The futility and hypocrisy of the Occupy stragglers

acotrel says:

08:11am | 21/01/12

@Nathan
Education should be ‘user pays’ !  Both the student and industrial employers reap the benefit ! How does 50/50 sound ?

ba'al says:

08:56am | 21/01/12

calling someone a loser is the domain of those without the intellect to make a solid critiqu of a persons goals, aims, values etc let alone make judgements about what defines success.
As a former homeless person who know works 80 hours a week, supports my kids fully and now have my degree and saving up for more qualifications I think she is an ignorant young idiot.
Also if she is a qualified hair dresser surely she could get a job, like paul said
it is a choice.
However I stand by my claim that calling someone a loser is a lazy insult and assumes we are all playing the same game.
Also it is an insult used by those who resent those refusing to play

Nathan says:

09:17am | 21/01/12

@ba’al
Fair point made about loser….you are right in saying that ignorant is better description

Gregg says:

09:37am | 21/01/12

@ba’al
Just because you’ve changed your life to something more positive does not mean the ex hairdresser is not a loser for the moment.
She had an apartment and decided she did not want to pursue that and it’d seem does not know what she wants to pursue, so yep a real loser lost in the wilderness of life, unable to cope possibly the cause or just the loneliness of a more normal life but you’d hardly think that for a hairdresser.
Yep, for now a real loser and in time she may even look back at this time in her life and wonder WTF!

Bertrand says:

09:48am | 21/01/12

Well, in the light of yesterday’s article about playing the man not the ball, here we have a perfect example of this very technique.

Let’s not actually discuss a single issue raised by the Occupy Movement and debate the merits of those arguments; instead, lets select one of the more self-righteous and incoherent members of the movement and discredit it that way.

So, Mr Toohey, why not respond to the central arguments of the movement? (and don’t pretend they don’t have any actual arguments)

What is your response to their very valid criticism that government and corporate power in America is too intertwined and that there are serious issues with the concept of corporate personhood, which grants corporations the rights of citizens, as well as issues with the role money plays in influencing public policy?

What do you say about the movement’s valid point that when you have individuals from the wealthy elite rotating between positions in government, corporate directorship and the lobbying industry, you are inevitably going to have decision makers with conflicts of interest that limit their ability to make public policy that benefits the citizens of the country they are meant to be serving?

What do you say to the valid criticism that, whilst profits are not in themselves evil (indeed, the profit motive is one of the key drivers of progress in our society), when you place the concept of profits on such a high pedestal that the pursuit of profits comes at the expense of every other value people hold in society (the right for working people to earn a liveable wage, the need to protect the environment against the excesses of capitalism, the desirability of having a social safety net that protects the less well off when they are in need) you end up with a lesser society?

What do you say to the valid criticism that, whilst wealth and the accumulation of wealth is not in of itself evil, when that accumulation of wealth comes through the transferral of wealth from the poorest sectors of society to the richest, you end up with a society that is so vastly unequal that it is a weaker one?

You say nothing in response to these arguments. instead, you simply cry ‘dirty, smelly hippy’ and expect that to be enough to discredit a movement that has widespread support from all different types of people from different parts of society.

AdamC says:

09:57am | 21/01/12

Yeah, loser, ignorant, either or.

What is interesting abou the Occupy ‘movement’ is how it petered out because it never got beyond what is didn’t want. This silly girl encapsulates that sense of entitled political confusion.

ba'al says:

10:37am | 21/01/12

@nathan,
Thanks for the agreement. Compare this ignorant and entitled protester to the struggle of the working poor.
If she really cared she would become a lobbyist, work for an NGO or do some charity work. I mean she is fed by charities even though she could work thus draining resources that could be allocated to the unable to work like i was unable when i was sick
Instead she leeches of the infrastructure paid for by the taxes of all workers whilst attacking the system.

John says:

01:01pm | 21/01/12

@AdamC

Spot on, Adam. That’s the perfect diagnosis of the party which lost the last two Australian Federal elections.

Condor says:

06:17pm | 21/01/12

ba’al
You’re a loser if, at the very least, you don’t earn enough of an income to support yourself and pay enough taxes that cover the public goods and services that you consume. Thus, Nathan’s comment stands.

Bertrand
On top of my comment below I’ll respond to the issues you bring up.

“government and corporate power in America is too intertwined and that there are serious issues with the concept of corporate personhood, which grants corporations the rights of citizens, as well as issues with the role money plays in influencing public policy?”
The first of their straw-man arguments and conspiracy theory. There are lobby groups for just about everything in America (and Australia). Corporations pay taxes (most of the tax you’ll find) and therefore should have a say in the way they are governed.

“individuals from the wealthy elite rotating between positions in government, corporate directorship and the lobbying industry, you are inevitably going to have decision makers with conflicts of interest that limit their ability to make public policy that benefits the citizens of the country they are meant to be serving?”
straw-man argument and conspiracy theory #2. The corporations you’re talking about attract the elite of individuals. These people will move on to other roles for new challenges. Just because one worked for another does not pose a conflict of interest. This is merely paranoia.

“when you place the concept of profits on such a high pedestal that the pursuit of profits comes at the expense of every other value people hold in society (the right for working people to earn a liveable wage, the need to protect the environment against the excesses of capitalism, the desirability of having a social safety net that protects the less well off when they are in need) you end up with a lesser society?”
Profit is all that matters. It is up to each and every individual to do everything they can to do what benefits them. No-one is owed anything (least of all a living wage) and it is up to people to prove they are worthy by doing what’s necessary (see my comment below)). Corporations do look after the environment. This is usually enshrined in legislation. A lesser society occurs when the food is taken from the hunters and given to the bludgers.

“when that accumulation of wealth comes through the transferral of wealth from the poorest sectors of society to the richest, you end up with a society that is so vastly unequal that it is a weaker one?”
This is a complete misunderstanding of just about everything. Most of the government’s tax take comes from the top earners. Nothing is being transferred from the poorest sectors to the wealthy. In fact, the poorest sectors enjoy free education and cheap or free health care despite not paying a commensurate amount of taxes to provide for this consumption.

Evalee says:

07:51pm | 21/01/12

ummm, no, actually, Canadians have to pay to go to university.  You may be thinking about the public school system.

Matthew says:

08:03pm | 21/01/12

acrotrel, I’m just curious where you think the money for Education comes from.  It’s not like the government just makes money appear.

I don’t know about Canada (should learn, since I’m going in 21 days!) but in Australia, the user pays 100% back to the government through a HECS debt.

Tim says:

09:20pm | 21/01/12

@Matthew. In Australia university is subsidised by the government for Australian citizens and the HECS debt is a much lower amount than the actual fee for the course. (I think there is a cap on how much you can have subsidised over your lifetime). The user pays 100% of their HECS debt back to the government only if they actually earn enough to require them to make HECS payments and this 100% is much less than the actual costs incurred.

marley says:

08:14am | 22/01/12

@Matthew - I think you’ll find that, in both Canada and Australia, the cost of tertiary education for citizens is subsidized by the government to some level, and that only overseas students pay full fees.  I also believe the costs are similar in the two countries but I admit, I’ve only done a superficial check on that point..

nihonin says:

08:25am | 22/01/12

Matthew asks ‘acrotrel, I’m just curious where you think the money for Education comes from’?  Well acotrel seems to think any tax you pay over your working life is put aside for the pension you’re entitled to.  Maybe by extension he believes they may possibly draw from that money and pay for the education of your off spring and theirs.

Bertrand says:

08:51am | 22/01/12

@Condor – Well at least you made an attempt to respond to the criticisms of current American economic policy, even if your responses either ignore or misconstrue the evidence or rely too heavily on seriously flawed and, dare I say it, extremist libertarian ideology. Nonetheless, it is still a better response than the ad hominem attacks that seem to constitute most of the criticism of the OWS movement.

Let me respond to your points. Lot’s of reading, but I don’t think it qualifies as a rant.

1. In response to the claim that government and corporate power is to intertwined you said, “The first of their straw-man arguments and conspiracy theory. There are lobby groups for just about everything in America (and Australia). Corporations pay taxes (most of the tax you’ll find) and therefore should have a say in the way they are governed.”

Claiming that an argument is straw-man does not automatically make it so. You are right in arguing that corporations have every right to lobby government. You are also right in arguing that there are lobby groups to represent all sorts of interest. But what of the influence the different groups have? The unfortunate fact is that the interests with the most money are the ones that win out. If you look at the list of the 100 organisations that spend the most on lobbying, almost all of them represent business interests. Public interest groups simply do not have the resources to spend millions on lobbying or contribute millions to financing the campaigns of politicians. Consider the declining power of the unions in America. As corporate lobbying led to fewer and fewer labour regulations and more and more regulations limiting unions, the lobbying power of the labour movement has even further declined. The result has been even more anti-labour laws that remove the rights of workers but increase the rights of their employers.  Corporate powers wouldn’t invest billions of dollars in lobbying or financing political campaigns unless they knew that they would receive a return on this investment. In Australia we recognise the inherent problems with having a system in which money speaks. Consequently, we have laws limiting how much campaign finance corporations can give. In America, however, corporate personhood means that the Supreme Court has granted corporations the right to donate as much money as they want to politicians’ campaigns. The fact that government policy in America continues to favour corporate interests above the interests of all others speaks truth to the OWS movement’s argument that the nexus between wealth and influence over public policy needs to be broken.

2. In response to the criticism that the ruling elite rotate between positions in government, corporate directorships and the lobbying industry, and this represents a conflict of interest that limits the government’s ability to develop public policy in the interest of all citizens, you said, “straw-man argument and conspiracy theory #2. The corporations you’re talking about attract the elite of individuals. These people will move on to other roles for new challenges. Just because one worked for another does not pose a conflict of interest. This is merely paranoia.”

Again, calling arguments straw-man or paranoid does not automatically make your claims true. If someone who, for example, works as a director in an energy company, resigns this directorship in order to be appointed as a member of the federal executive in which formulate policy that is clearly shown to promote the interests of the industry which they just left, and who, after leaving their position in government immediately becomes a lobbyist representing the very same industry, it is entirely reasonable to point out that there is a conflict of interest at play. Again, a place like Australia has laws limiting former politicians moving straight into the lobbying industry (admittedly, these people never technically were politicians, but this simply reflects the fact that, apart from the President, executive power in America is conferred through appointment, not election).

Bertrand says:

11:06am | 22/01/12

Hmm, 2nd part of that comment seemed to get lost in the ether. Will try again.

@Condor:
3. “Profit is all that matters. It is up to each and every individual to do everything they can to do what benefits them. No-one is owed anything (least of all a living wage) and it is up to people to prove they are worthy by doing what’s necessary.”

Thanks for proving the point of the OWS movement. To the vast majority of people, profit isn’t all that matters. The only people who would argue that profit is the only value to have in a society are people who adhere to extremist libertarian economic ideology. If the 20th century taught us anything, it is to be wary of any ideology that tends towards the extreme. However, it is this ‘profit at all costs’ ideology that has hijacked public policy in the United States.

The role of government in a democracy is to protect the interests and values of all citizens, not simply the economic prerogatives of a wealthy minority. Indeed, the American Constitution’s preamble states that, “We the People of the United States, in order to… promote the general welfare… do ordain and establish this Constitution” In other words, one of the key values that underpin the law that grants the government its power is that the government must exist to promote the general welfare of the people.

To claim that a worker is not owed a living wage for their contribution to a company’s bottom line is an example of the problems the OWS movement has with libertarian economic theory. Furthermore, there is an inherent contradiction in your statement here and your other statement that “You’re a loser if, at the very least, you don’t earn enough of an income to support yourself”. By this reasoning, it is ok for labour laws to completely strip the rights of workers to collectively bargain and it is ok for labour laws to set a minimum wage that is so low that the people who earn it are unable to support themselves, but the workers who get exploited in this situation have no-one to blame but themselves for being victims of the system that allows it to happen. For a more thorough analysis of the problems with libertarian economic theory, have a read of this article from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/libertarian-illusions_b_1207878.html

4. In response to the argument that when the accumulation of wealth occurs through the transferral of wealth from the poor to the rich, the overall strength of a society is weakened you said “Nothing is being transferred from the poorest sectors to the wealthy.” You supported this claim by referring to the tax system and (very weak) social safety net that exists in America. However, you ignored the way other things such as labour laws have indeed contributed to a transferral of wealth from the poor to the rich. The evidence to support the claim that wealth is being transferred from the poor to the rich is easy to find. As an economy grows and the amount of wealth in the economic pie increases, a well-structured system of capitalism will ensure that all people’s slices of pie will increase. For example, in Australia the rich have gotten richer, but so have the poor – we have generally all benefitted from the economic growth that has occurred. However, in America the opposite has happened. The economic pie has gotten larger (well maybe not since 2008, but over the long term the American economy it has); however, in real terms the poor and middle class have gotten poorer. That is to say, the size of their slice of the economic pie is smaller than it used to be, despite the fact that the pie is bigger. This has happened because the rich have gotten richer not simply by increasing the size of the pie, but actually taking from the slices of the poor and middle class. In other words, there has been a transferral of wealth from poor to rich.

The result is without a doubt a weaker society. Anyone who, like me, has travelled extensively through the U.S cannot help but notice that it is a broken society. There is poverty on a scale that is unimaginable to us in Australia. There is a distinct lack of social mobility; the way the system is structured, it is almost impossible for a person born in poverty to ever escape from it – certainly not the meritocracy that libertarian ideologues will result from the implementation of their economic theories. So, yes, OWS has a point and should be listened to.

scotty says:

02:10pm | 22/01/12

@Bertrand
“Claiming that an argument is straw-man does not automatically make it so”

Just as claiming an argument isn’t a straw-man doesn’t prove it isn’t.

“1…corporations have every right to lobby government. You are also right in arguing that there are lobby groups to represent all sorts of interest. But what of the influence the different groups have? “

What about the fact that corporations don’t get a vote, while the people wholly and completely determine our leaders?  On a democratic basis corporations have zwero power to determine leaders.

“The fact that government policy in America continues to favour corporate interests above the interests of all others”

Fact???  Pretel who says this is a fact? Pick any piece of environmental legislation and you’ll see it is NOT a fact at all.

A concept that seems to escape you and Occupy is that private corporations actually make everything, Governments can only make things by taxing the activities of private citizens - they cannot create money from thin air.

2…
“formulate policy that is clearly shown to promote the interests of the industry which they just left…there is a conflict of interest at play. “

Or naturally an expert in a certain field will have the same opinion on policy because its actually the best policy, not a conflict of interest.

The alternative is to have people with no industry knowledge making decisions, which is universally disastrous - just look at our lawyer PM messing up every industry in sight because she doesn’t understand the industry she is dealing with.

3…
“The role of government in a democracy is to protect the interests and values of all citizens, not simply the economic prerogatives of a wealthy minority.”

Firstly please stop presenting your opinions as facts - the government does not protect the economic perogatives of a few, it protects the economy that we all participate in and benefit from.  That’s where your job comes from, the computer you typed this comment on, and where the taxes came from to provide parks for occupiers to occupy - quit with the envy because some people make a greater contribution to society than you do.

Should Shane Warne have been forced to bowl left handed because he is a better bowler than most?  Not everyone has the same ability, get used to it.

“To claim that a worker is not owed a living wage for their contribution to a company’s bottom line is an example of the problems the OWS movement has with libertarian economic theory. “

And what if the worker’s contribution isn’t commensurate with a living wage?  If a lazy person gets paid the same as me then I’ll become a lazy person, and so will everyone else in society - for a real world example of where this has happened see the USSR back when it existed, and why it collapsed.

4…
“As an economy grows and the amount of wealth in the economic pie increases, a well-structured system of capitalism will ensure that all people’s slices of pie will increase.”

See the living wage argument above.  Capitalism rewards the contribution an individual makes to society - if individuals make a smaller contribution overall, their share will fall.  If I found a cure for cancer I’d make more money, making the pie bigger, which necessarily makes everyone else’s slice smaller - its basic statistics.

“The result is without a doubt a weaker society. Anyone who, like me, has travelled extensively through the U.S cannot help but notice that it is a broken society.”

Total and utter bullspit.  Look at the statistics and you’ll see that income in the states is distributed in a similar way to Australia (on some measures its better than here) - are you saying Australia is a “broken society”?  Of course not.  There are problems of course, but you are massively exaggerating.

Spend 6 months in central Africa, and then tell me the US/Australia is broken - truth is, you and the occupiers have never seen or experienced REAL poverty - on a global scale the occupiers are the 1% - and a 1% with a massively overblown sense of entitlement and a low work ethic.

The rest of us that actually work for a living are sick to death of seeing occupiers sitting on their collective asses demanding more money rather than actually working for a living themselves.

Sorry, the OWS crowd arguments simply do not stack up, because they are either statistical distortions seated in ignorance, or are based on “facts” that are actually their own opinions.

To quote Keating “get a job” and your slice of the pie will increase.  Work hard, educate yourself and it will increase further. 

Sit on your ass if you want, its a free country, but please quit complaining that you have less money than those of us that actually work for a living.

St. Michael says:

02:20pm | 22/01/12

@ Bertrand: before referring people to the article you might also tell them to read all the comments that followed that article.  Chiefly, that your article which is supposedly “thorough” in its analysis, or should I say, attack, on extremist libertarian views is full of straw men.

The article’s biggest problem is that it posits that government is all biut required to tax the rich to pay to the poor neighbour next door.  In other words, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Noble ideal.  Pity it’s the driving principle of Marxism.  The phrase itself comes from Karl Marx’s own work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

And Marxism does not work, even if disguised as something else.  Neither does socialism, albeit it takes longer to collapse.

St. Michael says:

06:03pm | 22/01/12

Also, P.S. in regard to the US Constitution: “In other words, one of the key values that underpin the law that grants the government its power is that the government must exist to promote the general welfare of the people.”

No.  Even in the Wikipedia article it indicates the preamble is more or less meaningless.  It is not a source of power to the government, does not set limitations, and does not compel the government to act in any given way.  United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co is as old as the Depression and the US Supreme Court of its day slapped down FDR on that one when he tried to use the argument you’re using.

Bertrand says:

08:36pm | 22/01/12

@Scotty - this thread and our responses are getting long! Unfortunately, I’m going to have to spam this site with my response to your comments, as there is a fair bit of ground to cover.

“What about the fact that corporations don’t get a vote, while the people wholly and completely determine our leaders?  On a democratic basis corporations have zwero power to determine leaders.”

American corporate shareholders can express their views at the ballot box the same as everyone else. They shouldn’t get a second vote simply because they are also a shareholder. Non-American shareholders really should have no say over American public policy that is implemented by a government that is supposed to represent the will of the people (ie. American citizens).

“Fact???  Pretel who says this is a fact? Pick any piece of environmental legislation and you’ll see it is NOT a fact at all.
A concept that seems to escape you and Occupy is that private corporations actually make everything, Governments can only make things by taxing the activities of private citizens - they cannot create money from thin air.”

You are right there. What I said was more of an opinion that is strongly supported by evidence. The examples I gave regarding labour laws are examples where corporate interests are put ahead of citizens’ interests. With reference to environmental legislation – it would be fair to argue that environmental regulations in America are either too weak or non-enforced. A good example is BP, which despite environmental regulations that required it to maintain its oil pipelines, failed to do so in one of its operations in Alaska. The result was a massive oil spill in 2005. Yet 5 years later, despite apparently stronger regulations we got the Deep Water oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Likewise, GE’s dumping of PCBs in the Hudson River occurred without regulatory oversight and with minimal consequence. It successfully lobbied to limit companies’ liabilities regarding toxic sites they create, and to limit their responsibilities regarding the clean-up of these sites.

Not sure what your point is about corporations making things. No-one is claiming there isn’t a role for corporations in an economy. I’m a big fan of capitalism, simply not the capitalism that currently exists in America. ‘Governments can’t create money from thin air.” Um, they do exactly that (well in America the Federal Reserve does that). It’s a key driver of inflation. Nonetheless, if your point is that corporations create wealth, I agree. I like that they create wealth. I have issues with some of the means used to create this wealth and the way that this wealth is distributed.

“Or naturally an expert in a certain field will have the same opinion on policy because its actually the best policy, not a conflict of interest.”

What constituted the best policy is a matter of opinion. What is best for a corporation may not be the best for the community its factory operates in, or the workers it employs. But when you have an oil industry heavy weight in charge of policies regarding the regulators that oversee this industry, and they decide to strip funding from the regulator so that it is unable to properly oversee the industry, it is reasonable to argue that they are acting putting the interests of the industry they represent ahead of the interests of the people.

Bertrand says:

08:40pm | 22/01/12

@Scotty (Part 3)

“And what if the worker’s contribution isn’t commensurate with a living wage?  If a lazy person gets paid the same as me then I’ll become a lazy person, and so will everyone else in society - for a real world example of where this has happened see the USSR back when it existed, and why it collapsed.”

If a person isn’t pulling their weight or doing their job there are systems in place to have them removed from their position. Likewise, a person who proves to be an excellent worker can be promoted. If a person is doing their job and the company has a reason for the position to exist then I would argue that their contribution is commensurate with a living wage. This is something that is highlighted when a strike occurs – without the workers doing their work the company cannot make any profits. All workers contribute to a company’s success and all deserve to benefit from this.

  “Capitalism rewards the contribution an individual makes to society - if individuals make a smaller contribution overall, their share will fall.  If I found a cure for cancer I’d make more money, making the pie bigger, which necessarily makes everyone else’s slice smaller - its basic statistics.”

I think you are the one getting confused here. Once you adjust for inflation, in real terms the poor and middle classes wealth has declined. It’s not just that the percentage of the pie they have has gotten smaller, it’s that the actual size of it has gotten smaller, despite the fact that the pie is bigger. If you cured cancer and became fabulously wealthy, the theory goes that this wealth should ‘trickle’ down to the poorer people, and help lift their wealth as well – everyone benefits from the bigger pie (you hinted at this idea earlier on) In fact it has been the opposite. The real wealth of many people has declined and the concentration of wealth has shifted further and further up the scale. As real wages decline the percentage of a company’s profits that go to its workers is smaller, and the amount going to its owners is larger. Are they contributing less and therefore less deserving of the slice they once had? No, actually they’re contributing more, as average working hours have increased. A good example of how this has occurred can be found in Continental Airlines, which in the 80s fired its workforce and hired new staff at half the previous rate of the old staff. What is this if not an example of how the wealth of the shareholders was expanded at the expense of the workers.

“Look at the statistics and you’ll see that income in the states is distributed in a similar way to Australia (on some measures its better than here) - are you saying Australia is a “broken society”?  Of course not.  There are problems of course, but you are massively exaggerating.”

Wow. And you accuse me of being misleading. The OECD has stated that the U.S has the most inequitable distribution of income and wealth in the developed world. After the UK it has the lowest levels of social mobility. Australia on the other hand has been rated as having the 2nd highest standard of living in the world. Wealth is more than simply money and assets (and by any measure poor Australians have more of these things than poor Americans). Australians have a stronger and fairer safety net. We have universal healthcare and a better and more equitable education system. We have subsidised higher education and the HELP system, which makes this higher education more accessible for the poor. We have a minimum wage far in excess of America’s.

“Sit on your ass if you want, its a free country, but please quit complaining that you have less money than those of us that actually work for a living.”

Nice to finish on another straw-man and ad hominem. Not everyone who supports the OWS movement is lazy or a bum, nor are they complaining that they have less money than you. Some people who have put forward similar arguments to mine include Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist (I’m going to make a wild guess and say he earns more than you), and billionaire investors Warren Buffet and George Soros (clearly lazy socialists who hate the idea of profit).  Don’t conflate being able to recognise systemic failures in America’s economic and political system with being a no-hoper.

Condor says:

09:44am | 23/01/12

Bertrand
Just because some companies decide to spend a lot of money lobbying government to influence policy is not evidence of a broken system or something wrong. They are doing so to benefit them—> more economic freedom the better the economy and business runs. The labour movement depends on many variables such as productivity (declining due to soft labour rates) and efficiency.

Calling something a straw-man argument when it is indeed a straw-man argument is true and correct. There is no conflict of interest in leaving one position for another. Otherwise it would be a conflict if someone that worked in an accounting firm went and worked for the ATO or Treasury. Clearly it isn’t. The elite positions attract the elite people. If we bar these sort of people then we are left with the dregs. That is bad for all.

Only whining parasites who think the world owes them a living argue against the profit-motive and the point that profit is all that matters. It isn’t an extreme view, just a natural one from observing the carnage wrought on the world by middle-class welfare.

The role of governmment isn’t to protect the lazy and indolent but provide the basics so that people can get on with their lives (with rational self-interest at it’s core). It has nothing to do with protecting the wealthy elite or anything.

It would be preferable if there were no labour laws and things were left to the free market. My comments were not contradictory. You have to EARN (ie convince someone you are worth a certain amount by selling your skills and abilities to that person or owning the capital in a business that can sell a product that people are willing to purchase at a price above cost).

The last paragraph will also cover your point 4. But to continue: the slice of pie for the middle class and poor has decreased because the inefficient protectionist barriers have been removed. Now both have to earn their way as I said above. Many aren’t because they have failed to participate correctly as I said in my first comment published below. It has nothing to do with the rich taking advantage of the poor or anything the OWS whingers are talking about.

Stephen says:

10:12am | 23/01/12

The problem is that the politicking extends beyond any government; it’s a human disease that infests every part of our society. Humans tend to be partisan by nature thus any checks and balances that may be present are circumvented by the players to support the interests of their immediate constituents, and here is a heads up the average worker is not a part of their select circle.  There is no right side to the argument, Government is at fault because they fail in their role as stewards of the communities resources they prostitute the parliament for personal gain and continued power, corporations supposedly balance customer and shareholder needs, in the scheme of life shareholders have the greater power and realise the benefit, the more shares held the greater the benefit.  In both instances the general public is left with the dubious privilege of ever increasing costs, reduced quality and diminished service.  Thus our society suffers due to a paucity of spirit, greed and a spiritual anorexia on the part those invested with the power to actuate positive change, and we unwilling participants are left to troll newspaper forums in an effort to articulate our discontent.  So sad.

Bertrand says:

10:43am | 23/01/12

@Condor - I think we are starting to go in circles. Most of your points have been made, and if I respond in detail to them I will also be repeating myself.

Also, the Punch team seems to have stopped publishing my comments on this thread (fair enough… I’ve hijacked the thread with my thousand word essays)

I think we will just need to agree to disagree. Luckily for me my way of thinking has won out in Australia and we live in a society that values capitalism but has things in place to smooth out the rough edges.
I guess we

Nick says:

09:12am | 21/01/12

“And everyone would be happy getting indoctrinated, and conforming ! “
Just as some are with the global warming and Carbon Tax scam!!!

Blerghhh says:

09:21am | 21/01/12

By god your the most annoying person ever! no matter what an article is about you draw it out to the most extreme possibility. the entire world isnt some great conspiracy waiting to herald in the age of totalitarianism. questioning the validity of the occupy movement does not amount to the workings of the thought police or the military industrial complex trying to bring on a new arms race. saying these people aren’t protestors in the conventional sense but rather people who are attracted to the occupy lifestyle does not equate to positing that all protests should be banned.

and for the record, i hate the occupy movement and feel my sympothies sync up with those in general society. if your unhappy with your lot in life, its your own responsibility to change it. it isn’t the corporations or the state’s fault that someone doesnt have a job, not should executives be punished for being successful. if these poeple want to bring about change that should go to the job ads and hit the ballot box like everyone else.

Rose says:

10:10am | 21/01/12

Actually Blerghhh, the government and the corporations do need to shoulder a significant amount of the blame, probably about 3/4 of it. It is the government that makes the policies and laws that guide pretty much everything that happens, and the corporations who only look at their own bottom line without paying attention to effect it has on the rest of the nation, economy or the people. You might argue that the bottom line is all they are obliged to concern themselves with, but that is pure ignorance. Everyone (person or corporation) has a responsibility to ensure that they act with good intentions, otherwise you end up with events like the GFC, brought about solely as a result of poor government and corporate policies and greed, not by the actions of the average individual.

Leigh says:

11:11am | 21/01/12

The cessation of the Vietnam war was due to a deal between the U.S. and China - nothing to do with demonstrations or protests, which always have been, and always will be, futile showing off by malcontents.

TChong says:

12:28pm | 21/01/12

Leigh
the flat earthers, Parrot groupies, rednecks,world conspiracy theorists , politically ill informed who attended the so called “Truckers Protest ”  to canberra , recently,
were they also malcontents? or is that only a label for progressives?

scotty says:

02:14pm | 22/01/12

The US was defeated militarily in Vietnam - the protesters didn’t achieve anything (if they had any real power then they would have stopped the Iraq war eh?)

PS are you saying we had a GFC because of protesters? Perhaps you didn’t realise you just argued that in a world without protest there wouldn’t be a GFC (and most people think the GFC wasn’t a good thing).

Lame even for an ALP shill…

Mark says:

09:48am | 23/01/12

“the entire world isnt some great conspiracy waiting to herald in the age of totalitarianism.”
No one said it was a conspiracy, it is the main goal of existence for most people. Some are just lucky enough to accumulate more in their lives than others. The accumulation of wealth via property, share holdings and assets IS the start of totalitarianism. Theoretically, it is possible for a conglomerate of companies to “own” the world by controlling all of the resources, including the labour. So in effect, yes, every enterprising entity in existence is in pursuit of a totalitarian state of existence. Most just don’t even know that’s what they want.

Woodsy says:

09:45am | 21/01/12

Spot on! It’s like an Aussie non-voter going to Greece to protest about their economic mismanagement. Beyond all comprehension.

Get A Haircut says:

10:33am | 22/01/12

If the parents have seen the tattoos and face rivets, they’d probably prefer her to end up in a bin liner.

marley says:

09:36am | 21/01/12

That would require them to actually do something.  This chick doesn’t even vote.  She’s not going to be bothered getting other people to vote.

nihonin says:

09:44am | 21/01/12

Good point acotrel, but the remnants of the occupy ‘movement’ (good word for them) would be too lazy to vote.  They should call themselves the occupy revolution, as with all revolutions they keep going round and round, going nowhere.

Bloggs says:

05:27pm | 23/01/12

This is a good way to achieve nothing as they would be another whinging minority. It would also require them to get off their arses and actually do something that takes thought and sense… and they have already proven themselves incapable of that.

Macca says:

10:08am | 21/01/12

The bit I find sad is that the notion of the9-5 job is somehow inhibating. A good job can provide you with purpose, challenge and rewards - both material and social.

A job should not be inhibiting, it can be liberating.

That’s not always the reality, but it’s a fairly key cornerstone to leading a happy life.

Verisimilitude says:

10:19am | 21/01/12

You forgot about revolution
Has worked many times throughout history.
When the rich and powerful abuse their power and draw too much from the system, the people will rise up.

Just because you don’t see it coming, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
People like these occupiers are seeds for revolution. The system is way out of balance when thieves entrenched in the establishment can cause a GFC and get away with it.

marley says:

12:38pm | 21/01/12

@Versimilitude - oh, I haven’t forgotten the revolutions.  Or the consequences of each of them. 

The French revolution created the Directorate and then Napolean as emperor, neither being a vast improvement on the Old Regime.  It certainly didn’t do much for the sans culottes.

The Russian revolution produced an undemocratic system that was far more repressive and tyrannical than the tsars it replaced.  It simply replaced one group of tyrants with another, worse group.

Mao’s revolution?  The deaths of millions, and the rise of an economic order every bit as corrupt as the western model.

Interestingly, the one markedly successful revolution was the American one, shuffling off the yoke of Britain without much chaning the domestic balance of power or the economic structure of the 13 colonies. 

So no, I haven’t forgotten the revolutions.  But I haven’t seen any of them do a helluva lot for the average working joe.  And I don’t believe for one minute that the occupiers are the seeds of any revolution anyway.  It takes work to build a movement, and it takes leadership.  It doesn’t just happen,

Markus says:

12:48pm | 21/01/12

@Verisimilitude, unlikely to happen. The people that make up most of the Occupy movement are anti-violence and anti-guns, and their views opposed by those that are pro-guns and have no issue with violence when required.
I know who I’d be backing in the event of a coup.

scotty says:

02:16pm | 22/01/12

@Versimilitude - sitting on your ass is the opposite of rising up…

TChong says:

09:17am | 21/01/12

thatmosis
Next time you go back to Punchs home page, just look a little at the right hand colum of stories, down the page a bit, and there! , the story from the NewYork Times - “God Bless The 1% “.
Read it.
And you have problems with the 99% ?
Its the disgusting, purely self interest of the 1% who have completely fucked things up for so many.
So, the kid featured may seem to be misguided and idealistic, faults that are harmless , compared to the sociopathic greedy hypocritical filth that make up the 1%

thatmosis says:

10:47am | 21/01/12

Cry me a river TChong. That 1% as you so eloquently put it is probably responsible for the job you have or the benefit your are on so dont knock it. Would you rather have a world run by the no hopers who believed they were doing something to save the world when in reality they were doing nothing except to destroy public property and make life miserable for those trying to do the right thing and work for a living. My advice to you is to either join that crew of deadbeats or get a job.
Diddums.

TChong says:

12:12pm | 21/01/12

thatmosis
I work thanks, and no thanks to the 1%.
Know what thatmosis ?
The 1% adore people like you
You seem to actually think the 1% are something to be admired , despite the recent crimes of Wall street.
Yes, keep bending over to the 1% , and learn your place.
They’ll thank you, as they rob and burn your super and / or investments, and make money for themselves, at your expense.

thatmosis says:

03:23pm | 21/01/12

Wrong again, but thats to be expected. The 1% have been kind to me and i have made my money from them and live quite comfortably with my investments and properties that I aquired during my working life. As for the 1%, I do love them because without them I would be a miserable person like you who obviously isnt happy in their own job and envious of what others have.

acotrel says:

06:49am | 22/01/12

@Chongie
‘The 1% adore people like you
You seem to actually think the 1% are something to be admired , despite the recent crimes of Wall street.
Yes, keep bending over to the 1% , and learn your place.
They’ll thank you, as they rob and burn your super and / or investments, and make money for themselves, at your expense.’

Love it !  What we need is more compliant poeople then we can repeat our mistakes forever !

The Jackal says:

10:49am | 23/01/12

TChong - here’s an article that tell’s you exactly who the 1% are in the world - that would include you - or are we not including the billions of overseas poor in this argument

http://au.pfinance.yahoo.com/our-experts/michael-yardney/article/-/11512015/what-it-takes-to-join-the-rich-1-club/

thatmosis says:

12:37pm | 21/01/12

I agree that protests are a legitimate form of showing ones objections to certain goings on in this world but that does not give those protesting the right to stop ordinary peopl going about their business and polluting public places with their filth. It also does not give them the right to disobey a lawful command from the authorities or to vandalise that which is not their own.
Ive had a great many dealings with protestors back in the Vietnam era and some of the violence and tactics made me ashamed to be lumped together with those arseholes as Australians.
If you want to change the world do so but do it legally and not fall into the idea that illegal acts will get you what you want and in some cases may harm the whole process. A case in point are the clowns that boarded the Japanese Whaling vessel. They put the movement back at least 10 years and have earned the ire of most thinking Australians with their actions and their attitude. Think before you act.

ba'al says:

03:09pm | 21/01/12

Sarah,
Think of the world as an ocean with no land. If you do not have boat or raft you will die. In australia we are lucky enough that life rafts are on offer, hell knows I have used the medicare lift raft more than once.
I am now cynical enough at 29 to recognise that I am going to need a bigger boat.

scotty says:

02:20pm | 22/01/12

Sarah

How about getting off your ass and actually doing something about it if you think something is wrong with society?

I think what’s wrong with soceity is that people like the OWS sit around and do nothing to contribute to their fellow humans.

Hoob says:

09:45am | 22/01/12

LMFAO, thanks for the laugh Neil!

St. Michael says:

11:52am | 23/01/12

Indeed, mostly because there are so many idiots in the crowd to choose from.

scotty says:

02:27pm | 22/01/12

“without the loneliness or the actual work or the fear of being attacked on actual merit or having to do some real investigative work.

See what I did there?”

Yeah, you talked s**t.  No actual work?  Do you think the words magically arrange themselves into articles?  That if he is a bad journalist he’ll keep getting paid?  Journalism is cut throat, if he didn’t contribute he wouldn’t be a journalist for long.

“If you’re really be interested in OWS, stop being lazy and start doing some proper investigative journalism. “

You mean as opposed to just sniping other people’s work without contributing anything useful to the conversation?

Bloggs says:

05:32pm | 23/01/12

Well said, Scotty!

nihonin says:

01:31pm | 22/01/12

Same as The Age and ABC are, hey Mittens.

Latte fartay says:

09:36am | 23/01/12

Aw no, nilhomin. The Age and the ABC aren’t really group-think and propaganda hubs? Kerry O’Brien didn’t really work as a Labor speech writer for Whitlam. That was all made up by News Ltd. And that Cassidy chap was not really a Labor stooge? No, no, no ... News Ltd wrote that too.

Gecko says:

08:45pm | 22/01/12

I can’t say I’ve ever been in those dire straights stormy weather but I totally agree with the logic you’ve come to matey.
My findings and believes are the majority of people are to busy to see past the system that they are made to be apart of. The system isn’t humane or logical it is a system that is inherently corrupt, look at the monitery system, the legal system, the government system and what we as a people of earth are enslaved to participate in. The 200 million plus deaths in wars from recent history that the 1% made their empires from, utterly disgusting! The action of these real scums of the earth (1%ers) could have freed our chains from perpetual slavery and the countless deaths from the plagues that fill the earth BUT NO do they allow things like free energy to be explored and to change the earth for the better? Of course not, not when they rape so much money and taxes from the masses from the biggest industry on earth, Energy.
But alas there will be someone out there that only gets there world view from the newspapers and media outlets, that the 1%ers own and control rigorously, who will have a rebuttal that will prove that the system is still working in the 1%ers favour and is still breeding the basis that make a system so corrupt and evil on a worldwide scale for the masses not to argue with, not to second guess or question but to be a good little happy tax paying sheeple(people/sheep) who every now and again can celebrate their commitment of a life long deal with the devil with a new car, a new home and that next holiday to forget and prepare for the next round of systematic rapping by our beloved system that does no wrong. HA yea right! 
Sure it sounds all doom and gloom but if you do your homework of how we as planet earth got to this stage most would find the facts and see how bad it realy is out there and maybe WAKE UP and remove the wool that has been pulled over our eyes and actuly see behind the viel that the 1%ers live behind.
And thanks to all the systematically brainwashed individuals out there that are still asleep for being the “coo” to the metaphorical “can” but we who can see it love you all the same, it’s not your fault that your still blinded by the system and hopefully a friend or stranger will wake you up and one day you might see the truth all around you.
“Look around and you’ll start to wonder, look real hard and you’ll find the truth but by only looking inside will we all find the road to peace it all together”

St. Michael says:

09:17pm | 22/01/12

“I don’t believe it’s fair that so few have so much and so many have so little.”

It isn’t fair.  Neither is life.  If you would alter that balance, give generously of your own bank accounts to those who have so little.  Or, if you would rather do it institutionally, admit you are a Marxist.  It’s not so bad.  Most of today’s Marxists don’t actually know they actually do support it. 

A right-wing commentator in America demonstrated the point rather adroitly when he went out accosting random passerbys and asking if they agreed with this statement: “From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” 

Nearly all of them did—until the commentator informed them that the author of that remark was Karl Marx.

It’s a rather potent illustration of people’s actions as between their intentions and the results.  There’s no problem agreeing with the ideals of Karl Marx as such—saying you’re a Marxist is no better than saying you’re a libertarian; they’re simply labels that people use to pigeonhole their prejudices.  What matters is whether the ideas work.  And Marxism, QED, does not work for the majority (ironically).  Libertarianism, also QED, does (again, ironically, since it focuses on the individual.)

“That said, how can anyone justify having so much money, living in luxury when people in this World are freaken starving to death, babies, little children, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers.”

Congratulations for describing how life was in Russia for 50-odd years under the Soviet system of communism.  A lot of people there believed in equal distribution of wealth, too.

Under the Left, success and advancement due to innovation, a good idea, or the ability to build a business is replaced with success through one means: politics and the ability to advance in the Party.  Which is to say, advancing by lying bigger, better, and smarter than anyone else.  Performance-based business does not admit of that approach, and is therefore honest.  Or certainly honest as compared with communism.

Bertrand says:

06:29am | 23/01/12

@St. Michael - I agree with some of your criticisms of Stormy Weather’s post. A system where everyone has the same amount of wealth is neither desirable nor fair. People deserve to be rewarded for hard work and deserve to get less for contributing less. Likewise, the ability to accumulate wealth acts as a great incentive and driver of progress.

However, you are misconstruing Marxism (each according to his ability, etc) and the use of a tax system to create a social safety net. Under the Marxist tenet you refer to, no-one is to accumulate wealth or ever have more than they need. This is significantly different to taxing a millionaire and using that tax to feed a homeless person. The millionaire remains a millionaire and can continue to grow his wealth.

Or are you seriously suggesting that any state that uses tax to fund a social safety net is a Marxist state, or, at the very least, one overly beholden to Marxist ideology? I would suggest that it simply reflects the values of most people in the state, who would say that it is right to help those in need.

To use the example in the Huff. Post article, I guess the question is, what is the greater evil - to have a poor man starve to death or to use a tiny percentage of a rich man’s wealth (which, in the American system is arguably partly derived from the exploitation of the poor man) to feed the poor man? This is a philosophical question without a right or wrong answer, but to me the greater evil is to let the poor man starve to death.

I asked my wife which she thought was the greater evil and her answer was the evil was found in the rich man would stand by and jealously guard his wealth so much that he had to be taxed at all. I guess you could use her response to argue that it is charity not tax that should feed the poor man (as I said its a philosophical question), but I would say this is inconsistent with the Libertarian ideology you have based your arguments on. As the Huff. Post article noted, Randian Libertarianism would see a rich man who gives charitably as debasing himself and not acting in his self interest. Charity has no place in an ideology that argues nothing matters other than serving one’s own interests.

St. Michael says:

11:51am | 23/01/12

“Or are you seriously suggesting that any state that uses tax to fund a social safety net is a Marxist state, or, at the very least, one overly beholden to Marxist ideology? I would suggest that it simply reflects the values of most people in the state, who would say that it is right to help those in need.”

A social safety net is a metaphor.  It does not reflect the reality of what such schemes amount to.  If you were to choose a phrase that fits closer to the reality, try “mismanaged government scheme which pays people for telling the right set of lies, and which winnows out genuine cases of need since these cases.”  Peter Sawyer wrote a book called “Dolebludging: A Taxpayer’s Guide” about it.  It was in the eighties, and even notwithstanding the introduction of the tax file number which dealt with a number of the rorts he exposed, all the discussion since then suggests it is just as mismanaged and just as badly run as ever.  Logically, the government running a “social safety net” of the kind you indicate—which is what we have in Australia—would mean bodies like the Salvation Army, St Vincent De Paul and so forth would not need to exist.  Sadly, they do.  And they’re even more stretched now than ever, mostly because the government social safety net does not work and never did.

So yes: a state using taxes to fund a social safety net in the way we do is overly beholden to Marxist principles.  And before you make the point: it’s not the only way to tax a populace and still provide some limited form of charity to the truly deserving.

Like I said, most people don’t want to admit they are Marxists, but their actions show otherwise.  Sadly, as the present Eurozone crisis and as the impending US debt crisis shows, Marxism and its watered-down cousin socialism do not work, for long or, as with Russia, at all.

Again, based on results rather than intentions I would posit most Australians don’t hold charitable values.  As a nation, we don’t donate much at all, not even our organs.

Part of that is because the government’s “social safey net” has created a moral hazard—“I don’t have to be charitable because the government does it for me”.  Part of it is because people don’t give.  Consider the disquiet when people found out, in the wake of the Queensland floods, that after all of their charitable donations the Federal government was going to tax them anyway.  The reason for that disquiet is because people know damn well the difference between being charitable and being coerced into charity—as the tax was—and they got the latter.

“To use the example in the Huff. Post article, I guess the question is, what is the greater evil - to have a poor man starve to death or to use a tiny percentage of a rich man’s wealth (which, in the American system is arguably partly derived from the exploitation of the poor man) to feed the poor man?”

You are now confusing morals with economics, which is to say, intentions with results.  In particular, the problem is that the lesser evil quickly becomes the greater.  The government, having taken a little bit of the rich man’s wealth, decides it can take a bit more: “Well, if he can afford $5, let’s take $10.”  And it keeps going upward, until the point is finally reached where the rich man says “There is no reason for me to stay here.  You are taxing me beyond the point where I have any motivation to stay in business, so I will stop doing what has made me rich and go work for someone.”  The goose that lays the golden eggs is thus killed.  Additionally, taxing one man because he’s “rich” and not another is not dealing equally with people and is coercion by the state that slowly kills industries.  The Australian manufacturing industry to a large extent is a victim of this, albeit the largest taxes there are these things called “awards” and the tax collectors “unions”.

“I asked my wife which she thought was the greater evil and her answer was the evil was found in the rich man would stand by and jealously guard his wealth so much that he had to be taxed at all.”

All due respect, but your wife’s opinion doesn’t matter unless she has responsibility for an entire national economy.

“Charity has no place in an ideology that argues nothing matters other than serving one’s own interests.”

Ahhh, the old misuse of Rand’s propositions against altruism.  You need to read a bit more.  Rand was not saying charity had no place.  She was saying it was not a positive moral duty to be compelled upon an entire population.  That’s an entirely different thing.

marley says:

07:27pm | 22/01/12

Okay, let’s just say you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and leave it at that. 

Nobody said we were all going to die a horrible death if we got the H1N1.  Some people did die of the flu.  More, certainly, than died of the vaccine.  And yes, quite a few people in my little town got it and were sick - not deathly so, but sick.

Yeah, we’ve all heard about mercury in the vaccines.  For the most part, scare tactics by anti-vax campaigners.  I’ve read lots of stories about the horrors of mercury in kid’s measles vaccines - except, of course, the measles vaccine is a live vaccine and had therefore never, ever, contained mercury.

As for whooping cough, the efficacy is 10 years max.  When did you last have a whooping cough booster?

St. Michael says:

09:06pm | 22/01/12

Easy, marley.  Remember you’re due for your anti-tinfoil poisoning shot soon.  The shot does wear off every time 6 weeks after the Hunch has an vaccination column.

Cookie Monster says:

11:01am | 23/01/12

ray “In my 33 years of working with the public on an intimate level, I’ve never known anyone who died of cervical cancer.  Hmmm.”

So what’s your logic - I have never seen anyone die of cervical cancer therefore no one dies of cervical cancer.

And I had swine flu so now you can say you’ve met someone with it. I have never been so sick, I lost 8 kilos and couldn’t walk for 2 weeks - so yes I can see how the young and the old died from it.

Lots of “I haven’t seen this and I haven’t seen that, so it doesn’t happen” in you post. Maybe take a step back and realise that the world doesn’t revolve around your ego. Maybe some facts with statistics and numbers would have been nice as well.

Bloggs says:

05:34pm | 23/01/12

ray, can you give me the recipe for your breakfast?  I want to know and clearly understand what NOT to eat! 

Bloggs says:

05:38pm | 23/01/12

I need your breakfast recipe too, please Craig.  Some things you guys eat should not be lot out of the kitchen! 

I mean, jeez, just read what you write here! The world ain’t perfect, but with no laws and no business then we just revert to the 1200’s, or perhaps you can look at Iran and Nth Korea to see where we’d end up!  One strong leader in charge and no free will!

But then, I get the sense that you would enjoy that.