Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s hard to respond to such utter cynicism, certainly, it’s a reminder of the need for partyism, and formal (and open, democratic and transparent) control mechanisms, policies and platforms. But it’s hard to work against a foe that consciously lies, and lies not caring about being caught lying. Further, for lying, no formal organisation is needed, and stochastic terror works.
Biden’s tax returns are fascinating. e.g.
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/OGE-Form-278e-signed.pdfClearly, he is a wealthy man. Now, as a senator for about 40 years, he earned about $4 million in salary alone, which (as apparently he likes to get involved in real estate) means he could be worth a rough minimum of $20 million in assets.
His 2020 income includes a salary of $130 thousand odd as professor at Pennsylvania uni (he is known not to be academically gifted, this job is apparently professor of being vice-president studies). He earns about as much for speaking gigs (and seems to run some of his speeches and book income through a company he lists himself as president of).
In other words, he is wealthy, but he is not in business: his wealth is derived from a lifetime of serving as a politician. The colossal speaking fees seem to m to be a grift of a political establishment securing loyalty, likewise the convenient university chair. They could be a way to funnel corrupt payments, but some people might genuinely be willing to pay $180K for a speaker(?!?)
(He has half a million at least in cash in one bank account).
Yes, he lives in Delaware, which is a tax evasion paradise (apparently hence why some of his income runs through a corporate vehicle).
As far as I can see, unless he really is hiding a supreme amount of wealth off-shore, and risking imprisonment for lying on his tax forms, he really is jut a live long politician living on the gravy train.
Alan, I can’t see a name on that article, but it reads horribly like the sort of thing I would write…
I’m always wary of joining in these sorts of campaigns: the right can enjoy them just as much, after all, in a fascist dictatorship, there are o corrupt MPs.
Lets remember, payment of MPs was a chartist demand, and MPs do need to earn enough to be independent.
Lets not forget, that free school meals is a means tested benefit: why not free food for all children? Let’s not get played by Labour’s “The Poor are always with us” schtick.
To borrow BD’s scenario, a little, let’s imagine an Orgreave style situation, but where it’s clear that police are targeting (or at least are more violent towards) black strikers. Structurally, non-black strikers benefit from being less beaten. Absolutely, it’s not their fault, but pointing out it’s not their fault isn’t the solution: solidarity and steps to protect black colleagues is.
And not just because it divides the workers, but the hidden premise of the existence of the wages system: no one talks about discrimination against black capitalists nor women billionaires: they may face hostility, discrimination from being allowed to join certain clubs or exclusion from certain levers of power, etc.
To the extent that these discussions highlight that equal doesn’t mean ‘the same’ and trend towards the idea of solidarity and ‘to each according to their need’, they ae useful, and we should be putting that message out.
“As someone who lost a father, a grandfather and two great grandfathers to industrial deaths, I find the idea of white privilege as a bit of a joke, was being white any privilege at the battle of Orgreave, or when the police turned whole swaiths of the North East into a police state during the big strike?”
This is the whole point: the miners were oppressed because of their class, not because of their “race” or any constructed position in a racial hierarchy.
Very effectively explained here:
What is white privilege?
We asked @JohnAmaechi, psychologist, best-selling author and former NBA basketball player to explain it for us.
👉 https://t.co/t7LIENTnPn pic.twitter.com/mQrYX6Y0N1
— BBC Bitesize (@bbcbitesize) August 5, 2020
According to this ‘White privilege’ is simply the absence of impediment on grounds of race.
Given we want a society where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all, I’d have said this was our bread and butter.
A spot of direct action in New York:
Wow so this morning the Brooklyn Housing Court woke up to its doors spray foamed and bike locked shut, and then this document was released in a telegram room. It looks like people are not tolerating evictions any more. pic.twitter.com/PdKJsQwinF
— Read Let This Radicalize You (@JoshuaPHilll) October 16, 2020
I think there is mileage in looking at who is weaponising Islam and why: the money spent on propaganda, and finding suitable agents (I listened to a fascinating audio doc on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the way in which young radicalised kids were being used, they’re very good at finding vulnerable kids).
And, of course, those in France who weaponise Islam to sow division and otherise Muslims.
Well, if this is to be believed:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct14.html#item-4
Big business will give the Dems a huge war chest to take enough states to make the compact real.
It doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college.
An interstate compact can do the job.
Currently,
“The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). As of July 2020, it has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions possessing 196 electoral votes, including 4 small states (DE, HI, RI, VT), 8 medium-sized states (CO, CT, MD, MA, NJ, NM, OR, WA), 3 big states (CA, IL, NY), and the District of Columbia.
The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 74 electoral votes.”
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
If Trump wins, it’s likely he’ll have lost the Senate, which will mean some of the tricks he’s used up till now won’t work (they’ll start demanding he fills the vacant posts).
Rodshaw: Mattick saved me some typing:
Instead the central banks—in the case of the US, the Federal Reserve—simply expanded their liabilities (“printed money”<sup>8</sup>) to buy bonds, both Treasuries and private debt, such as mortgage-backed bonds, from private financial institutions. This at once injected money into the financial system and raised bond prices, which by lowering bond yields pushed investors towards the stock market. Basically, none of this costs business anything, while the rise in stock prices disproportionately benefits the small super-wealthy minority who disproportionately own stocks, so there is no motivation to raise prices—especially under the deflationary conditions of a global business slowdown—producing an inflation-free expansion.<sup>9</sup>
(9. This is not quite correct, since the prices of assets traded within the financial system, such as stocks, real estate, and art are wildly inflated.)
There is inflation, in stock and bond values, and a complete dislocation between stock market prices and reality.
