NASHVILLE – State officials gave up, at least temporarily, on arresting Occupy Nashville protesters near the State Capitol Monday, hours after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal court lawsuit to halt the arrests and block restrictions imposed on protests last Thursday.
In a brief court hearing Monday afternoon, state attorneys told U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger that it would not contest ACLU’s request for a temporary restraining order against the state’s new restrictions. The judge issued the uncontested order and said she likely would have even if the state had fought it.
“I can't think of a more quintessential public forum than Legislative Plaza,” Judge Trauger said.
The plaza is marble-tiled, fountain-filled half block of public space across the street from Tennessee’s State Capitol that has been the site of many political demonstrations over the years. A few dozen people protesting “corporate greed” as part of the national Occupy Wall Street movement have been encamped in a corner of the plaza since Oct. 9.
Acting with Gov. Bill Haslam’s backing, state officials last Thursday issued a new policy closing Legislative Plaza, Capitol grounds and a small adjoining courtyard to the public from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily and requiring $65-per-day permits and a $1 million liability insurance policy to stage rallies and protests there. About 12 hours later, in the pre-dawn darkness Friday morning, abut 75 state troopers arrested 29 protesters who refused their orders to vacate, including three from Memphis, followed by another 26 early Saturday.
Acting with Gov. Bill Haslam’s backing, state officials last Thursday issued a new policy closing Legislative Plaza, Capitol grounds and a small adjoining courtyard to the public from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily and requiring $65-per-day permits and a $1 million liability insurance policy to stage rallies and protests there. About 12 hours later, in the pre-dawn darkness Friday morning, abut 75 state troopers arrested 29 protesters who refused their orders to vacate, including three from Memphis, followed by another 26 early Saturday.
NASHVILLE – State officials gave up, at least temporarily, on arresting Occupy Nashville protesters near the State Capitol Monday, hours after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal court lawsuit to halt the arrests and block restrictions imposed on protests last Thursday.
In a brief court hearing Monday afternoon, state attorneys told U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger that it would not contest ACLU’s request for a temporary restraining order against the state’s new restrictions. The judge issued the uncontested order and said she likely would have even if the state had fought it.
“I can't think of a more quintessential public forum than Legislative Plaza,” Judge Trauger said.
The plaza is marble-tiled, fountain-filled half block of public space across the street from Tennessee’s State Capitol that has been the site of many political demonstrations over the years. A few dozen people protesting “corporate greed” as part of the national Occupy Wall Street movement have been encamped in a corner of the plaza since Oct. 9.
Acting with Gov. Bill Haslam’s backing, state officials last Thursday issued a new policy closing Legislative Plaza, Capitol grounds and a small adjoining courtyard to the public from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily and requiring $65-per-day permits and a $1 million liability insurance policy to stage rallies and protests there. About 12 hours later, in the pre-dawn darkness Friday morning, abut 75 state troopers arrested 29 protesters who refused their orders to vacate, including three from Memphis, followed by another 26 early Saturday.
Didn't Judge Nelson essentially strike down the law's efficacy by refusing to sign arrests? ACLU suit or not, Judge Nelson made the right ruling on a law timed specifically to target an inconvenient use of freedom of speech. At least that part of the judicial system is working well.
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
What regulations. I've heard people say this but not citing which regulations. Because regulations in general can and do work. It was a big reason the Canadian banking system is doing ok instead of bad. I am genuinely curious. Or is it just lassiez-faire smoke and mirrors.
The reason why banks are hording money as much as they physically can right now is because they are all sitting on a 600 trillion unfunded derivative market. Thats not even the accurate number beacuse of how unregulated derivatives are banks don't even have to report them. It could be crazy one way or the other. if Greece is allowed to collapse and default on its loans then the banks will have to cover up the literal bomb that will blow up with trying to pay off those derivatives.
if Greece goes the banks that lent money to them will go which will cause other banks to go if they don't have the money on hand to cover the default of the nations debt.
4 banks in america are responsible for 95.5 percent of the derivatives. guess which ones got the bailout?
The only people that can save the euro from going down if things blow up (and the world turning to Armageddon unlike anything the world has seen before) is china. The same nation that was used as cannon fodder in the world wars, abused as the colony of the world, and then manipulated like a pawn with no respect for its existence or well being is now the only one that can save your countries ass.
Asia has been used little better then africa and now what? Asia can make the whole world burn if they mearly speak some words to the cameras. We certainly live in interesting times.
On November 01 2011 07:38 semantics wrote: I serious thought to myself this is sad, the first time i was reading up on American history, within 20 years we went from a man who had a diverse background a surely inspirational person, to Coolidge who would only work till 6pm. Considered a lazy vastly corrupt administration which just so happens to correspond with the years before the great depression.
I don't know what kind of argument you are trying to construct by bringing up Coolidge. Coolidge was the last Federalist president allowing the several states to manage their own affairs. After him, the pattern has been one of Imperial presidency. Coolidge rolled back all of the Wilsonian war provisions including tax rates and the planned economy. It was a return to normalcy. Coolidge was a peace president, brokering and signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact under his watch.
The most influential man of Coolidge's term was actually one Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce. Herbert Hoover was the arguably the most powerful Secretary of Commerce, ever, and often stole functionaries from other cabinet positions because he was such a busy body. Hoover invited industry leaders to participate in designing standards and policy, which were then lobbied for by the Department in the various states. Hoover encouraged cooperation between businessmen of the same industry. (Dangerous to quote Adam Smith - "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.") Hoover managed other areas of the economy from home ownership to radio to flood control.
On November 01 2011 13:10 sermokala wrote: The only people that can save the euro from going down if things blow up (and the world turning to Armageddon unlike anything the world has seen before) is china. The same nation that was used as cannon fodder in the world wars, abused as the colony of the world, and then manipulated like a pawn with no respect for its existence or well being is now the only one that can save your countries ass.
China has its own problems. They're not going to be in strong enough position to White Knight for Europe or US, and even if they were strong enough for US or Europe they couldn't do both and don't have any reason to. On the contrary, weakness coming out of China when the rest of the world expects strength could trigger the crisis rather than alleviate it.
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: And the only real firewall possible is to limit the power of government in the economy. Either that or just nationalize everything (which is obviously dumb.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
So what stops politicians from accepting personal gifts/bribes, and what stops politicians from running mock campaigns to get their hands on public tax payer money?
Seems like your system has some flaws also.
If you're gonna institute rules (I'm not necessarily against those,) for the government, why not also just make a rule that keeps the government away from the economy? Seems like all misjustice that gets done by corporations only occurs when they are propped up by the government... Remove this power, and not only do corporations lose incentive in lobbying they're also exposed to fair competition which will in turn serve the consumer with lower prices and higher quality much more so than any regulations would.
On November 01 2011 04:30 B00ts wrote: I think Trump said it best on peirs morgan the other night.. The issue is the banks aren't lending money due to ridiculous regulations by the government... So while the people are pissed at wall street and the banks.. To an extent (note i said to an extent), their hands are tied.
This isn't true at all there's almost no real regulation of the market left and they're paying the lowest tax rates they've paid since the great depression.
The majority of the regulation put in place after the great depression, to prevent another, has been lobbied out ( removed ) by the banks and big business.
Trump is a MORON and a LIAR. He knows the truth, you think you get that rich by accident? But you think he'll own up to that fact that they are playing with loaded dice and no babysitters?
The last 30-40 years have been a butchering of whatever regulation was in place and enormous tax cuts.
Glass-Stegall = Prevent customer money from being gambled with ( put in place after great depression ) removed.
The fact that anyone would listen to Trump is insanity since he himself is insane ( and a tool )
Even the Dodd=Frank that was supposed to correct some of the LACK of regulation, which led to the 2008 crisis, got ATTACKED as it went through congress and is now in effect worthless. Why? Because big business and big BANKS especially lobbied their asses off ( read : bribed the government ) to not regulate them. Are you of the belief that a banker who is charged with regulating himself does a good job? That's laughable.
Now we've established that LOW TAXES and NO REGULATION for the "job creators" is already the status-quo; ask your self if it's serving the middle class( majority ) or if it's helping the TOP 1%.
But as you'll notice, most of those regulations and even the agencies that upheld them have since been removed.
Re: Look I don't want to argue about the new deal, the point is the above mentioned content. I personally CANNOT agree with anyone who says the implementation of the legislation that contained Glass-Stegall ( investment bank separation from consumer banks ) to be a failure but I will admit it is neither perfect nor applicable today. That just means we need a New New Deal, one that cannot be lobbied.
Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations.
FDR's presidency in general was terrible, as it wrecked the economy and delayed the recovery from the Great Deppression for several years..
On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations.
Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis.
On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations.
Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis.
Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED.
The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base.
Glass-Steagall was there to counter-act two things in which the government already messed up in the first place...
On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED.
Yes, because abandoning monetary policy would be a great idea for stable prices and unemployment.
On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base.
The FDIC exists to prevent bank runs. Do you have any idea how much more danger to the economy there would be without it?
But since you live in an imaginary world where we never learned any lessons from the Great Depression and/or the regulations put in place to fix it and prevent it's reoccurence made it worse, I'm sure economics, history, and logic have any bearing on your ideology.
libertarians live in a world assuming some reason the invisible hand of the market is benevolent, and little bending of history fits their reality. Instead of saying a man was shot and kill rather frame it as a man died end of story, the fact he was shot is not part of that story sorry, in-fact if anything him being shot just covered up his underlying conditions, after all to be alive is the act of dieing and so him being shot has nothing to do with it. To say FDR wrecked the econ is like saying obama wrecked the econ after all he had a few months to deal with it come on man! The econ was already shit it's just a matter of how to clean it up.
On November 01 2011 07:38 semantics wrote: I serious thought to myself this is sad, the first time i was reading up on American history, within 20 years we went from a man who had a diverse background a surely inspirational person, to Coolidge who would only work till 6pm. Considered a lazy vastly corrupt administration which just so happens to correspond with the years before the great depression.
I don't know what kind of argument you are trying to construct by bringing up Coolidge. Coolidge was the last Federalist president allowing the several states to manage their own affairs. After him, the pattern has been one of Imperial presidency. Coolidge rolled back all of the Wilsonian war provisions including tax rates and the planned economy. It was a return to normalcy. Coolidge was a peace president, brokering and signing the Kellogg-Briand Pact under his watch.
The most influential man of Coolidge's term was actually one Herbert Hoover, the Secretary of Commerce. Herbert Hoover was the arguably the most powerful Secretary of Commerce, ever, and often stole functionaries from other cabinet positions because he was such a busy body. Hoover invited industry leaders to participate in designing standards and policy, which were then lobbied for by the Department in the various states. Hoover encouraged cooperation between businessmen of the same industry. (Dangerous to quote Adam Smith - "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.") Hoover managed other areas of the economy from home ownership to radio to flood control.
On November 01 2011 13:10 sermokala wrote: The only people that can save the euro from going down if things blow up (and the world turning to Armageddon unlike anything the world has seen before) is china. The same nation that was used as cannon fodder in the world wars, abused as the colony of the world, and then manipulated like a pawn with no respect for its existence or well being is now the only one that can save your countries ass.
China has its own problems. They're not going to be in strong enough position to White Knight for Europe or US, and even if they were strong enough for US or Europe they couldn't do both and don't have any reason to. On the contrary, weakness coming out of China when the rest of the world expects strength could trigger the crisis rather than alleviate it.
China has something like nothing else in the world: Economic growth. That is the engine that drives the world and the euro/usa sphere is lacking. zero foreign obligations and a super massive surplus to the budget that gets thrown at whatever the government can while it keeps the non free world friendly oil nations under its thumb. Not to even talk about their grasp on russias balls though its natural resources contracts. Its commitment to buying greek govt bonds is the real secret behind all the business about why the show is still running.
On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED.
Yes, because abandoning monetary policy would be a great idea for stable prices and unemployment.
LOL... You think the FED has been stabilizing prices? Look at commodities index... Food is going up 15% a year...
FED bails out foreign banks and we don't know anything about it... 15 trillion dollars lent straight out of the printing press? np np.
How does that help unemployment and stability of prices? Ever since the easy money policies have been adapted by the FED our economy has been sprinting downhill.
On November 01 2011 14:13 Kiarip wrote:The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base.
The FDIC exists to prevent bank runs. Do you have any idea how much more danger to the economy there would be without it?
But since you live in an imaginary world where the Great Depression didn't happen and the regulations put in place to prevent it's reoccurence made it worse, I'm sure economics, history, and logic have any bearing on your ideology.
LOL. FDIC simply lifts the liability from the banks and put it on the government (which is sponsored by tax-payers' dollars...)
How does it take people out of danger? If anything it puts economy in more danger, because if peopel arne't worried about their deposits the banks can do w.e the hell they want, and then when their deals fall through, and they lose money the government steps in and uses tax-payer money to bail out the small deposits, thus condoning the banks' behavior...
Try studying things other than school textbooks filled with Keynesian economics... A huge recession occurred in the late 1920s and early 1930s because of the easy credit that was available in the early 20s thanks to the FED, and the reason it started off so bad is because back then people and businesses didn't understand the danger that the government was putting us in, now even during the housing bubble people were a bit more careful, and the disease was only affecting a single business sector (real-estate,) so it wasn't as bad.
Then of course we've had Roosevelt step in and the recession turned into a Great Deppression. When the war started he used it to justify rationing absolutely EVERYTHING, which of course helped us get out of the recession, because when you're not consuming anything, the economy can recover. We got out of the war, and had an economy boom because we were the only ones in the western world who didn't lose tons of infrastructure, but the seeds for the future economic disasters were already planted, and well accepted as our saving grace.
libertarians live in a world assuming some reason the invisible hand of the market is benevolent, and little bending of history fits their reality. Instead of saying a man was shot and kill rather frame it as a man died end of story, the fact he was shot is not part of that story sorry, in-fact if anything him being shot just covered up his underlying conditions, after all to be alive is the act of dieing and so him being shot has nothing to do with it. To say FDR wrecked the econ is like saying obama wrecked the econ after all he had a few months to deal with it come on man! The econ was already shit it's just a matter of how to clean it up
Great analogy, if only it was actually applicable to how the market works.
Both FDR and Obama inherited a shitty situation and made it worse.
What created the shitty situation in the first place are the policies from the same economic ideology that FDR and Obama said would get us out of the mess...
On November 01 2011 13:43 Kiarip wrote:Glass-Steagal was only needed because the government guaranteed a 200,000$ compensation in case money was lost, which gave the banks the freedom to gamble riskily.
The need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations.
Except that banks gamble riskily to the detriment of the economy regardless. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was what allowed commercial banks to trade risky financial instruments, thereby leading to the financial crisis.
Low interest rates was what gave them the incentive to gamble with money in the first place, which were implemented by the FED.
The guaranteed bank accounts by the government is what allowed them to do it without blowback from their customer-base.
Glass-Steagall was there to counter-act two things in which the government already messed up in the first place...
Then what was the cause of the recessions and depressions before the Fed was created? We're talking about contractions of 10+% of GPD before the Fed was created, then ones of much smaller severity after.
I'll admit it's not a perfect system that we have, but it's MUCH better than what we had 100 years ago.
This debate over market intervention actually reminds me of control system theory. Basically, there is a simple control system design called "open loop" which essentially can have a consistent error of 0% at all times, as long as conditions are perfect. However, when disturbances are added to the system, the error can balloon to very large numbers. Because of this, a better approach is to use a much more complicated "closed loop" system. This type of system hardly ever reaches that perfect 0% error, but disturbances are easily manageable.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:LOL... You think the FED has been stabilizing prices? Look at commodities index... Food is going up 15% a year...
You don't seem to understand correlation and causation. Food prices have gone up due to worldwide shortages. Without monetary policy, food prices (and the prices of everything else) would fluctuate far more.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:FED bails out foreign banks and we don't know anything about it... 15 trillion dollars lent straight out of the printing press? np np.
You're making shit up. The Fed's emergency lending programs as part of the bailout packages totaled 3.3 trillion, most of which were directed towards US corporations. Foreign banks did recieve some of the money due to bailouts of their US subsidiaries. Regardless, these lending programs actually turned a profit, and helped prevent a complete financial meltdown.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:How does that help unemployment and stability of prices? Ever since the easy money policies have been adapted by the FED our economy has been sprinting downhill.
Our economy has continued to grow since the days of the Great Depression, despite various problems. The biggest problems with our economy have come from increasing budget deficits/public debt, the decline of the education system, and increasing outsourcing of manufacturing as too much of the workforce has shifted towards finance and services. The monetary policies of the Fed have mitigated these problems and prevented them from becoming worse.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:LOL. FDIC simply lifts the liability from the banks and put it on the government (which is sponsored by tax-payers' dollars...)
No. What it also does is have a strong positive effect on depositor confidence. Do yourself a favor and study Akerlof's The Market for Lemons and learn why preventing consumer uncertainty benefits the market.
The FDIC might not have been the best way to go about it, but it's implementation was a positive step.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote:How does it take people out of danger? If anything it puts economy in more danger, because if peopel arne't worried about their deposits the banks can do w.e the hell they want, and then when their deals fall through, and they lose money the government steps in and uses tax-payer money to bail out the small deposits, thus condoning the banks' behavior...
Because the economy will fail if people are scared to put their money in banks.
Kiarip hit the nail on the head. "When you're not consuming anything, the economy can recover." That's exactly what got us out of the Great Depression. That must be why Soviet Union industrialized so quickly in the 30s - because Stalin got everyone to eat less so they could use the surplus to make tanks and stuff.
"They lose money the government steps in and uses tax-payer money to bail out the small deposits, thus condoning the banks' behavior." Right on the dot once again. The government must be in league with those banks that profited a lot from the recession. And now that damn communist Obama who is in league with them banks is trying to put regulations on banks which will no doubt just cause them to pull us into a deeper recession and as we all know "the need for regulation is only ever spawned by other regulations." You know, kinda like "bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." If the latter makes sense, so must the former, right? Substitution from math, learned it in Grade 6.
On November 01 2011 14:33 Kiarip wrote: Try studying things other than school textbooks filled with Keynesian economics... A huge recession occurred in the late 1920s and early 1930s because of the easy credit that was available in the early 20s thanks to the FED, and the reason it started off so bad is because back then people and businesses didn't understand the danger that the government was putting us in, now even during the housing bubble people were a bit more careful, and the disease was only affecting a single business sector (real-estate,) so it wasn't as bad.
I'll do that once other economic theories use evidence to back up their claims and not just conjecture. Austrian "school" belongs in a philosophy class with the cave allegory, not in an honest discussion about monetary and government intervention policies.
I've always found it amazing someone can say it's the governments fault and accept it's from corporate influence on the government and then say the solution would be less government as if the corporate influence bending the markets is apparently only possible with government.
NASHVILLE – State officials gave up, at least temporarily, on arresting Occupy Nashville protesters near the State Capitol Monday, hours after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal court lawsuit to halt the arrests and block restrictions imposed on protests last Thursday.
In a brief court hearing Monday afternoon, state attorneys told U.S. District Court Judge Aleta Trauger that it would not contest ACLU’s request for a temporary restraining order against the state’s new restrictions. The judge issued the uncontested order and said she likely would have even if the state had fought it.
“I can't think of a more quintessential public forum than Legislative Plaza,” Judge Trauger said.
The plaza is marble-tiled, fountain-filled half block of public space across the street from Tennessee’s State Capitol that has been the site of many political demonstrations over the years. A few dozen people protesting “corporate greed” as part of the national Occupy Wall Street movement have been encamped in a corner of the plaza since Oct. 9.
Acting with Gov. Bill Haslam’s backing, state officials last Thursday issued a new policy closing Legislative Plaza, Capitol grounds and a small adjoining courtyard to the public from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily and requiring $65-per-day permits and a $1 million liability insurance policy to stage rallies and protests there. About 12 hours later, in the pre-dawn darkness Friday morning, abut 75 state troopers arrested 29 protesters who refused their orders to vacate, including three from Memphis, followed by another 26 early Saturday.
Hey man, just wanted to say thanks for the constant updates. I don't have time to find these things for myself at the moment (exams ), so it's really appreciated
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IQNEQ.jpg)
), so it's really appreciated 
