America’s New Robber Barons by Jeff Madrick. With early Tuesday’s abrupt evacuation of Zuccotti Park, the City of New York has managed—for the moment—to dislodge protesters from Wall Street. But it will be much harder to turn attention away from the financial excesses of the very rich—the problems that have given Occupy Wall Street such traction. Data on who is in the top 1 percent of earners further reinforces their point. Here’s why. Though the situation is often described as a problem of inequality, this is not quite the real concern. This may seem counterintuitive at first.
In other words, Occupy Wall Street’s claim that “We are the 99 percent” is dead on right. So it’s worth knowing who is in that group of very rich with runaway incomes. One key finding of the study is that three out of five of those in the top 0.1 percent of tax filers are executives or managers of financial and non-financial companies. Next, think about how these executives managed their businesses. One other major point requires some attention. The Leaderless Revolution: How ordinary people will take power and change politics in the 21st century - 2011.
Occupy Wall Street: Alternative Banking: The Commons concept note | Carne Ross. This note was shared with members of the OWS working group on Alternative Banking today: The Commons: A Good Bank 112411 draft This note has been prepared by the alternative banking working group of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. The note is for discussion with the OWS movement and more broadly.
The purpose of this note is to describe the characteristics of an ideal bank that embodies the values of the OWS movement. The current banking system lies at the heart of our current economic crisis of increasing volatility and inequality. To change that system, we need to replace it with a better bank. None of these features is new, and many are already evident in credit unions, community banks and “mutuals”. Democratic – all customers would own the bank, and have an equal say in its governance, regardless of the amount of money in their accounts. New York City. The Leaderless Revolution. Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots. New York, NY - Almost every time I'm interviewed by a mainstream journalist about Occupy Wall Street I get some variation of the same lecture: "How are you going to get anywhere if you refuse to create a leadership structure or make a practical list of demands? And what's with all this anarchist nonsense - the consensus, the sparkly fingers?
Don't you realise all this radical language is going to alienate people? You're never going to be able to reach regular, mainstream Americans with this sort of thing! " If one were compiling a scrapbook of worst advice ever given, this sort of thing might well merit an honourable place. After all, since the financial crash of 2007, there have been dozens of attempts to kick-off a national movement against the depredations of the United States' financial elites taking the approach such journalists recommended.
I should be clear here what I mean by "anarchist principles". Anarchism versus Marxism How, then, did OWS embody anarchist principles? “Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe” I am tempted to make an unkind pun on the word “lie” in the title of this Chronicle of Higher Education article, which claims that the “Movement’s principles arise from scholarship on anarchy,” in particular those of David Graeber: Occupy Wall Street’s most defining characteristics—its decentralized nature and its intensive process of participatory, consensus-based decision-making—are rooted in other precincts of academe and activism: in the scholarship of anarchism and, specifically, in an ethnography of central Madagascar.It was on this island nation off the coast of Africa that David Graeber, one of the movement’s early organizers, who has been called one of its main intellectual sources, spent 20 months between 1989 and 1991.
He studied the people of Betafo, a community of descendants of nobles and of slaves, for his 2007 book, Lost People. But that would be unkind and gratuitous, so I won’t. “they are silly. The Chronicle one was bizarre. And then to Meghan Krausch by saying: The Crisis of Global Capitalism: ten years on - 2009. Ralph Miliband Series on The Future of Global Capitalism Date: Wednesday 21 October 2009 Time: 6.30-8pm Venue: Old Theatre, Old Building Speaker: Professor John Gray Chair: Martin Jacques The financial upheavals of the past two years have occurred against the background of a decade of crisis in global capitalism. The neo-liberal model has collapsed. What comes next, and what are the geopolitical implications? John Gray is emeritus professor at LSE and author of Gray's Anatomy: selected writings| and False Dawn: delusions of global capitalism|. This event is supported by the LSE Annual Fund. The event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Media queries: please contact the Press Office if you would like to reserve a press seat or have a media query about this event, email pressoffice@lse.ac.uk| Podcast A podcast of this event is available to download from the LSE Public Lectures and Events: podcasts and videos channel|.
The Long Twentieth Century - Arrighi. The Globalisation Paradox – Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can’t Coexist - 2011. Global Policy public lecture Date: Thursday 17 March 2011 Time: 5-6.15pm Venue: Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building Speaker: Professor Dani Rodrik Chair: Professor David Held Managing globalisation requires that we get the balance between markets and regulation and between the global economy and the nation-state right. A healthy globalisation is one that is not pushed too far. Esteemed economist Dani Rodrik examines the pressure points in the global economy and what can be done about them, and looks at the situation from its seventeenth-century origins through the milestones of the gold standard, the Bretton Woods Agreement, and the Washington Consensus, to the present day.
Dani Rodrik is Rafiq Hariri Professor of International Political Economy at John F. The book The Globalization Paradox| is published by Oxford University Press this month. This event is free and open to all with no ticket required. Podcast. The Globalization Paradox. Dani Rodriks's new book is a very interesting - and rather alarming - look at the current state of globalization. His basic proposition is that we are currently experiencing the: 'fundamental political trilemma of the world economy: we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalization. If we want to push globalization further, we have to give up either the nation state or democratic politics. If we want to maintain and deepen democracy, we have to choose between the nation state and international economic integration. And if we want to keep the nation state and self-determination, we have to choose between deepening democracy and deepening globalization.
Initially, Rodrik examines the relationship between states and markets. Thus we see the beginnings of the 'trilemma'. Rodrik examines the relationship between the state, civil society, free trade and globalization in detail in Chapter 3. Again, an indication of the 'trilemma'. The Field is OPEN... From the Middle East to the streets of London and cities across the US there is a discontent with the status quo. Whether it is with the iron grip of entrenched governments or the widening economic divide between the rich and those struggling to get by. But where are those so hungry for change heading? How profound is their long-term vision to transform society? Slovenian-born philosopher Slavoj Zizek, whose critical examination of both capitalism and socialism has made him an internationally recognised intellectual, speaks to Al Jazeera's Tom Ackerman about the momentous changes taking place in the global financial and political system.
In his distinct and colourful manner, he analyses the Arab Spring, the eurozone crisis, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and the rise of China. Concerned about the future of the existing western democratic capitalism Zizek believes that the current "system has lost its self-evidence, its automatic legitimacy, and now the field is open. " David Harvey—The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis.
The Party of Wall Street has ruled unchallenged in the United States for far too long. It has totally (as opposed to partially) dominated the policies of Presidents over at least four decades (if not longer), no matter whether individual Presidents have been its willing agents or not. It has legally corrupted Congress via the craven dependency of politicians in both parties upon its raw money power and access to the mainstream media that it controls. Thanks to the appointments made and approved by Presidents and Congress, the Party of Wall Street dominates much of the state apparatus as well as the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, whose partisan judgments increasingly favor venal money interests, in spheres as diverse as electoral, labor, environmental and contract law.
The Party of Wall Street has one universal principle of rule: that there shall be no serious challenge to the absolute power of money to rule absolutely. And that power is to be exercised with one objective. How did we get here? perspectives...