A few weeks ago, I wrote a post discussing the Occupy Wall Street movement and I mentioned that I had an idea about a "Children's Party." Well an Op-Ed I wrote just got printed in the Seattle Times: here is the link.
I was starting to have second thoughts about the article - too simple? Unrealistic? In an era of sarcasm and cynicism, it is hard to put forward anything "idealistic" without feeling stupid or naive. This may be one of the main reasons there is so much apathy about where we are going.
Anyway, I felt a lot better about what I wrote after I read some of the vituperative comments on the Seattle Times site. If I'm pissing off the anonymous angry Libertarians on the Internet, I must be doing something right! And I feel strongly that most American think that a main purpose of our government is to protect vulnerable citizens and provide families with the resources needed so that their children grow up to be healthy and productive adults. This does not mean taking over the basic role of families - just providing support when needed.
I also created a rudimentary website and blog, at thechildrensparty.org.Check it out if you are interested.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
FDR, "Class Warrior"
What this speech (which I spotted on Slog) shows very well that some things change and some things stay the same. We are in a similar economic situation to the one we were in during the 1930s, and the causes were the same as well. FDR even predicts that at some point the U.S. will be faced with a repeat of history, and says:
So we've been through much of what is going on now - or at least our grandparents have. What is different is that these days, there are very few politicians, and no presidents, willing to take a stand (Sen. Bernie Sanders, not coincidentally the only liberal independent in the Senate, is an exception). What FDR says in the speech seems like common sense but it is not even close to being discussed.
Why is this so? I don't know enough about the political culture in the 1920s and 30s, but it seems to me that the right is much better organized now than they were than to oppose any kind of regulation and progressive change. The 1960s happened and they regrouped and decided to organize to ensure that the world would continue to work to protect their interests. Now the right managed to frame the entire national debate, with talking points like "class warfare".
Before anything can really change in our government and in our country, there has to be a shift so that this kind of discussion is "allowed". Hopefully the OWS movement will move us in that direction...
(transcript is at American Rhetoric)
Any clear-thinking business men share that concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop -- if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's -- then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.(depending on how you define 'clear-thinking', you could argue that the part about "any clear-thinking business men" is pretty naive after what's happened)
So we've been through much of what is going on now - or at least our grandparents have. What is different is that these days, there are very few politicians, and no presidents, willing to take a stand (Sen. Bernie Sanders, not coincidentally the only liberal independent in the Senate, is an exception). What FDR says in the speech seems like common sense but it is not even close to being discussed.
Why is this so? I don't know enough about the political culture in the 1920s and 30s, but it seems to me that the right is much better organized now than they were than to oppose any kind of regulation and progressive change. The 1960s happened and they regrouped and decided to organize to ensure that the world would continue to work to protect their interests. Now the right managed to frame the entire national debate, with talking points like "class warfare".
Before anything can really change in our government and in our country, there has to be a shift so that this kind of discussion is "allowed". Hopefully the OWS movement will move us in that direction...
(transcript is at American Rhetoric)
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Why I'm in favor of Bank Transfer Day
Abstract (since this it so long):
Here is a question: Why, three years after the economic collapse and bail-out, do we still have banks that are "too-big-to-fail"? Look at what our financial ecosystem looks like these days:
A lot has already been written about divesting from the big banks and putting our money in local, member-owned credit unions. I thought I'd just add my own perspective.
As I noted in an earlier post, I support the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I have been thinking a lot about how a protest can expand into a movement that can influence our legislators. I think one thing is certain about OWS: We don't really know where it is going or how it will grow. Many people dismissed it as a radical extremist cause; it could have been snuffed out, but it wasn't, and it continues to survive and morph (friends who are down there tell me that despite the media slant, the crowds are diverse and by no means extremist).
I believe that there has been a populist-vibe in the country for some time now, but no one, I think, knew what to do in the face of a government as dysfunctional as ours. The scope of the institutional problem is humongous, and the absence leaders is disappointing that it just feels daunting (here I am definitely including myself). I'm talking about average Amercans who don't have the time, energy, or social support to get involved in direct action or advocacy, but who don't like the way this country is headed and want more representation. I'm not talking about the anti-Tax Tea Party here. Most people support higher taxes and social services. For instance, a Washington Post poll recently found that 68% of adults supported raising taxes on households making over $250,000, and 53% of Republicans supported this! If more than half of the Republican support this, that tells us that this is not as controversial an idea as pundits and politicians make it out to be, and that we are a lot less divided than we think.
If people feel generally unhappy with the situation but don't feel like their representatives are on their side, this is a recipe for disengagement and apathy. I don't blame them either; I feel apathetic, and just making a living and raising a family takes a lot of time and energy. I believe that what will get the average American involved is a personal stake in the situation, and a simple, specific step they can take which is personally beneficial and will make them feel empowered.
I think Bank Transfer Day, and other manifestations of this cause, are a perfect next step to get Americans involved, for a few reasons: 1) A large number of people in this country are not satisfied by how the bail-outs of banks were handled; you don't have to be an economist in a suit to smell something fishy; 2) Americans are not generally satisfied as customers of these giant institutions (the big four being Bank of America; Citibank; Chase; and Wells Fargo) - that is, they don't have a lot of brand-loyalty; many customers just don't know that they have other options; 3) At this current moment, a lot of customers are pissed off that Bank of America and others will now be charging for debit card use, claiming that this is necessary due to the very mild restrictions imposed by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - specifically the Durbin Amendment (for an overview of why this is B.S. on the banks' part, see this NYT Op-Ed).
The combination of these three factors means that a lot of Americans who would not otherwise join a protest may be willing to go to some trouble to shift to local credit unions. A big factor in this: People who use credit unions like them. I know I do. I switched over from Washington Mutual to Washington State Employees Credit Union in about 2004, and I've never looked back. If you look at the comments on the Bank Transfer Day site, you will find that a lot of participants are people who have been in credit unions for years or decades, but just want to express their enthusiasm. There may be psychological reasons for this (we tend to value things we chose, just because we chose them, but that's another post) but in my experience, people get better customer service and have stronger sense of belonging and community when we bank with a community organization - especially a credit union (see my next post for what a credit union is). They are owned by members (i.e., customers), not by shareholders.
But the benefits to the customer are not the main point. So what is the point? As I said above, we don't know what OWS will turn into, and we also don't know what BTD will turn into either. We don't know if it will impact the banks financially. Regardless, I think the main point is about empowerment. People (many of "the 99%", that is) feel disempowered and trapped in a system that does not care about them. The act of "voting" with their money is a way to take some power back. By switching to a credit union, people are saying that they want to keep their money in a smaller, local institution whose primary concern is towards its customers, not towards its shareholders. I think this is good in itself.
What about impacts? First, we are not talking about a bank run, which involves a mass withdrawal of cash from financial institutions in response to fears about the bank's solvency. Since banks loan out more than they hold as investments, they can easily run out of money in such an event. There are several differences, in this case: 1) People will be withdrawing their money from banks at different times, not all on one day. This allows banks to plan ahead; 2) They aren't hiding their money under a mattress, keeping the money out of circulation, but are investing them in credit unions so that the cash can be loaned out and invested locally; 3) It is not an action responding to fear about the immediate stability of the bank.
Even so, some have argued that there is a risk of bringing about another bank bailout, or even another recession, if too many people do this. Considering that individual customers' funds make up a small percentage of a banks total assets, I don't think that this is likely. Banks do stand to loose profit (from debit use and fees), but they are not going to go broke. Meanwhile, credit unions across the country are being strengthened, and will begin loaning out money, without skimming profit off the top for shareholders.
I think that if there is enough momentum on this, it will get the attention of our politicians. It will show that there is a groundswell of support for financial reform, and that we as a nation are not happy with the "too-big-to-fail" model. This won't, in itself, change the system, but it is a start, by voting with our dollars.
What we need, in the end, is legislative reforms that regulate banks so that they start doing what they used to do: Save people's money, and loan money out to people. This is not a controversial goal, and many have made this argument already. That system worked quite well for many decades. In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed to regulate banks to make sure that they did not get involved in the type of speculation that brings about depressions. Banks were divided into two categories: Commercial and Investment banks, which were kept separate so that your savings account could not be used for risky investments. Then, in 1999, the act was repealed (this was in response to intense lobbying by the financial industry, of course; Clinton signed off on it, demonstrating that this isn't just about corrupt Republicans). Over the last decade, banks and investment firms got involved in risky investments (in order to maximize shareholder profit, which is what they do). This led to their failure and bail-out when those investments turned out to be bad. The Frank-Dodd Act was passed later to set up some reforms, but it is generally considered insufficient, and there is little movement in congress to enact stronger reforms, or to re-enact Glass-Steagall (probably because of the level of lobbying and campaign contributions by banks).
Besides regulating the risks they take with our money, we need to break up banks so that there are no companies that are "too-big-to-fail". That is a recipe for disaster, because those companies are by nature devoted to shareholder profit, not to supporting a healthy economy, and they will act in the interest of shareholders, which may, as we've seen, be in direct contradiction to the interest of the nation as a whole. This is why it makes sense to refer to these companies as "Systemically Dangerous Institutions".
(I didn't come up with this on my own. Others who know a lot more about the economy seem to agree - at least the ones who want a better future for the country and not just for the top 0.5%. There is of course disagreement, but it seems clear to me that anyone arguing against financial reform is probably worried that they will make less money as a result. Matt Taibi at the Rolling Stone provides a good overview of what other financial reforms the OWS movement should call for.)
How can we communicate this to our politicians when they are really working for big business? Vote with our votes, but also with our money. Bank Transfer Day will send an important message to our leaders, and could help bring about greater financial restrictions. It will also feel good to walk into a local credit union and know they are working for you!
- For Occupy Wall Street to survive/expand, a broader population of Americans needs to get involved
- At this moment in the country, there is a general frustration with our government, but also a lack of options for how to change it
- "Bank Transfer Day" is a good next step for getting people involved in financial reform, because:
- A lot of people are not satisfied by how the bail-outs of banks were handled;
- Americans are not generally satisfied as customers of the big four being Bank of America; Citibank; Chase; and Wells Fargo)
- A lot of customers are upset that Bank of America and others will now be charging for debit card use
- Transferring to a credit union
- Will may you happier because the customer service is good at it feels good to bank with a local, not-for-profit institution
- Empowers people to "vote" with their money
- Sends a message that we don't want to support "too-big-to-fail" corporations
- It won't change the world, in itself, but it is a good way to vote with your money.
Here is a question: Why, three years after the economic collapse and bail-out, do we still have banks that are "too-big-to-fail"? Look at what our financial ecosystem looks like these days:
 |
| (Image source: unknown, but it's all over Facebook) |
A lot has already been written about divesting from the big banks and putting our money in local, member-owned credit unions. I thought I'd just add my own perspective.
As I noted in an earlier post, I support the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I have been thinking a lot about how a protest can expand into a movement that can influence our legislators. I think one thing is certain about OWS: We don't really know where it is going or how it will grow. Many people dismissed it as a radical extremist cause; it could have been snuffed out, but it wasn't, and it continues to survive and morph (friends who are down there tell me that despite the media slant, the crowds are diverse and by no means extremist).
I believe that there has been a populist-vibe in the country for some time now, but no one, I think, knew what to do in the face of a government as dysfunctional as ours. The scope of the institutional problem is humongous, and the absence leaders is disappointing that it just feels daunting (here I am definitely including myself). I'm talking about average Amercans who don't have the time, energy, or social support to get involved in direct action or advocacy, but who don't like the way this country is headed and want more representation. I'm not talking about the anti-Tax Tea Party here. Most people support higher taxes and social services. For instance, a Washington Post poll recently found that 68% of adults supported raising taxes on households making over $250,000, and 53% of Republicans supported this! If more than half of the Republican support this, that tells us that this is not as controversial an idea as pundits and politicians make it out to be, and that we are a lot less divided than we think.
If people feel generally unhappy with the situation but don't feel like their representatives are on their side, this is a recipe for disengagement and apathy. I don't blame them either; I feel apathetic, and just making a living and raising a family takes a lot of time and energy. I believe that what will get the average American involved is a personal stake in the situation, and a simple, specific step they can take which is personally beneficial and will make them feel empowered.
I think Bank Transfer Day, and other manifestations of this cause, are a perfect next step to get Americans involved, for a few reasons: 1) A large number of people in this country are not satisfied by how the bail-outs of banks were handled; you don't have to be an economist in a suit to smell something fishy; 2) Americans are not generally satisfied as customers of these giant institutions (the big four being Bank of America; Citibank; Chase; and Wells Fargo) - that is, they don't have a lot of brand-loyalty; many customers just don't know that they have other options; 3) At this current moment, a lot of customers are pissed off that Bank of America and others will now be charging for debit card use, claiming that this is necessary due to the very mild restrictions imposed by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - specifically the Durbin Amendment (for an overview of why this is B.S. on the banks' part, see this NYT Op-Ed).
The combination of these three factors means that a lot of Americans who would not otherwise join a protest may be willing to go to some trouble to shift to local credit unions. A big factor in this: People who use credit unions like them. I know I do. I switched over from Washington Mutual to Washington State Employees Credit Union in about 2004, and I've never looked back. If you look at the comments on the Bank Transfer Day site, you will find that a lot of participants are people who have been in credit unions for years or decades, but just want to express their enthusiasm. There may be psychological reasons for this (we tend to value things we chose, just because we chose them, but that's another post) but in my experience, people get better customer service and have stronger sense of belonging and community when we bank with a community organization - especially a credit union (see my next post for what a credit union is). They are owned by members (i.e., customers), not by shareholders.
But the benefits to the customer are not the main point. So what is the point? As I said above, we don't know what OWS will turn into, and we also don't know what BTD will turn into either. We don't know if it will impact the banks financially. Regardless, I think the main point is about empowerment. People (many of "the 99%", that is) feel disempowered and trapped in a system that does not care about them. The act of "voting" with their money is a way to take some power back. By switching to a credit union, people are saying that they want to keep their money in a smaller, local institution whose primary concern is towards its customers, not towards its shareholders. I think this is good in itself.
What about impacts? First, we are not talking about a bank run, which involves a mass withdrawal of cash from financial institutions in response to fears about the bank's solvency. Since banks loan out more than they hold as investments, they can easily run out of money in such an event. There are several differences, in this case: 1) People will be withdrawing their money from banks at different times, not all on one day. This allows banks to plan ahead; 2) They aren't hiding their money under a mattress, keeping the money out of circulation, but are investing them in credit unions so that the cash can be loaned out and invested locally; 3) It is not an action responding to fear about the immediate stability of the bank.
Even so, some have argued that there is a risk of bringing about another bank bailout, or even another recession, if too many people do this. Considering that individual customers' funds make up a small percentage of a banks total assets, I don't think that this is likely. Banks do stand to loose profit (from debit use and fees), but they are not going to go broke. Meanwhile, credit unions across the country are being strengthened, and will begin loaning out money, without skimming profit off the top for shareholders.
I think that if there is enough momentum on this, it will get the attention of our politicians. It will show that there is a groundswell of support for financial reform, and that we as a nation are not happy with the "too-big-to-fail" model. This won't, in itself, change the system, but it is a start, by voting with our dollars.
What we need, in the end, is legislative reforms that regulate banks so that they start doing what they used to do: Save people's money, and loan money out to people. This is not a controversial goal, and many have made this argument already. That system worked quite well for many decades. In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act was passed to regulate banks to make sure that they did not get involved in the type of speculation that brings about depressions. Banks were divided into two categories: Commercial and Investment banks, which were kept separate so that your savings account could not be used for risky investments. Then, in 1999, the act was repealed (this was in response to intense lobbying by the financial industry, of course; Clinton signed off on it, demonstrating that this isn't just about corrupt Republicans). Over the last decade, banks and investment firms got involved in risky investments (in order to maximize shareholder profit, which is what they do). This led to their failure and bail-out when those investments turned out to be bad. The Frank-Dodd Act was passed later to set up some reforms, but it is generally considered insufficient, and there is little movement in congress to enact stronger reforms, or to re-enact Glass-Steagall (probably because of the level of lobbying and campaign contributions by banks).
Besides regulating the risks they take with our money, we need to break up banks so that there are no companies that are "too-big-to-fail". That is a recipe for disaster, because those companies are by nature devoted to shareholder profit, not to supporting a healthy economy, and they will act in the interest of shareholders, which may, as we've seen, be in direct contradiction to the interest of the nation as a whole. This is why it makes sense to refer to these companies as "Systemically Dangerous Institutions".
(I didn't come up with this on my own. Others who know a lot more about the economy seem to agree - at least the ones who want a better future for the country and not just for the top 0.5%. There is of course disagreement, but it seems clear to me that anyone arguing against financial reform is probably worried that they will make less money as a result. Matt Taibi at the Rolling Stone provides a good overview of what other financial reforms the OWS movement should call for.)
How can we communicate this to our politicians when they are really working for big business? Vote with our votes, but also with our money. Bank Transfer Day will send an important message to our leaders, and could help bring about greater financial restrictions. It will also feel good to walk into a local credit union and know they are working for you!
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Meditations on an Occupation
I have been excited and, strangely, sad to see the Occupy Wall Street movement build support and get mainstream attention over the last few weeks. One reason I am sad is simply that I lived in New York City up until May of this year, and I wish I could witness and take part in what is happening. But I also feel sad because it has brought up memories of the November, 1999 WTO protests in Seattle (I cannot believe it was 12 years ago, but there it is).
For several months I was involved in organizing for the WTO protests on the University of Washington campus. This was an exciting experience as a sophomore in college, and the protest and events that followed were exciting and inspiring - we felt like we were part of something big. But in the months following, I was left with the awareness of the limitations of such protests. It was an event that many co-participants remember as a great moment of standing up to the status quo, but it also felt insular and its long term impact is unclear. In the long run I think that was left less idealistic about the possibility of substantive change though such movements. This was in part due to the limitations I saw in my co-organizers - gross blindspots, ignorance, egotism, narcissism, and general flakiness (not that I was free of those traits either). "Were these people," I asked myself, "supposed to lead us to a new future?"
Many of these feelings have been revived in the last month, as I've watched the developments in Manhattan: a desire to participate, to "be there" but a melancholy pessimism about it all. One question I've been asking myself and others is how the movement can keep up its momentum and spread its message to a broader American public. Friends who are "on the ground" in New York tell me that the protests are much less radical than the media suggests - they are diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, race, and socio-economic status ("99%" still includes a wide range of incomes, and it sounds like a wide range is indeed represented there). This is hopeful, but I look at friends, family and neighbors around me who are not "political" and they barely know that the protests are happening - even the ones right in our own downtown Seattle. I feel very strongly that for systemic change we need to get "those people" (including the sizable population of Americans who are "Republicans" but don't like what is going on in Washington) concerned enough to do something; not occupy, maybe not even protest. At least vote, and hopefully do something more to demand change.
I've come to conclusion that one cause that could be adopted by a wide spectrum of Americans is divestment form the "too-big-to-fail" banks whose practices precipitated our economic crisis. This movement, represented by the Move Your Money Project and Bank Transfer Day, advocates divesting from Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and putting money in local credit unions (I hope to make another post summarizing the reasoning behind that, soon).
Another idea I am bouncing around is a Children's Party. The Right had a Tea Party, and the Republicans essentially have their own party within the Democratic Party (the Blue Dog Democrats). What about a party/movement representing children - with the basic message:
What's best for our children is best for our country.
I will hopefully post a more detailed description of what a Children's Party would be, but until then, let me know if you have any thoughts!
For several months I was involved in organizing for the WTO protests on the University of Washington campus. This was an exciting experience as a sophomore in college, and the protest and events that followed were exciting and inspiring - we felt like we were part of something big. But in the months following, I was left with the awareness of the limitations of such protests. It was an event that many co-participants remember as a great moment of standing up to the status quo, but it also felt insular and its long term impact is unclear. In the long run I think that was left less idealistic about the possibility of substantive change though such movements. This was in part due to the limitations I saw in my co-organizers - gross blindspots, ignorance, egotism, narcissism, and general flakiness (not that I was free of those traits either). "Were these people," I asked myself, "supposed to lead us to a new future?"
Many of these feelings have been revived in the last month, as I've watched the developments in Manhattan: a desire to participate, to "be there" but a melancholy pessimism about it all. One question I've been asking myself and others is how the movement can keep up its momentum and spread its message to a broader American public. Friends who are "on the ground" in New York tell me that the protests are much less radical than the media suggests - they are diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, race, and socio-economic status ("99%" still includes a wide range of incomes, and it sounds like a wide range is indeed represented there). This is hopeful, but I look at friends, family and neighbors around me who are not "political" and they barely know that the protests are happening - even the ones right in our own downtown Seattle. I feel very strongly that for systemic change we need to get "those people" (including the sizable population of Americans who are "Republicans" but don't like what is going on in Washington) concerned enough to do something; not occupy, maybe not even protest. At least vote, and hopefully do something more to demand change.
I've come to conclusion that one cause that could be adopted by a wide spectrum of Americans is divestment form the "too-big-to-fail" banks whose practices precipitated our economic crisis. This movement, represented by the Move Your Money Project and Bank Transfer Day, advocates divesting from Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and putting money in local credit unions (I hope to make another post summarizing the reasoning behind that, soon).
Another idea I am bouncing around is a Children's Party. The Right had a Tea Party, and the Republicans essentially have their own party within the Democratic Party (the Blue Dog Democrats). What about a party/movement representing children - with the basic message:
What's best for our children is best for our country.
I will hopefully post a more detailed description of what a Children's Party would be, but until then, let me know if you have any thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)