On October 16 2011 06:39 archonOOid wrote: the protesters needs to get their heads occupied by other thoughts! there is only one working economic system. greed is good or as the star trek fans might say greed is eternal. The pursuit of more money is the driving force for every human being. When it comes to bankers they are keeping the economic system going and ensuring that there is a great deal of money in circulation. I don't mind a banker that makes a great deal of money because I'm not jealous.
This is so wrong I don't even know where to begin. I, quite frankly, find the bolded part incredibly offensive and ridiculously ignorant. Mostly because it has been proven wrong and wrong again, and not only that--but money is quite a new innovation in the history of mankind. What was the driving force before money? Yes human greed is a problem, but money is just a small portion of greed.
If he's serious it's a lost case, if he's a troll he's not worth the effort.
On October 16 2011 08:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: So apparently there is a bit of controversy over the decision to postpone cleaning Zuccotti Park, according to Mayor Bloomberg and the always ready to do a hit piece on anyone Post:
“My understanding is Brookfield [Properties] got lots of calls from many elected officials threatening them and saying if you don’t stop this, we’ll make your life more difficult,” the mayor said on his weekly radio show, referring to the company that owns the plaza.
“If those elected officials had spent half as much time trying to promote the city to get jobs to come here, we would [be further along] towards answering the concerns of the protesters. I’m told they were inundated by lots of elected officials.”
It is kind of unusual to trap people inside the bank, when the primary reason for arrest is trespassing and "ignoring a request to leave". Would seem to defeat the purpose of requesting them to leave? Why not have the etique to call the police, tell the protesters you have called the police and wait for them to leave or the police to arrive. It was said the first police-officers were in civil clothes anyway...
No business is obligated to allow you into their business with the purpose of pulling a propaganda stunt against their business and then just let you leave scot-free. You can write them a letter, call on the phone, do it online, or even walk in and simply close your account with no fuss. Those are the limits of your rights. Those rights do not include trying to harm the business by exercising the rights you do have in an improper fashion on their own property!
Will just say that this line is 100% contradictory and doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. You are saying that they have rights but not the right to exercise those rights, in which case they have no rights. There is no 'improper use' of rights, if there was it wouldn't be called a right. To clarify, you are saying 'you have rights...under circumstances. If you don't follow the circumstances your rights are revoked.' Circumstances in this case being being obnoxious in a bank while trying to close your account.
Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. I don't know if they were in there making a ruckus and disrupting business or just standing in line, but I do understand asking people to leave if they're yelling and whatnot. Does a business have the right to lock you inside? That is dubious, but I don't know the circumstances. Locking them inside and then charging them with refusal to leave is...interesting. That certainly doesn't do you any PR favors. I don't know the circumstances though, it sounds like we're all just speculating and drawing conclusions. It was probably just some civil disobedience and they got arrested, which doesn't seem like a huge story.
I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
On October 16 2011 01:03 Tschis wrote: Have you guys seen this video?
this is amazing ... and so true.
I'll second that. Ratigan has come a ways. Surprising he is still on MSNBC at this point. Cenk down , Olberman down. As these events grow, so is the pressure from the other end.
Wow awesome video/rant.
See, this is the stuff I like to hear. It has a clear point - this is the problem, getting the money out of politics. And that's something I can fully support. Maybe people's inherent drive for power and control will find a new way to corrupt the system, but over time I think people will generally realize that its not sustainable and negative for all parties involved, especially when we're more integrated than ever before. For once that video made me hopeful that this movement is more than just a bunch of hippies who are organizing just for the hell of feeling like a revolutionary - maybe there *is* a point after all? Even if it was made up just now, its a good idea
Edit: Although now I remember its just one guy. But hopefully his views are very close to those of the 99%...
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
Maybe it IS central to many humans' lives, and there's nothing bad about it.. The problem is that the greedieness of the few jeopardises the wealth and safety of the entire human race. That's the point where it becomes a problem, and it's been a problem throughout the entire human history and if mankind wants to become something more, wants to step into a better future for it's own good, we need to stop that greedieness from destroying the lives and potential of so many people. There's nothing wrong about some intelligent, hard-working people having high responsibilities earning more money than others. The problem is that the whole corrupt networking system between politics and bussinesses does no good for the future of most citizens of earth but only for a few who certainly don't derserve the wealth they're making out of this system by ruining men's future.
It's been time to change something about this for at least 20 years. Finally something seems to be happening.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
On October 16 2011 08:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: So apparently there is a bit of controversy over the decision to postpone cleaning Zuccotti Park, according to Mayor Bloomberg and the always ready to do a hit piece on anyone Post:
“My understanding is Brookfield [Properties] got lots of calls from many elected officials threatening them and saying if you don’t stop this, we’ll make your life more difficult,” the mayor said on his weekly radio show, referring to the company that owns the plaza.
“If those elected officials had spent half as much time trying to promote the city to get jobs to come here, we would [be further along] towards answering the concerns of the protesters. I’m told they were inundated by lots of elected officials.”
It is kind of unusual to trap people inside the bank, when the primary reason for arrest is trespassing and "ignoring a request to leave". Would seem to defeat the purpose of requesting them to leave? Why not have the etique to call the police, tell the protesters you have called the police and wait for them to leave or the police to arrive. It was said the first police-officers were in civil clothes anyway...
No business is obligated to allow you into their business with the purpose of pulling a propaganda stunt against their business and then just let you leave scot-free. You can write them a letter, call on the phone, do it online, or even walk in and simply close your account with no fuss. Those are the limits of your rights. Those rights do not include trying to harm the business by exercising the rights you do have in an improper fashion on their own property!
Will just say that this line is 100% contradictory and doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. You are saying that they have rights but not the right to exercise those rights, in which case they have no rights. There is no 'improper use' of rights, if there was it wouldn't be called a right. To clarify, you are saying 'you have rights...under circumstances. If you don't follow the circumstances your rights are revoked.' Circumstances in this case being being obnoxious in a bank while trying to close your account.
Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. I don't know if they were in there making a ruckus and disrupting business or just standing in line, but I do understand asking people to leave if they're yelling and whatnot. Does a business have the right to lock you inside? That is dubious, but I don't know the circumstances. Locking them inside and then charging them with refusal to leave is...interesting. That certainly doesn't do you any PR favors. I don't know the circumstances though, it sounds like we're all just speculating and drawing conclusions. It was probably just some civil disobedience and they got arrested, which doesn't seem like a huge story.
I can only speculate here, but it seems to me fairly likely that the problem here was that the bank didn't want to close the account. This is not a conspiracy theory - we've seen this happening a lot. When Bank of America announced its plan to add a $5 service fee for the use of a debit card, many people were unable to close their accounts. Bank of America claimed it was protecting people, it didn't want anyone making rash decisions. That being said, what exactly is your recourse supposed to be if you walk into a bank, and ask them to close your account, and they say no?
They say no. Now, suddenly, you're supposed to leave, because they have the right to refuse you service at any time. Well, at that point, you don't have any rights at all. The truth is, either the bank has an obligation to serve you, or they don't. And if they don't, then we never had any rights to begin with.
Of course, it's certainly possible that this was just a publicity stunt. Hence only speculation. But it wouldn't be the first time a bank has refused to close an account, and in fact, those old bank holidays might make a reappearance.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Sort of. It's a lot more difficult to manipulate gold than fiat currency is, though. That's part of the appeal. When you run out of paper dollars, you can just print more. But you can't just print more gold. Ultimately, any sort of money is going to have subjective value to it, but some money is more easily controlled than others. Of course, gold isn't necessarily the greatest thing, either, since it could be manipulated by miner strikes or something similar. But it would be very difficult to manipulate a system that used several different kinds of metals.
Returning to the gold standard is completely redundant if one simply restricts the ability to print money, though. The question is, is it even possible to do that?
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Sort of. It's a lot more difficult to manipulate gold than fiat currency is, though. That's part of the appeal. When you run out of paper dollars, you can just print more. But you can't just print more gold. Ultimately, any sort of money is going to have subjective value to it, but some money is more easily controlled than others. Of course, gold isn't necessarily the greatest thing, either, since it could be manipulated by miner strikes or something similar. But it would be very difficult to manipulate a system that used several different kinds of metals.
Returning to the gold standard is completely redundant if one simply restricts the ability to print money, though.
Being able to manipulate the currency is a good thing. If the economy keeps expanding but the amount of currency stays the same, the economy will deflate, prices will fall and it will be smarter to hold on to your money instead of spending it. Spending and investing will decrease and the economy will come to a stand still. Only a market fundamentalist would claim that the economy can balance its self.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Sort of. It's a lot more difficult to manipulate gold than fiat currency is, though. That's part of the appeal. When you run out of paper dollars, you can just print more. But you can't just print more gold. Ultimately, any sort of money is going to have subjective value to it, but some money is more easily controlled than others. Of course, gold isn't necessarily the greatest thing, either, since it could be manipulated by miner strikes or something similar. But it would be very difficult to manipulate a system that used several different kinds of metals.
Returning to the gold standard is completely redundant if one simply restricts the ability to print money, though.
Being able to manipulate the currency is a good thing. If the economy keeps expanding but the amount of currency stays the same, the economy will deflate, prices will fall and it will be smarter to hold on to your money instead of spending it. Spending and investing will decrease and the economy will come to a stand still. Only a market fundamentalist would claim that the economy can balance its self.
So we say. But it seems to me that we've been attempting to manipulate the currency for quite some time, and the result has become quite obvious: The value of our dollar is decreasing. And the economy isn't getting any better, no matter how many times we apply QE.
Maybe manipulating our currency is a good thing. I'll grant the possibility. But the ability to print currency is currently far too liberal.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Talk about whoosh. Holy shit. Nowhere in my post did it even remotely imply using gold as currency. I was naming materials.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Sort of. It's a lot more difficult to manipulate gold than fiat currency is, though. That's part of the appeal. When you run out of paper dollars, you can just print more. But you can't just print more gold. Ultimately, any sort of money is going to have subjective value to it, but some money is more easily controlled than others. Of course, gold isn't necessarily the greatest thing, either, since it could be manipulated by miner strikes or something similar. But it would be very difficult to manipulate a system that used several different kinds of metals.
Returning to the gold standard is completely redundant if one simply restricts the ability to print money, though.
Being able to manipulate the currency is a good thing. If the economy keeps expanding but the amount of currency stays the same, the economy will deflate, prices will fall and it will be smarter to hold on to your money instead of spending it. Spending and investing will decrease and the economy will come to a stand still. Only a market fundamentalist would claim that the economy can balance its self.
So we say. But it seems to me that we've been attempting to manipulate the currency for quite some time, and the result has become quite obvious: The value of our dollar is decreasing. And the economy isn't getting any better, no matter how many times we apply QE.
Maybe manipulating our currency is a good thing. I'll grant the possibility. But the ability to print currency is currently far too liberal.
Maybe the problem is who is in control of the printing and a lack of oversight and transparency.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Sort of. It's a lot more difficult to manipulate gold than fiat currency is, though. That's part of the appeal. When you run out of paper dollars, you can just print more. But you can't just print more gold. Ultimately, any sort of money is going to have subjective value to it, but some money is more easily controlled than others. Of course, gold isn't necessarily the greatest thing, either, since it could be manipulated by miner strikes or something similar. But it would be very difficult to manipulate a system that used several different kinds of metals.
Returning to the gold standard is completely redundant if one simply restricts the ability to print money, though.
Being able to manipulate the currency is a good thing. If the economy keeps expanding but the amount of currency stays the same, the economy will deflate, prices will fall and it will be smarter to hold on to your money instead of spending it. Spending and investing will decrease and the economy will come to a stand still. Only a market fundamentalist would claim that the economy can balance its self.
So we say. But it seems to me that we've been attempting to manipulate the currency for quite some time, and the result has become quite obvious: The value of our dollar is decreasing. And the economy isn't getting any better, no matter how many times we apply QE.
Maybe manipulating our currency is a good thing. I'll grant the possibility. But the ability to print currency is currently far too liberal.
Maybe the problem is who is in control of the printing and a lack of oversight and transparency.
Hey, if you're saying the fed is the problem, then you and I are in total agreement.
On October 16 2011 11:22 zobz wrote: I honestly don't know why people are so petrified of abject materialism that they find it offensive to suggest that it's central to human life. We are made of material afterall. It's not so untenable a position, nor is there any need to be so damned sensitive about it. Would it be the worst thing in the world if it was true?
There is a difference between money and materialism. Money is not real, money is a concept. A piece of gold is an object, some salt is an object, a note saying it's worth something is an object, how much that note is worth is NOT an object.
Also it's not the idea that is offensive, it is the sheer ignorance that is shown when uttering the statement.
The value of gold is probably as subjective as the value of currency. Gold has as much practical use for humans as currency, the price that is tacked on to that metal hardly reflects the usefulness.
The alternative is bartering and I fail to see how setting the state in which the world operates back by two thousand years really helps anything.
Talk about whoosh. Holy shit. Nowhere in my post did it even remotely imply using gold as currency. I was naming materials.
And where did I suggest that you said that Gold should be used as a currency? I used Gold as an example as why the value of anything is subjective and that currency is probably the better alternative.
This brings up another thing, the government won't show the people their gold at Fort Knox. If it would be that there was no gold, than the economy would plummet and inflation rampant.
OT: I gotta say i agree with this group. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen to get people to realize that something is wrong with the government.
On October 16 2011 08:03 DeepElemBlues wrote: So apparently there is a bit of controversy over the decision to postpone cleaning Zuccotti Park, according to Mayor Bloomberg and the always ready to do a hit piece on anyone Post:
“My understanding is Brookfield [Properties] got lots of calls from many elected officials threatening them and saying if you don’t stop this, we’ll make your life more difficult,” the mayor said on his weekly radio show, referring to the company that owns the plaza.
“If those elected officials had spent half as much time trying to promote the city to get jobs to come here, we would [be further along] towards answering the concerns of the protesters. I’m told they were inundated by lots of elected officials.”
It is kind of unusual to trap people inside the bank, when the primary reason for arrest is trespassing and "ignoring a request to leave". Would seem to defeat the purpose of requesting them to leave? Why not have the etique to call the police, tell the protesters you have called the police and wait for them to leave or the police to arrive. It was said the first police-officers were in civil clothes anyway...
No business is obligated to allow you into their business with the purpose of pulling a propaganda stunt against their business and then just let you leave scot-free. You can write them a letter, call on the phone, do it online, or even walk in and simply close your account with no fuss. Those are the limits of your rights. Those rights do not include trying to harm the business by exercising the rights you do have in an improper fashion on their own property!
Will just say that this line is 100% contradictory and doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. You are saying that they have rights but not the right to exercise those rights, in which case they have no rights. There is no 'improper use' of rights, if there was it wouldn't be called a right. To clarify, you are saying 'you have rights...under circumstances. If you don't follow the circumstances your rights are revoked.' Circumstances in this case being being obnoxious in a bank while trying to close your account.
Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. I don't know if they were in there making a ruckus and disrupting business or just standing in line, but I do understand asking people to leave if they're yelling and whatnot. Does a business have the right to lock you inside? That is dubious, but I don't know the circumstances. Locking them inside and then charging them with refusal to leave is...interesting. That certainly doesn't do you any PR favors. I don't know the circumstances though, it sounds like we're all just speculating and drawing conclusions. It was probably just some civil disobedience and they got arrested, which doesn't seem like a huge story.
I can only speculate here, but it seems to me fairly likely that the problem here was that the bank didn't want to close the account. This is not a conspiracy theory - we've seen this happening a lot. When Bank of America announced its plan to add a $5 service fee for the use of a debit card, many people were unable to close their accounts. Bank of America claimed it was protecting people, it didn't want anyone making rash decisions. That being said, what exactly is your recourse supposed to be if you walk into a bank, and ask them to close your account, and they say no?
They say no. Now, suddenly, you're supposed to leave, because they have the right to refuse you service at any time. Well, at that point, you don't have any rights at all. The truth is, either the bank has an obligation to serve you, or they don't. And if they don't, then we never had any rights to begin with.
Of course, it's certainly possible that this was just a publicity stunt. Hence only speculation. But it wouldn't be the first time a bank has refused to close an account, and in fact, those old bank holidays might make a reappearance.
If a bank refuses to close an account, then there is definitely a problem. On the pretense of protecting people from making rash decisions? Eff that. However, a consumer has legal recourse to resolve the problem.
As far as an obligation to serve, nobody has an obligation to serve anybody. But they've already entered a voluntary contract when the account was opened and they do have an obligation to the terms within that contract - which I assume includes the process of removing money and closing accounts.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/20111015135021.jpg/)
