On October 12 2011 01:13 Equity213 wrote: All I can think of in all this is a quote by Rothbard:
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
Making Economic Sense (1995)
I realize not everyone at the protests is ignorant. Its a diverse crowd and I have no doubt that some of them are well informed. However from listening to the big ticket speakers they have had and reading the various websites and signs its pretty apparent that most of them cant tell the difference between voluntary trade and corporatism.
Kind of ironic how almost everyone with an education in economics would disagree with Rothbard on how economic systems work then. Maybe the Austrian economists are the ones who should follow his own advice and not spew their ignorance?
If the occupy crowd get's a little lost, could someone hand them a map.
That map doesn't seem to include the politicians who merged all those banks together under TARP, I wonder why?
Oh, TARP. You mean that one program that was created and pushed into action by the former Goldman Sachs CEO Paulson. The real question that you should be wondering about is whether there's a line between the politicians and bankers that you're so persistently trying to draw.
On October 11 2011 12:09 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's that Marxism fucking failed on its own terms! It didn't provide peace, or prosperity, or freedom, or a society with no classes, and most of all, it didn't beat capitalism.
Didn't beat capitalism, you say? I'm assuming you're referring to the SU, since that was the only attempt to implement "Marxism" at a big scale. I'm sure you're aware that SU successfully competed with US in technology field and in sports and at it's peak it's economy growth rate exceeded US. One might say they were equal for some time, but that would be dumb thing to say, cause their initial conditions were far from being equal. Just a quarter of a century before that SU laid in ruins with tens of millions being killed first by revolution, than by drought and then in the most horrific war. Such massive waves of destruction never touched US lands in it's whole history. And yet, they were competing with each other some 20 years later. + Show Spoiler +
That's with a planned economy made on a paper using abacus. One can only wonder how much it would improve with the help of modern supercomputers. You know, like the ones Goldman Sachs uses for their high frequency trading (or should I say High Frequency Plunder, cause that more accurately reflect what they're doing).
Democracy is simply Fascism by a majority of idiots. In the case of America people that love to point and blame others instead of taking steps to improve themselves first.
On October 12 2011 02:38 cydial wrote: Democracy is simply Fascism by a majority of idiots. In the case of America people that love to point and blame others instead of taking steps to improve themselves first.
Yeah. Fuck Democracy, go Cronyism! If they poor people working two jobs don't have the right friends or know how to cheat the system then fuck em.
On October 12 2011 02:38 cydial wrote: Democracy is simply Fascism by a majority of idiots. In the case of America people that love to point and blame others instead of taking steps to improve themselves first.
Yeah. Fuck Democracy, go Cronyism! If they poor people working two jobs don't have the right friends or know how to cheat the system then fuck em.
Never said anything about cronyism. Don't postulate off of nothing. What good does blaming others do? Instead of blaming a few rich people is it so hard to say that maybe we as Americans brought this on ourselves? No, we love to say nope it was them other people.
We voted these idiots that vote for us into office and as a nation of scientifically and historically illiterate people it surprises you when this sort of shit happens?
On October 12 2011 02:38 cydial wrote: Democracy is simply Fascism by a majority of idiots. In the case of America people that love to point and blame others instead of taking steps to improve themselves first.
Yeah. Fuck Democracy, go Cronyism! If they poor people working two jobs don't have the right friends or know how to cheat the system then fuck em.
Never said anything about cronyism. Don't postulate off of nothing. What good does blaming others do? Instead of blaming a few rich people is it so hard to say that maybe we as Americans brought this on ourselves? No, we love to say nope it was them other people.
We voted these idiots that vote for us into office and as a nation of scientifically and historically illiterate people it surprises you when this sort of shit happens?
I think it is rather irrelevant who is to blame. What should be focused on is how the system is broken and how it can be fixed. The protesters don't necessarily blame the 1%, in fact some of the people protesting are part of the 1%. They are blaming the system that is rigged in favor of the 1%.
On October 11 2011 12:09 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's that Marxism fucking failed on its own terms! It didn't provide peace, or prosperity, or freedom, or a society with no classes, and most of all, it didn't beat capitalism.
Didn't beat capitalism, you say? I'm assuming you're referring to the SU, since that was the only attempt to implement "Marxism" at a big scale. I'm sure you're aware that SU successfully competed with US in technology field and in sports and at it's peak it's economy growth rate exceeded US. One might say they were equal for some time, but that would be dumb thing to say, cause their initial conditions were far from being equal. Just a quarter of a century before that SU laid in ruins with tens of millions being killed first by revolution, than by drought and then in the most horrific war. Such massive waves of destruction never touched US lands in it's whole history. And yet, they were competing with each other some 20 years later. + Show Spoiler +
That's with a planned economy made on a paper using abacus. One can only wonder how much it would improve with the help of modern supercomputers. You know, like the ones Goldman Sachs uses for their high frequency trading (or should I say High Frequency Plunder, cause that more accurately reflect what they're doing).
Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China for several decades were other examples of a completely centrally planned Marxist/socialist economy. All failed, some more miserably than others. China was smart and reformed to a centrally planned mixed economy.
The points about peace and freedom are as relevant as any. I'm not talking about the "freedom" to dump toxic waste wherever you want (btw these systems were as negligent about the environment as any multinational firm today - when the government is the industry, who regulates them?) or the freedom to keep 100% of your income without having to pay any taxes. Basic economic freedoms like choosing your own occupation or the ability to start your own business if you have an idea worth selling, do not exist in a totally planned system. Liberal values like equal rights, civil rights, reproductive freedom, and the right to protest went completely out the window. These societies were also very militarized/warlike, moreso than we are today. The relative distribution of incomes in the USA and USSR were nearly identical for most of the period when the latter state existed - inequality and poverty were not solved by these systems.
The USSR was also not poor for resources. They had vast wealth in oil, natural gas, and metal deposits. The communist system was ill-equipped to to take full advantage of these.
Creating those kind of societies means the government has to have almost unlimited power. Even if the initial president/leader was someone benevolent, what about the successor? Or the one after that? What if [pick your least favorite major politician] had complete control over every aspect of our society? It's a system that is inherently set up for disaster, which is what happened in every instance. Russia's death rate in late 30s/early 40s wasn't some fluke. Stalin was slaughtering his own people by the millions.
The modern American left would soon find that they would not be happy under such a system of government, however much they may despise corrupt/crony capitalism.
On October 11 2011 12:09 DeepElemBlues wrote: It's that Marxism fucking failed on its own terms! It didn't provide peace, or prosperity, or freedom, or a society with no classes, and most of all, it didn't beat capitalism.
Didn't beat capitalism, you say? I'm assuming you're referring to the SU, since that was the only attempt to implement "Marxism" at a big scale. I'm sure you're aware that SU successfully competed with US in technology field and in sports and at it's peak it's economy growth rate exceeded US. One might say they were equal for some time, but that would be dumb thing to say, cause their initial conditions were far from being equal. Just a quarter of a century before that SU laid in ruins with tens of millions being killed first by revolution, than by drought and then in the most horrific war. Such massive waves of destruction never touched US lands in it's whole history. And yet, they were competing with each other some 20 years later. + Show Spoiler +
That's with a planned economy made on a paper using abacus. One can only wonder how much it would improve with the help of modern supercomputers. You know, like the ones Goldman Sachs uses for their high frequency trading (or should I say High Frequency Plunder, cause that more accurately reflect what they're doing).
Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China for several decades were other examples of a completely centrally planned Marxist/socialist economy. All failed, some more miserably than others. China was smart and reformed to a centrally planned mixed economy.
The points about peace and freedom are as relevant as any. I'm not talking about the "freedom" to dump toxic waste wherever you want (btw these systems were as negligent about the environment as any multinational firm today - when the government is the industry, who regulates them?) or the freedom to keep 100% of your income without having to pay any taxes. Basic economic freedoms like choosing your own occupation or the ability to start your own business if you have an idea worth selling, do not exist in a totally planned system. Liberal values like equal rights, civil rights, reproductive freedom, and the right to protest went completely out the window. These societies were also very militarized/warlike, moreso than we are today. The relative distribution of incomes in the USA and USSR were nearly identical for most of the period when the latter state existed - inequality and poverty were not solved by these systems.
The USSR was also not poor for resources. They had vast wealth in oil, natural gas, and metal deposits. The communist system was ill-equipped to to take full advantage of these.
Creating those kind of societies means the government has to have almost unlimited power. Even if the initial president/leader was someone benevolent, what about the successor? Or the one after that? What if [pick your least favorite major politician] had complete control over every aspect of our society? It's a system that is inherently set up for disaster, which is what happened in every instance. Russia's death rate in late 30s/early 40s wasn't some fluke. Stalin was slaughtering his own people by the millions.
The modern American left would soon find that they would not be happy under such a system of government, however much they may despise corrupt/crony capitalism.
I'm pretty sure there are very few communists in the American left. Most of them are very strong supporters of civil liberties. What most of them want is a mixed economy or a capitalist society with checks and balances and a social safety net closer to that of European countries. Those on the fringe probably favor anarchistic views rather than communist. Their opinions would be just as close to libertarians as they are to communist, the only difference being their view of property/economy.
On October 12 2011 03:46 DrainX wrote: I'm pretty sure there are very few communists in the American left. Most of them are very strong supporters of civil liberties. What most of them want is a mixed economy or a capitalist society with checks and balances and a social safety net closer to that of European countries. Those on the fringe probably favor anarchistic views rather than communist. Their opinions would be just as close to libertarians as they are to communist, the only difference being their view of property/economy.
Loller Funny news report for people who know who Jamie Dimon is (related to Occupy wallstreet)
The Millionaire March -- the Occupy Wall Street spinoff that's marching on rich people's homes on the Upper East Side -- is outside of Jamie Dimon 's house right now.
The Millionaire March -- the Occupy Wall Street spinoff that's marching on rich people's homes on the Upper East Side -- is outside of Jamie Dimon 's house right now.
I...don't think this is right. If you want to protest, protest in front of the man's office or in a place of business, even a public place if you have to. Don't go in front of the his house and start spewing your bullshit.
If the occupy crowd get's a little lost, could someone hand them a map.
That map reminds me of some movies, when there is one big evil corporation in control of everything. People are oppressed, but some brave men opposing the corporation...
Edit: Hey Deep(and everyone else who cares to troll it), have you seen the New Ron Paul add? It's Gosu!!!
Ron Paul has 3% chance of winning according to betfair and even that is overoptimistic. Corporation lose only in a sci-fi movies...
If the occupy crowd get's a little lost, could someone hand them a map.
That map reminds me of some movies, when there is one big evil corporation in control of everything. People are oppressed, but some brave men opposing the corporation...
Ron Paul has 3% chance of winning according to betfair and even that is overoptimistic. Corporation lose only in a sci-fi movies...
3 % is still better than the chances of a RP thread staying open around here. I just set records with my RP thread getting trashed. Did you see that? Hilarious.
I think certain persons should think about contributing with links/news or discussion instead of quoting bumper stickers and throwing mud in this thread. I know the media and politicians are very much disagreeing on what is going on and why, but show some respect. Calling anyone "those damn commies, hippies, druggies and freebees" is not a way - let aside a good way - to discuss anything.
Calling them what they are is a great way to discuss them.
Also, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as soon as they stop things like this:
Maybe then nicer terms will be more appropriate for them. Clueless is about the best they deserve at the moment. Wannabe-dictators with a sprinkling of anti-semites would be more accurate.
Gawd you really are a troll aren't you?
See how easy that is? Half those signs aren't even spelled right. Does that mean that everybody in the Tea Party is racist, violent, and stupid? Hell no, I wouldn't say that because it is ridiculous to base it on youtube videos. There are stupid people everywhere, this is America after all.
On October 12 2011 05:30 Senorcuidado wrote: Gawd you really are a troll aren't you?
See how easy that is? Half those signs aren't even spelled right. Does that mean that everybody in the Tea Party is racist, violent, and stupid? Hell no, I wouldn't say that because it is ridiculous to base it on youtube videos. There are stupid people everywhere, this is America after all.
Welcome to media wars, Americans. This time on your soil.
You thought that internet and its forums, comments is a place of free speech, out of control of anything? Don't be so naive. Imagine that you are that 1%. What would you do, having almost unlimited resources, how do you oppose spreading the ideas over internet you do not like?
World intrigued by "Occupy Wall Street" movement Reuters By Peter Millership LONDON | Tue Oct 11
Excerpt
(Reuters) - Tahrir Square in Cairo, Green Square in Tripoli, Syntagma Square in Athens and now Zuccotti Park in New York -- popular anger against entrenching power elites is spreading around the world.
Many have been intrigued by the Occupy Wall Street movement against financial inequality that started in a New York park and expanded across America from Tampa, Florida, to Portland, Oregon, and from Los Angeles to Chicago.
Hundreds of activists gathered a month ago in the Manhattan park two blocks from Wall Street to vent their anger at what they see as the excesses of New York financiers, whom they blame for the economic crisis that has struck countless ordinary Americans and reverberated across the global economy.
In the U.S. movement, Arab nations see echoes of this year's Arab Spring uprisings. Spaniards and Italians see parallels with Indignados (indignant) activists, while voices in Tehran and Beijing with their own anti-American agendas have even said this could portend the meltdown of the United States.
Inspired by the momentum of the U.S. movement, which started small but is now part of U.S. political debate, activists in London will gather to protest outside the London Stock Exchange on October 15 on the same day that Spanish groups will mass on Madrid's Puerta del Sol square in solidarity.
"American people are more and more following the path chosen by people in the Arab world," Iran's student news agency ISNA quoted senior Revolutionary Guards officer Masoud Jazayeri as saying. "America's domineering government will face uprisings similar to those in Tunisia and Egypt."
There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch.
On October 12 2011 06:12 cLutZ wrote: There are 2 fundamental differences between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
1. The Tea Party formed a discrete ideological group that the Republican Party could not co-opt. Occupy Wall Street has already been absorbed into the Democratic Party, already major Democratic organizations support it. The Tea Party kicked out incumbents they didn't like such as Mike Castle and (almost) Lisa Murkowski. Occupy Wall Street is not going to endanger a single incumbent Democrat.
2. The Tea Parties gathered quickly and dispersed quickly. They would show up on a Saturday morning and Leave Sunday night, Occupy Wall Street is a slower burn, it has been going on for a long time, but in smaller numbers. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch.
You're correct about number 1.
Regarding, number 2, I'd add that, although the Tea Party isn't as visible in terms of rallies (fewer events, no permanent squatting), it is still driving republican and national politics by pressuring politicians. Basically, the Tea Party hasn't gone away, and if anything, is still picking up steam as it culls moderate republicans and democrats from office.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5341/lifeexpectancy.jpg)
