|
On October 27 2011 07:45 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 07:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Time to tax the rich 45% for every dollar earned over 2 million with no tax shielding benefits allowed. I don't feel like backsliding living standards to the 1930s so I think I'll pass on your incredibly bad idea. Care to provide some context to this claim? Tax rates were much higher then that from 1940 until 1980 and our living standards only increased.
Of course he can't. It's just one of those incorrect pieces of information he heard some conservative mouthpiece and is now repeating.
|
![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif)
Income inequality in America: The 99 percent + Show Spoiler +OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.
|
On October 28 2011 00:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's private land, occupy oakland took up public space, to which people under a certain size are allowed to gather unless under permit is issued to which an expansion of that size is allowed for a certain amount of time, they are ignoring that to do essentially a sit-in. =p Stop shitting on the form with bad metaphors, Also go try to shit on someone lawn for OWS go to new york and find people with lawns to shit on.
|
On October 28 2011 00:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Nice try painting me as somehow unaware of what is going on in other countries. The funny thing about your pick pick pick posts is you forgot the r.
Since I've been a teenager-adult, i've watched this country decline in that which it claims to promote. Liberty. Will Grigg linked that site thank you very much. Tragically, you are fringe as well Mr 1% Thank you sir, may I Have another moonbat! You despise liberals cause they rob the war chest for bombs for country XYZ, I understand, I disagree with out of control spending, and the Fed, and your hollow and absent on both. I asked you before, who are you voting for in 2012. Romney Perry or Cain, or you sellouting like Obama, gonna bail out students, yeah, that probably will get him re-elected. The New-New deal with lots of bombs. Farce!
You always bash and throw history around like a mallet, but run like a rat to hide your own malice and hopes. I'm fringe, but forthcoming. Sad
|
The Marine who has his skull fractured by a rubber bullet when Oakland Police raided the Occupy Oakland event, well Occupy Marines have responded:
![[image loading]](http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ea91b91ecad046a47000010/marine.jpg)
Source
|
So we are about what now? A month and a half into the 3 months planned for OWS? Has anything changed because of these protests?
Personally I do not think so. I also don't see a whole lot of wheels in motion for change either. Admitedly I am a Canadian and we have mostly dodged the economic crisis the world is facing. Also Canada seems alot more concered with the problems facing the Euro then the US problems.
On October 28 2011 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:![[image loading]](http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4ea91b91ecad046a47000010/marine.jpg)
If a picture could talk, this one would never stop...
|
On October 27 2011 16:11 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 15:12 caradoc wrote:Guards of the status quo: “In a highly developed society, the Establishment cannot survive without the obedience and loyalty of millions of people who are given small rewards to keep the system going: the soldiers and police, teachers and ministers, administrators and social workers, technicians and production workers, doctors, lawyers. . . . They become the guards of the system, buffers between the upper and lower classes. If they stop obeying, the system falls.” —Howard Zinn, from “The Coming Revolt of the Guards,” A People’s History of the United States, For those of us who have demonstrated and marched in the Occupy movement, it is obvious that the police and the corporate press serve as guards—buffers between the vast majority of the American people and the ruling “corporatocracy” (the partnership of giant corporations, the wealthy elite, and their collaborating politicians). In addition to the police and the corporate press, there are millions of other guards employed by the corporatocracy to keep people obedient and maintain the status quo. Even a partial revolt of the guards could increase the number of protesters on the streets from the thousands to the millions. When did Zinn predict the revolt would occur, and how can this revolt be accelerated? The Other Guards I am a clinical psychologist, and Zinn is correct that mental health professionals also serve as guards who are given small rewards to keep the system going. The corporatocracy demands that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and other mental health professionals assist people’s adjustment to the status quo, regardless of how dehumanizing the status quo has become. Prior to the 1980s, mental health professionals such as Erich Fromm (1900–1980) were concerned by this “adjustment to what?” problem. However, in recent years there has been decreasing awareness among mental health professionals about their guard role, even though today some of the best financial packages offered to us are from the growing U.S. prison system and U.S. military. Most guards also perform duties besides “guard duty.” The police don’t just protect the elite from the 99 percent; they also provide people with roadside assistance. And mental health professionals also perform “non-guard duty” roles such as improving family relationships. Guards certainly can perform duties helpful for the non-elite, but the elite would be foolish to reward us guards if we didn’t serve to maintain their system. Many teachers went into their profession because of their passion for education, but they soon discover that they are not being paid to educate young people for democracy, which would mean inspiring independent learning, critical thinking, and questioning authority. While teachers may help young children learn how to read, they are employed by the corporatocracy to socialize young people to fit into a system that was created by and for the corporatocracy. The corporatocracy needs its future employees to comply with their rules, to passively submit to authorities, and to perform meaningless activities for a paycheck. William Bennett, U.S. Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan, was clear about the role of schools, “The primordial task of the schools is transmission of the social and political values.” If you are comfortably at the top of the hierarchy, you reward guards to make your system work. In addition to the police, the corporate press, mental health professionals, and teachers, there are clergy, bureaucrats, and many other guards in the system, all of whom are given small rewards to pacify and control the population. Some guards have rebelled from their pacification and control roles, most have not. When Will the Revolt of the Guards Occur? Howard Zinn predicted the revolt of the guards would occur when guards recognize that they are “expendable.” Historically, the elite’s strategy is to pay what is necessary to fill guard jobs, and when the time is ripe, reduce the rewards of guards and ultimately eliminate the guards. Union teachers—similar to union prison guards who’ve been replaced by non-union guards in for-profit prisons—have discovered that they too are expendable. It is logical for the elite to first use teachers to pacify young people, then use corporate-collaborator politician guards to reduce the rewards of teachers, and finally replace teachers with various technologies (such as computer programmed instruction) that the elite can profit from. While the corporatocracy once paid us mental health professionals fairly well to provide therapy to help people adjust to the status quo, we now receive relative chump change for therapy, and it’s clear that psychotherapists and counselors are expendable. Mental health professionals are increasingly pressured by insurance corporations to treat the “maladjusted” with drugs, which create wealth for drug corporations and reduces labor costs for health insurance corporations. Today, a psychiatrist can still make good money prescribing drugs, but in the future, the corporatocracy will likely reduce rewards to its drug dispensers. That future is here in the U.S. military, as troops in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan are, without prescriptions, given psychiatric drugs by military medics. So, law enforcement officers, beware. Cameras and other surveillance technology are becoming increasingly inexpensive, and law enforcement labor costs will increasingly be replaced by inexpensive Orwellian surveillance. How to Accelerate the Revolt of the Guards For guards, it is not easy coming out of denial of our role and our fate. As Upton Sinclair observed, “It is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” To accelerate the revolt of obedient guards, I recommend two strategies: (1) create unpleasant dissonance about their role as guards; in other words, put guards in some pain for their unquestioning obedience that maintains the system. (2) offer encouragement for even small acts of rebellion against their guard role; small acts of rebellion may well be major financial risks. It is my experience that guards are far less defensive when they are “off-duty.” So, if you are at protest demonstration, don’t try to lecture police about their role as a guard for the system or stroke them for any act of humanity. When we guards we are on duty, we are extremely vigilant about being manipulated. Off-duty, we are more receptive. If you have social contact with off-duty law enforcement officers, you might ask them “Wouldn’t it be more satisfying putting the handcuffs on some billionaire tax dodger than arresting some small-time pot user?” I’ve asked police officers if they’ve heard of Jonathan Swift’s quote, “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” On-duty police will respond with “no comment” or a blank stare, but some off-duty cops will smile and even agree. And should off-duty police ever tell you an anecdote in which they ignored a law designed to catch a small fly, give them encouragement. For off-duty corporate journalists, you might talk to them about how much you admire journalists such as Bill Moyers, former press secretary of Lyndon Johnson, and Chris Hedges, former New York Times reporter, for their rebellion from the their guard role. Remind journalists of their expendability, as the corporate media is increasingly eliminating reporters for the sake of profitability. And if they give you anecdotes in which they created tension with their editor by challenging the system, be encouraging. If you know any mental health professionals, ask them if they think insurance companies care at all about either patients or providers. They will likely laugh, and say that insurance companies care only about their profits, and most will agree that other giant corporations care only about their profits. You might ask them, “Just how unjust does a society have to become before helping people adjust to it with behavior modification and medication is immoral?” If they have validated their patients’ pain over an increasingly undemocratic and authoritarian society and helped them constructively rebel against a dehumanizing system, encourage these stirrings of rebellion. Most teachers despise the tyranny created by “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top” with its fear-based standardized test preparations and computerized learning programs. Ask teachers, “Is it possible that you, like manufacturing workers, are also expendable?” You might also ask them, “Have you ever told parents of a disruptive kid that it is possible to effectively teach their child without any medication if there were fewer children in the classroom, which would allow their child to receive the attention and structure necessary?” Certainly give teachers encouragement if they have put their job in jeopardy by explaining the purpose of schools in the corporatocracy to any of their anti-authoritarian and alienated students. In order to rouse more guards to revolt, we should not let obedient guards “off the hook” for their refusal to question, challenge, and resist illegitimate authority. Do not say, “Hey, I understand, you are just doing your job.” Guards must be confronted with the reality of the misery that results from blind obedience. Guards must deal with the reality that history looks unkindly on those who “just followed orders.” And guards must be given confidence that there are revitalizing satisfactions and new community that will emerge for them when they join the revolt of the guards. Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green, 2011). His Web site is www.brucelevine.net. http://www.zcommunications.org/how-can-we-rouse-police-and-other-protectors-of-the-corporatocracy-guards-of-the-status-quo-to-join-the-ows-rebellion-by-bruce-e-levine I feel so sad that Howard Zinn did not live to see this day data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77e98/77e98be67f263e78995d632fb850d627ce97d99f" alt="" This, if it succeeds must have been his life's dream.
I think so too, and I'm really really happy that I'm not the only one who knows who Howard Zinn is.
|
On October 28 2011 01:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Marine who has his skull fractured by a rubber bullet when Oakland Police raided the Occupy Oakland event, well Occupy Marines have responded: Source
Stealth, are you going fringe on us/US? That's a good picture.
I also know who Zinn is, furthering my fringe. Nobody asked if I support him, I'm fringe because I know. Quiz a few people in your family today, find out how fringe you are! Speaking of fringe, I gotta get back to fact checking Alex Jones!!!
I found this 'beast of burden' analogy quite on point.
OWS is simply an example of what happens when a beast of burden gets a stone in the wrong place, but has no idea what do to about it. Sure, asking the person who saddled you up to remove it—or add some padding to the saddle—will probably make you feel better, but in the aftermath, you'll still be pulling his cart, and eating his hay.
|
I am as fringe as it gets. It's lonely over here.
In a nation of lies, truth is treason.
On October 28 2011 02:36 BioNova wrote: I found this 'beast of burden' analogy quite on point.
Except I don't want the stone removed. I want the fucking saddle removed and then the stone will fall of and the fat bastard that was sitting on top of me will never do so again.
Seems like that's what he should be aiming for.
|
PROPOSAL:
We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.
We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.
All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.
While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.
The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.
The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday.
Source
|
On October 28 2011 00:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
To quote Doug Stanhope, their suck doesnt make your suck suck any less.
|
On October 28 2011 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +PROPOSAL:
We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.
We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.
All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.
While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.
The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.
The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday. Source Calling for a general strike is going stupidly all in. If this doesn't work, they're done.
|
are you just trying to waste my time now? I've answered all of this before.
On October 28 2011 00:27 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 22:26 Kiarip wrote: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.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. Not completely, but there has been a pretty consistent trend of the economy being in better shape the free'er the market is. A lot of countries in Europe right now actually have a less regulated economy than us (the "capitalists,") I'm talking about economy of course, not overall size of government. For example Switzerland is unapologetically capitalistic, and has been doing great, only recently has they had a slight economic decline when their Federal bank decided to print some money (for the first time in a long time,) but they have been doing great. Sweden has a pretty large government, but it has some largely unregulated industries (compared to the US at least,) and they're providing both their customers with high quality low cost products (thus raising the total wealth of their citizens,) and their workforce with fair wages and employment.
In a pure capitalist society what are the rules that govern work ethics, where are the labor rights drawn?
Labor rights are stupid. There are no special "employer rights" why should there be special "labor rights." All labor rights should be defined in the contract between business and the worker, contracts can be negotiated via unions. Unions are perfectly fine in a free market capitalist economy, as long as the government stays out of it.
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?
Pretty much all monopolies in history have been propped up by the government. Price gouging results in net loss of profits. Collusions always result in some of the members losing out on profits (while others get increased profits,) but even if the profits are redistributed, collusion simply increases the risk/reward of competing against them. It also costs significant amount of money to push your competition out of the market, it's not always a smart investment, and when it is successful it is generally due to your competitors having a less competitive business model in the first place.
If people take out loans they can't pay back they will have to file bankruptcy, and then it is the BANK that loses money... Obviously the person also loses credit ratings, and etc. but the only reason those credit ratings exist is because when you are loaned some money it is the LENDER that bears the fiscal consequences of you defaulting, not you.
The idea of bankruptcy is a socialist idea.
It is not. The idea of bankruptcy is perfectably acceptible in a capitalist free market. Saying it's not a part of the capitalist free market, is like saying that the possibility of a person who owes money dying isn't something that's considered in capitalism... It is. That's why the bank wants to be paid interest, and creates the monthly payment systems for being paid back, it's so that if you die, or just don't have the money it can cut its losses.
People with money always, always can pay people to figure out ways around the rules to benefit themselves.
That's why it's a lot better when there are no complicated rules. You have the human rights which protect people's voice, property, freedom from slavery, and etc. and then you put the rest of the power in the hands of people. THe people have more bargaining power with the market than they do with the government. Creating regulations like you said yourself serves to benefit those who can afford to pay the lawyers to find ways to dodge the regulations.
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.
The fact that the wealthy save their money is what allows the less wealthy to have purchasing power, especially in a terrible economic situation we're in today in which we're in a huge trade deficit, meaning that most of the stuff we're getting is from outside the country, and we don't have any real negotiating power regarding the price of these products.
Let's look at a simplifed example. 90% of the MONEY is in the hands of the few, and they are sitting on it, not willing to spend it. 10% of the money in the country is in the hands of the poor and they're spending all of it just to get by on all the products that exist in the marketplace.
Now say the wealthy decide to spend all their money... the effective monetary supply all of a sudden increase 10 times, but the amount of goods available remains the same... this means that every all the goods on average will becoem 10 times more expensive... but will the poor actually have 10 times the money to afford the same amount of stuff as they did before? No they won't.
It's not the lack of money in rotation that's the problem, it's the lack of production. Of course, the chinese have enough production so all of a sudden if our monetary supply expands (like it has been doing thanks to the federal reserve,) the chinese can just send us more stuff, and not drop their prices, and then all of the money that the rich have will just go overseas to the chinese, and we'll be in the same exact situation except for then EVERYONE will be poor, and then everyone who is rich now and owns any type of business will have to close it down, and the only jobs that are going to be left are the jobs that help get foreign goods into our country.
They can just live off making safe loans at low interest rates their whole lives, give off their fortune to their children and repeat.
If they live off low percent interest and don't spend most of their money, how much wealth are they actually consuming? Say you have enough money in principle to get 100k$ a year via interest, so you just live off the interest and don't spend any of the principle ...
Sure, you can be totally lazy, and not do anything at all productive in life, but you're techinically living off the dividends from the investments that the bank makes with money you gave it, if you didn't have all that money in the bank, the bank would have less of a money supply, and it would be forced to higher the interest rates, which would make it harder for new businesses that took loans from the bank for starting capital to succeed. So you're technically helping the society by both allowing your money to be spent by other people, AND by not increasing the demand which results in lower prices for other people that do want to spend, the 100k$ interest is the dividends you get for this. Then if you only spend 100k a year, you're only consuming as much wealth as a person who makes 100k$ a year normally, so you can't live the life of a more rich person unless you're willing to spend more of your money.
You'er gonna argue that you're getting money doing nothing, but what you gotta realize is that no one wants to get money just to have a bunch of paper, people get money so that they could spend it, people work, which creates some kind of value, then they get paid based of some percentage fo the value they create, and then using that money they can consume roughly as that percentage of wealth that they created... it's a closed system in this way. All money that exists is supposed to be responsible for a certain piece of the total wealth (actual stuff.)
If someone has so much money that they're getting 100k interest it means that someone's ancestor, created a certain amount of value for the economy, got paid for it, but never spent that repayment, meaning he never took back the value that he put in, either because he didn't get the time and just died or because he wanted to save it for his children, but the point is that until that money is spent it doesn't actually allow the owner any increased consumption. That's the whole point of saving, you reduce current consumption in order to increase your consumptino in the future.
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?
What? risky investments are just what they are... they're risky. Everyone has a choice whether to invest or not, and if you invest and it fails you lose the money... obviously someone wins it, but it's not necessarily someone already wealthy. Generall if you invest in a company this money will be used to pay its employees, and to purchase resources, if the enterprise collapses, the resources are either gone or sold off for a fraction of their worth, and the original money went to either the employees, and whoever the original resources were purchased from, which is usually another company, in which case that money is part of the other company's profit, which is really what happens whenever you spend money on anything, it eventually finds it way into the pocket of whoever made the product, sound fair.
None of this helps the bottom.
Not being able to find jobs because of over-regulation doesn't help the bottom either. Companies getting bail-outs doesn't help the bottom either.
Capitalism tries to ensure that people get paid according to what they produce. There will always be a bottom 99%, a bottom 90%, a bottom 10 %, and a bottom 1%, that's just due to the laws of mathematics. Yes, the least productive person in the world isn't going to be in amazing shape economically, still though as the overall productivity increases, goods will become more accessible, so while those who are doing better than him will afford even more and even better stuff, his well-being will also improve with respect to where it used to as the result of the improved productivity.
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,
Well our regulation is what keeps our products uncompetitive with those from around around the world, as it greatly increases the cost of manufactoring/servicing because of all the compliances. Then there are other regulations that increase the cost of hiring (without actually helping those being hired.) If you remove both of those, you will more affordable labor + more productive manufactoring/services per capita, this will make us more competitive.
Very basic knowledge of economics dictates that the nature of supply/demand tends minimize marginal profit, and maximize total sales, this leads to increased qualtiy, and decreased cost of products.
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.
Oh I DO know. Subsidies aren't good. Subsidies and our agricultural regulations are increasing the food prices soooo much. And yes, people are starving, all because large agricultural special interest groups are willing to pay our government tons of cash to avoid having to compete in a fair market... Direct result of giving government the power of regulating agriculture.
Well i guess in your dream land the poor people would die off after a good generation or two.
Dunno where you got that from lol.
|
On October 28 2011 03:11 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:08 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:PROPOSAL:
We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.
We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.
All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.
While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.
The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.
The Strike Coordinating Council will begin meeting everyday at 5pm in Oscar Grant Plaza before the daily General Assembly at 7pm. All strike participants are invited. Stay tuned for much more information and see you next Wednesday. Source Calling for a general strike is going stupidly all in. If this doesn't work, they're done.
It seems to be just a proposal as this point, but so far Student walk outs have been pretty successful at least in NYC, Boston etc.
|
On October 28 2011 01:12 bonifaceviii wrote: Income inequality in America: The 99 percent+ Show Spoiler +OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.
what does that graph even prove?
|
Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes.
|
On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote: Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes.
Yeah I did...
I still don't get the point of this.
Why is it wrong for businesses to pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be, how can businesses do that, and not go broke?
edited for clarity
|
On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote: Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies?
Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day.
|
|
On October 28 2011 03:30 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2011 03:22 Kiarip wrote:On October 28 2011 03:17 bonifaceviii wrote: Nothing. It just fits well into the protesters' narrative.
Honestly, it would behoove you to read the articles sometimes. Yeah I did... I still don't get the point of this. Why is it the businesses' fault that they pay their CEO's a bunch of money? Shouldn't the real question be why those businesses have not gone out of business due to their seemingly poor management and policies? Well, it's kind of a big circle, isn't it? The business has people in Washington passing the legislation that makes their poor business policies possible, whether it's through regulations or bail outs. And then you have people saying, blame the government, or blame the business. But really, they're all part of one big interconnected web. So, yea, it is the business' fault at the end of the day.
If you have to place fault, why so fast to dump gov's accountability and just say buisness? Take away all the faces, all parties, all the names, and visualize the U.S. under one President, one party, who over time, with bankers/business interests who got us to this point. How would you fix it?
Edit: Would you blame the torture perpetrators and not consider John Yoo? If Blackwater tortures? Is it them, or those that enabled them?
|
|
|
|