The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
paikinator,
"It is about preserving the middle class when it is largely being erased and so many people are not finding they can get to the middle class anymore. That is reality."
A valid point, but let me deconstruct it.
1. Doesn't it appear bizarre to you that those who protest against the perceived erosion of the middle class aren't middle class themselves? Doesn't it appear bizarre to you that the middle class is nowhere to be found "on the barricades"? Doesn't it appear bizarre to you that the solution suggested by those who are on the barricades is to charge more taxes upon those who already pay the greatest share of them, while the barricaders themselves do not pay (most of them) any income taxes at all?
2. If I understand correctly, you attribute the erosion of the middle class to the nefarious business of the rich. I disagree and tend to think that the scaling down of the middle class is largely a self-inflicted wound. Let me elaborate in the next message.
paikinator,
Part I
So, here is what I think about the perceived erosion of the middle class. There are two aspects of economic decline that everyone is talking about: the rise of unemployment and the falling of income. They are connected, to a degree, so I'll talk about them jointly.
If you look at unemployment statistics, you'll see that the "9% figure" is kind of bogus. You've got to parse it with regard to the educational level. If you do, the picture is very different: while those with less than a high school diploma experience a whopping 15% unemployment, those with Master's degree experience only 4% unemployment and professional degree holders experience a 2.5% unemployment. So, it is the low-skilled workers who are in crisis, not the entire nation. It gets even more divided when you take specialization into the account - those who are in construction, for example, experience the worst times, while degree holders in engineering and sciences do relatively well (not appreciably worse than before the recession, according at least to my anecdotal evidence). Further separation may be considered if one looks at distribution of unemployed by state - the middle class in New Hampshire or Iowa is evidently doing remarkably better than that in Florida or California.
Now, what about income levels? I think it's the same story - it is not that the middle class had suddenly started to crumble, it is, I believe, more about people getting into the middle class (by income or spending habits) who shouldn't be there and, therefore, who fall out of the middle class when economic correction happens.
paikinator,
Part II:
An example to illustrate: Someone who holds a (largely) useless degree in, say, communications (useless not because the field isn't valid, but simply because there are just too darn many graduates in it) happens to live in Florida or Arizona during the housing boom, leaves her secretarial, or barista job to attend a three-week course on real estate sales, then sells a few houses to frenzied investors and - voila! - she is in the middle class with $100K+ a year income. Same goes for someone in the auto industry, for example, who is a union member and therefore gets to keep large percentage of income and health insurance despite having no marketable skills for this economy anymore.
What we experience now, I believe, is the correction that was long due in coming. You cannot any longer become a middle class if you don't have viable educational degree and skills that are valuable to the society. Blue collar workers cannot be in middle class by simply working in a low-skilled job at a plant, because this would eventually lead to the plant's closure and moving its operations to China, where labor is so much cheaper. People with college degrees in specialties that experience a glut of graduates cannot be in middle class because there aren't enough those willing to pay for their services. Employees whose skills are becoming obsolete cannot expect to remain in middle class because they will cost their employers more money than they are worth.
paikinator,
Finale,
The world is replete with opportunities, but those opportunities are increasingly now open only to those with the right skills and in the right locations. To avert your eyes from this fact, or to demand that the government "make it go away" will not help anyone. Being in a middle class is not a birth right and must be worked for - but this work must be smart, not just time-consuming. So, someone who had spent four years and $150K at a prestigious private college studying medieval art and moved to a coastal metropolis afterward "to find themselves" should have different expectations for success in life (and for belonging to the middle class) than someone who had spent the same four years, but only $80K studying engineering at a local State U and moved to Texas for a job at an engineering company. If you are implying that the second fellow now must pay extra taxes to support the first - I disagree with you emphatically.
"Voting is a universal right."
The Founders would disagree with you. That's why Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
He didn't add on "voting". Voting is a government-endowed right, depending on the form of government employed. You want one where everybody votes. The Founders did not. They only wanted people to vote who had a stake in the outcome of an election, whatever you define that stake to be.
I'm only going to address a couple more points and then be done with this thread:
"But they don't. Only 10-12% of funding comes from the feds"
I'll accept that figure although I think it's more than that. But ok. Now, imagine your local schools without that 10-12%, because that is exactly what would happen. Take "No child left behind". It is that funding being held over the heads of local schools that makes them comply. I worked for years in Social Security Disability at the state level. That's exactly what happens there too. Even though states administer the programs in conjunction with their state programs, the Feds call the shots because they hold the purse strings. Think about what happend a few decades ago with the 55 mph speed limit. Many states didn't want it. The FG held interstate highway money over the heads of the states. Every state complied. It is tantamount to extortion. You want the Feds to have that control over the states. I don't. And I believe our founding documents intended the same. That's why the 10th ammendment exists. The Federal powers were to be enumerated and limited. We have exactly the opposite today.
"but it is because taking us back to the seventeen hundreds is also hyperbolic. It is not a reasonable thing to do and in fact a flight of fancy."
Nol It isn't a flight of fancy. "Going back to the seventeen hundreds" is again, hyperbolic. We only need to go back to the PRINCIPLES upon which the country and its government were founded. The concern is the PRINICPLES established by the Founders in the Constitution. It is the bedrock of our society. You have to have some sort of touchstone. The Founders knew that. Many, today, have forgotten it.
"I'm pretty sure that the constitution would change dramatically a convention was held again."
Ha! I'm pretty sure you're right. We would emerge with a "democracy" not a republic and within a couple of decades would drift into totalitarianism.
"What I mean by minutia is the details. It isn't about the bigger concepts which redefine man and his government."
Ah! Now we have it. "Redefine man and his government". You talked about that before and I missed it. Your interpretation of the "general welfare" clause is that the FG should direct and be responsible for, the general welfare (read: the lives) of its citizens; that the relationship between man and his government should be like that between a child and his parent. That is not a government that, as a free man, I want. You are willing to hand off your self-determination and your responsibility for yourself to someone else. I'm not. And I believe that is what our citizens have fought and died for, for the past 225 years.
I don't question your motives in wanting the involvement of the FG in so much of our lives. I just don't think the consequences of that have been completely thought through. Each time you see the FG wanting to get involved in something, ask yourself, "where could this lead"? Then look at the history of FG involvement in areas of our lives. SS (broke), Medicare (broke), IRS (not so friendly), Post office (failure - and that's one of the things they're SUPPOSED to be doing!). Shakespeare said, "the past is prologue".
paikinator,
"Hmmm I don't think that really encapsulates how the founders felt about democracy."
I disagree with you. To me, it is very clear that the Founding Fathers came to the conclusion that even monarchy is preferable to what you call a "true democracy" (see Alexander Hamilton's suggestion that George Washington be proclaimed King of America).
"True democracy" terrified the Founding Fathers, because in such a system the 50.1% majority will always beat the 49.9% minority, which lays a foundation for eventual discord, civil wars and collapse - as history showed.
As far as I know the US tax system is already highly progressive, meaning that those who make more money are already paying a far greater share in taxes.
-------
That is true, but for the wealthy and the extremely wealthy they don't pay income tax per-se.
For Example Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple computer and only was paid $1 dollar a year.
He would actually not owe taxes on that part of his income. Many CEOs pay themselves $1 a year. It looks like they are doing a great thing so it is good PR. Very smart.
But Mr. Jobs got lots of stock and on his investments he paid only about 15% which is lower than a lot of the rest of us. With loopholes it could be even lower. He is paying capital gains for his taxes, not income tax.
If proposals on the table to obliterate capital gains entirely were in place it would be even worse, someone like Mr. Jobs would have paid zero tax on the hundreds of millions he would have been making every year.
While me and my wife would be paying roughly 18% or something. Not exactly fair in my estimation. Nor is it fair for small business to shoulder the burden of taxes while the wealthy and corporations are able to hide their assets because they are international and not add the taxes they owe from making money here due to loopholes they bought from political contributions.
The wealthiest 4% account for something like 75-79% of all of the revenue stream generated in this country. When they pay less by even a little it has a big impact on the deficit. Right now it is tearing this country down to the ground. I don't want my kids future to be tossed in the toilet so more people with lots of money can shirk their responsibility. This country has made it possible for the wealthy to be so wealthy. Time to pay their fair share.
One more thing ...
"We don't live in an agrarian society like the Amish anymore.
We have all of this misery going on in the current economy right now and lots of people are falling through the cracks. How many have you deemed to help out of your salary? How many have you invited to stay in your home after theirs was foreclosed upon?
The opportunity is still there to help when there are so many in need and yet I don't see much of this happening. It is a nice concept that fails to bear fruit in reality."
If the "opportunity is still there", how many have you invited to stay in YOUR home?" It only bears the fruit that WE provide.
It seems to me that the left really does want to do good and help people, they just always want to do it with OPM (other people's money). That's why they play the "general welfare" card. In their view, it is the gateway to wealth redistribution.
"How many have you deemed to help out of your salary?"
How many have you?
I tithe my income. I do not say this to brag. It's just a matter of fact and what my conscience tells me to do. My wife and I feel like we are greatly blessed.
Oh, and before you go there, I don't tithe to my church. The church has enough money. I tithe to local organizations where the money goes to help poor families and feed people. That is what we feel called to do.
Study after study shows that conservatives are far more generous with their personal incomes than liberals are. I've posted links to some on this board, but Google "who really gives to charity" and you'll find one from a few years ago.
My wife and I HAVE taken someone into our home. Not a stranger, but a family member who needed it until they got on their feet. That is the way things should work. It is a far more effective way to take care of people than funnelling money through the FG. Again, not a personal bias. Just a fact.
Later, paikenator and good luck to you. See you 'round the MB.
"How many have you deemed to help out of your salary?"
How many have you?
-----
2 in the last 3 years... but it is harder than one thinks. That is why it is better to keep people in their own homes for less money. It is a big stress on everyone. I would disagree that it is more effective. Preventing people from losing their home is much more efficient. They keep their home, they don't tank their credit, they are able to get back on their feet much much much sooner. It is much batter to have a societal backdrop than individuals trying to man up and taking a financial, emotional, and otherwise a general beatdown at the same time.
I would rather have society at large do it.
And most everyone I know who has money donates plenty to lots of organizations, but that still isn't enough. The problems are an order of magnitude larger than the donations from those who try to help. We donate lots of money, but it isn't enough.
Great talking to you ... I have really enjoyed the back an forth. Take care an keep fighting the good fight.
SS (broke), Medicare (broke), IRS (not so friendly), Post office (failure - and that's one of the things they're SUPPOSED to be doing!). Shakespeare said, "the past is prologue".
--------
But there is a myth that social security is broke. It isn't broke yet. In fact payroll taxes bring in more than what is paid out last time I was reading about it. The problem is that the money gets used by other parts of the government to float things.
Medicare going broke? I think the entire nation will be broken by escalating health care costs which don't help the health outcomes of people. Pretty soon more than 20% of our GDP will be spent on healthcare.... nearly 3x that of Japan and nearly more than double of socialistic Britain. We are in a health arms race building more wings and hospitals with more machinery than is necessary for the care of our citizens, but unless each hostpital system builds more unnecessary stuff they will get squeezed out. So the stupidity continues.
Post office. Not a failure. It does what it is supposed to. The problem is in trying to make it work like a business. It can't compete the same way since the government is always moving its funding around and its charter is to get mail to the farthest reaches of the land. Even UPS and FedEX don't bother to cover everywhere.... they use the post office for the final leg. That is not failure.... that is phony expectations.
Houblon:
I disagree with you. To me, it is very clear that the Founding Fathers came to the conclusion that even monarchy is preferable to what you call a "true democracy" (see Alexander Hamilton's suggestion that George Washington be proclaimed King of America).
"True democracy" terrified the Founding Fathers, because in such a system the 50.1% majority will always beat the 49.9% minority, which lays a foundation for eventual discord, civil wars and collapse - as history showed.
--------------------------
This is nonsensical.
The constitution was set up to prevent a sort of monarchy.
The debate about Washington at the time was that there were a large percentage of people who were inately comfortable with Monarchy since that is all they knew.
The American Experiment was scary and had never been tried before.
But luckily Washington gave us a gift. He did not wish to become a King and stepped down after 2 terms and set how the presidency was to be handled. One of the reasons that he was the ideal first president was that he also had no sons so that was also not a threat.
I would say that your interpretation of true democracy terrifying the "Founding Fathers" is quite an assertion. And also, when you state things as Founding Fathers as if they are one intact and uniform regiment of ideas this becomes even more fanciful. The "Founders" were rarely in agreement about anything. It is a mystery how this nation could have gotten to become a nation since there were such divergent views.
paikinator,
"I would say that your interpretation of true democracy terrifying the "Founding Fathers" is quite an assertion."
Full quote:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 10 (From http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm)
I'm no expert on the Federalist Papers, or the Founding Fathers, and English is not my native language, but from what I can understand reading this - it is a pretty sound rejection of "pure democracy."
Well one thing to know about the federalist papers is the context in which they were written. 4 of the states were refusing to join the Union and sign the constituion. The constitution was an all or nothing thing. It would not be ratified if those 4 states did not ratify it and therefore the United States would not have been formed.
The Federalist papers were written in support of that end. The were sort of a propaganda piece put together by 4 of the greatest political thinkers of the time to coerce the rogue colonies to rethink their position.
Many people did not like the role of a strong central government having just come from rule by a monarchy and were distrustful of centralized power the constitution was creating. And so the authors set about on writing a series of essays which would garner support for the new constitution which established a central governmental presence. AKA made a republic instead of a confederation of states. Before that time all of the colonies were run independently. Most preferred this local control and purer democracy of the individual states. But the authors were trying to convince everyone that the republic was a much better way to go. They were in a way playing devils advocate against those who would have had the states remain as a loose confederation.
It is not surprising that they would argue against the independent states remaining so and pointing out the problems people face with pure democracy. It doesn't mean they didn't like democracy. They were just trying to convince everyone of the strength of a republic and what it would do for them over their own local situation.
But in order to get the last 4 states to sign on, the Bill of Rights was created to give people more piece of mind about putting a central government in place.
I'm no expert on the Federalist Papers, or the Founding Fathers, and English is not my native language, but from what I can understand reading this - it is a pretty sound rejection of "pure democracy."
---------------------
It is not a rejection of pure democracy. Most every city and town has pure democracy. For the most part, the states could be a purer form of democracy.
There is nothing to be feared from this for those who argue for more states rights. I don't find my local elections particularly frightening and those are pure democracy in its essense. The founders were not really fearful of it either.
What the Federalist Papers try to do is argue in favor of a Republic and against the self determination by the states. They argued for Central control over States control.
I find it interesting that those who mostly argue against the Federal government also are those who use snippets from the federalist papers which is the biggest series of argument for establishing the Federal system which is in fact what our Constitution is about.
It is very Ironic..... like a cat chasing its tail.
paikinator,
"I would rather have society at large do it. "
I have serious doubts that it works the way you intend. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice people just don't value "free money" when it comes from anonymous source, they easily get dependent upon it, and the majority uses it not to get ahead but to settle in a less comfortable, but care-free existence (e.g. like German welfare recipients, many of whom prefer to stay on welfare forever - and we are talking about hard-working Germans!).
In my opinion, social support should be personalized, targeted, preferably partly loan-based, and designed to help people get out of their predicament, not let them languish indefinitely. In other words, just as ecgberth mentioned - best way is through private community help, not through dole outs from a faceless government.
paikinator,
One example to illustrate: My neighbor went to visit a local food bank to which we sometimes donate food, and which is there to help the unemployed.
When she walked in, she immediately noticed overfilled freezers and rotting fruit. She asked - what's going on? Well, they said - people don't take the raw stuff. Too much hassle. Then, a family came in - all overweight, they marched straight to the aisles with Chef Boyardee cans, cookies, cereal and chips, ignoring bags with apples and frozen chicken and grabbed as much as they could carry. Even the workers at the food bank themselves shook their heads - that's what the majority does, they said. Too lazy to cook, they figured - and those are the unemployed, so, supposedly, they must have plenty of time to at least cook a chicken.
So, as much as I admire your pro-people views, my entire life experience says to me that they, unfortunately, collide with the cold hard reality. I think it will be difficult to resolve this difference of opinion - but it was a good discussion and I learned from you and agreed with you on several points. This was my first time visiting an NPR MB, but I hope to visit it again sometime.
One thing seems to me to be apparent is that you seem to have a pretty negative view of lots of folks and I am not sure why. I see people where they are at and sure they may have flaws, but I am really no better. You see OWS people as largely useless people who don't contribute to anything. You see the poor at the food bank in a negative way without seemingly seeing how they got there. We are all humans with the same needs, wants, desires, etc. I have a strong empathy for the human condition. Empathy is not a bad thing. You can still hold people to a standard, but you can also respect them as humans without dismissing them offhand. The human race is a marvellous thing... all of it. Even the worst parts.
More about the food thingy......
The process leading to America's eating habits has been going on for more than 50 years.
You are right ... it will be difficult to change. But don't blame those who have known nothing else in their lives. People do largely what they have grown up with an real food has been marginalized. I don't blame anyone.... but we need better education. It would help for the feds not to bow to industry pressure and classify things like pizza as a vegetable so they can serve it to school kids.
Great discussion.... my first time on these boards too. I bet if we sat and had a beer together we would come to a better understanding of each others positions and might agree on more than you might think.
-----Even the workers at the food bank themselves shook their heads - that's what the majority does, they said. Too lazy to cook, they figured - and those are the unemployed, so, supposedly, they must have plenty of time to at least cook a chicken.
--------------
Wow this is an entirely different and wonderful thread you have opened up for me. Thank you. I am a giant proponent of healthy living, healthy food, real food and a big opponent of the fake food industry which is leading to the massive unhealth of the entire population in America.
People in this country have become addicted to fake food. In fact most people don't even know that most of what they eat is not good for them. They shop the middle aisles. One of the reasons they do it is that the junk food has been engineered to taste better. More salt, more sugar, other intense flavorings. And it has been engineered to not require much prep. People spend their entire lives eating this stuff and then normal food doesn't taste very good to them and they don't really know what to do with it or have the patience to cook it. There is a lost art to cooking this has been happening for such a long time for much of the poorer populations in our country. And everyone forgets that fast food and food from the center aisles is what the poor can afford. It is expensive to eat real food.
paikinator,
Now, this is what I wholeheartedly agree with!
paikinator,
Although, I must say, still, that your emphasis on the corporations being the culprit is something I just do not accept. The corporations affect me as well, but I barely ever touch fast food or prepared stuff. And it is not as expensive to eat well as it used to be - even Wal-Mart now sells organic food!
50 years + of bad habits are hard to break.
It is much easier to heat up a bunch of pocket pizzas for dinner than it is to make an Escarole Stew.
How many people even know how to cook these days. People in my granmothers generation all cooked, but now everyone uses microwaves.
Schools teach kids that chocolate milk is a health drink and that pizza is a vegetable because it has tomatoes. (a fruit)
I have a feeling we can get to a more healthy and food savvy population, but what is happening now is this bad industrial food industry is being exported and we are beginning to see the same health issues develop in the other populations.
I don't blame the industry for doing what they are doing, they are doing so because people let them do it. People buy it and eat it.
What needs to happen though is for the population to get a food education, but unfortunately industry has exerted force to distort what kids are learning about the benefits of real food and extoll the virtue of junk food. Anyhow... in the end there just needs to be better means of spreading information about what is healthy. We don't need to curtail what industry does,...... societies purchasing will change that once the population gets more educated. Walmart carrying organic stuff shows the power of simply having information. But it will probably take at least 30 years for things to partially reverse themselves.