Tan: I agree (and to paraphrase what I read with respect to the ever-growing Occupy Wall Street and its offshoots): Hit Bankers (and all on their side) Where It Hurts. In an increasingly callous world dominated by people who put profit over people, the way to drive our point (and demands) across is to talk in the only language they urderstand, to hit them where it hurts them the most – that should make them take notice and take us seriously. These people (the 1%) know only one thing – money. So, in order to make them take us seriously, we have to “threaten” them with money – i.e., to take our money to someone who will listen and take us seriously.
In the case of commercial business, for as long as they know we will keep on “giving” them our hard-earned money regardless of what they do, they will never take us (the 99%) seriously. As for the financial business (like banks), we can put up “rival” banks – in the USA, they refer to them as community banks, where the depositors are considered “co-owners” (i.e., friends, neighbors, and the like) – may also be cooperative banks and credit unions. It is, precisely, because the public has “no choice” (no other source of capital) that we go to banks and conventional financial and lending institutions that the latter have become so influential, so arrogant, so powerful. Take that “no other source of capital” aspect away from them and let us see just how smug they can be; put up rival institutions that truly serve the interest of the 99% and let us see just how arrogant they can be. [But, we have to be reminded that these conventional sources of funds are devious and crafty enough that they will surely resort to manipulating legislation in order to ensure they have a monopoly. I have no doubt about that.]
TaN: I agree with a recent information from an Internet video regarding a supposed practice in certain parts of China: that a physician receives regular payments from patients until they get sick, then payments stop until the physician is able to restore the patient back to health. I have heard that there is a similar scheme being advanced in the United Kingdom, where (from now on, I will refer to them as) physicians (unless they also teach their patients) are not paid unless and until a patient is brought back to health – this means that when someone goes to the physician, the patient withholds any and all payments til such time that the patient is well again. Furthermore, the UK government will be requiring that there be annual feedbacks from physicians – through surveys and questionnaires – and those who do not receive favorable evaluations will not have their license renewed. Hear! Hear!
It is but right, that one gets paid only for successful and satisfied service. When we go to have our broken time pieces repaired, we do not pay unless and until the time piece comes back to us in working order, right? When we bring our cars to the auto shop for repairs, we do not pay unless and until the mechanic is able to make the car running again, right? When we have our malfunctioning personal computers to the shop for repairs, we do not pay unless and until we get it back in operating condition, right? So, what makes physicians different? The only ones I know that we expect no change in the condition of whatever we bring in are the funeral parlors and mortuaries, the cemeteries, and the junk shops and recycling centers. What gives physicians the right to receive payment not only when the patient is not yet receovered but even when the patient dies! Such audacity, such arrogance, such impunity, ang kakapal (bullet-proof)!