![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 14:25:53
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 13:25:45
But it's the 1% they're talking about. It's the 1% on the signs and in the talking points. I know several people in that 1%, and they see themselves as middle class. Upper middle class to be sure, but middle class. I would hate to think of myself as being one of those people being spoken of that way. I just can't approve of that.
But even if it's the top of the top, yes, I think class warfare is wrong. If you're angry about behaviors, target behaviors, not people. I don't think people deserve vilification based on their income bracket. I just don't. Why is that any better than other forms of stereotyping?
It's classic behavior in poor economic times. I was reading just yesterday about Wat Tyler's rebellion. Whatever legitimate grievances the peasants had, and they were very legitimate, it wasn't right.
I'm not crazy about commodities trading myself. I've never been convinced that it was anything other than legalized gambling, or that it offers any value to the economy. Unless I could be convinced of its value (as I'm always opened to being convinced that I'm wrong), I'd like to see it gone, since I perceive it as being destabilizing to things like the price of oil. Oil prices should not jump based on rumors. I think if people have complaints about specific practices on Wall Street, a public dialogue on those practices would be very worthwhile. As much as political donations influence politicians, so do an informed and interested electorate.
But when it is framed in terms of Corporations = Bad. Or the Top 1% being greedy influence peddlers? I find that as offensive as I would any other generalization.
Moreover, I think that invoking class anger might be satisfying, but I doubt it contributes much to the sort of dialogue that leads to change. While focusing on certain practices might.
It's satisfying to complain that Exxon paid no income tax. It's better to detail why Exxon paid no income tax, and tighten rules on foreign income taxation. It's better to understand the rationale behind the current laws, and to critically discuss how meaningful changes can be made. The nonpayment of taxes due to shuffling to offshore companies should in no way be equated with not paying taxes because of hiring people in disadvantaged areas, or investing in equipment. Or upgrading plants for social energy.
I'm a passionate moderate. We like rational discussion free of hyperbole and polarization. Unfortunately this is not a good political climate for us.
I'd be interested in a presidential election between Romney and Obama. Both of them bring a certain level of rationality and civility to the table. Although I suppose it's too much to ask that the followers of each would refrain from rhetoric.
For what it's worth, there are mutual funds available that try to be socially conscious and only invest in corporations, even large corporations, that behave in a socially responsible manner. There are also green funds that focus on companies that are environmentally responsible. If enough people cared to only invest in companies whose policies they approved, it's entirely possible that corporate policies would change.
Because corporations *are* people. And brokers and fund managers are people too. They may be looking to make a profit. That's their job, and I doubt we'd be happy with fund managers who weren't looking to increase our capital. But there are ones out there who are also as socially aware as you could wish.
Posted by sigismund on November 10, 2011, at 18:31:47
In reply to The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 10:02:14
1% is way over the top. I wonder if it is more like 0.01%?
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:32:26
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 14:25:53
I don't see this as class warfare. I suppose when any group gathers to protest or air grievances, there are a number that resort to a premade unexamined rhetoric. I get my news online, and little of it, so I haven't seen angry mobs, nor have I seen violent behavior, except in Oakland. That outburst marred an otherwise civil protest. I did see a photo of someone defecating on a police car. I really can't justify that behavior. My understanding is that by and large these gatherings are civil and attended and witnessed (often with approbation) by ordinary people who have found the dialogue in this country sorely lacking, and have decided to show up and let their presence count. Peaceful assembly has always been a right in this country. If corporations are people, then maybe it is the one percent of corporations that are to be demanded accountable.
I do not look at the broader strokes of this movement that might be peopled by the lunatic fringe but what ordinary young people and their guiding intellectuals are trying to accomplish: a true debate, a chance to enter into a dialogue in which a more common interest can have a say on the terms of the dialogue, not one where the terms are handed from the top down or prespun or scrambled by Fox News.
The occupation in my small town has been uneventful but intrepid. There largest accomplishment to date has been persuading people to transfer their banking to our two community credit unions that have a proven commitment to our community. I approve.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 20:36:58
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:32:26
I tend to see attacks (verbal) on the 1% wealthiest individuals as attacks on a class of people. Warfare may be inaccurate since no violence has been done, but I see saying bad things about the "1%" as being a verbal attack.
Also, given history, I think it's dangerous to whip up anger against a class of people. If people start believing the rhetoric, it's a short step to acting on the rhetoric.
The anecdotal reports I hear about our own local group don't include a lot of support from any large proportion of the "99%" they purport to represent. But those are hearsay reports. I rarely have reason to go near City Hall.
Why are sweeping generalizations about a group of people only sometimes wrong?
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 20:48:09
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by sigismund on November 10, 2011, at 18:31:47
I hadn't really thought much about it. But it made me curious when I saw someone comment that they didn't think any of the 1% lived in Louisiana. That seemed highly unlikely.
Certainly if a group of people must be vilified, 1% seems an overly broad brush. And the fewer people hated, the better, I suppose.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 21:33:22
In reply to Re: The top 1% » sigismund, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 20:48:09
I think this is what people are angry about. At least I am. This is what I read into the OWS movement.
This is reported in a fairly moderate publication. A study by congress from 2008:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/
And another report this year, also featured on CNN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfvsHV_j-wk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
When Mitt Romney made his comments on corporations, I suspect it is something like the above studies his hecklers had in mind. I feel Romney blurs the line between corporations--large one's, not small one's, and equates that what is good for corporations is good for people. I see people and
corporations as two separate categories. I do not necessarily feel that what benefits corporations benefits society at large.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z9PsKhStx8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I have no idea what I would call myself. Maybe I would be called a socialist? I see the conditions of my local community degrading. The infrastuctures in Californa are in shreds from hospitals, schools, social services, our highways. The food banks here cannot keep up with local needs. Small businesses here are certainly struggling. The university system, once a jewel among state systems is reduced to nickel and diming their employees. They are now being run for profit as a corporation. That is the new model. Corporate hood. I personally do not agree that the goals of gaining and retaining the highest profit yields are in our society's best interests, and with little understanding of how economics work (I truly admit), I reject this model as being the only way for our country to be productive, humane, and socially high-functioning.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 22:03:26
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 21:33:22
Corporations, even the largest, aren't really people themselves. Corporations, even the largest, have people as shareholders (perhaps through mutual funds these days, but still) who are affected by the wellbeing of their investments, people as management, people as employees who depend on them, etc. They just have more people than a family corporation.
If there's behavior that needs addressing, then the behavior should be addressed.
So is it true that when Romney said corporations are people, and meant that corporations aren't separate entities but are made up of people, the people who objected to his statement objected because they actually do see corporations as separate entities - quasi people? So they accuse him of saying corporations *are* people, rather than corporations are (made up of) people? While those of us who feel that corporations are entities only in the strictest legal sense, understood in the same way he did? That's... hmmm... ironic isn't the right word, I don't think. But something along those lines.
I think some corporate practices, such as golden parachutes and outsourcing, are not truly in the best interests of the corporation any more than they are in the best interests of the country. Some management and board of directors are rather short sighted in their goals. But I'm happy enough to address those issues without condemning all large corporations as bad. Corporations do try to make a profit, certainly. But I think many corporations learned long ago that squeezing every last cent isn't the best way to have an innovative and progressive workplace.
As far as the corporate model goes, I don't think it's inherently worse than the governmental model. For entities that serve the public good, a corporate model with governmental oversight might, in fact, yield better results than either model alone. But then I live in Louisiana, where we have an indifferent impression of the governmental model. I think we see the enemy as inefficiency and corruption, rather than a desire to run things efficiently. We see money misspent and misdirected. Perhaps it is different elsewhere.
Is it possible to object to the behaviors of certain corporations, or certain corporate practices, without condemning large corporations as a whole? And I will endeavor to object to behaviors involving waste and corruption, without condemning government spending as a whole.
Posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 22:53:23
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 22:03:26
I think your idea of a corporate model with disinterested government oversight might work. I wouldn't object to that. However to deny corruption and corporations as a vehicle of corruption angers those who feel disenfranchised. I feel Romney was being disingenuous in denying he knew what the crowd was objecting to.
Sometimes corporations are afforded and can afford to win in court special privileges and become treated as almost super-entities with protections greater than any individual worker, employee, or shareholder is afforded.
I think that many of the people participating in the OWS movement are standing for equality in the only way they know how because they do not have access to legal means or the ability to direct public discourse towards their concerns. I am not put off by the signs nor the misguided talk or slogans that may get the lion's share of media exposure. If any respect is given to the Tea Party to which Sarah Palin has affiliation and not condeming the majority by the ridiculous minority that carry crazy racist signs and the neo-nazis that show up on the fringes of those gatherings, why object to the OWS movement?
Many corporations have learned that caring and providing for their employees makes good business sense, it's true. (I do question why the bottom line in the united states is always good business. I am not lobbying for a collapse of the economic system of the United States. That would plunge us into chaos and anarchy. That serves no one.). There are many corporations however that do not operate that way. They should not be supported or protected by someone as business savvy and intelligent as Romney or any government office or official.
There is a business model that tries to remove or not place overly narcissistic people in positions within their corporation. This model operates from the idea that true narcissists cannot benefit a corporation. I find this interesting that during the vetting process there is a personality analysis going on. This is just a side note to my personal comments regarding Palin and Perry.
Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 23:37:31
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 22:53:23
I didn't get the sense that Romney was denying that corruption takes place, or that corruption takes place within corporations. He's a very sensible man. He was probably reacting to the same assumptions I frequently react to by thinking "corporations are people".
For the record, my opinion of the Tea Party is about equivalent to my feeling about the OWS movement. On the one hand, they are more organized and have a more coherent message. But on the other hand, I disagree with their message.
Moderates, however passionate, aren't all that likely to embrace these sorts of movements. At least I am not that likely to do so. And I suppose many, though surely not all, of my fellow moderates would feel similarly. But of course I allow that some of my passionately moderate brethren may feel moved to publicly display their moderation.
Posted by sdb on November 16, 2011, at 2:36:54
In reply to Re: The top 1% » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 23:37:31
doctors seem to earn much more in the us than in Europe. Well in private practice doctors in Europe earn quite good too, but in the hospitals these are only doctors treating private patients. As a practising doctor you will never be rich. The reason for the pressure on the costs is that the health care has to be affordable.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:19:28
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by sdb on November 16, 2011, at 2:36:54
I've got no problems with doctors earning a lot. I certainly had no desire to go to med school. And my son, when very young, when asked if he wanted to be a doctor said "I don't want the responsibility of life and death."
Smart kid.
Posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 18:49:06
In reply to Re: The top 1% » sdb, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:19:28
> I've got no problems with doctors earning a lot. I certainly had no desire to go to med school. And my son, when very young, when asked if he wanted to be a doctor said "I don't want the responsibility of life and death."
>
> Smart kid.I agree. Smart kid.
But I do have a problem with doctors' salaries. They are the beneficiaries of a government enforced monopoly that says that all sorts of services can only be provided by doctors. And the AMA lobbies endlessly to maintain that private preserve. At the same time the number of doctors is limited not by the number of people with the ability or willingness to do the job but by a limit on the number of residencies. Which inflates their salaries. And the end result is people doing without care.
I read an article recently asserting that salaries were a significant reason for our high overall health care costs. Unfortunately I don't remember where. But if this is true than I think this is soon going to be a problem for even more people.
Posted by sdb on November 16, 2011, at 19:59:23
In reply to Re: The top 1% » sdb, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 16:19:28
> I've got no problems with doctors earning a lot. I certainly had no desire to go to med school. And my son, when very young, when asked if he wanted to be a doctor said "I don't want the responsibility of life and death."
>
> Smart kid.nice kid. You don't even have power as a doctor because you can't choose between life and death. If you were a surgeon and you'd choose, then, you'll be fired immediately. So, a doctor can make a controlled damage but there actually is no power.
A lawyer at the other hand has power because there is enough room for arbitrariness and for that he does not have to take over much responsibility.
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:03:59
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by sdb on November 16, 2011, at 19:59:23
I think he was likely thinking mistakes.
But I seriously doubt he'll be a lawyer either. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd be guessing scientist or engineer. (And yes, their mistakes may have life or death consequences too. I'd rather he not start thinking overmuch about the consequences of mistakes. He tends to worry.)
Posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:19:04
In reply to MD salaries, posted by jane d on November 16, 2011, at 18:49:06
I think we may have to differ on that topic. I'm *glad* the government requires that people hold an accepted degree to practice medicine. Though they also allow nurse-practioners to perform most services. I don't really see that as meaning the salaries of MD's should be limited.
I was surprised it wasn't higher to tell the truth. For ob/gyn's at least. That's a very high risk and stressful field.
Bottom line is that a good living can be had in the professions, depending on supply/demand of any particular field. But you're not likely to get so rich that you can buy a politician.
Posted by sdb on November 16, 2011, at 20:44:37
In reply to Re: The top 1% » sdb, posted by Dinah on November 16, 2011, at 20:03:59
> I think he was likely thinking mistakes.
>
> But I seriously doubt he'll be a lawyer either. If I had to make a wild guess, I'd be guessing scientist or engineer. (And yes, their mistakes may have life or death consequences too. I'd rather he not start thinking overmuch about the consequences of mistakes. He tends to worry.)ok, why not if he's good with numbers, likes to find out how things work. Maybe a boeing engineer? I am always impressed when I am travelling by aeroplane.
Personally, I think that the aim should not be the salary by all means, but being happy with work and not worrying too much is better.BTW, In Europe (core countries) the income tax is progressive, gross - deductions = net (which isn't that big anymore after taxes). The capital tax at the other hand, isn't high and for these people there are some little countries with special arrangements for that problem.
Posted by Aquarius on December 11, 2011, at 14:14:09
In reply to The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 10:02:14
I'm not sure how an OBGYN salary like that could be much of an issue. They have high malpractice insurance to pay, so their net earnings may be much less. Maybe it's getting out of control, and rage is contagious.
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...
"The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation's history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high."
Take a look at some of the charts:
- AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION, AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS HAVEN'T INCREASED IN 50 YEARS.
- CEO PAY HAS SKYROCKED 300% SINCE 1990. CORPORATE PROFITS HAVE DOUBLED. VERAGE "PRODUCTION
WORKER" PAY HAS INCREASED 4%. THE MINIMUM WAGE HAS DROPPED. (ALL NUMBERS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION).Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10##ixzz1gG3s88Au
The fact is, corporate earnings have hit record highs, while workers' wages have declined, while prices go up. This has creeped slowly since the 1990s. If it was abrupt, there might be more attention to this. I'm not sure if people realized it, or attempted to learn about it, until recently.
And republicans feed the myth "the poor don't pay taxes". That is a myth. For federal income taxes, yes; but overall, no. This is just one sample:
"Measured as a share of family income, Californias lowest-income families pay the most
in taxes. The bottom fifth of the states non-elderly families, with an average income of
$12,600, spent 11.1 percent of their income on state and local taxes.1 In comparison, the
wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.3 million, spent 7.8 percent of their
income on state and local taxes."http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2011/110412_Who_Pays_Taxes.pdf
I don't live in California, but this is true for me too. Tax RATES may be somewhat higher for the wealthiest, but what they ACTUALLY pay is often much lower. People can't compare RATES and get the picture. What is actually paid is the fact.
This is happening everywhere:
"A number of research reports have documented the rise in corporate profits and decline in
the share of national income accounted for by wages and salaries. Between 2001 and 2009, the most recent year for which data are available, the total adjusted gross income of Californias personal income taxpayers increased by 16.5 percent. In contrast, the net profits reported by corporations for California tax purposes nearly tripled, rising by 192.0 percent."But some wages, such as my own, are the same as they were decades ago, as you can see in those charts. The OBGYN in this example, might pay a medical administrative worker $10 an hour-which is likely close to the wage of that worker decades ago.
But anger is not the answer. But curse words are not the evil here-they may not be pretty, but they are merely words. It's actions that truly hurt people.
Everyone should be concerned about this, wealthy or not. It also concerns me that consumer spending from the 99%, how it impacts the economy, is being ignored.
Posted by floatingbridge on December 11, 2011, at 15:36:13
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by Aquarius on December 11, 2011, at 14:14:09
Aquarius,
Thanks for digging this up. I live in this state, and it is not pretty here right now. The infrastructure has severe rot.
My little city's meridians are filling with ragged people holding cardboard signs saying things like "homeless Iraq Vet needs food work".
People are increasingly ridiculing OWS now that they are being being busted the way hobos were once busted by railroads bulls. They are told to go home. My husband and I said to each other about the homeless occupiers who are left, where do they go? This is like their last stand. They are the epitome of the 99%. Contrary to what may circulate as popular belief, they did not wake up at an early age and say, guess what, I am going to sponge off the fat of the land and live a fabulous life in my mud and detritus encrusted sleeping bag. Or to live out of a car with their children, eating from food banks. Are they to be ridiculed for asking for or needing a 'handout'? Is there something inherently wrong in this country in *needing* something?
From the state that grows the United States' grapes when they aren't trucked in from Mexico by desiel or flown in from
Chile by jet with jet fuel.
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2011, at 16:32:53
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by Aquarius on December 11, 2011, at 14:14:09
My complaint was that people have inaccurate ideas about who the top 1% is. I saw one comment in our local paper website that there were likely none of the 1% living in Louisiana. I know we're not a wealthy state, but that seemed unlikely. The comment was not only not challenged, but met with general indirect agreement even by those with opposing viewpoints.
I've got no interest in categorizing people by their income, on either end of the spectrum. I think stereotyping is wrong. I likely know and like people in the top 1%. I don't like to see them vilified.
There are things I'd like to see changed. I'd like to see disincentives put in place for outsourcing. I think it's a counterproductive strategy for companies in the long run. I think some CEO salaries are ridiculous. But what can you do about that in a supply/demand situation? I also tend to think the current tax rates are too low. They are much lower now than they were during Reagan's time, and it always annoys me that people invoke Reagan to lower taxes regardless of any common sense whatsoever.
If *any* organization wants to gain my support, they need to be focused on issues, not polarizing groups of people.
By the way, I think I rather like a country where one out of every hundred people can earn upwards of $340,000 annually. I don't earn that myself, nor have I any desire to do what it takes to earn that much, but one out of a hundred doesn't seem all that far out of reach to me. I guess it's a difference of perception. One out of a thousand, or one out of ten thousand might seem like a lot to me. But say the population of the New Orleans area is 1,000,000. If the 1% were spread equally through the country, which I don't think they are, that would mean that ten thousand people in my city made upwards of $340,000. It starts to make the large number of very expensive houses look less unbelievable.
So ob/gyn's make far more on an inflation adjusted basis than they did in the good old days? That seems hard for me to believe with the increased costs of medical practice, and the low reimbursement rates by Medicare and insurance companies. In fact, I'm reasonably sure I've heard doctors complaining that their real income has dropped, and that they'd be happy to have inflation adjusted stasis.
Posted by Dinah on December 11, 2011, at 21:17:28
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Aquarius, posted by Dinah on December 11, 2011, at 16:32:53
I'm trying to decide if I mind the fact that salaries are stagnant when adjusted for inflation. Inflation is the rate at which the cost of goods and services increase. Why should wages for the same work increase above what the cost of goods and services increase? Certainly as individuals become more productive at their jobs, they deserve compensation to be commensurate with that increased productivity. But absent an increase in productivity, if a floor plasterer was worth a cow and three chickens (or an amount of money to equal a given amount of goods and services) twenty years ago, why would the same floor plasterer be worth a cow and four chickens today? Doesn't inflation roughly equate to the growth of the available money? In order to earn an extra chicken, doesn't the plasterer have to increase his productivity or differentiate his floor plastering product to make his services more valuable in absolute terms?
A large part of the increase in the quality of life comes from technological advances. When I was growing up, a family had one TV and color TV was a big investment. Today, that monetary equivalent might by a big screen TV, a computer, a game system, and a DVD player. When it used to take an entire day to wash the family laundry on the old washboard and tub my grandmother used to have, there was less time available for work or leisure. Now takes a fraction of that time. So the quality of life improves.
Posted by floatingbridge on December 12, 2011, at 4:09:12
In reply to The top 1%, posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 10:02:14
The top one percent, I believe, was meant to include those who netted a million plus per year. Has that been discussed in this thread? I can't recall.
I think a t.v. might be of relative worth in the market. A t.v. or a chicken is now a factory product, the work of many hands, a corporation, really, not the work of one person, like a plaster, who is usually a small business owner.
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2011, at 17:17:32
In reply to Re: The top 1%, posted by floatingbridge on December 12, 2011, at 4:09:12
Well, it might have been intended that way. Would that it were true that one of every hundred people earned a million per year. I'd be feeling quite optimistic.
Here are some stats on the topic.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html
It would appear that those earning AGI of over $1 million would be 1/10 of one percent. Of those who filed a tax return. You aren't required to file a tax return at very low income, so those people might not be included at all, and the percentage would likely be less than that.
It's kind of interesting to see those top numbers. It looks as if those 8274 families who reported over $10 million reported a total of 3.1% of the entire amount reported, or an average of nearly $30 million. It would be even more interesting to see numbers within that group. If it averages to $30 million, and starts at $10 million, with likely the larger number at the bottom, there must be some stratospheric amounts reported on some individual returns.
It's also interesting to see the numbers go up. The largest group, 13.3%, earns $50-75k. They report 15.1% of the total reported. That's pretty much in line. Then you see the $75-100k group represented 8.2% of returns filed, but report 13% of the income, with the average income rising $20k. But... The $100-200k group represent 9.6% of returns file, and report a whopping 23.6% of the total reported income, with an average of $50k higher or $133k. I'd love to run some pretend numbers through and see how that works.
Could we at least agree that the anger at the 1% probably shouldn't be so severe towards those in the range earned by hard working members of the professions? Or small business owners?
Why not keep it where it was originally directed? Wall Street, which at times seems like it should be classed with any other legal gambling club. :)
Or those who use their money to buy influence in a way that is harmful to others? Unfair business practices? Poorly written tax laws? Outsourcing? Insider trading?
My musings about TV's and plasterers was just me thinking aloud about whether there is an innate need for wages to rise at a rate above inflation rates. Or if in order to justify raises above inflation, there needs to be a corresponding increase in productivity or objective value.
Posted by floatingbridge on December 12, 2011, at 18:32:04
In reply to Re: The top 1% » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on December 12, 2011, at 17:17:32
I have a question. Is the OWS movement really about anger? And if it is, is it really directed at people or practices as Dinah said? I'm afraid I am lost in the numbers and the anger and who is who. I want equality and justice and peace. I get angry when I hear people lying,(not people on babble. I am speaking about media and the people that own them), and equivocating while people are suffering. I feel anger when I see people suffering and my country is the largest arms dealer in the world. I feel angry when my country does not support global environmental practices that
will continue to make this earth a beautiful planet for my son's generation. I feel angry when my country shelters loan sharks that buy Congolese debt, for example, when their people are dying from unsanitary water and malaria, and my country is the only country (I believe) that honors these outrageous debts.I could go on. But that is where I feel my anger is directed. Not at an abstract 1%. Not at a class or group of tax payers. In fact, that makes my head spin.
Is that what the OWS movement has become? Is it really
just about anger? Or is the anger another red herring to get people to talk against each other and about anything but what is really going on. People starving. Losing their homes. By the thousands in this country. And worldwide...? Deforestation? Illegal debt? Illegal war? Strip mining? Unfair work practices? Child soldiers? And when it comes to the United States, who will stand up for us?Well, I find myself the dormouse once again. Silly me. Someone had better pour some tea upon my nose.
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2011, at 19:04:22
In reply to Anger at the what %, posted by floatingbridge on December 12, 2011, at 18:32:04
I suppose what I perceive and react to is the anger. But I'll readily admit that I'm rather sensitive to anger, and find it upsetting. Not all sorts of anger. I don't mind directed anger at wrongs. I like the sort of anger that is directed at changing laws. I like the sort of anger that gives energy to campaigns like MADD to change the public perception of behaviors that cause harm. I can get so angry that my ponytail quivers.
I think maybe it's been drilled into me from birth that you may be furious with bad behavior, but you always draw a distinction between the behavior and the human behind it.
So maybe it's my perception. Coupled with the signs and slogans in the news. Reading the comments section of any newspaper is enough to make me curl up in my closet and rock. :)
And of course, I in no way disapprove with the making of oodles of money so long as it's done with integrity and ethics. I give a hearty round of applause for those who become the richest of the rich by building a better mousetrap. Huzzah to the innovators and entrepreneurs!
Posted by sigismund on December 16, 2011, at 12:53:47
In reply to Re: Anger at the what % » floatingbridge, posted by Dinah on December 12, 2011, at 19:04:22
What about all those financial mousetraps though?
At least before the damage they could do was apparent, they must have seemed like very clever things indeed.
I wonder if the finance industry amounts to an incitement to bad behaviour? All this money sloshing around and so many people taking a cut.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.