FEMEN have made the jump to English, with this video against the Millionaire Fair, currently appearing in Amsterdam.
FEMEN Solidarity message to FEMEN Holland from FEMEN Holland on Vimeo.
According to the Millionaire Fair web site:
"In 2002, the organisers of the Millionaire Fair shook the little country of the Netherlands at its foundations by organising an event unparalleled in luxury and size. 'A fairytale for the affluent, a cornucopia for culinary fans and a feast of superlatives', louded the press. Initiator Yves Gijrath (CEO Gijrath Media Groep) and publisher of Miljonair Magazine, launched the idea for the Millionaire Fair on the basic theme of their magazine: 'The Luxury Lifestyle'.
The Amsterdam launch paved the way for a great success. The next year, in 2003, the Fair quadrupled in terms of size and number of visitors. In 2005, the first international Millionaire Fair was held in Moscow. Since then, this glamorous spectacle has been conquering the world and the Millionaire Fair is known as the World's Leading Luxury Fair. A place where the top of the international luxury industry meet to present their most beautiful and exclusive products and services. In the past years the organisers received some very meaningful reactions by visitors, celebrities and exhibitors..."
Europe is in the middle of a financial crisis and, according to FEMEN, a women's rights one as well. Is there something inherently wrong with the rich carrying on like this at such a time? State your piece below.
I'm undecided on this issue, because there are strong arguments on both sides:
ReplyDeleteCon: I think it's foolish from a PR point of view to flaunt wealth at a time like this.
Pro: I'm sure the millions of workers at plants building luxury goods (and their suppliers down the chain) aren't complaining.
Con: But many of those workers are in China and India now, not Europe or North America.
Pro: Surely people in poorer countries like China and India, with no social safety net, need jobs even more desperately than workers in richer countries.
Con: Then again, there are other people currently unemployed who might be employed if the money were being spent elsewhere.
Pro: But that assumes the alternative to spending on luxury goods is spending on something else. if the wealthy simply saved their money instead of spending it, it wouldn't help create any jobs at all.
Con: But if you simply raised tax rates on the rich, then you could use the money for the public good rather than letting them decide what to buy with it.
Pro: Most wealth is difficult to pin down geographically -- if Britain raises its tax rates, for example, you simply buy some land in Italy. Historically, countries who have tried to raise the tax rate too far on the wealthy have actually ended up with less tax revenue, not more (e.g. Britain in the 1960s and 70s).
Con: but there's no proof that we're at the peak rate for taxing the rich yet. Sure, wealth flees at 95%, but would it flee at 55%? Transferring wealth has a cost, and people won't do until the alternative is too extreme. Perhaps it's worth trying a bit of tweaking to see what happens.
And so on. Yeah, it's not pretty to see how my brain works.