Is it time to take on the super-rich?

The core of it really is a de-facto two-tier system of law, where white collar crime is treated with leniency (when paid any attention at all), and everyone in the general population who can't afford the necessary political connections, feel the full force of law.

The laws are there in many cases (though not all cases, granted), but it's this selective two-tiered enforcement of the laws that enables so much criminality, and is so dangerous.
This can be caused by regulatory capture, political connections, simple bribes, media control etc., but in the end what it amounts to is a two-tiered system of law.


We're not going to approach anywhere near a violent revolution, as that's in nobodies interest, but I've no idea what we are going to see.

It's clear that most of the current political and economic systems around the world have serious dysfunctions, so going forward there needs to be a big rethinking of politics, economics and parts of society.
This is 'kind of' happening with economics, as mainstream economics has been shown to be largely flawed, so there is actually attention being paid to alternatives, but it is still largely mired in politics.

As for politics in general: There seems to be a large lack of new and coherently put together ideas of how to resolve the inherent problems in the current political systems (the ease with which they're captured by corporate or monetary interests being part of that), and there seems to be a lot of room for experimenting with untested and undeveloped political theories/policies.


With the Internet and the ease of publishing information, I think media control is going to have increasingly less influence over time and people in general will be able to become more easily informed on these topics (but this heavily depends on general interest in these topics).
Due to that, I think there will be a long-term progressive trend towards general political improvement (as it will cut out a lot of media propaganda), but there still seems to be a lack of 'big ideas' and development of new (and reignited development of old) political theories.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

RichardAnd wrote: »

At the end of the day, power is a subtle thing. There is no way for a ruler to make thousands or even millions of people behave in a certain manner if they really don't wish to.

Very true. When you think about events that happened in Eastern Europe like the fall of the Berlin wall - nobody was really expecting it - it was a surge from below, there was no orchestration, just a groundswell of discontent that the elites had failed to predict or prevent.

One stark example of how the elite become detached from reality was the demise of Nicolae Ceausescu. N.C. went From all powerful dictator to execution in a barnyard in a matter of hours. The footage of his bewilderment when 'his people' turned on him makes for amazing viewing.

A communist system has a centre of power, capitalism doesn't. 40 million people could march against the rich and they won't be any less rich. The State has to intervene.

You're absolutely correct about power concentration - it's much easier to cut the head off a snake than round up rats.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Would Steve Jobs have been entrepreneurial or managerial?

EDIT: I agree with your main point though.

Entrepreneur in my books anyway. Wozniac was the innovator and SJ was the entrepreneur.

Denerick wrote: »

Why do we seem so incapable of tackling this immoral practise, and why do we permit tax havens to allow it? Why are we not exercising greater political and economic clout in preventing tax 'avoidance'?

*When I say 'we', I largely mean the European Union and other like minded, civilised nations with decent welfare states.

It odds to see this topic started and also such support for this in an Irish forum considering how important we value our low corporation tax and are willing to fight tooth and nail to make sure it isn't increased. Also when we often complain about our supposed lack of sovereignty do we not expect or want EU to ban all EU wide tax havens?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They do?


Looks to me like most of the rich are hoovering up wealth as opposed to creating it.

It's a bit naive to think people in management and finance don't create jobs. They create plenty of jobs.

troposphere wrote: »

The graph on the Guardian website has Ireland as a tax haven

Then the guardian is being an ass. One assumes that tax withheld by the rich is personal tax not corporate tax. Personal tax is 55% marginal.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The core of it really is a de-facto two-tier system of law, where white collar crime is treated with leniency (when paid any attention at all), and everyone in the general population who can't afford the necessary political connections, feel the full force of law.

Exactly. This two-tier system, as you said, it of course pervades not only local law, but also infests the world economic system. Rigged rules and Double Standards as Oxfam put it.

We're not going to approach anywhere near a violent revolution, as that's in nobodies interest, but I've no idea what we are going to see.

No idea either. Let's hope it's non-violent change.
It does seem when looking at the figures and reading about it, that there will come a breaking point eventually. Knowledge is power as they say.

The depressing fact that's worth bearing in mind though, is that so much of the world already lives in grinding poverty, under conditions of shocking inequality. Sprawling shanty towns and gated luxury mansions co-exist side by side in developing countries. And it's not improving by any acceptable rate imo.

We might well ask ourselves why hasn't social unrest on a tectonic scale not happened already in these countries?
The sad answer to that seems to be is that these people have been rendered virtually powerless by the current system that favours a small powerful elite to the detriment of the vast majority; the triumph over the last 30 years of transnational tax-avoiding capital over labour and basic human rights.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Actually the developing world has, in fact, made great strides in the last 30 years.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but it would be interesting if you could provide figures so we can have a look and link it to the system that's been in place over the last 30 years.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Nice vid. Saw it before actually, being a big fan of Hans Rosling. Unfortunately it doesn't link it to the system that's been in place over the last 30 years.

It's quite obvoius that mankind has improved its lot over the last 200 years as Rosling beautifully illuminated in his bubble graph thingy.

To be honest though, that reply stinks of libertarian apologetics. The last 200 years progress has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, am sure you'll agree. It's giving credit where credit isn't due.

Am looking forward to you providing something a bit more substantial than a 4 minute vid as to why our current system has been such a benefit to the state of affairs.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The actual video I was looking for was in fact a TED talk by him on the developing world in the last 30 years. Ill get that ( btw you dont get to decry the stats of a serious statistician by describing it as just a mere video - of what ever length. its cleary substantive)

Ok, hopefully you find that. Videos are not substantive though in fairness. I'm not decrying Rosling, "serious statitician" that he is. I'm decrying the use of a 4 minute 200 year time-lapse video to make your point.

Am not asking you to do a hard thing here. Just to provide stats, real stats, that back up your point that "the developing world has, in fact, made great strides in the last 30 years." And more to the point: link it to the current system of globalisation, which your reply seemed to be rebutting.

And I am no libertarian, in fact I take them on in the economics section, mostly on my own. Pop in sometime.

I gathered you're not a libertarian. Just thought your reply stank of their typical response thats all.
I mean you can ask them why child labour was abolished and they'll tell you "oh, it was because of free market forces".
Nothing about child labour laws of course. They didn't occur apparently. It was all to do with the invisible hand.

The same applies here. The developing world has made "great strides". Why is that though? Why did the East Asia countries do so well in the last 30 years for instance?
Was it because they embraced trade liberalisation whole-heartedly?
Actually no it wasn't from what i've read. On the contrary, the countries that enforced a measure of protectionism from trans-national capital flows fared better.
Other issues helped them too, so it's a case of giving credit where credit isn't due i'm afraid.

I'll get that video tomorrow but it should be obvious that with china alone growing at 10% a year, in itself has rescued huge amounts of the world from poverty, that growth is enough to double GDP every 7 years.

GDP is a very poor measure of human happiness though. GDP may well be growing at 10% per year in China. I'm not of the opinion though that this warrants proclaiming it "rescued huge amounts of the world from poverty".
A bit of an overstatement there imo.

Also world growth, averaging 4%, is higher than the growth in Europe from 1850-1950. Doubling every 15 years, most in developed countries.

Source please. Growth in what? Trade or income?

The system which is achieving this is mostly State Capitalism for want of a better word or 2, manufacturing heavy, leaving the West with the financials and services. For now.

This is orthogonal to the existence and power of the super rich, I was correcting you on a point of fact.

Haven't a clue what you meant here. Especially the orthogonal bit.
Perhaps you could elaborate for a dunce like myself..

I am not sure what you want explained. When I talk about growth it is GDP growth, if that exceeds population growth then GDP per capita increases and that tends to increase life expectancy etc.

State capitalism is capitalism with far more State intervention than neo-liberalism would support, the West was like this once. I don't just mean the state as re-distributor of wealth but as owner of significant capital and economic resources. This is orthogonal - I.e. unrelated - to the debate at hand. Which is what to do with the Super Rich, so although I will find that video I won't comment anymore on this side issue.

Denerick wrote: »

This is what terrifies me above all else. The French revolution witnessed the elemental fury of mankind at his most base. But then, so does all war. But the French Revolution was particularly ferocious and hysterical in its reliance on violence. And it ultimately led to a proto fascist dictator who basically conquered Europe.

I think libertarians and the super wealthy need to realise that social democracy, egalatarianism and wealth redistribution is as much in their interests as it is in the people's. What do they want? A new form of communism? Its the unremitting stupidity of it that agitates me so. No socially conscious group of people will abide ostentatious wealth in a period of mass hardship or stagnation.

There will never be another revolution like French revolution.

The imbalances between the defences of the professional military and the common man or paramilitaries is much greater now. The closest we ever get to revolutions are riots and the French still have them. It is young men armed with bats against police or the army armed with tanks, helicopters, guns helicopters etc. Think Tienamen square.

Countries build up their military and forget that they too may suffer military supression.

Personnally i don't doubt that if there were an uprising authorities regardless of country have no issues with massacring their own people. Northern Ireland, America wherever ....the authorities have no problem declaring martial law and defending capitalism with brutality.


Don't think they would not hesitate to massacre their own people.

And people are out matched..with the exceptions of terrorism and incidences like 911 which only go to show that the authorities are invincible you can only kill innocent people and watch as the authorities then move to oppress more innocents in revenge.

Revolution is dead.... libertarianism is dead....free trade in reality is an oxymoron ...trade is never done freely thats the point of it..the free market is dead.........

They never sought to end oppression merely artificial oppression

The economy is parasitic at both ends the rich and the poor....the poor through no fault of their own...but if a parasite can't keep it's host alive it dies also.

The super-rich have f**ked themselves .....


Libertarian nonsense ..it's dead .. it is enemy of capitalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYBOZMj1h_c

They have created a system that is so corrupt it endangers even them.

Libertarian countries such as the US which has shrunken it's govt over the last century has declined and China with huge Govt and state capitalism has grown.....


It is a huge fallacy to think that regulation hampers trade or holds it back....or that big Govt holds capitalism back....it does not China hasproven this.....

Donald Trump had this to say about China' when you have one chinese in the room you have all the Chinese in the room' and 'They are using their currency to cheat'...for the first time Americans found their national and even multi-national companies getting clobbered simply because China acts as one.

There is a new shift of power from west to east
..they are investing huge amounts on a federal level in....CHINA...green energy ....they are out investing the US in green energy and trying to save water....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHRCuT5eDQ

China has MUCH more restrictive business regulation than the US and you know the only really true libertarian state...Somalia....True Story .....

The power in the world is about to shift to an area in the world where Govt is everything ...and it's got two heads corporation and govt ..money and military...the west can't fight ...govt is separate from multinationals ..the chinese govt is much better able to defend it's interests..


The rich ...super rich ...they are subordinate to the govt there still..how long that continues who nows...not that it helps normal people ..living standards are still not as high as the west..

I wonder what effect the climate and enviromental issues will have over the comming years and natural disasters....mortality is a great leveller.

PoeticSeraphim: Am a huge fan of Thom Hartmann.

Anyway back on topic. Here is the voice of libertarian freedomland tax dodging think tank UK branch rubbish in all their glory:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/22/flat-taxes-taxpayers-alliance

maybe capital control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_control
has something to do with the op.