Russell Brand's "revolution"

[icecube]

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%?

We would need another dozen planet earths if everyone was striving to be like the 1%.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by icecube

We would need another dozen planet earths if everyone was striving to be like the 1%.

Well, that's why not everyone can be a part of the 1%.

I'm doing what's best for me, not what's best for the rest of humanity. Better me being able to do so by honest capitalistic means than through corruption.

[JeanLucPicard]

yeahhh...He is a funny guy when on comedy talk shows and other things like that. I think he should stick to it

Also, the "big bonuses" CEOs get that he doesn't like are from what the Company earns - it is up to the companies to distribute it how they like. He should probably lean how corporate accounting works.

Not voting because either you're apathetic or disillusioned with current system is the opposite of what you should be doing. No wonder Paxman was confused.

[Red Slinger]

I don't necessarily agree with everything he said but I think he's right that income disparity is getting worse in the 1st world and will likely eventually lead to a drastic change in how our society views wealth, capitalism and democracy.

More and more, everyday, we are inching closer and closer to a full-on plutocracy. Eiserhower warned the world about the Industrial Military Complex 60 years ago and it's just continued to get grow and get worse. It's one thing when all the poor people are in far-off Africa: they are far away, they are corrupt, and they are much different than "us". However, greed has pushed the problem closer to home for "us". The Reagan and Bush Jr. administrations, in particular, had several policies that gave this trend additional momentum to the point where it's become very evident that income disparity, that used to only affect the 3rd world, is now affecting western democracies. People have now given the problem a name and called it the "1%ers" or "Occupy". Now that the issue has been identified and named I expect that it will gain more and more attention until, eventually, it will reach a breaking point. I just hope that when that time comes that there are better plans in place than the one's Brand was dancing around, which is, more or less, what the Occupy movement espoused.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by JeanLucPicard

yeahhh...He is a funny guy when on comedy talk shows and other things like that. I think he should stick to it

Also, the "big bonuses" CEOs get that he doesn't like are from what the Company earns - it is up to the companies to distribute it how they like. He should probably lean how corporate accounting works.

Not voting because either you're apathetic or disillusioned with current system is the opposite of what you should be doing. No wonder Paxman was confused.

Playing devils advocate for a moment: what if the CEO's (and other executives) bonuses meant that they couldn't employ as many people? This leads to strain on society as it leads to unnecessary unemployment. Also, when the CEO and Executives of a major bank get huge bonuses shortly after being bailed out by taxpayers money, taxes which they contribute very little (if anything) too I think there's a problem there. I think that's part of the parable that we are sold on a daily basis: work hard, follow the rules, don't rock the boat and you too might become one of the 1%. That's statistically a lie and what happens is that the 99% end up working hard for the 1% to get a second yacht; the 99% follow the rules that are put in place by the 1% to ensure that they stay rich and we don't; the 99% don't rock the boat so that the 1% can continue living their opulent lifestyle. I'm not in favour of taking down banks or corporations. Hell, I work for a major corporation and they have provided me a very comfortable lifestyle. However, when the gap continues to get bigger and there are fewer 'haves' and many more 'have-nots' then I think there's a problem that needs to be addressed. We could probably start with a better tax code.

I've always voted throughout my life. But honestly, a lot of times it felt like a choice between John Jackson, Jack Johnson or Robot Nixon. When you participate in a system that is fundamentally flawed you are inadvertently contributing to keeping that system alive. For the sake of argument, if nobody voted I would think that there would be major electoral reforms presuming that the governing power wasn't completely corrupt instead of being just mostly corrupt like they are now.

[rubecube]

Here's his full editorial for those that want to read it.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-on-revolution

I think he's bang on with most of it, and this bit was brilliant.

The right has all the advantages, just as the devil has all the best tunes. Conservatism appeals to our selfishness and fear, our desire and self-interest; they neatly nurture and then harvest the inherent and incubating individualism.

I imagine that neurologically the pathway travelled by a fearful or selfish impulse is more expedient and well travelled than the route of the altruistic pang. In simple terms of circuitry I suspect it is easier to connect these selfish inclinations.

[calgarywinning]

While Russell Brand is a great orator, what he is talking about is taking your possessions and being in control of who he hands them out to.

While he targets the 1% he is also targeting anyone else that has anything. Also, he says the great unwashed masses will cease to contribute unless you contribute.

Scary stuff, but let's face it this is modern day politics.

[Red Slinger]

^ I missed where he said that. Can you give an example?

[Vulcan]

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%?

This is the bull crap fallacy that the Republicans feed the ignorant, that they are just temporarily not part of the 1%, so that the 1% can continue with their huge tax breaks. Your real chances of becoming part of the 1% are probably worse than a tyke hockey player making the NHL.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by _Q_

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%?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness

[something]

Originally Posted by rubecube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness

Well put.

[Sample00]

Like Mayor Nenshi said..its too bad we cant invoke Darwin Law on some idiots.

[Clarkey]

The biggest question in all of this is why would Katie Perry sleep with this skid.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

The biggest question in all of this is why would Katie Perry sleep with this skid.

Because he's a guy who battled drug addiction and instead of letting it destroy his life he beat it and went on to become a successful star comedian and actor? I swear a lot of people's qualifications on Calgarypuck for "skids", "losers" and other extremely negative putdowns are just downright ######ed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Because he's a guy who battled drug addiction and instead of letting it destroy his life he beat it and went on to become a successful star comedian and actor? I swear a lot of people's qualifications on Calgarypuck for "skids", "losers" and other extremely negative putdowns are just downright ######ed.

######ed?

[jayswin]

Yes

[Mista_Incognito]

######ed: delay or hold back in terms of progress or development

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

"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.

Perhaps we can put that into a different perspective. The Flames now are arguably the hardest working (and as importantly SMARTEST working) team we have seen for years. Are you not happy with their increase in effort and focus on process (intelligence)? Let alone the budget is far less.

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 thought it was you (perhaps I am wrong) that posted in another thread that one side was "ultra-libertarianism" or something to that effect. I guess that you would equate to your robber baron side here.

Funny thing here is that "Robber Baron" first comes up on Google search as "a wealthy person who tries to get land, businesses, or more money in a way that is dishonest or wrong" under the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I think that is a fair definition, but most certainly does NOT peg them as the ultra right or ultra libertarian by any means. "Wealthy person" can be in any political leaning.

Society drifts towards socialism/communism/imperialism until it collapses. It’s like a guillotine at the end of your journey. Those thinking they are progressive, are just getting to the guillotine sooner, or more precisely, advocating for such.

“Wealth distribution” is a lovely phrase.

If someone comes into my house and steals $1000 for ANY reason they can be jailed for their actions. However, if they ask via the government, the government will tax me the $1000 (or likely more to cover their handling fees) and if I don’t pay it, it is I that can be jailed.

Philosophically, that is about as “dishonest or wrong” as a robber baron description could be. Robber Baron-Hood seems more appropriate.

There are a myriad of factors that have compounded issues since Nixon took the world off of sound money in 1971. The current divide between rich and poor is far more noticeable. Heck, every one of the Flames is in the 1%, yet we cheer them on, but chastise others.

Look MH, I think you heart is in the right spot.

Time to sleep. Chat later.

[GGG]

Part of the problem with current capitalism is that there is no checks on the executive class. In theory this should be the shareholders of the company. Perks for the excutives should be limited to what allows them hire a person that delivers maximum profit. This does not happen. The shareholders representives are also members of the big banks and investment houses executive class therefore have no incentive to reform a system that rewards them handsomely.

All of the money we put into mutual funds, pension plans etc ensures the status quo. The only way to change it would for groups with large blocks of money to demand change. The only groups I could see having a chance would be union pension plans but should they start a political fight or should be only concerned with providing returns for their investors.

A concept I like but would fall terribly on its face if ever implemented is that the highest paid person in any company shoudl not make more than 100 times more than the lowest paid person. If the minimum wage is $10 per hour no one could make more than $1000 per hour. Still enough to be quite rich but not mega rich. It also incentivises increasing your lowest paid employees pay. On the otherhand it would encourage companies to outsource low paying work in order to raise saleries for the executive so it would never work in practice but I like the concept that there should be an upperboundry on capitalism. You cant take away incentive to take risk and innovate but there is a point where you certainly dont need more.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Perhaps we can put that into a different perspective. The Flames now are arguably the hardest working (and as importantly SMARTEST working) team we have seen for years. Are you not happy with their increase in effort and focus on process (intelligence)? Let alone the budget is far less.



I thought it was you (perhaps I am wrong) that posted in another thread that one side was "ultra-libertarianism" or something to that effect. I guess that you would equate to your robber baron side here.

Funny thing here is that "Robber Baron" first comes up on Google search as "a wealthy person who tries to get land, businesses, or more money in a way that is dishonest or wrong" under the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I think that is a fair definition, but most certainly does NOT peg them as the ultra right or ultra libertarian by any means. "Wealthy person" can be in any political leaning.

Society drifts towards socialism/communism/imperialism until it collapses. It’s like a guillotine at the end of your journey. Those thinking they are progressive, are just getting to the guillotine sooner, or more precisely, advocating for such.

“Wealth distribution” is a lovely phrase.

If someone comes into my house and steals $1000 for ANY reason they can be jailed for their actions. However, if they ask via the government, the government will tax me the $1000 (or likely more to cover their handling fees) and if I don’t pay it, it is I that can be jailed.

Philosophically, that is about as “dishonest or wrong” as a robber baron description could be. Robber Baron-Hood seems more appropriate.

There are a myriad of factors that have compounded issues since Nixon took the world off of sound money in 1971. The current divide between rich and poor is far more noticeable. Heck, every one of the Flames is in the 1%, yet we cheer them on, but chastise others.

Look MH, I think you heart is in the right spot.

Time to sleep. Chat later.

I don't think anyone is chastising the entire 1%. Flames players are in the 1% but they aren't earning their money at the expense of others. We have CEOs of companies making millions of dollars a year while their employees live on food stamps and welfare. Maybe, the gov't should start billing companies for the cost of their employees social benefits. That might make them pay their employees a living wage. I am not sure how this would work outside of the US, but it would do wonders here.