So once again my arguments at a glance.
The reality is that they do not represent the 99% nor anywhere nearly close to it.
Your argument that they claim to be the 99% based on your GINI coefficient for Canada (32.1) is wrong because the reference to the 99% is a claim to being part of the workers. Marx has clearly outlined that there is a base made up of the relations of production. These relationships determine societies other institutions called the superstructure, on top of the base. Meaning government, university, religion etc all serve to promote the economic relationship of the capitalist and worker (bourgeoisie and proletariat). This is an analysis not some conspiracy theory. It’s how our capitalist worlds work. Not up for debate but you can ask and I can reference. Anyway, this is what the 99% are, workers, it’s not that they are the 99% poor and that there is a 1 percent rich although that statistic, as cited above, 20% own 82 percent of the world’s wealth, which is undoubtedly has a larger gap since 2008.
Typical left wing thinking. Supporting public sector services increases taxes, with increased taxes disposable income decreases; this decreases money spent on businesses. If these businesses are selling less, then they cannot employ as many people. These people start depending on these social services even more, requiring even more tax dollars, which then creates a vicious cycle of fewer jobs and higher taxes.
So here I made the sarcastic joke that you should just call him a communist (or fascist or whatever) based on your attempt at character assassination. Yes this is character assassination because saying he’s leftist then continuing on to explain the, apparently, huge logic idiocy of leftists and higher taxes, both totally unrelated btw (Sweden example), is vindictive and generalizes leftists with a negative connotation; usually associated in today’s media in the form of being called a left extremist or communist: example:
As for your logic of taxes there is nothing saying it doesn’t work when the government “controls” the industries. Communist system would be that all profits are reinvested back into society. As for our liberal system corporations are vindictive in making a larger bottom line. They do this in many different forms, I mention the propaganda model by Noam Chomsky, the reasons why it should be studied…any who taking insurance companies as example. In Canada they have lobbied the provincial government to require that we require at least 1 million liability, which results in giant insurance premiums. Looking at BC, where it is nationalized, the insurance rates for their 300,000 labiality (not sure on this) is paltry compared to ours. Theoretically perfect competition would have it that we have lower rates, but as outlined the application by corporations serves their interests and harms us.
Do you really think large companies would just take it from governments, even if they were so ignorant to try? Best case scenario is they move their operations (and jobs) and recess into a save haven, while maintaining 'satellite' operations in that country. Worse case scenario is they restrict foreign investment, have allot of major companies (with assets in the trillions) move out to places like Bermuda, and have a recession as a punishment.
Would corporations just go to a more willing country to cave into their demands, sure, that’s the whole reason behind the World Trade Organization. This is what happens a lot with IT businesses, which are our middle class jobs btw, as for manufacturing, that also can go but obviously takes more time for it to occur. Again if the WTO (read what it facilitates) did not exist corporations wouldn’t be granted the international rights as a human being, if not more. Which is one issue OWS might be protesting, the legal right that a corporation has. Should it be a “person” or should it go back to how it was before 1872, where they were mandated and felt privileged to be incorporated (read how the slavery act was hijacked by corporate lawyers, it started out vindictive).
Maybe I should note here that I am a 3rd year University Economics student, minoring in politics. Also you guys have to stop thinking in micro terms (yourself) and trying to compare that to macro terms (the country). Stay focused! With anything a public system dictates the prices and eliminates competition. What this does it provide poor quality. Completely private systems is what is needed, competition goes up, and because of increased competition prices go down. Thus quality goes up and prices go down. Sweden has had and still has an elected conservative government for 6 years now
1. Means nothing as you said so why mention it when you did
2. How am I speaking in micro terms?
3. Yes theoretically creates deadweight, supply demand 101, but Sweden is doing well, Volvo isn’t crap quality either I would think, or Saab, or, H&M or the numerous other manufacturing company’s
4. As mentioned with the insurance company example perfect competition when applied does not work like it does on paper. Quality already mentioned.
5. Conservative, nationalistic government (if not mistaken) adds to my above mention of taxes have nothing to do with any type of government.