So far, the protests seem fueled by a collective sense that things in our economy are not fair or right. But the protesters have not done a good job of focusing their complaints—and thus have been skewered as malcontents who don't know what they stand for or want.
(An early list of "grievances" included some legitimate beefs, but was otherwise just a vague attack on "corporations." Given that these are the same corporations that employ more than 100 million Americans and make the products we all use every day, this broadside did not resonate with most Americans).
So, what are the protesters so upset about, really?
Do they have legitimate gripes?
To answer the latter question first, yes, they have very legitimate gripes.
And if America cannot figure out a way to address these gripes, the country will likely become increasingly "de-stabilized," as sociologists might say. And in that scenario, the current protests will likely be only the beginning.
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.
In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between "labor" and "capital," there has rarely—if ever—been a time when "capital" was so clearly winning.
The Board Room
Featured Comments
RECORD CEO PAY
The baby boom was the greatest generation americans have ever seen. They led the biggest surge in entrepreneurialism in out history and have for years sat at the helms of the companies they started. But now they are getting old, they have made their money and they want to retire. So what do they do? They hire a CEO to run their business while they go golf (they earned it before you go off crucifying them). They want the best and the brightest and the surge in demand made it very competitive in rounding up the talent to successfully manage the business you built with you blood sweat and tears. CEO's aren't banking because they are stealing, they are banking because entrepreneurs are fighting over them.
THE BAILOUT
The bailout while unsavory and hard to stomach was not to meant to keep banks lending, it was to keep them afloat so there was not a run on deposits. We had trillions in deposits and only a fraction actually kept in reserves. Had there been a bank run it would have made the great depression look like a day at the spa. The banks buying securitized CDO's where the ones most responsible for the financial crisis (besides the deadbeat borrowers who figured that if their house was worth less than what they owed they got a free pass not to pay). Did they got a bailout? NO! Lehman and Merrill are gone. Failed. Poof. Vanished. The institutions that DID get bailed out (namely AIG which is not a bank) were bailed out to stop armaggedon . This leads me to my last point
TAX EQUALITY
People scream about the taxpayer money bailing out banks and totally ignore that the people who paid the most in taxes toward that bailout were the bankers themselves. Thats right, the 1% pays the most taxes. How can the people who contributed the least to the bailout gripe about it the most?
The most telling slid Henry put up is slide #26. Pleas notice that the only demographic paying a higher % of the countries taxes than they represent of the countries wealth are the top 1%. Everyone else has more wealth than they pay. The rich don't pay their fair share? Spare me. They pay the biggest and most disproportionately large share of anyone.
Read Comments »