Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[ParticleGrl]

I think I should ask an important question for clarification: What do you think success means for you, and how would you define a "consensus" based idea of success?

Alright, but you answer this- is a middle aged biology phd flat broke with no savings, and no lab access making $8.50 an hour a success by ANY definition? Can you think of definitions of success in science that a nobel prize winner wouldn't fit? A nobel winner shaped their field in a tremendous and lasting way. Do you admit that Doug Prasher's scientific career would have been totally different (and more successful) had a tiny bit more soft money come his way while he was at woods hole?

For me, success in science is a career that let's you do some research that also provides a lower middle class income (maybe 30k-40k a year) and enough stability to have children, but I fail to see why this is relevant.

You seem to be doing your best to dodge what I think to be a fairly obvious point- plain old bad luck can overcome any amount of hardwork,savvy,skill,persistence, etc. As people we want to ascribe failure to patterns of behavior or whatnot, but a lot of life is simply luck. A lot more things are lotteries than we care to admit.

 

[DoggerDan]

it's time to clean up the park.

bingo.

 

[CAC1001]

I have an ivy league physics degree and a top 10 phd in physics. I can program in fortran and have spent the last year boning up on c++, sql, etc. Anything employers might be looking for, I'm trying to learn. I have a strong statistics background. When people talk about high skilled jobs, they are generally talking about jobs requiring math, science and computing, and yet, I tend bar.

Two things:

1) Are physics Ph.Ds really in high-demand though? My understanding is that many physics Ph.D's have trouble finding jobs...?

2) You might be over-qualified to a lot of employers. You have a Ph.D in physics. You may be perfectly capable of doing jobs in math and statistics for example, but if an employer can higher a Ph.D to do the job versus an engineer or mathematician with a master's degree who can do the job just as well and for less pay, they will go for them. One of the things I have often read is do not go for an engineering Ph.D right off the bat for example, because you can make yourself over-qualified for the job.

 

[chiro]

Alright, but you answer this- is a middle aged biology phd flat broke with no savings, and no lab access making $8.50 an hour a success by ANY definition? Can you think of definitions of success in science that a nobel prize winner wouldn't fit? A nobel winner shaped their field in a tremendous and lasting way. Do you admit that Doug Prasher's scientific career would have been totally different (and more successful) had a tiny bit more soft money come his way while he was at woods hole?

For me, success in science is a career that let's you do some research that also provides a lower middle class income (maybe 30k-40k a year) and enough stability to have children, but I fail to see why this is relevant.

You seem to be doing your best to dodge what I think to be a fairly obvious point- plain old bad luck can overcome any amount of hardwork,savvy,skill,persistence, etc. As people we want to ascribe failure to patterns of behavior or whatnot, but a lot of life is simply luck. A lot more things are lotteries than we care to admit.

Ok, I'll take a crack at it.

First I will divide success into two parts: personal success and social success. Personal success is the success that the individual gets that is not in any connected socially (i.e. with other people), and the social success is the success that comes with success involved by other people in society.

For personal success, I would define a successful scientist as one who learns about the world and then uses that in any endeavor to accomplish something. I say something because that something may literally be anything: it may benefit ordinary people, it may benefit only a nations military, or it may only benefit the sole person themselves. All possibilities are equally likely, and in my opinion, it is naive to think that all science benefits everyone equally.

For social success, this depends largely on psyche of the person involved. There are a lot of people who are just happy, like the teacher that sees their student motivated to do something that they taught. No-one really knows them, and they don't really care, because social success is not what they crave. For others, they will crave success and acceptance from their peers, and may take many opportunities to make sure that people in their company knows this.

To answer your question, my definition of social success, is that if I did have an impact on some group of people or set of people, I would be happy knowing that it helped them and just leave it at that. The rest is just window dressing.

However I should point out that I would also add your definition of being able to meet basic needs like paying the rent, being able to eat, and other survival based needs are important.

When I talked about success I was only looking at the very top of Maslows hierarchy which deals with self-actualization, and not the only levels, and as such I say that I did not incorporate the other levels which was a big mistake.

Also like I said previously, if someone wants to do something they need to research what they are getting themselves into and the possibilities of what can happen, and I would expect a bidding scientist to be more keen to do this over other people.

There are many scientists out there telling people of the realities of science. In fact there are people that do science in their own time: that is the time outside their full-time job that pays the rent, and feeds the body. Some of them publish (and are able to) in so called peer review journals as well just in case you are wondering.

If you want a concrete example of someone that is trying to solve this issue, ask twofish-quant himself. He has spoken numerous times about solving the dilemma of being financially setup to do science, and he has offered a lot of good advice about using different resources in different ways to meet his goal.

I do agree that luck is an element in life, but I can absolutely not agree that all or even a majority of life is luck. We set things in motion that will effect us ten, even twenty years in the future. We have to make choices every day, and major choices every other day. I just can't accept your statement of luck being the major force. In my experience, the people that feel they have attained some measure of success are the ones that 1) work hard and are responsible for their life and 2) have a positive attitude and 3) always want to develop themselves and be around like-minded people. It's my observation, but it has been consistent.

 

[CAC1001]

Also, I'm not sure why the conventional wisdom is US dynamism. Europe had been closing the unemployment gap for years, and now is comparable to our unemployment rate.

Are they comparable to us or we are comparable to theirs? (we just had a big crisis remember).

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf

Keep in mind though that the Center for Economic and Policy Research is a progressive think-tank. Not saying that discounts their study, but I mean they likely have some degree of a political slant to their studies. What confuses me about the study however is that if that was the case, I mean the United States has among the most business-friendly environments of all countries (in France, up until a few years ago for example, it was illegal to start a home-based business). It also has some of the most lenient bankruptcy laws, which are meant to incite entrepreneurship. Other countries may have universal healthcare systems, but almost all of them have more stringent bankruptcy laws. The result is that fewer people will start businesses because if they fail, it can ruin them for life financially. Spain, for example, has very course bankruptcy laws.

We can also see the flight of businesses from states within the United States that regulate and tax a lot to states that are more lenient regarding regulations and taxes (California has had a huge problem with this).

 

[MarcoD]

2) You might be over-qualified to a lot of employers. You have a Ph.D in physics. You may be perfectly capable of doing jobs in math and statistics for example, but if an employer can higher a Ph.D to do the job versus an engineer or mathematician with a master's degree who can do the job just as well and for less pay, they will go for them. One of the things I have often read is do not go for an engineering Ph.D right off the bat for example, because you can make yourself over-qualified for the job.

I broke off a PhD in CS since it wasn't worth the investment anymore for that reason. Then again, I think that was a lousy decision.

 

[Oltz]

If you read the post, I was suggesting LESSENING the negative incentive of failure. Even with universal healthcare (for instance), there are plenty of negatives associated with having a business fail.

Similarly, there is no penalty for success. If your business does better, you make more money, regardless of the marginal top rate.

By your definitions, there is still a punishment for failure and a reward for success.

And besides semantics, we need to ask ourselves a policy question- Do we want to encourage small business growth and entrepreneurship? If we do, the current policy is not working. As far as I can tell, there is very little (basically no) data suggesting that top marginal tax rates have much impact on productivity or entrepreneurship- so why focus on top marginal tax rates as any kind of driving factor? There appears to be a stronger correlation between health care and a thriving small business sector.

This shouldn't be about ideology, it should be about goals. Do we want to encourage small business growth? If no, then fine, reduce healthcare spending and cut taxes. If yes, then maybe we should look at a universal healthcare system.



Its total employment, so it should be included. You can do some of the analysis yourself if you like on the OECD stats page. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx We live in an age of data.

Also, I'm not sure why the conventional wisdom is US dynamism. Europe had been closing the unemployment gap for years, and now is comparable to our unemployment rate.

I think we found the Crux of one of the issues right here.

This shouldn't be about ideology, it should be about goals. Do we want to encourage small business growth? If no, then fine, reduce healthcare spending and cut taxes. If yes, then maybe we should look at a universal healthcare system.

I feel that giving people money and health benefits discourages them form working to attain those same things.

1. Nobody has said medeicaid and medecare need to go away infact the only thing that I have seen at all about "reducing healthcare" was not expanding the qualifications for Disibility.

2. Reducing taxes puts more money into people hands so they are more comfortable taking a risk knowing they have a savings to fall back on. You would prefer that savings bein the governments hands and have them decide who gets it. I would rather it be in my bank account and I decide how to use it.

3. Universal health care will not in any way increase empolyment.

Not to long ago when I got out of the amry and went back to college plenty of people in my peer group needed to decide if they wanted to go after a graduate degree. Many were over the age that you were covered on your parents insurance. So the choices were:

a. Get a job with benfits and maybe go back to school someday
b. Get an advanced degree and have no health insurance
c. Get a degree while working a part time job and spend the majority of that income on insurance
d. Be fortunate enough to have parents willing to pay to cover you.

Now all of these are choices and any of them could still involve significant student loans. This is the Crux you want to these people to not have to worry about it.
I want these people to need to make a responsible choice based on their goals and expectations.

If you have a spouse that is still in undergrad program then choice a is wise. If you are a young and healthy person with no dependants then b can work. If you are somebody who is concerned about your health and wants to have a just in case plan then c could work. Then there will always be the people who get to go through life care free because the previous generation worked hard for them and they can choose to do the same for the kids they have or not.

The point is spend your own money on health insurance or get a job but do not force me to buy your health care while you get a PHD in English.

 

[WhoWee]

Hmm, maybe because big business on Wall Street and our government are in the same bed? Maybe because of the fact that people within our government that are in charge of regulating our most important financial monitoring instruments have been corrupted and rule against small investors like you and me constantly or make decisions while having extremely questionable conflicts of interest? You have to be really thick to not be able to connect the dots.

Thank you for connecting the dots. I'm glad you realize Wall Street doesn't operate in a vacuum.

Are you following this story? (label IMO - given the source)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46761

"How did a failing California solar company, buffeted by short sellers and shareholder lawsuits, receive a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee for a photovoltaic electricity ranch project—three weeks after it announced it was building new manufacturing plant in Mexicali, Mexico, to build the panels for the project.

The company, SunPower (SPWR-NASDAQ), now carries $820 million in debt, an amount $20 million greater than its market capitalization. If SunPower was a bank, the feds would shut it down. Instead, it received a lifeline twice the size of the money sent down the Solyndra drain."

*****
"According to the Department of Energy (DOE) website, the CVSR project will create 350 construction jobs during the two-year build and 15 permanent jobs—presumably those are the squeegee men for keeping the panels clean.""


*****
""If $80 million per permanent job seems a little high, even for the current Obama administration, you are correct. In addition to the 350 construction jobs and the 15 squeegee men, there will an as-yet-undetermined number of jobs created building the panels for the CVSR—in Mexicali, Mexico."

*****
"The good news for Mexican jobs seekers did not affect the DOE's loan guarantee to SunPower. Hours before the DOE 1705 loan program expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2011 on Sept. 30, the $1.2 billion in loan guarantees was approved for the company.

Insiders get liquid through for $1.4 billion friendly buyout from France.

If that timing seems odd to you, consider the time line of company events around when the loan was announced April 12: just two weeks before France's Total Oil (TOT-NYSE) launched its friendly takeover.

The deal, made public April 28, was in effect a 60% buyout at $23.25, then a 60% premium over the stock's trading price, which allowed insiders to get liquid.

SunPower CEO Werner is typical of the insiders. On May 24 he exercised his right to purchase 428,343 shares at $3.30 per share, a $18 discount from the day’s trading range. He sold 478,084 shares June 15, the day the Total Oil takeover closed, at $23.25 for proceeds of $11,115,453."


I think you might want to add special interest groups - "green" ones - to your list.

 

[OmCheeto]

Message 82.

Admin note: This is http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/" . This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

bolding mine

I have to admit, the list is pretty funny. Oh! How's this for conspiracy theory; someone from Fox news posted the list so they could have something to complain about. Why focus on corruption in government & wall street, when you can just call people names all day long.
"Yah! Stupid lazy hippy digging up the flower bed commies..."

ps. sorry I'm so far behind in the thread.

 

[ThomasT]

I noticed this piece as I was checking out news of the demonstrations.

Democracy Now! has pretty extensive coverage, and The Huffington Post has an extensive list of links to various news sources.

 

[Jarfi]

Wall street truth.

A pretty great statement. This is the truth they don't want you to hear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&list=FL9UqsQUMyDoDaHTeLP0d1hw&index=36

 

[DaveC426913]

This is the truth they don't want you to hear.

While I'm sure it's good stuff, the above phrase is a textbook conspiracist phrase. And it links to a video about which there's no description given.

Do us a favour and summarize. One sentence will do.

 

[Jarfi]

While I'm sure it's good stuff, the above phrase is a textbook conspiracist phrase. And it links to a video about which there's no description given.

Do us a favour and summarize. One sentence will do.

Well it's a statement made by the wall street protesting movement, it's about many of the things that are wrong with the system and about corruption, they are asking for a better world.

 

[John Creighto]

I already saw this before. I give him kudos for the the good coverage but I'm not a fan of Keith Olbermann.

 

[WhoWee]

Well it's a statement made by the wall street protesting movement, it's about many of the things that are wrong with the system and about corruption, they are asking for a better world.

How can you be certain the statement isn't the commentator's?

 

[John Creighto]

How can you be certain the statement isn't the commentator's?

I don`t think we can. I mean it reflects a lot of the feeling I`ve gotten before about Keith Olbermann views. Anyway it sounds better representative then the list you`ve previously provided but I guess without surveying the views of the people we can`t be sure.

 

[vici10]

Occupy protests go global. Today more than 950 protests held in over 80 countries. Some of them:

Spain:
60,000 people were protesting in Barcelona, and 20,000 in Seville.
Italy:
100,000 protesters on the streets of Rome.
Germany:
About 4,000 people marched through the streets of Berlin, with banners calling for an end to capitalism.
5,000 people gathered to protest in the German city of Frankfurt in front of the European Central Bank.
England:
4,000 protesters gathered in financial district of London.
Astralia, Asia and New-Zeland:

In Auckland, New Zealand's biggest city, 3,000 people chanted and banged drums, denouncing corporate greed. About 200 gathered in the capital Wellington and 50 in a park in the earthquake-hit southern city of Christchurch.
In Sydney, about 2,000 people, including representatives of Aboriginal groups, communists and trade unionists, protested outside the central Reserve Bank of Australia.
Hundreds marched in Tokyo, including anti-nuclear protesters. In Manila a few dozen marched on the U.S. Embassy waving banners reading: "Down with U.S. imperialism" and "Philippines not for sale".
More than 100 people gathered at the Taipei stock exchange, chanting "we are Taiwan's 99 percent" and saying economic growth had only benefited firms while middle-class salaries barely covered soaring housing, education and health care costs.
In Hong Kong, home to the Asian headquarters of investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, over 100 people gathered at Exchange Square in the Central district. The Correntewire blog has some great pictures of the Honk Kong protests.

About Hong-Kong protests here: http://www.correntewire.com/the_banner_says_it_all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/15/occupy-wall-street-times-square
Canada:
Protests were planned in 15 cities including Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and St. John's.
3, 000 people gathered in Toronto’s financial district.
Between 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery. In Montreal, hundreds of people gathered in Victoria Park, some with signs denouncing capitalism.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/15/occupy-canada-saturday.html?cmp=rss
USA
Tens of Thousands in Streets of Times Square.
http://occupywallst.org/
The longer list of protests can be found here:
http://www.demotix.com/global-occupation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOBCWqASDb0

 

[ForMyThunder]

I think their first mistake is comparing the blight in the US to that of Egypt, Spain, and Greece.

IMO: even at our 'worst' we're still doing better than those three countries at their peaks overall.

Some college grad with an English BA not getting a 60k/yr job right away and not being able to afford an iPhone every 6months is not a blight.

We still have a right to improve our own living conditions by getting a say in our government. America is the posterboy of "democracy" and it should be that the sentiment of the majority of its citizens should prevail no matter what class, profession, or background they come from.

 

[Jarfi]

Occupy protests go global. Today more than 950 protests held in over 80 countries. Some of them:

Spain:
60,000 people were protesting in Barcelona, and 20,000 in Seville.
Italy:
100,000 protesters on the streets of Rome.
Germany:
About 4,000 people marched through the streets of Berlin, with banners calling for an end to capitalism.
5,000 people gathered to protest in the German city of Frankfurt in front of the European Central Bank.
England:
4,000 protesters gathered in financial district of London.
Astralia, Asia and New-Zeland:

About Hong-Kong protests here: http://www.correntewire.com/the_banner_says_it_all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/15/occupy-wall-street-times-square
Canada:
Protests were planned in 15 cities including Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and St. John's.
3, 000 people gathered in Toronto’s financial district.
Between 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery. In Montreal, hundreds of people gathered in Victoria Park, some with signs denouncing capitalism.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/15/occupy-canada-saturday.html?cmp=rss
USA
Tens of Thousands in Streets of Times Square.
http://occupywallst.org/
The longer list of protests can be found here:
http://www.demotix.com/global-occupation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOBCWqASDb0

Capitalism is flawed. In many ways. And I hate how the media always has to mark you as either communist or capitalist or socialist. What if I am none of these things! ****ing narrow minded fox news idiots. There aren't just two ways of controlling a society. There are endless different ways. We have to find the right way to control the people. There would probably have to have taxes. And all schools, hospitals should be free(payd by taxes).

 

[vici10]

Capitalism is flawed. In many ways. And I hate how the media always has to mark you as either communist or capitalist or socialist. What if I am none of these things! ****ing narrow minded fox news idiots. There aren't just two ways of controlling a society. There are endless different ways. We have to find the right way to control the people. There would probably have to have taxes. And all schools, hospitals should be free(payd by taxes).

Communism and socialism has a bad name in USA and it is not surprising. There were many years of propaganda in USA against Soviet Union during the cold war. So I can understand why you do not want to be called communist. Also I guess you do not own capital, means of production. You are probably either a student or a wage earner (this is my guess), hence you can not be a capitalist.

In other things I agree with you. People should find a way to change or improve the system if they think that the present one is broken. Judging by world wide protests people are dissatisfy and angry.

 

[Jarfi]

Communism and socialism has a bad name in USA and it is not surprising. There were many years of propaganda in USA against Soviet Union during the cold war. So I can understand why you do not want to be called communist. Also I guess you do not own capital, means of production. You are probably either a student or a wage earner (this is my guess), hence you can not be a capitalist.

In other things I agree with you. People should find a way to change or improve the system if they think that the present one is broken. Judging by world wide protests people are dissatisfy and angry.

Well I am a student, and also if usa used propaganda so much, and I don't know anything about communism, I don't have the right to judge it. Maybe the fundementals of communism were good, but it got corrupted like capitalism.

 

[Evo]

Well I am a student, and also if usa used propaganda so much, and I don't know anything about communism, I don't have the right to judge it. Maybe the fundementals of communism were good, but it got corrupted like capitalism.

:uhh: I suggest you look into it.

 

[gravenewworld]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

Oct.-Nov. 1999

Congress passes Financial Services Modernization Act


After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

 

[chiro]

While I'm sure it's good stuff, the above phrase is a textbook conspiracist phrase. And it links to a video about which there's no description given.

A textbook conspiracist phrase? You got to be kidding.

 

[DoggerDan]

We have to find the right way to control the people.

Really? That's your solution? "Controlling the people?" What if the people tell you to jump in the lake?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I suggest you look into it.

Indeed.

You might want to start with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and follow up with the Holodomor.

Communism has been tried many times, and in no case has it ever led to the promised worker's paradise.

 

[vici10]

And I recommend to start learning about capitalism from its beginning in England, expropriation of the land from the agricultural population
[enclosers], child labor,market driven famines, conquest of Americas, disappearance of Native population and slavery.

For modern times, start with Spains' Franco and Chili's Pinochet and their concentration camps. Capitalism seems to start with imperialism, to accumulate capital. Later it seems to do well only with presence of strong anti-capitalist opposition, that forces capitalists to share with their workers. With disappearance of Soviet block, capitalists do not see a need to share their wealth. And at the present capitalism is in the deep economic crisis worldwide.

 

[Jarfi]

Really? That's your solution? "Controlling the people?" What if the people tell you to jump in the lake?

What on Earth are you talking about? All I am saying is that current systems in use(kommunism/capitalism) are flawed or not being used correctly. I am saying that we need to find the right system to control a country...

 

[vici10]

According to a poll that was published in Time magazine 54% of Americans support Occupy Wall Street protests and only 23% do not.

Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?

VERY FAVORABLE 25%

SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE 29%

SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE 10%

VERY UNFAVORABLE 13%

DON’T KNOW ENOUGH 23%

NO ANSWER/DON’T KNOW 1%

http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/

 

[FlexGunship]

And I recommend to start learning about capitalism from its beginning in England [...]

Capitalism didn't "start." Capitalism is the natural state of human trade and commerce. It's not something that was designed, its what happens when you DON'T have a designed economy.

People bartering and trading their skills and possessions for other goods and services they need is the default arrangement.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So, I ran the numbers on one of the demands: $20/hour guaranteed salary regardless of employment status. By taking the number of tax filers (all returns + married filing jointly) this works out to $6.5T in 2009. By a strange coincidence, the total AGI is almost the same: $6.7T.

So not only would this be a minimum wage, it would be a maximum wage. We would all get this, whether or not we worked. Under such conditions, why work at all? Imagine...a society where nobody at all ever had to work, and we could spend all of our time singing, and dancing, and creating works of literature and art.

Doesn't that sound like paradise? Only an ogre could be against this!

 

[WhoWee]

Occupy protests go global. Today more than 950 protests held in over 80 countries. Some of them:

Spain:
60,000 people were protesting in Barcelona, and 20,000 in Seville.
Italy:
100,000 protesters on the streets of Rome.
Germany:
About 4,000 people marched through the streets of Berlin, with banners calling for an end to capitalism.
5,000 people gathered to protest in the German city of Frankfurt in front of the European Central Bank.
England:
4,000 protesters gathered in financial district of London.
Astralia, Asia and New-Zeland:

About Hong-Kong protests here: http://www.correntewire.com/the_banner_says_it_all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/15/occupy-wall-street-times-square
Canada:
Protests were planned in 15 cities including Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City and St. John's.
3, 000 people gathered in Toronto’s financial district.
Between 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery. In Montreal, hundreds of people gathered in Victoria Park, some with signs denouncing capitalism.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/15/occupy-canada-saturday.html?cmp=rss
USA
Tens of Thousands in Streets of Times Square.
http://occupywallst.org/
The longer list of protests can be found here:
http://www.demotix.com/global-occupation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOBCWqASDb0

Are we to believe the global protests (1,500 cities according to the occupy web site) began with the Occupy Wall Street event?:rofl:

 

[Astronuc]

Are we to believe the global protests (1,500 cities according to the occupy web site) began with the Occupy Wall Street event?:rofl:

The Indignation protests in Spain preceeded OWS by ~4 months.

Five months after the first mass rally in Madrid, the "Indignant" protest movement is back. Activists are mounting an international day of protest on Saturday under the slogan: "Unite for global change."
. . . .
Dubbed 15-M, after its birth date on 15 May this year, it has since inspired similar movements from Israel to America, with events planned this weekend in more than 80 countries.
. . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15315270

The group [OWS] claims to draw inspiration from the Arab Spring movement (particularly the Tahrir Square protests in Cairo, which initiated the 2011 Egyptian revolution [Jan 25, 2011]) and the Spanish Indignants [May 15, 2011].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

 

[Astronuc]

So, I ran the numbers on one of the demands: $20/hour guaranteed salary regardless of employment status. By taking the number of tax filers (all returns + married filing jointly) this works out to $6.5T in 2009. By a strange coincidence, the total AGI is almost the same: $6.7T.

So not only would this be a minimum wage, it would be a maximum wage. We would all get this, whether or not we worked. Under such conditions, why work at all? Imagine...a society where nobody at all ever had to work, and we could spend all of our time singing, and dancing, and creating works of literature and art.

Doesn't that sound like paradise? Only an ogre could be against this!

If someone is unemployed, they should be doing community service. There are plenty of streets and sidewalks that need cleaning, and trees that could be planted. Anyone on welfare should not be sitting at home watching TV or just hanging out.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

yes, exactly. this is getting to the heart of the problem. the issue is that dysfunction occurs at the extremes. just as communism as unreined government is a disaster, so too is unreined capitalism. we need to get back to our happy medium and re-regulate these guys.