No, I didn't leave it out. You're just wrong. What you're talking about is not a core feature of capitalism. A person trying to maximize monetary income will seek a monetary profit, but capitalism doesn't define what people should want.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
MM.. You liberal monkey! I just want you to explain to me one thing.. Why is your portfolio website rickrolling me? I demand the truth!
Well, he's positing the free choice of exchanging goods and services, which is in no way unique to capitalism (and takes the teeth out of the system). Barter based economies by definition also have this. The only thing that makes Capitalism unique as an economic system is profits, which is what having private property enables.
A barter economy is a form of capitalism. This is because "money" arises naturally in a barter economy -- could be seashells or tobacco leaves or gold coins.
So you have these two basic systems. One in which people have private property, and one in which all property is owned by the collective. That is the core distinction. It is really the main salient point.
NO , never.
you are living in your illusion that having debt is a good choice.
Im living in a culture that knowing well debt is jinx and bad thing. so glad i never live like that.
better i live in street with zero debt.
Debt is a good choice? I never said that, I didn't even imply that. Not by a long shot. I was just pointing out that he is the exception, not the rule. Debt is just an unfortunate inevitability in our society and this person hasn't the foggiest clue how things really work. Nobody should have to go into debt to get an education. College loans just extract your increased value before you have a chance to use it to benefit yourself.
It necessarily (by the classical definition) involves money, but profit has nothing to do with it.
Yes it does. Like MM has pointed out, Profit is the core tenet of capitalism. Exchanging paper/gold/shells as units of value for tangible goods is not capitalism, it's just currency.
A barter economy is a form of capitalism. This is because "money" arises naturally in a barter economy -- could be seashells or tobacco leaves or gold coins.
So you have these two basic systems. One in which people have private property, and one in which all property is owned by the collective. That is the core distinction. It is really the main salient point.
MM.. You liberal monkey! I just want you to explain to me one thing.. Why is your portfolio website rickrolling me? I demand the truth!
you are not suppose to click there
btw, i am not liberal, i am conservative.
jk, i dont subscribe to any conventional system or party. i like parts of capitalism, parrts of libertarian socialism, parts of anarchism etc. etc. etc.
A barter economy is a form of capitalism. This is because "money" arises naturally in a barter economy -- could be seashells or tobacco leaves or gold coins.
You misunderstand what the actual definition of capitalism is (or are using a non-standard one that would confuse anyone who's taken even basic economics). You are confusing a system of currency with the system of capitalism.
Currency = I trade this thing with agreed upon value for this other thing.
Capitalism = I as a private entity get others to work for me to make a thing (or provide a service), that I sell to others for more than I pay them, and keep the difference.
There are some different kinds of profit, so it's kind of confusing. People making a free exchange are always trying to improve their situation in some way based on their desires. You might call that "profit" but since both people are better off, no one is being exploited.
To further, I am trying to start my own bakery (hypocrisy!? Maybe!) and should it become economically viable and I want to expand further than I can make things by myself, I have two options.
I can hire a second person, and pay them less than 50% of the profits. This is capitalism. I am keeping the excess value their labor is producing, and thereby exploiting them.
I could add a second person, and (assuming we both work equal hours) I split the profits with them 50/50. This is a co-op, and is not capitalism. Nor is it exploitation. The workers own the means of production.
There are some different kinds of profit, so it's kind of confusing. People making a free exchange are always trying to improve their situation in some way based on their desires. You might call that "profit" but since both people are better off, no one is being exploited.
You can subjectively decide you aren't being exploited, but within economics, you are being exploited when you are being paid less than your labor generates. After a certain level of pay, people tend not to mind (though of course they would like more) but let's not kid ourselves and pretend exploitation doesn't happen. The Waltons are absolutely exploiting the chinese that work their sweatshops, and the men and women who work in Walmart, even if those people are happy to have a job in shitty economic times.
You misunderstand what the actual definition of capitalism is (or are using a non-standard one that would confuse anyone who's taken even basic economics). You are confusing a system of currency with the system of capitalism.
Currency = I trade this thing with agreed upon value for this other thing.
Capitalism = I as a private entity get others to work for me to make a thing (or provide a service), that I sell to others for more than I pay them, and keep the difference.
So then selling your services to produce goods directly for a customer is not capitalism, right? This makes sense to me. Anyone who works for themselves and only themselves, performing their own labor, is not a capitalist. You're basically trading your goods and services for the goods and services of others, quid pro quo. Currency is just the exchange medium that facilitates the transaction.
So then a business that is owned by the people that operate it would also not be under a capitalist system as well because the people who own the means of production are also the people who perform the labor, generating income for everyone without a central authority taking in the lion's share of the revenue as profit. That business would be an autonomous collective of laborers pooling their resources together to achieve higher productivity and higher income across the board. The revenue the company earns would go directly to the people producing the goods.
11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
Capitalism = I as a private entity get others to work for me to make a thing (or provide a service), that I sell to others for more than I pay them, and keep the difference.
I think this is funny because we have both worked as contractors. Clearly making other people do the work is not the core feature of capitalism.
I think my definition is good because it differentiates it from the only other major idea for allocating goods (socialism) as simply as possible, and explains why money, capital investment, profit, etc exist without using a lot of concepts that some economic theory depends on that have been proven false like the common conception of "rational actors."
It is in fact based in part on "extreme" laissez faire economic theory, which I don't really agree with, but has a lot stronger intellectual underpinning than most other schools of economic thought.
I think this is funny because we have both worked as contractors. Clearly making other people do the work is not the core feature of capitalism.
I think my definition is good because it differentiates it from the only other major idea for allocating goods (socialism) as simply as possible, and explains why money, capital investment, profit, etc exist without using a lot of concepts that some economic theory depends on that have been proven false like the common conception of "rational actors."
You can use whatever definition you want, but far more people are going to understand the terms Marx and others have been using for decades. The desire to profit is the core underpinning of capitalism, whether you like including it or not, and is the root cause of the problems we have today.
Tell me again how working as a contractor is ironic or even hypocrisy in this system? When we as artist sell our labor for money, we are operating as craftsmen. The problem is that our customers are not individuals, they are an actual company that will package together our purchased product, and resell it to others, so they are exploiting us, even if we have negotiated a wage that we can live off of. (you can even claim you are happy with it, but you and I both know you would be far happier with an hour based percentage of the profit of games we've worked on, I know I could retire now if so).
I can hire a second person, and pay them less than 50% of the profits. This is capitalism. I am keeping the excess value their labor is producing, and thereby exploiting them.
No, see, that part is not in the classical definition of capitalism. I would totally agree with you that it is happening today, and that it's labeled as capitalism. But nowhere does it say you have to pay someone less than what they're worth.
It's true that the money part of capitalism is about the business making a profit. But it's only nowadays that it was made to be "profit above all".
You can use whatever definition you want, but far more people are going to understand the terms Marx and others have been using for decades. The desire to profit is the core underpinning of capitalism, whether you like including it or not, and is the root cause of the problems we have today.
This is why ultimately I think you're right. The popular definition is that, and that's what most people understand. And that is what happens today.
No, see, that part is not in the classical definition of capitalism. I would totally agree with you that it is happening today, and that it's labeled as capitalism. But nowhere does it say you have to pay someone less than what they're worth.
It's true that the money part of capitalism is about the business making a profit. But it's only nowadays that it was made to be "profit above all".
Where are you people getting your definitions?
If both of us are getting paid equally, it is not capitalism, It is socialism by definition.
Capitalism = profits It is NOT exchanging one thing for another.
You can use whatever definition you want, but far more people are going to understand the terms Marx and others have been using for decades. The desire to profit is the core underpinning of capitalism, whether you like including it or not, and is the root cause of the problems we have today.
I would prefer to use the correct definition that works in the science of economics rather than a wrong definition that more people understand. Science is about predicting outcomes, not winning arguments on the internet.
Tell me again how working as a contractor is ironic or even hypocrisy in this system? When we as artist sell our labor for money, we are operating as craftsmen.
You would not be able to do that in North Korea. That is what I find ironic.
The problem is that our customers are not individuals, they are an actual company that will package together our purchased product, and resell it to others, so they are exploiting us, even if we have negotiated a wage that we can live off of. (you can even claim you are happy with it, but you and I both know you would be far happier with an hour based percentage of the profit of games we've worked on, I know I could retire now if so).
Maybe that would work out well for you, but a lot of other people have worked for years and had their games canceled, or have had them flop on the market. The main thing these big organizations do that normal people like is mitigate risk.
But hey, you are preaching to the choir here. That is why I have my own company. I am willing to work for years with little or no pay on the hope that me and my friends can make a game that people are going to love and want to pay for. I just don't think that's for everyone.
If both of us are getting paid equally, it is not capitalism, It is socialism by definition
True, but it's modern definition, not classical definition.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. Just that there are two definitions at work here. I'm not trying to make you change yours to fit with the classical one. Don't see the point in that.
You would not be able to do that in North Korea. That is what I find ironic.
So is this where I point back to all the examples where free market capitalism fails to keep hard working people from destitution? Is NK your bogeyman, because it's the shittiest implementation of.. well whatever scary system you are trying to paint it as. It's fascism, whether or not he calls it the People's republic. Shit, the US is often called a democracy (even though it's a republic) and the will of the people is absolutely not respected.
Kim Jung doesn't even try to pretend it's anything left leaning at all, Juche is all about "self reliance" and has as much to do with Marx as it does a box of Cheerios.
Again I find it hilarious how people will hold up the USSR or NK as these examples of "see! KKKommunism can never work!" but then when capitalism results in huge swaths of people destitute, it's all of a sudden, "oh well those are coincidences" not an indictment on capitalism.
We have all the proof we need it's failed wherever we look. Every time a woman walks past a homeless crazy person while wearing 10k in designer clothes, we can see a disgusting misappropriate of resources.
True, but it's modern definition, not classical definition.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. Just that there are two definitions at work here. I'm not trying to make you change yours to fit with the classical one. Don't see the point in that.
Socialism was first coined in the 18th century, so I don't know what you define as "classical".
Again I find it hilarious how people will hold up the USSR or NK as these examples of "see! KKKommunism can never work!" but then when capitalism results in huge swaths of people destitute, it's all of a sudden, "oh well those are coincidences" not an indictment on capitalism.
To be fair, people do that the other way around too. Whenever I mention Anarchy, everyone jumps and says "Right... cause Somalia is soooo nice this time of the year", as if that's a legitimate example of Anarchy. Or when you mention free-markets, everyone says "Right... cause it's working out so well for the US", eventhough the US never had a free market. It had stuff resembling it, but never a pure one, and since 1913 it's not even in the same ballpark.
Socialism was first coined in the 18th century, so I don't know what you define as "classical".
Yeah, around that time. The point is, you'll never hear Bastiat say that people must get paid unequally for it to be capitalism. Nor Ludwig von Mises, or anyone in between.
In fact, they'll go as far as to say that the trade must be equal for it to be fair. You're right, even by classic economics terms, that if it's anything other than that, it's exploitation. The premise there though, is that it's only possible through coercion (the state).
Again I find it hilarious how people will hold up the USSR or NK as these examples of "see! KKKommunism can never work!"
Well, socialism has had a rough go of it. I would love to point to the successes, but I can't think of any beyond maybe primitive tribes, if you want to call that success. You can find counter-examples, like China, that went from a pretty backwards mostly socialist system to the world's most powerful economy in a matter of a couple decades, in large part from adopting capitalism, although you may not want to count that as a success either.
I don't see much alternative though in a socialist society beyond being forced to do what "the collective" (whatever that means) deems fit. Socialism has no good way to calculate if you are better or worse off after making something, or if you should have made x instead of y. These are kind of fundamental problems.
Some of the core ideas of capitalism are about trying to use things efficiently:
That does not mean that capitalism is perfect or anything, but it's good at some things. One huge problem with current markets is that they seem to vastly undervalue things that are hard to trade. There is no capitalist solution for real problems like depleted fishing stocks or environmental damage. Asymmetric information in cases with credence goods are also a huge problem. The market does not take violence into account properly.
What is not a real problem with capitalism is having employees.
One of the biggest current problems we see in our economic system (which is a mixed system) is that a lot of risk is put on to the imaginary corporate person (a government invention). If stockholders had to face criminal charges or pay cleanup costs for the companies they owned, you would see vastly different behavior by investors and CEOs.
To be fair, people do that the other way around too. Whenever I mention Anarchy, everyone jumps and says "Right... cause Somalia is soooo nice this time of the year", as if that's a legitimate example of Anarchy. Or when you mention free-markets, everyone says "Right... cause it's working out so well for the US", eventhough the US never had a free market. It had stuff resembling it, but never a pure one, and since 1913 it's not even in the same ballpark.
To be fair, the post you quoted I had Somalia in there as proof libertarianism doesn't work, but I took it out so as not to derail the thread with you again. :-D
Well, socialism has had a rough go of it. I would love to point to the successes, but I can't think of any beyond maybe primitive tribes, if you want to call that success. You can find counter-examples, like China, that went from a pretty backwards mostly socialist system to the world's most powerful economy in a matter of a couple decades, in large part from adopting capitalism, although you may not want to count that as a success either.
What is not a real problem with capitalism is having employees.
One of the biggest current problems we see in our economic system (which is a mixed system) is that a lot of risk is put on to the imaginary corporate person (a government invention). If stockholders had to face criminal charges or pay cleanup costs for the companies they owned, you would see vastly different behavior by investors and CEOs.
I can't point to a single system where "socialism" was tried at all. Communism is not socialism. I know this is skirting dangerously close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy, but every "attempt" that has been labeled socialism has left far too few individuals from the old guard in charge of making sure things were fair, and this corruption is what lead to the inequalities, not an actual legitimate attempt at workers owning the means of production. Now, I can agree with you that this means how to implement socialism is fraught with difficulties, because the examples we've seen of "trying" to set it up have all failed. Me personally I'm trying to lead by example.
China is only a success if you value economic growth above human well being. They have destroyed their landscape with noxious pink rivers, and many of the rural people went from at least being able to subsistence-farm to being destitute 3rd world peasants (with cancer from the polluted rivers). Sure there are some select few chinese with panda-dogs and golden chihuaha collars, but you're right, I wouldn't call that a success.
I do see the problem of capitalism as having employees. It is the root of it's entire flaws, because when you are not an equal member, you will figure out ways to screw people over more, because your job is already screwing people. When you're all equal owners, not only does it ensure each person has a legitimate skill, it doesn't leave anyone with the power to fuck the rest.
And that's exactly why your last paragraph is actually proof of the problem. Why do you think corporations are insulated from risk? why do you think these financial "wizards" never properly take the fall? they (or their precursors) got to write the system. You are basically wishing for a house-pony that doesn't shit.
Does that letter looked shopped as fuck to anyone else? There just seems like a lot of weird shit going on with lighting and hard black line on the paper, small-ass hand, odd angle of elbow, and the fact that there's no shadow on his face from the paper but the page would literally have to be inches from his face and IT'S lit from the front and opposite side of light on his face.
To be fair, the post you quoted I had Somalia in there as proof libertarianism doesn't work, but I took it out so as not to derail the thread with you again. :-D
heh figures. I was going to write a reply, but you actually said exactly what I had in mind on your own in the following paragraph:
I can't point to a single system where "socialism" was tried at all. Communism is not socialism. I know this is skirting dangerously close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy, but every "attempt" that has been labeled socialism has left far too few individuals from the old guard in charge of making sure things were fair, and this corruption is what lead to the inequalities, not an actual legitimate attempt at workers owning the means of production. Now, I can agree with you that this means how to implement socialism is fraught with difficulties, because the examples we've seen of "trying" to set it up have all failed. Me personally I'm trying to lead by example.
Just replace all instances of "socialism" with "libertarianism", and every instance of communism with capitalism. And my message is the same as yours.
Does that letter looked shopped as fuck to anyone else? There just seems like a lot of weird shit going on with lighting and hard black line on the paper, small-ass hand, odd angle of elbow, and the fact that there's no shadow on his face from the paper but the page would literally have to be inches from his face and IT'S lit from the front and opposite side of light on his face.
Could be completely wrong, but it looks sketchy, to me.
Also, there's no such thing as a former Marine. Any Marine will tell you that.
I never really bothered to take a super good look at the image but looking at again it's pretty clear it has been photoshopped. Even so the response in that article is probably the best and most well-laid out argument for the Occupy Wall Street movement and what it's all about, that I've read so far.
Does that letter looked shopped as fuck to anyone else? There just seems like a lot of weird shit going on with lighting and hard black line on the paper, small-ass hand, odd angle of elbow, and the fact that there's no shadow on his face from the paper but the page would literally have to be inches from his face and IT'S lit from the front and opposite side of light on his face.
Could be completely wrong, but it looks sketchy, to me.
Also, there's no such thing as a former Marine. Any Marine will tell you that.
Not that it's important if it is or isn't, but the black line and blurriness and lighting inconsistencies can be explained by a fired on camera flash with a slow shutter speed. The black line is the dark background that the lens can see that the flash cannot, blocked by the paper, the flash is also what's keeping the page lit up, and you can tell the flash fired by the highlights in his eyes.
As a matter of fact ... the piece of paper bending the wrong way and the handwriting fitting to a rather perfect (ctrl-T - right click - Warp) rectangle even tho it is slanted by nature are rather strong giveaways
(squint and its pretty obvious, I think! But of course not proven until the original unaltered image is found!)
Also, to push the reasonning further : somone willing to take a stand and post such a picture online ("I am the 53%!!!") would certainly sign the note he is holding to the camera and would be proud of showing his name for the cause he is advocating.
You're still arguing against the claim made there. If someone photoshopped that claim on a piece of paper or not is irrelevant. And I don't see why would they. It's pretty easy to just grab some dude, have him hold up a piece of paper with your text on it, and nobody would be any wiser.
You're still arguing against the claim made there. If someone photoshopped that claim on a piece of paper or not is irrelevant. And I don't see why would they. It's pretty easy to just grab some dude, have him hold up a piece of paper with your text on it, and nobody would be any wiser.
It's relevant enough in the fact that someone(s) is attempting to fake some sort of movement by possibly photoshopping these "53%" notes.
Also, +1 to "Former Marine". I've only ever heard Marines talk about how there are no "Former" or "Ex" Marines. Once a Marine, always a Marine. It's a matter of pride.
So can we stop with this? I mean, who are we trying to prove? Its not like we have an equal number in here splitting us into 47/53. Its not like those who will choose to believe the 53/47 split will look at this.
For that matter the 1% as well since as we saw, its a bit "tinnier" than that with the wealth inequality (percentage wise its even less than 1% who have all the wealth).
Can we focus on realistic solutions? I gave some ideas a few pages back, but all I have seen other than a comment from Mark is just back and fourths covering the same old ground. We need solutions and ideas that can actually not only make a difference but be implemented.
There is not going to be one fell swoop to a fully whole new economic system from this movement, and I think its dangerous to think so. The only way such would happen would be bloodshed which I hope we can all agree we are against. So again, we need real solutions.
Glass Stegal, new forms of contribution laws. Things that the American (or your own countries) populace can get behind. Believe me, if anything I'm in the same area as Poop politically. I know though that we all have to compromise. So calling for completely new forms of government isn't going to fly. We just need to takes steps to at least disarm the current unsustainable situation.
Its the same thing the protestors are going to need to do. The unfocused unhappiness they had in our current system was good at first. But now however, we have the ears of the US, so what we need to ask for needs to be realistic solutions.
Look at my first link. Someone DID photoshop a letter over the black guy's face, he's not even an American; he lives in Spain. Then there's this guy: infiltrate, spy, and report on OWS protestors
The reasoning is simple: misdirect the public, disguise/inflate your numbers,and discredit your opposition. Dirty pool, my good man.
What is up with the 53% and 47% thing? im so lost...
Anyway...
The repeal of glass-steagall was the beginning of what we have now. It was all so beautifully designed! I mean there's been clinton's and Bushes in the white house for over 20years, most of the same people in the cabinet.... It's all a god damn joke.
Why is that guy so against this movement? Why is he against people calling out the bullshit of the congress and senate and their involvement with the more corrupt corporations that are seriously hurting our economy? Does he see something I don't?
What is up with the 53% and 47% thing? im so lost...
it's designed to play on the 99% stat, because 53% of americans pay taxes. But it ignores than out of the 47%, 17% are seniors on social security, and 13% are disabled, students, or otherwise non working adults. So it's a really shitty statistic, not to mention most of the 53%er signs should really be arguments that the system is a fucking joke rather than proof it's okily dokily.
it's designed to play on the 99% stat, because 53% of americans pay taxes. But it ignores than out of the 47%, 17% are seniors on social security, and 13% are disabled, students, or otherwise non working adults. So it's a really shitty statistic, not to mention most of the 53%er signs should really be arguments that the system is a fucking joke rather than proof it's okily dokily.
It also only applies to federal income tax. The majority of people who don't pay federal income tax do pay a bunch of other taxes. State and local sales tax, state income taxes (the threshold for states is often lower), gas taxes, property taxes, phone and cable taxes, Liquor taxes, hundreds of licensees and permits including car tabs, bla bla bla bla... All of that eats way deeper into a poor persons income than it does a rich persons.
The main point that a lot of 53%'ers miss is not that there are a lot of poor people dodging taxes because they're dirt bags. It's that their income is so low that the government looks at their income and says:
"yea there just isn't any meat on that bone, keep your bottle cap and paper clip. Call us when you have something worth taxing".
Which is a HUGE problem for sure, but if you ask any of those people if they would rather stay in an nontaxable bracket or move up to making enough money to actually be taxed they would probably overwhelmingly not pass up on chances to eat (non pet food) on a regular basis, possibly move out of a shelter or their sisters basement, buy some cloths that aren't used, maybe even buy a high mileage scooter instead of standing out in the rain for 3hrs to take a 20min bus ride... they would probably jump at it, even if that meant paying taxes.
It also only applies to federal income tax. The majority of people who don't pay federal income tax do pay a bunch of other taxes. State and local sales tax, state income taxes (the threshold for states is often lower), gas taxes, property taxes, phone and cable taxes, Liquor taxes, hundreds of licensees and permits including car tabs, bla bla bla bla... All of that eats way deeper into a poor persons income than it does a rich persons.
The main point that a lot of 53%'ers miss is not that there are a lot of poor people dodging taxes because they're dirt bags. It's that their income is so low that the government looks at their income and says "yea there just isn't any meat on that bone, keep your bottle cap and paper clip. Call us when you have something worth taxing". Which is a HUGE problem for sure, but if you ask any of those people if they would rather stay in an nontaxable bracket or move up to making enough money to actually be taxed they would probably overwhelmingly not pass up higher earnings even if that meant paying taxes.
Me! Me! *waves hand vigorously* ME! I'd love to make enough to be worth taxing! I'll let you have my cap and paper clip!
[FONT=georgia, serif]
[/FONT]I. Election of Delegates:
The People, consisting of all United States citizens who have reached the age of 18, regardless of party affiliation and voter registration status, shall elect Two Delegates, one male and one female, by direct vote, from each of the existing 435 Congressional Districts to represent the People at the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in Philadelphia. Said Assembly shall convene on July 4, 2012 in the city of Philadelphia.
The office of Delegate shall be open to all United States citizens who have reached the age of 18. Election Committees, elected by local General Assemblies from all over the United States, shall coordinate with the 99 Percent Declaration Working Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the99declaration/) to organize, coordinate and fund this national election by direct democratic voting. The Election Committees shall operate similarly to the original Committees of Correspondence during the first American Revolution.
II. Meeting of the National General Assembly and Deliberation:
At the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, the 870 Delegates shall set forth, consider and vote upon a PETITION OF GRIEVANCES to be submitted to all members of Congress, The Supreme Court and President and each of the political candidates running in the nationwide Congressional and Presidential election in November 2012. The Delegates of the National General Assembly shall vote upon and implement their own agenda, propagate their own rules and elect or appoint committee members as the Delegates see fit to accomplish their goal of presenting a PETITION OF GRIEVANCES from the 99% of Americans before the 2012 elections.
III. Proposed Petition for the Redress of Grievances:
The PETITION OF GRIEVANCES shall be non-partisan and address the critical issues now confronting the People of the United States. The Delegates shall deliberate and vote upon proposals for the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES in consultation with the 99% similarly to the first two Continental Congresses.
Below is a suggested list of grievances respectfully submitted by the OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration. The final version of the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES voted upon by the Delegates of the National General Assembly MAY or MAY NOT include the following suggested issues:
1. Implementing an immediate ban on all private contributions of money and gifts, to all politicians in federal office, from Individuals, Corporations, Political Action Committees, Super Political Action Committees, Lobbyists, Unions and all other private sources of money to be replaced by the fair and equal public financing of all federal political campaigns. We categorically REJECT the concept that money is equal to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest would have a voice. These actions must be taken because it has become clear that politicians in the United States cannot regulate themselves and have become the exclusive representatives of corporations, unions and the very wealthy who spend vast sums of money on political campaigns to influence the candidates decisions and ensure their reelection year after year.
2. The immediate reversal, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic holding in the "Citizens United" case by the Supreme Court, which equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions to politicians with free speech. We, the People, demand that institutional bribery and corruption not be deemed protected speech.
3. Prohibiting all federal public officials and their immediate family members, whether elected or appointed, from EVER being employed by any corporation they regulate while in office and/or holding any stock or shares in any corporation they regulate while in office until a full 5 years after their term is completed.
4. A complete lifetime ban on accepting all gifts, services, money, directly or indirectly, to any elected or appointed federal officials or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or other entity that the public official was charged to regulate while in office.
5. A complete reformation of the United States Tax Code to require ALL citizens to pay a fair share of a progressive, graduated income tax by eliminating loopholes, unfair tax breaks, exemptions and deductions, subsidies (e.g. oil, gas and farm) and ending all other methods of evading taxes. The current system of taxation favors the wealthiest Americans, many of whom, pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of income in taxes to the United States Treasury. We, like Warren Buffet, find this income tax disparity to be fundamentally unjust.
6. Medicare for all American citizens or other single-payer healthcare system, adjusted by a means test (i.e. citizens who can afford it may opt-out and pay their own health insurance or opt-in and pay a means tested premium). The Medicaid program, fraught with corruption and fraud, will be eliminated except for the purpose of providing emergency room care to indigent non-citizens who will not be covered by the single-payer program.
7. New comprehensive regulations to give the Environmental Protection Agency expanded powers to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment and/or criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally damage the environment. We also demand the immediate adoption of the most recent international protocols, including the "Washington Declaration" to cap carbon emissions and implement new and existing programs to transition away from fossil fuels to reusable or carbon neutral sources of power.
8. Adoption of an immediate plan to reduce the national debt to a sustainable percentage of GDP by 2020. Reduction of the national debt to be achieved by BOTH a cut in spending to corporations engaged in perpetual war for profit, the "healthcare" industry, the pharmaceutical industry and all other sectors that use the federal budget as their income stream AND a truly progressive income tax code that does not allow the wealthy and corporations to evade taxes through excessive deductions, subsidies and loopholes. We agree that spending cuts are necessary but those cuts must be made to facilitate what is best for the People of the United States of America, not multinational and domestic corporations.
9. Passage of a comprehensive job and job-training act like the American Jobs Act to employ our citizens in jobs that are available with specialized training and by putting People to work now by repairing America's crumbling infrastructure. We also recommend the establishment of an online international job exchange to match employers with skilled workers or employers willing to train workers in 21st century skills.
10. Student loan debt relief. Our young People and students are more than $830 billion in debt from education loans alone. Payment and interest on these debts should be deferred for periods of unemployment and the principal on these loans reduced using a corporate tax surcharge.
11. Immediate passage of the Dream Act and comprehensive immigration and border security reform including offering visas, lawful permanent resident status and citizenship to the worlds brightest People to stay and work in our industries and schools after they obtain their education and training in the United States.
12. Recalling all military personnel at all non-essential bases and refocusing national defense goals to address threats posed by the geopolitics of the 21st century, including terrorism and limiting the large scale deployment of military forces to instances where Congressional approval has been granted to counter the Military Industrial Complex's goal of perpetual war for profit.
13. Mandating new educational goals to train the American public to perform jobs in a 21st Century economy, particularly in the areas of technology and green energy, taking into consideration the redundancy caused by technology and the inexpensive cost of labor in China, India and other countries and paying our teachers a salary that is competitive with the private sector. Paying our teachers a competitive salary commensurate with the salaries of People in the private sector with similar skills.
14. Subject to the elimination of corporate tax loopholes and exploited exemptions and deductions stated above, offering tax incentives to businesses to remain in the United States and hire its citizens rather than outsource jobs and reconstruct the manufacturing capacity of the United States. In conjunction with a new jobs act, reinstitution of the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps and a similar emergency governmental agency tasked with creating new public works projects to provide jobs to the 46 million People living in poverty, the 9.1% unemployed and 10% underemployed.
15. Implementing of immediate legislation to encourage China and our other trading partners to end currency manipulation and reduce the trade deficit.
16. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act and increased regulation of Wall Street and the financial industry by the SEC, FINRA and the other financial regulators, and the commencement of a Justice Department criminal investigations into the Securities and Banking industries practices that led to the collapse of markets, $700 billion bail-out, and financial firm failures in 2007-2008.
17. Adoption of a plan similar to President Clintons proposal to end the mortgage crisis and instead of the Federal Reserve continuing to lower interest rates for loans to banks who are refusing to loan to small businesses and consumers, the Federal Reserve shall buy all underwater or foreclosed mortgages and refinance these debts at 1% or less to be managed by the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (and foreclosure task force described below) because 1% or less is the interest rate the Federal Reserve loans to the banks directly who hoard the cash rather than loan it to the People and small businesses.
18. An immediate one year freeze on all foreclosures to be reviewed by an independent foreclosure task force appointed by Congress and the Executive Branch to (in conjunction with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ) determine, on a case by case basis, whether foreclosure proceedings should continue based on the circumstances of each homeowner and propriety of the financial institution's conduct.
19. Subject to the above ban on all private money and gifts in politics, to enact additional campaign finance reform requiring free air time and public campaign finances to all candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to participate in the primaries and/or electoral process, to shorten the campaign season and to allow voting on weekends and holidays.
20. An immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and a substantial increase in the amount of funding needed for veteran job placement and the treatment of the physical and emotional injuries sustained by veterans in these wars. Our veterans are committing suicide at an unprecedented rate and we must help now.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that IF the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES approved by the 870 Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in consultation with the PEOPLE, is not acted upon by Congress, the President, and Supreme Court, to the satisfaction of the Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, said Delegates shall organize a THIRD, COMPLETELY NON-PARTISAN, INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been removed by the ballot box.
FUCK YEA! That's how you get back to basics of government.
wouldn't another solution (politics aside, i realise how important they are and i agree whole heartedly with the argument. i just want to focus on money/incomes for a second) be to force a cap on how much a person can earn within a year?
i mean, anyone that pulls in over 500k a year is going to live more than comfortably, anyone that pulls in over 1m per year is never going to want/need for anything.
so why not say that when a person reaches an income of 2m, anything above that amount must be forced back into their company/another company in order to stimulate growth?
I'm not much for politics and I'd rather spend all day pretending I'm a wizard in Skyrim than think about the economy - but that being said, I do just want to toss out there that I've been keeping up with this thread from the beginning and I've found it to be incredibly educational. It's a good thing to be able to sit here and read through all this from different perspectives.
I feel like I've learned a lot.
Though all this talk of the power of corporations and the behind-the-scenes wealthy does make me feel like I'm living in the world of Deus Ex.
Replies
i am confused...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category. There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism. The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
MM.. You liberal monkey! I just want you to explain to me one thing.. Why is your portfolio website rickrolling me? I demand the truth!
A barter economy is a form of capitalism. This is because "money" arises naturally in a barter economy -- could be seashells or tobacco leaves or gold coins.
So you have these two basic systems. One in which people have private property, and one in which all property is owned by the collective. That is the core distinction. It is really the main salient point.
Debt is a good choice? I never said that, I didn't even imply that. Not by a long shot. I was just pointing out that he is the exception, not the rule. Debt is just an unfortunate inevitability in our society and this person hasn't the foggiest clue how things really work. Nobody should have to go into debt to get an education. College loans just extract your increased value before you have a chance to use it to benefit yourself.
Yes it does. Like MM has pointed out, Profit is the core tenet of capitalism. Exchanging paper/gold/shells as units of value for tangible goods is not capitalism, it's just currency.
According to Wikipedia you're both right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
you are not suppose to click there
btw, i am not liberal, i am conservative.
jk, i dont subscribe to any conventional system or party. i like parts of capitalism, parrts of libertarian socialism, parts of anarchism etc. etc. etc.
You misunderstand what the actual definition of capitalism is (or are using a non-standard one that would confuse anyone who's taken even basic economics). You are confusing a system of currency with the system of capitalism.
Currency = I trade this thing with agreed upon value for this other thing.
Capitalism = I as a private entity get others to work for me to make a thing (or provide a service), that I sell to others for more than I pay them, and keep the difference.
I can hire a second person, and pay them less than 50% of the profits. This is capitalism. I am keeping the excess value their labor is producing, and thereby exploiting them.
I could add a second person, and (assuming we both work equal hours) I split the profits with them 50/50. This is a co-op, and is not capitalism. Nor is it exploitation. The workers own the means of production.
You can subjectively decide you aren't being exploited, but within economics, you are being exploited when you are being paid less than your labor generates. After a certain level of pay, people tend not to mind (though of course they would like more) but let's not kid ourselves and pretend exploitation doesn't happen. The Waltons are absolutely exploiting the chinese that work their sweatshops, and the men and women who work in Walmart, even if those people are happy to have a job in shitty economic times.
This is also a very good argument
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy
So then selling your services to produce goods directly for a customer is not capitalism, right? This makes sense to me. Anyone who works for themselves and only themselves, performing their own labor, is not a capitalist. You're basically trading your goods and services for the goods and services of others, quid pro quo. Currency is just the exchange medium that facilitates the transaction.
So then a business that is owned by the people that operate it would also not be under a capitalist system as well because the people who own the means of production are also the people who perform the labor, generating income for everyone without a central authority taking in the lion's share of the revenue as profit. That business would be an autonomous collective of laborers pooling their resources together to achieve higher productivity and higher income across the board. The revenue the company earns would go directly to the people producing the goods.
http://occupywriters.com/by-lemony-snicket
ha! I love this
11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
I think this is funny because we have both worked as contractors. Clearly making other people do the work is not the core feature of capitalism.
I think my definition is good because it differentiates it from the only other major idea for allocating goods (socialism) as simply as possible, and explains why money, capital investment, profit, etc exist without using a lot of concepts that some economic theory depends on that have been proven false like the common conception of "rational actors."
It is in fact based in part on "extreme" laissez faire economic theory, which I don't really agree with, but has a lot stronger intellectual underpinning than most other schools of economic thought.
You can use whatever definition you want, but far more people are going to understand the terms Marx and others have been using for decades. The desire to profit is the core underpinning of capitalism, whether you like including it or not, and is the root cause of the problems we have today.
Tell me again how working as a contractor is ironic or even hypocrisy in this system? When we as artist sell our labor for money, we are operating as craftsmen. The problem is that our customers are not individuals, they are an actual company that will package together our purchased product, and resell it to others, so they are exploiting us, even if we have negotiated a wage that we can live off of. (you can even claim you are happy with it, but you and I both know you would be far happier with an hour based percentage of the profit of games we've worked on, I know I could retire now if so).
Yeah this is really an amazing post and I think everyone should read.
very good read! thanks for that..read the entire thing without a rest
No, see, that part is not in the classical definition of capitalism. I would totally agree with you that it is happening today, and that it's labeled as capitalism. But nowhere does it say you have to pay someone less than what they're worth.
It's true that the money part of capitalism is about the business making a profit. But it's only nowadays that it was made to be "profit above all".
This is why ultimately I think you're right. The popular definition is that, and that's what most people understand. And that is what happens today.
Where are you people getting your definitions?
If both of us are getting paid equally, it is not capitalism, It is socialism by definition.
Capitalism = profits It is NOT exchanging one thing for another.
I would prefer to use the correct definition that works in the science of economics rather than a wrong definition that more people understand. Science is about predicting outcomes, not winning arguments on the internet.
You would not be able to do that in North Korea. That is what I find ironic.
Maybe that would work out well for you, but a lot of other people have worked for years and had their games canceled, or have had them flop on the market. The main thing these big organizations do that normal people like is mitigate risk.
But hey, you are preaching to the choir here. That is why I have my own company. I am willing to work for years with little or no pay on the hope that me and my friends can make a game that people are going to love and want to pay for. I just don't think that's for everyone.
True, but it's modern definition, not classical definition.
I'm not even saying you're wrong. Just that there are two definitions at work here. I'm not trying to make you change yours to fit with the classical one. Don't see the point in that.
So is this where I point back to all the examples where free market capitalism fails to keep hard working people from destitution? Is NK your bogeyman, because it's the shittiest implementation of.. well whatever scary system you are trying to paint it as. It's fascism, whether or not he calls it the People's republic. Shit, the US is often called a democracy (even though it's a republic) and the will of the people is absolutely not respected.
Kim Jung doesn't even try to pretend it's anything left leaning at all, Juche is all about "self reliance" and has as much to do with Marx as it does a box of Cheerios.
Again I find it hilarious how people will hold up the USSR or NK as these examples of "see! KKKommunism can never work!" but then when capitalism results in huge swaths of people destitute, it's all of a sudden, "oh well those are coincidences" not an indictment on capitalism.
We have all the proof we need it's failed wherever we look. Every time a woman walks past a homeless crazy person while wearing 10k in designer clothes, we can see a disgusting misappropriate of resources.
Socialism was first coined in the 18th century, so I don't know what you define as "classical".
To be fair, people do that the other way around too. Whenever I mention Anarchy, everyone jumps and says "Right... cause Somalia is soooo nice this time of the year", as if that's a legitimate example of Anarchy. Or when you mention free-markets, everyone says "Right... cause it's working out so well for the US", eventhough the US never had a free market. It had stuff resembling it, but never a pure one, and since 1913 it's not even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, around that time. The point is, you'll never hear Bastiat say that people must get paid unequally for it to be capitalism. Nor Ludwig von Mises, or anyone in between.
In fact, they'll go as far as to say that the trade must be equal for it to be fair. You're right, even by classic economics terms, that if it's anything other than that, it's exploitation. The premise there though, is that it's only possible through coercion (the state).
Well, socialism has had a rough go of it. I would love to point to the successes, but I can't think of any beyond maybe primitive tribes, if you want to call that success. You can find counter-examples, like China, that went from a pretty backwards mostly socialist system to the world's most powerful economy in a matter of a couple decades, in large part from adopting capitalism, although you may not want to count that as a success either.
I don't see much alternative though in a socialist society beyond being forced to do what "the collective" (whatever that means) deems fit. Socialism has no good way to calculate if you are better or worse off after making something, or if you should have made x instead of y. These are kind of fundamental problems.
Some of the core ideas of capitalism are about trying to use things efficiently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
or like in perfect competition where "it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn economic profit in the long run"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Profit
That does not mean that capitalism is perfect or anything, but it's good at some things. One huge problem with current markets is that they seem to vastly undervalue things that are hard to trade. There is no capitalist solution for real problems like depleted fishing stocks or environmental damage. Asymmetric information in cases with credence goods are also a huge problem. The market does not take violence into account properly.
What is not a real problem with capitalism is having employees.
One of the biggest current problems we see in our economic system (which is a mixed system) is that a lot of risk is put on to the imaginary corporate person (a government invention). If stockholders had to face criminal charges or pay cleanup costs for the companies they owned, you would see vastly different behavior by investors and CEOs.
To be fair, the post you quoted I had Somalia in there as proof libertarianism doesn't work, but I took it out so as not to derail the thread with you again. :-D
I can't point to a single system where "socialism" was tried at all. Communism is not socialism. I know this is skirting dangerously close to a "no true scotsman" fallacy, but every "attempt" that has been labeled socialism has left far too few individuals from the old guard in charge of making sure things were fair, and this corruption is what lead to the inequalities, not an actual legitimate attempt at workers owning the means of production. Now, I can agree with you that this means how to implement socialism is fraught with difficulties, because the examples we've seen of "trying" to set it up have all failed. Me personally I'm trying to lead by example.
China is only a success if you value economic growth above human well being. They have destroyed their landscape with noxious pink rivers, and many of the rural people went from at least being able to subsistence-farm to being destitute 3rd world peasants (with cancer from the polluted rivers). Sure there are some select few chinese with panda-dogs and golden chihuaha collars, but you're right, I wouldn't call that a success.
I do see the problem of capitalism as having employees. It is the root of it's entire flaws, because when you are not an equal member, you will figure out ways to screw people over more, because your job is already screwing people. When you're all equal owners, not only does it ensure each person has a legitimate skill, it doesn't leave anyone with the power to fuck the rest.
And that's exactly why your last paragraph is actually proof of the problem. Why do you think corporations are insulated from risk? why do you think these financial "wizards" never properly take the fall? they (or their precursors) got to write the system. You are basically wishing for a house-pony that doesn't shit.
Does that letter looked shopped as fuck to anyone else? There just seems like a lot of weird shit going on with lighting and hard black line on the paper, small-ass hand, odd angle of elbow, and the fact that there's no shadow on his face from the paper but the page would literally have to be inches from his face and IT'S lit from the front and opposite side of light on his face.
This has been happening with this IAMTHE53 horseshit:
http://blog.ohinternet.com/9476/we-are-53-photoshopped/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2123193
Image error level analysis:
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/40e5676/
Could be completely wrong, but it looks sketchy, to me.
Also, there's no such thing as a former Marine. Any Marine will tell you that.
heh figures. I was going to write a reply, but you actually said exactly what I had in mind on your own in the following paragraph:
Just replace all instances of "socialism" with "libertarianism", and every instance of communism with capitalism. And my message is the same as yours.
+1
I never really bothered to take a super good look at the image but looking at again it's pretty clear it has been photoshopped. Even so the response in that article is probably the best and most well-laid out argument for the Occupy Wall Street movement and what it's all about, that I've read so far.
Not that it's important if it is or isn't, but the black line and blurriness and lighting inconsistencies can be explained by a fired on camera flash with a slow shutter speed. The black line is the dark background that the lens can see that the flash cannot, blocked by the paper, the flash is also what's keeping the page lit up, and you can tell the flash fired by the highlights in his eyes.
/photographer nerdism
(squint and its pretty obvious, I think! But of course not proven until the original unaltered image is found!)
Also, to push the reasonning further : somone willing to take a stand and post such a picture online ("I am the 53%!!!") would certainly sign the note he is holding to the camera and would be proud of showing his name for the cause he is advocating.
You're still arguing against the claim made there. If someone photoshopped that claim on a piece of paper or not is irrelevant. And I don't see why would they. It's pretty easy to just grab some dude, have him hold up a piece of paper with your text on it, and nobody would be any wiser.
It's relevant enough in the fact that someone(s) is attempting to fake some sort of movement by possibly photoshopping these "53%" notes.
Also, +1 to "Former Marine". I've only ever heard Marines talk about how there are no "Former" or "Ex" Marines. Once a Marine, always a Marine. It's a matter of pride.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/chart-of-the-day-these-are-the-47-percent.php
So can we stop with this? I mean, who are we trying to prove? Its not like we have an equal number in here splitting us into 47/53. Its not like those who will choose to believe the 53/47 split will look at this.
For that matter the 1% as well since as we saw, its a bit "tinnier" than that with the wealth inequality (percentage wise its even less than 1% who have all the wealth).
Can we focus on realistic solutions? I gave some ideas a few pages back, but all I have seen other than a comment from Mark is just back and fourths covering the same old ground. We need solutions and ideas that can actually not only make a difference but be implemented.
There is not going to be one fell swoop to a fully whole new economic system from this movement, and I think its dangerous to think so. The only way such would happen would be bloodshed which I hope we can all agree we are against. So again, we need real solutions.
Glass Stegal, new forms of contribution laws. Things that the American (or your own countries) populace can get behind. Believe me, if anything I'm in the same area as Poop politically. I know though that we all have to compromise. So calling for completely new forms of government isn't going to fly. We just need to takes steps to at least disarm the current unsustainable situation.
Its the same thing the protestors are going to need to do. The unfocused unhappiness they had in our current system was good at first. But now however, we have the ears of the US, so what we need to ask for needs to be realistic solutions.
Look at my first link. Someone DID photoshop a letter over the black guy's face, he's not even an American; he lives in Spain. Then there's this guy: infiltrate, spy, and report on OWS protestors
The reasoning is simple: misdirect the public, disguise/inflate your numbers,and discredit your opposition. Dirty pool, my good man.
Anyway...
The repeal of glass-steagall was the beginning of what we have now. It was all so beautifully designed! I mean there's been clinton's and Bushes in the white house for over 20years, most of the same people in the cabinet.... It's all a god damn joke.
here's a nice video on glass steagall.
[ame="
it's designed to play on the 99% stat, because 53% of americans pay taxes. But it ignores than out of the 47%, 17% are seniors on social security, and 13% are disabled, students, or otherwise non working adults. So it's a really shitty statistic, not to mention most of the 53%er signs should really be arguments that the system is a fucking joke rather than proof it's okily dokily.
The main point that a lot of 53%'ers miss is not that there are a lot of poor people dodging taxes because they're dirt bags. It's that their income is so low that the government looks at their income and says:
"yea there just isn't any meat on that bone, keep your bottle cap and paper clip. Call us when you have something worth taxing".
Which is a HUGE problem for sure, but if you ask any of those people if they would rather stay in an nontaxable bracket or move up to making enough money to actually be taxed they would probably overwhelmingly not pass up on chances to eat (non pet food) on a regular basis, possibly move out of a shelter or their sisters basement, buy some cloths that aren't used, maybe even buy a high mileage scooter instead of standing out in the rain for 3hrs to take a 20min bus ride... they would probably jump at it, even if that meant paying taxes.
In short:
Me! Me! *waves hand vigorously* ME! I'd love to make enough to be worth taxing! I'll let you have my cap and paper clip!
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
FUCK YEA! That's how you get back to basics of government.
wouldn't another solution (politics aside, i realise how important they are and i agree whole heartedly with the argument. i just want to focus on money/incomes for a second) be to force a cap on how much a person can earn within a year?
i mean, anyone that pulls in over 500k a year is going to live more than comfortably, anyone that pulls in over 1m per year is never going to want/need for anything.
so why not say that when a person reaches an income of 2m, anything above that amount must be forced back into their company/another company in order to stimulate growth?
I feel like I've learned a lot.
Though all this talk of the power of corporations and the behind-the-scenes wealthy does make me feel like I'm living in the world of Deus Ex.