is created and who is controlling it the government would still be knocked for something, at the end of the day if the government had not overspent by a trillion pounds then its money would not be debt based, who owns the bank is irrelevant if a government consistently overspends, and if it did not create debt and it ran out of money how would it then pay for society? Even where interest free money is used they have to live within the amount of money created at the start, they do not get to October and say, oh we are a little low lets run off a few more million, there is a finite amount of cash, with green backs an original run was printed, $450 million, I think personally it was conceived as I said, more like the thought of a voucher system, hence it got bought out of circulation, or do you think it should just be limitless?
I think that the film was mostly propaganda to flame an expectant audience, it sells books and videos and is in fact a self supporting industry that appeals to disgruntled people, and when I say self supporting I mean that its facts are backed up by other authors and media creators and the whole circle use each other to substantiate each other, it’s the same as the whole environmental movement, there are two sides that have opposing argument and each side always have a list of experts who rely on and quote other experts, they then use the same statistics but read shown in different ways to support their arguments.
So its not the system that is completely at fault, it’s the abuse of the system, after all if the wars stopped, expenditure could drop and tax revenue cleared the public debt then no one would be caring right now who owned the bank, how money came to be.
I genuinely think if government had the control over all money then things would be worse, they would just buy votes and you would just see a bigger spending spree when it was election time, the 51% would be bought off and there would be no need to account for the overspend, and then you would see more inefficiency as before, you could employ all the unemployed and unemployable in the public service and not worry about the cost, oh sorry the Labour party were doing that.
Again if the government could create its money without accountability and owing then war I believe would have been more prolific, if you could spend and fund your own army then why stop sending in only 1000 Tomahawk missiles? Use 5000, no sod it use 10,000, who cares we can print more money, instead of bullets, sod it, send in another £1,000,000 Tomahawk missile, Here is an interesting quote from above as well “-no longer will exponential economic growth demand environmental devastation and resource depletion;” this is not caused by money, this is caused by increases in society awareness, there are still Billions in poverty, not millions, so in the interest of fair society when each of these people see’s and wants a car, electricity, TV and everything that we have, that is what depletes and uses the resources and causes devastation to the environment, if this is what you seek then we need to stop people from getting out of poverty, its society that makes someone want more and bigger things, as they earn more they throw away their old TV and buy a bigger one, true fact, my best friend bought a new 50” plasma TV, he tried to give away his old style (3 years old) 33” TV, everyone’s first question was “is it flat screen?” when his answer was “no” he could not give it away, he even rang our local crisis centre, they asked if it was flat screen as well and then explained, thank you but no thanks, no one would want it, it was even pointed out in this day of debt and repossession that even bailiffs do not take cabinet TV’s as they have no value. The bin men would not take it as it was too large for a bin; it never fitted in his car so he had to pay for the council to collect it for the rubbish! Now that is a consumer society for you, and this is not the fault of debt/no debt money, its society.
Whilst all the above sounds like it is knocking everything, it is not, it is my opinion the same as you have yours, personally I think the current system is flawed, the options being touted are to me even more flawed, I think whilst I do not understand some things, I admit my limitations, some of these people with all the answers also do not understand many things, but we all agree we are not happy, the truth I think is sad, the truth is that something will snap, people will feel because of their own situations they have been wronged, they will riot, revolt and have a revolution at some point, the sad bit is though that as with the French and Russian attempts, it will only be a temporary fix, a temporary rebalance, man is inherently selfish and the cycle will start again, the Earth has been here a billion years, 5000 if your religious, so culture and man has been here for a blip of time, whether through natural means or at our own hand I think is immaterial, but at some point we will cease to be, then no one will be here to quote me on that, all this debt free issue will be given lower chat and discussion because the bigger issue of Earths destruction, plague or satellite hit will become the story of the moment, and before it kicks into play these authors will write a book about that and charge $50.
So my closing thoughts are sorry this is so long but I had a lot to cover, please do not insult each other because you may have an opposing view, perhaps a voting box could be added to the site so we could gauge peoples opinions on what people felt were important in life and should be supported first by government, also would be good to have people throw out some of their ideas and have people vote on them in an individual thread rather than this growing page of debate on the initial statement page? I know whose ides I agree with and like, also even in those people ideas and thoughts though I differ in some areas, this is why society is awkward to govern.
Sleep well people and thanks to anyone who grafted through my post.
Yes the system is flawed. You say the banks “only power comes from the fact that people borrowed from them” in fact we have no choice since private banks create 97% of the money supply as debt…
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2011/09/29/
why-an-understanding-of-money-creation-is-essential-to-financial-reform
Pay back the debt and the money supply evaporates. This is a factual description derived from banks own literature and therefore NOT “an opinion” ! Our debt money creation system drives wealth to the highest earning 10% of the population who scavenge interest that is hidden in goods & services exponentially from the bottom 80%
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/chap1.htm
Fortunately a brilliant solution exists now in draft legislation supported by several MPs
1. Banks should ask our permission before they put our money at risk.
2. Banks should tell us how they use our money that we give them to invest.
3. The power to create money should be kept away from both profit-seeking bankers and vote-seeking politicians, and placed in the hands of an accountable, transparent body that is sheltered from lobbyists and electioneers.
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/our-proposals/
Allen, I’ve not seen the film (Oz) and can’t respond to much of your post without doing so. For an incisive analysis of the fractional reserve banking system, I would recommend the “Mystery of Banking” by Murray N Rothbard, a right wing economist. Written over 25 years ago the book has more relevance today than when it was written. You can access it here: http://mises.org/Books/mysteryofbanking.pdf
I would also draw to your attention to a recent scientific analysis of over 43,000 transnational corporations, published in New Scientist. It found, by virtue of cross ownership, 147 “super entities” control much of global economic activity: “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says one of the scientists conducting the study. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
The owners/controllers of these 147 entities move in the same circles and share common interests. I would submit this is where power resides, not in governments. This power is sustained by the monetary system and without changing it, nothing will change. If we want more than illusion of democratic control we need a new monetary system independent of the banks which control a large proportion of the global economy and consequently, our lives
Who gives you the right to say you represent 99% of the population?
As usual, a few hundred people in the street seek to tell the elected representatives of millions of people what they should or should not do.
Well said! You are not my 99% and I definitely do not fit into your so called 1%. I’m just an average guy with an average job for a Bank. You are in no way representing me with your stupid protests.
You will find a lucid explanation of the solution to the world’s financial problems on the website run by my supporters.
Nothing you say or do will make the slightest bit of difference to anything. Go home, make yourself a cup of tea, and read a decent novel.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Margaret Mead anthropologist (1901 – 1978)
“Be the change you want to see in the world.” Mahatma Gandhi
“We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.” Buddha
The only way to solve the financial problems of the rotting capitalist system is by joining the Workers Revolutionary Party and forming cadres to build a new Fourth International.
SUPPORT THE YOUTH AND STUDENTS!
DECLARE A GENERAL STRIKE TO BRING DOWN THIS TORY-LED FASCIST REGIME!!
DESTROY THE ROTTEN LABOUR PARTY AND TRADES UNION TOPS!!!
EXPOSE THE REVISIONIST SCUM OF THE SWP!!!!
FORWARD WITH THE TRANSITIONAL PROGRAMME OF COMRADE TROTSKY!!!!!
REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY HERITAGE OF COMRADE GADDAFI!!!!!!
Idiot.
Well, like, it’s not fair is it – all these rich people like getting all this money while I only get like this low-interest loan and some money from Mummy & Daddy… I mean like there’s gotta be a way of like making things fair – like getting all the money off these rich people and sharing it out among like all the poor ones. Then the sun would shine and Christmas would be like it was when I was a kid and we went to Klosters with Mummy & Daddy. That Obama turns out like even a bigger terrorist than Bush and Blair were. Fox-hunting Tories. America is fascist. Did you see that new movie by that fat bloke with the baseball cap – Michael Moore or something? Chomsky. The police antagonised me into throwing a brick at them. My mate Charlie Gilmour says his mum and dad stand by him because he’s like a hero and a brilliant dude. I know cos we spend last Christmas at his parents’ place in Mayfair – no, I mean their house in the Dordogne. Or could it have been their other place in er er America or somewhere. Tony Benn…
Lmfao! Well said!
I am your new leader. Start a march or something like that and I will stand at the head of it and make a speech. Then I’ll run for the hills when the shit starts flying. Best wishes, Ed.
David Cameron pretty much summed up the way of the world. we are “lying down in a comatose state”. Time we woke up, stood up and started working together for ourselves and each other rather than this comatose state. I think the occupy movement is a great way of starting this process and if we the people work hard enough we will definitely wake up the rest of the state too…
I had dropped out of this diiscussion – a few days ago when it seemed to be going nowhere. However – the last comment from Si Smith is one with which I agree with wholeheartedly (if i have correctly understood its gist). In the long term yes ther is a need to evolve the global financial systems. But this wil take decades and will be hard work in which the voice of the UK will be one very very minor one. And increasingly – the voice of the west will take back seat. Closer to home, we had beter wake up. The world is changing and fast. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And in case you havent realised – the west or in particular western governments dont have much money. It is the east – Asia, China and others who now have the funds and not the colossal debts – of the type on which we have been happily living on for too long and can I say which we have been using to plunder the world to feed our consumerist society. So the things that we can do and which is more in our control than the global financial system, is to get our house in order and start producing – making money for ourselves by creating, making and selling things and services (to each other and to the rest of the world) of real use and value . By value, I mean things that really are going to help make a better life for people and given that ther are many in the world who have little – can we cease our preoccupation with the fripparies (material and intellectual – although intellectual is too grand a description). The one thing we can all do is to help a move away from the rather empy ‘consumerist society’ which we (all of us) have been happy to see created over the last 10-20 years (and more but it has been virulent these last 10-20 years).
I like your points, increasing exports would be a good way to boost the economy, but our industries simply can’t compete with China and India and others. They have over a billion people that they can pay ‘peanuts’ to for them to produce goods that in the UK we simply can’t produce at a lower cost. If we start to produce at lower costs then we have to reduce wages. It is hard enough to get some parts of society to work at today’s level of minimum wage nevermind if we start to pay them 10p an hour! The British manufacturing companies that still remain tend to focus on very high quality, very expensive hand-made goods. It will be possible to change this as you’ve stated, but like you’ve said, it will take years and years, if ever.
Iwould take a more postive view on this. Yes – you are right the labour costs overseas are a fraction of those in the UK and the west in general. And the fuuture is not going to be an easy one – we will have a lot of adjustments to make in terms of our expectations, lifestyles and living standards. But at least for the time being we ought to know how best to produce new and better goods and services – and how best to do this efficiently and effectively. And we are good at the high tech stuff! And it is a world market – if we can just get off our butts and work with it and make best us of what we have. And give all in our society a place in working with it. And in time as the developing economies and societies also increase their appetities for high end stuff then – we have a place and a future. Alarming though that China was apparently thinking that in return for money-bailing out the ‘lazy’ west (I think that this was the gist of their impression of us) they want our know how etc!
And for those more generally in the OLSX – yes we need to tighten up the banking and financial systems. But boy are we going to have to make sure that they are able to support us in the face of the global systems and those of the east.These are the real challenges.The rest is just whistling in the wind
Demands are OK. But more importantly make sure you push WHY you are occupying the City of London, and not Westminster. You are there to be a reminder of the wider communities dim view of the actions of many of the people employed in the city in the finance industry.
The occupy movements around the world are occuping business districts to make it clear that the community as a whole disapproves of their motives and actions. This messsage should not be diluted! Calls for demands is a plot for politicians to negotiate a resolution, as an attempt to end the occupation. The reason is not to effect change, it is to end the embarrasment and niggling reminder to the scum of the earth, as they walk by on their way to work, that they ARE the scum of the earth.
As a side note you also need to occupy the Docklands.
i like it
re: Initial Statement –> Item 3.
———————————-
Would like to add –> “We hereby declare all Quantitative Easing, Bailouts, etc. hitherto and hereafter implemented as ODIOUS DEBT.”
As an EX police officer (I exagurate the EX as i do not wish to be at all assosiated with them)
I have learnt first hand that Capitalism exist in almost every system or service driven by Money Especially the police force. Within the neighbourhood policing teams, the Police prioritise the councils which have more money so as to be awarded with more funding.
In my attempt to expose this i had corrupt high level officers attempt to pin 2 different crimes on me (after 2 arrests and having my house raided 2 times and 6 months on bail with me continuing to refuse to give in an accept a caution for something i hadnt done) I was eventually arrested and take into a dark room with no recording exuipment of witnesses and forced to sign a resignation).
Yes these are very high level officers and Yes they are the same people you put your trust in.
I see the Occupy movement as means to stand up against all heirarchy that Bullies those who involunatrily fund their existance.
And your police federation rep did nothing about it? also I assume when you were arrested it was by your peers? how did they get the warrant for the raids? judges are outside of the station and require evidence to persuade them to write them.
Also where was this dark room? our stations have CCTV everywhere these days so its hard to be off camera.
Also as you were arrested and on bail, you have I assumed gone to court then for prosecution? if there was no evidence then you had nothing to fear, and resigning would not provent a prosecution as the CPS decide if to convict, not the police and they would have been involved from bail onwards.
So how did you try to reveal this corruption then?
I assume your union rep has put all this through to IA.
As you resigned under duress it would not stand and you would just appeal it.
No offence but it all sounds a little off, like stirring the pot to me.
Unfortunatley the storys details become worse….at a private collegues party which had over 200 off duty PC’s present i witnessed two individuals using Cocaine, this lead to these two individuals assaulting me (quite severly) i was left in hospital with stitches.
Although i campaigned to find out the same answers to the questions you ask through taking the Constabulary to court. No one could tell me where this “intel” came from or anything as it would have breached the data protection act.
On the first raid at my home address it was for Drugs as aparently there was ‘intel’ that i was also dealing drugs whilst on duty! (yeah i know what your thinking.. The Police would never accuse an officer of something that unrealistic) anyhow NO DRUGS,NO EVIDENCE, i go back to work for a couple of months.
Then one day theres a a bang on the door im arrested the house is raided all my things are taken, all my familys eltrical items were taken even things totally unrelated as i was accused of mobile phone hacking! the police investigated this at work and due to finding NO EVIDENCE they came to the conclusion that i must be doing this from home? anyhow the outcome was again NO EVIDENCE! after 6 months on bail.
During the time on bail the membership i had with the union ‘dissapeared’ mysteriously and i was never a member the look on thier faces when i provided my free welcome pen from the union was classic! any how this room was in the custody suit where i was taken by 2 Detective Sergeants to which i was told that i either accept a caution (as i have no criminal record) or i sign the resignation either that or i stay there until (quote )”until we find something, and we WILL find SOMETHING”
So i sign and immediatley arange a meeting with the Area Commander who unfortunatley is in on ‘it’ who occording to him he had investigated and i was never a unon member and i had voluntary resigned and blah blah all the expected come backs.
I did take the constabulary to court to which i did win my first appearence and was granted a 5 day trial which in the end took over 2 years. The outcome was an out of court settlement HOWEVER i refused to accept the Police’s financial offer! i said i would settle but for Zero pounds and Zero pence as to me it was principle and i just wanted them to admit that they were wrong.
So as unrealistic and as much as you would like to beleive that it would never happned it DID! and the above is a TRUE story to which God himself witnessed.
In addition… I know i ranted abit above and idnt really answer what you asked me
The two that assualted me were arrested and would have been charged and the rest of it however i made a deal with them that if i withdrew my statement that that will be the end of it to which they agreed.
I assume its highly likley that for them that wasnt the end of it and it could well have been these two who were involved with this so called ‘intel’.
Like i mentioned my Mebership with the Union (to which i had joined and received my welcome pack which included my pen) was some how ‘covered up’ illegaly.
I attempted exlain all to my sgt, area inpector,area,commander, HR, even the IPPC (for some reason an officer is not allowed to use the IPPC isnt that a coincidence?)
My collegues who i was friends with refused to come to court against the Police because they openly admitted they were affraid of what would happen to them.
There Dark roo was in the Custody Suite, it looked more like a small cupboard yet had a chair and desk inside, i was made to write the resignation on a blank piece of paper.
I refused to accept the Caution as i had not done ANYTHING illegal of any sort.
Other than this event whilst in the Police i was invited(and declined) to attend whats called the Annual Cannabis Camping Trip where PCs take a few days off to camp i the woods and smoke Cannacbis.
Officers also raced thier Sports cars competively i myself winessed two officers race on the motorway at over 150MPH.
Officers were 9/10 raccist and homophobic with a strong hate towards the increasing Polish communities.
Christmas week hosts the Polices Monopoly tournament where officers Amend there callsign status to busy etc so as to stay in the Station playing Monopoly, i witnessed officers spending enire 10hr shifts playing Monopoly when they were being paid to be out on duty.
Pingback: Occupy London responds to Corporation of London proposal | Occupy the London Stock Exchange
Pingback: Proposals and Decisions GA 7pm on Thursday 10 November 2011 OLSX | Occupy the London Stock Exchange
There are indeed so many injustices perpetrated by a system bound up in so much red tape that it’s hard to anything but see Red…
I started looking at the money and banking system way back in 2007. As a part owner of a mortgage business at the time I remember asking my mortgage network whether the sub prime mortgage issues would affect the UK… They said no, which I thought was a tad naive and the rest as they say is history.
I think it’s great that people can take a stand and I think they have a good point to make about the current system of politics which doesn’t have a great record of changing anything for the better.
My concern is that the movement is missing a huge opportunity though and it’s no one’s fault as such. I hope you will allow me to explain a little…
There are so many myths out there it’s incredibly hard to see the truth.
The media, MP’s, economists, business owners, the people on planet earth are working on problems or issues which I feel do not get to the real underlying causes of our blight.
After four years of research I’m not fully certain I can see the truth any better than another person. As I peel away the layers of the onion new realities come to light.
This is going to be very brief and anyone who want’s to know more could I suggest you contact me via my website.
There are though certain things which are self evident;
People behave based on the underlying structure or system
The current tax system penalises all people’s and businesses for their industry
Money, debt and credit is almost universally missunderstood
Governments (do their best but) are clueless and tend to abuse their mandate in power
We are led to believe we live in a democracy, MP’s are elected to serve the people etc… Don’t you find it odd that the whole system forces us to vote for one of two parties who offer no real or new solutions.
We don’t actually have any freedom of choice unless it’s “the lessor of two evils”
Banks (in particular) and other money lenders bonus their staff on how much they have lent.
Banks weight a loan based on certain criteria. Homes are weighted in such a way as to make it far easier to lend agianst a property than say a business.
Only around 8% of money is invested in the productive part of our economy, the rest goes into speculative investements like land and real estate.
Because lots of new debt is created against an existing stock of homes there is massive asset price inflation. The current price of a new home is roughly double what it should be based on average income levels.
Our laws are geared towards the top 2% of our population and against the bottom 98%.
MP’s many of whom are professional politicians are often in the top 2%.
I think that Henry George had some great points to make when he wrote Progress and Poverty. He made some vital discoveries and connections with the way that property bubbles tend to form recessions and the reasons why + the solution.
Henry George died in 1897 but I really wished I could have met him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George
I suspect though that his solution of an economic tax on land will not go down too well with the top 2% and therein lies the problem.
There were other people around in the 1900′s like Silvio Gesell who had some practical solutions to the great depression. As far as I can tell, they worked very well. Read about the Austrian town of Worgl and the way they created their own complementary currency.
My learning and insights may fall slightly short of the Occupy movements mission but I do feel they are practical as a stepping stone towards a fairer world.
Best wishes to all
Steve
Action for Land Taxation and Economic Reform
http://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/
Steve, you are spot on. Without changing our debt interest money system, nothing will change. If you read further up the thread you will see explanations why it facilitates the transfer of wealth and power from 80% of the population to the top 10%; it is a function of the money as debt system. Furthermore, it is unsustainable and will collapse as the debt becomes unaffordable. We need an interest free money system with money creation independent of banks. You mentioned Gesell’s ideas and Worgl which flourished under an interest free money system. There are other examples and such a system would remove the corrupting influence of money from politics, the media and public institutions. We may then be able to address other problems in our modern world.
I wish at least for initial few days before the reform, the ‘money’ can be kept accountable, like, who paid that money, when, for what and to whom etc. There could be an application of direct ethics on buy/sell also. Don’t sell to inappropriate people and don’t buy from inappropriate sellers.
Hey guys,
thanks for supporting the Occupy Movement!
I’m Sten Fisher, a singer-songwriter from Cologne (Germany) and here’s my new song (If You’re Hungry) Eat A Banker.
Use it if you like!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YDDHANLaHw
All the best to you
Sten Fisher
The permanent and final disengagement of the financial incentive from all forms of the political process. Period.
ALL considerations and submissions for policy are subordinate to this key statement and are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve without this one proviso.
I’d just like to mention the Venus Project, it might be of interest to some here who are wondering what alternative system we could change to. The Venus Project have already got involved at Occupy Miami & they have some very good points.
‘The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation
in which human beings, technology and nature will be able to
coexist in a long term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium’
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Check it out, you may be enlightened…
Pingback: Occupy London to host first ever gathering of UK occupations | Occupy the London Stock Exchange
Would occupy London, be happy with a banking system, or credit system that evolves around the idea of credit union. Non profit organisations who raise money from their members savings, and members who require a loan, are granted such, based on what savings they have, and also how much money the credit union has itself in savings. Any profit the credit union does make, it shared amongst its members. I agree in principle with much of Occupy London’s mission, but they have much to discuss to make their arguments valid. Unfortunately I do not see a system working where there is no debt. To have savings, or an equal share of money there must be debt in some form. I hope I make some sense, as I am not financially trained, and my understanding minimal.
As i dont have live TV and never buy a newspaper i was interested in what little i’d heard about occupy. So i caught the bus up to London from the most impoverished place in the South of the UK to see for myself what it was really all about. I wondered into the canteen tent where a not very friendly guy started to make horse noises neighing and sighing loudly as if he was warning others as to my presence! It was offputting. Dame Westwood had just done a speech, i wondered round looking at all the posters mostly slating bankers and the tax man, some of them were apt. However i must say, im already doing what they’re on about. Its about action. I changed my life a few years ago. I dont buy into all that capitalist greed. Im not chasing a pound note or getting in debt. i dont live beyond my means and i grow my own veg, im looking to become energy self sufficient and im not on benefits. what money i do have goes into and out of (quickly!) a credit union, I help my community and although i live in a deprived area and sometimes its not nice the things you see especially when you’ve got children. I am relatively happy compared to alot of probably richer people than me. it was also relatively easy for me to get to this place. I just let go. moved in the direction i really wanted to go and then put in the action. it sounds simple because it is. i dont want to make anyone miserable or deprive people. Id like to see the 1% not be so greedy but that’s their stuff and in my humble opinion when people are pushed they push back. I certainly wasn’t moved enough to want to camp out, probably thats because i never want to make horse noises at anyone. Good Luck with your way.
Hello comrades, I had the opportunity to visit the occupy campaign camps at St Paul’s on 12th of November 2011 along with my friend. I talked to the activists, donated a little, wrote my hopes in the remarks register, took food from the kitchen etc within a span of few hours in that evening. My early days passed through similar campaigns in 70s and 80s as my dad was a socialist. We saw the socialist movements to fail, yet the theory forecasted the failure of capitalism and its systems. The real failures and events were not very different from those forecasted. Now the reform is imminent and obvious. I would like to emphasis that this occupation movement should stretch enough to involve all 99% (and of course some of the 1%) and formulate a right institute and a right system (irrespective of whether socialist or not) and finally not be taken over by any of the particularists. Let the hopes be not lost. Revolution for humanity lives for ever . I am from Bangladesh and travel to London and other towns for my work. Hope to visit you soon in December. Thanks
The same applies to the UK
http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov11/renounce-debt11-11.html
Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About Writing Off 3 Trillion Euros of Bad Debt? (November 15, 2011)
The only solution to bad debt is to write it off–renounce it all. Why aren’t those who took the risks for their own private gain being forced to absorb the losses?
We all know some 3 trillion euros of debt in Europe is uncollectible. So why isn’t anyone talking about the one and only solution, which is writing off all that debt? Since nobody knows how much bad debt there actually is in the Eurozone–care to guess on the market value of all those underwater mortgages in Spain or the true size of Italy’s debts?–that 3 trillion is just a guess, but it’s probably a reasonable starting point.
Let’s start with the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt: every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset. That’s why there’s no willingness to accept the writedown of debt: somebody somewhere has to suck up 3 trillion euros of loss.
Can we please dispense with the fantasy “solutions”?
There is no way Europe is going to “grow its way out of this debt.” How much of the eurozone’s “growth” was the result of rampant malinvestment and risky borrowing? More than anyone dares admit. It won’t take austerity to crash the euroland economy, all it will take is turning off the debt spigot.
“Restructuring” is a code word for writeoffs. Here, let me “restructure” the euro bond you bought at a 4% coupon yield. Now you’re going to get 2%, and you’re going to like it. Bang, your bond just lost half its market value, but everyone gets to keep it on the books at full value. Nice, until you have to sell it to raise cash. Oops, the euro has slipped in value so you lost more than 50%.
Printing euros to buy the bad debt is just a shuck-and-jive game of transferring the losses to unsuspecting holders of euros or taxpayers. Allow me to reprint a quote from yesterday’s entry, The World Is Drowning in Debt, and Europe Laces On Concrete Boots: as Nobel prize winning economist Thomas Sargent noted: “There’s a fundamental truth that everyone has to understand: what the government spends, the public will pay for sooner or later, whether in taxes or inflation or having their debt defaulted on.” (Source: BusinessWeek 11/20/11).
In other words, if the European Central Bank prints 3 trillion euros to bail out the banks and bondholders, holders of euros will suck up 3 trillion in lost purchasing power, or split the loss with taxpayers who have to pony up cash to give the ECB a threadbare sheen of solvency.
There is no free lunch. And since there’s no free lunch, then we have to ask: who should suck the losses when 3 trillion euros vanish in a massive renunciation/writeoff? Answer: those who took the risk. I know this is a shatteringly obvious conclusion, but it reveals the central flaw in the global financial system: risk has been disconnected from return.
Those who made the risky bets have diverted the risk to others: taxpayers or the general public who holds currency. The gains from the bets are private, and theirs to keep, but all the losses are distributed to the public via government bailouts or money-printing. The first shifts the losses to the taxpayer, and the second shifts the losses to everyone holding the currency being devalued.
Not only has the risk been palmed off onto unsuspecting chumps, the returns have been concentrated into the few hands that control the big bets. This is the ideal setup for the stupendous gains and zero risk that characterize crony-capitalism: make the big bets with leverage and borrowed money, and skim the vast profits. Then when the bets sour, demand a bailout from the Central State, the ECB, the Fed, etc., which promptly socializes the losses and distributes them over the entire populace of taxpayers or holders of currency.
It works beautifully until the debt-serfs rebel. The EU’s politicos are begging to start the printing presses, as that is the only way they can retain their power in the face of the debt-serfs’ revolt. But at least one populace of tax-serfs (Germany) is rebelling against sucking all the losses via a massive reduction of purchasing power.
The apologists for bailouts always whine about poor Jacques Q. Publique, whose pension fund will take a hit if those 3 trillion illusory euros go poof. Here’s reality: everyone with capital or responsibility in the wager has to accept their fair share of the risk and the return. J.Q. Publique risked some capital, even if he didn’t control the bets being made with his money, and so he has to suck up his share of the losses.
Those who made the bets should rightly lose everything–yes, be wiped out. If risk and return are actually causally linked, then this is the only result of a big bet that sours: those who placed the bets should be wiped out. That includes money managers, bank honchos, bond-fund gurus, and everyone else who foolishly bought all this debt without investigating the risks.
Investors in banks made their investment to reap a return; as a result, they are exposed to the other side of return which is risk. They should be wiped out as well.
Who should not suck a loss are those who did not stand to gain: the taxpayers and holders of the currency. To repeat: the most basic fact about all this uncollectible, impaired, bad debt is that every euro of debt is somebody else’s asset. Wipe out the debt and you wipe out the asset.
There is no way to avoid the 3 trillion in losses. the only question is who should absorb those losses: those who stood to gain, or the innocent chumps whose only crime was being a taxpayer or owner of euros? If there is any justice (or classical Capitalism) at all in Euroland, then those who made the bets and invested capital in the bets to reap a return are the ones who should absorb the losses.
Life will go on if the banks are wiped out and closed, pension funds and insurance companies take losses, etc. In fact, as I noted in The Collapse of Our Corrupt, Predatory, Pathological Financial System Is Necessary and Positive (November 5, 2011), the collapse of the predatory institutions which made all those bets would be a quantum leap forward not just in terms of justice but in the economic recovery everyone pines for.
Ideally, the dominoes will cross the Atlantic and take down the parasitic “too big to fail” banks and Wall Street leeches in the U.S. After all, they too made bets on euro-debt and they should absorb the losses.
If those who made the bets for their own private gain aren’t forced to absorb the risk, then we don’t live in either capitalism or democracy; we live in a financial-fascist tyranny
I work very close to St Paul’s Cathedral & have seen the camp degenerate over the last month or so…
Initially it contained some intellectual arguments, which were economically sound, made by people who are economically & financially literate.
However, now it smells like the toiilets in Glastonbury and is full of pseuso-hippies, who (allegedly) take hard drugs as well as urinating & defacating around the very Cathedral which housed them when evicted from Paternoster Square -
Although I partially share some of their views, they have made their pont & it is time they left!
PS – I wonder how mmany will be there on Christmas day !!
Hi All
Just a suggestion, but we need to stick to discussing and highlighting the points in the initial statement as they are points the majority of we the 99% will all agree on. And we must all focus on promoting these points and working in partnership and collaboration with all organisations and individuals that have a influence.
We must come up with ideas on how to support the protest on the 30th November as the crisis in the pentions is to do with the same thing we dislike about our current system. Explaining people power to the citizens of London and encouraging and influencing are friends and neighbours to take part is essential. That means communicating with local charities, social enterprises, faith groups, everyone.
Another tip, we need to play music and songs that inspire people, to help create the right energy on protests.. If you have ever experience and proper carnival, festival or street party you will understand the uniting power of music.. So those who have access to outdoor speaker systems, get them out there and lets celebrate good people coming together trying to create a better world for our future gene rations..
Let us know where positive music will be and I am sure more people will attend..
Peace & luv x
TO SMITHY
NO COMMENT
UK Government Sells Northern Rock for Approx £20 billion Loss to Virgin Money
Politics / Credit Crisis Bailouts Nov 20, 2011 – 12:00 AM
By: Nadeem_Walayat
Politics
This weeks mainstream media coverage in the UK of the sale of the bankrupt bailed out Northern Rock to Virgin Money for approx £1 billion against a £1.4 billion cost to the tax payer for a net loss of approx £400million as illustrated by the Daily Mail and the BBC’s Robertt Preston telling us that the tax payer has got a good deal is WRONG.
Daily Mail: Rock sale costs taxpayer £400m
Taxpayers lost at least £400million yesterday with the sale of bailed-out Northern Rock.
What the mainstream propaganda is overlooking are the bad debts amounting to approx £45 billion that have been removed from Northern Rock and placed under government agency management or in other words are the liabilities of tax payers.
The actual losses that the tax payer is ultimately staring at will amount to between £18 and £25billion, or about 60 TIMES the official loss of £400 million. Northern Rock represents a microcosm of the state of the UK and global banking system in that the bankrupt banks that were not allowed to go bankrupt but bailed out at unlimited liability to the tax payers are now bankrupting governments to which the only response governments have is to print debt at artificially low interest rates as a consequence of monetization of debt i.e. printing money to buy government debt that has been accrued as a consequence of bailing out the bankrupt banking sector.
More on this in my next in-depth analysis of the Inflation mega-trend, to get this in your email in box ensure you are subscribed to my always free newsletter.
Source and Comments: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31642.html
By Nadeem Walayat
We should start from the point of making the changes that people know deep down in their souls to be right – there is no point regretting what we could have achieved if we had only dreamed bigger. But as an interim solution we should restrict ourselves to making those changes that can be implemented in a reasonably short time scale but reap the maximum rewards. Before reading the list below and wondering how we can afford all these changes, please remember that trillions of dollars were created out of thin air to bailout banks – do you not think the need to create a just and caring society is as important as a bank bailout?
• We need to have a minimum wage that reflects the minimum someone needs to live on to have a reasonable standard of living. The MINIMUM a person should earn a year should be eg. 25K or £15 per hour. (This can be paid using the working tax credit system if employers cannot afford these amounts).
• Everyone should have enough money for life’s essentials such as food, housing & heating. Therefore, the minimum social security benefits for a disabled person or pensioner or job seeker should be eg. 12K per adult & 6K per child for the first 2 children.
• The maximum working week should be no more than eg. 30 hours.
• The minimum holiday entitlement from work should be no less than eg. 6 weeks per year.
• The above four changes will allow people to have a better work/home life balance, resulting in many positives such as:
o help achieve full employment in the country
o workers will be happier & healthier
o children will be happier & better behaved
o leisure industries will benefit
o crime statistics will be reduced dramatically
• Income over a certain limit eg. over £450K should be taxed at 100%. If you think this figure is too low, please consider the following two points:
o More than 100 years ago, business guru JP Morgan said no company should have a differential between highest paid and lowest paid greater than 10 – he thought that would be enough to create motivation. The Royal Navy, for example, has a differential of eight.
o When compared with the entire world’s population if you have a roof over your head, food to eat and own at least one car you’re in the top 10% of the world’s richest people. If you own two cars you’re in the top 5%.
• Company Profits over a certain limit eg. over £450 million should be taxed at 100%.
• Small businesses should be encouraged into the country by giving them tax breaks eg. companies should not have to pay any tax if they make a profit of less than £25 million.
• All offshore accounts for individuals & companies should be banned.
• Major industries that are perceived too important to fail should be nationalised eg: banks, utility companies, oil companies, public transport.
• Education, health, life insurance & house insurance should be available by the state, free of charge.
• VAT, NIC, TV Licence, council tax & road tax should be scrapped.
• Unethical practices should be made illegal eg. speculation in the financial industry.
• To ensure people are paid equivalently to people doing occupations requiring similar skill levels, I propose people are paid amounts that cannot deviate from a fixed range (Please see Appendix for suggested income levels based on ‘skill’ level).
• Individuals & companies that have spent a significant amount of time in this country eg more than 10 years, should have to pay a certain percentage of tax to the UK if they move abroad – this will discourage them from moving to countries with lower tax rates.
• No-one should be allowed to have a mortgage of eg. more than 2 times their salary & no-one should be allowed to have credit of more than eg. 0.2 times their salary. These two changes will reduce the possibility of people becoming overly indebted.
• Millions more houses with reasonable sized rooms need to be built. As a result everyone should have the right to live in a house with 1 bedroom per person. Also, people living in worn-out houses (say over 50 years old) should be given the option to upgrade to similarly-sized modern houses without having to pay anything on top of their existing mortgage.
Conclusion:
There are numerous other issues that need to be addressed, but many of these exist on a world scale and would therefore take much more time to resolve eg. world poverty and environmental issues. The suggestion I make is that once it has been shown to the world that dramatic changes to the way you manage society nationally can work, this will encourage other countries to adopt similar changes at a national level and the natural progression will be to address remaining problems that exist at a world level.
I envisage the final world solution to be something like a Resource Based Economy. At the core of this system is the belief that we don’t need money, but instead need the intelligent management of the earth’s resources for the benefit of everyone. This would be similar to the system as espoused by the Zeitgeist Movement, but maybe without what are generally considered contentious issues such as a heavy reliance on artificial intelligence & the lack of incentive to encourage people to work.
Dreambig,
Just a few questions, as I am curious to understand your way of thinking about the problems we face and the solutions you propose to those problems. Can you tell me how the country or state which subscribes to the rules you propose would compete on the international market? How would it accumulate the resources to satisfy the requirements you have laid out? Who would be responsible for defining what is a “reasonable standard of living”? What if someone disagrees, and challenges the regulated level of a “reasonable standard of living”? Who would decide what are “life’s essentials”? What if you disagree with that? Some of the summer rioters seemed to believe that branded trainers and iPhones are life’s essentials; are they? What happens if someone wants to work more than 30h per week? Why would one do that if one is not compensated for it? What impact would this have on achievement and development? What distinction for achievement do you propose for those who want to earn more than gbp 450,000?
Yes, I disagree with your proposals, but that does not mean we can’t have a reasoned debate about them. I am genuinly interested in your answers to these questions as it is the reason for our disagreement that we must discuss to be able to find a solution to the problems faced by mankind.
Mikolaj Kopernik
Thanks for taking the time to read my suggestions. In reply to your questions:
If everyone is following an economic system that does not have fairness, equality & a reasonable standard of living for all as its core values, that should be no reason for us in the UK to also continue following one! We should become self-sufficient as a nation until other countries adopt similar practices and then we can once again trade with them if need be.
I think it is well understood what Life’s essential are eg. Food, Housing, Clothing, Heating. Branded trainers & iPhones are not life’s essentials – they are luxuries. ‘When we start to live more simply, releasing money for others to simply live, then and only then will this world start to become a fairer place for all of us to live.’
I suggest people be paid based on the ‘skill’ level required to do their job & the amount of years they have spent doing that occupation. Key to what each level may represent:
• Level 1 = no technical skill required eg. street cleaner
• Level 2 = reasonable education standard required eg. bank clerk
• Level 3 = low-level manager or graduate career eg. nurses & IT programmer
• Level 4 = middle-level manager
• Level 5 = senior-level managers & GPs
• Level 6 = company directors, specialist doctors
• Level 7 = CEOs, surgeons, professional footballers
Also, to encourage performance & healthy competitiveness within your skill level, a performance related bonus up to say a maximum of 50%.
Regarding Tax, I suggest tax rates something like:
• 10% for income of £25 – 35K
• 20% for income of £36 – 45K
• 40% for income of £46 – 100K
• 60% for income of £101 – 250K
• 80% for income of £251 – 450K
• 100% for income of over £456K
Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. In response to your questions:
If everyone is following an economic system that does not have justice, equality & reasonable standard of living as its core values, that should be no reason for us in the UK to also continue following one! We should become self-sufficient as a nation until other countries adopt similar practices and then we can trade with them once again if need be.
I think it is well understood what Life’s essential are eg. food, housing, clothing, heating. Branded trainers & iPhones are not life’s essentials – they are luxuries. ‘When we start to live more simply, releasing money for others to simply live, then and only then will this world start to become a fairer place for all of us to live.’
I suggest people be paid based on the ‘skill’ level required to do their job & the amount of years they have spent doing that occupation. A key to what each level may represent is:
• Level 1 = no technical skill required eg. street cleaner
• Level 2 = reasonable education standard required eg. bank clerk
• Level 3 = low-level manager or graduate career eg. nurses & IT programmer
• Level 4 = middle-level manager
• Level 5 = senior-level managers & GPs
• Level 6 = company directors, specialist doctors
• Level 7 = CEOs, surgeons, professional footballers
Also, to encourage performance & healthy competitiveness within your skill level, a performance related bonus up to say a maximum of 50%.
Dream big,
If you and your colleagues want your movement to have an impact on socio-economic policy, you really have to spend some more time thinking about your suggestions. Think through the implications of what you are asking for; think through the second and third order effects. At the moment, your answers are not in fact answers at all.
When you say that it is “well understood what Life’s essential are eg. food, housing, clothing, heating” you are failing to realize that people have different ideas of which foods should constitute life’s essentials, what sort of housing should constitute life’s essentials etc. In a country like England we have homeless shelters where you can get food, housing, clothing and heating. So it sounds like your demands are already met? Or are you saying a higher standard should be available? Who is to define that standard? Who is to pay for it (and why)?
By making arbitrary demands, you are proclaiming yourself to be the national tyrant who decides what should be enough for others. Are you a communist? That’s fine, I don’t mind if you are a communist and you want to prescribe how much money other people should make, and how they should live. However, please remember, that the most productive members of society always try to leave a communist state because they are not rewarded for their intellect and hard work. Such states then create an “iron curtain” to prevent those people from leaving. If this is the socio-economic system the Occupy movement wants to build, please be honest about it and say so. I am sure the people that value liberty and freedom will quickly abandon your ranks. You have to be consistent in your thoughts: if you prescribe from the top down what “a reasonable standard of living” should be, then you are proposing to run a dictatorship where there is no space for liberty and freedom. If you want to allow liberty and freedom instead, then you can’t force people to accept that what you think is reasonable, should also be reasonable to them. They are free to choose what they themselves believe is reasonable.
To narrow down the discussion and find solutions that your movement is seeking, you have to start by stating what you stand for in terms of basic moral values (eg Freedom, Equality, Property Rights etc). Only once this is clear in your mind, can you start setting up the shapes of a political system that is compatible with your values. You may wish to read an earlier post of mine on this topic.
I wish you good luck in this search, as it is a difficult one. I took me many years of thinking and reading to get to an answer that satisfies me. It takes some people a whole life-time. You are unfortunately disadvantaged as you are under time pressure as the authorities are moving against you. But you have the advantage of large numbers, where ideas can be exchanged and formulated. Just please keep in mind all the implications of the demands you make, and the socio-economic system you decide to stand for. Some of the people you are counting on, may not be there for you to play their role in fulfilling your statist plans.
Mikolaj Kopernik
Our elected government should know that while appearing to empower the government, multi-national corporations are on a long-term drive to take control of state finances and state affairs. Symptoms of their cancerous growth include corporate lobbying, appointment of technocrats, privatisation of public utilities and services, creation of costly wars for securing control of foreign natural resources. Last but not least the expensive bail-out of banks.
The government should recognise the hold of the tumour has already rendered the state impotent as is visible for all to see by its inability to take decisive action against media and corporate corruption and tax evasions.
Internationally, Occupy protesters are desperately attempting to signal the growth of this painful condition but our confused government is ignorantly reacting by coordinating repression through the imposition of debt and austerity measures on the masses, increasing security measures and controls, ordering military police interventions against democratic civilian protests, dispossessions, eroding employment, welfare and civil rights and by controlling opinion via mass media and PR campaigns.
The government should learn from the mistakes of Egypt that greater repression leads to public outrage and uprise. When all hope is lost, the people no longer care or fear.
The government should recognise its attempts to isolate and weaken Occupy have resulted in greater sympathy and support for the protesters worldwide.
The government should recognise that Occupy is not the enemy. Occupy seeks to work with the government in addressing a condition that has become so critical it can and should no longer be ignored.
Hi
I agree that there is a growing divide between rich and poor….the comments recntly from wealthy people in that they are growing increasingly against providing for the poor strengthens this,,,its the greedy bankers and politicians coupled with the quick buck attitude we live in that is driving this ….oh that and Camerons totalitarian attitude…when did I agree to send billions to africa when we cant even look after our own? Cameron is a bully…. who will not listen to the voice of common sense and his people.
Please keep up the good work a change is in the air…..do not let it slip away!
I have a solution to ouer predicament and it is to embrace new media into our democratic process in step forward beyond text speech and written language. Writing enabled law, dialectics, discussion, debate.
Digital media provides an advance format for universal engagement by all.
We all are potential film directors and producers using our mobile phone as movie camera.24/7 Internet postcode tv (C.A.T.V.) can act as a portal for local Instead of passive subjects of media programming by vested interests and elites, we cxan utilise their tools ourselves in our political debate and expression.
24/7 CATV for E1 is the first step – the east end a long established crucible of radical advance once more witnesses the birth of the postcode revolution.
SEIZE YOUR POSTCODE !! BOTH VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL SPACE.
IF INTERESTED please contact me through my youtube channel -professorro.
I support the idea of the Occupy Movement however it will get nowhere while you have ideas of a utopia with NO CLEAR STRATEGIES on how to achieve it. There is complete failure to recognise that the general public, although want something done about excessive pay and the divide between rich and poor, they are actually quite content (rightly or wrongly) with their consumerist society. And in a democratic society, you need the masses on your side.Rome wasn’t built in a day and you’re not going to break up the status quo overnight. So SMALL steps with CLEAR objectives is the key. For example-
1. International agreement on a cap on wages/ ratio of lowest to highest earners
2. International agreement on regulation of banks.
3. Tax incentives for cooperative businesses
Okay it STILL is a bit wishy washy (it was on the spot thinking) and I know we can be more specific but its still a hell of alot more defined than the “Greedy corporations, lets all be equal and be as one with the planet” statement you’ve got. Be REALISTIC aswell as idealistic
Heya i’m for the primary time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly useful & it helped me out much. I’m hoping to offer one thing again and help others such as you aided me.
I have been excted by the international Occupy movement to the extent that I spend time at the Kansas City occupation (OKC) and been in communication with OWS, the Wall Street occupation. One thing, and one thing only, leads me to have very little faith in the longevity of the movement.
The Initial Statement here presented, and the Vision Statement released by Occupy Wall Street both lack the one vital element that would reach the 99% in whose interest you protest and act. Simply, there is no Mission Statement which means there is no mission around which the 99% can rally. A mission propounded among the people in which they can partake is fundamentally important. The tent city Occupations are good for publicity, but people who live in Esher should occupy Esher, Brummies should occupy Birmingham, etc., etc. I would propose a pacifistic economic revolution.
I suggest that people take their paychecks to the bank upon which it is drawn and turn it into cash right away, and use their neighbourhood retailers rather than the shopping centre you have to drive to. Ones local area contains most of the skills a reasonable lifestyle needs, and having the plumber up the street fix a leak keeps your exchange markers (money) in your local area. People working together to avoid plastic payments enables families to reduce the debt load, and if the Stock Exchange moneygrubbers can’t get their hands on your money, they will eat each other. Remind yourself what real bread tastes like and you will lose interest in the plastic wrapped sliced nonsense they gave us in infant school. A large twist, fresh out of Rayner’s oven was heaven to me as a boy, and as I now live in the USA I have to make do with what they call French Farm bread. It is never more than twelve hours old when I get it.
My point is to not use banks unless you have to, not use the big national chain stores that belong to the 174 corporate giants, and keep your exchange markers among you and your neighbours. It will take a little more time to do things, but you will become a community. Kids can help each other with schoolwork and maybe, perhaps win scholarships for further education, rather than forty seven bazillion points in the latest video game fad. They also may find a professional course to chart as a result of meeting the adults in other local homes. Think Coronation Street, or East Enders. Both shows were about neighbours IN each others lives. I am not suggesting sainthood for Ena Sharples, but doing things for those around you because they are needed. If one of the kids does a shopping errand for old Missus Knowles on the corner, he might come home with a square metre of bread pudding. Munchies all week.If all pull together with those around home and rely on each other we can beat the multinational financial powerhouses, 99 vs. 1
The International Occupy Movement Needs To Target Tax Avoidance & Evasion By Financial Institutions
IOM needs to focus on supporting protests in tax havens & offshore financial centres to pressure their governments to tax Banks, Hedge Funds and other financial houses that move abroad when taxes are increased by Western governments (otherwise it will all be waste of everybody’s time as money is transferred out of Host countries & government coffers start to run empty leading to utter disaster for public services:
Police,
Fire,
Ambulance,
Schools
Hospitals
Wikipedia List of Tax Havens & Offshore Financial Centres:
Tax Havens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
List of Offshore Financial Centres:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_offshore_financial_centres
………………………………………
Also, see list of List of OECD Unco-operative Tax Havens:
http://www.oecd.org/document/57/0,3746,en_2649_33745_30578809_1_1_1_1,00.html
………………………………………
OWS should consider linking up with Charities affected by the G20 secret Tax haven blacklist:
http://www.actionaid.org.uk/103068/g20_must_work_to_end_tax_haven_secrecy.html
The basic flaw with writing off debts is that anyone’s bank balance is a debt from the bank to them, write off debts and every man, woman and child’s bank balance will also be written off.
Not if it’s replaced with government issued, interest free money backed like they are now by government bonds. The only people that need to be cut out are the central banks who create interest from nowhere purely on the basis that they print the money.
ask a Billionaire ex-con man
and you’ll get the right answer:
link:
Berlusconi Says ECB Must Print Euros or Italy May Say ‘Ciao’
(Bloomberg)
this is Berlusconi’s version of
“Money for Free”
The american (US Dollar) FED sits on the worldwide/western/NATO monopoly of printing money
this is called euphemistically ‘reserve currency’
Bernanke, eagerly uses & misuses this monopoly on money creation
not the alleviate the problems with the dollar (or the NATO currencies), on the contrary
he uses this privilege to bail out his cronies at the too-big-to-fail banks
at a cost of a soaring tax debt
of a too-big-to-even-comprehend amount
by creating interest bearing currency
through the ‘banksters’ banks
Berlusconi is a (imagine this) fellow traveler with the russian premier Putin
& between the two of them
they know exactly what is going on
(there is rumor, russian economists advised the Iceland government)
so:
OCCUPY the Netherlands Central Bank, the DNB, at the Rembrandtplein
that houses the real – dutch – financial ‘crisis’
a wall of pathologically sick dutch ‘economists’
who run the dutch monetary system in collusion with even sicker Illuminati Sodomites
(who, by the way, have a presence here, since the ‘Republic of the Seven Provinces’,
that funded the ‘Glorious Revolution’ & the Bank of England)
posted from the Netherlands, Occupy Amsterdam
mtjoeng at gmail dot com