本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-10-25 11:46 AM 編輯 " E6 |+ [$ Q" W* k' m0 d
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。/ m/ j. m( c' e4 ?% @6 m
Paul Krugman: Plutocrats Against Democracy
9 R) R) W- L! ]0 J1 L& v
/ _; K+ ], c/ J% m6 OTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。It’s always good when leaders tell the truth, especially if that wasn’t their intention. So we should be grateful to Leung Chun-ying, the Beijing-backed leader of Hong Kong, for blurting out the real reason pro-democracy demonstrators can’t get what they want: With open voting, “You would be talking to half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than $1,800 a month. Then you would end up with that kind of politics and policies” — policies, presumably, that would make the richless rich and provide more aid to those with lower incomes.5.39.217.76: n# W% E" l. V% J
! L- E) ?$ F" _5.39.217.76So Mr. Leung is worried about the 50 percent of Hong Kong’s population that, he believes,would vote for bad policies because they don’t make enough money. This may sound like the 47 percent of Americans who Mitt Romney said would vote against him because they don’t pay income taxes and, therefore, don’t take responsibility for themselves, or the 60 percent that Representative Paul Ryan argued pose a danger because they are “takers,” getting more from the government than they pay in. Indeed, these are all basically the same thing.
. j* ^4 ?2 [% X7 C+ E2 r* [4 c( {: c+ K. F
For the political right has always been uncomfortable with democracy. No matter how well conservatives do in elections, no matter how thoroughly free-market ideology dominates discourse, there is always an undercurrent of fear that the great unwashed will vote in left-wingers who will tax the rich, hand out largess to the poor, and destroy the economy.! L, \7 e/ h* @. ~6 A$ d
. j7 T2 z0 ~" P8 [& A' uIn fact, the very success of the conservative agenda only intensifies this fear. Many on the right — and I’m not just talking about people listening to Rush Limbaugh; I’m talking about members of the political elite — live, at least part of the time,in an alternative universe in which America has spent the past few decades marching rapidly down the road to serfdom. Never mind the new Gilded Age that tax cuts and financial deregulation have created; they’re reading books with titles like “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic,” asserting that the big problem we have is runaway redistribution.公仔箱論壇% G( [6 @2 z6 b8 q q) A
. ^* v* |3 U3 D) @
This is a fantasy. Still, is there anything to fears that economic populism will lead to economic disaster? Not really. Lower-income voters are much more supportive than the wealthy toward policies that benefit people like them, and they generally support higher taxes at the top. But if you worry that low-income voters will run wild, that they’ll greedily grab everything and tax job creators into oblivion, history says that you’re wrong. All advanced nations have had substantial welfare states since the 1940s — welfare states that,inevitably, have stronger support among their poorer citizens. But you don’t,in fact, see countries descending into tax-and-spend death spirals — and no,that’s not what ails Europe.
7 n% a5 t/ |' B* H) g# z; V
, k/ s, b, C8 F# T5.39.217.76Still, while the “kind of politics and policies” that responds to the bottom half of the income distribution won’t destroy the economy, it does tend to crimp the incomes and wealth of the 1 percent, at least a bit; the top 0.1 percent is paying quite a lot more in taxes right now than it would have if Mr. Romney had won.So what’s a plutocrat to do?
3 N; G( D( V F% g% [$ W: F2 r9 ftvb now,tvbnow,bttvb% a, H" O5 u, j: R
One answer is propaganda: tell voters, often and loudly, that taxing the rich and helping the poor will cause economic disaster, while cutting taxes on “job creators”will create prosperity for all. There’s a reason conservative faith in the magic of tax cuts persists no matter how many times such prophecies fail (as is happening right now in Kansas): There’s a lavishly funded industry of think tanks and media organizations dedicated to promoting and preserving that faith.
* p8 X" [& l& K
# s" p+ z8 \4 J4 ~0 O5.39.217.76Another answer, with a long tradition in the United States, is to make the most of racial and ethnic divisions — government aid just goes to Those People, don’t you know. And besides, liberals are snooty elitists who hate America.
- v5 H( A( `; W y0 ~4 Q9 K7 }, K: R' ITVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。+ @! W4 M) m, R" ?
A third answer is to make sure government programs fail, or never come into existence,so that voters never learn that things could be different.
- `% _9 R. |' V% Q x( |6 A7 stvb now,tvbnow,bttvb
3 n# I+ z3 m; }/ `/ d公仔箱論壇But these strategies for protecting plutocrats from the mob are indirect and imperfect.The obvious answer is Mr. Leung’s: Don’t let the bottom half, or maybe even the bottom 90 percent, vote.
* R. A( |' G9 P" gTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。5.39.217.76' ?" c) v; ~' p; z! g5 ^
And now you understand why there’s so much furor on the right over the alleged but actually almost nonexistent problem of voter fraud, and so much support for voter ID laws that make it hard for the poor and even the working class to cast ballots.American politicians don’t dare say outright that only the wealthy should have political rights — at least not yet. But if you follow the currents of thought now prevalent on the political right to their logical conclusion, that’s where you end up.
% R9 b$ K. d3 J# u! Q' k
5 Q c o8 q. r: m- w: @+ G4 W5.39.217.76The truth is that a lot of what’s going on in American politics is, at root, a fight between democracy and plutocracy. And it’s by no means clear which side will win.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb7 i4 ^! `. z1 [( z$ h1 E0 V" C0 i
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 z/ l1 u) {. H* n9 p
( i; T# T# c8 j; c$ B. u- ~/ R0 Z死撐CY收巨款完全無問題
{8 U& u2 ~2 K: |/ [" r0 ~
l4 x7 I c' j2 N: a' V* n& l: c6 C1 ` % M# g [, O: a2 f
公仔箱論壇# Q9 }; o* a6 d, z @7 f7 f2 T
【本報訊】有份將梁振英推上特首之位的董建華，昨日至少四次被問到梁振英不下台、香港將難以管治時，繼續發言死撐梁留任，又指梁收取UGL秘密巨款無交稅，他曾親身了解事件，認為梁振英在事件中的道德和操守「完全無問題」。資深大律師、公民黨議員湯家驊亦指，任何一個律師都不會認為UGL事件無問題，認為法律問題應以法律方式解決，質疑董建華盲目支持梁振英，而忽略梁振英的誠信問題。
* k& L; r; z% `$ R4 N: K公仔箱論壇
3 y' N0 r$ t5 [0 ~! Z$ d5 j4 U% H9 u5.39.217.76雖然昨日董建華死撐梁振英收取UGL巨款「無問題」，更向記者挑戰：「你哋可以一路再講落去，但係你哋會失望，搵唔到新嘢」。但有消息指，澳洲當局明年將會就事件立案調查，令梁振英今次巨款醜聞進入法律程序。5.39.217.76" v* l5 V- E; Y4 s4 E1 f U
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。( L+ ?0 w4 M$ Q- g8 X
董建華昨日至少四次被問到梁振英為何仍未下台的問題時，又多次為梁「講好話」，指不覺得梁振英現時應該下台。問到梁振英能否做畢五年任期時，更直指「梗係啦」。但談到是否支持梁振英競逐連任時，董則拒絕表態，指不知梁振英屆時會否參選，「2017年以後的嘢，我唔講」。公仔箱論壇/ i8 p! }' c7 }! S4 S# R/ y: h
公仔箱論壇7 O- \' \9 \0 a1 I3 F
指梁24小時都工作
& ~5 _9 T. C/ Otvb now,tvbnow,bttvb
O( r) O: L: FTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。 董建華又將上屆特首曾蔭權應付2008年金融風暴的功勞，歸功於2012年才出任特首的梁振英，指香港從金融風暴快速恢復經濟，「梁特首梗係有個好大的參與喺裏面」。董建華又指，不滿學生將梁振英政府「講到一無是處」，要求梁「講句公道話」，指「佢（梁振英）其實廿四小時都喺度工作的」，強調梁獲中央高度信任。公仔箱論壇6 K; d- w: r/ [4 [- U
2 I) a+ e8 ^; S4 D- N
工黨李卓人則指，不認同董建華指梁振英毋須下台的說法，「董生應該諗返當年佢下台，的確係舒緩咗當年的情況，董生現時咁講，其實好違反佢自己的親身經歷」。 c, ]6 a9 y. w! M2 |: t& m
7 K9 U% t7 D. q9 Q! E+ \5.39.217.76 |
發表於 2014-10-25 11:40 AM
| 
