SF: Solidarity Protest Announced Against World Economic Forum!

Just so you are aware -- over 50% of the U.S. population is invested in the equity markets. While some of the companies do take advantage of their shareholders, customers, and suppliers, most work hard to provide good products at good prices and pay fair wages -- as Henry Ford realized: there won't be many consumers if workers are poor.

The spreading of the notion that corporations, by definition, are evil and intentionally hurt others is archaic and will never achieve a following in America.

I guess that doesn't really because those who protest the WEF are more interested in dissent for the sake of dissenting rather than actually trying to improve the capitalist system that dominates the globe.

Enjoy the margins and spitting in the wind.

Your arguments are specious.
You reasons for posting sound like a troll's.
People work harder for nothing under capitalism then they had to do a century ago.
Visit Africa or another poor nation that is exploited by one of your vaunted corp(se)orations and we'll see how well how your capitalism is working, you priveledged fuck.

In the past year we've seen how utterly fallacious is the argument that half of americans are in fact capitalists because they are in one way or another invested in equity markets. the commanding heights of the capitalist economy is controlled by a tiny percentage of the population and it is they who through insider knowledge and vast stores of capital can dodge capital's inevitable recessions and slumps. millions of "capitalist" workers are left holding the bag, unable to cash out stock options on their own terms and left to fend for themselves in, and vulnerable to, a market they have no real control over.

those who pay close attention will notice how frantically the political right and all those who seek to defend capitalism are responding to the Enron debacle. the MO is to treat it as strictly anomolous, best explained as a "few bad apples". workers are being given condescending lectures on the need to "diversify their portfolio". it is intended for us to think that Enron is suggestive of nothing and that we should just be more diligent investors. There's reason though, to believe -- much to the consternation of pro-market religionists -- that more and more workers and poor people are beginning to see this allegedly meritocratic system for what it is: A shell game.

As to the canard about capitalists paying their workers well because they want there to be demand for their commodities (mostly useless junk): This is the "capitalists are so greedy that it actually works to your advantadge" argument that sounds nice on the surface but upon examination is just a mound of bullshit. It's true of course that capitalists want people to buy their shit, no question there. But no capitalist (accept one who's grandstanding or attempting to make a political point) is going to pay his/her wage-slaves more in order to spur demand, simply because the losses due to higher wages would outstrip whatever negligible upshot there would be in demand for the goods said capitalist produces. In a nutshell this is why capitalism has periodic crisis -- the drive to accumulate profit hollows out demand, triggering over-capacity and recession. A single capitalist, driven as he is by the profit motive, is structurally unable to forstall capitalist crisis, for the very same reason as no single capitalist will pay his workers more so they will be more patriotic consumers.

Thus Keynesian pump-priming of the economy -- paid for by society not capital as such.

The quick loss of civility that is apparent in this posting underscores my feeling that dissent is driven by passion rather than any pragmatism.

The global system will only change if it chooses to and to continue to play the fringe and dogmatically fight against the 'power holders' means that nothing that the people on this site want will ever get done.

As far as me being a 'priveleged f*ck' -- you know nothing about me beyond what I have posted and your immediate assumptions prove that you project your image of the world on everything and everbody without taking time to investigate. Not a recipe for success in this diverse and complicated world.

What a rejoinder PD.
You make unsubstantiated assertions in defense of capitalism and when challenged on them you accuse others of projection. I infer this as a concession of defeat, you complacent toad.

hey now, no need to malign toads (or pigs or snakes for that matter).

Is it OK to malign them?

re: the "massive popular participation in the market" myth:

this number has been quoted as 60%, 40%, or even 20% of the American population who have trusted their savings to the market, but check out some numbers, and if you feel like it, please respond with some of your own, this is a quote from "one market under god" by thomas frank, which you can find more info on at this url.

-------
the correct figures for all "direct or indirect stock holdings", according to the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, were:
31.7% of all families in 1989
37.2% of in 1992
41.1% in 1995
48.8% in 1998

these figures include pension plans, 401(k)s, and mutual funds in addition to shares of common stock, and they measure households instead of indviduals.

Obviously for the rosiest version of the favorite market populist metaphor to have real legitimacy- the notion that through stock ownership We the People endorse the deeds of corporate America, voting on their actions and generally approving of what goes on economically- the stock in question must be voting stock, i.e. directly owned shares of common stock.

Here, though, the figures were very different.
16.9% of all families in 1992 owned stock directly
15.3% in 1995
19.2% in 1998.

Meanwhile the popularity of mutual funds soared, going from:
10.4% of all families in 1992 to
12% in 1995 and to
16.5% in 1998.

Among the wealthiest families, of course, these trends were must more pronounced.
In the income bracket $50,000-$99,999, mutual fund ownership increased from:
15.3% in 1992 to
20.9% in 1995

In the income bracket $100,000 or more, mutual fund ownership increased from 30.5% to 38%.

A particularly revealing set of statistics in the survey is the median value of family holdings in stocks:
While the amount in 1992 for each of the brackets less than $100,000-per-year families falls between $4,000 and $6,000, the amount for the "$100,000 and more" category is $38,000.

---
one dollar is not one vote.

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/totallycompletelymad/powerbook140.jpg">

And I have the numbers to prove it!

The fact is this: black and whites are hard to pragmatically justify. But unless one holds hope in the worth of the human life, in the inherent potential for goodness within human beings (and all of life for that matter), our actions will be ruled by fear and directed by those who best make use of those fears.

Capitalism pits our species against itself and against all others (not just dog eats dog, but man eats everything) which is niether a healthy outlook for a society nor for an economy feeding off of finite resources.

As the promotion of capitalism dehumanizes, places worth in consumption and breaks down social relations, there is an upswing in depression, disillusionment, violence and destruction. Once a structure is in place, it's energy partially focusses on it's own survival and thrival, and thus the citizenship of corporations, the voting rights of corporations, the ties between corporation and government. And as we lose our sense of what it is to be free, alive, beautiful humans, the system tells us that we need more, more, more of the same to save us. Speed up production, spend for the economy...

I'll be in the streets because I see a better alternative to government and economy from on high. And on the street, you can see that alternative in the eyes of those around you, hear it in their voices, feel it in your hands as you pound the sky and feet as you stamp the asphalt. We must share our hopes and thoughts, inspire others. Once they've joined, the system must fall, or be toppled, and then the potentials are endless.

No argument against capitalism has ever been confirmed in reality. Without exception, every nation that has implemented even parts of a free-market economy has benefitted. Hence, America has never suffered famine in its history, yet Africa's many police states suffer malnutrion frequently.

All arguments against capitalism are based exclusively upon resentment, and have no basis in fact. In America, alone, there is enough evidence that capitalism has enriched the general public over the last 100 years. Additionally, capitalism is ONLY system that places the rights of individuals at a premium. All transactions are voluntary in capitalism.

I propose you take a tour of the vast slums that ring virtually every large city in the capitalist Third World, and tell them about freedom and prosperity under "free markets". Methinks you might get your fucking head torn off.

As a matter of fact, your comment about capitalism benefitting every country it is implemented in has absolutely no basis in fact, and I am amazed that you are not even embarrassed to say something so ludicrous where everyone can read it. The vast majority of the world is capitalist, and the majority of the world also happens to be starving poor. First World countries like the United States can live in the midst of luxury because the world economic system is set up to exploit Third World countries for their resources. Our "freedom" to have riches has direct consequences for poor people not just in the Third World but in this country as well. For the sake of maintaining the system me and you benefit from, there is starvation, torture and genocide in the Third World, and to a lesser degree in the First World. So before you go running your mouth off with no clue about the way the world actually works, pick up a book and READ about what really goes on in the world, or pick up a magazine that does not just tell you everything you want to hear.

Walk around the streets of SF. Ask homeless people if they always have enough food to eat. Has the capitalist system provided them with housing? But don't worry, the employers "voluntarily" pay them minimum wage (if they employ them at all), and they "voluntarily" accept, because having some food and no housing is better than having no food and no housing.

What a country!