Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 14:25:53
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 13:25:45
But it's the 1% they're talking about. It's the 1% on the signs and in the talking points. I know several people in that 1%, and they see themselves as middle class. Upper middle class to be sure, but middle class. I would hate to think of myself as being one of those people being spoken of that way. I just can't approve of that.
But even if it's the top of the top, yes, I think class warfare is wrong. If you're angry about behaviors, target behaviors, not people. I don't think people deserve vilification based on their income bracket. I just don't. Why is that any better than other forms of stereotyping?
It's classic behavior in poor economic times. I was reading just yesterday about Wat Tyler's rebellion. Whatever legitimate grievances the peasants had, and they were very legitimate, it wasn't right.
I'm not crazy about commodities trading myself. I've never been convinced that it was anything other than legalized gambling, or that it offers any value to the economy. Unless I could be convinced of its value (as I'm always opened to being convinced that I'm wrong), I'd like to see it gone, since I perceive it as being destabilizing to things like the price of oil. Oil prices should not jump based on rumors. I think if people have complaints about specific practices on Wall Street, a public dialogue on those practices would be very worthwhile. As much as political donations influence politicians, so do an informed and interested electorate.
But when it is framed in terms of Corporations = Bad. Or the Top 1% being greedy influence peddlers? I find that as offensive as I would any other generalization.
Moreover, I think that invoking class anger might be satisfying, but I doubt it contributes much to the sort of dialogue that leads to change. While focusing on certain practices might.
It's satisfying to complain that Exxon paid no income tax. It's better to detail why Exxon paid no income tax, and tighten rules on foreign income taxation. It's better to understand the rationale behind the current laws, and to critically discuss how meaningful changes can be made. The nonpayment of taxes due to shuffling to offshore companies should in no way be equated with not paying taxes because of hiring people in disadvantaged areas, or investing in equipment. Or upgrading plants for social energy.
I'm a passionate moderate. We like rational discussion free of hyperbole and polarization. Unfortunately this is not a good political climate for us.
I'd be interested in a presidential election between Romney and Obama. Both of them bring a certain level of rationality and civility to the table. Although I suppose it's too much to ask that the followers of each would refrain from rhetoric.
For what it's worth, there are mutual funds available that try to be socially conscious and only invest in corporations, even large corporations, that behave in a socially responsible manner. There are also green funds that focus on companies that are environmentally responsible. If enough people cared to only invest in companies whose policies they approved, it's entirely possible that corporate policies would change.
Because corporations *are* people. And brokers and fund managers are people too. They may be looking to make a profit. That's their job, and I doubt we'd be happy with fund managers who weren't looking to increase our capital. But there are ones out there who are also as socially aware as you could wish.
poster:Dinah
thread:1002133
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20110926/msgs/1002175.html