Occupy Wall Street - Page 94

On October 21 2011 04:46 Ercster wrote:

First response:
1. Companies didn't just form from thin air, they started small and grew to where they are now.
2. Monopolies will only thrive if people continue using the companies services or goods, as soon as they stop, the company will fail.

On October 21 2011 05:47 Ercster wrote:
I can no longer handle the stupidity of some of these people, so if anyone else wants to respond for me, particularly Kiarip because he seems to be the only one, other than myself, that knows what a free-market is, I would appreciate it.

On October 21 2011 05:46 InRaged wrote:

1. Yes. That doesn't contradict what he said, though.
Companies start small, then they grow bigger, then they form cartels and monopolies. And since in absence of regulations the existence of big corporations by their nature prevents small companies from growing or even from appearing the free-market cease to exist.
2. And why people will suddenly stop using services or goods of monopolistic company?! Especially in absence of alternative? Just cause they think it's unhealthy for the market?))

On October 21 2011 05:35 Gaga wrote:
the ultimate goal of an economy should be to make people work less. Where unemployment is a good thing. In our current system that is impossible.

we will never achieve that if we don't start to change the way of thinking.

for example that we always work for ourself and/or family by making money. This is only true if you grow your own food.... in fact in our shared economy we pretty much always work for others.

On October 21 2011 05:51 H0i wrote:

I know what a free market is, and so do the others. We however, do not see the free market as a good idea. You are implying people who do not agree with the free market do not understand it, this argument is weak and flawed on so many levels.

On October 21 2011 06:13 Flyingdutchman wrote:


oh Gaga, are you trolling again :D To be unemployed requires you to look for/want work. Otherwise you just don't participate in the labour force. So unemployment can never be a good thing unless you want a situation where people can't be all that they want to be



Are you sure about that? A market is free when there are no barriers to enter it. In Europe they protect this pretty well with lots of regulations. Key is that the existence of regulations has nothing to do with a market being free or not. I get the idea that most people in this thread believe that free markets imply the absence of regulations. This is just not true.

On October 21 2011 06:13 Flyingdutchman wrote:


oh Gaga, are you trolling again :D To be unemployed requires you to look for/want work. Otherwise you just don't participate in the labour force. So unemployment can never be a good thing unless you want a situation where people can't be all that they want to be



Are you sure about that? A market is free when there are no barriers to enter it. In Europe they protect this pretty well with lots of regulations. Key is that the existence of regulations has nothing to do with a market being free or not. I get the idea that most people in this thread believe that free markets imply the absence of regulations. This is just not true.

On October 21 2011 07:14 Ercster wrote:

You sir, I <3.

On October 21 2011 05:47 Ercster wrote:
I can no longer handle the stupidity of some of these people, so if anyone else wants to respond for me, particularly Kiarip because he seems to be the only one, other than myself, that knows what a free-market is, I would appreciate it.

On October 21 2011 05:46 InRaged wrote:

1. Yes. That doesn't contradict what he said, though.
Companies start small, then they grow bigger, then they form cartels and monopolies. And since in absence of regulations the existence of big corporations by their nature prevents small companies from growing or even from appearing the free-market cease to exist.
2. And why people will suddenly stop using services or goods of monopolistic company?! Especially in absence of alternative? Just cause they think it's unhealthy for the market?))

On October 21 2011 07:42 BogdanSin wrote:

1. How do big corporations prevent small companies from entering the market? They influence the government to enact regulations. Yes, companies actually want regulations so that it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market. Regulations have costs associated with them, and the more regulations, the higher the cost and the less chance that someone could enter the market.

On October 21 2011 07:42 BogdanSin wrote:

1. How do big corporations prevent small companies from entering the market? They influence the government to enact regulations. Yes, companies actually want regulations so that it makes it harder for new companies to enter the market. Regulations have costs associated with them, and the more regulations, the higher the cost and the less chance that someone could enter the market.
2. A monopoly has a kind of negative connotation attatched to it. A monopoly isn't always bad. If nobody else can provide the same goods/services for less then the monopoly will remain. If someone CAN, however, then they could enter the market and force the monopoly to lower their prices as well to be competitive. But as I said in the first point, government regulations are what allow ineffecient monopolies to exist.

On October 21 2011 07:32 JayLay wrote:
I think Bill Whittle says it best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0

Well there are protesters in several major american cities using their ipads at starbucks to make facebook and twitter updates on the evils of corporations and you don't know whether to laugh or cry honestly

What we are seeing here are self-esteem movements, chickens coming home to roost

these kids are upset because the hundred thousand dollars of debt they took on in order to get their degrees in bitterness studies isn't paying off with a six figure job and a car and full benefits at an organic farm collective

you know if you look deeply into human history you'll see that every civilization collapses the same way they're not overrun by barbarians that comes later now they fail because of their success prosperity makes them lazy and breeds a sense of entitlement.

On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:


People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many.

Americans disregard the Constitution all the time because it is so vaguely written. Example: everyone interprets freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in different ways. And this problem with the document has been debated ever since we had a Federalist Party.

The problem now is that there isn't enough stuff around to make our life crap. We have climate controlled shelters, all the entertainment we could short of interactive porn, and machines that can transport us anywhere in 2 days. Brave New World happens, and everyone in power just has to promise to keep Jersey Shore on the air and pretend to be the savior of the world to get into power and we wonder why our life is crap.

You conveniently ignored the part about water, health care and electricity companies and decided to focus on the bank part instead, hmm...

Banks will indeed want safe loans if the government won't bail them out, but the effect is the same. Banks steal wealth by interest, it's simply a money moving scheme from poor to rich which will eventually concentrate every last bit of wealth on a tiny amount of people. Also, the problems in the banking sector are much more because of CEOs going for quick money that will destroy the bank in the long run, because this allows them to give themselves a big bonus.

They are not supported by the government. THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Government existing is not the problem, the problem is that it's no longer in control of the people. Competing with them is irrelevant because it will have the same destructive results regardless of what corporation is doing things. Money is disconnected from what matters, look at the big earners and look at what they do for society: nothing. If I invent a cheaper way of treating a disease, then why would I use it if it gives me less money? Monopolies are the direct effect of a "free" market.

You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame?

And wars, I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why not? You don't want limitations on corporations and/or don't want to admit they are bad because they are infinitely selfish entities that will want to get power, which is the exact reason they want to control the government. IF we allow them to take over the government they will. If the government exists only for protection of the rights you mentioned, they will STILL take over the government IF WE ALLOW THEM TO, and they will use it do get more profit. And if we have no limits, then what stops them from being the law and starting a war against another corporation, literally? After all they are infinitely selfish, it is their definition!

I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay.

Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable.

Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government.

Last edit: 2011-10-21 04:47:01

So government is being influenced by big corporations. Corporations are influencing the government.

...and the conclusion here is that the government's power to govern is at fault just because it exists? It's not the part where the big corporations "influence" the government (in less than legal ways) that rings the alarm bells in this story, it's the part where government has powers that can be abused.

I must be going crazy here.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that outside of this theoretical world, powerful corporations we have today will have no trouble at all to find a way to ensure that there is never any real competition. Just face it - at the end of the line, everyone wants one thing. And it's not money. It's control. And control without social responsibility is the most appealing kind.
Last edit: 2011-10-21 08:07:15

Why is it someones fault if he/she is unemployed? Unemployment rates, the official ones NOT changed to make it sound better are above 20% (USA). It's not their bad decisions, it's a problem of the system. The system is obviously wrong and here is why: in order to have every person working we need to get more jobs, which means more growth. Can we grow infinitely? No, we cannot but this is what the economy wishes to do and thus it is a ponzi scheme. Not only the growth, but also the rate of growth is limited. It's simple math, ponzi schemes crash.

The current system and ideology has already failed, it's time to move on.

On October 21 2011 08:58 Kiarip wrote:


Yeah it is great. and people have power when the government doesn't.

The government isn't ruled by people in general, it's ruled by few, and has a few checks/balances with the general population, but like I said the general population have way less bargaining power wiht the government than they do with businesses in the free market, so the power that the government is given should be minimized so that it has just enough to do it's job of protecting people's rights.



Yeah well this is true, but it's all about the mentality. If people are reminded to believe in and love Liberty once again then they can still par-take in the semi-democratic process that remains today to try to change things for the better, and convince the government to once again follow the rules.



I didn't conveniently ignore the part about the water... I said that the banks will lend people the money to start businesses in areas where a monopoly is mistreating them. Or groups of people will pool their resources. You asked me how the people are supposed to compete against water/energy/health care monopolies, and I gave you the answer, they can do that by starting their own companies. Where there is a government un-assisted monopoly, there's a profit to be made by competing with it.



The government stopped being in control of the peopel the moment it was given so much power. The government's power isn't the people's power. Do you feel empowered by the government? ... maybe as a group and only sometimes... The government's power all the legislation that they can is all the stuff that takes power AWAY from the people. Think about it... if there's no laws you have ultimate power, you can go around and do whatever you want/can (i'm not supporting this, I'm just giving you an extreme example.) The government comes in and simply tells you what you can't do, or what you need special permission to do...

and obviously when companies start bribing the government guess who it grants these special permissions to? ... yeah those that give them the most money which tends to be NOT the people... The solution is that the government shouldn't have the power to grant anyone special permissions, it should simply protect its citizens' human rights, and it should stay the hell away from the economy, because the moment it is given power over economy those who are in charge get bribed special interest groups from wealthy organizations.


The corporations will ALWAYS buy the government as long as there something the government can do for them... Because it's profitable for them to do so, and the whole point of a business is to make money, so if you don't go and try to bribe the government whoever does will drive you out of business because you'll suffer fiscal losses, it is inevitable as long as you give the government ANY power to pick winners and losers amongst businesses in the marketplace.

LOL? If the people in the government were literal saints, yes we wouldnt' be having this problem, but no one is a saint, and everyone has a price. The government are the ones who are accepting the bribes... isn't accepting bribes as big a crime as offering them? I would say it's even a bigger one.




Corporations are no less infinitely selfish than the government. People in the government use their position to extract money from corporations in exchange for helping them out. The government will always be offerred money under the table by wealthy businesses as long as there is something that the businesses want from the government. The real solution is to not give the government any power that is capable of helping one business in the marketplace over another.

What the hell do you "IF WE ALLOW THEM TO" why would they offer the government any money to try to buy them if there's nothing they want from the government?

You're saying there needs to be regulations and strong government, but if the government is "strong" it just means that it has even more power, so that gives corporations even MORE incentive to buy the government... you can't "NOT ALLOW THEM TO." You can only make it so it's not desirable for them to do so, either that or you have to give the government so much power that their executives don't even need money, because they can literally take whatever they want (that way the corporations will have nothing to actually offer them,) but that would be trampling all over human property rights, and would in fact be total communism/socialism.



more @caradoc

The government isn't ideally structured to provide for the needs of society. That's not even possible. Yes it's more or less well structured to protect our rights and freedoms, and that's what they should do.

But we have so many needs, and each need requires its own infrostructure, the federal government isn't ideally designed to deliver to us any product that we buy for money.

THat's why there's a free market, where in each industry businesses can compete with each other and those best designed at providing us with products of the highest possible quality and lowest possible price are the ones that are able to survive. Free market competition is what causes businesses to strive to structure themselves in the most efficient way possible, the government doesn't really have any incentives to do that because a government doesn't have any competition.

If you impose stifling regulations on corporations they will stop hiring people here, and will increase the costs of their products in response to the increase of their internal expenses that is caused by the new-found constricting regulations.

You have to realize that the DICK that the corporations are screwing us WITH is the strap-on called government legislative power, which allows them to create a bunch of unnecessary licenses and regulations with loopholes for businesses that paid them the most money, and as a result these businesses are no longer bound by the rules of the free market competition that normally drives businesses to increase quality and lower prices, because their competitors to have to increase prices or lower quality by increasing their production costs via targetted regulations created by the government.



@Talin

How do you propose corporations lose control over the government? You have people being placed into positions of insane amount of power, and corporations have a lot of money, it's a fiscally smart investment for corporations to have lobbyist groups that bribe politicians...

how is this gonna be prevented? The politicians want to be bribed, and the corporations want to bribe them...


@hoi
It's not the people's fault per-say that they can't find jobs, but it IS the government's. Deregulation would increase employment.

The rate of growth and ponzi scheme you're talkign about is nonsense, do you even understand what you're saying?

THe only thing that's failed is the government, it failed by continuously intervening in our economy by picking winners and losers.

"Assault? Who, or what, did I assault?" I asked the police officer incredulously as I sat in his office at the police station, handcuffed to the wall. "Well, looks like it was Leon Panetta himself," the officer responded as he flipped through a pile of paperwork.



Me? A 22-year-old mild-mannered peace activist, assaulted the Secretary of Defense? I had simply tried to tell him how I felt about the wars. On the morning of October 13th about 25 activists who are occupying Washington DC, as part of the nationwide occupations, went on a field trip to Congress. We wanted to attend the House Armed Services Committee hearing where Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, and Martin Dempsy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were testifying about “lessons learned by the Department of Defense over the preceding decade” and “how those lessons might be applied in the future in light of anticipated reductions in defense spending.” After all, these hearings are open to the public. And shouldn’t we have a say in where our money is being spent?



As a peace activist with the group CODEPINK for the past 10 months, I have done my fair share of sending letters and emails and delivering petitions to our government representatives, asking them to stop pouring trillions of our taxpayer dollars into the endless cycle of death, destruction and reconstruction halfway across the world. There are so many critical things that we could spend that money on here in America, such as education, healthcare, helping the homeless, the elderly, the disabled, the veterans.



The activists who I have been camping out with in Freedom Plaza since October 6th share the same sentiments. That morning about 25 of us, sporting social justice slogans on pins, hats and shirts, got to the hearing several hours early so we could be first on line to get in. It didn’t take long for the Capitol Police to appear. They began to congregate around us, and several of them were already holding the flexi-cuffs they use now in lieu of traditional handcuffs (they’re recyclable, so I learned).



A Congressional staffer came out into the hallway and barked at us: no demonstrating, no protesting, no outbursts, no signs. Not even before the Chairman of the Committee hits the gavel, marking the start of the hearing. We were surprised that we couldn’t even hold up our signs before the hearing began, as we are usually able to do. “So you’re taking away what little shred we have of free speech in these public hearings?” asked Medea Benjamin, a CODEPINK cofounder who has been to many a hearing. “I thought this was a democracy!” The staffer ignored her and walked away.



We were even more upset when we learned that the room was already stacked with seats reserved for staffers, and that only 15 members of the public would be allowed in. So much for a “public hearing.”



Soon they started letting people into the hearing room - but only 5 at a time, and the police escorted us in under a careful eye as if we were unruly children. They told us any form of demonstrating would result in immediate ejection from the hearing and possible arrest. One man asked, “You mean even if I do this?” and held both his arms up, making peace signs with his fingers. Absolutely, the police responded. We laughed at the absurdity.



A few minutes after all the Congresspeople had slowly made their way to their seats, Panetta and Dempsey entered the room flanked by several staffers. Media cameras crowded around them at the witness table as they sat down, about 15 feet away from me.



Quickly I sprung up out of my seat, pulling out my homemade sign that read: FUND MY EDUCATION, NOT YOUR WARS. I had been in Congressional hearings many times, and I had never come so close to risking arrest, but I was determined to get my message out. "Secretary Panetta, when are we going to stop funding war and start rebuilding America? We have been at war for almost half my life and guys my age have PTSD. My generation deserves better!" I continued to shout as Capitol Hill police dragged me out the door.



Outside were about 15 people who were not let into the hearing and together we chanted the Occupy Wall Street slogan, "We! Are! The 99 percent!!" ??



The next person to speak out inside the hearing was Michael Patterson, from Anchorage, Alaska, who has been sleeping out in McPherson Square in DC for 8 days and nights. Michael is a 21-year-old vet who was an interrogator in Iraq- at the age of 18! He has been extremely affected by what he saw there and as soon as Panetta started speaking, Michael denounced U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. “You are murdering people. I’ve seen it. You are murdering people,” he shouted as the police tackled him.



Michael was overcome with emotion and as a result his disruption was the most intense- and hopefully the most effective. Some reports mention that members of Congress seemed startled by his message. When asked about his motivation for this action, Michael responded, "Certain elements of the American government are accomplices in genocide. These wars have caused the death of up to a million Iraqis, an unknown number of Afghans, and thousands of US soldiers. They have ruined the lives of millions. The truth is out there and people are just choosing apathy. It's time to hold those accountable for what they have done and when the time comes, the excuse 'I was just following orders' will not be acceptable."



After Michael, six other individuals stood up during the hearing and expressed how they felt about these wars, whether by holding up peace signs silently, or speaking softly, or shouting and holding up a sign. After each person was arrested, the rest clapped in support, and the other activists still waiting in the hall chanted continuously calling for an end to the wars.



The eight of us were rounded up outside the building, then hauled off in a paddy wagon to the police station, where I spent over 6 hours being processed and narrowly avoided spending the night in jail. They gave us all citations, and everyone was charged with disrupting Congress, except for me. I was charged with simple assault of Leon Panetta. ?

It’s funny more than anything, because I was nowhere near Secretary Panetta during my outburst. It turns out that my charge, “simple assault”, is a crime that causes “a victim to fear violence”. It is a sad day when a government official feels endangered by a citizen practicing her freedom of speech. Is our highest military official after the President frightened by a young woman with a sign calling for our funds to be spent on education, not war?



A little while after the activists were thrown out of the hearing room, Representative Pingree put Secretary Panetta on the spot. She wanted to know what he thought about the protests inside the hearing, since they reflect the views of the majority of people throughout the country who want to see an end to the wars. He responded by acknowledging our frustration after 10 years of war and talking about the timelines set up to withdraw the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.



The fact that the Secretary of Defense was forced to acknowledge and respond to our concerns is in itself a victory. The strength our messages carried did not just come from us, or the people in the hallway supporting us, but from people rising up all over the country- and it is clear that our government officials are starting to feel the heat.



Since the story of the seven arrests hit the news, I have received a surprising amount of support from friends and strangers. Several of the messages are actually from active members of the military who told me our actions inspired them to seriously think about what they are doing overseas. A few mentioned that it sparked discussion among the people they are serving with. For the most part, they were struck by people’s willingness to risk arrest for something they believe so passionately about.



We are part of the growing Occupy movement sweeping the country, and we are becoming much stronger than the sum of our parts. Drawing strength in numbers, both seasoned and new activists are feeling an incredible sense of empowerment and are taking more risks- including arrestable offenses- so that our voices will be heard. We are determined that our policy makers listen to the sentiment of the people, as expressed in the chants that were echoing in the hallway: We are the 99 percent and we say no to all these wars!!!

On October 21 2011 07:19 caradoc wrote:


If you want to define a free market in this way, that's fine. But then it becomes a completely theoretical construct with no historical precedent, and no possibility of ever actually being achieved. In short, a fairy tale.

I would rather focus on reality, not attempting to achieve impossible hypotheticals with imaginary benefits to society.