On November 19 2011 02:18 Aterons_toss wrote: Its a shame that this is still going on. A "99%"protest for wealth redistribution in a country in which most of the population say they would vote for republicans its just silly and shows lack of basic knowledge about ether democracy or capitalism... most likely both
actually most people would vote slightly center left based solely on the issues, but those who do vote tend to vote to the center right. That much hasn't changed in 60 years. Which is odd when you think about who wins elections and what issues win, people who win tend to be voted in based on people for them less then people against the other guy, yet when it comes to issues and ballots people tend to vote against something rather then for something.
If you had a socially liberal true fiscally conservative candidate they would dominate the election. Regan, and Bill Clinton come to mind there.
The problem is the party primaries, social liberals don't win republican nominations and fiscal conservatives don't win the democratic nomination....
So we get left of center right of center candidates on all topics.
On November 19 2011 01:57 silent_marauder24 wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:28 mechavoc wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:06 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:04 Krikkitone wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:59 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
As the west we are the richest people in the world and everyone living like we do would be a major disaster. But to see that we are exponentially richer then the world, begs to look at how exponentially richer the few are compared to the majority within our own ranks. But thinking in terms of our world is very applicable and ultimately more important then everyone getting an ipad 2.
So you are in agreement that we all must live more simply so that others may simply live? (I love catchy phrases like that)
It would be hard though because I like all the nice things I have and I enjoy having first world problems, but if everyone else gives up their toys (and I mean everyone) I will as well. Though I am pretty confident there are enough selfish people in the West so I will not need to make any sacrifices of personal comfort.
Yes, things will have to go far past the tipping point of sustainability of our lifestyles before any major changes will happen. Even then the rest of the world will have to sacrifice before the west decides too. Some say im pessimistic
On November 19 2011 01:57 silent_marauder24 wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:28 mechavoc wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:06 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:04 Krikkitone wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:59 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
As the west we are the richest people in the world and everyone living like we do would be a major disaster. But to see that we are exponentially richer then the world, begs to look at how exponentially richer the few are compared to the majority within our own ranks. But thinking in terms of our world is very applicable and ultimately more important then everyone getting an ipad 2.
So you are in agreement that we all must live more simply so that others may simply live? (I love catchy phrases like that)
It would be hard though because I like all the nice things I have and I enjoy having first world problems, but if everyone else gives up their toys (and I mean everyone) I will as well. Though I am pretty confident there are enough selfish people in the West so I will not need to make any sacrifices of personal comfort.
Yes, things will have to go far past the tipping point of sustainability of our lifestyles before any major changes will happen. Even then the rest of the world will have to sacrifice before the west decides too. Some say im pessimistic
I would say you are realistic.
That is the problem of economics, people by their nature are selfish to those they do not have a relationship with and the best of intentions become warped and exploited by this.
On November 19 2011 01:57 silent_marauder24 wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:28 mechavoc wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:06 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 01:04 Krikkitone wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:59 nennx wrote:
On November 19 2011 00:42 mechavoc wrote: So OWS is about income redistribution? That is not something I can get behind as it is down right silly. Unlike election reform which I find makes much more sense.
I'm assuming once they have taken the money from the 1% they will also be giving up their Starbucks, Prius, I-phones and hipster scarves to provide potable drinking water for those in the Sudan. After all almost 100% of the people lucky enough to win the birth lottery and be born in America are in the top 1% worldwide.
So if it is a good and proper thing to redistribute the wealth of the top 1% in America it should be good and proper to redistribute 1% worldwide.
If we do this however we will no longer have a team liquid site as luxury items such as computers and SC2 are a bit too expensive to provide for all 7 billion humans around the globe. If this happens I will miss you all, but I will congratulate you on making a better more equal world.
edit: verb usage correction
Income redistribution is already occurring, it just needs to be going the other direction. Are you really fine with the average person getting less and less money every year while the wealthy who do nothing with their a high amount money get more and more every year? This is awful for the economy and the government.
And the whole worldwide analogy is just ridiculous since most of the world's population doesn't even have means to use the wealth that they would get. Not to mention, most of those people are already happier than Americans are. Lets not spread our shitty, stressful, lifestyles to them.
So they are happier even having less money... perhaps we just need to make the 99% of people in the Western world even poorer so that they can be happy and give up their shitty, stressful lifestyles. (the 1% of those in the Western world can suffer the burden of accumulating all the unhappy wealth) .[/sarcasm]
If the 1% of the US should be giving up their money for the 99% of the US, then the 1% of the world (people over ~50,000 income ie the US and other western nations) should do it for the 99% of the world.
We are already stuck here, its not that easy to transition backward.
The whole "world" argument is just not applicable when talking about a US (or Western world) related issue. Please stop bringing it up.
And no one is saying that the top 1% of Americans should give up all of their money instantly. They should still be in the top 1% after a wealth redistribution has occurred over some number of years. They will still be wealthy and they will still have more money than they need. Most people are giving up more and more of their paychecks every year in taxes and insurance costs, so why can't extremely wealthy people be doing the same (except more)?
The whole world argument is pretty applicable, So it seems reasonable to bring it up again and again. People want to take from others to get what they want simple as that, the 1% want it the 99% want it. We all want a better standard of living.
So it is hypocritical to say well we already enjoy being in the top 1% world wide and can't go backwards as I really love my PS3 and Flatscreen TV,but those millionaires really should be sacrificed so I can get 4 years of free college and maybe a little bigger flat screen TV.
This nasty little bit of hypocricy is why I think the OWS movement would be much better served if they focused on a single obtainable goal like election reform. Atleast with that they can maintin the integrity of their message.
As the west we are the richest people in the world and everyone living like we do would be a major disaster. But to see that we are exponentially richer then the world, begs to look at how exponentially richer the few are compared to the majority within our own ranks. But thinking in terms of our world is very applicable and ultimately more important then everyone getting an ipad 2.
So you are in agreement that we all must live more simply so that others may simply live? (I love catchy phrases like that)
It would be hard though because I like all the nice things I have and I enjoy having first world problems, but if everyone else gives up their toys (and I mean everyone) I will as well. Though I am pretty confident there are enough selfish people in the West so I will not need to make any sacrifices of personal comfort.
Yes, things will have to go far past the tipping point of sustainability of our lifestyles before any major changes will happen. Even then the rest of the world will have to sacrifice before the west decides too. Some say im pessimistic
define tipping point. for those protesting, it has been reached, for others, it will be reached soon, others not. what is it for you? What is sustainability? To me, it has passed the sustainable threshold a long time ago.
So I wanted more information about the activities yesterday and not surprisingly mainstream media was not at all helpful about that (They did have a story about a dog that can dive underwater though, much more important). This thread has also been more about the issues than reporting the events (which is fine). Anyways I'm just sharing relevant reddit link that seems to have a good amount of footage from yesterday including some good shoots of the big march (30k+ they claim and given that photo a few pages back I tend to believe it).
On November 19 2011 03:43 Logo wrote: So I wanted more information about the activities yesterday and not surprisingly mainstream media was not at all helpful about that (They did have a story about a dog that can dive underwater though, much more important). This thread has also been more about the issues than reporting the events (which is fine). Anyways I'm just sharing relevant reddit link that seems to have a good amount of footage from yesterday including some good shoots of the big march (30k+ they claim and given that photo a few pages back I tend to believe it).
I'm in love with that first picture. Yeah you can say all this stuff about what the protester might have been doing etc, but it's still an incredibly powerful picture that's also really well composed/framed/shot.
That second picture is from Greece, if I recall correctly. It's in solidarity with OWS--or, should I say, OWS says the two are in solidarity with each other--but I don't believe it's in New York.
Still, powerful images...and I cannot help but be disappointed with the (relative) white-washing by the media of the movement at large.
On November 19 2011 05:19 ChaosWielder wrote: That second picture is from Greece, if I recall correctly. It's in solidarity with OWS--or, should I say, OWS says the two are in solidarity with each other--but I don't believe it's in New York.
Still, powerful images...and I cannot help but be disappointed with the (relative) white-washing by the media of the movement at large.
It is from Greece. Though there's a good one from NYC:
On November 19 2011 00:52 Krikkitone wrote: and in relation to another poster... you are in the top 1% if you make more than ~$50,000 per year. ie anyone with a fulltime professional job. probably a sizable chunk of the Occupy movement is in the top 1% (worldwide)
...Are you high? The cutoff to get into the top 1% of income earners is an adjusted gross income of more than $343,927.
You are either seriously misinformed or being incredibly dishonest.
Or plausibly even more. A source from 2011 states the cutoff at $506,553.
On November 19 2011 00:52 Krikkitone wrote: and in relation to another poster... you are in the top 1% if you make more than ~$50,000 per year. ie anyone with a fulltime professional job. probably a sizable chunk of the Occupy movement is in the top 1% (worldwide)
...Are you high? The cutoff to get into the top 1% of income earners is an adjusted gross income of more than $343,927.
You are either seriously misinformed or being incredibly dishonest.
Or plausibly even more. A source from 2011 states the cutoff at $506,553.
I'm in love with that first picture. Yeah you can say all this stuff about what the protester might have been doing etc, but it's still an incredibly powerful picture that's also really well composed/framed/shot.
Good show of Democracy Now! today (Friday, Nov 18). Anyone not understanding what this is all about should check it out. It also clears up many misconceptions about the movement. One thing I found interesting is that the guy who runs Global Revolution TV was an ex-Wall Street guy :D.
On November 19 2011 00:52 Krikkitone wrote: and in relation to another poster... you are in the top 1% if you make more than ~$50,000 per year. ie anyone with a fulltime professional job. probably a sizable chunk of the Occupy movement is in the top 1% (worldwide)
...Are you high? The cutoff to get into the top 1% of income earners is an adjusted gross income of more than $343,927.
You are either seriously misinformed or being incredibly dishonest.
Or plausibly even more. A source from 2011 states the cutoff at $506,553.
Reading skills are lacking in this one.
It's not true for worldwide income either. According to a 2007 paper by the Economic Policy Research Institute, assets of
US$517,601 is needed to be in the top one per cent.
Only $8,325 was needed in order to belong to the top half of the world wealth distribution in the year 2000; but to be a member of the top 10 per cent required at least $87,876 and membership of the top 1 per cent required more than $517,601 per adult. This latter figure is surprisingly high, given that the top 1 per cent group contains 37 million adults and is therefore far from an exclusive club. The entrance fee has no doubt grown higher still in the period since the year 2000.
By comparison,
the USA again ranks first in net worth per capita, at $143,857, followed by Australia at $101,597, and Japan at $91,856. In this group, India and Indonesia occupy the bottom two positions, at $6,513 and $7,973, respectively.
Adjusted for inflation, but assuming no other changes in the distribution of wealth, you need assets of $664,359 to be in the top 1% worldwide. 2011 net national per capita wealth in the US was $187,500.
That level of net worth reflects about the top 25% of US citizens. So 75% of the United States belongs with 99% of the entire human population in terms of net worth.
Bring on your garbage claims, guys. I have time to debunk even more of them.
EDIT 2: Whoops, misread the charts regarding US citizen net worth. About 25% of US citizens fall in the top 1% of global wealth. Updated previous numbers. Source: Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, 2009, linked here
your point? We do just fine in comparison to a 3rd world nations so shut up and take it in the ass americans?
Funny thing about avg, is when you have a small group of people who are extreme on one end they can carry the avg up. 1% of a nation of 300million+ ofc 1% is still going to be a large number over all. but doesn't change that it's 1%
On November 19 2011 08:27 semantics wrote: your point? We do just fine in comparison to a 3rd world nations so shut up and take it in the ass americans?
Funny thing about avg, is when you have a small group of people who are extreme on one end they can carry the avg up. 1% of a nation of 300million+ ofc 1% is still going to be a large number over all. but doesn't change that it's 1%
We also have millions of homeless people on the otherside that cancels them out if not dragging the mean further down.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z8f2NwdyHJI/TsabOze_4lI/AAAAAAAAAxQ/HgiLZwxFgnM/s1600/pepper.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SdrWBVQKNNI/Tsabeytmg1I/AAAAAAAAAxg/5OrGR9h3Q6s/s1600/nov17-2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://gothamist.com/attachments/byakas/10511march27.jpg)
