Sears Canada Steals Pensions

Several decades of theft from the laborer’s deferred income by way of unrealized pensions, benefits that corporations, owners and employers probably wanted to avoid paying or ignore altogether. Of course, after first paying themselves, the owners and upper management, these same conservative businessmen turned to the U.S. Gov’t for “liberal” bailout via the PBGC, pension benefit guaranty corporation in 1984. Of course the PGBC managed the bailout primarily for benefit of those corporations and only marginally benefiting the individual pensioner no matter the fine print of the legislation. The communities of western Pennsylvania and the Rust Belt most affected by this rapacious behavior never recovered economically, but still managed to produced one noteworthy accomplishment, the current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, again and befittingly no friend of organized labor or its pensions and other worker’s rights.

IIRC, there’s been a lot of this already in the U.S. The pension benefits are negotiated in lieu of wage increases, typically, and then later the pensions are underfunded and not available, and the bankruptcy courts facilitate the whole stinking process.

Glad to see you edging closer to the obvious idea that maybe violent reaction should be expected in reaction to such heartless thievery.

Or, maybe we can avoid the need for such ungentleness if we all don our Pussy Hats at once and hold our breaths until we turn blue.

It’s worth a try, amirite?

Shouldn’t it be clear by now that remuneration for your services should be immediate? Never accept deferred benefits as remuneration. This is the reason why.

Considering what lays ahead, considering that things are getting worse by the day, people are fools to accept deferred benefits as compensation. At least 50& of the corporations that currently exist will not exist in 20 years and many of them will go bankrupt and renege on their deferred compensation plans while paying out the liquidation of the defunct corporations to The Rich.

What good is a DJIA above 25,000 if, upon cashing it in, the best thing you can purchase is the thrashing of a slave? The DJIA is an indicator of the success of the concentration of wealth. The higher it goes, the greater the wealth disparity.

These days most companies don’t even offer a defined benefit pension. Pretty much nobody does save the government.

Most companies only offer RRSP (that’s our equal to 401k for Americans) matching, and even then only a paltry percentage.

There need to be laws in regards to pensions. That and the big problem is that the fundamental orientation of society is towards making rich people richer, and the rest of us mere peasants poorer. That’s the problem.

As one commentator above notes, the only solution may be fear. Fear that there will be a revolution. At the very least, we need a political revolution like that which Bernie Sanders was proposing.

“Mistrust those in whom the impulse to punish is strong.”
–Nietzsche

“The first guy who suggests violence is always the undercover cop.”
–bitterly learned wisdom of the radicals of the Vietnam War period.

One way too prevent this is to require pension funds to be fully funded. You also have to frequently audit them to ensure that comply. If they aren’t then there should be severe penalties. This should include jail time for those responsible. if these people knew they could end up in jail they would change their behavior. Presently there is no penalty for the guilty people.

I believe that if enough women in Pussy Hats and men with Dick Hats take to the streets in PROTEST, they can make this happen.

Times like these, I’m reminded that an Olive Branch is the symbol for Victory, not peace.

@Tal Hartsfeld:
While I agree with your sentiments in regard to 20% of law being practical, I think your figures are off. I’d say with minor variations to them over the years 75% of the law has practical purpose. Paging through a shelf of State Statutes can change the way one looks at the world. Just black letter law includes: Criminal, Torts, Contracts, Real Property, UCC, Probate, Criminal, Family, Constitutional, and Business.

The problem isn’t the Article III courts and laws as commonly understood by the public, per se. Although the Article III courts do have their issues. The problem is the Article I tribunals. Those set up by congress … not the constitution. 90% of those laws, rules, and regulations are written of, by, and for the bezzle class. Think arbitration. Think SEC dispute resolution. Think U.S. Forest Service Administrative appeals process. Think NAFTA & TPP.

@Webstir

Adam Curtis’ Century of the Self is about the creation of desire as a means of social manipulation. I recommend it every time I get the chance.

@ Ivory Bill Pecker

You say, for the zillionth time, it seems:

“The first guy who suggests violence is always the undercover cop.”
–bitterly learned wisdom of the radicals of the Vietnam War period.

Although I have learned to despise your general level of obtuseness, I really must congratulate you this time, because you have shared the very important discovery that our host must be working with feds to take us all down, when he says, quote:

” . . .but every once in a while, such offenses end in guillotines or bullets.”

All hail The Pecker, once again saving us from thinking. With friends like you, Pecker, who needs enemas?

Ian:
So, Empty Suit Trudeau and the Liberal Party will do nothing about this? How are his approval ratings? I hear the BC government might collapse already because the BC NDP is a bunch of cowardly idiots.

@ IBP

God, you are so dense.

What I argue AGAINST is dogmatic passivity forever in the face of relentlessly unending and obvious abuse.

Exactly what the best response is, I am not grandiose enough to prescribe for anyone. I don’t know the correct response myself, but I definitely think it is worth thinking and talking about it. If we are still free people at all.

I do know that I was able to openly study and discuss the issues involved in a course called Protest and Revolution at New York University in 1973. So I am appalled to see the loss of freedom evidenced by the current terror at even discussing such matters in a hypothetical and scholarly way.

You have made it clear that whatever they tell you to submit to, you will submit to. So, that’s your choice. I don’t have much respect for it. Sorry.

You represent a level of timidity that I can only feel contempt for. But you are not alone. Ten years back, I was getting excoriated by many at Firedoglake for simply urging people, without more, to read the Declaration of Independence, our supposedly sacred document. And FDL was supposed to be the cutting edge blog at the time.

The Masters just love guys like you, and depend on them.

Final note, IBP: You need to calmly consider the linguistic significance of the words “sadly” and “but” when used consecutively in a sentence.

Doesn’t your supply of piffle ever run low?

Your wife might be impressed with you, but you seem incredibly foolish and shallow to me.

How you gonna know you’ll win the fight, before you even have an intelligent discussion about it with your hoped-for comrades?

Fucking hopeless.

I’ve said this before.

One of the closest recent history analogs we have to a successful revolution against concentrated power, happened in Iran in the late 70’s. Most of the revolutionary energy came from the freedom movements (you know, democracy, rule of law, what most human beings anywhere are said to want…). But that part of the revolution was co-opted by the minority religious movements which gained then consolidated its power. I know people from the former who had to get the hell out of there after that happened.

That’s just one example of what can go wrong in a fight for “democracy, rule of law, what most human beings anywhere are said to want…”

Of course, in the magical world of realitychecker, American freedom fighters would never need to strategize against any possible machinations from minority allies seeking their own power, because “we’re different from them, idiot”.

And then the conversation devolves into penises. Personally, I believe rc says little of anything because he has little of anything to say. Sixteen years of studying revolution down the drain.

My nature has never been to be “doing nothing”. That’s black and white thinking. I always carefully plan moves in advance for anything where there’s risk. And that goes double where concentrated power is involved.

You’ve had sixteen years, on top of a JD and many psychology classes. So where’s the wisdom? Shouldn’t you be dazzling us by now?

Well, let’s see, Willy, if I urge folks to think of and discuss possible ways to undo the things they constantly complain about, and they decide they are afraid to talk about it, that’s on me, in your world? That’s ridiculous.

I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I was hoping that somebody, anybody, would have the wisdom to facilitate such a discussion, to keep it moving forward regardless of who participated. With enough apparent interest in that direction, Ian might be inspired to post more about it.

We used to call it “raising consciousness. ” You can’t get anyone to do anything until you get them to clarify and focus their thinking. You can’t actually force the thinking, as nothing makes more evident than you. And your generation is a hell of a lot more unconscious than the generation before technology was unleashed to make everyone passive, cowardly, and extra-stupid.

You get that focus by getting people to be angry about their stolen futures, not by continuously accusing them of things they don’t think they’re doing.

You have the laziest mind around, Willy, you won’t do anything for yourself, always demanding complete explanations and to know where the book ends, but you won’t even read the first chapter. Ever read that Public Enemies book by Jess Money that I told you about, so you could get some ideas about what might be possible. NO, you didn’t, not in two years.

Six months, actually (I have the receipt). Are you sure you’re not confusing a “laziest mind” with No Time? I run a business, maintain my own vehicles, do my own plumbing, maintain myself physically… since I don’t trust the so-called specialists I used to pay to do those things, anymore. Sterling is right – capitalism is broken. But Ian is also right – one can still survive as a self-reliant but I find it takes a lot more personal time to do so.

But what you never fail to do is grab your penis and type out some obnoxious remark aimed at me any time you see my name on a comment here. Fine, a man’s got to know his limitations, and I guess that is yours.

There are many ways to influence a discussion outside of “reward and punishment”.

You keep insisting you won’t leave your infantile safe space until you have a GUARANTEE of success. And you cite Sun Tzu. You are a foolish child. Nothing that is difficult and complex can ever be accomplished without taking some risk. And more adjustments might be needed down the road, because life is a dynamic, ever changing process.

Please don’t assume so much. Nobody is all black or all white. I’ve never used that word, “GUARANTEE” (outside of the product vendors I used to trust). I’ve only ever looked to increase the odds of success whenever anything’s appeared risky. And revolting against powerful elites for the sole purpose of taking their power and elite-ness away, is probably the most risky venture of all. I sure hope the Jess Money book has ideas about that. If it yields insights into practical self-defense ideas for the stressed average Joe, so much the better.

Yeah, don’t bother.

“If I was you . . .”

You are always a voice supporting continued lazy ignorance.

You are the opposite of me.

Six months, not “couple of years”. I have the receipt. The book will eventually be for show, for friends to borrow.

I have never mocked the idea, only wanted to expand on it.
What I mock is you, because you cannot expand on ideas.

You are right. You’ll need to find somebody else with more time. I suggest Peter. If you can turn him away from protecting the elites, you may well be able to turn practically anybody.

@rc, you never develop this hobby horse of yours beyond the generality that Americans should consider violence to remedy their out-of-control government. What do you have in mind, exactly? There has been no shortage of violence directed against USG in the past decades, and what has it accomplished? Those who seek out violence tend to discredit their own cause, unless they have the weight of law enforcement and propaganda behind them (ie, unless they are just a tool of the current ruling class).

You are a boomer – maybe you have the typical boomer views about politics, living perpetually in 60s where (you imagine) the masses spontaneously erupted and forced the government to remedy injustice.

Rc doesn’t strike me as having stereotypical boomer traits, but how else do you explain his fixation? And look around – shitlibs are already uncomfortably comfortable with violence. Punch a Nazi, Steve Scalise, right wingers deserve to be shot because of the NRA, … But they are using violence to defend the existing order, are they not? Jeff Bezos and Nancy Pelosi all agree that wrong speech is violence, and punching a Nazi (defined as anyone to the right of Mao) is just self defense.

Have you ever posted starter-posts for the purpose of encouraging the discussion “of foundational work, like, what does freedom mean, do you need it, what is the status of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence, and a whole lot more”?

You have? With few takers? Should we then not be discussing how to improve our skills at inspiring such discussions?

@ Blizzard

First, I did not mean to include you in my prior comment as much as it looks like I did lol–I would not really characterize you as being of the left. 🙂

Now, for a teaching/learning moment. Note how Willy, for the millionth time, acts like he thinks I am a professor at a university that he has paid big bucks to in order to purchase an education.

But aside from asking deliberately obnoxious rhetorical questions, he doesn’t want to put any personal effort into anything. He thinks I OWE him his education.

But his attitude is really no worse than the overall feedback I’ve gotten—I mean, seriously, how many times do I have to type “Read the Declaration of Independence,” over a decade plus, at FDL and here, with no response or results, before I am allowed to retreat into disgust and allow other life priorities to claim my energies?

According to Willy and so many others, it’s not worth talking, reading, or thinking about.

Self-actualization did not used to be such a hard sell. (sigh)

revise ” DoC” to “Declaration of Independence”

@ BOO

Well, it certainly wasn’t a legal document, there could be none that went against the King.

@Ozzz

You asked some good questions about the meaning of violent resistance, freedom amd liberty but so far RC hasn’t addressed them. Violent resistance would probably be viewed by most people as offensive terror from some kind of Pinko vanguard bent on taking power and installing who knows who as replacement rulers.

James Burnham seemed to have the same questions, as I do, about how to deal fairly with people who are willing to trade our liberty for their tyranny to advance their liberalism.

RC- I disagree about the constitution. It’s not about how youre not allowed to have a revolution but rather about an attempt (and I believe it was understood as only an attempt to create a more perfect union not the perfect union) to create a mechanism under which revolutions might not be necessary particularly if the aspirational Bill of Rights is respected.

@RC

I’m enjoying watching the liberal/leftist/snowflake status quo being disrupted almost every week by the Trump administration and celebrate anytime anyone is prosecuted for real crimes no matter their politics or position. If you could outline some non marxist/NWO ideas for a new system I might listen. All I see today is America hating marxists with death wishes for anyone who disagrees with them along with much of the world population.

You’ve been pushing this violence theme for years so you can’t slip to the back now and lead from behind when we need to know who gets the first bullet to the brain-pan.

@rc

The Declaration tells us when revolution is reasonable, the Constitution doe not recommend it in any way.

There’s a passage in Hume where he writes about how revolution, though sometimes justified and necessary, should not be made explicit as an option, as doing so would only seem to encourage or normalize it. The circumstances should be truly exceptional to justify such an extreme remedy.

So I assume that today, instead of “independence”, we would be talking about secession. I wonder what the list of grievances would be, and how they would stack up to those in the Declaration.

@ BOO

Peter is dedicated to supporting the corporate status quo no matter what, their shit don’t stink, and so he must be relegated to the Undecided camp, at best lol.

Willy is not worth engaging because he is not honest–after repeatedly declaring here his dedication to disrupting the conversation and being only about “feces-throwing” when responding to me, he now pretends he was just a humble and earnest seeker of wisdom from an older and wiser mentor9 (i.e., me). Doesn’t pass the smell test. 🙂

The Declaration was an attempt to find a justification for revolution outside the legal system. It appealed for its authority to God and to natural law. Because you could not legally go against the King in a monarchy. So they appealed to the Creator and nature, in lieu of a legal argument, and posed those as higher authority than the King. That rhetorical rationalization carried the day back then, but would it still?

Will we still accept the supposed intent of the Creator, or the perceived laws and norms of Nature, as sufficient authority to break the laws that preserve our status quo?

Studies have shown pretty clearly that our ‘representatives’ do not vote as we want them to (there was a major one at Northwestern a few years back; it showed zero correlation, iirc).

Would we still accept the Declaration’s position that when consent of the governed is shown to not apply or be honored anymore, then armed resistance is justified and required? If so, where should the red line be? Have we reached/passed it yet?

This is a very basic question that deserves much consideration and discussion. I’d like to see a whole bunch of other folks weigh in on this before moving on to other aspects of the discussion. I don’t see the point of having this discussion just between us, Blizz; it a useless exercise unless many show interest in participating in it. IN GOOD FAITH.

Frankly, I thought more of the population’s SQ (Spunk Quotient lol) when I started agitating for having this conversation as soon as I saw that Obama was going to be just another betrayer, ten years ago. I’ve seen enough now to understand how unlikely it is that there still exists enough spine on the left to ever have the bulk of lefties support any kind of a fight. Safe spaces are probably viewed as preferable./s

But, let’s see who bothers to weigh in on this basic issue first, before we move on to more complex, but less basic, issues. We may not/likely won’t ever get to where violent action needs to even be considered. Let’s see how many consider wearing a Pussy Hat to be the absolute limit of as far as they will ever go to ‘resist.’

@ hvd

It’s always tricky to try and read too much into a group exercise, but I think the general thrust of the essential concepts goes something like this:

The Declaration shows how to make an argument for disregarding the law of the status quo.

The Constitution was written from the viewpoint of a newly-empowered status quo, whose primary concern was not to have another revolution.

But nobody ever said “forget about the Declaration, that was just some opportunistic bullshit we put out there to rally support.” So, can we still assume the validity of those arguments contained in it?

We have preserved and revered both documents as seminal to the American whatever-we-are, so I think we must acknowledge and deal with the obvious conflict between the two visions. In the process, we need to identify and justify our own preferences, and try to find what our current balance should be on those two conflicting visions.

It all depends on our view of the ongoing consent of the governed, IMO. Does breach of that implied contract still justify armed resistance? If so, at what point?

@ Peter

I don’t know why you are trying so hard, when our disagreement is simple–I believe in punishing cheaters within capitalism, and you don’t.

@Oz

Depression is the goal of the postmodern/post-truth agenda and that’s why any good news causes the snowflakes to foam at the mouth, hiss and spit.

The globalists are still powerful and determined to drive people with fear and confusion into their Modor like world government but real resistance is growing and it’s being led by POTUS gives it the power to continue.

@RC

I think you are overdoing the diversionary BS about what I think and now you have Willy aiding you.

Try as you may you can’t escape the questions that were asked, you either try to answer them or retreat to some mute denial position.

Willy, what do you mean by corruption specifically? Please don’t tell me it’s something retarded like ambassadors staying in DRUMPF’s hotels?

BOO, I don’t sweat the small stuff. I’m talking about most of our citizen-elected government representatives ignoring their concerns to work on behalf of the donor class. The Joe Manchin – Heather Bresch connection is a good example. There was a post here about how highest paid CEOs are the worst performers. Stirling Newberry once proclaimed in this place that capitalism doesn’t even function anymore. In my personal meatspace this isn’t theoretical gibberish, but stuff I have to deal with every day. I see a once thriving mostly honest competitive capitalistic system falling apart.

Edit: done with this effort

I’m on record right here saying that any system, regardless of intended prudence, if it’s not being prudently maintained, will eventually come to serve only a few, because that’s all those noted few are any good at – undermining any system for their own personal gain. That’s why most empires fall. But apparently this thinking is far too radical for this place.