News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[Char. Limit]

Char, you said "Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar." My response is that Bernanke has been printing money - can you think of anything that will erode confidence in the Dollar faster than printing more?

I said imagine it. Not "give me a reason why we are currently losing confidence in the dollar".

Last, this is the Occupy Wall Street protest thread.

I was responding to someone else's post with my own, rather whimsical one... you're really reading FAR too much into this.

 

[WhoWee]

I said imagine it. Not "give me a reason why we are currently losing confidence in the dollar".

I was responding to someone else's post with my own, rather whimsical one... you're really reading FAR too much into this.

WhoMe?

 

[SixNein]

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

 

[Proton Soup]

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

the myth is that it is even necessary to create debt in a fiat system.

 

[Evo]

Back to the OP, please.

 

[OmCheeto]

Back to the OP, please.

drats! I had a funny thing to say about;"what if everyone decided gold couldn't be eaten"?

ows?... ows?... I read today that the communist party had 2000 members.

I decided that they were looking for publicity, by jumping on the ows bandwagon.

I mean really. The communist party is like 150 years old, and they only have 2000 members?

[toothless geriatric voice]what the hell do we have to lose!? hell! they might look at us![/toothless geriatric voice]

 

[chiro]

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

The US government is issued credit in the form of dollars that has attached interest.

In 1913 an act called the Federal Reserve act that made the Federal Reserve legally able to issue your country's credit and effectively control the US dollar.

So tell me, how do you think this will end?

You should note that many empires based on this model, including the well known Roman Empire collapsed. Why do you think it will be different this time around?

 

[chiro]

The funny thing is that it somehow works rather well. Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar.

Do you really think the rest of world likes watching your government go into higher debt, and have your central bank print money that would be unthinkable even to people a decade ago?

Look at what is happening around the world. Russia and China have signed bilateral agreements to do trade in their currency, and this includes oil. The US dollar is called the "petro-dollar" for a reason: it is used widely as the default currency for doing oil trading. This luxury that you guys have will cause a humungous shock when people stop doing all major trading in the US dollar.

Funnily enough Gaddafi was actually trying to create a platform for the African nation to trade oil in a manner different to that of using the US dollar, and Iran to my knowledge does not do oil transactions in dollars either.

China is also doing bilateral agreements with other countries like Turkey where they will stop trading in US dollars and use their own currencies.

Many major central banks around the world are buying lots and lots of gold. The price of gold is nearly 2000 US dollars an ounce. Gold has been considered a form of money for thousands of years, and one thing it has over paper money, is that 1) It is tangible unlike other forms of credit which can be created from nothing and 2) It is hard to counterfeit.

When I say counterfeit, one technique that can be used is to use Tungsten since the density with respect to gold is basically the same, and then coat the bar with real gold. This has been done before, and the only way to make sure the gold is real as far as I know is to drill holes in the bar and do a chemical analysis of the material.

Like I mentioned to an above poster, fiat currencies do not have a good track record. They often end in chaos, even in situations where the empire has a strong military like with the Roman empire did, just as you do (the US) now.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Do you really think the rest of world likes watching your government go into higher debt, and have your central bank print money that would be unthinkable even to people a decade ago?

Apparently they don't mind because EVERYONE KEEPS BUYING US DEBT. The price of bonds is determined by the marginal buyer, and the interest rates have never been lower. People are lining up to loan money to the US at negative real rates. With Europe in crisis, its one of the last safe havens. Gold is the other, but if everyone tries to hedge in gold you get a bubble (the supply of gold is limited, the supply of US debt need not be). Its weird to me that Austrians and hard-money people often extol the virtues of markets but don't actually look to existing markets to gauge situations.

Look at what is happening around the world...Russia and China have signed bilateral agreements to do trade in their currency, and this includes oil.

You are aware that China's currency is one of the most actively manipulated, right? Are you seriously arguing that China's currency might become a reserve currency?

Yes, the US enjoys a special place because of its world reserve status, and that will begin to fade, but that could ultimately be good for the US. A falling dollar relative to other currencies is the traditional remedy for trade deficits, but the reserve status of the dollar has kept that from happening.

The price of gold is nearly 2000 US dollars an ounce.

No, its down near 1600, and falling over the last month. Depending on what happens with funds that were hedging with gold and what happens with europe (if funds dump gold), it may fall further.

Like I mentioned to an above poster, fiat currencies do not have a good track record. They often end in chaos, even in situations where the empire has a strong military like with the Roman empire did, just as you do (the US) now.

The gold standard has an even worse track record. Every single empire in the history of the world either died out or abandoned the gold standard.

 

[SamirS]

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.

Wait, what?

I read Marx' stuff (I also read quite some works about the other side). Coming with Pol Pot is, sorry, not a clever argument. It's in the same league as saying that Stalin murdered people because he was an atheist.

@Evo: As said I read Marx' main stuff. Please show me quotations from, say, Capital (I read it as the German original but I trust the translation is honest), which are so horrible.

Especially with V50's comment afterwards, and how Marx inevitably led to Stalin and the Khmer Rogue and why exactly this wouldn't have been possible with other systems?

I'm not a communist, and I don't voice my opinion on the current system because I'm gathering information from several sides and try to find out the most credible sources (so far, both main partners of the current discussion have good and true things to say, as well as things I do not follow logically), but I find those two statements I quoted to be unnecessarily judgemental and unsupported by evidence, because the main relationship between Marx' ideas and the doings of the Khmer is in name only.

Especially if you consider the situation of workers at the time Marx wrote what he wrote. If I'm wrong in assuming that Marx (who more or less invented this thing) crafted or at least channeled the ideology of Communism with his work (coincidentally one is called 'The Manifesto of Communism') and the Khmer Rogue are the actual inventors of 'Communism', please show me. Personally I suspect the latter where more involved in attaining power and stuff and were a wee bit corrupt*, but I'm open to correction.

If you find it more appropriate we can remove this into a new thread.

*The rather recent attention to the Khmer Rogue in light of trials compelled me to inform myself about what they did and it doesn't seem to go hand in hand with the vision of Communism (which I, again, I'm not a supporter of) as the founder, Marx, saw them, but a rather corrupted version of it twisted by totalitarian incline.

 

[chiro]

Apparently they don't mind because EVERYONE KEEPS BUYING US DEBT. The price of bonds is determined by the marginal buyer, and the interest rates have never been lower. People are lining up to loan money to the US at negative real rates. With Europe in crisis, its one of the last safe havens. Gold is the other, but if everyone tries to hedge in gold you get a bubble (the supply of gold is limited, the supply of US debt need not be). Its weird to me that Austrians and hard-money people often extol the virtues of markets but don't actually look to existing markets to gauge situations.

Lining up?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/af...r-russia-warns-it-will-continue-selling-us-de

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/gross-drops-government-debt-from-pimco-s-flagship-fund-zero-hedge-reports.html

Also this is about China. Now before you comment, I know that this article discusses them pulling out of Treasuries, but the article does go into a more detailed analysis of the situation that cites other news:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-china-ready-pull-plug

You are aware that China's currency is one of the most actively manipulated, right? Are you seriously arguing that China's currency might become a reserve currency?

As for manipulation, what can you possibly argue when your Chairman of the Federal Reserve is engaged in not only QE1, and QE2, but quite possibly QE3? You do realize how currency is manipulated right? [Hint: look at inflation]

As for world reserve status, I can't really answer that. What I can say is that as far as the next major currency is concerned, it may be based on some asset backed standard, or at least be partially based on it. Most sane people involved in the design of the new currency will probably take into the actions of the US central bank and other similar practices to make an attempt to prevent it from happening again.

China's RMB could well become a reserve currency with its economy, but I wouldn't be surprised if as basket of currencies were used. The IMF itself has what is called a Special Drawing Rights form of money, so you may want to check that out for further clarification of these ideas.

Yes, the US enjoys a special place because of its world reserve status, and that will begin to fade, but that could ultimately be good for the US. A falling dollar relative to other currencies is the traditional remedy for trade deficits, but the reserve status of the dollar has kept that from happening.

So what are the american people going to do when they go to the stores and find that food has gone up 30%? What will happen when they go to the gas pump and find out that gas is at least 5 dollars a gallon?

And on the subject of trade deficits, you guys make nowhere near what you used to in the golden years of the baby boomers:

http://www.tradenewswire.net/2011/40-000-u-s-manufacturing-outfits-closed-50000-jobs-lost-per-month-since-china-joined-wto-in-2001/

You are (or have become) a service-based economy and make less and less as time goes on.

If your central banks keep printing exhorbitant amounts of money and keep kicking the can down the road, i'd rather not be living in the US when the proverbial SHTF.

The gold standard has an even worse track record. Every single empire in the history of the world either died out or abandoned the gold standard.

Gold has a track record of being money for thousands and thousands of years. Fiat currencies have not. Guess what happens when the fiat currency becomes useless? People go back to the old ways: they either trade in gold or silver or they barter. It happened in Rome, it happened in Zimbabwe, and it will happen again.

Also you tell me, why are the major central banks buying up gold?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576598940803518426.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/03/markets-precious-idUSL6E7J30JU20110803

http://www.australianbullioncompany.com.au/blog/2011/06/22/why-is-china-buying-gold/

https://goldsilver.com/news/china-buys-47-of-the-world-s-gold/

Add to that, the chinese are talking about introducing an exchange where people can buy gold and the exchange stores it physically and more importantly is available to a wide range of investors (not just big ones). Other exchanges are largely paper based where you buy a paper certificate and do not have a guarantee of owning anything physical.

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/...ange-a-new-playing-field-for-speculators.html

So really I have to ask you, why is all this happening if gold isn't all that important?

 

[LaurieAG]

So really I have to ask you, why is all this happening if gold isn't all that important?

I first emailed this poem on October 05, 23:16:35, 1998. The next days news was interesting.

'The plea of BeiBionn'

You can have your magic beans Jack,
your children are hungry and we need the cow back.

The lack of just terms and equitable or fair pacts,
expose all crooked beanstalks to concerted attacks.

Unless obsessive cycles are stopped in their tracks,
our towns will again be as flat as tacks.

You have been too trusting Jack,
your childrens futures remain black,
while current problems compound through lack.

Struggle earnestly against the pack,
repudiate rights to depreciatingly retract,
as giants fortress lie ripe for sack.

For only fair shares of the golden goose Jack,
will save beanstalks and giants from the axe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTCM

 

[chiro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTCM

Ohh jeez don't get me started about LTCM.

You have the mental and intellectual capital of the manhatten project in one group, and that same group causes more or less a nuclear bomb amidst the financial community that ends up getting bailed out.

This should really be an example to people that, no matter how smart you are or what other people think you are, you and your math can cause a catastrophe.

I'm surprised that this case hasn't been used as a precedent to regulate some of these mathematical timebombs out of existence.

 

[Char. Limit]

Stuff in response to my post

Just like WhoWee, you managed to find a point where I intended there to be none. That was just supposed to be a lighthearted attempt at humor. Good job.

EDIT: In other news, I just realized I have 1,729 posts in my post count. Taxicab number FTW!

 

[LaurieAG]

I'm surprised that this case hasn't been used as a precedent to regulate some of these mathematical timebombs out of existence.

1987, 1998, 2008, 20??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-Scholes

Remarks on notation

The reader is warned of the inconsistent notation that appears in this article. Thus the letter S is used as:
(1) a constant denoting the current price of the stock (2) a real variable denoting the price at an arbitrary time (3) a random variable denoting the price at maturity (4) a stochastic process denoting the price at an arbitrary time
It is also used in the meaning of (4) with a subscript denoting time, but here the subscript is merely a mnemonic.

In the partial derivatives, the letters in the numerators and denominators are, of course, real variables, and the partial derivatives themselves are, initially, real functions of real variables. But after the substitution of a stochastic process for one of the arguments they become stochastic processes.

The Black–Scholes PDE is, initially, a statement about the stochastic process S, but when S is reinterpreted as a real variable, it becomes an ordinary PDE. It is only then that we can ask about its solution.

The parameter u that appears in the discrete-dividend model and the elementary derivation is not the same as the parameter μ that appears elsewhere in the article.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen has polled the OWS crowd; what he found is published http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html".

This is probably the closest to a summary paragraph,

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, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

but I recommend people read the whole article. Lots of numbers there.

 

[JDoolin]

The way I see it, there should be perpetual protesting. I'm only half kidding. It seems obvious that some things wrt the financial sector, and the federal government, and the connection between the two could be improved. For example, there's questions regarding conflicts of interest, corporate influence on governmental decision making, regulation, etc.

If one thinks there's no problems, then of course one would be against the demonstrations. If one thinks there might be problems but isn't really sure what they are, then the demonstrations might serve to foster a dialogue about what the problems are and how they might be solved.

Personally, I'm one of those who thinks that things are still mostly ok in the US (compared to most other countries anyway) but that there's room for improvement (that is, I see some disturbing trends). So, why not talk about how things might be improved?

I think that one of the things that annoys an average member of the wage-earning or salaried (or unemployed) masses is the perception that a group of people (in the financial sector) that played a significant role in the economic downturn via somewhat questionable dealings has actually benefitted from, rather than being punished for, their actions. Maybe that perception is generally wrong, or maybe it's generally correct. I don't know. But there can't be anything wrong with looking at it very very closely, and at least discussing it -- which, it seems to me, is about all that any fledgling populist movement can hope for.

It's good to keep in mind, I think, that it wasn't so long ago that slavery was legal and women weren't allowed to vote. I wasn't around then, but I would guess that demonstrations against those practices were laughed at or regarded with indifference by lots of, maybe most, people -- at least in the beginning stages of the movements to end those practices. And it was the mass demonstrations against those practices that had a lot to do with changing them.

If something's wrong, but nobody complains, then it's likely that nothing will change. Or, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Whatever. Anyway, I support the demonstrations ... any demonstrations, as long as they're essentially nonviolent and orderly -- which these demonstrations seem to be.

Good points.

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

Protesting against something and making a list of demands for something are very different. Protesting just means you are all acknowledging a problem. A list of demands is a proposal for a solution to that problem. I think everybody agrees that the problem is the growing rift between the "haves" and the "have nots."

 

[JDoolin]

It's strange - not a single person has told me in-person they support this movement?

Wel, I support the movement, and most of the conversations I hear at school sound like people who are in support of the movement. I've seen signs up on bulletin boards and hanging in the bathrooms in support of the movement.

 

[FlexGunship]

Wel, I support the movement, and most of the conversations I hear at school sound like people who are in support of the movement.

Emphasis mine.

Let the flaming begin.

 

[JDoolin]

You just changed an ad Hitlerum to an ad hominem. You can't vote for any party if you "realize" who co-supports it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" ]

Thank you for bringing that up.

When I see somebody make that sort of fallacy or any other such obvious fallacy, they lose all credibility. Either they are so dumb (or momentarily not thinking clearly) that they don't realize that it's a fallacy or they are so cynical that they use fallacies to win arguments and/or take advantage of dumb (or momentarily not thinking clearly) people.

 

[JDoolin]

Emphasis mine.

Let the flaming begin.

Before "flaming" could you clarify your point, or at least make a point? I should clarify that I am at a community college, and the conversations I hear are among college sudents; mostly freshmen and sophomores. But I'm not sure why that makes a difference.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank you for bringing that up.

When I see somebody make that sort of fallacy or any other such obvious fallacy, they lose all credibility. Either they are so dumb (or momentarily not thinking clearly) that they don't realize that it's a fallacy or they are so cynical that they use fallacies to win arguments and/or take advantage of dumb (or momentarily not thinking clearly) people.

The facets of the fallacy are subtle. So it is disingenuous of you to suggest people are "dumb" if they don't see it the same way you do.

I explain the subtle difference between a fallacious guilt by association argument, and a valid guilt by association https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3563956&postcount=483".

 

[JDoolin]

The facets of the fallacy are subtle. So it is disingenuous of you to suggest people are "dumb" if they don't see it the same way you do.

I explain the subtle difference between a fallacious guilt by association argument, and a valid guilt by association https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3563956&postcount=483".

Your linked post describes a "Conflict of Interest" Not a "guilt by association."

They are two different things.

However, if you insist on calling it a "valid guilt by association" I can't really argue with you, except to say that you shouldn't defend the "invalid guilt by association" by calling "Conflict of Interest" the same thing.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Lining up?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/aft...-selling-us-de

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...e-reports.html

You are posting old news. Some banks erroneously thought interest rates would spike at the end of QE2. They did not. Bill Gross (who orchestrated the Pimco sell off) has publicly apologized to this investors http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gross-mea-culpa-2011-10

As for manipulation, what can you possibly argue when your Chairman of the Federal Reserve is engaged in not only QE1, and QE2, but quite possibly QE3? You do realize how currency is manipulated right? [Hint: look at inflation]

Inflation has been low throughout the QE periods, and is still low. The TIPS spread suggests markets are expecting low inflation for at least the immediate future. What exactly is your point?

And QE periods are nothing compared to China, who who have worked very hard to peg the renminbi to the dollar.

You also failed to address my point- gold has a poor track record by the standard of survivability. No gold standard has survived to the present day, why do you think that it?

Also you tell me, why are the major central banks buying up gold?

Same reason lots are buying US treasuries. Any port in a storm.

 

[WhoWee]

You are posting old news. Some banks erroneously thought interest rates would spike at the end of QE2. They did not. Bill Gross (who orchestrated the Pimco sell off) has publicly apologized to this investors http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gross-mea-culpa-2011-10



Inflation has been low throughout the QE periods, and is still low. The TIPS spread suggests markets are expecting low inflation for at least the immediate future. What exactly is your point?

And QE periods are nothing compared to China, who who have worked very hard to peg the renminbi to the dollar.

You also failed to address my point- gold has a poor track record by the standard of survivability. No gold standard has survived to the present day, why do you think that it?

Same reason lots are buying US treasuries. Any port in a storm.

Does "any port" support the spirit of this comment "Apparently they don't mind because EVERYONE KEEPS BUYING US DEBT."?

This is current.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/17/markets-money-idUSN1E79G17Z20111017
" Demand for safe-haven short-term U.S. bills cools"

 

[mheslep]

The way I see it, there should be perpetual protesting. I'm only half kidding. ...

There is perpetual protest in the US. Most of it does not permanently take over the common spaces, unlike the overnight stays ongoing in NY now.

 

[John Creighto]

Former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen has polled the OWS crowd; what he found is published http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html".

This is probably the closest to a summary paragraph,

[/i]"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, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

"[/i]

but I recommend people read the whole article. Lots of numbers there.

I’ll assume the polling wasn’t manipulated (which can be done easy enough), there is nothing in the poll results that support the above "summary". Consequently this is purely an opinion piece and shouldn’t be presented as factual evidence to support your claim.

From skimming the article I saw no poll question asking them if they are against free markets or for "intense regulation", clearly they weren't asked if they wanted to "radically redistribute wealth", and calling tax changes a radical redistribution of wealth is a political statement.

Doesn’t it say in the forum guidelines that if you are stating an opinion you have to state it as an opinion not as if it were a fact? Here are the only poll questions I saw with regards to policy:

"Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

"

The other poll questions reflected their philosophy on organizing political change and what political groups they supported. Now I don’t doubt there is a large left wing leaning in the crowd and perhaps this could cause some loss of focus. Here is what I think they should be asking for:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/14/slogans-and-demands-wont-change-world

 

[Evo]

Doesn’t it say in the forum guidelines that if you are stating an opinion you have to state it as an opinion not as if it were a fact?

A poll is opinions, it doesn't need to be re-stated as such.

 

[John Creighto]

A poll is opinions, it doesn't need to be re-stated as such.

In my opinion the summary given didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll. Clearly if we want to accurately reflect the content of a poll we can do better than using subjective/political words.

 

[mheslep]

In my opinion the summary given didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll. ...

You do not know the entire content of the poll, and are mistaking this summary of the poll by the pollster, which pollsters frequently make, with the poll results.

 

[DaveC426913]

You do not know the entire content of the poll, and are mistaking this summary of the poll by the pollster, which pollsters frequently make, with the poll results.

John Creighto is making no mistake. It is Vanadium's post that contains the summary - a summary that may not be valid. If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case. John merely calls attention to this.

 

[mheslep]

John Creighto is making no mistake. It is Vanadium's post that contains the summary - a summary that may not be valid. If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case. John merely calls attention to this.

No, that's simply not what has been written above. Creighton claims knowledge of a poll he does not have;

...didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll.

Vanadium makes no case, only draws attention to the summary of a pollster.

 

[Proton Soup]

Brzezinski: publish their names

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#44928287

 

[Evo]

Brzezinski: publish their names

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#44928287

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heared. Publish a shame list of wealthy people and how much they give to charity to try to embarrass them into giving more? That them buying luxury items is wrong? Do the people in that tv video understand that they are the scumbag rich in the opinion of poor people?

 

[Proton Soup]

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heared. Publish a shame list of wealthy people and how much they give to charity to try to embarrass them into giving more? That them buying luxury items is wrong? Do the people in that tv video understand that they are the scumbag rich in the opinion of poor people?

that's not quite what he is saying. he talks quite a bit about the way they make their money, which is not to produce anything of value, but through speculation. and given Brzezinski's past (building the afghan army that was to be the USSR's "Vietnam"), i somehow don't think giving money to charity is what he's after here. it's a bit more of a 'shine the light on the cockroaches' approach to root out corruption and put accountability back in the system. but... given that it is Brzezinski, it might be prudent to wonder what else he is up to.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case.

I'm not making any case at all. I'm drawing attention to someone who does this for a living and has asked the protestors what they think. I foolishly thought that people would prefer this to wild guesses.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not making any case at all. I'm drawing attention to someone who does this for a living and has asked the protestors what they think. I foolishly thought that people would prefer this to wild guesses.

Withdrawn. I read your post too fast. I didn't catch the bottom where you actually said "...but I recommend people read the whole article."

 

[CAC1001]

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

What do you think gold is backed by? Gold is a worthless metal. Yes, in terms of actual uses, it has wide uses for industry, but it exists in too small a quantity to be valuable in that sense. And humans have been valuing it long before modern industry came about. Gold has a unique aspect to it in that it lasts a loooong time as a metal. If all of humanity disappeared off of this Earth, and millions of years from now, after all trace of humanity is gone, the gold in say the Federal Reserve gold vault would still be there. But I mean otherwise, gold is a worthless material. It is just a shiny metal that has value because humans say it does.

I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

 

[CAC1001]

You should note that many empires based on this model, including the well known Roman Empire collapsed. Why do you think it will be different this time around?

The Roman Empire didn't collapse due to bad monetary policy. By itself, the question of what exactly caused the collapse of the Roman Empire is itself very complex. Also remember that when they say the "Roman Empire collapsed," they mean the Western half of the empire. The Eastern half, which became known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted longer than the Western half had, going all the way up to 1453, when Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Empire.

 

[John Creighto]

[/i]Originally Posted by chiro View Post

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.[/i]
I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

Saying it is backed by the strength and resilience of the U.S. economy is meaningless. When the federal reserve injects base money (called M0) into the economy it does so in exchange for an asset. This was done so that in the event the government dissolves the Federal reserve the amount each person would own of it's holdings would be related to the proportion of the total US dollars they hold.

Thus the value of money should be loosely tied to the holdings of the federal reserve. However, the primary asset which the federal reserve holds is debt which is due payable in dollars. Consequently in the event the Federal Reserve was dissolved a law would than need to be made to establish what unit of value that would be acceptable for repayment of those debts. This of course would work in the US but I don't know how it would be applied to debts owed by people in foreign countries.

Another way to dissolve the federal reserve would be to slowly change the repayment terms of assets it accepts as holdings so all debt assets held by the federal reserve are owed in another unit of value other then dollars. Once this occurs than the basis for the value of a dollar would be less circular.

As a final note, well the primary mechanism of injecting money into the economy is though an exchange of a debt type asset another alternative is something like a negative income tax. There needs to be a balance between debt levels and demand levels to keep debt sustainable. When the federal reserve has excess profits these are given to the treasury. If the federal reserved charged a higher interest one would expect greater profits which would mean greater profits for the government and hence the people.

Well, low interest rates create investment it is often creates an over investment and results into quick an expansion in credit relative to demand. Investment can occur though other means than loans such as savings, re-invested profits, partnerships and directly investing in a company.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen has polled the OWS crowd; what he found is published http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html".

I thought this was interesting

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

He starts describing lots positions, and then uses only a single area (whether they identify as conservative, moderate or liberal) to pigeon hole the protestors by looking at the one area the crowd differs from most of America.

In reality, much of the time, most Americans poll as in-favor of universal health care (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/americans_favor_universal_heal.html) most Americans favor raising taxes on the rich, and not on the poor see (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really), etc.

In short- the opinions of the Occupy people seem pretty consistent with those of America as a whole, not dangerous leftist radicals. I'm even willing to bet most people are divided on bank bailouts, but I can't find a poll.

 

[ThomasT]

that's not quite what he is saying. he talks quite a bit about the way they make their money, which is not to produce anything of value, but through speculation. and given Brzezinski's past (building the afghan army that was to be the USSR's "Vietnam"), i somehow don't think giving money to charity is what he's after here. it's a bit more of a 'shine the light on the cockroaches' approach to root out corruption and put accountability back in the system. but... given that it is Brzezinski, it might be prudent to wonder what else he is up to.

I got the sense that he was just calling it like he saw it. It was interesting to hear his views.

 

[chiro]

What do you think gold is backed by? Gold is a worthless metal. Yes, in terms of actual uses, it has wide uses for industry, but it exists in too small a quantity to be valuable in that sense. And humans have been valuing it long before modern industry came about. Gold has a unique aspect to it in that it lasts a loooong time as a metal. If all of humanity disappeared off of this Earth, and millions of years from now, after all trace of humanity is gone, the gold in say the Federal Reserve gold vault would still be there. But I mean otherwise, gold is a worthless material. It is just a shiny metal that has value because humans say it does.

I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

One of the reasons people use gold is based on the idea that it is hard to counterfeit. For something to be money it must have certain properties and the counterfeit property is one of them (an important part none the less).

Historically there have lots of different forms of money. What separates gold from paper money is that with paper, you can just turn on the printing press and generate as much as you want. Similarly since more than 95% of the dollars are in a computer, it's easy to just create a data entry in some database to create money.

This is why things like gold and silver are considered money. Gold and silver have industrial uses like in electronics and other applications, but that is not why gold was considered money. In an environment where the money system goes to crap, bartering is usually the system that comes in.

Yes gold is in a sense a "religion" just like the fiat system, but the crucial counterfeiting property is why gold and silver is used.

 

[mheslep]

CAC is correct. Counterfeiting is secondary. People have universal faith in the value gold, and have for what must be all of human history. It's pretty and it's mostly inert. So what? So are many polymers. The current price of ~$1600/oz is backed up by faith and tradition; it has no relation to actual industrial demand.

 

[chiro]

Counterfeiting is secondary. People have universal faith in the value gold, and have for what must be all of human history. It's pretty and it's mostly inert. So what? So are many polymers. The current price of ~$1600/oz is backed up by faith and tradition; it has no relation to actual industrial demand.

Counterfeiting is a big deal! Anyone that prints paper or digital money is engaged in counterfeiting. The only difference between Joe Schmoe doing it and a central bank doing it is simply legislation.

I didn't say it had to do with industrial demand. If you read the second paragraph, you'll see that I mentioned industrial application but went on to say that this was not related to why gold was money.

Money has the property that people have to accept it and that is where the faith comes in. This isn't about just gold if it is used as money, but any form of money. But part of that faith is the faith that its worth be stable: you get money today and it should be worth the same thing tomorrow or in the future.

Also you should know that gold has been subject to counterfeit, where coins have been diluted with some other substance. The key thing is that this is noticeable. You can get some accurate scales and detect that kind of counterfeiting easily.

The best way though to counterfeit gold is to use tungsten, but it takes a lot of effort to do this.

Again the whole point of using something like gold as money in one respect has to do with counterfeiting, and it is not the only thing that has been used in this way. Every form of money is backed up with faith, because if there wasn't any faith no one would use it!

 

[DoggerDan]

Withdrawn. I read your post too fast. I didn't catch the bottom where you actually said "...but I recommend people read the whole article."

Lol, ironic! You're a big man, DaveC. Honest. Thumbs up!

 

[mheslep]

NY Magazine asked the OWS crowd some economics/current affairs questions.

Q: What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military?
A: 94% say the military.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

 

[LaurieAG]

A big challenge for the CPUSA [Communist Part USA] and left, progressive movements is to link these demonstrations with the labor led all-people’s coalition and help deepen understanding that the path to progress must be through electoral and political action including defeating Republican Tea Party reaction in 2012.

If that isn't a formal indictment of the movement, then literally nothing will be.

.
About as formal as you can get .

Since the Tea Party doesn't care that 'No taxation without representation' implies 'no representation without taxation' the people behind them must be spinning up a storm in a teacup, a very small storm in a very poor facsimile of a tea cup that doesn't hold much tea, or water for that matter.

BTW, wasn't the WSJ purchased by News Corp?

 

[DoggerDan]

Since the Tea Party doesn't care that 'No taxation without representation' implies 'no representation without taxation'...

I've heard this mindless twist before, almost always among the TP haters. Comments like "storm in a teacup" are similarly ridiculous.

I'm still not a tea-partier, so good luck. If you'd attacked a Dem with this lack of reasoning, I'd be giving you the same send-off.

Seriously, though - why do people spin the issues to these extremes? Come on, folks! You can do better.

 

[WhoWee]

Doug Schoen made this analysis after the 2010 elections.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576064282100893372.html

"In the November midterm elections, the Democratic Party lost its congressional majority. The far graver threat to the party, though, is that its base is made up disproportionately of public-employee unions, liberals, trial lawyers and other special-interest groups.

A key reason for the Democrats' extraordinary defeat in the midterms is that the party lost critical support from independent swing voters. In large part, as polls consistently show, this is because of the party's big-government programs such as health-care reform, the bailouts, and the stimulus packages.

If the Democrats want to be competitive in 2012, they must move decisively back to the center. And unless they're able to break the stranglehold that government-employee unions have on the party on policy, as well as in financial and political support, it will be virtually impossible for Democrats to restore fiscal health to states like New York and California.

Working-class families are fleeing the Democratic Party en masse, a trend that is likely to continue if their own economic situation remains weak in the face of ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt. These working-class voters see that public employees are continuing to receive more generous benefits and enjoy greater job security than they are. Support for the Democratic Party is now well below 40% with working-class voters who are unionized, and as low as 33% with whites who are not college educated."

I think union involvement in these protests will backfire. The UAW is a direct beneficiary of Government bailouts of big business - their presence is ridiculous.