|
On October 27 2011 15:58 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 15:48 No_Roo wrote:On October 27 2011 15:27 semantics wrote:Albany police leaders to hold off making arrests for the low-level offense of trespassing, in part because of concern it could incite a riot or draw thousands of protesters in a backlash that could endanger police and the public.
“We don’t have those resources, and these people were not causing trouble,” the official said. “The bottom line is the police know policing, not the governor and not the mayor.” (via) I still stand by that doing nothing does more to take steam out of occupy wall street then actually beating down on these people. Arrests and stuff only escalate support. Ignoring them wouldn't be terribly effective. The police presence is the only thing preventing peaceful protesters from civil disobedience such as indefinitely blockading roads and businesses (banks) which would be incredibly satisfying activity for any movement. In a situation where protesters like these have such strong public support, they really have the local enforcement by the balls. The thing is though as soon as they start doing blockading of roads and stuff they bother more of the general public and people get annoyed with them, think of them as whiners as soon as you start rounding them up and doing large raids like you saw in oakland and sf the more the public starts to side with them, unless people start looting then no one likes anyone as usually it's not the people protesting who riot and loot but they still get the blame for it. The more you clash with protesters the more media will cover it and the less likely hood it's going to fall out of the public conscious, and for a populist movement to gain traction is though growing support and in this day in age it's either money or media coverage.
I disagree, as with an earlier post I made: I think it's pretty clear with how rapidly this movement grew despite almost total silence from mainstream media followed by cynical at best coverage, that in this day and age, mainstream media coverage is highly overrated.
|
On October 27 2011 16:20 Stringy wrote:
Tossing a flash bang into a group of non-violent civilian protestors trying to help a person who's skull has just been fractured because you shot him in the face is 'serving and protecting' ??
Yea, there are some bad cops out there... did ya'll listen to "This American Life" this weekend?
|
|
|
On October 27 2011 13:04 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 12:57 Adaptation wrote:On October 27 2011 12:46 ckw wrote:I live in San Francisco and heard nothing of this from the media, only after searching YouTube did I find the video related to this. How is it that America calls other countries on these sort of issues and yet we let it happen here. The media will never ever do anything to grow this movement, at least the mainstream media. On a crowd of 5000, they will get the 1 guy with a gun and a racist sign and do a 5 minute part on him and go ''well here's the wall street occupy movement!'' in order to discourage everybody from going, while the 4999 others are left in the cold. http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/common-sense-with-dan-carlin/id155974141Last episode 208, great point of view on the movement from someone who has worked for a long time in the media. Interestingly enough, that this movement has grown so dramatically despite the mainstream media, just goes to show how we are collectively on the verge of not needing them any more (for anything) 
Yeah its prety cool to see how such a movement has grown from just grassroots. Its so intresting to see how such things can grow out of almost nothing.
|
Not really, other than they're both protests...
|
On October 27 2011 20:04 aksfjh wrote:Not really, other than they're both protests...
Yeah... As i read that Wiki i was like? This has like absolutely nothing in common except people protesting?
|
First off let me state that I am not well versed in economics, and as such my thoughts are just that; my thoughts. However, what continues to surprise me is that mostly Americans rebel so hard at the idea of the rich paying more taxes then the poor, and it is always portrayed as pure socialism or communism, with noone able to get rich for their work anymore etc. In the Netherlands, as far as I know one of the most "social(ist)" tax systems has 4 tiers of taxes, ranging from 33% for the lowest to 52% for the highest. I'm sure anything remotely like this would cause outrage in America, and would portray the results something akin communist Russia... but is that accurate? The Netherlands are a country with plenty of rich people, a good social structure, healthcare etc. All the doomsday prophesies people who think it's justified multibillionaires pay less taxes then their secretaries just seem to be completely made up.... or is there something I'm missing here? (please note that any uneducated crap about how the Netherlands are a cesspool of filth and drugs can shove it ^^, it's simply not true)
|
This oakland stuff is getting scary crazy, Flashbangs, wtf.
Expect things to get more scary if you want something to change.
|
On October 27 2011 21:38 Promises wrote:
First off let me state that I am not well versed in economics, and as such my thoughts are just that; my thoughts. However, what continues to surprise me is that mostly Americans rebel so hard at the idea of the rich paying more taxes then the poor, and it is always portrayed as pure socialism or communism, with noone able to get rich for their work anymore etc. In the Netherlands, as far as I know one of the most "social(ist)" tax systems has 4 tiers of taxes, ranging from 33% for the lowest to 52% for the highest. I'm sure anything remotely like this would cause outrage in America, and would portray the results something akin communist Russia... but is that accurate? The Netherlands are a country with plenty of rich people, a good social structure, healthcare etc. All the doomsday prophesies people who think it's justified multibillionaires pay less taxes then their secretaries just seem to be completely made up.... or is there something I'm missing here? (please note that any uneducated crap about how the Netherlands are a cesspool of filth and drugs can shove it ^^, it's simply not true)
Plenty of Americans, especially younger ones actually like the idea of socialism (especially since we're already socialist in many ways...), but plenty of them Americans, especially older ones, are deathly afraid of any "ism" that isn't capitalism. The ones that tend to be afraid of socialism also tend to be relatively ignorant of what Europe is, though there are a few people distrust socialism while more well traveled or are well versed in the world economies. Most Americans afraid of socialism probably wouldn't even know that the Netherlands is known for drugs, they just think of Europe as this mish mash of high tax, "nanny state" weaklings.
|
I saw some disturbing images from Oakland and so I was wondering if the police in the usa can be too tough sometimes?
|
It is an interesting course of events ^^ I often read Sam Harris's blog and at one point he made a post (I think after a well known wealthy American stated he thought the wealthy should pay more taxes) about this inequality and his proposals for it, and he said afterwards that even tho he's one of "the four horsemen of atheism", he has never had as much hatemail as when he suggested that it was wrong billionaires payed less then their secretaries. ( http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-lose-readers-without-even-trying/) I think I saw a list either in that post or in some newsmessage that showed inequality in income per country, and America was somewhere in the middle of a bunch of 3rd-world countries.
By the way I did not mean to suggest all Americans are like this, or make any such generalisation (altho I still sometimes catch myself doing it), but the pure outrage at the suggestion of more taxes surprised me, and the portrayal of a doom-world should taxes be raised surprised me as much. My picture might well be jaded tho, since I mainly get my views on America from this site, Sam Harris etc, random news, the Daily Show and random bits of O'Reilley and such =)
|
On October 27 2011 11:20 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 11:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 27 2011 10:58 DrainX wrote:On October 27 2011 10:05 Tien wrote:
Capitalism is the reason why they were able to collect 2.1+ Trillion in taxes in the 1st place.
Entitlement programs / wars / government bureaucracy is draining America's wealth away. What the point in having all that wealth if it is all in the hands of a tiny minority? Capitalism is a good engine for creating wealth but without a good system around it, controlling it and directing it, it is more akin to a house on fire than a well managed furnace. In capitalism you get to keep all the wealth you've created, unless you've contracted that wealth in exchange for something else ahead of time. Capitalism is only effective at creating wealth in the first place because we have the incentive of keeping the wealth we create. Redistribution or "direction" of wealth like you're suggesting shuts down capitalism's productivity significantly. And yet for some reason i don't care about productivity when 1 in 4 children in the US live off food stamps. If productivity means more then people in the USA then that's just a large moral decay that is quite sad. And if you knew anything about productivity happy workers are productive workers just take a look at productivity of union works vs non union workers, you don't actually mean productivity you mean profits at the top. =p You also seem to forget that Andrew carnegie and John Rockefeller, probably the 2 most richest people ever essentially gave away their fortunes towards their deaths. Even they knew a man who hordes money even after their death is no man.
and yet for some reason you think that what we have right now is capitalism. Actually to even say that we are productive... lol, we're not look how many people are unemployed, it's because we're not productive enough relative to how much the protection of employees mandated by the government costs the employers.
Also increased productivity means more stuff, which means lower prices, which means things are more accessible to others. So yes, in a capitalist society you will have some people who will have a lot of money, but the people towards the bottom even if they don't have a lot of money they will be able to afford more stuff with their money than they would had there been lower productivity...
Capitalism results in real absolute wealth growing all across the board, not just paper money increasing in the hands of the few.
The problem is that the wealthy clearly benefit from certain key economic externalities, which means it's not a true free market system.
Subsidies to agribusiness, for example, certainly don't make for free markets. Nor does allowing financial institutions to take on disproportionate risk knowing they would be bailed out by the government. Same goes with the United States enabling the energy industry by engaging in foreign misadventures.
I'm a staunch free market supporter in the top 5% socioeconomic strata, and my question is still: why Last edit: 2011-10-27 11:37:57
is that we have socialism for the wealthy, and capitalism for everyone else?
We're in full agreement. Bail outs is not capitalism, regulations protecting the most generous lobbyists from competition is not capitalism... and who's doing these things? the government, and then the politicians will have the nerve out to come out and speak in protection of these protesters, offering fake promises, when they themselves are the ones who are the beneficiaries of the lobbyists.
|
On October 27 2011 22:05 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 21:38 Promises wrote:
First off let me state that I am not well versed in economics, and as such my thoughts are just that; my thoughts. However, what continues to surprise me is that mostly Americans rebel so hard at the idea of the rich paying more taxes then the poor, and it is always portrayed as pure socialism or communism, with noone able to get rich for their work anymore etc. In the Netherlands, as far as I know one of the most "social(ist)" tax systems has 4 tiers of taxes, ranging from 33% for the lowest to 52% for the highest. I'm sure anything remotely like this would cause outrage in America, and would portray the results something akin communist Russia... but is that accurate? The Netherlands are a country with plenty of rich people, a good social structure, healthcare etc. All the doomsday prophesies people who think it's justified multibillionaires pay less taxes then their secretaries just seem to be completely made up.... or is there something I'm missing here? (please note that any uneducated crap about how the Netherlands are a cesspool of filth and drugs can shove it ^^, it's simply not true) Plenty of Americans, especially younger ones actually like the idea of socialism (especially since we're already socialist in many ways...), but plenty of them Americans, especially older ones, are deathly afraid of any "ism" that isn't capitalism. The ones that tend to be afraid of socialism also tend to be relatively ignorant of what Europe is, though there are a few people distrust socialism while more well traveled or are well versed in the world economies. Most Americans afraid of socialism probably wouldn't even know that the Netherlands is known for drugs, they just think of Europe as this mish mash of high tax, "nanny state" weaklings.
I think people do not actually want socialism, they just want a larger piece of the cake and rules that apply equally for all. And that is not an unreasonable demand. You can only enjoy losing a rigged game for so long. Also, many people seem to long for a society where your worth as a human being is not solely defined by your economic success. Also not unreasonable.
In Germany, a lot of people sympathizing with the occupy-movement are disappointed conservatives who feel that the rules of a social market economy as installed by the conservatives after WW2 no longer apply.
|
On October 27 2011 22:06 archonOOid wrote:
I saw some disturbing images from Oakland and so I was wondering if the police in the usa can be too tough sometimes?
Here is a daily news feed on police brutality in America. Prolonged reading can result in extreme anger.
InjusticeEverywhere
It's the place that makes you indeed wonder, who watches the watchmen!
|
On October 27 2011 22:49 Electric.Jesus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 22:05 ZeaL. wrote:On October 27 2011 21:38 Promises wrote:
First off let me state that I am not well versed in economics, and as such my thoughts are just that; my thoughts. However, what continues to surprise me is that mostly Americans rebel so hard at the idea of the rich paying more taxes then the poor, and it is always portrayed as pure socialism or communism, with noone able to get rich for their work anymore etc. In the Netherlands, as far as I know one of the most "social(ist)" tax systems has 4 tiers of taxes, ranging from 33% for the lowest to 52% for the highest. I'm sure anything remotely like this would cause outrage in America, and would portray the results something akin communist Russia... but is that accurate? The Netherlands are a country with plenty of rich people, a good social structure, healthcare etc. All the doomsday prophesies people who think it's justified multibillionaires pay less taxes then their secretaries just seem to be completely made up.... or is there something I'm missing here? (please note that any uneducated crap about how the Netherlands are a cesspool of filth and drugs can shove it ^^, it's simply not true) Plenty of Americans, especially younger ones actually like the idea of socialism (especially since we're already socialist in many ways...), but plenty of them Americans, especially older ones, are deathly afraid of any "ism" that isn't capitalism. The ones that tend to be afraid of socialism also tend to be relatively ignorant of what Europe is, though there are a few people distrust socialism while more well traveled or are well versed in the world economies. Most Americans afraid of socialism probably wouldn't even know that the Netherlands is known for drugs, they just think of Europe as this mish mash of high tax, "nanny state" weaklings. I think people do not actually want socialism, they just want a larger piece of the cake and rules that apply equally for all. And that is not an unreasonable demand. You can only enjoy losing a rigged game for so long. Also, many people seem to long for a society where your worth as a human being is not solely defined by your economic success. Also not unreasonable. In Germany, a lot of people sympathizing with the occupy-movement are disappointed conservatives who feel that the rules of a social market economy as installed by the conservatives after WW2 no longer apply.
I think this is a strong point, the starting points for people are far from equal, so to say that people who didnt make it deserve it because this is the fair system where if you work hard you get succes seems off; it's quite a lot easyer to make it if you start with a huge headstart then when you start with a crappy education and social environment.
|
On October 27 2011 22:26 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 11:20 semantics wrote:On October 27 2011 11:01 Kiarip wrote:On October 27 2011 10:58 DrainX wrote:On October 27 2011 10:05 Tien wrote:
Capitalism is the reason why they were able to collect 2.1+ Trillion in taxes in the 1st place.
Entitlement programs / wars / government bureaucracy is draining America's wealth away. What the point in having all that wealth if it is all in the hands of a tiny minority? Capitalism is a good engine for creating wealth but without a good system around it, controlling it and directing it, it is more akin to a house on fire than a well managed furnace. In capitalism you get to keep all the wealth you've created, unless you've contracted that wealth in exchange for something else ahead of time. Capitalism is only effective at creating wealth in the first place because we have the incentive of keeping the wealth we create. Redistribution or "direction" of wealth like you're suggesting shuts down capitalism's productivity significantly. And yet for some reason i don't care about productivity when 1 in 4 children in the US live off food stamps. If productivity means more then people in the USA then that's just a large moral decay that is quite sad. And if you knew anything about productivity happy workers are productive workers just take a look at productivity of union works vs non union workers, you don't actually mean productivity you mean profits at the top. =p You also seem to forget that Andrew carnegie and John Rockefeller, probably the 2 most richest people ever essentially gave away their fortunes towards their deaths. Even they knew a man who hordes money even after their death is no man. and yet for some reason you think that what we have right now is capitalism. Actually to even say that we are productive... lol, we're not look how many people are unemployed, it's because we're not productive enough relative to how much the protection of employees mandated by the government costs the employers. Also increased productivity means more stuff, which means lower prices, which means things are more accessible to others. So yes, in a capitalist society you will have some people who will have a lot of money, but the people towards the bottom even if they don't have a lot of money they will be able to afford more stuff with their money than they would had there been lower productivity... Capitalism results in real absolute wealth growing all across the board, not just paper money increasing in the hands of the few.Show nested quote +The problem is that the wealthy clearly benefit from certain key economic externalities, which means it's not a true free market system.
Subsidies to agribusiness, for example, certainly don't make for free markets. Nor does allowing financial institutions to take on disproportionate risk knowing they would be bailed out by the government. Same goes with the United States enabling the energy industry by engaging in foreign misadventures.
I'm a staunch free market supporter in the top 5% socioeconomic strata, and my question is still: why Last edit: 2011-10-27 11:37:57
is that we have socialism for the wealthy, and capitalism for everyone else? We're in full agreement. Bail outs is not capitalism, regulations protecting the most generous lobbyists from competition is not capitalism... and who's doing these things? the government, and then the politicians will have the nerve out to come out and speak in protection of these protesters, offering fake promises, when they themselves are the ones who are the beneficiaries of the lobbyists.
There is no guarantee of that and thus you can't make that sort of broad statement, there has never been a pure capitalist society of any size that interacts with other societies that aren't pure capitalist. In a pure capitalist society what are the rules that govern work ethics, where are the labor rights drawn? Who stops price gouging/fixing. What stops the top from handing out loans to people who cannot afford it then owning that person for life? The idea of bankruptcy is a socialist idea. People with money always, always can pay people to figure out ways around the rules to benefit themselves. It also doesn't redistribute the wealth quickly, people at the top already have the vast majority of it, what is their incentive to actively engage in our society anymore. They can just live off making safe loans at low interest rates their whole lives, give off their fortune to their children and repeat. What is greed suppose to make them make risky investments? And so they fail and some of their wealth goes to lift up some semi wealthy people to really wealthy? None of this helps the bottom. There is also no guarantee that prices for items will be lower, we run a global econ the thing that determines prices of products not made in the US would not be the same, also if anything you're putting more of a burden on the poor, you should know how much we subsidize food how cheap food is in the US and yet we still have a shit ton of starving people. Well i guess in your dream land the poor people would die off after a good generation or two.
|
Tossing a flash bang into a group of non-violent civilian protestors trying to help a person who's skull has just been fractured because you shot him in the face is 'serving and protecting' ??
Of course it is.
Stop being silly, police aren't omniscient.
Here is a daily news feed on police brutality in America. Prolonged reading can result in extreme anger.
InjusticeEverywhere
It's the place that makes you indeed wonder, who watches the watchmen!
Not really, it's the place that makes me wonder who watches the meds that these people trying to watch the watchmen take. Some cop hit his wife. Some other cop molested a child. Cops help other cops get out of DUIs.
Meanwhile, ~3,500 people have been killed while by protesting by the police and army in Syria in the last two months. Several years ago, the PLA opened fire on a crowd of poor localsprotesting property seizures and killed dozens.
But hell you can believe that the police in America are just soooooooo brutal, with their repeated use of non-lethal weapons and apparent inability to even kill anyone by accident much less on purpose. Some asshole got shot in the head with a rubber bullet and might die, police brutality! How about if him and all of the people who tried to help him were shot by snipers on the roofs firing indiscriminately with real bullets (like in Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen) instead of hit by rubber bullets and flashbangs?
The police go into these camps and tell people "stand up and leave right now and you still won't get arrested." Only people who want to get arrested get arrested.
This is the beginning of the end of OWS, they've worn out their welcome in city after city, and false claims of police brutality will only help it along. News stations have covered the rousts live, it's funny to see a bunch of smelly arrogant assholes talking shit and acting tough and throwing rocks then running away like bitches from cops they outnumber 5 to 1. Yeah your revolution is unstoppable, except when you come up against real, adult men.
Real, lethal police brutality happens all the time, as condoned and official policy. If it were true in America OWS would never have started up; the police would have destroyed the camps when they were still small and shot anyone trying to reconstitute them.
You don't understand how fringe you are.
|
Next time I hear about how vets fight to protect our rights, I'll remember the one they shot in the head for actually exercising them.
From Daily Kos' David Waldman via Twitter
|
Next time I hear about how vets fight to protect our rights, I'll remember the one they shot in the head for actually exercising them.
Next time I hear about how OWS was just exercising its rights, I'll go find an OWS member and shit on his lawn for four weeks and tell him I'm exercising my rights.
|
So Denver got about six inches of snow yesterday and the temperatures have stayed below freezing for about 36 hours or so. Nonetheless, when I drove to work this morning, I still saw about 25 people or so manning the Occupy Denver fort. I don't know whether they stayed there through the snowstorm yesterday, but it definitely looks like they slept outside last night. I'm impressed at the dedication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
