|
Sanya12364 Posts
On October 19 2011 08:04 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:54 Taekwon wrote:[B]
Well on a global scale the 1% is something like 50k/year or so, which certainly changes things about who the '99%' would be.
Is this accurate?! Wow, my entire perception of the government is messed up. Smh Just think about it. Nearly the entire continent of Africa is dirt poor. There's over 2 billion people in China and India that are lucky to make more then a few dollars a day. And there's a couple hundred developing countries where there only a smallest fraction of people make a decent living compared to the 42 developed counties where even there most people make well below 50k. I can't blame people for wanting to better their lives, but compared to the majority of the people on the planet, we're living like Gods here in the US.
Using about 7 billion for people on earth the top 1% is 70 million people. There's more than 70 million (members of families) in US alone making more 75k. Individual 1% cutoffs are much less but that is only because you'd be eliminating non-working population (no retirees, housewives, and kids) in wealthier countries while the labor participation is effectively higher in less wealthy ones. Around the world, the 1% cutoff is likely closer to 100k in US dollars on a per capital basis. It's affluent but not really wealthy.
|
On October 19 2011 07:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:23 caradoc wrote:On October 19 2011 07:18 Logo wrote:On October 19 2011 06:39 H0i wrote:On October 18 2011 20:37 teddyoojo wrote:
i think theres a big big mistake in saying "we are 99%". because we arent. we are the people that live a good life, while the other half of this world dont. maybe/probably due to this 1%. it doesnt matter. going out there whining we are 99% that gets fucked by the greed of capitalism isnt right. maybe i misinterpret this shit, id be glad if so. i just feel bad for the "real" poor people that wont get shit no matter how this will end. Who says they're only talking in a selfish way? I see many people who come up with this question but they're looking at it from the wrong perspective. When people of the movement say "we are the 99%", they are not talking about the 99% of america specifically. They're talking about EVERY person on earth, and also every other form of life such as the many animals and plants/trees. The protesters don't just want more for themselves, they want a better and more fair world for everyone and everything. Well on a global scale the 1% is something like 50k/year or so, which certainly changes things about who the '99%' would be. But the criteria loses a lot of meaning globally due to more pronounced cost of living differences and inclusion of incomes in undeveloped nations of conflict areas (which certainly deserve help, but still). semantics. is it relevant to discuss specifically who the upper 1%ile are, or is it better to accept that 99% is a useful analogy for massive disparity? Yes it actually does. Because WHY do some people end up in the top 1 percentile? Because if they have worked for it - who are you to take it away from them because you failed at achieving what they did?
Because getting in the top 1 percentile is about honest work and not about having connections, background and/or the ability to abuse the system that is designed to encourage and reward abuse at the expense of other people. Why indeed.
|
On October 19 2011 04:12 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Voting changes things. Protests influence votes. But, sure, tell people to stop protesting and vote instead. That will keep things the same, which is what you seem to desire. I'm not telling people to stop protesting, I'm telling people to start protesting for something that will actually fix the problem. Not a single Republican feels threatened at all by the OWS movement, and that is just pathetic. This is in stark contrast with the Tea Party, who was able to shift the Republican party and Congress as a whole to the right. They had a simple message: object to anything that Obama supports. And the ramifications have been staggering. Show nested quote +The political process is being paralyzed because of Americans not liking Obama? It's paralyzed because of Republicans, who are empowered by the Tea Party. Not Americans in general, but a sizable, very vocal group. It's better than the status quo, but a lot of the good features had to be taken out because of, yes, the Republicans! Even though THEY ONLY HAD 40 SENATORS. Which again had to be reduced because of the Republicans. And need I remind you that theoretically, from 2008 until 2010, the Republicans should not have had any say in the manner?! Show nested quote +Okay, so the first Stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough... then Obama proposes a smaller stimulus and this is gonna help? Are you telling me the OWS is against the jobs bill? Show nested quote +How about the political process is being paralyzed because Congress isn't willing to pass a real budget that makes the necessary cuts. And this has nothing to do with Obama, this is coming down to Congress not willing to act. The idea that somehow American's hatred of Obama is influencing this is ridiculous. Nothing Obama has proposed is going to solve the problem, even if Congress agreed to it. I'm not a fan of fiscal stimulus, but I think the government should at least give it a shot, because frankly you have to be a biased ideologue if you are utterly convinced it will or will not work. More importantly, I'm a big believer in monetary stimulus (as is basically every other credible economist), but the Republicans and the Tea Party have created a political environment that makes it impossible for the Fed to stimulate. Why the hell should we worry about the debt right now? American debt has a negative interest rate! People want to PAY the US government to loan it money. Moreover, long-term, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have offered serious solutions to the debt problem. A solution that doesn't even consider tax increases is not a serious solution. Show nested quote +Why won't Congress fix this problem? A) Hands are tied by campaign funding. B) Obsession with re-election paralyzes them from making the hard choices. No, the answer is simple. It has nothing to do with corporations. Why the fuck would corporations care about the budget, except to the extent that not fixing it will hurt the economy in the long-run and corporations hate it when the economy sucks? No, the culprit is the Tea Party and the Republican politicians they empower. They have absolutely zero interest in reducing the deficit. The only thing they are interested in is lowering taxes (especially for the rich) and reducing benefits for the poor. They have no interest in addressing the funding side of the equation. They pay lip service to "reducing spending." The last time we had a Republican-controlled government, they raised government spending.
Kudos for the good post - I agree with your replies to him.
|
On October 19 2011 06:26 Stirbend wrote:Show nested quote +Why the hell should we worry about the debt right now? American debt has a negative interest rate! People want to PAY the US government to loan it money. Moreover, long-term, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have offered serious solutions to the debt problem. A solution that doesn't even consider tax increases is not a serious solution This is like saying any solution to getting my credit card debt that doesn't include a pay raise isn't a serious solution. Raising taxes in a stressed economy is dumb. Raising taxes is also a very short sighted way to get money. And when we are talking about getting rid of debt on the massive scale we have to, raises taxes in general turns out to be just plain moronic because you're not getting rid of it anytime soon. I also can't take seriously any financial solutions from a party that goes against what economists are saying somewhere between 90 and 100% of the time. As long as Democrats cling to keynesian economics, no one with a brain is going to take them seriously.
I'm getting tired of these arguments comparing the national debt to credit card debt. There are significant differences which are shown through more complex mechanisms than a single family using credit cards will ever have to deal with. It's very doubtful you could even skillfully balance a small business account if you equate all debt to credit card debt.
Also, Keynesian is the only widely used evidence-based economic model we have. Nobody with a valuable education is going to follow the Austrian magic economy.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Another ironic argument from the domovoi to support the one figure most responsible for the disillusionment of OWS protesters in politics.
On October 19 2011 04:12 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Voting changes things. Protests influence votes. But, sure, tell people to stop protesting and vote instead. That will keep things the same, which is what you seem to desire. I'm not telling people to stop protesting, I'm telling people to start protesting for something that will actually fix the problem. Not a single Republican feels threatened at all by the OWS movement, and that is just pathetic. This is in stark contrast with the Tea Party, who was able to shift the Republican party and Congress as a whole to the right. They had a simple message: object to anything that Obama supports. And the ramifications have been staggering. Show nested quote +The political process is being paralyzed because of Americans not liking Obama? It's paralyzed because of Republicans, who are empowered by the Tea Party. Not Americans in general, but a sizable, very vocal group. It's better than the status quo, but a lot of the good features had to be taken out because of, yes, the Republicans! Even though THEY ONLY HAD 40 SENATORS. Which again had to be reduced because of the Republicans. And need I remind you that theoretically, from 2008 until 2010, the Republicans should not have had any say in the manner?! Show nested quote +Okay, so the first Stimulus didn't work because it wasn't big enough... then Obama proposes a smaller stimulus and this is gonna help? Are you telling me the OWS is against the jobs bill?
Obamacare is not better than the status quo. Obamacare is a corporate health care dream thanks to the individual mandate which forces people that can barely scrap together the ridiculously high insurance premiums to buy insurance. And to make it affordable on a monthly basis for themselves, these people get high deductible plans so that when it comes time that they actually want health care they spend all their money on the premiums and have trouble coming up with the co-pay and/or deductible.
Frankly, OWS is more of a headache for the Democratic establishment. Republicans know that their base is dead set against the vocal socialists that try to lead the OWS. The Democrats, however, have to reconcile their own corporate patrons with the anger from their base directed at those corporate patrons. OWS isn't well aligned with Democratic political interests primarily because most OWS protesters think the Democratic party and Obama in particular is full of shit.
Based on track record, the first stimulus was largely a giveaway to Democratic special interests and a lot of the money went to big retail banking and investment banking houses. Obama needs a bit of credibility before he can demand OWS protesters trust him that the new jobs bill will actually help them.
|
There are just brilliant replies in this thread, Wall Street gon be occupied.
|
Thanks for that post, TanGeng. Now I don't have to make it. Kind of get bored telling the same people the exact same thing while they keep ignoring it. Someone called Domovoi's post 'good'. To me he seems out of touch with reality. I can't see how he can say the things he does and be so wrong about them based on political differences.
This is a protest first and foremost against the democrats and Obama. A protest against all the compromises Obama tried to make vs the republicans when he didn't even have to. Obama used the republicans as an excuse to go against the people that put him into office and to give the business interests what they wanted.
Obama was elected to do certain things. He just outright refused to do them. He lost his mandate. If the protesters want to close the gap between the rich and the poor in the next presidency, they need to get rid of Obama because no current republican candidate will either.
Ron Paul's idea will give corporations free reign and dismantle democracy. Right now you can use your vote to restrain corporations. But maybe Ron Paul in office to destroy everything is better than the status quo. I am not sure. But I also think he's way too old ignoring everything else.
And considering how assassinating American citizens based on a decree is surely an impeachable offense, I suggest the American people use that as an excuse to get rid of him.
|
On October 19 2011 14:38 Suisen wrote:
Thanks for that post, TanGeng. Now I don't have to make it. Kind of get bored telling the same people the exact same thing while they keep ignoring it. Someone called Domovoi's post 'good'. To me he seems out of touch with reality. I can't see how he can say the things he does and be so wrong about them based on political differences.
This is a protest first and foremost against the democrats and Obama. A protest against all the compromises Obama tried to make vs the republicans when he didn't even have to. Obama used the republicans as an excuse to go against the people that put him into office and to give the business interests what they wanted.
Obama was elected to do certain things. He just outright refused to do them. He lost his mandate. If the protesters want to close the gap between the rich and the poor in the next presidency, they need to get rid of Obama because no current republican candidate will either.
Ron Paul's idea will give corporations free reign and dismantle democracy. Right now you can use your vote to restrain corporations. But maybe Ron Paul in office to destroy everything is better than the status quo. I am not sure. But I also think he's way too old ignoring everything else.
And considering how assassinating American citizens based on a decree is surely an impeachable offense, I suggest the American people use that as an excuse to get rid of him.
sometimes I wonder whether shit needs to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
It's bad enough now and people are getting mobilized. Hope its enough--
If we get a Republican presidency we'll end up with either a massive uprising or 1984.
|
Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).
Did i see this right?
These are "extreme"-leftist demands in the US?
Most of the western world probably calls this stuff "basic rights".... Fun stuff when something like this comes from your "leftist"-party...
|
On October 19 2011 15:45 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).
Did i see this right? These are "extreme"-leftist demands in the US? Most of the western world probably calls this stuff "basic rights".... Fun stuff when something like this comes from your "leftist"-party...
Welcome to the United States 
I just think it's funny how some the USA is supposed to be some bastion of democracy when we have one of the most corrupt systems in the world imo.
Politicians, both Republican and Democrat, refuse to do things that can benefit the country whenever the opposition party is in power because if the government fails, it's the party in power that looks bad, which gets them more votes. Hence the retarded filibusters that neutered the stimulus and healthcare reform bills.
As for corporations, I just think is disgusting that the bigwigs of the financial sector got nothing but slaps on the wrists for bombing the economy when they knew their actions were irresponsible and would explode the economy.
|
On October 19 2011 15:58 Ryuu314 wrote:
As for corporations, I just think is disgusting that the bigwigs of the financial sector got nothing but slaps on the wrists for bombing the economy when they knew their actions were irresponsible and would explode the economy.
Quotes like this make me disgusted. Sure there are idiots in the financial sector who need to get kicked the hell out, but everyone's so fixated on Wall Street that it's just sad.
Ask someone who really knows finance and has been there. It isn't Wall Street that's the real problem. It's the regulators. AKA the idiots in Politics who know JACK SHIT about Finance, but make stupid bills and movements with stupid ideologies when in fact every single thing they do messes up the economy.
Democrat, Republican, whatever. Politics is messed up and will forever be, until people who actually KNOW shit about the economy and what Wall Street really DOES actually are in a position to do anything. Right now they're serving under idiot democrats and republicans alike, who ignore real advice and pursue simply what looks best to the uneducated public. Because seriously, I'm convinced that 99% of the public knows absolutely nothing about Wall Street as well, except that they somehow "messed up the economy" with the "credit crisis" due to "investment bankers".
Stupid, stupid system. And the idiots right now protesting on Wall Street are not helping anything but their own egos. They're preaching to the wrong choir, they should be in front of the White House right now.
|
Are people still doing this? I thought people got tired of it when they got beaten to shit by the police.
|
On October 19 2011 16:14 Keone wrote:
Quotes like this make me disgusted. Sure there are idiots in the financial sector who need to get kicked the hell out, but everyone's so fixated on Wall Street that it's just sad.
Ask someone who really knows finance and has been there. It isn't Wall Street that's the real problem. It's the regulators. AKA the idiots in Politics who know JACK SHIT about Finance, but make stupid bills and movements with stupid ideologies when in fact every single thing they do messes up the economy.
So banks are not to blame because there are no laws explicitly forbidding what they have done? They knew it was going to cause a lot of damage and was unethical, of course they are to blame.
|
On October 19 2011 16:14 Keone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 15:58 Ryuu314 wrote:
As for corporations, I just think is disgusting that the bigwigs of the financial sector got nothing but slaps on the wrists for bombing the economy when they knew their actions were irresponsible and would explode the economy. Quotes like this make me disgusted. Sure there are idiots in the financial sector who need to get kicked the hell out, but everyone's so fixated on Wall Street that it's just sad. Ask someone who really knows finance and has been there. It isn't Wall Street that's the real problem. It's the regulators. AKA the idiots in Politics who know JACK SHIT about Finance, but make stupid bills and movements with stupid ideologies when in fact every single thing they do messes up the economy.
I think you miss the point. This isn't personal for all of Wall Street. One point is that the whole financial sector, the whole of Wall Street, is just damaging period even in the best case. They don't produce any products. They just gamble on random numbers. Imagine if poker players loaned all the money of all people, businesses and countries and did nothing but play poker games with the money. Because that's exactly what it is. What does that produce or gain anyone? Nothing. In the best case it is a huge brain drain.
Many smart people work in the financial sector. Many talented people want to get degrees in economics or finances rather than physics or engineering. It's a big cancer for the whole economy.
Secondly, deregulation has come at the request of the financial sector. Politicians just do what they are asked. Ok blame a certain politician for it. Then don't elect him. Does that change anything? No. Yes, politicians are to blame. But it's never a solution.
Thirdly, the big banks did break the law. Also, insider trading is huge. Almost everyone that wins at this casino that is wall street, has insider information. And this is just one example of illegal activities. Betting against your clients and tricking them into losing money is surely illegal. This kind of fraud was not only widespread but not even seen as fraud even after the events. The financial sector is not only broken and immoral. It is corrupt to the core.
Fourth, corporations aren't democratic entities. This IS a problem. We want to live in democratic societies don't we? No? Go live in Saudi Arabia, Swaziland or North Korea and then come back to me and we talk.
We want our societies to be democratic. If most of the power in a society lies with the management of corporations, then you don't have a democracy. You have a tyranny. At that point it doesn't matter anymore how democratic the government is. If they have no power, the people can't influence anything.
This is why Ron Paul is advocating tyranny. At this point the government is the only thing that still protects us. It is the only way through which we can still have some influence.
Don't give me the argument that not all corporations are bad, that some do good things, that we need corporations. This is besides the point. You can have benevolent and wise kings. That's no argument for monarchy. We also need things like corporations. We need these kinds of organizations of people doing business.
The point is they need to be democratic. How to do that is another question. But the realization is that the current system of corporations need to be changed. This besides the whole bank/financial sector thing.
Fifth, free markets don't provide social justice.Free markets are very good at what they do. And what they do is create profit. And yes, we need profit. We need greedy people. In fact, we will always have greedy people. But we also need social justice. We need a rich and healthy society. We don't need one that's just very very rich.
We need a system that can provide this, is democratic and is fool proof and can't have big dramatic failures.
The free market can't provide us this. We need to do other things to make sure of this. And these things will make markets less free and they will make us generate less profit. But that's what we want.
Sixth, there's too many people in the world. We are consuming the earth right now free of cost. We are consuming at a fraction of the true cost. This means economic growth is actually bad on the long term. The bigger the economy, the bigger the damage.You can say that you don't like this all day long, but you will have to accept. We are on a free lunch right now. We may be the richest generation in world history. Generations after us may be the firs generation that have it worse than their parents
The idea that we can have continuous economic growth is silly and impossible and we need to accept that. People in India and China will want to eat meat, travel across the world, drive cars, etc.
We are close to 7 billion people right now. Talking about reducing population growth has been a big taboo so far. Governments that propose policies that implement population control provoke anger. And in a sense rightly so as they almost always infringe human rights I would strongly support.
So since we can't expect growth to stop anytime soon, we even more so have to look at reducing the demand we put on the limited resources we have.
We have G8s and G20s where world leaders talk. But none of them even dare to propose visionary plans for the future. Nothing changed since the financial crisis. Nothing really is done about climate change. No one has proposed a modern vision on the banks. Or on new regulations. Let alone forcing corporations by law to be democratic.
|
The extent to which the uber rich in America have been supported by so much of the general public is really quite impressive. You can't have a thread like this in any form, or a discussion at any workplace in the US without about 1/3 to 1/2 have of the people, literally standing up and saying "they earned it all, the system is just and fair, and we shouldn't steal it."
The average American thinks they have more in common with Donald Trump than the guy jumping the fence from Mexico to try to feed his family. IDK if it's TV, or print media, or music or eductaion, but whatever it is, it's working very well.
|
Fourth, corporations aren't democratic entities. This IS a problem.
You've gotta be kidding me. Most people simply just don't have the knowledge to make the decisions to guide a multinational corporation. You may not like this fact, but its true, and that's why the people up top call the shots. Do you really want the inefficiency of Democracy to take root in businesses whose purpose is to make money and pay your salary? The entire method of business ownership + advancement through merit would fall apart if this was enacted. It would be, in short, disastrous for the private sector, as well as the public sectors who take their cut of the cash through taxes.
Thirdly, the big banks did break the law. Also, insider trading is huge. Almost everyone that wins at this casino that is wall street, has insider information. And this is just one example of illegal activities. Betting against your clients and tricking them into losing money is surely illegal. This kind of fraud was not only widespread but not even seen as fraud even after the events. The financial sector is not only broken and immoral. It is corrupt to the core.
You act like the home buyers have no responsibility for buying homes that they couldn't afford. The blame is reciprocated between everyone, government for making terrible policy, banks for being greedy and offering less than ethical deals, and the consumer for not doing their homework and figuring out the right decision for one of the most important purchases of their life.
Don't give me the argument that not all corporations are bad, that some do good things, that we need corporations. This is besides the point. You can have benevolent and wise kings. That's no argument for monarchy. We also need things like corporations. We need these kinds of organizations of people doing business.
The point is they need to be democratic. How to do that is another question. But the realization is that the current system of corporations need to be changed. This besides the whole bank/financial sector thing.
Fifth, free markets don't provide social justice.Free markets are very good at what they do. And what they do is create profit. And yes, we need profit. We need greedy people. In fact, we will always have greedy people. But we also need social justice. We need a rich and healthy society. We don't need one that's just very very rich.
We need a system that can provide this, is democratic and is fool proof and can't have big dramatic failures.
The free market can't provide us this. We need to do other things to make sure of this. And these things will make markets less free and they will make us generate less profit. But that's what we want.
Its ok not to like capitalism or the current system we have, but you have to realize that humanity is pretty incapable of creating anything better due to human nature.
I think you miss the point. This isn't personal for all of Wall Street. One point is that the whole financial sector, the whole of Wall Street, is just damaging period even in the best case. They don't produce any products. They just gamble on random numbers. Imagine if poker players loaned all the money of all people, businesses and countries and did nothing but play poker games with the money. Because that's exactly what it is. What does that produce or gain anyone? Nothing. In the best case it is a huge brain drain.
Many smart people work in the financial sector. Many talented people want to get degrees in economics or finances rather than physics or engineering. It's a big cancer for the whole economy.
Absolutely incorrect. Finance and credit are the oil that drives the economy forward, and are vital in providing steady growth. It's been this way since the banking systems were first established. Any economist worth his salt will tell you this.
Sixth, there's too many people in the world. We are consuming the earth right now free of cost. We are consuming at a fraction of the true cost. This means economic growth is actually bad on the long term. The bigger the economy, the bigger the damage.You can say that you don't like this all day long, but you will have to accept. We are on a free lunch right now. We may be the richest generation in world history. Generations after us may be the firs generation that have it worse than their parents
The idea that we can have continuous economic growth is silly and impossible and we need to accept that. People in India and China will want to eat meat, travel across the world, drive cars, etc.
We are close to 7 billion people right now. Talking about reducing population growth has been a big taboo so far. Governments that propose policies that implement population control provoke anger. And in a sense rightly so as they almost always infringe human rights I would strongly support.
So since we can't expect growth to stop anytime soon, we even more so have to look at reducing the demand we put on the limited resources we have.
We have G8s and G20s where world leaders talk. But none of them even dare to propose visionary plans for the future. Nothing changed since the financial crisis. Nothing really is done about climate change. No one has proposed a modern vision on the banks. Or on new regulations. Let alone forcing corporations by law to be democratic.
The sky isn't falling pal, and all of this ludicrous talk of these scenarios isn't helping the discussion. Have some faith in science and technology, it hasn't failed us yet.
|
Thank you, Pillage, excellent read.
I get the feeling from OWS that people should run a business subject to the whims of others thinking you're evil for being big.Hey, financial sector! Hey, you guys earn a lot of money, drive fancy cars, live in expensive houses. And what do you do for it? Yeah I don't know, sounds like you're getting paid too much for doing nothing! Spread the wealth around or I'm not gonna stop protesting here. People before dollars, dude! I like capitalism precisely for the freedom of having nobody tell me how I should earn my money or how much money I should be allowed to earn. There is no glass ceiling. No smug hipster telling me that my company has simply grown too large and nobody really thinks it makes something. No dude having the power to simply take my money and force me into a new line of work.
Seeking identification with the 99%, what a load of B.S. Envying the rich has never been out of fashion. Thinking the vast majority either didn't earn their money or earned it at the expense of another or a collective is pure hogwash. Blaming the rich for unemployment and high debt is missing the root of the problem.
Regarding Corporations and their affect on government: You lobby those that have the power to screw you over or give you presents. So corporations and politicians see a kind of marriage with bribes and lobbying and nice loopholes in return. That is what you get when you condone the government use of power to do punishing regulations on some industries and inject stimulus dollars to others. Kinda sucks. A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
|
The sky is, indeed falling. You can close your doors and ignore it if you like, but constant growth is simply not sustainable. (Even assuming the damage we have done isn't catastrophic.) We need some model of economics that doesn't include growth. 1% per quarter, 1% per year, 1% per 10 years just isn't acceptable. We need workable models that are Zero growth and even shrinkage if we are going to avoid a bigger collapse. It's just basic logic to state that this planets economy (production, consumption, population, standard of living) simply can not continue to grow forever.
Secondly, the only reason "democratic" corporations wouldn't work is because they would have to compete with others. EVEN so, they might be able to. It's ludicrous to say that a Democratic corporation couldn't compete (because of "inefficiency") with a Totalitarian one. That is just blanket guess statement. "That's why the guys up top run things". Are you kidding me? How does someone sucking up like 200 million a year sound for inefficiency? I think salaries that give a Democratic business model setup at least a fighting chance against its "more efficient" totalitarian counterpart.
Lastly, the whole point of production is to produce the most good for the most people. The best standard of living for everyone. It's not to crush the competition or even produce things the most efficiently. The whole purpose of society and economy is to make wealth for all in some workable way. The continued movement of wealth from the bottom to the top is not working and we will see more whining like those Occupying if it continues. Most everyone wants to work hard, earn money, live comfortably and support a family. To think that some, top 1% or top 5% are somehow deserving of 1000X the income of most of the population is retarded. NO one is that many more times productive.
|
The thing i find incredible about all of this, is just how many people will defend the current corrupt system and those who fuck everybody else.
It's like some sort of brainwashing where Joe Average doing a shit desk job thinks that one day if he files those papers for 70 hours a week just scraping by, that one day his hard work will pay off too.
I'm not clever enough to delve much further into this, but consistent growth is unsustainable, and we've known this forever. Endless greed isn't sustainable.
Exponential function, we've allowed ourselves to be ravaged by a minority, to the point of no return.
Hoping for some majestic and elegant scientific solution to the overpopulation and never ending consumption of energy is just wilful ignorance.
Not sure how we'll ever be in a situation to tackle the big problems, if we continue to live in a society where socialism is a word that even poor people don't respect. Such a bizarre notion to me, that for the majority of people it seems that giving any money to help others is a bad idea, even if it's proven to also benefit you.
The need to "win" has lead us to a situation where the masses lose every single time, and somehow the masses think it doesn't apply to them, and are happy to go further and further down the plughole.
This rant was quite disjointed, sorry for that.
|
On October 19 2011 17:59 Pillage wrote:You've gotta be kidding me. Most people simply just don't have the knowledge to make the decisions to guide a multinational corporation. You may not like this fact, but its true, and that's why the people up top call the shots. Do you really want the inefficiency of Democracy to take root in businesses whose purpose is to make money and pay your salary? The entire method of business ownership + advancement through merit would fall apart if this was enacted. It would be, in short, disastrous for the private sector, as well as the public sectors who take their cut of the cash through taxes.
Maybe this is a stupid question BUT:
What leads you to believe "dicatorships" and similar ruled countries are more efficient than democracies?
They act faster (not better), yes.But are they more efficient? Afaik the only dictatorships that you could call rich have so many natural ressources that the goverment is actually not needed at all due to the natural richness of the country...
In reality dicatorships act quite to the contrary...
The "Dictator/CEO" of a country exploits the country/corporation as much as possible whiteout risking a revolt (or even with risking it), making himself and the ones close to him uber rich while the 08/15 worker/inhabitant gets "enough" to work/live on and "hold still".
HOW AND IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT EFFICIENT? With fair/sane payroll management corporations could/would make bigger winnings, not smaller ones...
Loans wand with that the financial sector wouldn't be as important because the corporations could/would use the money they fucking earned to build stuff instead of dumping the winnings in Private-Plane Nr. 3 for Mr. CEO or just to their "investors".....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
