Slashdot Mirror
Book Review: Occupy World Street
jsuda writes "For those billions of people for whom the current political-economic system doesn't work–the Occupy Wall Street people, the Tea Partiers, the 99%-ers and have-nots, the middle and lower classes, and the rest of the unwashed masses, Occupy World Street is a starburst of enlightenment and a practical vision of hope for a new and advanced society." Read on for jsuda's review
Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform
author
Ross Jackson
pages
336
publisher
Chelsea Green Publishing
rating
9/10
reviewer
jsuda
ISBN
1603583882
summary
shows how a handful of small nations could take on a leadership role; create new alliances, new governance, and new global institutions; and, in cooperation with grassroots activists, pave the way for other nations to follow suit.
The book is subtitled appropriately "A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Order." It functions in a substantial way as the missing "content" for the Occupy Wall Street movement people who know that global capitalism and its political elite are screwing the middle and lower classes and the world environment but don't know exactly how they are doing it and how to change things. The book provides an unusually lucid analysis of the American political-economic system which should make clear to the Tea Partiers what their real targets of rage should be (it's not merely the Democrats nor the federal government.) Nearly everyone else who wants a "big picture" comprehensive analysis of the global economic system will be educated by this book.
The author, Ross Jackson, identifies who and what is responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown and many other problems in society. Most prominent are a seriously-flawed "neo-liberal economic philosophy" and the political-elite class which sponsors that philosophy for self-interested reasons at the expense of the rest of us. Jackson makes clear that economic philosophical theory is not value free and is class politics in disguise. But way more importantly than the mere class versus class struggle, the neo-liberal economic philosophy has created severe energy and environmental problems which are almost certain to lead soon to major economic and political disruptions affecting the entire globe.
The author's main perspective is as an environmentalist; he utilizes a systems approach of an overarching environmental model where the global environment is a closed, finite system and the economic, political, and other topics are subsystems of the whole. The book explains (in six parts and 17 chapters) how and why our existing economic model is failing and will create environmental, economic, and political chaos unless it is replaced soon with an economic model emphasizing "sustainability" and "development" versus simple "unlimited growth." Jackson explains in the second half of the book what we can do about it, hopefully before it's too late for future generations to have a chance for civilized life.
I have never heard before of Mr.Jackson, but he is bound to be (or at least should be) hailed as a top-notch public intellectual. He is a brilliant analyst of global economics, politics, and environmental matters; and a clever synthesist of the relevant economics, politics, philosophy, environmental science, psychology, sociology, history, physics, and biology, which apply to his examination.
He has an unusually broad and diverse background as a global currency trader, executive of a nonprofit environmental organization, software designer and businessman, and degrees in engineering physics, industrial management, and operations research. This may explain, in part, his ability to see major categories of human life with such a wide lens while also being able to analyze the subcategories and the factual data.
Part One explains the scientific and economic reasons why the neo-liberal approach of unending growth is unsustainable and a lie. It is a lie because it implies, at least, that everyone has a chance ultimately to achieve the high level of consumption of the successful capitalists and that the high consumption gravy train will go on forever. He uses biological, environmental, and mathematical data to show that the neo-liberal assumption of infinite natural capital has already resulted in net deficits of global energy resources, and that the world (and the neo-liberal economic system) will end frightfully unless we reduce population, give up the idea of "more of everything is better," redesign and downsize our economies, use less fossil energies, and emphasize sustainability.
The next two parts explain the politics and human factors which drive the irrational economic policies. He goes into good detail about historical economic theory from the mercantile period, to the classical free trade period, to our existing neo-liberal period. He clearly explains how and why the 2008 financial crisis occurred and why it is likely to repeat itself, and how the current debt crisis in Europe (and elsewhere) happened and why the European Union is not equipped even now to successfully deal with it. Any effort to address it (using the existing neo-liberal strategies) will be temporary and the crises will deepen.
His discussions on the neo-liberal insistence on a deregulated economic environment, free flow of global capital, and the use of exotic financial instruments and transactions, especially naked short sales, are the clearest I've read about how these elements de-stabilized the global economy. They will continue to do so as long as those who (very lucratively) benefit from them (the political elite) insist upon them regardless of the consequences to hapless small nations and their economies, small businesses, and people like you and me. He thoroughly and lucidly explains how this political-economic philosophy destroys real democracy, including in America. What we have, he says, is a corporatocracy which dominates much of political and social life through the forces of wealth and ideology.
Mr. Jackson is also a political-economic visionary of the highest order as shown in the second half of the book by his "break away" strategy where he sets out his alternative environmentalist paradigm. It is a new worldview emphasizing the finite reality of our natural resources, especially energy ones, and how we should alter much of what we do to comply with that reality. He argues for a new set of social values harmonious with a holistic sense of people and nature being part of one "system." The values of that system include smallness, localization, quality versus quantity, interrelationships, and long-term perspectives.
These values are organized into a moderately sophisticated set of new global political and economic institutions modeled much like the European Union but emphasizing environmental issues and designed to satisfy long-term environmental needs. This process will also lead to enhancing of true human values in the political sphere, especially in more effective democracies.
The "breaking away" strategy starts with small nation states building a new economic paradigm based upon the environmental perspective, rejecting the flawed and elitist global institutions we have now (the WTO, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund), and even developing new currency systems. The nation states will be supported by a grassroots activist movement which will create local eco-communities and more self-reliant economies while lobbying existing political powers to get on board with the new paradigm. The measurements of success will not be GNP or GDP but the broader-based measures of social happiness and human rights. (Take the case of the nation of Bhutan which measures its activity by a standard called "Gross National Happiness Index.")
The parts of the book explaining the roles of the neo-liberal economic philosophy and the political elite are solidly presented and not really new. The program of change he proposes, however, is new and intellectually sound. Being intellectually sound, however, is not sufficient to affect change. There is a gap, it seems, between the ideas and what is necessary to activate people at the grassroots level. Relatively few people in reality will even read this book. The ideas need to be connected to "street-level" understandings, perhaps tied to basic human values of respect and dignity. The roadmap proposed here, Mr. Jackson acknowledges, needs much more development.
You can purchase Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The author, Ross Jackson, identifies who and what is responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown and many other problems in society. Most prominent are a seriously-flawed "neo-liberal economic philosophy" and the political-elite class which sponsors that philosophy for self-interested reasons at the expense of the rest of us. Jackson makes clear that economic philosophical theory is not value free and is class politics in disguise. But way more importantly than the mere class versus class struggle, the neo-liberal economic philosophy has created severe energy and environmental problems which are almost certain to lead soon to major economic and political disruptions affecting the entire globe.
The author's main perspective is as an environmentalist; he utilizes a systems approach of an overarching environmental model where the global environment is a closed, finite system and the economic, political, and other topics are subsystems of the whole. The book explains (in six parts and 17 chapters) how and why our existing economic model is failing and will create environmental, economic, and political chaos unless it is replaced soon with an economic model emphasizing "sustainability" and "development" versus simple "unlimited growth." Jackson explains in the second half of the book what we can do about it, hopefully before it's too late for future generations to have a chance for civilized life.
I have never heard before of Mr.Jackson, but he is bound to be (or at least should be) hailed as a top-notch public intellectual. He is a brilliant analyst of global economics, politics, and environmental matters; and a clever synthesist of the relevant economics, politics, philosophy, environmental science, psychology, sociology, history, physics, and biology, which apply to his examination.
He has an unusually broad and diverse background as a global currency trader, executive of a nonprofit environmental organization, software designer and businessman, and degrees in engineering physics, industrial management, and operations research. This may explain, in part, his ability to see major categories of human life with such a wide lens while also being able to analyze the subcategories and the factual data.
Part One explains the scientific and economic reasons why the neo-liberal approach of unending growth is unsustainable and a lie. It is a lie because it implies, at least, that everyone has a chance ultimately to achieve the high level of consumption of the successful capitalists and that the high consumption gravy train will go on forever. He uses biological, environmental, and mathematical data to show that the neo-liberal assumption of infinite natural capital has already resulted in net deficits of global energy resources, and that the world (and the neo-liberal economic system) will end frightfully unless we reduce population, give up the idea of "more of everything is better," redesign and downsize our economies, use less fossil energies, and emphasize sustainability.
The next two parts explain the politics and human factors which drive the irrational economic policies. He goes into good detail about historical economic theory from the mercantile period, to the classical free trade period, to our existing neo-liberal period. He clearly explains how and why the 2008 financial crisis occurred and why it is likely to repeat itself, and how the current debt crisis in Europe (and elsewhere) happened and why the European Union is not equipped even now to successfully deal with it. Any effort to address it (using the existing neo-liberal strategies) will be temporary and the crises will deepen.
His discussions on the neo-liberal insistence on a deregulated economic environment, free flow of global capital, and the use of exotic financial instruments and transactions, especially naked short sales, are the clearest I've read about how these elements de-stabilized the global economy. They will continue to do so as long as those who (very lucratively) benefit from them (the political elite) insist upon them regardless of the consequences to hapless small nations and their economies, small businesses, and people like you and me. He thoroughly and lucidly explains how this political-economic philosophy destroys real democracy, including in America. What we have, he says, is a corporatocracy which dominates much of political and social life through the forces of wealth and ideology.
Mr. Jackson is also a political-economic visionary of the highest order as shown in the second half of the book by his "break away" strategy where he sets out his alternative environmentalist paradigm. It is a new worldview emphasizing the finite reality of our natural resources, especially energy ones, and how we should alter much of what we do to comply with that reality. He argues for a new set of social values harmonious with a holistic sense of people and nature being part of one "system." The values of that system include smallness, localization, quality versus quantity, interrelationships, and long-term perspectives.
These values are organized into a moderately sophisticated set of new global political and economic institutions modeled much like the European Union but emphasizing environmental issues and designed to satisfy long-term environmental needs. This process will also lead to enhancing of true human values in the political sphere, especially in more effective democracies.
The "breaking away" strategy starts with small nation states building a new economic paradigm based upon the environmental perspective, rejecting the flawed and elitist global institutions we have now (the WTO, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund), and even developing new currency systems. The nation states will be supported by a grassroots activist movement which will create local eco-communities and more self-reliant economies while lobbying existing political powers to get on board with the new paradigm. The measurements of success will not be GNP or GDP but the broader-based measures of social happiness and human rights. (Take the case of the nation of Bhutan which measures its activity by a standard called "Gross National Happiness Index.")
The parts of the book explaining the roles of the neo-liberal economic philosophy and the political elite are solidly presented and not really new. The program of change he proposes, however, is new and intellectually sound. Being intellectually sound, however, is not sufficient to affect change. There is a gap, it seems, between the ideas and what is necessary to activate people at the grassroots level. Relatively few people in reality will even read this book. The ideas need to be connected to "street-level" understandings, perhaps tied to basic human values of respect and dignity. The roadmap proposed here, Mr. Jackson acknowledges, needs much more development.
You can purchase Occupy World Street: A Global Roadmap for Radical Economic and Political Reform from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Putting aside the obvious problem of going up against the incredible, almost god-like, power of the huge megacorporations that own almost every major government in the world, there is an even bigger problem that you're going to face with your "sustainability" message (especially in the U.S.):
Your first message to the masses is going to be "You have to make real sacrifices."
You won't even get the final "s" in sacrifices out before they tar and feather you and run you out of town on a rail. This is a country where a dollar-per-gallon increase in gas prices almost starts a riot, where "keeping up with the Joneses" is considered a birthright, where not one single President or politician has asked *any* American to sacrifice *anything* in over 40 years. No politician here has EVER won on a message of "I'm going to make things materially worse for you" irrespective of whether or not he adds "But things will be better in the long-term for your grandchildren."
They only way your revolution will ever happen will be by force (force of economic collapse or force or arms, but certainly not by popular vote). No one is going to vote for the guy who is asking them to give up their new car, their big house, their HDTV. You can't guilt someone into making REAL HARD material sacrifices.
Social movements in the U.S. do occasionally succeed in getting minor sacrifices out of the public, but the MAJOR ones that this would require? Good luck with that.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And despite all this, i'm sure Erin Burnett will ask "What do you want?!??!?"
Does the book go into the fact that OWS was a smokescreen to blame private corporations for the results of government misregulation for the aid of the Obama re-election campaign?
We will not run out of energy until the Sun expands and swallows the Earth. Oil will run out, but by then, long before then, solar, wind, and geothermal will replace it. We don't have to go back to the stone age. Population will level off as new population's are educated. All governments need to do is get out of the way and just regulate the commons, to avoid tragedy :-P
Why does this book report read like OWS propaganda?
Programmers haven't had it this good since the dot com days, unemployment is low and pay is high.
I think this is the wrong audience of construction workers.
the Tea Partiers, the 99%-ers
/
Please do not lump these two groups together. While I have seen a few rational 99 percenters, most seem to be demanding a more interventionist government. In effect they yell "Nothing is working, give us more of the same!". At least most of the tea partiers have realized government is the problem. And to any who counter that the rich purchasing control of the government is the problem, realize that any government large enough (powerful enough) to be worth buying off will be bought off.
and it probably still wouldn't drive any measurable change...but one can always hope
because the powers that be combine appeal of lasissez-faire capitalism with the fear of losing what little status quo remains to pit us all against each other through the tactics of divide and conquer
as elrous0 says above -there will have to be some painful changes and some ugly battles before things will improve for most people on earth an most of us are not yet willing to make them -and I'm afraid I am probably among them. Maybe your children will see enough of what has been lost and can rise up before it is too late...
-I'm just sayin'
it is a shame isn't it!!?
http://i.imgur.com/VJrE5.jpg
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Profit motive is the problem.
As long as people will only work enough to make themselves and their close friends filthy rich, a short-term goal, instead of out of a sense of value for their community, we're all fucked.
This book falls into a long-standing category of works called "utopian," in which the author creates a model perfect world but totally fails to explain how to get from here to there (suggested reading: "Socialism, Scientific and Utopian" by F. Engels). Pass laws? But it's the very "political elite" he condemns that makes the laws. And the idea that the mass of ordinary people, who are the ones who suffer under the existing system, should have to live *worse* in order to make the world *better* is just incorrect. Many of us are already living worse--pay cuts, job losses, cuts in all kinds of social spending (and it's going to get worse) and how has that benefitted us or the world? Raise oil prices? What effect will that have besides making the owners of Exxon even richer? Without doing away with the dictatorship of capital all of this is just spitting into the wind.
I was looking for stuff that matters. Not this socialist dribble that seems to be dominating the "news for nerds."
both the RNC and DNC hated it, oh the RNC liked it for the fact it helped them win control of the House but they resented the fact that those people didn't have the decency to go away. When the RNC tried to gain control, either directly or through sycophants they kept getting rebuffed.
That is why I found the OWS so distressing. It was a fake protest, one that the politicians could control. Nothing made this more obvious than having "unions" suddenly appear to add their voice; you notice how fast these same people vanished? When the real down and out people showed up they were scorned (the homeless and such). The OWS was needed when the previous "Tea Party" counter protests organized by unions; complete with bus loads paid for by the same; came to Washington but only trashed the place and didn't put up real numbers, nor did they have any lasting group - it all faded away as any generated for the moment organization does.
Washington and their press sycophants are desperate to shut down or vilify any true protest to the status quo. Wall Street toes the line because they love their money and Washington politicians love the same.
The Democrats need a true grass roots organization similar to the Tea Party to spring up. The problem is again, how can they tell when it truly from the grass roots and not manufactured. The key to knowing will be how those in power react to it and how the press reacts.
Simple rule : If the politicians and press both lap it up then its probably not real.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The US deregulated? When? Government spending and all the laws and statutes in the Federal Register has been always growing and never stops. The rate of growth might change, but it always grows.
I take major issue with this notion that some how the US a free market. It would be more correct to call it mercantilism or proto-fascism.
Fact is, there isn't anything remotely resembling a free market in the US. It's mixed economy. To say it's deregulated is to forget all the agencies that cover it, whether it be employment, food, drugs, stockmarkets, currency, transportation, utilities, or healthcare.
Compiled quickly with a short search, here is a short list:
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae)
US Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Import Export Bank
US Dept of Treasury, and it's dozen of so sub-offices
US Department of Commerce
Federal Reserve System
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
US Dept of Energy (DOE)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
US Department of Labor (DOL)
Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
US Dept of Transportation (DOT)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EREN)
Federal Highway Administration (FHA)
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Transportation Security Administraion (TSA)
And this doesn't included other, multiple layers of city, county, and state laws, codes, and regulations.
There is ***NOTHING*** that isn't regulated in the US.
Look, I agree with the sentiments of the OWS crowd. There's some straight scum bags out there. But wouldn't it make sense, if you create a massive apparatus, you're also creating a new power center---A power center that these scumbags can use to their own ends against everyone else? A larger regulatory state requires smart, honest people to run it. If you look at something like military contractors at the DOD or large Wall Street banks at Treasury or the Fed, you see back door scam deals left and right. And just because you elect the right guy in office once, there's no guarantee that the next guy in charge will be just as nice.
http://wizbangblog.com/2011/10/27/ows-vs-tea-party-by-the-numbers/owsvsteaparty/
It's horseshit.
Yeah fuck those hippies always tearing down forests to make their concrete hippie communes. They have ruined the environment while honourable businessmen strive to preserve a balance on the planet. Before the Industrial Revolution, man's impact on nature had nearly caused the destruction of the planet.
While I assume you're trolling, I never really thought of the poetic justice you describe: that the hippies have demonstrated on a small scale what their detractors have done on a global scale.
Comrades, the author of this book is right. We need more regulations to keep those evil capitalists from getting richer. Also we need more bureaucrats to put those regulations in practice. I mean, we all know that our well-being is directly proportional to the size of the bureaucracy. Also, in order to live better we must make ourselves poorer, voluntarily of course. We must stop pursuing material wellbeing and start living in harmony with nature.
And another thing that is wrong with the current world order is the social class "system" that we have. We only need two social classes the ruling class (i.e politicians and bureaucrats) and regular people. And yeah, lets implement his idea of measuring peoples happiness instead of their monetary wealth. Once those enlightened bureaucrats can agree on a definition of happiness I have no doubt that our leaders can take us there.
The words... they fail.
Hitler hates pedophiles.
http://xkcd.com/1007/
Sustainable is already boring.
Infinite debt and economic collapse for the win!
Deleted
You must feel so smart and proud of yourself, posting that link on a website owned by a corporation who is out to make money. At what point do you stop being a "good corporation" and start being a conspiracy of evil plutocrats? Is Rob Malda an evil capitalist for selling out? Or do we like him, so he's not. but all the other ones are.
Go ahead and call me an AC. I've read this website on and off for 10 years and never cared to sign up for an account - because I'm too busy doing actual work and being paid quite handsomely for it.
Life is what you make of it - and all the class envious in these threads arent doing a damned thing to make their lives better. You just wait for the big friendly government to give you something you didn't earn. For shame.
Unrelated, it amuses me how in 4 years we've gone from "Its Bush's fault" to "its the evil bankers/corporations/other imaginary plutocrats" fault. Because the guy in power has a D, so it CANT be his fault. Quick, someone get another demagogue!
They both started out as protest movements against the banker bailouts, so I'd say it's entirely appropriate to be linking them together. That and I'd come across the same core group of people at both functions. Yes, their solutions are quite different. But it's the Tea Party/OWS/Arab Spring vs our crooked establishment and the apathy of their neighbors (at least in the early days before each movement fell apart). I'm sure we'll see another similar movement with a whole new name by 2013.
Perhaps the point is, there's a galaxy of difference between fucking up a tiny urban park (term used quite loosely), and fucking up the global economic system.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Do some research into the relationship between the SEC and the banks they are supposed to regulate, then get back to me.
Matt Taibbi's blog is a good place to start.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
What about the 98.6%? We aren't billionaires. We aren't communists. We just want common sense. We're not radical. We're well-balanced, healthy centrists. The only options being presented are all burning with a deathbed fever of corporate fascism or hard-left radicalism that will leave us dying in a sweat-soaked poltical deathbed.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You should have just told them to get off your lawn.
Because "Class Warfare" and "Capitalist Society is Doomed to Fail" isn't exactly new.
Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha etc.
Eh. Wait... That didn't work. I know. Lets try it again and see if it works this time!
No what it needs is for people to understand the truth rather than the fantasy being sold to them by the mainstream media and start acting in their own self interest. Understand exactly how things really work and why the vested interests want them that way.
That will only happen as the shit hits the fan btw.
Deleted
Mr. Jackson is also a political-economic visionary of the highest order as shown in the second half of the book by his "break away" strategy where he sets out his alternative environmentalist paradigm. It is a new worldview emphasizing the finite reality of our natural resources, especially energy ones, and how we should alter much of what we do to comply with that reality. He argues for a new set of social values harmonious with a holistic sense of people and nature being part of one "system." The values of that system include smallness, localization, quality versus quantity, interrelationships, and long-term perspectives.
If you read John Stuart Mill you will see that those ideas aren't exactly new . And it wouldn't surprise me if Mill got his ideas from folks from an earlier time.
Malkovich. Malkovich? Malkovich Malkovich!
The conclusion of that XKCD chart always makes me think of that movie, Being John Malkovich . Fun, crazy-ass film.
There is truth to what you say, yet I think it's a question of framing, not of whether there are actual sacrifices.
Many people support austerity, even though it means significant sacrifices for the majority (even as it is twinned with tax cuts for the few). You might argue this is because people do not perceive themselves as beneficiaries of government spending (see: Alaska), or because they have an aspirational view of themselves living the American dream and benefiting from tax cuts, because they believe that the pain is necessary in order to grow the economy and create jobs, because they believe current spending is unsustainable so there is no alternative, or because it is linked to their sense of patriotism or identity.
I don't buy any of this, but my point is: people are willing to accept sacrifices. While I don't deny that people are often too much focused on what's in it for them rather than the greater good of the society or the future of their children, if they believe it is necessary, or inevitable, or ultimately for the best they wholeheartedly embrace sacrifice, even making it a point of pride.
What the OP proposes is an agenda with long term benefits, one that is necessary if we are to avoid serious negative consequences. The sorts of arguments made for austerity could easily be made for it or something like it. Such arguments are not being presented by mainstream media - but that is for reasons of power, politics, ideology and institutional rigidity, not because it's not possible to get the American people on side. Therefore, we need to fight on the terrian of politics and communication. We cannot afford to surrender democracy, excusing ourselves because of a belief that the American people are iredeemably selfish.
I don't mean to imply that I support high taxes carte blanche... I don't. However, I do have to point out that there are countries with high taxes and yet high standards of living, peace and very good levels of procedural justice. Countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark come to mind.
I think this idea that government is inherently evil and can't do anything productive is rather sad. Perhaps it's true in the US, which would be more of a commentary on the flaws of American democracy than on government in general, but there are countries where governments are, by American standards, very interventionists and yet there are high levels of happiness among the nation's population, along with a high standard of living and high levels of individual freedom.
This rigid debate about the evils of tax increases in the US reminds me of what we went through here in Saskatchewan in the mid-1990s. The economy here was terrible. We were in debt up to our eyeballs as a province and international banks were telling us that we were not far from being in a position where acquiring loans to finance future debt was going to be a difficult proposition. Our credit rating had been downgraded significantly. The government of the day severely reduced spending and significantly increased taxes. Roads got neglected, schools got overcrowded, and in general, it really sucked to be here for awhile. But do you know what happened? The provincial debt got significantly reduced. That permitted a gradual reduction of taxes. That allowed the economy to improve - slowly at first, very quickly later - and now we are one of the two strongest provinces in Canada economically, with very reasonable levels of debt a fraction of what it once was, and with a real hope of being retired completely in a few years.
Fix the US political system so that political actors act for the benefit of the nation and its citizens instead of special interest groups, and think with a mind toward the future. This petty bickering and inflexibility are not only increasingly making the US a laughingstock in the international scene, they are seriously damaging the US's ability to have a strong economy. Yes, that may mean a few years of significantly higher taxes, but the dividends in the long run would be huge.
this book is about one thing, making it from the 99% to the 1% by selling a lot of copies. take a look at self-help-books. the only one these are going the help is the author. by getting rich.
"Writing a Slashdot review should be fun -- and reading it should be, too. Write conversationally but seriously, as you might in a topical letter to an acquaintance who's asked you to send your impressions of a book. At the same time, please be sure to write a review, not just a summary. Do explain the content of the book, but don't stop there: the whole point of a review is to offer insight on a book's worth, not just whether it has a chapter on interfacing with MySQL. Compare it to other books, explain whether this one met your expectations, criticize, parse."
Of course, that's no problem, because when you are a servant of the Global Socialist Class Warfare Jihad for Humanity, it's about fighting the good fight, not following rules.
"Being intellectually sound, however, is not sufficient to affect change"
Can we have the argument about affect and effect here? I would have used 'effect change' here, unless OP means that change, in some way, is to be altered.
Also, there an enormous issue about how invested we all are in the existing system, with jobs and housing provided by it. That makes it very costly to change - but it's quite costly to stay paying a mortgage which supports the lifestyles of the people who sold created and sold CDOs and which is also rescuing the present situation.
You cannot seriously consider Rolling Stone a source of anything more than dopehead diatribes. Dude, it's Rolling Stone - they were marginally relevant to the 70s music scene. Marginally. Since then they've been nothing but a venting platform for drug-addled baby boomers who refuse to shut up.
Advice: on VPS providers
So many Anonymous Cowards.
O.K. I'll knock an oddball out into left field.I'll even stick my name to it.
We have scientists telling us we aren't smart enough for democracy in yesterdays story.
We hate everything about our governments and circumstances is pretty global.
REVOLT! Just everywhere! Start over. Let natural selection take the best of us forward. We're overpopulated, polluted and full of ignorant, corrupt, irritating people and hassles. Let's just pick a day and fight it out with the power worldwide and once the carnage is over, the strong survive and we can start over a little smarter for wear and tear. Hell, we even have history as an example, and the wreckage of the previous era to rebuild with.
Sometimes, doesn't it just seem like the only sane thing to do is burn it all down and start again?
There is no fixing, repairing or tolerating the present, so wtf to do from this perspective?
O.K. This is "Asking Slashdot"
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Over the past three decades, the masses have had declining wages. The masses have seen fewer employers offering health and retirement benefits. The masses have seen explosive growth in the cost of education, which was supposed to be the method by which they bettered themselves. The masses suffered unemployment and foreclosure as the result of the last economic collapse.
I think a lot of the masses, which have already lost quite a bit, are starting to ask, "When are the controllers going to start sacrificing as much as we have?"
You said, "...not one single President or politician has asked *any* American to sacrifice *anything* in over 40 years." Obama suggested that the tax rates for the top earners go back to the place where they were ten years ago, and he was branded a job-killer and capitalism-hater. Maybe it's not the masses that are your problem here.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Because of course the Scandinavian countries are well known for the intense levels of poverty due to their high taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's exactly my point.
As I said in my original post: "if you create a massive apparatus, you're also creating a new power center---A power center that these scumbags can use to their own ends against everyone else"
If you want to regulate more, go ahead, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that the regulators themselves won't be for sale.
That right wing nut jobs attribute the positives as being accomplished despite their best attempts at throwing the president under the back of the bus. then again, literacy is probably one of those liberal elite tings you don't believe in.
emphasizing "sustainability" and "development" versus simple "unlimited growth."
You know? I've been saying that for close to 10 years... that there is something mathematically wrong with using "growth" as a metric of success. But at a company I once worked for, we read "From good to great" and listened to our C-level executives came back from business conventions saying things like "if you're not growing, then you're dying." The logical failure in these ideas were all too plain for me to see.
There's a whole lot of crazy and stupid in our society from the very top to the very bottom. People think drugs are a good idea for helping them to feel better at all levels, for example. But it's pretty much everywhere you look where conventional wisdom which our grandfathers lived under successfully after surviving the great depression is being cast aside for "new ideas" which are just short-sightednees and greed in shiny wrapping paper. It's like saying "hey! eat all the candy you want! you're going to feel great and be happy! It's all that matters in life!" Forget about getting diabetes, getting your feet cut off and bieng unable to take care of your children because of your new disability.
Only one thing will cause a turn-around. Things will have to get bad on a global scale and pretty much apocalyptic before things can even come close to turning around. The ruiners of the world are still in charge and will not stop to think that they are dooming themselves as much as the rest of us even though they won't feel it until a much larger amount of us will have died from it and their first symptoms will be "unable to get enough servants to do their work for them."
A few years ago I stumbled across un unusually lucidly written book that explained complex economic theory to regular people, in much the same way as I have recently managed to find a way to explain to my mother what us coders do despite my having struggled for sixteen solid years not to explain what a folder is, but to do so without her flying into a panic then fleeing in terror from the room.
My mother is a total nutcase about keeping her immaculate little condo neat and tidy. Despite being only 1200 square feet, I shit you not that she has eight different vacuum cleaners.
Over the years I've often puzzled over the slow accumulation of what recently became hundreds of icons scattered randomly all over her desktop. I figured all that untidiness must cause her no end of worry so not long age I showed her the Mac OSX Finders Arrange by Name menu.
"Thats nice. But how do I put them all back where they were?"
Holy Mother of G-d!
"Why do you want to put them all back Mom? We both know how much you loathe untidiness."
I damn near pissed my pants when she told me that she kept all of her most crucially important documents arranged into little piles on her desktop!
I smiled gently. "There's a better way to do that Mom. Here, ket me show you how to create a folder." The next time I visited there were ten or so fokders neatly arranged on her desktop.
No imagine you were a coder who on two different occasions actually worked at Apple and I myself was your technophobic Mother, only you just realized that my understanding of Economics was about insightful as my mothers insight into how to get full value from an iMac she blew a couple grand on.
The book I seek was meant for people just like me. I do recognize that wiser heads than mine must be at the Economic helm, but for the life of me nothing that Economists do or say ever makes a damn bit of sense to me.
Consider that the subprime crisis did not affect Texas because Texan banking regulations have never permitted subprime loans, and that myth if the grief that bankers give to most Americans simply does not occur in Nirth Dakota because North Dakota has a bank that's run by the state government.
Given that the simplest fool could have foreseen the subprime crisis, why didn't the Federal Reserve or the banking regulators in every state other than Texas? Given that the North Dakota State-Operated Bank solves many of the problems faced there much more reliably and effortlessly, why did not every state in the Union establish it's own bank decades ago.
The book was light green in color, about five by eight inches, and is known in the business as a Trade Paper, that us a good quality paperback.
I made a huge mistake nit to have knocked over a liquor store at gunpoint so I could purchase that book while I still knew where to find it. Just by casually skipping around in that book I couldveasily see how many of the entire world's problems could be solved were mire if us to read that book.
I opened these comments to read insightful posts refuting and supporting the arguments in the book with logic and evidence. I found 100 posts of partisan political bickering without a shred of useful content.
Today I am ashamed to be part of Slashdot.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
the Tea Party did not threaten the status quo, they just wanted lower taxes, everybody wants lower taxes including those criminals on wallstreet, but when a protest wants to actually change something like a system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer then there is going to be arrests.
sheesh dont you people get it? i doubt some of you will never get it, not now, not ever, you'll more than likely die of old age as clueless as you were when you were born
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
What would you prefer, something that had a hint of the Koch brothers? Maybe a dash of Rupert Murdoch for taste?
Increasing taxes does not adjust the incentives of bureaucrats and other government employees, including those elected, to act in a manner that benefits the entire group.
Increasing taxes does increase the magnitude of the benefit lobbying results in, due to more funding = more effective regulatory capture.
None of these "features" of government are net positive for whatever society is held as subject.
In effect they yell "Nothing is working, give us more of the same!"
Yeah, and on the other side we have morons saying "Nothing is working, don't change anything!"
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I can't figure out why the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement didn't converge on the one thing that their followers, and practically everybody else that has any sympathy for either movement, agree on: that there is too much fricking money pouring into political parties and controlling the democratic process. It doesn't matter if we're talking corporate, union, or other organizational money. We all know millions of dollars buys a lot of votes. Why didn't somebody suggest a constitutional amendment limiting campaign donations to personal donations only, putting a cap on those, and fixing the root of half the political problems in democracy today?
Because there is no such thing as "real capitalism." "Capitalism" is a theme, an approach, an overarching paradigm. It is not a specific recipe or architecture. Many things can be called Capitalism and yet differ drastically among themselves.
The last page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano
Or maybe the last couplet of http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?lyrics=lgatwosh
So, the government organization that is supposed to regulate the banks has been taken over by the big banks and your solution is more government regulation? I ask this question because your phrasing seems to imply that your post counters the OP in some way, when in fact you demonstrate his point. His point is that government regulatory agencies get subverted by the big players and end up serving their purposes every time and you counter that with an example that purports that a government organization has been subverted to serve the purposes of the corporations it was created to regulate.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
What has a park full of "protesters" got to do with fucking up the global economy? It was a bunch of career protesters who do nothing more than jump on the bandwagon of any protest they can find so they can get some attention while living off government benefits. Probably claiming accomodation suppliments while not paying rent camping in the park too... which is nothing short of fraud.
I agree, a protest in wall street was probably a good idea.
I disagree that a "protest" in every major city of every country on the planet is a good idea. I also wouldn't be complaining if they didnt set up tents and they packed up their shit every night and went home. The local governments wouldn't have been so pissed off either, so court orders and police wouldn't be used to evict them.
"I have never heard before of Mr.Jackson, but he is bound to be (or at least should be) hailed as a top-notch public intellectual."
Oh sure, he'll be so hailed - but not by anyone I'd be pleased to be recognized by. He, and the author of the review, sound like tinfoil hat Marxists.
You cannot seriously consider Rolling Stone a source of anything more than dopehead diatribes.
Matt Taibbi. Your argument is invalid.
Go ahead and call me an AC. I've read this website on and off for 10 years and never cared to sign up for an account - because I'm too busy doing actual work and being paid quite handsomely for it.
Too busy to sign up, and yet not to busy to read and to post? You're full of bullshit like the rest of your Republican wannabe rich types.
Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all have tiny populations - the largest has a population only slightly larger than that of New York CITY... The same policies that work for a monolithic culture of 9 million will probably not work for a diverse nation of 300 million.
Slashdot seems to be inhabited by a non trivial number of what I call communist anarchists for lack of a better term. Now I know that is contradictory, but that's the point is they seem to hold mutually contradictory views.
At times, they are anti-government to the point of being anarchist. Whenever the government comes down on something they like, for example the lulzsec guy or Bradley Manning, they get up in arms and say the government should butt out, leave people alone, is being evil big brother, etc, etc. They very much seem to have an attitude that government should be very uninvolved, if even extant. Basic extreme libertarian or anarchist position: That people should be left to their own ends and government should be limited, or eliminated.
However at other times they are extremely socialist, even communist. They want the government to take care of them, or crack down on those they don't like. For example with the banks et al. in the financial crisis they don't want justice, they want punishment. They want the government to come and and crack down on them Dzerzhinsky style. Doesn't matter that what they did was legal, it hurt The People and so they must be made to pay an extremely high cost. That is very communist in attitude. In theory the government should own and control everything, and act at all times as an agent of the people. Everyone should be taken care of by the government, no matter what.
Of course the two positions are fundamentally opposed. You can't reconcile them. So what you really have are people who want to be the dictator's kid. They want to have those they don't like punished, perhaps even arbitrarily and capriciously, and those they do like shielded from any punishment. They want the government to care for them but not have to pay for it, and so on.
Hence we get a lot of stupid shit posted for that.
because of finite natural resources. Author mix up material output and economical growth. Economical growth don't have necessary be material, and could be increase in consumption of intellectual/informational product, which, at least in theory could be sustained while consumption of natural resources decreasing. Even growth in quality of life don't necessary have to be supported with increase of natural resources exploitation. Technological breakthrough and radical cultural changes can (not necessary of cause, but that is possibility) sustain growth in quality of life with decrease of exploitation of natural resources. Example: such radical increase in quality of life as stop forcing adult females wearing burka does not require increase in material resource consumption. Failure to see such an obvious error make me doubt quality of the rest of the book, though it could be failure of reviewer of cause.
I'd recommend that people check out is Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Unlike the earlier films, this focuses less on conspiracies and all on solid facts and reiterates many of the ideas in this book.
You could start by scrapping that "winner-takes-all"-election practice and get a representative democracy instead. Having only 2 relevant parties in a democracy polarizes your country in the "Gun-toting-hillbilly-AMERICA-FUCK-YEAH!-republican" and the "Communist-hightaxing-windmill-hippie", and it destroys any kind of relevant discussion since people will simply deride the other side as such.
Then again, the above will never happen because the traditionalists will start drumming patriotism and constitution-speak.
America is one of those countries that are "too big to change".
Sure .. this world can't continue to go on it's current course forever. And it would be wonderful if we all could join hands and sing kumbaya around the campfire, get along, and live in a purely socialistic state where we each of according to our needs, and give according to our abilities. When he works out how to get around that little human nature thing that prevents it, then maybe his ideas will have merit.
Which is why space travel is inevitable for the survival of our species. Through the ages, humans have used up the areas they live in, and some of the greatest advances were realized when a few packed up and moved to new areas. Usually, they just wiped out or enslaved the inhabitants and took over. But eventually, great civilizations rose where nomadic, stagnant tribes that had learned to live on renewable resources had flourished.
Whine if you will about the 'evils' of capitalism, but it has only been the desire to have more that has enabled us to have our current batch of high-tech toys. The United States might still be the land of horse-drawn travois if it hadn't been for the spirit of capitalism. I'm sure some romantic few will nod and dream of those days, but I like having a very possible opportunity to live into my 80s instead of having a high chance of dying a horrible death due to diarrhea as a small child.
As we reach out to the space beyond Earth, we will discover new riches which will continue to allow us to grow and prosper.
And continue to be able to purchase that new iPad simply because we want one, not because we need it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Amazingly, jobness is also at a 4 year low (number of people who have jobs)
Reposting:
The number of people in employment has been consistently rising for at least the last year.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
With the first link, the chain is forged.
So, the government organization that is supposed to regulate the banks has been taken over by the big banks and your solution is more government regulation?
No, my solution is to drag the corrupt out into the streets and publicly execute them to serve as an example for others. But then again, I'm known to be a bit despotic... in a good way :)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
0 Nothing Wild -
1 Shared Anarchism (Allows Possessions) - No money
2 Owned Mutualism / Full welfare state (Adds trade and most likely money) - Expenditure used to measure wealth
3 Rented Capitalism / Communism (Money is the root of all evil. Here begins evil) - Income used to measure wealth
4 Derived "" Anyone not understanding or not supporting derivative will likely be poor
I do not believe that the Welfare Queens (The Federal Reserve and their cronies) are entitled, as you say. I think that I, on the other hand, as an American Citizen, am entitled to my share of all the "quantitative easing" that occurs in my lifetime, as every other man, woman, and child who can claim ownership of my government is as well.
Every time the economy "expands", I expect a credit to my account or a check in my mail.
The "Gold Standard" candidate has my vote, only because he recognises the criminality of the system all the rest of you are supporting, but no one is addressing the fact that the system is built to fail.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
History tells me that the survivors are the ones who escape into the bush while everyone else defends what's theirs.
Globalization is screwing this option in the ass.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Ambition is the root of the problem. If society understood this, laws could be written to prevent the destruction of the commons, and actual sustainability could be implemented. The system is bent to suit the wants/needs of the worst of the greedy motherfuckers so it doesn't work for anyone else at this time.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Matt Taibbi is a misogynist idiot. That the objects of his ire are Republican women does not make his anti-female remarks acceptable.
All those Tea partiers, Occupy protesters etc and the like are useless and clueless.
There's a bunch of them in my area and I went to one of their little meetings plastered with "We are the 99%" posters all over the place. It was an hour of them first bashing the Republicans and Democrats followed by another hour of them debating which one they should vote for.
I asked some of them why they'd vote for either one when they spent an hour accusing both of being in the pocket of lobbyists and corporate Super Pacs and don't instead back a 3rd party candidate. The answer was always the same "A 3rd party candidate couldn't win and our vote would be wasted if we backed them."
The scientists are right. People aren't smart enough for Democracy.
Actually, it's "Nothing is working, stop what you're doing"
A single rule will suffice: Anyone who is challenged to a "natural duel" and refuses to accept the challenge is executed.
"Natural duel" is the appeal of last resort in dispute processing between males of virtually all sexual species. Humans differ only in the way they, as individuals, relate to the natural environment, and there must be rules that recognize those differences:
The "natural duel" between humans must abide by the following rules:
Seastead this.
What's the point of posting AC if one can't Godwin the thread?
The want lower taxes, and they were willing to cut spending to get them. That was very much a threat to the status quo which derives fortunes from directing the spending.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think this requires a bit more explanation.
The reason it doesn't work for a diverse nation is because the people given charge of directing the ridiculously large sums of money have no emotional ties to the people paying the taxes. Note the "insider trading" scandal where Congressmen have their pages running to buy/sell stocks in the companies that they are passing legislation on. Move all that monetary control back to the states, and there is more accountability.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Uh, the Occupy movement did suggest that. It was possibly their main policy recommendation. I would be somewhat surprised if the Tea Party didn't, although their methods are more along the lines of lowering government funding so the government is so small that can't mess up anything important. (A poor plan IMHO, but it sorta makes sense at first glance.)
Nice movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825163/
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)