So Who Are the 1% Anyway?

So after spending some time in the trenches with Occupy Fort Wayne this week in what little spare time I've had, I've seen a lot of angry people. Everyone is mad as hell at the top 1% of America's rich and elite who hold about half our nation's total wealth. But just who are these 1%?

Our friends over at new deal 2.0 have provided a wonderful graph breaking down the top 1% of American "taxpayers" over the past 30 years (the chart shows figures from 1979 to 2005, and one can imagine that with the complete lack of disparity between the figures over those years, that the last 6 years has not changed these figures much). The chart can be found here. A bit of analysis of these data should easily reveal some very interesting facts. First, among the top 1% there are 4 very specific industries who hold 70% among the top 1% richest in this nation. People talk about wanting to be Oprah rich, but Oprah, among the rest of the media, sports, arts, and entertainment stars only make up a measly 1.5-2% of the top 1% of the wealthy. Who you really want to be are big time corproate laywers (about 10%), financial industry leaders (about 15%), a big time player in the medical industrial complex / Pharma (15%), or a CEO or other top-level shareholder of a successful, multinational corproation (30%).

While the values indicate various fields, I have narrowed these fields down to very specific types of players in these fields, because it should be noted that the CEO of Lincoln Life, or your family doctor, for the Pharma rep that comes to your hospital with all the pizzas trying to woo your doctor into using his new drug...these people are not part of the 1%. They are instead people who have been disillusioned to think they have something in common with the top 1%, when in reality, they are part of the ever-shrinking Middle Class. There is also a reason why there is so much Marxist overtones to the Occupy movement. It isn't because all the protesters are all socialists or Communists. It's because the very economic tide of "us" vs. "them" that Marx made evident in his writings, and the predictions about the fate of capitalism, all seem to be evidence in this recession.

When one looks at Marxism, democracy, and libertarianism/anarchy, there is actually very little difference in the basic philosophy until the State gets involved. Marxists say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This effectively says that resources should be shared for the good of society, and everyone chips in so that everyone can work together for a common good. Democracy says "each one person gets one vote." This also effectively says everyone that chips in gets a say in how the resources are used...which generally means everyone gets a piece of the pie. Libertarianism/anarchy basically says, "each individual gets to do what they want, provided it doesn't infringe on someone else's basic needs." Again, this effectively leads to everyone leaving well-enough alone, but ultimately everyone being provided for, because your wealth cannot come at the cost of another's, otherwise government will naturally arise to set that straight.

Ultimately, there is little difference between the three systems, and so it is very easy to label someone participating in democracy as "anarchist" or "socialist," however.  And yet, these are the same methods our founding fathers (and no, Ms. Bachman, that doesn't include John Quincy Adams) used when they organized against British rule in the mid-to-late 18th century. It is only natural, that at a time of great economic recession, and the apparent disparity between rich and poor growing to ever-more-noticible numbers that such a movement would arise. And being that we are Americans, it would make no less sense that the movement would be based on the Enlightenment era ideals of people like Locke and Tocqueville, which influenced the founders of our great nation to rise up and protest (peaceably at first) their oppressors. It would also make sense to use the same tactics that were used by Dr. Martin Luther King and other great Black Civil Rights movement leaders to organize people into peaceful protests against their oppressors.

So now, the call has been sounded. The "vague" movement of Occupy Wall Street and all its splinter cells in each city across the United States are shouting in anger against a single, common oppressor, the top 1% of American "taxpayers." I put "taxpayers" in quotes, because many among this tier of the wealthy use tax loophole after tax loophole to get out of paying a large swath of the taxes they are required to pay, unlike the Middle Class servitors that prop them up. It is these same Middle Class servitors, the U.S. nationalists, who fervently support movements like the Tea Party. These drones were the same people in the streets massing with guns in holster and touting American liberty a few short years ago. Yet now they oppose Occupy because it lashes out at the elite aristocracy who was kind enough to toss them some table scraps. They are the house slave, not the field slave, and being "lead by the feather," they now cannot see why they should rise up in union with those "lead by the whip" against their masters. They don't see why they are not free. Yet the field slaves have all taken to the streets, and their voices trying to be drowned out by calls from the 1%'s mouthpieces that "they don't know what they are protesting." I assure you, if you don't know why people are protesting, then you have been asleep for the last 50 years.

The Occupation of America

So I think it's funny that the Occupy movement is called such. It is a bit of irony. In essence, the people of the United States (not just liberals, not just libertarians, but truly people from all different walks of life) are taking to the streets in a sort of occupation of America. The interesting thing here, is that many believe that the American government is occupied: occupied by corporate "persons" who are holding it hostage with their Super PACs and lobbies. The wealthiest 1% of the population, namely large corporations and their CEOs, bankers, and the like, have found every loophole in the works to make the law work for their best interests. Where it hasn't, they have pressured politicians to make the laws looser.

And what happened when the bubble burst? They got their friends in Washington to give them more of our money, in order to protect American corporate interests and stimulate economic recovery by producing jobs. Where are the jobs? Where is the economic recovery? Why is that CEO buying a new yacht? These are the questions this occupation movement seeks to answer.

Many say the movement is not organized. Well to a degree it isn't, intentionally so. If there were a single common statement of political interest or too narrow a focus, it would lose many of its supporters. The lack of a narrow focus is exactly the purpose of the movement: to bring the masses together under those few commonalities that we share, i.e. being oppressed by the wealthiest 1% of this nation. The people have had enough, and they are taking their stand!

And I will be standing with them this week. I will attempt to write what I can when I can, as I join the Occupation in Fort Wayne. As someone who is back in school after 8 years and working on producing a set of skills that will help me get a career, after 8 years of working paycheck to paycheck and watching my hours and pay get cut while what was demanded of me continued to increase, I have a vested interest in the success of this movement. If it fails, I may not have a career to turn to when I graduate. If it fails, I may not have a voice to speak up and demand one. Therefore I will stand and speak now. Whether it is in little Fort Wayne, Indiana, or on the streets of LA and NYC, your voice must be heard. The corporations are everywhere, not just on Wall St, and they are stealing your tax money and getting wealthier off it. Stand up and tell them that you've had ENOUGH!

Conversational Monopoly: Do Not Pass GO, Do Not Collect $200!

I fail to see why people feel the need to post things like "I don't understand. Why is there a need for this sort of thing?" (for instance: a plugin that helps give better individual control over browser security) and then when it is explained why certain users would be interested in something that allowed them more control over said thing (for instance, their browser security), they "fail to see" how it should apply to them in a condescending manner as if they are the only person it could possibly benefit on the planet, and is therefore stupid.

If it doesn't apply to you, move on, don't use it. It's that simple. If someone shares something with a larger community and you don't think it's worthwhile, but you'd like to learn more about it, engage them. If all you want to do is profess to the world that you'll never use it and therefore you think it's a dumb...whatever-it-is...then please just move on and don't open your mouth.

I see this sort of logic all the time, not just on the web, just in general, out there in the world. It goes sort of like this:

-----------------------------------------------

Cool New App Guy:
Hey look large community of diverse tech-using habits, I just found a cool new app that does something neat! *posts link*

Naysayer:
I don't understand why anyone would need this. *cites examples of why he himself doesn't think he needs it by incorrectly pointing out things of no relevance to the app*

Cool New App Guy:
Well, that isn't really what the app does. This is what it does and why some people might find it interesting. *cites stuff that explains how stuff works*

Naysayer:
I don't care about this one example that was used, and since that is related to why someone might use the app, I'm going to talk about how I would never do something with my tech-usage habits that might lead me to have any sort of need to use this app, rather than acknowledge someone else might, thereby completely monopolizing the conversation and derailing it into what I would rather talk about!

-----------------------------------------------

I see it happen everywhere, down to almost an algorithm-like science similar to the conversation above, where you can just fill in a few sections with details, and the entire conversation repeats verbatim. This happens in large coffee-shop conversations, too, and about all sorts of things other than just apps. Hell, I even do it now and then! It just really makes me wonder if it's programmed somewhere into the human condition to relate to every tidbit of information received as if it were given on a personal level, and thereby necessary for a feedback response of whether or not one can personally benefit from this information, even if someone just wants to share something neat as a conversational topic. Hmmmm...

Unfortunately, the app that started this whole thing won't work for me, it's crashing my Firefox when installing it. Probably a conflict with another extension, so I can't tell you how great it is, all I can tell you is how to tell me how stupid it is without knowing a damn thing about it...and I am done doing that now, so goodnight.

I'm SUPER, Thanks for Asking!

It seems like you can almost always recognize a full-blown "look what government is doing to increase their power!" conspiracy theory based on 1) the graphics and fonts used by the website, and 2) the mention of the name Ron Paul (you know, that guy who claims to be "libertarian" but who supports invasive government into our lives, provided it supports his conservative agenda and takes place at the state level rather than federal). I don't hear his pretty libertarian colleague across the aisle, Rep. Dennis Kucinnich (D), going off his wagon about this "unconstitutional" deal (though he does apparently think it's "insane" to do so, he has yet to my knowledge referred to it as "unconstitutional"). So it makes me wonder what he thinks about the constitutionality of all this, being that he has a pocket Constitution on him at all times, maybe someone should ask him the hard questions instead of fishing for Paul's crazy Tea Party rhetoric. Kucinnich, after all, has been a champion in Congress for defending the Constitution of the United States for nearly as long as Paul has claimed to!

Now, don't get me wrong here! I don't like this super committee idea any more than I liked any other solution that came out of Congress, and I agree with Kucinnich that this deal is INSANE! The thing is, the article referenced above is all talk and no fact. First, the Treasurey wasn't going to run out of money anytime soon, it was reassured many times over. What would have went bankrupt would have been stuff that the treasury borrows against to loan the government money to fund programs..like the social security trust fund. Second, this sort of committee is not exactly unconstitutional. The committee aren't "unelected" they will be made up of our elected officials.

For instance, the Joint Committee on Taxation which was established in the 1920s is made up of appointed members of the House and the Senate. It presents findings and recommendations to the House and Senate, and those recommendations are voted on. Is that committee unconstitutional? The House and the Senate are still going to be voting on any legislation that comes out of this committee, that isn't unconstitutional. The House and Senate have decided their rules of order for these recommendations as being an up or down vote with no debate. Since each house of the Congress has determined these to be the rules under which they shall operate for votes on these recommendations, there is not much that can be said, the consitution gives each house the authority to make their own rules on how they shall conduct business. The consitutional right to "debate" or to "fillabuster" that Ron Paul and others claim is being denied to Congressmen and Senators, is a fallacy. Those rights are not gauranteed by the Consitution, they are part of the rules of each house which determine how business is conducted...their "house bylaws" so to speak.

The ONLY part of this law that rides on the edge of unconstitutionality is the "less than 1.5 trillion" clause that then authorizes and forces the hand of the committee without vote of either house to start cutting programs. That, and the extension of this bill onto future Congresses is a bit offputting, however, bills can be overturned by future Congresses, this one is no different.

Why I'm not a Capitalist

or how Keynesians and Hayekians continue to misdirect the nation's economy.

I am not an economist, however I like to think I know a bit more than the average Joe (the Plumber) or even politician, simply because I try to study it and stay informed, as I find it both interesting. I've taken up a renewed interest the last several years and studied with much more fervor in trying to understand all the underlying issues with our current world-wide economic-equivalent of Hurricane Katrina. In the end, I have decided, that the real reason everything's gone to hell is because both Keynes and Hayek may have been flawed in their theories...but most importantly, because no one has bothered to expand on them or create new ones since.

So I have a new theory for you, economics world. It's called the theory of fear, and it goes like this:

Mankind does not respond to fear in predictable ways like animals. One day they may have a mass panic and pull all their money from the banks and stock market. Another day they may just sit back and ignore the fact anything bad is happening. A 10 cent gas price increase in 2000 panicked people to the pumps, scrambling to guzzle as much as they could in the wake of a crisis...those prices rose a full dollar in some placed during the course of that day, but ultimately, a mere 10 cents is what sent the nation into a tizzy, and in the end, the prices dropped the next day, not steadily rising much more than 50 cents for a full 2 years, until turmoil in the Middle East and tensions in Venezuela drove prices at the pump up to around $5, to which no one flinched. If I told people that for certain, tomorrow, gas prices would increase 10 cents, you'd see 5 of my hundred friends hit the pump, the rest presuming it would stop at 10 cents, and there would be no panic.

You see, what economists generally fail to look at is context. Consumers attitudes are hard to predict, unless you look at the context. If you see that they are already in panic about something else, then indeed, a price hike somewhere to a commodity that is a basic need for most of them, is going to further heighten that panic and cause more panic. Fear begets more fear. Whether that fear makes someone angry and take to the streets, or lock themselves up in their basement with a gun, depends on context...and it is that ignored context that has created a lot of missed forecasting by economists over the years, and a lot of drunk-with-fear politicians to create laws to stave off panic when there would have been none to begin with.

Today, I'm going to look at context. The nation's dollar is collapsing in value, and has been steadily for 50 years. The nation's public debt has skyrocketed in the last 3.5 years, and Washington can't seem to decide if budget cuts to important social programs or tax hikes to potential job-creators is the answer. Many feel the answer is to simply leave it alone and let the economy fix itself.

I have the solution, my fellow Americans: compromise, and spend the next 15 years contextually cutting or restructuring programs that are wasteful, while slowly removing tax breaks for the wealthy and for large corporations. If they take their business overseas, stop giving them incentives to continue doing so, rather than relying on public works projects to counter the rapid downsizing of US-based companies who are outsourcing every job they can to countries with unfair labor laws in order to make even more money while paying less taxes. Also, you can start paying attention to historical context and consumer habits...we will spend ourselves into debt before we get so afraid that we stop spending anything...people don't stop spending during economic crisis because they fear they should save instead...rather they stop spending because they run out of money and credit to spend! Find ways to encourage the populace to stay away from going into debt (much like we wish the government would) and we'll have more money to consistently spend and pay into taxes.

These may seem like pretty simplistic ideas, because they are. But in all reality, sometimes it is the simple answers that are most effective. Unfortunately, the words of the simple are too often perceived the words of the simpleton, and ignored. The advice falls on deaf ears, and nations collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy.