Occupy Wall St.

[BeauBenken]

I find it a little funny that there are a so many educated people with the ability to give the protesters some credibility, saying they support the OWS movement, but they aren't out there protesting. I guess they're OK with sending moral and monetary support to their unemployed, pot head pawns living in the park while they pursue their goal of making it into the 1%.

Alex Trebeck: That was a government policy in what war?

 

[irishpat183]

I think the BEST thing about this great country is that not everyone can be in the 1%.

Equality, sucks. Not all men are created equal. And that's ok. There are things that I can't do. Hell, I'm not smart enough to be a rocket scientist or fast enough to play pro football...But it doesn't hurt my feelings. There are things that I'm very good at that I'm sure not many of you could do. And vice versa.


But working hard is something everyone CAN do. But not everyone is willing to do. They don't see the value in working hard because they don't get the instant gratification that they see on TV....but that's not real life.

These OWS protesters do not live in the real world. They don't want to work. They don't want to put forth the effort. The fact that they are willing to spend MONTHS at a time living in tents, playing drums and on their iPads, bitching and moaning about how everyone is stealing from them, while others go to work everyday...is what tips me off.

These people don't really want jobs. Are you kidding?!?!?! It's too easy NOT TO WORK these days. They could have jobs if they wanted them...but they've deemed the jobs "not good enough for my degree in English literature"

If they really wanted to send a message, they'd get educated in fields that actually require a skill, get jobs, and succeed without government help.

 

[BobD]

TIME's Person of the Year 2011 - TIME

Oh great, now every City Hall across America will have pot heads living in tents on their front lawn trying to get on TV so they can say they were part of OWS....they didn't know what their actual goal was, but they were part of it.

I'm thoroughly convinced most of the OWS demonstrators are just hippie wanna-be's that think its cool to be there and they'd protest anything just to say they were part of it.

 

[Grahambo]

TIME's Person of the Year 2011 - TIME

Oh great, now every City Hall across America will have pot heads living in tents on their front lawn trying to get on TV so they can say they were part of OWS....they didn't know what their actual goal was, but they were part of it.

I'm thoroughly convinced most of the OWS demonstrators are just hippie wanna-be's that think its cool to be there and they'd protest anything just to say they were part of it.

They also have one really big advocate on their side.

 

[autry_denson]

I think the BEST thing about this great country is that not everyone can be in the 1%.
Equality, sucks. Not all men are created equal. And that's ok. There are things that I can't do. Hell, I'm not smart enough to be a rocket scientist or fast enough to play pro football...But it doesn't hurt my feelings. There are things that I'm very good at that I'm sure not many of you could do. And vice versa.
But working hard is something everyone CAN do. But not everyone is willing to do. They don't see the value in working hard because they don't get the instant gratification that they see on TV....but that's not real life.

Most Americans agree that inequality is ok as long as there is there is the potential for upward mobility for everyone. When policy is driven by the ultra-rich it is crafted in a way so that wealth is reproduced and the potential for upward mobility is reduced drastically. Economic mobility is now lower in the US than in most other developed nations in the west - meaning the benefits of hard work have declined substantially. No one disagrees that hard work is the key to success - the goal is to shift policy such that hard work is rewarded and opportunity is expanded. This is difficult to do when policy is driven by those at the very top of the wealth distribution.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Most Americans agree that inequality is ok as long as there is there is the potential for upward mobility for everyone. When policy is driven by the ultra-rich it is crafted in a way so that wealth is reproduced and the potential for upward mobility is reduced drastically. Economic mobility is now lower in the US than in most other developed nations in the west - meaning the benefits of hard work have declined substantially. No one disagrees that hard work is the key to success - the goal is to shift policy such that hard work is rewarded and opportunity is expanded. This is difficult to do when policy is driven by those at the very top of the wealth distribution.

This is why we need to get government OUT of business. Do you think more government would be able to fix this? What do you want to do, tax the rich at a rate of 100.7% that was done in the "Progressive" era?

Australia has moved up two spots to number 3 in the "Happiest Country" poll that was just on Yahoo.com. They did so by abolishing trade protections, FREED their labor markets, and have become a flexible economy. America is headed in the opposite direction.


Our problem is Crony Capitalism. We need to get lobbyists out, and a FLAT TAX in.

 

[GoldenDomer87]

Haven't been keeping up with the thread (sorry if it's a repeat), but this guy sums it up well.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Three and a Half Days - YouTube

 

[enrico514]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater...

It's obvious many protestors are using OWS to cause trouble but that doesn't take away the fact that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

 

[irishpat183]

TIME's Person of the Year 2011 - TIME

Oh great, now every City Hall across America will have pot heads living in tents on their front lawn trying to get on TV so they can say they were part of OWS....they didn't know what their actual goal was, but they were part of it.

I'm thoroughly convinced most of the OWS demonstrators are just hippie wanna-be's that think its cool to be there and they'd protest anything just to say they were part of it.

You're exactly right. It's about snapping photos with your iPhone while eating grass and pissing on cop cars. How is that productive??

And I think the "Person of the year" should be the guy that gets his a$$ up everyday, goes to work, has his mortage paid up, takes care of his kids, and has to read this kinda crap in headlines about these "victims".

Unbelieveable who we deem "victims" in today's society.

 

[mgriff]

Ultimately there are a multitude of problems facing the country, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it. They are only going to be fixed when we get past our own internal divisions which have effectively divided the country along petty partisan lines for far too long. Sensationalism is the name of the game, and that gets in the way of any real progress. Both parties are the problem, and the longer people choose to identify with one or the other, the longer the problems will continue to fester.

 

[BobD]

Ultimately there are a multitude of problems facing the country, whether or not people choose to acknowledge it. They are only going to be fixed when we get past our own internal divisions which have effectively divided the country along petty partisan lines for far too long. Sensationalism is the name of the game, and that gets in the way of any real progress. Both parties are the problem, and the longer people choose to identify with one or the other, the longer the problems will continue to fester.

I think many Americans ignore our multitude of problems, whats scary is how many Americans are oblivious of them all together. The amount of citizens that don't know who their congressman or woman is, is sad as hell. I'd be willing to bet 70% or more of the protesters don't know.

Voting along party lines is absolutely stupid. I have to admit I'm guilty of it in the past.

 

[autry_denson]

This is why we need to get government OUT of business.

Some of our ideologies are so ingrained that they are immune to all evidence, even if it's what we see around us on a daily basis. I'm probably harboring a few myself.

That said, it is remarkable to me that someone with any awareness of what has happened to the US over the past decade could make this statement. We are in the midst of a severe recession and we were on the brink of financial collapse b/c of the absence of oversight of the mortgage industry, the big banks, the ratings services, and the financial industry. Yet 'getting government OUT of business' is the solution.

 

[IrishLax]

Some of our ideologies are so ingrained that they are immune to all evidence, even if it's what we see around us on a daily basis. I'm probably harboring a few myself.

That said, it is remarkable to me that someone with any awareness of what has happened to the US over the past decade could make this statement. We are in the midst of a severe recession and we were on the brink of financial collapse b/c of the absence of oversight of the mortgage industry, the big banks, the ratings services, and the financial industry. Yet 'getting government OUT of business' is the solution.

There is DEFINITELY a role for Government in business and I agree with you 100%. You can go as far back as the oil and telephone monopolies to see why.

At the same time, there are instances of Government hurting business as well. A personal favorite example of mine was when I was working on the border there were a bunch of Phelps-Dodge mines that had shut down because EPA regulations made it too hard to turn a profit. So these once bustling communities were now ghost towns, but you you look right across the border and the towns are thriving. So what happened? The company moved their mines ~1 mile right across the border where they have no regulations, pollute the same air, and pollute it more. You're talking about thousands of American jobs that were forced out of America because the Government/EPA showed no common sense... and then effectively caused more pollution in the same area because they could no longer regulate the operations.

So Government definitely has a role in business, but like in any bureaucracy there are many examples of the "rules" trumping the smart thing to do.

 

[BobD]

They also have one really big advocate on their side.

??

 

[autry_denson]

There is DEFINITELY a role for Government in business and I agree with you 100%. You can go as far back as the oil and telephone monopolies to see why.

At the same time, there are instances of Government hurting business as well. A personal favorite example of mine was when I was working on the border there were a bunch of Phelps-Dodge mines that had shut down because EPA regulations made it too hard to turn a profit. So these once bustling communities were now ghost towns, but you you look right across the border and the towns are thriving. So what happened? The company moved their mines ~1 mile right across the border where they have no regulations, pollute the same air, and pollute it more. You're talking about thousands of American jobs that were forced out of America because the Government/EPA showed no common sense... and then effectively caused more pollution in the same area because they could no longer regulate the operations.

So Government definitely has a role in business, but like in any bureaucracy there are many examples of the "rules" trumping the smart thing to do.

Agree 100%. We need flexible regulation systems that are created by people with an incentive to promote the common good, protect against negative externalities, avoid unnecessary inefficiencies, and attempt to avoid disasters like this one at all costs.

 

[palinurus]

The problem with giving "the government" an undefined "role" is that that "role" advocated by such fans of government involves giving "the government" more power, which means less freedom for individuals and more control by "the government."

Those who advocate more control by "the government" often mean more power in the hands of faceless bureaucracies, whose bureaucrats are insulated by anonymity and by layers of political and ideological enemies of both less regulation and greater individual freedom and personal accountability. "Flexible regulation" sounds like something that gives a freer hand to these faceless, unquestionable, insulated bureaucracies, and I am 100% opposed to this.

I think people are naive to trust bureaucracies. Nor do I trust large corps/banks. Put in place specific laws that curb or prevent the objective harm that comes from corporations running amok -- most of which harm comes, btw, not from the inherent nature of corporations, but from government taking sides in business and favoring certain corporations.

 

[Mr. Larson]

I think many Americans ignore our multitude of problems, whats scary is how many Americans are oblivious of them all together. The amount of citizens that don't know who their congressman or woman is, is sad as hell. I'd be willing to bet 70% or more of the protesters don't know.

Voting along party lines is absolutely stupid. I have to admit I'm guilty of it in the past.

I liked this thread a lot more when it was closed. Son of a b*tch. I really wanted to stay out of this, but the get these people out by whatever means necessary rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses, open fire, Tianenman-Square-line-of-thinking terrifies me. It's even scarier that some have agreed with that sentiment.

I agree with the bolded section above. Here's your oppurtunity to get informed:

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress - Bloomberg

^Tip of the iceberg...Still with me? Here's another:

The Secret Bailout: Big Banks Grew Even Bigger Under Federal Reserve - Campus Progress

 

[IrishLax]

The problem with giving "the government" an undefined "role" is that that "role" advocated by such fans of government involves giving "the government" more power, which means less freedom for individuals and more control by "the government."

Those who advocate more control by "the government" often mean more power in the hands of faceless bureaucracies, whose bureaucrats are insulated by anonymity and by layers of political and ideological enemies of both less regulation and greater individual freedom and personal accountability. "Flexible regulation" sounds like something that gives a freer hand to these faceless, unquestionable, insulated bureaucracies, and I am 100% opposed to this.

I think people are naive to trust bureaucracies. Nor do I trust large corps/banks. Put in place specific laws that curb or prevent the objective harm that comes from corporations running amok -- most of which harm comes, btw, not from the inherent nature of corporations, but from government taking sides in business and favoring certain corporations.

Woah there Guy Faux.... let's pump the breaks a little bit. "Flexible" isn't some indefinable concept here.

For instance, to hearken back to my example, more "flexibility" could mean instead of having a Federal EPA that tries to run around all over the country enforcing one-size-fits-all ironclad rules with no regard for the effects of said rules, you could transfer a lot of the powers to local/state Governments. You leave the baseline core rules (e.g. water quality, etc.) on a Federal level but take something like emissions to the state level so these examples don't happen. This is similar to how we have national labor laws and a NLRB... but some states are union and some states can choose to be right-to-work.

So back to my Arizona example... if you had the same scenario and Phelps-Dodge went to the Arizona Governor and said "look, this is our break even point... if you push us past this, we'll have no choice but to pack up and move a mile across the border to Mexico and no one wants that. We're going to be doing even more pollution then to meet our bottom line and turn a profit, but the only other option is going out of business." I'm sure the Governor, not wanting to **** off his constituents and put thousands out of jobs, would say "OK if this is your break even point why don't you keep emissions at Level XYZ just below that and we will work with you to make sure the mines stay open while preserving acceptable air quality. Because the last thing we want is even more pollution from you moving to Mexico."

Makes sense, doesn't it? The big problem with a large Federal Government is that it is both inefficient because of its size and ineffective because the United States is far from homogeneous.

 

[palinurus]

Woah there Guy Faux.... let's pump the breaks a little bit. "Flexible" isn't some indefinable concept here.

Makes sense, doesn't it? The big problem with a large Federal Government is that it is both inefficient because of its size and ineffective because the United States is far from homogeneous.

I wasn't calling you out. In fact, I don't think I necessarily disagree with you at all, or at least not very much at all. My point is that unless we define our terms, we're dealing in platitudes or, at best, words that mean different things to different philosophical mindsets.

I agree with a system that that leaves certain things to the states consistent with federally-guaranteed rights; in fact, we've had it all along: it's called the Tenth Amendment.

Your example supports one of my points on the bureaucracy: the further removed power is from the people it affects, the less free the people affected are.

 

[IrishLax]

I wasn't calling you out. In fact, I don't think I necessarily disagree with you at all, or at least not very much at all. My point is that unless we define our terms, we're dealing in platitudes or, at best, words that mean different things to different philosophical mindsets.

I agree with a system that that leaves certain things to the states consistent with federally-guaranteed rights; in fact, we've had it all along: it's called the Tenth Amendment.

Your example supports one of my points on the bureaucracy: the further removed power is from the people it affects, the less free the people affected are.

Word. +1.

 

[BobD]

I liked this thread a lot more when it was closed. Son of a b*tch. I really wanted to stay out of this, but the get these people out by whatever means necessary rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses, open fire, Tianenman-Square-line-of-thinking terrifies me. It's even scarier that some have agreed with that sentiment.

I agree with the bolded section above. Here's your oppurtunity to get informed:

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks $13 Billion Undisclosed to Congress - Bloomberg

^Tip of the iceberg...Still with me? Here's another:

The Secret Bailout: Big Banks Grew Even Bigger Under Federal Reserve - Campus Progress

I NEVER said open fire on them, as in shoot them to kill them or anything like Tianenman Square. I said rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses.....I wouldn't even mind if they bonked them on the head with a stick once or twice. Force, NOT lethal force.

The issues mentioned in the articles you post here are nothing thats going to be changed by the people out there demonstrating right now. The people out there right now are hurting their supposed cause more than helping it. Most of the people out there now are the people who show up at every demonstration or Phish concert held, they're wanna be hippies and they have no idea what they're talking about. They are ruining public property, hurting many small businesses, causing many working class people financial hardships and wasting city tax dollars. They need to go home, educate themselves and get a real plan.

 

[Mr. Larson]

No, I closed it for awhile. I reopened it this morning trying to find some support for shooting the protesters.....no luck yet.

As long as the debate stays civil...............

Can you read the bolded part back to me? Thanks.

 

[BobD]

Can you read the bolded part back to me? Thanks.

Doh! Sorry bout that. I forgot about that comment. I should have mentioned the rubber bullets here too but was in a hurry.

I don't want anyone killed, just removed from the area.

Reps for calling me on that one.

 

[BobD]

I read this on The Motley Fool:

In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

$34,000.

That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.

Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.

The global distribution figures may seem incomprehensibly low, but consider a couple of statistics you're likely familiar with: According to the U.N., "Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day." According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day.

Those numbers are so shocking that you might only think about them in the abstract. But when you consider them in the context of the entire globe, including yourself, the skewing effects they have on the distribution of income is simply massive. It means that Americans we consider poor are among some of the world's most well-off. As Milanovic notes, "the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population." Furthermore, "only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile."

In short, most of those protesting in the Occupy Wall Street movement would be considered wealthy -- perhaps extraordinarily wealthy -- by much of the world. Many of those protesting the 1% are, ironically, the 1%.

This isn't to disparage the occupiers' message. Protestors are, I think, upset because so many of America's top 1% are perceived to have earned their income unjustifiably -- think bankers and bailouts. Most are not against inequality of wealth; they're against inequality of opportunity. As they should be.

But take a step back and put things in perspective. As Milanovic notes, "One's income ... crucially depends on citizenship, which in turn ... means place of birth. All people born in rich countries thus receive a location premium ... all those born in poor countries get a location penalty. It is easy to see that in such a world, most of one's lifetime income will be determined at birth." He continues, "it turns out that place of birth explains more than 60 percent of variability in global incomes." And there are few better places to be born than America -- even if you end up poor by American standards. If there is inequality in opportunity, those born in America are the ones with the unfair advantage.

As author Matt Ridley put it, "Today, of Americans officially designated as 'poor,' 99 percent have electricity, running water, flush toilets, and a refrigerator; 95 percent have a television, 88 percent a telephone, 71 percent a car and 70 percent air conditioning. Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these." Nor does much of the world.

Food for thought.