Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Oh, I see you edited your post.

Bottom line, if you're happy with the status quo, then you're correct. But that's what people are protesting. They're saying no more status quo. I'm tacking the responsibility of changing the status quo on both the corporation and the government.

Are we starting circle number 6 or 7 of our debate? I lost count.

You're right, we are going in circles and achieving nothing. Which is exactly what this movement will do if ideas like yours are the ones it's proposing. The incredible lack of attachment to reality is astounding, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this movement seems to have a large component of people who have their heads in the clouds. Unless you're prepared to address issues through understanding the realities of the current environment there's really no hope of achieving anything.

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're right, we are going in circles and achieving nothing. Which is exactly what this movement will do if ideas like yours are the ones it's proposing. The incredible lack of attachment to reality is astounding, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised as this movement seems to have a large component of people who have their heads in the clouds. Unless you're prepared to address issues through understanding the realities of the current environment there's really no hope of achieving anything.

Thanks for that and I respect your view of the situation. I have a different view which I firmly believe is not 'head in the clouds' fantasy. Unfortunately, your view is strongly based on the status quo and how's it been operating. My view is strongly based in the view that companies can still exist, still create profit, still create shareholder value, and still follow tax policies which contribute to the economies they operate in while still being a successful business.

I also want to add, I've enjoyed debating this with you. I think we've both done a good job of keeping our arguments civil and keeping personal attacks out of it. Thanks valo!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by woob

Thanks for that and I respect your view of the situation. I have a different view which I firmly believe is not 'head in the clouds' fantasy. Unfortunately, your view is strongly based on the status quo and how's it been operating. My view is strongly based in the view that companies can still exist, still create profit, still create shareholder value, and still follow tax policies which contribute to the economies they operate in while still being a successful business.

I also want to add, I've enjoyed debating this with you. I think we've both done a good job of keeping our arguments civil and keeping personal attacks out of it. Thanks valo!

I think that's a mischaracterization of my view. I'm not advocating for the status quo, far from it actually as I'd like to see changes, what I'm pointing out is that you need to have an understanding of the current realities and the way that things operate if you want to propose solutions that will ever have a chance of success. Without that understanding proposals will not only be completely impossible to implement, they will be incapable of functioning if they ever were to be implemented. Your treating an incredibly complex system in which a minor tweak has thousands of consequences, many of which are unforeseen, as if it's as easy as an oil change.

Put it this way, recently a portion of the code was changed with the goal of making things clearer, and while it did that it also had a number of unintended consequences, one of which was language that purported to make a rating agency (S&P, Moodys etc.) liable if a bond defaulted by virtue of giving a rating to that bond. Nobody intended that, but a small tweak of language caused it. There are similar stories of the removal or addition of a comma creating completely new regulatory and legal issues. And that's just how complicated the regulations are. When you add in the manner in which a small change in accounting or tax rules can change the profitability of a certain company you create situations where entire sectors can be wiped out by a minor adjustment.

Tax loopholes largely exist for a reason, and while some of them are the product of lobbying and serve no purpose but to shuffle money to corporations and should be closed, others are necessary for a healthy economy.

That's why you need a tie to reality, if you don't understand what you're changing the changes you make will fail.

I've also enjoyed the debate. Like I said, I'm not against the eventual goals of a lot of the movement, I'm just not a fan of a lot of the paths it's taken so far.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by woob

Oh, I see you edited your post.

Bottom line, if you're happy with the status quo, then you're correct. But that's what people are protesting. They're saying no more status quo. I'm tacking the responsibility of changing the status quo on both the corporation and the government.

Are we starting circle number 6 or 7 of our debate? I lost count.

The irony of your arguments are that the companies who use loopholes to avoid taxes do so to drive up profits. That in turn drives up share prices, which is good for shareholders. Who are shareholders? Well, you and me. Even if you don't play the market, your RRSP or 401k plan does.

That is not to say that big changes aren't needed, or that these companies should be allowed to short the government on taxes. There very clearly needs to be reform in the US, and likely Canada too. But, the people protesting for change need to realize that there will be consequences, many of them unintended, that will impact everyone.

[troutman]

Joel Bakan was one of my Law Profs back at UBC (one hell of a guitar player too):

THE CORPORATION: THE PATHOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF POWER

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=23

My main interest as a legal scholar is in how the law shapes and is shaped by social and economic forces. The Corporation is a project that came out of this interest. In 1997 I published Just Word in which I argued that constitutional rights were becoming increasingly ineffective in protecting the ideals they embodied, such as freedom, equality and justice. One reason for this, I suggested, was that constitutions apply only to governments; they do not apply to the key institution of market capitalism-the corporation.

I developed the idea that the corporation, deemed by the law to be a person, had a psychopathic personality, and that there was something quite bizarre, and dangerous, in such an institution wielding so much power.


The Corporation makes the following claims:

• Corporations are required by law to elevate their own interests above those of others, making them prone to prey upon and exploit others without regard for legal rules or moral limits.
• Corporate social responsibility, though sometimes yielding positive results, most often serves to mask the corporation's true character, not to change it.
• The corporation's unbridled self interest victimizes individuals, the environment, and even shareholders, and can cause corporations to self-destruct, as recent Wall Street scandals reveal.
• Despite its flawed character, governments have freed the corporation from legal constraints through deregulation, and granted it ever greater power over society through privatization.

Bakan urges restoration of the corporation's original purpose, to serve the public interest, and calls for re-establishment of democratic control over the institution. Concrete, pragmatic, and realistic reforms are proposed. A groundbreaking book filled with big ideas and fascinating stories, The Corporation is original, provocative and informative.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Absolutely not. Rule of law is really one of our strengths over third world countries. Who would work in an industry if you didn't know if you would be breaking potential future laws?

As for Dodd Frank, of course they're trying to be heard on the finer points of legislation. It's how we might actually get laws and regs that are workable as opposed to ones that might actually make economic problems worse.

The problem a lot of Occupiers don't understand is that if you 'abolished' or 'nationalized' the banks the whole society would collapse. That might be totally okay for some of the harder core machine ragers because they feel there's nothing in this society for them anyway. But when you claim you're speaking for the 99%, you also speak for people who want to or already have good jobs. Socialism's all cool until the money runs out, and then you have to have an economic system that fosters economic growth.

I think that the main point I am trying to make is that there are significant issues with the financial system, which is causing a higher concentration of wealth. And that much of the legislation is being pushed by lobbyists, who have a disproportionate voice in what is supposed to be representative democracy.

The dogma of the tea party is just that. Even the very equating of their cause with the Boston Tea Party is historically fallacious.

There are real problems in the financial system and simply writing the protesters off as disaffected hipsters is not accurate.

I will certainly concede that Canada does not have the degree of wealth concentration that the US has, and that, generally speaking, Canada is a more socially conscious society who are willing to hear contrarian viewpoints...so the occupy movement here isn't borne out of the same feeling of disenfranchisement that I think the original movement is founded on

[woob]

Originally Posted by valo403

Tax loopholes largely exist for a reason, and while some of them are the product of lobbying and serve no purpose but to shuffle money to corporations and should be closed, others are necessary for a healthy economy.

That's why you need a tie to reality, if you don't understand what you're changing the changes you make will fail.

I've also enjoyed the debate. Like I said, I'm not against the eventual goals of a lot of the movement, I'm just not a fan of a lot of the paths it's taken so far.

I agree they exist for a reason, but not all of them are good, as you point out. I'm not saying kill all loopholes at all. The onus on the government is to change that code so those loopholes are closed. The finer points of that is up to them and the smart tax/finance people.

However, to suggest someone lacks a tie to reality by them suggesting that placing an onus on a corporation to be a better citizen of the economy they operate in is a bit insulting. It doesn't take a Harvard degree to surmise that a corporation raking in huge profits and increasing those profits quarter over quarter while having the ability to shelter money, increase their tax cuts even further, and the like - well that maybe pressure should be placed upon that company to change those ways, be it through protest, boycott, whatever means that are legally available.

If a company commits to not using cheap child labour in a 3rd world country what's preventing another company from committing to not exploiting sheltering loopholes when it comes tax time? Both commitments will no doubt have impact on the bottom line, but both are also good responsible decisions, in my opinion.

[GP_Matt]

How many loop holes would be acceptable for a company to use? Or is there a fair amount of taxes that they should pay? I don't think either question can be answered and as such it is up the government to establish rules for everyone to follow. If the rules are being exploited then they need to be fixed.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Lead Now's letter stopping Brookfield temporarily.

Dear friends,

You’ve helped win an amazing victory for democracy in New York. You were one of the 8,000 Canadians who joined together last night to tell Brookfield Asset Management to respect the democratic rights of the protesters. This morning, Brookfield backed down - temporarily withdrawing the threat of eviction.

Now we need to secure the victory by asking them to publicly commit to respect the rights of the protesters:

At a minimum, as Canadians, we ask Brookfield Asset Management to publicly state that it supports the right of the protesters to:

1. Continue occupying Zuccotti Park without interference.

2. Supply themselves with the minimum requirements for safety and sanitation: such as toilets, showers, tents, warm bedding and other necessities that they decide they require.

Click here to send a message to secure the victory and check out the inspiring video of the Occupy Wall Street protesters learning that Brookfield backed down, and an on-the-scene update from Tria Donaldson:

http://www.leadnow.ca/stop-occupy-wall-street-eviction

Once you’re done - we’re going to need your help to make this go viral and reach as many people as possible. Check your inbox after you send the message to Brookfield, shortly afterwards there will be a thank you note that will ask you to forward an email to everyone that you think would be interested, asking them to join you in calling on Brookfield to make a public statement.

Those tell-a-friend emails make a huge difference. Let’s flood Brookfield’s executives right now.

Thank you! How good does this feel?

With hope and respect,
Jamie, Matthew, Tria, Emma, Adam and Ryan on behalf of the Leadnow.ca team

p.s. The occupy movement comes to Canada tomorrow. To find an event near you see http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2011/09/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-occupy-canada-movement or search at http://www.meetup.com/occupytogether/

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15300491

[morgin]

Nvm

[burn_this_city]

Support the rights of the protestors to:

[CaptainCrunch]

Personally I would give them 24 hours to get off of my propertie if I was Brookfield. The last thing I would want is the smell of porta potties and unwashed bodies floating around my propertie

[kevman]

So is anyone getting their protest on? What's the scene like in front of Bankers Hall? Surely someone can provide live updates...

[J pold]

Originally Posted by kevman

So is anyone getting their protest on? What's the scene like in front of Bankers Hall? Surely someone can provide live updates...

I'll be heading to the office here in a bit, I'll provide some updates.

[CaptainCrunch]

After watching the news coverage on Occupy Toronto where a whole 1000 people showed up and the interviewed one of the organizers who called herself Energizer the Clown who blathered on in a completely incoherent matter for 5 minutes all I can say is

You amuse me.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by J pold

I'll be heading to the office here in a bit, I'll provide some updates.

Oh you corporate #######, staring down from your gilded office through your gold paneled windows at the poor and downtrodden.

You must hang for your let them eat cake attitude.

[OffsideSpecialist]

The one in Ottawa today looked like a bunch of hippies hanging around in the park. I'd say there were only a couple hundred there. One of my roommates went.

I saw one of the so-called "organizers" on the news last night, and he went on saying that there was no point to the protest and it was a protest to protest how things are. I have no problem with people protesting, including this one (although I do disagree with the opinions of the most of the protesters), but I think the disorganization across the board with these protests and lack of direction is certainly hurting it in the PR department.

[jar_e]

Only 300-400 here in Calgary, peaceful, and no arrests.

Lame.

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Only 300-400 here in Calgary, peaceful, and no arrests.

Lame.

400 people in a city of over one million is not 99%!

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by bradster57

400 people in a city of over one million is not 99%!

Five hundred in this population size would be pretty much what you'd expect and describe as "The Usual Suspects."

We'll see if this core group can inspire others beyond themselves, those who wouldn't normally have the same axe to grind.

If it hovers around that initial 500 going forward, I wouldn't be surprised.

Amusingly, the Herald said some 9/11 Truthers were there with signs.

Outside of my day job as a Titan of finance, I spent this afternoon in a small village, representing a non-profit I volunteer with, accepting a cheque for tens of thousands of dollars from an intermediate oil company for a community capital project we have going. The village populace was also out, dozens of them in a big worker bee effort at rebuilding a park among other things, also with oil company funds, separate from our project. Kind of amusing contrast of how everyone spent their day and why.

Cowperson