The protest movement that began in Tunisia in January last year, subsequently spreading to Egypt and then to Spain, has now become global, with the protests engulfing Wall Street and cities across the US. Globalization and modern technology now enables social movements to transcend borders as rapidly as ideas can.
And social protest has found fertile ground everywhere: A sense that the “system” has failed and the conviction that even in a democracy, the electoral process will not set things right — at least not without strong pressure from the street.
In May, I went to the site of the Tunisian protests; in July, I talked to Spain’s Indignados; from there, I went to meet the young Egyptian revolutionaries in Cairo’s Tahrir Square; and, a few weeks ago, I talked with Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York. There is a common theme, expressed by the Occupy Wall Street movement in a simple phrase: “We are the 99%.”
That slogan echoes the title of an article that I recently published, entitled “Of the 1%, for the 1%, and by the 1%,” describing the enormous increase in inequality in the US: 1 percent of the population controls more than 40 percent of the wealth and receives more than 20 percent of the income. And those in this rarefied stratum are often rewarded so richly not because they have contributed more to society — bonuses and bailouts neatly gutted that justification for inequality — but because they are, to put it bluntly, successful (and sometimes corrupt) rent-seekers.
This is not to deny that some of the 1 percent have contributed a great deal. Indeed, the social benefits of many real innovations (as opposed to the novel financial “products” that ended up unleashing havoc on the world economy) typically far exceed what their innovators receive.
However, around the world, political influence and anti-competitive practices (often sustained through politics) have been central to the increase in economic inequality. And tax systems in which a billionaire such as Warren Buffett pays less tax (as a percentage of his income) than his secretary or in which speculators, who helped to bring down the global economy, are taxed at lower rates than those who work for their income, have reinforced the trend.
Research in recent years has shown how important and ingrained notions of fairness are. Spain’s protesters and those in other countries are right to be indignant: Here is a system in which the bankers got bailed out, while those whom they preyed upon have been left to fend for themselves. Worse, the bankers are now back at their desks, earning bonuses that amount to more than most workers hope to earn in a lifetime, while young people who studied hard and played by the rules see no prospects for fulfilling employment.
The rise in inequality is the product of a vicious spiral: The rich rent-seekers use their wealth to shape legislation in order to protect and increase their wealth — and their influence. The US Supreme Court, in its notorious Citizens United decision, has given corporations free rein to use their money to influence the direction of politics. However, while the wealthy can use their money to amplify their views, back on the street, police would not allow me to address the Occupy Wall Street protesters through a megaphone.
The contrast between over-regulated democracy and unregulated bankers did not go unnoticed. However, the protesters are ingenious: They echoed what I said through the crowd so that all could hear. And, to avoid interrupting the “dialogue” by clapping, they used forceful hand signals to express their agreement.
They are right that something is wrong about the “system.” Around the world, there are underutilized resources — people who want to work, machines that lie idle, buildings that are empty — and huge unmet needs: fighting poverty, promoting development and retrofitting the economy for global warming, to name just a few. In US, after more than 7 million home foreclosures in recent years, there are empty homes and homeless people.
The protesters have been criticized for not having an agenda. However, this misses the point of protest movements. They are an expression of frustration with the electoral process. They are an alarm.
The anti-globalization protests in Seattle in 1999, at what was supposed to be the inauguration of a new round of trade talks, called attention to the failures of globalization and the international institutions and agreements that govern it. When the press looked into the protesters’ allegations, they found that there was more than a grain of truth in them.
The trade negotiations that followed were — at least in principle, they were supposed to be a development round, to make up for some of the deficiencies highlighted by protesters — and the IMF subsequently undertook significant reforms.
So, too, in the US, the civil-rights protesters of the 1960 called attention to pervasive institutionalized racism in US society. That legacy has not yet been overcome, but the election of US President Barack Obama shows how far those protests moved the US.
On one level, today’s protesters are asking for little: a chance to use their skills, the right to decent work at decent pay, a fairer economy and society. Their hope is evolutionary, not revolutionary. However, on another level, they are asking for a great deal: A democracy where people, not money, matter, and a market economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do.
The two are related: As we have seen, unfettered markets lead to economic and political crises. Markets work the way they should only when they operate within a framework of appropriate government regulations and that framework can be erected only in a democracy that reflects the general interest — not the interests of the 1 percent. The best government that money can buy is no longer good enough.
Joseph Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
RSS