Russell Brand's "revolution"

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Captialist Russia is at least just as corrupt.


Before capitalism, their politicians worked with the gansters. Now their politicians are the gangsters.

True, but thats also because you have a lot of former corrupt communists now running in a capitalist style system.

And Russia's had a huge history of corruption going back to the Czars its almost considered to be acceptable as long as the government hangs or shoots someone on corruption charges once in a while.

I remember reading a book on the old Soviet government, where members of the senior government ie Politburo and party chiefs were treated as the pampered elite, they had nice homes and the latest toys and a car. They believed because they had it that everyone else in the country had it.

They were also driven by a couple of things

1) They had to protect their party standing and their position at all cost. Therefore and especially under Stalin, they completely lied about not meeting their departments quotas and radically under reported failures. This was illustrated perfectly in Animal Farm by the way when the pigs filled food storage with sand and then a layer of food on top to show visitors to Manor Farm how successful and well fed they were.

2) Since they didn't believe in god or an afterlife, they believed that they had to make their mark during their short time in power. This lead to the ruthless driving of workers and people with unrealistics quotas. Stalin's five year and hero plans showed how that worked out. The old saying was World Socialism in our lifetime. And they ruthlessly applied that political philosophy in the most unrealistic ways.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Governments have enough competence problems in terms of running an economy, the last thing we would want is any part of the government running the day to day operations.

Where in my post did I state that governments should be involved in the day-to-day operations of the economy? I was only pointing out that there's an entire spectrum of possible economic regulations world governments can employ, ranging from unfettered free-market capitalism to centrally-planned communism. It's not a black and white issue of having to choose between being a country of either robber barons or Bolsheviks.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by _Q_

I watched this last night and he just comes off as a rambling idiot to be quite honest.

I can get behind higher taxation for the ultra rich, but at the end of the day, rather than trying to bring the 1% down, why not strive to become part of the 1%?

People do. That's why personal and credit debt is dangerously out of control for a good majority of North Americans.

And this whole 99/1% crap should be dropped as an idea. It just makes people unhappy and distrustful of everyone else.

[missdpuck]

Oh jeez he just looks like a deranged serial killer.

Other than that, I didn't even listen.

[troutman]

He is influential enough to convince Katy Perry that he was straight.

[polak]

He is a working comedian that is relevant in pop culture, super rich and got to play with Katy Perrys cannons without being pepper sprayed.

Im not going to make fun of him.

[_Q_]

Can we just talk about Katy Perry's cannons instead of Russel Brands stupid "revolution"?

EDIT: Better yet, let's stare at them a bit

NSFW!

[Canuck-Hater]

Truly a brilliant man. He's on a roll in this clip!

[Cowboy89]

That video clip was one small step removed from the psycho-babble that gets spouted by the odd crazy person on the C-Train who hands out leaflets.

[Caged Great]

The problem with people like Brand or Occupy is that their approach to what is wrong with this world is extremely stupid. Their ideas are not stupid, and are legitimate problems, but that they are so naive that they believe that just saying that there is a problem will magically fix the problem. I can say the Oilers are a terrible hockey team, but that alone doesn't make them a cup contender.

The more overarching problem with this is technology and it's impact on how the economy will evolve. As more technological and manufacturing breakthroughs occur, there emerges a big problem. Where are people supposed to get jobs? Thirty years ago, you could easily get jobs in manufacturing and make pretty much anything. Then things started to get more automated, and they started leaving the country. With more advances in technology, the less you need to have people working. Once 3D printers become more sophisticated, where you can create pretty much any small object with any material, you will then not need people to manufacture things like hangers, or door knobs, or shower rods or any other little nic nacks that are needed in every day life.

The old saying adapt or die is quite appropriate here. We are entering a second industrial revolution, one where people are the ones that are beginning to removed entirely from the concept of labour. We need to vastly improve our education standards in order to create more innovation and jobs in the tech sector as that is going to be the primary driver of the economy moving forward from today. Instead though, society, well at least American society is falling backwards it seems. We should be looking at finding different ways of innovating in the manner in which education is delivered (See Finland).

However, people like Brand and Occupy look at the symptoms of the problem rather than the actual problem. Efficiency is the nature of the economy. How can I do more with less, or get more with what I am doing now. With the technology being able to do so much more, and the exponential potential of it to create means that we have to find new means to deal with the surplus of human power that is sitting on the sidelines. Do we create a society where there are more carefree people that are freed up to do whatever they want? Do we funnel the excess man power into construction type jobs where they create new marvels that will help to facilitate the increased potential from technology into actual tangible things (Think the highway system being put in under Eisenhower or the Hoover Dam etc.). I do not know, but that's more of the style of conversation we should be having, not oh should we tax rich people an extra few percent because they have money (We should totally, but that's still dealing with the symptom, not the problem).

[1stLand]

Only thing I agree with Brand on is his point about ruining the environment.

People are greedy and destructive. Greed without the destruction would be okay.

I would love to sit on my butt and do nothing and get handed stuff for free, so socialism isn't so bad

My experience is that the 1% 'ers worked hard for what they have. Only a small fraction come from old money.

You want to be rich? Work hard! You don't even need an education to be successful (not in Alberta) just a work ethic

[MarchHare]

My experience is that the 1% 'ers worked hard for what they have. Only a small fraction come from old money.

Your personal anecdote is not supported by empirical data. The #1 predictive indicator about how financially successfully somebody will be as an adult is the socioeconomic status of their parents.

You want to be rich? Work hard! You don't even need an education to be successful (not in Alberta) just a work ethic

This is such a ridiculously facile argument. "Poor people could be rich if only they weren't so lazy and just worked harder." What a load of bullfeces. Every day I see people who work way harder than I do and yet have a small fraction of my earnings.

[polak]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is such a ridiculously facile argument. "Poor people could be rich if only they weren't so lazy and just worked harder." What a load of bullfeces. Every day I see people who work way harder than I do and yet have a small fraction of my earnings.

Complacency is just as big of a part of that as lack of opportunity. It is also necessary. Hate to be blunt but saying "the world needs ditch diggers" will always ring true... We need unskilled workers.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Joseph Schumpeter (a famous economist) predicted the demise of capitalism and the rise of socialism...here is my understanding of the logic he presented:

-Start with good entrepreneurial capitalism (lots of innovation, companies that should fail...fail)
-Gradual centralization of capital in mega corporations
-Leading to popular discontent
-Population chooses a more socialist government model
-This model sucks the life out of good entrepreneurial capitalism

Schumpeter was calling this in the 1940's...he may still be right.

[polak]

Umm... I'm pretty sure major population centers with an emerging middle class like China and India are far from disgruntled with their new found capitalistic opportunity.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

India I don't know...

China's middle class are increasingly disgruntled...maybe not for the same reasons as the 'Occupy' crowd

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Joseph Schumpeter (a famous economist) predicted the demise of capitalism and the rise of socialism...here is my understanding of the logic he presented:

-Start with good entrepreneurial capitalism (lots of innovation, companies that should fail...fail)
-Gradual centralization of capital in mega corporations
-Leading to popular discontent
-Population chooses a more socialist government model
-This model sucks the life out of good entrepreneurial capitalism

Schumpeter was calling this in the 1940's...he may still be right.

The problem is the other alternatives aren't any better.

1) The pie is shared equally.
2) People stop working. Production decreases.
3) The pie becomes smaller and smaller. People descend into poverty.
4) Corruption and apathy set in. People are forced to work at gun point. An elite control all.
5) Popular revolt. Return to capitalism.


I guess you could argue that any system we choose is just sugar coating. It's all a cycle of wealth ending up in too few hands followed by revolt.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by blankall

The problem is the other alternatives aren't any better.

1) The pie is shared equally.
2) People stop working. Production decreases.
3) The pie becomes smaller and smaller. People descend into poverty.
4) Corruption and apathy set in. People are forced to work at gun point. An elite control all.
5) Popular revolt. Return to capitalism.


I guess you could argue that any system we choose is just sugar coating. It's all a cycle of wealth ending up in too few hands followed by revolt.

Again, this assumes that the only two possible alternatives are either robber baron-style capitalism and communism. I don't think even the most radical of the Occupy crowd are suggesting that the pie be shared equally in the US, only that American wealth distribution should become more similar to countries like Norway and Denmark.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Again, this assumes that the only two possible alternatives are either robber baron-style capitalism and communism. I don't think even the most radical of the Occupy crowd are suggesting that the pie be shared equally in the US, only that American wealth distribution should become more similar to countries like Norway and Denmark.

I think you're watching a different Occupy movement. The Occupy movement I've seen is all about taking down the big banks and corporations.

Meanwhile Norway and Denmark aren't the Eutopias you are making them out to be. Norway and Denmark don't have to deal with a lot of the societal problems the USA has: mass illegal immigration, legacy of slavery, etc...Both Norway and Sweden are extremely exclusionary in their immigration policies. As both countries have taken on more migrants, they both have shown greater levels of wealth disparity.

I don't disagree with your main point that the USA clearly needs more regulation, higher effective taxes for the rich, and public services. I think it's just easier said than done, given their unique circumstances.

[icecube]

I respect Russel Brand for saying what he did. The world needs a radical change right now. We need to start thinking outside the box for solutions. I shake my head at the people who mock a guy for telling it like it is. Way to go Russ.