Occupy Wall Street - Page 147

On November 07 2011 07:56 Pleiades wrote:
Look, I'm not saying lower taxes in the Reagan-era on the rich did not create this problem. However, this is a different situation. The top 1% did not have that much of America's wealth back then. Now today since the top 1% has that much weath and control of the market, new taxes isn't really going to have the desired affect most people think it will have. What do you want the government to do really, strip away the assets of the rich because of barely any competition in the market? I dislike people comparing different economic eras to today's issues, because it's not going to have the same outcome due to being different situations.

As for the bailout, I said it failed, because there wasn't much oversight on how public money was used to help the public as best they could. Another huge issue with the bailout was that it only saved the big companies, and small businesses were shut down, therefore removing more competition. You can set new taxes on the rich, but that does not create competition, or at least it doesn't create it fast enough.

On November 07 2011 08:19 vetinari wrote:
Murkinlol, the reason why the "golden age" ended, was because the keynesian economics produced the stagflation of the 70's (along with oil shocks, etc). Basically, the price of trying to keep unemployment down, is increasing inflation. Since inflation is sticky, once the oil shocks reduced output, you get the unpleasant combination of high inflation + low growth.

Of course, the nature of growth in capitalist system, means that without much higher taxes on the wealthy, inequality between the rich/poor will increase, because the wealthy can invest a much higher proportion of their income than the poor.

Why Iceland should be in the news but is not

An Italian radio program’s story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here’s why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors. But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 percent its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF. The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

On November 07 2011 14:37 Tien wrote:


No they aren't connected in America. Many universities are not funded by the government and never will be.

More tax revenue = more government income.

More government income = http://usdebtclock.org/

That's where all the money is going. Just study that page for a few minutes. There's 1.4 T a year in deficits. Another 100 billion in tax revenue isn't going to do diddly squat to help the 99%ers. So stop correlating the two things together.


If you want higher social mobility, be a net exporter instead of a net importer. Social mobility has nothing to do with 1%ers.

On November 07 2011 14:45 Tien wrote:
There's many problems in America.

And where taxes for the rich rank on this issue would be 100th on a 1-100 scale of effectiveness in improving America.

On November 07 2011 14:29 caradoc wrote:
Not occupy, but related in many obvious ways.
a rarely mentioned in the mainstream but quite familiar pattern of neoliberalism, neoliberal collapse, revolution, participatory democracy.



http://www.zcommunications.org/why-iceland-should-be-in-the-news-but-is-not-by-deena-stryker

On November 07 2011 14:45 Tien wrote:
There's many problems in America.

And where taxes for the rich rank on this issue would be 100th on a 1-100 scale of effectiveness in improving America.

There's no point giving more tax revenue to a government that is completely inflated with outrageous levels of entitlement spending and wars. They need to borrow and print another 1.4T every year to pay for it all.

On November 07 2011 14:29 caradoc wrote:
Not occupy, but related in many obvious ways.
a rarely mentioned in the mainstream but quite familiar pattern of neoliberalism, neoliberal collapse, revolution, participatory democracy.



http://www.zcommunications.org/why-iceland-should-be-in-the-news-but-is-not-by-deena-stryker

The IMF-led package of $4.6bn was finally agreed on 19 November, with the IMF loaning $2.1bn and another $2.5bn of loans and currency swaps from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In addition, Poland has offered to lend $200M and the Faroe Islands have offered $50M, about 3% of Faroese GDP.[106] The Icelandic government also reported that Russia has offered $300M.[107] The next day, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom announced a joint loan of $6.3bn (€5bn), related to the deposit insurance dispute.[108][109]

Finally, the third major factor behind the resolution of the financial crisis was the decision by the government of Iceland to apply for membership in the EU in July 2009. While views on the feasibility of EU membership are quite mixed in Iceland, this action has served to enhance the credibility of the country on international financial markets. One sign of the success of the above efforts is the fact that the Icelandic government was successfully able to raise 1$ billion with a bond issue on June 9, 2011. This development indicates that international investors have given the government and the new banking system, with two of the three biggest banks now in foreign hands, a clean bill of health.[190][191]

Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us." Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to 'em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're gonna do. And not only that, they're gonna think of things we can't think of to do.

Volz asked Ney to insert some language into a reform bill that would give a backdoor license to an Indian casino owned by one of Abramoff's clients. You often hear about lobbyists getting special secret deals for their clients like this. It's an insidious technique that Abramoff perfected.
Abramoff: So what we did was we crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise to change the U.S. code.
Stahl: Here's what you tried to get tacked on to this reform bill.
Abramoff: Yeah.
Stahl: "Public law 100-89 is amended by striking section 207 (101 stat. 668, 672)."
Abramoff: Right. Now isn't that obvious what that means? It was perfect. It was perfect.
Stahl: So that's what you tried to get inserted?
Abramoff: Yes.
Stahl: And that was gonna provide for a casino?
Abramoff: Yes.
Stahl: And who on earth is gonna know that?
Abramoff: No one except the chairmen of the committees.
Stahl: Who stuck it in there?
Abramoff: Yes.
Stahl: And that's one of the things you used to do?
Abramoff: Yes.
Stahl: And it was deliberately written like that?
Abramoff: Precisely. Yes.
Stahl: And that's done a lot?
Abramoff: Members don't read the bills.

Abramoff: I think people are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. And that's not the case. The corruption, the bribery, call it, because ultimately that's what it is. That's what the whole system is.
Stahl: The whole system's bribery?
Abramoff: In my view. I'm talking about giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that's really what bribery is. But it is done everyday and it is still being done. The truth is there were very few members who I could even name or could think of who didn't at some level participate in that.

Abramoff: The reform efforts continually are these faux-reform efforts where they'll change, they'll tweak the system. They'll say, "You can have a meal with a congressman if they're standing up, not sitting down."
Stahl: Is that serious? Or are you joking?
Abramoff: Oh no, I'm not joking at all.
Stahl: So, it's okay if you pay for lunch as long as you stand up?
Abramoff: Well, it's actually worse than that. You can't take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak of something like that. But you can take him to a fundraising lunch and not only buy him that steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fundraiser. And have all the same access and all the same interaction with that congressman. So the people who make the reforms are the people in the system.
Stahl: Could you do the same thing today? I'm asking you whether you think the system's been cleaned up?
Abramoff: Could do the same thing that I? Yeah. No, the system hasn't been cleaned up at all.
Stahl: At all.
Abramoff: There's an arrogance on the part of lobbyists, and certainly there was on the part of me and my team, that no matter what they come up we, we're smarter than they are and we'll overcome it. We'll just find another way through. That's all.
He says the most important thing that needs to be done is to prohibit members of Congress and their staff from ever becoming lobbyists in Washington.
Abramoff: If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you're done, go home. Washington's a dangerous place. Don't hang around.

On November 07 2011 23:44 radiatoren wrote:


It is a very well written piece. However it has several flaws:

Source is Wikipedia, but I have crosschecked with dr.dk and it holds up nicely. So they did reach agreements on debt and borrowing.

Iceland applied for membership of EU in 2009 and has not yet been approved. However the economy has normalized significantly to a point where Iceland is out of danger of a 100 % default.

The new constitution is as far as I know true and so is the debacles with Netherlands and UK, though it was never as severe as it sounds. The vote that failled was of a particular structure of repayment to UK and Netherlands of banking-debt. The rest of the EU was never that involved. Now the banks have rebounded to an extend that they can get the debt out of the world.

On November 08 2011 01:09 Ropid wrote:
Well, that stuff Abramoff describes, I do not see how that can be fixed from within the system, with normal people only using their power to vote. For a change in the rules that would prevent this type of lobbying, which is really camouflaged bribery, politicians would have to fear there could be a revolution (the traditional variant with terror and guillotine).

Protests of a kind that would force a real change, not a fake one with back doors, would be a giant headache. The other way it may play out is, the number of people participating in protests will never be high enough, and politicians will be able to solve their problem by simply ignoring it. So, whatever happens, I guess it will be depressing.

On November 08 2011 01:36 Logo wrote:


A start would be punishing stuff for what it is. If a congressman is taking bribes then that's treason imo. It's of course murkier with all the legal gift giving, but in the cases where it's not...