Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Kate McInturff's Prebudget Presentation to FINA, 2017 July 30, 2018
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • In loving memory of Kate McInturff July 30, 2018
    On July 27, 2018, CCPA Senior Researcher Kate McInturff passed away. The CCPA mourns the devastating loss of our colleague and friend. Kate will be remembered as a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research. Our hearts go out to her family. Kate’s colleagues, collaborators, and countless organizations across Canada are stronger because of her […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Debunking myths about proportional representation July 25, 2018
    This fall, British Columbians will get to vote on whether we want a new electoral system for our province. What an incredible opportunity. Between October 22 and November 30, BC voters will be able to vote in a mail-in referendum. The ballot will look something like this: We at the CCPA-BC are big fans of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Canada’s fossil-fuelled pensions June 22, 2018
    The British Columbia Investment Management Corporation is the steward of BC’s public pensions, but bankrolls companies whose current business models exceed the climate change targets agreed to in the Paris Agreement to which Canada is a signatory. The pensions of over 500,000 British Columbians and assets worth $135 billion are managed by the Corporation—-one of Canada's largest […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Imagine a Winnipeg...2018 Alternative Municipal Budget June 18, 2018
    Climate change; stagnant global economic growth; political polarization; growing inequality.  Our city finds itself dealing with all these issues, and more at once. The 2018 Alternative Municipal Budget (AMB) is a community response that shows how the city can deal with all these issues and balance the budget.
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

First We Take Manhattan….. What Occupy Wall Street Could Mean

This is not the stuff of usual protests. Over the past month, a little idea from a Vancouver outfit has mushroomed into a cross-continent movement.

Occupy Wall Street, kicked off by Adbusters in July and coming to Toronto this weekend, has already spread to 70 American cities and is going global as protestors challenge society to rethink how the economy and the government operates, and for whom.

It’s an awakening — a populist call for that “adult conversation” many thought would take place after the global economic calamity of 2008. It didn’t then. But it may now, thanks to Occupy Wall Street, in a city near you.

Like the Tea Party protesters, Occupy Wall Street was triggered by outrage over the fact that the very people who created the Great Recession were protected from financial pain courtesy of citizens with a lot less money who couldn’t duck the mess. Now the institutions that soaked up hundreds of billions of dollars in government assistance are vigorously gutting government attempts to reform banking and investment practices that led to the disaster.

Unlike the Tea Party protesters, the folks occupying Wall Street and elsewhere believe governments should be part of the solution.

Even without a clear ask, the protesters’ simple presence makes the point that the interests of the elite have been well-served in the run-up to and aftermath of the Great Recession. The concerns of the vast majority have been neglected.

The same government is supposed to serve them both. It’s no coincidence that the online sister movement to Occupy Wall Street is “We are the 99 Percent”. They’re drawing attention to the fact that too much inequality corrupts democracy.

As one protester put it: “It’s time to get together and re-evaluate, not necessarily do away with the system, but figure out where we went wrong and figure out how we’re going to do it right now.”

Here’s how things go wrong, on both sides of the border. The richest 1 per cent of Canadians took a third of all income gains in the decade preceding the recession, when the economy was firing on all cylinders. Not even during the Roaring ’20s did that elite group capture such a large share of the fruits of growth.

It’s often said the rich can’t do much to help the rest of us, because there really aren’t that many rich people in Canada. We may not have as many millionaires as in the U.S. but, like the Americans, Canada’s millionaires are taxed at rates last seen in the 1920s. They can afford to help out a little more.

You don’t have to be a millionaire to make a difference. Raise the top tax rate by 3 per cent on those making over $250,000 — a round number which marks the entry gate for the fabled 1 per cent – – and, at 32 per cent, you’d still pay less than the 33 per cent rate in the U.S. at that income level. It would raise about $2-billion, the federal share of, say, a national child-care program.

A 35 per cent tax bracket for Canadians whose income is higher than $750,000 — the U.S. top rate, except there it’s applied on incomes above $373,650 — would yield $1.2-billion. Over a decade, that could pay for the federal share of fixing drinking-water and waste-water infrastructure across Canada.

Canada’s rich could make a difference. Our governments should ask them to step up to the plate.

But governments are increasingly tangled up in elite interests. The latest example is Finance Minister Jim Flaherty ‘s drive to marshall support to scuttle a proposed financial transactions tax, a mechanism that could help slow down the wild gyrations of the stock market we’ve witnessed of late. Flaherty and other G20 finance ministers will be meeting in Paris just as thousands of Canadians gather to Occupy Toronto on Bay Street. He will be protecting certain interests, just not those of the majority of Canadians.

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist for the World Bank, called this capture of public policy government “of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”. Chair of the panel that oversaw the TARP bailouts of Wall Street, Elizabeth Warren, makes it clear that nobody got rich by themselves. Everyone benefits from a social contract.

When the rich say they are no longer willing to uphold their end of the social contract, it’s time to occupy Wall Street. When our governments say the same thing, it’s time to wake up.

Democracies are not supposed to produce an economic and political system that primarily benefits the 1 per cent.

Occupy Wall Street is partly about Wall Street, and Bay Street, and taxes. But it’s mostly about getting governments to serve the interests of the other 99 per cent. It’s about reclaiming democracy. It’s about demanding better results.

 

This piece was originally published by the Globe and Mail.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Kelsey
Time: October 13, 2011, 12:13 pm

I can’t believe people think they can make Global Financiers to bow to their pressure. Why aren’t these people picketing our under talented and apathetic politicians who are the lawmakers? These protests are eerily similar to protests against the emperors by peasants, are we back in the pre-democracy days? It is our law makers who have the power to implement legal measures not wall street and these occupy movements only serve to enhance the invisible powers hubris and control over the lives of billions.

Guaranteed there are middle men who facilitate the hold of financiers on masses but are they really invincible? Take this meeting of Yes Men in Calgary where 300 oilmen listened attentively and lit commemorative candles for the billions to be perished in the future climatic catastrophe. Some of the reclusive oilmen are members in Alberta Militia (they were strangely incurious about sour gas well installations bombings on Alberta/BC border) of so taking it upon themselves to defend borders beside the inordinate power and influence they have on policies and laws effecting us all. The fact these oilmen were pwnd by Yes Men is a big alert for us to wake up for these Yes Men who got away with wiping off $2 billion dollars off Union Carbide without consequences are not mere comedians. A tech enterpreneur’s life was derailed when he took upon Cisco in a legitimate business opportunity, this begs the question after taking on a giant why are Yes Men are fearlessly practicing their merry making ways?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/a-pound-of-flesh-how-ciscos-unmitigated-gall-derailed-one-mans-life.ars

A pound of flesh: how Cisco’s “unmitigated gall” derailed one man’s life

Isn’t there always created a motley of new rags to riches millionaires and billionaires after every upheavel? What the stooges need to know and understand is no one is invincible. After all the chaos is designed for the very purpose that there is drastic change in fortunes of people wealth changes hands, old links eliminated, robbers and thieves become captains of industry but they say this is not a conspiracy.

History tells us these mass protests and movements can be co-opted with ease, no wonder the politicians are eager to support these protests whether overtly or covertly knowing full well their culpability in not implementing Glass Steagull Banking Reforms, which should be the first step in bank reforms. I believe they are fully qualified and equipped to implement the reform laws as it is within their mandate.

Write a comment





Related articles