Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Denerick

A major story has just emerged on guardian online - the size of the 'offshore' economy is roughly of the same magnitude as the GDP of the US and Japan combined. Since the global super rich effectively act and live like a parasite - extracting profits from developing countries and recycling those monies in offshore bank accounts and tax havens, contributing absolutely nothing to the social and cultural betterment of these nations - why do we allow them to get away with it? Sure, their capital is useful in driving economic growth to some extent, but why should they be permitted to pay no taxes whilst working people pay anything from 20 to 45% of their income to fund the welfare state? When do we, as a civilised planet, demand that these parasites pay their fair share? Why should they enjoy the benefits of a civilisation that they do nothing to support, whilst we struggle and pay the burden of our societies obligations?

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.

Denerick

As a postscript to the above:

6.3 trillion of assets is owned by just 92,000 people.

In a world where people are increasingly conscious of the gap not just between the wealthy and the poor, but the wealthy and the middle, social unrest on a tectonic scale is inevitable. This I believe without any kind of reservation. This insane accumulation of capital in ever fewer hands bears historical parallels with the downfall of the Roman Empire and descent of mankind in hundreds of years of internecine warfare and darkness. If the super wealthy had even an inkling of self preservation, they would act now to curb inequality and prevent the social unrest that I believe will define our future.

RichardAnd

Denerick wrote: »

why do we allow them to get away with it?

They (they being the most wealthy people on the planet) get away with what they do because they have designed the modern financial markets to favour them. Super rich individuals, I'm talking about billionaires here, have massive political influence and I think it is incredibly naive to believe that they don't use it for their own gain.

Each year, a group of the most wealthy individuals meet in what is known as the bilderberg group. I don't buy into alot of the conspiracy theories attached to this organisation but what I do know is that nothing of what is discussed is ever published and the people at such a meeting are men (and occasionally women) of enormous influence. Money is power and these people have an incredible collection of wealth. Do you think that they won't use their influence to protect their position?

Gentlemen, democracy is an illusion given to the masses to allow them to believe that they control their own lives. I've no doubt that the local TDs are able to get boilers fixed, pot holes filled, speeding tickets torn up and other vacuous favours carried out but when it comes to the really big decisions, the paper work is signed and seals long before it reaches the Dail.

This is why I don't get myself involved in petty bickering between "the left" and "the right". Choose the puppet on the left or choose the puppet on the right, at the end of the day, there's one guy hold the strings of both.

Chuck Stone

Seems that the vile maxim is true.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

Sounds like something Karl Marx would say, right?

Nope.

Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations. Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

Good loser

We could waste a lot of time and money and get little in return.

Witness the Mahon Tribunal.

The super rich have to manage their money or it can dissipate quickly - note Sean Quinn, Michael Jackson etc.

With the working capitalist system we operate one of the consequences is that there will be super rich somewhere e.g. the owners of Lidl and Aldi.
Many people in Ireland agitated to have these guys stores set up in their towns - effectively to make them richer.

Some of the most feted people around are super rich footballers, actors, pop singers, artists.

The tax authorities in US and Europe etc are continually chasing the rich and presumably whittling away at their caches.

Chasing the super-rich? Wouldn't bother my arse. Time enough for that when SF are agreeing a programme for government with the ULA.

woodoo

Something should certainly be done. And a good start would be laws that prohibit media being owned by the same small pool of people. Make sure it is well divided. When is the last time you have seen tony o'reilly in the papers. No mention of him ever as far as i can see. Never seen a campaign against tax avoidance by any of the papers. No moral pressure put on these people. But the Indo has been running a campaign against the public service for the last 2 years.

An ever smaller group are going to own an ever greater share of the wealth. Some day there will be a financial revolution french revolution style.

Denerick

woodoo wrote: »

Some day there will be a financial revolution french revolution style.

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.

RichardAnd

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.

Only for a few years. The adventures of the little man from Corsica shaped the Europe we live in today but let's not get into that . . .

The french revolution was a terrible period for the sheer violence unleashed but it stands as one of the best example of what happens when people are pushed too far. One of the greatest minds in history (Machiavelli) held stringently to the belief that to hold onto power and thus secure stability, a ruler must not bully his subjects and thus, become hated by them. Louis XVI and by extension, his government, totally failed to consider this and their repeated abuse of the French people led to most of them loosing their heads.

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. A competent leader knows that all he can ever do is steer his people in the direction he wishes because the power that he thinks he has is entirely dependant on the masses' continued belief that he really has power at all. If it comes to the point that enough people just say "no more" and actively begin to rebel against the system then no amount of legislation, troika meetings and propaganda will stop what will follow.

KyussBishop

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

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.

halkar

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs. People working in these jobs pays taxes too. Rich also pays a lot of taxes while maintaining their super rich life. Average Joe buys Toyota corrolla where super rich buys Bugatti. How many toyotos you have to sell to get the same tax on a bugatti? List can grow with properties, vat receipts etc etc. In short rich contributes to society too.

Jonny7

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs. People working in these jobs pays taxes too. Rich also pays a lot of taxes while maintaining their super rich life. Average Joe buys Toyota corrolla where super rich buys Bugatti. How many toyotos you have to sell to get the same tax on a bugatti? List can grow with properties, vat receipts etc etc. In short rich contributes to society too.

I agree but many of these off-shore accounts are specifically designed to avoid tax, Jimmy Carr was apparently paying 1% tax on his 3 million. He does n't provide many jobs. Let's face it - a large portion of these holdings are from movie stars, sports stars, music bands, celebrities, inheritances, famous painters, sculptors, cooks, you name it.

That said, the process of unwinding and regulating off-shore accounts would be nightmare-ishly complex.

RichardAnd

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs. People working in these jobs.

True, but only partially. Some of the super-rich own companies that employ thousands but many of the said individuals simply have vast assets though inheritance or other means. Consider Sean Quinn, he has essentially lost all his billions yet his company continues to operate and employ people. Likewise, Steve Jobs has passed away yet his company is still going strong. The individual and the company are not the same thing.

There has been a concentrated effort in the media and though other propaganda outlets to use the words "job creator" to describe wealthy individuals. This has taken firm root in the minds of many and it can be seen on this very board whenever the idea of more tax for those with more money comes up.

For the record, I don't believe in extortionate tax on anyone but I'm seriously starting to question the right of a single person to control vast amounts of wealth when so many others have so little. By all means, someone should be able to enjoy the fruits of hard work but why is reward always regarded as money by so many people? Surely, when someone is comfortable and secure in life, there comes a point when they don't need more?

Chuck Stone

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs.

They do?

Based on U.S. tax return data, only 3% of the wealthiest 130,000 Americans are entrepreneurs. Most are in management or finance.

Source

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

Duggys Housemate

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.

Duggys Housemate

Chuck Stone wrote: »

halkar wrote: »

You need to look at the other side of the coin also. Most of those super rich provides jobs.

They do?

Based on U.S. tax return data, only 3% of the wealthiest 130,000 Americans are entrepreneurs. Most are in management or finance.

Source

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

Would Steve Jobs have been entrepreneurial or managerial?

EDIT: I agree with your main point though.

Chuck Stone

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.

Thrill

On the BBC site today.

21 trillion dollars in tax havens :eek:

Tax havens: Super-rich 'hiding' at least $21tn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097

Chucky the tree

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

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

Duggys Housemate

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.

Eggy Baby!

Is relocating money to tax havens generally illegal or is it just d*ckish practice?

RichardAnd

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Is relocating money to tax havens generally illegal or is it just d*ckish practice?

I believe it's a case of cheating within the rules.

Eggy Baby!

RichardAnd wrote: »

I believe it's a case of cheating within the rules.

So finding loopholes then?

RichardAnd

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

So finding loopholes then?

That's my understanding of it. The competent crook gets away with the act because he's clever, a brilliant crook gets away because he never broke the law to begin with.

Scofflaw

Duggys Housemate 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.

Not on foreign-earned income income for the non-domiciled: http://www.independent.ie/business/european/ireland-a-possible-tax-haven-as-exiles-desert-uk-1342909.html (read all the way to the end). Must be some reason why we're regularly (and, importantly, still) around the no.12-13 spot in the top 20 millionaires per capita worldwide.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Channel Zero

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

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

Channel Zero

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

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

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

Channel Zero

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

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.

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)

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

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.

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

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.

Channel Zero

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..

KyussBishop

Channel Zero wrote: »

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.



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.

Ya interesting, I haven't much focused or read up on at all the state of developing countries, when it comes to poverty and inequality; it is interesting to wonder why there is not so much violent protest in many of those countries, as many are undoubtedly in a much worse off position than any developed country is likely to get, even despite the crisis.

Will check out that full Oxfam report there in detail, as looks a good place to start


I guess for a lot of these countries (China, India and many African nations being some examples), there has been either a history of war and potential conflict, or authoritarianism that has kept violence suppressed.

The danger in these countries I would imagine, is that while they (many of them) are improving and becoming more wealthy, it's where they develop asynchronously with some groups getting extremely wealthy, with most of the population remaining poor, that there's a risk of violence; I think a countries elite can get away with that to a certain extent, so long as the less well off see some progress.

I think as Internet use becomes more cheap and ubiquitous, people are going to become much more readily informed and active on these issues (played a huge part in Arab Spring uprisings), heightening the likelihood of protest and violence; for this, the elite in those countries will depend upon keeping very tight control on the internet.


Here's all of Hans Rosling's TED stuff btw; not looked at any of them, though do remember that video earlier:
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

Duggys Housemate

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.

golden lane

if all this money went to the various states.....would it not cause hyperinflation......

and be wiped out in a short time....???

poeticseraphim

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.

Denerick

I disagree with the above comment, revolution is still possible in the current order. If the western world go three days without a solid meal you will see the collapse of the entire social contract. In reality, the bonds of civilisation are only ever tenuous at best. Many middle eastern dictatorships have stronger militaries relative to their population than most European democracies. Yet look at Syria today. All it takes for an insurgency to happen is a few defections. Time takes care of everything else. Revolution is always possible.

But I fear a French style revolution because the violence that is so essential to any revolution will bring chaos and misery, and most likely, a tyranny. Those who welcome revolution and the overthrow of the existing order spend little time thinking of what that actually means in practise. There is a lot that is perfectly fine about our modern system, so long as there is a welfare state with reasonable safeguards.

Jonny7

poeticseraphim wrote: »

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.

I presume you've seen the riots in Greece, the mass protests in Spain, the Occupy protests across the US, the summer riots in the UK..

I am curious as to which first world countries will "not hesitate to massacre their own people"?

Duggys Housemate

The real issue with taking on modern capitalism on the street is that - capitalism being diverse and hard to pin down, you end up taking on the State. Marxists, of course call the State irredeemably compromised by Corporate power, but it is nevertheless the state you will be fighting against. That's pointless. Anti-Monarchists used to take on the Monarchy, and having arrested them, kill them or banish them. Since the State is the solution, democratic politics not "revolution" is the answer.

Jonny7

Denerick wrote: »

But I fear a French style revolution because the violence that is so essential to any revolution will bring chaos and misery, and most likely, a tyranny.

Not essential, East Germany, the Velvet Revolution, the People's revolution in Philippines, Georgian revolution, the Orange Revolution and so on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

gozunda

Is it time to take on the super-rich?

Yes but only if we take on the runaway welfare society that uses up 90% of all taxation....

fairs fair....

Channel Zero

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.

Tombo2001

Denerick wrote: »

A major story has just emerged on guardian online - the size of the 'offshore' economy is roughly of the same magnitude as the GDP of the US and Japan combined. Since the global super rich effectively act and live like a parasite - extracting profits from developing countries and recycling those monies in offshore bank accounts and tax havens, contributing absolutely nothing to the social and cultural betterment of these nations - why do we allow them to get away with it? .

Parasites on developing countries? What are you talking about.

It is hardly breaking news that many wealthy people leave the country they live in and go to live in places like Switzerland or Monaco or Cayman so that they wont have to pay tax on their vast incomes. You dont have to read an article in the Guardian to know this. You only have to look at the annual reports of Swiss banks.

Look at the Irish who redomicle for tax reasons.....Michael Smurfit, Denis O'Brien, John Magnier, his horse racing buddy whose names escapes me....

Which of these are parasites on developing countries.

Of course its perfectly within their rights to do so. Just as its perfectly within Google or CocaCola's rights to locate their HQ in Ireland so they can avail of the cheap corporate tax rate.

Pot calls kettle black.

(Incidentally, whatever else you might say about Michael O'Leary, he stays at home and pays his taxes; he could very easily not do this. i would call it economic patriotism).

Icepick

So we take these assets and then what, give them to the the public service and welfare recipients?

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Since the State is the solution, democratic politics not "revolution" is the answer.

Democracy is problematic though because the super-rich hate democracy and are continuously subverting it by ploughing money into the election of people who will protect their privileges (Obama and Wall Street for example).

The billionaire Koch Brothers funding of the astro turf 'Tea Party' movement would be another example. The multi-billion dollar lobbying 'industry' is just a bribery racket.

I guess I should mention Public Sector unions too.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Democracy is problematic though because the super-rich hate democracy and are continuously subverting it by ploughing money into the election of people who will protect their privileges (Obama and Wall Street for example).

So basically you are saying that the rich and powerful influence politics.. yet you are highlighting the system of democracy for this.. and Obama (who really isn't liked by American League of Lobbyists)

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

What's your work-around?

What?

Let's start with Norway shall we..

What?

You're not making much sense.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What?

Try the edit.

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

So basically you are saying that the rich and powerful influence politics..

Yes. That's self-evident.

yet you are highlighting the system of democracy for this..

It's not clear what you're saying here. 'this' what?

and Obama (who really isn't liked by American League of Lobbyists)

I didn't say he was liked by them.

Jonny7

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes. That's self-evident.

Its a common problem that has transcended different systems down throughout the centuries, it's hardly inherent to democracy as such. The super-rich don't in fact "hate" democracy en masse, wee bit of a generalisation and over-simplification there.

We are experiencing a pretty severe double dip recession, so, unlike the heady days of early 2007, the "super-rich" are most definitely the new bogeymen, much like they were during the recession in the early eighties.

So unless there is a revolution or zombie apocalypse, the "super-rich" are always going to be around, whether they are parasitically sucking money out the system, indulging in philanthropy, or actually offering to pay higher taxes - they aren't going to go away, we just happily forget the issue when times are good.

I mentioned Norway, because as soon as the pitchforks come out, its always US examples, as if their bipolar system is representative of the system in general (which it certainly is not).