"For the Good of Mankind"

After watching coverage of the "Occupy Vancouver" protest on CBC, I am disappointed.  I'm not sure I have ever seen a more one-sided news story here in Canada.  There was not a single criticism of the movement (unless lack of focus on a specific goal is one), and every person they interviewed was either at the protest or said they wanted to go, because they supported the movement.  There wasn't a hint of controversy in the story about the radical leftist politics of the movement.  But, any mere mention of the tea party here seems to be enough to incite accusations of right-wing extremism.

The main message of the "Occupy Whatever" movement seems to be that 1% of the population (what population, I'm not sure) controlls about 40% of the wealth.  So, their solution to this "problem" is to take wealth from that 1% and redistribute it to the remaining 99%.  I don't view this disparity as a problem.  If you want wealth, capitalism allows you to get it if you put in enough effort.  That is, as long as the government gets out of the way sufficiently.  So, whatever these people are demanding, doing the opposite would likely benefit them more (as long as they were willing to put in some effort).

According to the protesters, they are good people fighting evil corporations, and they're doing it "for the good of mankind."  And, after watching another biased news story on "Occupy Vancouver" on Global News, I am glad they at least mentioned an opponent to the movement, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.  According to them, the "[BC Government Employees' Union (BCGEU)] needs to 'occupy' common sense":

• Main beneficiaries of current political system are public sector unions

• BCGEU owns major equity in large, profitable multi-national corporations

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) responded today to an e-mail sent to BCGEU members across the province on Thursday encouraging them to “come out and support Occupy Vancouver.” 

The note from BCGEU president Daryl Walker says that “Union members belong to the 99 percent who are not benefiting from the current political and economic system. That message needs to be seen and heard.” 

“Walker is dead wrong,” said Jordan Bateman, CTF BC Director. “Public sector unions are provided for very generously by taxpayers, thank-you very much, and insulated from the economic uncertainties felt by those working outside the public sector. If there’s any group benefitting from the current political system, it’s public sector unions.” 

According to number released earlier this year by Statistics Canada, the average Canadian public service employee earned $1,023.20 a week in July 2011. Meanwhile, everybody else earned an average of $777.69. More than 86% of government workers have a workplace pension plan, compared to just 25.3% of private sector workers.  

“If 99% of the population is not benefitting from the current political and economic system it’s because nearly half their incomes are taken in taxes,” said Bateman. “Those taxes are largely driven by the demands of public sector unions—they want to cut everybody else’s pay to increase their own. As the president of the BC Teachers Federation said recently, teachers want BC’s income tax cuts reversed so they can increase their own pay and benefits by $2.2 billion.”  

Further, the BCGEU is a huge investor in the very corporations Mr. Walker whinges about. Three of the companies skewered in Occupy Vancouver promotional material are Royal Bank, TD Bank and ScotiaBank.  But through their pension plan, BCGEU’s members own more than $439.7 million worth of equity in those three banks alone. 

“The union foxes are hiding in the Occupy Vancouver hen house,” said Bateman. “Unions like the BCGEU invest in some of the largest corporations in the world—the very companies Occupy Vancouver so passionately disparages.”

If you ask me, these people should not be protesting corporate greed, but rather public union and government greed.  Those are the real forces behind economic inequality.

Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

How to Create Jobs

Instead of attacking corporations in an attempt to get them to create jobs (as some union thugs have apparently suggested), which won't work, a better idea would be to minimize the impact of regulations and cut spending (to reduce uncertainty and the debt).  

Watching the US economy is like watching a slowly dying animal that is in agony.  The humane thing to do, in that case, would be to kill the animal to put it out of its misery.  Similarly, people in the US are suffering because of the economy.  For these people, the humane thing to do would be to get the recession over with so economic expansion can resume (and preferably not a "bubble" (i.e. artificial economic expansion)).  

When Obama gives his speech on the subject (which is on the 8th, I think), I am guessing his plan will not involve any of what I have said above. 

After I study economics a bit, I will write a post with a detailed plan for the US economic situation (I promise, I think).   

Does Obama Know What Fair Means?

President Obama has frequently demanded "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share."  However, I do not believe Obama knows the definition of the word "fair."  According to the Free Dictionary, "fair" means:

a. Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial: a fair mediator.

b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions.

So, if Obama really wanted "the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share," he would propose a flat income tax or a sales-based tax.  Also, taxes aren't really fair in the first place.  Essentially, when the government collects taxes, it is stealing the hard-earned money of hard-working people.  Isn't that also kind of what labour unions do?