|
On October 19 2011 19:19 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 17:59 Pillage wrote: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. 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".....
1. companies aren't dictatorships, they have a board of directors.
2. You can't have 1000's of people deciding on what the company has to do that's just ridiculously inefficient.
3. There are so many different business units it's just stupid if someone from the financial part of the company also has to make decissions for the marketing part.
4. The best of the departments are in the board of directors they got the most knowledge and thus are able to make the best decissions.
5. They also usually have a comissary above them who check if they're doing their job well and can fire them.
|
CEO's will generally be hired and fired based on what they can do to increase overall income over 1 or 2 quarters. A CEO sells his soul every Quarter to try to get that 1 or 2% to keep his job. If it's laying off 10,000 workers, or moving a plant, or setting up a new distribution or marketing structure- it's all focused on Quarterly returns. As is his stability in the job.
These short term decisions are formatted to generate immediate returns for stock holders and investors. And, aren't always the best thing for the longevity of the Company, the Economy, the Employees or the Environment in the long term. And CEO's who try to talk about any of that hippy shit are going to get tossed out on their ear. Hence, a lot of the complaints about that format.
|
someone double posted. Sorry.
|
On October 19 2011 19:43 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 19:19 Velr wrote:On October 19 2011 17:59 Pillage wrote: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. 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"..... 1. companies aren't dictatorships, they have a board of directors. 2. You can't have 1000's of people deciding on what the company has to do that's just ridiculously inefficient. 3. There are so many different business units it's just stupid if someone from the financial part of the company also has to make decissions for the marketing part. 4. The best of the departments are in the board of directors they got the most knowledge and thus are able to make the best decissions. 5. They also usually have a comissary above them who check if they're doing their job well and can fire them.
1. board of directors might be THE issue. A lot of boards in Denmark are insuring themself against "responsibility" if the s... hits the fan. Also a few corruptioncases of friendship between board of director-leaders and CEO's has surfaced. Corruption in that part is very real and who can assure it is not getting worse with a limited pool of people?
2. Isn't that exactly what stocks are meant for (primarily, not including gambling)? Companies with well above 1000 stockholders are the norm today...
3. Question being: Who should watch who? What about companies, where the structure is not standardly departmentalized?
4. How do you ensure that? It is merely a postulate with no evidence for, but some evidence against.
5. I am uncertain if a comissary exist in all cases. A revision, however, is usually worked out for the companys taxpayment and whatever laws/rules are in place. In Denmark there is no sanctioning for errors (unless it is a police-case). Same somewhat goes for the US. Only sanctioning is the stockmarket and that can easily be adressed if the company is smart.
It is important to have good standards for how election of board members happens and you need a broad pool to choose from. Else, boards will be the same corrupt people finding friends for other boards and or directions (has happened and is happening). Directions are a completely different species and based on the boards decissions...
|
On October 19 2011 23:18 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 19:43 RvB wrote:On October 19 2011 19:19 Velr wrote:On October 19 2011 17:59 Pillage wrote: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. 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"..... 1. companies aren't dictatorships, they have a board of directors. 2. You can't have 1000's of people deciding on what the company has to do that's just ridiculously inefficient. 3. There are so many different business units it's just stupid if someone from the financial part of the company also has to make decissions for the marketing part. 4. The best of the departments are in the board of directors they got the most knowledge and thus are able to make the best decissions. 5. They also usually have a comissary above them who check if they're doing their job well and can fire them. 1. board of directors might be THE issue. A lot of boards in Denmark are insuring themself against "responsibility" if the s... hits the fan. Also a few corruptioncases of friendship between board of director-leaders and CEO's has surfaced. Corruption in that part is very real and who can assure it is not getting worse with a limited pool of people? 2. Isn't that exactly what stocks are meant for (primarily, not including gambling)? Companies with well above 1000 stockholders are the norm today... 3. Question being: Who should watch who? What about companies, where the structure is not standardly departmentalized? 4. How do you ensure that? It is merely a postulate with no evidence for, but some evidence against. 5. I am uncertain if a comissary exist in all cases. A revision, however, is usually worked out for the companys taxpayment and whatever laws/rules are in place. In Denmark there is no sanctioning for errors (unless it is a police-case). Same somewhat goes for the US. Only sanctioning is the stockmarket and that can easily be adressed if the company is smart. It is important to have good standards for how election of board members happens and you need a broad pool to choose from. Else, boards will be the same corrupt people finding friends for other boards and or directions (has happened and is happening). Directions are a completely different species and based on the boards decissions...
1. Corruption happens everywhere and give me some examples of these. You still don't explain how it is THE issue if that's all you can come up with plus you don't give any alternatives.
2. You need a certain number of stocks to have any influence ( usually between 1-5% ). And they don't decide how the day to day business goes. Also people who bought that amount of stocks should have ( or they're running a giant risk ) read very well into the company they have stocks in and thus can make more educated decissions.
3. I don't really get what you're saying sorry english isn't my first language :p. Every company has structure though although of course not all companies are the same.
4. You're not going to get high up with just having connections. Yes connections do have influence but you're only going to get there if you work really hard and are really good. Having someone incompetent in the board of directors is only shooting yourself in the foot since they usually have a bonus structure. And they won't get that bonus if the company is underperforming.
5. Every Joint-stock company has a commisary.
They do have a broad pool to choose from, they choose from the best of the best under the board that's the whole point. Only the ones who are good enough get into the board. Now these people can be scumbags and dishonest don't get me wrong. It's obviously not a perfect system but being a scumbag doesn't mean you're incompetent and these people really do want their company to succeed either for their own benefit or because they enjoy their job.
|
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests.
|
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. 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.
no, that is incorrect its wall street.
Or to be more precise, it is the way that things are structured such that profit equates to power and influence, in your case you bring up, power over regulations.
You can say its the regulators' fault all you like, but when regulators, and their accompanying institutions are beholden, either ideologically or practically to specific vested financial interests, then you end up with a problem.
You can say that has nothing to do with wall street, that would be somewhat akin to saying that it's not tobacco companies' fault that young people smoke.
|
On October 19 2011 23:49 Greg_J wrote:
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests.
Is it really good exposure if they can't answer basic questions?
|
Let me clarify a few things. Paul Volcker said, "I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth — one shred of evidence." This is my point. I am not against banks at all. In fact they are very necessary. We are talking now about what Wall Street represents; the financialization of the economy. We are talking about hedge funds and investment banks. Their business practices produce nothing and are akin to a poker game. There's only one difference. Poker is entertainment. No one watches day traders trade on TV for entertainment.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/volcker-only-financial-innovation-has-been-atm-machines/
As for the corporation. It is a entity set up for greed. It is a legal person with only 1 goal. What the people that make up that corporation think doesn't matter. This includes the CEO. They are irrelevant gears of a machine. CEOs van Shell and BP can be sympathetic with Greenpeace. CEOs of banks can feel shameful that they are part of the top 1%. That changes nothing. They have limited power within the system. The problem is that corporations have only 1 goal and that is to get profit.
Economists even seriously consider it to be a problem that corporations hog up money. Apple has like an insane amount of money banked. People are different. They spend and earn money equally. This means that if you run the game on and on that at some point corporations will have all the money banked and people will have nothing left. This is the simple consequence of the game theory of this game. Slowly corporations will have a higher percentage of all the money in their bank account. You can say they want to invest. Yes they want to invest. But only if that means they end up with even more money banked after that. They don't spend money. Spending and investing are two different things.
The question of how difficult it would be to have private power democratized is not an argument. Imagine a 17th century noble say the exact same thing. "People can't govern themselves, bla bla". It doesn't matter. You either believe in democracy or you don't. If you believe in democracy, private power can't be excluded from the democratic process. Corporations aren't like dictators because they aren't governed by 1 person. But there is little democracy within a corporations. Workers have no say. Customers have no say. Other types of stakeholders have no say. That's not a democracy. It's a tyranny and I am opposed to that and so should you.
Making corporations democratic is the biggest challenge of our time and solving it will solve many other problems from economic crisis to global warming.
Criticizing democracy is also silly. Even if a democracy was way less effective, you still want democracy. But one can even make a case that this is wrong and that democracies are actually better.Don't tell me all these banking CEOs are super smart and wise.
Saying that it is silly to criticize the current system, call it capitalism while it isn't if you want, why is the current system so great? How can you claim it is the best we can do? Yes we have wealth and all kinds of amazing things in the west. But is that thanks to democracy? Thanks to the progression of science? Or thanks to what you call 'capitalism'?
Then go to India or some other random place in the world and see how well 'the system' serves them. Most people on the planet are fucked. And often thanks to deliberate policies. Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources. But the people there are the poorest. Part of the reason has been western imperialism and then later western corporations. They don't have democracy and they have wars and that hurts them too. But we can imagine a fairer system. And as long as we can, we should support that.
You can't say we have what we have right now thanks to 'free markets' because there are no free markets. Well, they have them in Somalia and that's why Somalia is fucked. Every industrialized country was industrialized through government spending. Never was a country industrialized through free markets. It just didn't happen. And considering how many countries are industrialized already, I doubt it will ever happen. Now maybe this is because free markets just can't exist because there will always be established power against it. Maybe free markets do fine in industrializing a nation. But what use is something that can't exist?
Another thing is that corporations act as a cover for people commuting crimes. When someone at some corporation makes a decision that turns into an environmental disaster, the corporation takes all the blame for him. The person won't be personally responsible.You can sue corporations and corporations can sue you. This is strange. Corporations are people. If a person is to blame for something, sue him. But they use a trick and corporations act like a legal shield. You can commit crime and get away with it.
The legal status of corporations has never been passed through popular support and laws. It was invented by judges. A good book about this is The Transformation of American Law by Harvard professor Morton Horwitz.
The US supreme court just decided they didn't even want to hear any argument against corporations being persons. They just are:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
|
On October 19 2011 23:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 23:49 Greg_J wrote:
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests. Is it really good exposure if they can't answer basic questions?
What are you trying to achieve, here in this thread? What exact, single specific socioeconomic goal are you trying to achieve? What demands do you have? Who are you demanding it from?
What? no, it needs to be more specific than that.
What? no, discussion isn't good enough, you can't be here to discuss things and try to raise understanding though participation in dialogue, that's not a goal man, you need a goal.
WHAT IS YOUR GOAL?
What? it's to promote a specific viewpoint? That's not a goal man, you need a specific set of demands for a specific set of people or else your participation in this thread is silly and should be derided by the institution.
you see how silly it is? the question is formulated in such a way so that the movement can be pigeonholed.
One thing that is positive, the fact that its trying to be undermined, and fairly aggressively, means that the powers that be do perceive this mobilisation to be a fairly serious threat to the status quo. That's good for most people.
|
On October 19 2011 23:56 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 23:51 RvB wrote:On October 19 2011 23:49 Greg_J wrote:
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests. Is it really good exposure if they can't answer basic questions? What are you trying to achieve, here in this thread? What exact, single specific socioeconomic goal are you trying to achieve? What demands do you have? Who are you demanding it from? What? no, it needs to be more specific than that. What? no, discussion isn't good enough, you can't be here to discuss things and try to raise understanding though participation in dialogue, that's not a goal man, you need a goal. WHAT IS YOUR GOAL? What? it's to promote a specific viewpoint? That's not a goal man, you need a specific set of demands for a specific set of people or else your participation in this thread is silly and should be derided by the institution. you see how silly it is? the question is formulated in such a way so that the movement can be pigeonholed. One thing that is positive, the fact that its trying to be undermined, and fairly aggressively, means that the powers that be do perceive this mobilisation to be a fairly serious threat to the status quo. That's good for most people.
Yeah but if you don't have a specific point or some kind of better solution then your effectively just moaning and never going to change anything.
|
On October 19 2011 23:56 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 23:51 RvB wrote:On October 19 2011 23:49 Greg_J wrote:
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests. Is it really good exposure if they can't answer basic questions? What are you trying to achieve, here in this thread? What exact, single specific socioeconomic goal are you trying to achieve? What demands do you have? Who are you demanding it from? What? no, it needs to be more specific than that. What? no, discussion isn't good enough, you can't be here to discuss things and try to raise understanding though participation in dialogue, that's not a goal man, you need a goal. WHAT IS YOUR GOAL? What? it's to promote a specific viewpoint? That's not a goal man, you need a specific set of demands for a specific set of people or else your participation in this thread is silly and should be derided by the institution. you see how silly it is? the question is formulated in such a way so that the movement can be pigeonholed. One thing that is positive, the fact that its trying to be undermined, and fairly aggressively, means that the powers that be do perceive this mobilisation to be a fairly serious threat to the status quo. That's good for most people.
His point was very, very clear to me. He was trying to argue that the "Occupy Wall Street" protests have no clear goal, ideal, or purpose except vague and diverse forms of "hope and change."
I've been following these protests quite a bit... I've seen people protesting to pass universal health care, to end the federal reserve, to invest in green energy, to protect "mother earth," to create jobs, to throw bankers in jail, to end solitary confinement, to never bail out companies, to redistribute the wealth... It has no goal, it's simply a collection of people who feel like venting their personal frustrations and disparate desires.
Also it's kind of laughable to think that the media (besides FOX) is trying to tear them down or criticize them. They've done a very good job of hiding the fringe lunatics from view and filming mostly coherent individuals. It's nothing like the coverage of the Tea Party where all you could ever see were to 0.02% of racist signs or statements.
|
|
|
On October 20 2011 00:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 23:56 caradoc wrote:On October 19 2011 23:51 RvB wrote:On October 19 2011 23:49 Greg_J wrote:
Michael More was on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman about the protest and although Michael More spoke very passionately about injustice and how the worlds not fair and the rich get richer (I'm sure the majority of people would agree with him) he still couldn't at all answer Paxman's most basic questions about what the protest aim was and what they hoped to achieve. It's good exposure for the protest been discussed on a prime British news program by one of the worlds most respected journalists. But until this kind of question is answered and the protesters are unified behind specific demands or causes then I can't see anything coming from the protests. Is it really good exposure if they can't answer basic questions? What are you trying to achieve, here in this thread? What exact, single specific socioeconomic goal are you trying to achieve? What demands do you have? Who are you demanding it from? What? no, it needs to be more specific than that. What? no, discussion isn't good enough, you can't be here to discuss things and try to raise understanding though participation in dialogue, that's not a goal man, you need a goal. WHAT IS YOUR GOAL? What? it's to promote a specific viewpoint? That's not a goal man, you need a specific set of demands for a specific set of people or else your participation in this thread is silly and should be derided by the institution. you see how silly it is? the question is formulated in such a way so that the movement can be pigeonholed. One thing that is positive, the fact that its trying to be undermined, and fairly aggressively, means that the powers that be do perceive this mobilisation to be a fairly serious threat to the status quo. That's good for most people. His point was very, very clear to me. He was trying to argue that the "Occupy Wall Street" protests have no clear goal, ideal, or purpose except vague and diverse forms of "hope and change." I've been following these protests quite a bit... I've seen people protesting to pass universal health care, to end the federal reserve, to invest in green energy, to protect "mother earth," to create jobs, to throw bankers in jail, to end solitary confinement, to never bail out companies, to redistribute the wealth... It has no goal, it's simply a collection of people who feel like venting their personal frustrations and disparate desires. Also it's kind of laughable to think that the media (besides FOX) is trying to tear them down or criticize them. They've done a very good job of hiding the fringe lunatics from view and filming mostly coherent individuals. It's nothing like the coverage of the Tea Party where all you could ever see were to 0.02% of racist signs or statements.
by this argument, any discussion would be useless by virtue of the fact that it doesnt have an end goal.
demands can wait. Protests are an exercise in democracy and a valid end in and of themselves. If people have no demands and demands are necessary for anything to happen, why does the media appear worried? I can't imagine FOX news saying that the protests need demands because they want them to succeed.
If you want them to want something, maybe go tell them.
Speaking of media appearing worried and attempting to delegitimize the protests.....
On October 20 2011 00:24 whiteguycash wrote:Interesting opinion article in WSJ today. WSJ Article
This has actually basically been discredited, the results are quite distorted, See spoiler for discussion and actual results:
+ Show Spoiler +In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Doug Schoen reports on the results of a poll he conducted of Occupy Wall Street protesters. Here is the nut graph: What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth… At Capital New York, Azi Paybarah has obtained the full poll results, and Schoen appears to have grossly misrepresented the results of his poll. He writes that a “large majority” are bound together by support for a “radical redistribution of wealth.” But when he asked the protesters what they’d like the Occupy Wall Street movement to achieve, just 4 percent said “radical redistribution of wealth,” which tied for last on the list of answers given. There is no mention of “radical redistribution of wealth” anywhere else in the poll. Meanwhile, 35 percent said they would like to “influence the Democratic Party,” Here are the full results of that question: ![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/SECOND.jpg) Similarly, while Schoen writes that a “large majority” express “opposition to free-market capitalism,” when asked what frustrates them most about the U.S. political process, only 3 percent named “our democratic/capitalist system.” Out of 198 respondents, that amounts to five or six people, which is quite the opposite of a large majority. Here are the full results for that question: ![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FIRST.jpg) Schoen also writes that “[s]ixty-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.” But the actual question makes no mention of costs. Schoen, who bills himself as a Democrat but has effusively praised the tea party and advised Obama not to run for a second term, was determined to paint the Occupy Wall Street protesters as politically toxic. As a result, he grossly misrepresented the results of his poll to Wall Street Journals readers.
also see: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/10/3790409/survey-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-are-unhappy-democrats-who-
|
|
|
The fact of the matter is that they won't get anything done because they aren't throwing any numbers around. I would take them much more legitimately if their goal was like "raise income tax by x amount" or something like that. I would even support raising income taxes back to the pre-Reagan era. I just don't like the idea of it being inherently bad that rich people are rich.
|
On October 19 2011 20:02 cursor wrote:
CEO's will generally be hired and fired based on what they can do to increase overall income over 1 or 2 quarters. A CEO sells his soul every Quarter to try to get that 1 or 2% to keep his job. If it's laying off 10,000 workers, or moving a plant, or setting up a new distribution or marketing structure- it's all focused on Quarterly returns. As is his stability in the job.
These short term decisions are formatted to generate immediate returns for stock holders and investors. And, aren't always the best thing for the longevity of the Company, the Economy, the Employees or the Environment in the long term. And CEO's who try to talk about any of that hippy shit are going to get tossed out on their ear. Hence, a lot of the complaints about that format.
finally someone with common sense
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
last time i checked moaning and bitching started this revolution around the 1770's
|
On October 20 2011 00:26 caradoc wrote:
by this argument, any discussion would be useless by virtue of the fact that it doesnt have an end goal.
demands can wait. Protests are an exercise in democracy and a valid end in and of themselves. If people have no demands and demands are necessary for anything to happen, why does the media appear worried? I can't imagine FOX news saying that the protests need demands because they want them to succeed.
If you want them to want something, maybe go tell them.
I don't think your point on discussions is accurate...the goal of having discussions is to create clarity about a certain issue, or to convince someone that you have the right idea. These protests are not forums for discussion. They are simply protests, that may encourage discussion as a side benefit.
Protests with literally no demands are illogical. If I decided to go on a hunger strike, but gave no one any reason...just sat there with no sign, chaining myself to some fixture...what is the point? Technically it should be allowed, but it has no meaning...its just a pointless exercise of my rights to do nothing.
So I'm assuming that's not what you mean, but that instead you say protests are valid as long as they, at the very least, have very broad goals that they want to achieve, like promoting economic equality.
The problem with that is it implies that its ok to be ignorant of economics, or to have no clue as to where the problem lies and how it will be fixed - but to expect that *other people* will fix it *for* you, particularly on very vague, large issues. How about everyone just decides to have a protest to end world hunger? Have a protest to end all wars? Have a protest to end global warming?
Similarly these people are having a protest to say: Make capitalism work perfectly, so that the influence of money has no effect on government and there's equality for all. Make it so that people don't take risks that affect us, so that we'll never have a recession or depression again. Make it so that there is *zero* accumulation of power by the wealthy, so that they don't disproportionately affect the population or the decisions of their policy makers.
Its...sort of a child like arrogance that these protesters are displaying, to suggest that just by protesting, everything is going to work out well and they'll solve the problems of capitalism. They have a right to be angry...but at this point thats all it looks like, just stupid venting, where they don't know what they're doing or what they're trying to achieve, composed of various radical groups with extreme agendas, but they're hoping someone will figure it out for them. That's whats so irritating about this...its ok to be ignorant now, just go out and protest, feel like a revolutionary, and someone else will change the world for you.
I know that its the job of policy makers to work on behalf of the people...but you can't expect them to just fix massive, complicated systems that are showing signs of inequality that occasionally result in recessions, just because you decide to hold a protest. This isn't something that can be done with a single vote...its a complicated problem that will require the cooperation of a number of governmental, non-governmental, and private organizations to achieve. Greed and the drive for power are inherent to human nature, and we are constantly struggling to overcome it and find systems that maximize the positives while minimizing the negatives.
So...there's my rant 
|
On October 19 2011 23:33 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 23:18 radiatoren wrote:On October 19 2011 19:43 RvB wrote:On October 19 2011 19:19 Velr wrote:On October 19 2011 17:59 Pillage wrote: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. 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"..... 1. companies aren't dictatorships, they have a board of directors. 2. You can't have 1000's of people deciding on what the company has to do that's just ridiculously inefficient. 3. There are so many different business units it's just stupid if someone from the financial part of the company also has to make decissions for the marketing part. 4. The best of the departments are in the board of directors they got the most knowledge and thus are able to make the best decissions. 5. They also usually have a comissary above them who check if they're doing their job well and can fire them. 1. board of directors might be THE issue. A lot of boards in Denmark are insuring themself against "responsibility" if the s... hits the fan. Also a few corruptioncases of friendship between board of director-leaders and CEO's has surfaced. Corruption in that part is very real and who can assure it is not getting worse with a limited pool of people? 2. Isn't that exactly what stocks are meant for (primarily, not including gambling)? Companies with well above 1000 stockholders are the norm today... 3. Question being: Who should watch who? What about companies, where the structure is not standardly departmentalized? 4. How do you ensure that? It is merely a postulate with no evidence for, but some evidence against. 5. I am uncertain if a comissary exist in all cases. A revision, however, is usually worked out for the companys taxpayment and whatever laws/rules are in place. In Denmark there is no sanctioning for errors (unless it is a police-case). Same somewhat goes for the US. Only sanctioning is the stockmarket and that can easily be adressed if the company is smart. It is important to have good standards for how election of board members happens and you need a broad pool to choose from. Else, boards will be the same corrupt people finding friends for other boards and or directions (has happened and is happening). Directions are a completely different species and based on the boards decissions... 1. Corruption happens everywhere and give me some examples of these. You still don't explain how it is THE issue if that's all you can come up with plus you don't give any alternatives. 2. You need a certain number of stocks to have any influence ( usually between 1-5% ). And they don't decide how the day to day business goes. Also people who bought that amount of stocks should have ( or they're running a giant risk ) read very well into the company they have stocks in and thus can make more educated decissions. 3. I don't really get what you're saying sorry english isn't my first language :p. Every company has structure though although of course not all companies are the same. 4. You're not going to get high up with just having connections. Yes connections do have influence but you're only going to get there if you work really hard and are really good. Having someone incompetent in the board of directors is only shooting yourself in the foot since they usually have a bonus structure. And they won't get that bonus if the company is underperforming. 5. Every Joint-stock company has a commisary. They do have a broad pool to choose from, they choose from the best of the best under the board that's the whole point. Only the ones who are good enough get into the board. Now these people can be scumbags and dishonest don't get me wrong. It's obviously not a perfect system but being a scumbag doesn't mean you're incompetent and these people really do want their company to succeed either for their own benefit or because they enjoy their job.
1. There are a number of cases in Denmark, 1 is an insidertrading between 2 banks (anonymous) for up to 10 mio. Dollars of guarantees with nothing to back it. Another is Amagerbanken, with a golden handshake of up to 1 mio. dollars for the director rigth before the bank crashed. The crash came when the new director reviewed the portfolio and their assets was hugely overestimated by the former. A lot of these golden handshake and extraordinarily disproportional wages for company-bosses in eg. Vestjysk Bank (about 4 times that of the far more succesful competitor Jyske Bank and same as Danske Bank, the biggest bank in Denmark), DSB (They have more or less fired all directors for incompetence and negligence, but after years with critique from external revision and the board doing nothing) and others I can't remember off the top of my head.
2. Board of directors are chosen from the stockholders. usually the small stockholders can find enough of a common ground to make up 1 % of the stocks and that is usually enough to get influence though they separately do not own 1 %. The point I am trying to make though, is that it is based on the stock market, who gets the influence. The educated guesses from investors is not always the case. They can easily have different goals and crash an enterprise. (Almost happened to Parken sport and entertainment).
3. Might be me not understanding your primary point. No problem mate. 
4. As long as you as a board have an insurance and follow these demands, who cares? Sure you might sit for a short time, but as soon as you have "experience" from one board you have got yourself a good case in the future. Bonuses are created very different from company, but the measurements almost always suck. I have heard people manipulating internal interviews to reach a certain goal to get a bonus and that is one of the least problematic things you can do to reach arbitrary measures in a firm. It is a common theme from middle leaders and up that such bonusses completely forces focus off the business and can or will cause a lot more harm than good in a company.
5. I have never heard of a commissary and I am not sure that is a general part of corporations globally. I guess it is the foreman for the board of directors or the CEO you are pointing at in most cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
The pool in Denmark is not big at all. Mostly a person can have 6-7 boards he is sitting in because he has the "experience". That is becoming a problem as they simply cannot use the time needed for each of those "jobs". Professional boards are therefore problematic in itself specifically here. Other boards can be partly company-appointed or appointed from other interessants and those generally have the specific knowledge of the companys methods and therefore they are often good to have in this position. However, strictly speaking boards are 100 % shareholder-controlled.
More spots for interessants would be a good part-solution and restrictions on the stocks to avoid having too much of it out in the hands of speculators, who pr. definition doesn't care about the company at all.
Also, either rule banks completely out of any kind of influence in companies or allow it 100 %. Either of those options would be a solution. Not changing that in the US is the worst thing that can happen to the worlds economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
