News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[DaveC426913]

There are too many disincentives to saving: an interest rate of way less than 1%--way below inflation--and, on top of that, you are taxed on your interest earnings. And then, if you have a Roth IRA, there are , too, penalties for removing money. So, what does one do in order to save, put money under the mattress?

Absolutely spot on. The things you have pointed out, show one of the biggest flaws with this centrally controlled system: it rewards speculators but punishes savers.

Don't be so quick to call that a flaw. Stuffing your money in the mattress does not help the economy.

(Saving money is the monetary analogue of your body going into starvation mode and storing fat, to protect against the next drought. Yet everyone knows how unhealthy that is. Proper eating and exercise, resulting in a throughput of calories is the healthy way to live.)

What helps the economy is circulating your money.

If they can provide a way where people want to keep their money in circulation then it's a win all around.

 

[Bacle2]

DaveC: don't you think the disincentives towards saving are too extreme, though? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to have some cushion to fall back on?

 

[chiro]

Don't be so quick to call that a flaw. Stuffing your money in the mattress does not help the economy.

(Saving money is the monetary analogue of your body going into starvation mode and storing fat, to protect against the next drought. Yet everyone knows how unhealthy that is. Proper eating and exercise, resulting in a throughput of calories is the healthy way to live.)

You got to be kidding me. Starvation? Are you serious?

You think everybody is better drowning in debt? What message do you think it sends to people if they are encouraged not to save? You think something might happen if no-one is saving anything?

Seriously I don't know whether to laugh or to shake my head. In fact why don't you live by your own advice. Go get half a dozen credit cards and max them out. Take out a few mortgages and when you are interviewed by the bank manager tell them your story about saving with your analog of the human body.

Unbelievable.

What helps the economy is circulating your money.

If they can provide a way where people want to keep their money in circulation then it's a win all around.

That helps the banks sure, but it doesn't always help John Q public. Money is a form of debt, and the winner in the end is always the owner of that debt. If you think flooding the world with cash helps everyone in the economy, maybe you should people out there in the real world what is happening to their small businesses, their jobs, and their lives, because your US central bank has pumped trillions of dollars that are "circulating" around.

The thing that really helps all the small and large businesses which employ most of the workforce is capital. This capital helps provide some measure of wealth to employees where they can exchange it for other things.

When a business has real capital, they can do what they are supposed to, like run a business. Currently the credit system now is based on a fractional reserve system with interest bearing debt, but it is not the only means that can be used to do capital injections.

 

[DaveC426913]

You got to be kidding me. Starvation? Are you serious?

You think everybody is better drowning in debt? What message do you think it sends to people if they are encouraged not to save? You think something might happen if no-one is saving anything?

You started talking about debt. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. A smoothly flowing economy does not equate with debt, as you hope to imply with this straw man.

And don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously I don't know whether to laugh or to shake my head. In fact why don't you live by your own advice. Go get half a dozen credit cards and max them out. Take out a few mortgages and when you are interviewed by the bank manager tell them your story about saving with your analog of the human body.

Unbelievable.

This kind of theatrical outrage won't fly here, chiro. What flies is critical thinking. That starts with not creating straw man arguments and not putting words in other people's mouths.

That helps the banks sure, but it doesn't always help John Q public. Money is a form of debt, and the winner in the end is always the owner of that debt. If you think flooding the world with cash helps everyone in the economy, maybe you should people out there in the real world what is happening to their small businesses, their jobs, and their lives, because your US central bank has pumped trillions of dollars that are "circulating" around.

The thing that really helps all the small and large businesses which employ most of the workforce is capital. This capital helps provide some measure of wealth to employees where they can exchange it for other things.

When a business has real capital, they can do what they are supposed to, like run a business. Currently the credit system now is based on a fractional reserve system with interest bearing debt, but it is not the only means that can be used to do capital injections.

All a straw man. I said none of those things, nor are they implied by what I said. Listen to what I said not what you want to hear.

When people start stuffing money in their mattresses, it slows the economy, which means all those small businesses you speak of don't make money, which means they start stuffing their money in their mattresses, and the problem snowballs.

Contrarily, what works for everyone, and for the economy as a whole, is when people feel free to spend within their means (i.e. not necessarily any debt).I am not suggesting everybody must spend everything they have or that any of this is inevitable. What I said (and you can reread post 571 it f it will help) was that encouraging a flowing economy over a save-for-later attitude is not necessarily a bad thing and not necessarily a flaw in the system.

 

[ThomasT]

in related news, Naomi Wolf is arrested at OWS, and it appears that Homeland Security has something to do with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street

Thanks for the link. Disturbing, but predictable.

 

[WhoWee]

Thanks for the link. Disturbing, but predictable.

I wonder how many celebrities would be interested in personally funding businesses with the intent of hiring union workers - teachers, construction workers, auto workers, maintenence, and even office staff?

 

[Proton Soup]

Cenk Uygur picks a fight

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Declaration of Independence

Our politicians are bought. Everyone knows it. Conservatives know it. Liberals know it. The Democrats are bought. The Republicans are bought. They don’t represent us. They represent their corporate donors who fund their campaigns and promise them well paying jobs after they leave office. We have taxation without representation. Our democracy is in serious trouble.

So what can we do to regain our ability to make our votes count and take back our democracy? We have to concentrate all of our resources into one single attack – making sure we take corporate money out of politics. The only way to do that is to bypass the corporate owned Congress and the Supreme Court – and pass a Constitutional amendment. We must pass an amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians.

The objective of Wolf PAC will be to raise money and raise an army for the sole purpose of passing this amendment. We need a Constitutional revolution to get unlimited corporate money out of politics. Please join us and help retake our democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLB0d4KNAc

 

[Oltz]

Cenk Uygur picks a fight

http://www.wolf-pac.com/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLB0d4KNAc

Fine with me with 2 conditions.

Unions have the same rules as corps.

Unions can not have manditory dues and membership

 

[Bacle2]

Seriously, Oltz? Should employees in a corporation get to elect their CEOs?

Maybe then you would like every corp. to be a cooperative?

Can a corp's employees work for the corp without being bound by the inlaws ( the equivalent of non-membership )?

Corporations and unions are too-different as organizations, with different

goals and different structuring for a reasonable comparison between them.

 

[Char. Limit]

I wonder how many celebrities would be interested in personally funding businesses with the intent of hiring union workers - teachers, construction workers, auto workers, maintenence, and even office staff?

How does this have anything to do with either Occupy Wall Street or Naomi Wolf's arrest?

 

[FlexGunship]

Fine with me with 2 conditions.

Unions have the same rules as corps.

Unions can not have manditory dues and membership

Seriously, Oltz? Should employees in a corporation get to elect their CEOs?

Maybe then you would like every corp. to be a cooperative?

Can a corp's employees work for the corp without being bound by the inlaws ( the equivalent of non-membership )?

Corporations and unions are too-different as organizations, with different

goals and different structuring for a reasonable comparison between them.

I don't see what's wrong with his two conditions. Unions SHOULDN'T have mandatory membership regardless of other rules imposed on them (or other corporations). And why would you want Unions being able to contribute to politicians if corporations can't? That seems even more skewed than it is now!

Remember, you can elect to work for a different corporation, but you can't choose to be a member of a different Union.

 

[Bacle2]

I never said I thought unions should be able to contribute to politicians. Still, unions elect their reps. Should workers get to elect their CEOs? Should outsiders get to influence the union's decisions (comparing with shareholders in a public company)? I use these examples to support my statement that I just think that unions and corps. are inherently too different from each other in too many ways for a broad statement like " they should follow the same rules" to be meaningful.

 

[Evo]

I never said I thought unions should be able to contribute to politicians. Still, unions elect their reps. Should workers get to elect their CEOs? Should outsiders get to influence the union's decisions (comparing with shareholders in a public company)? I use these examples to support my statement that I just think that unions and corps. are inherently too different from each other in too many ways for a broad statement like " they should follow the same rules" to be meaningful.

The board of the corporation elects the CEO.

A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization.

In a stock corporation, the board is elected by the stockholders and is the highest authority in the management of the corporation.

The shareholders voting would be similar to union members, except shareholders aren't pawns. (IMO to pawns)

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

Every corporation I have worked for has given me shares of stock, making me a shareholder.

 

[D H]

I never said I thought unions should be able to contribute to politicians. Still, unions elect their reps. Should workers get to elect their CEOs?

If it is an employee-owned company, yes, at least indirectly through the board members elected by the employees. If the company is publicly owned, sometimes. Some unions invest in the companies with which the union is associated.

Should outsiders get to influence the union's decisions (comparing with shareholders in a public company)?

Shareholders are not outsiders.

I use these examples to support my statement that I just think that unions and corps. are inherently too different from each other in too many ways for a broad statement like " they should follow the same rules" to be meaningful.

The justification is very simple: Unions aren't people any more than are corporations.

 

[WhoWee]

How does this have anything to do with either Occupy Wall Street or Naomi Wolf's arrest?

Isn't she a celebrity?

 

[Bacle2]

If it is an employee-owned company, yes, at least indirectly through the board members elected by the employees. If the company is publicly owned, sometimes. Some unions invest in the companies with which the union is associated.


Shareholders are not outsiders.

But , shareholders will, at worse, see the value of their stock go down. If these shareholdres are sensible, they will have diversified their portfolio, and will not be terminally-affected. Beside, I assume most shareholders have some discretionary income that they use to invest. A worker will lose their job, in the present system their health insurance, and are not as likely as shareholders to have discretionary income to help them through their time of unemployment other than short-lived (and many want to make it even shorter, or fully eliminate it) unemployment . I think the impact on the outcome of the company does not for the most part compare. Still, conversely, if one should have the choice of opting out of union memebership (which I agree with), should employees be able to opt-in the decisions of the company (yes, as you said, they sometimes do? Should all corps. then be employee-owned )? Is there an equivalent for board members or otherwise to opt out?

The justification is very simple: Unions aren't people any more than are corporations.

 

[Bacle2]

Isn't she a celebrity?

This reminds me of all the celebrities; both from the left and from the right who were very public supporters of the FDNY and NYPD after 9/11. Their support did not extend to help them in their attempt to get higher wages, nor does it extend now to helping them get some monetary support for their health problems that resulted from working on ground zero.

 

[Bacle2]

The board of the corporation elects the CEO.

The shareholders voting would be similar to union members, except shareholders aren't pawns. (IMO to pawns)

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

Every corporation I have worked for has given me shares of stock, making me a shareholder.

How do you mean pawns?

Still, _everyone_ in the union gets to vote; everyone who is impacted by the decisions of the union gets a vote (notwithsantding the corruption and cheating that takes place). In a corp., only board members have a say, and the workers, for the most part, have little say on major decisions like cutting down, etc., nor can they punish someone who took a certain decision with their vote or otherwise.

So the similarities between unions and corporations only go so far. Employee-owned companies are, I believe, a very small chunk of the total.

 

[Evo]

How do you mean pawns?

Still, _everyone_ in the union gets to vote; everyone who is impacted by the decisions of the union gets a vote (notwithsantding the corruption and cheating that takes place). In a corp., only board members have a say, and the workers, for the most part, have little say on major decisions like cutting down, etc., nor can they punish someone who took a certain decision with their vote or otherwise.

So the similarities between unions and corporations only go so far. Employee-owned companies are, I believe, a very small chunk of the total.

A union is an organization that supposedly protects employees, with members that pay dues to belong (either willingly or forced). I have no idea why you are trying to make a comparison between a union and a regular corporation, and now you're throwing in other business types. It seems that your knowledge level of how these things work would require too much effort to bring you up to speed. This is not meant as an insult, just that perhaps you should do some research on business and then come back after you gain at least a basic understanding.

Or perhaps I'm not getting why you are arguing "union officials are elected" vs "corporate officials are elected". You say that the two are different, yes, see above. An employee is not a paying member of the place where they are employed, so no, they do not directly get to vote for the people that employ them.

 

[WhoWee]

But , shareholders will, at worse, see the value of their stock go down. If these shareholdres are sensible, they will have diversified their portfolio, and will not be terminally-affected. Beside, I assume most shareholders have some discretionary income that they use to invest. A worker will lose their job, in the present system their health insurance, and are not as likely as shareholders to have discretionary income to help them through their time of unemployment other than short-lived (and many want to make it even shorter, or fully eliminate it) unemployment . I think the impact on the outcome of the company does not for the most part compare. Still, conversely, if one should have the choice of opting out of union memebership (which I agree with), should employees be able to opt-in the decisions of the company (yes, as you said, they sometimes do? Should all corps. then be employee-owned )? Is there an equivalent for board members or otherwise to opt out?

Does anyone recall the unions indicating they wanted to keep their (newly acquired) GM stock?

 

[Oltz]

I never said I thought unions should be able to contribute to politicians. Still, unions elect their reps. Should workers get to elect their CEOs? Should outsiders get to influence the union's decisions (comparing with shareholders in a public company)? I use these examples to support my statement that I just think that unions and corps. are inherently too different from each other in too many ways for a broad statement like " they should follow the same rules" to be meaningful.

HAHA NO NO NO the Same rules with regards to campaign financing.

Lets be honest the only reason corps are treated as people are to balance out the Unions supporting the opposite side.

Either they both can or neither can donate to a specific party or canidate or support a pet issue/project/referendum.
I ment same rules for political donations not same rules internally.

Sorry to have left grey area I thought we all saw that the issue was wanting to end corprate influence on elections.

 

[Bacle2]

A union is an organization that supposedly protects employees, with members that pay dues to belong (either willingly or forced). I have no idea why you are trying to make a comparison between a union and a regular corporation, and now you're throwing in other business types. It seems that your knowledge level of how these things work would require too much effort to bring you up to speed. This is not meant as an insult, just that perhaps you should do some research on business and then come back after you gain at least a basic understanding.

Or perhaps I'm not getting why you are arguing "union officials are elected" vs "corporate officials are elected". You say that the two are different, yes, see above. An employee is not a paying member of the place where they are employed, so no, they do not directly get to vote for the people that employ them.

Maybe you should read my post more carefully. I was disagreeing on (what I thought was )Oltz' assumption that the two were comparable, based on his claim that they should be treated equally. I argued that they are different-enough to not be comparable.

 

[Bacle2]

HAHA NO NO NO the Same rules with regards to campaign financing.

Lets be honest the only reason corps are treated as people are to balance out the Unions supporting the opposite side.

Either they both can or neither can donate to a specific party or canidate or support a pet issue/project/referendum.
I ment same rules for political donations not same rules internally.

Sorry to have left grey area I thought we all saw that the issue was wanting to end corprate influence on elections.

Sorry, I misunderstood/ misunderestimated you. Overall, I think unions are a necessary part of a system of checks and balances, so that each side can keep the other in check.

Still: what do you think about restrictions ( de facto, or legal) against unionizing?

 

[D H]

Lets be honest the only reason corps are treated as people are to balance out the Unions supporting the opposite side.

To be honest (and yes, let's be honest), you have the relation exactly backwards. Corporations have had some rights as persons for a much longer time than have unions. Unions were belatedly and begrudgingly given these rights to balance out those given to corporations one hundred years or so before than the unionization movement of the late 19th / early 20th century. Unions were not granted the full rights of corporations until well into the 20th century.

Should corporations and unions have some rights of personhood? In an nutshell, yes. That organizations larger than a person can make a contract (and be held liable for violating the contract) was a key innovation. In some countries corporations can't form contracts; contracts are always person-to-person. That the USA granted corporations such rights very early on in the history of the country was, after the fact, one of the key features that vaulted the US in front of its European predecessors.

 

[WhoWee]

To be honest (and yes, let's be honest), you have the relation exactly backwards. Corporations have had some rights as persons for a much longer time than have unions. Unions were belatedly and begrudgingly given these rights to balance out those given to corporations one hundred years or so before than the unionization movement of the late 19th / early 20th century. Unions were not granted the full rights of corporations until well into the 20th century.

Should corporations and unions have some rights of personhood? In an nutshell, yes. That organizations larger than a person can make a contract (and be held liable for violating the contract) was a key innovation. In some countries corporations can't form contracts; contracts are always person-to-person. That the USA granted corporations such rights very early on in the history of the country was, after the fact, one of the key features that vaulted the US in front of its European predecessors.

Given your logic - why do we have unions for Government workers? Isn't the Government required to follow the labor laws?

 

[Vanadium 50]

To be honest (and yes, let's be honest), you have the relation exactly backwards. Corporations have had some rights as persons for a much longer time than have unions.

And indeed, corporations were around for centuries before unions.

 

[chiro]

You started talking about debt. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. A smoothly flowing economy does not equate with debt, as you hope to imply with this straw man.

And don't put words in my mouth.

This is what you said:

(Saving money is the monetary analogue of your body going into starvation mode and storing fat, to protect against the next drought. Yet everyone knows how unhealthy that is. Proper eating and exercise, resulting in a throughput of calories is the healthy way to live.)

You talked about starvation in your paragraph. I made a reference to that. You said this, I didn't conjure it out of thin air.

I didn't say that you said anything else.

Getting back to the debt argument, what do you think money is, and how is it created? When credit is created from a bank it is a form of debt. Circulating the debt around banks does not change that fact.

Economic activities including businesses involved in production (like manufacturing) or services require resources, and resource allocation is largely controlled by access to credit, and in the current system credit is tied to debt. Swapping notes between groups doesn't erase this one bit.

This kind of theatrical outrage won't fly here, chiro. What flies is critical thinking. That starts with not creating straw man arguments and not putting words in other people's mouths.

You want critical thinking? Why don't you re-read this entire thread showing a number of people outlining arguments for why debt is a bad thing. All you are doing is using the straw-man card.

You are encouraging debt, and I am posting the behavior of what is happening with the US government. Your government is doing this exact thing: funding debt with debt, and look at what is happening.

All a straw man. I said none of those things, nor are they implied by what I said. Listen to what I said not what you want to hear.

When people start stuffing money in their mattresses, it slows the economy, which means all those small businesses you speak of don't make money, which means they start stuffing their money in their mattresses, and the problem snowballs.

Contrarily, what works for everyone, and for the economy as a whole, is when people feel free to spend within their means (i.e. not necessarily any debt).

If you read what I said, the most important thing is capital. Capital can come in many forms, but the current form that it comes in nowadays is in credit based on money.

The current credit system is one based on perpetual debt, but it doesn't have to be this way. The US has not always had this form of credit. Back in the day the government actually created money and did not rely on a central bank in the way that they do today.

The form of capital in these circumstances was different to what is being used today.

I am not suggesting everybody must spend everything they have or that any of this is inevitable. What I said (and you can reread post 571 it f it will help) was that encouraging a flowing economy over a save-for-later attitude is not necessarily a bad thing and not necessarily a flaw in the system.

I know what you said: I reposted the exact quote in this post.

So let me ask you a question: if you think the save-for-later system is not a good system, how you define the amount of acceptable debt? Where does it end?

If you want to respond to the actual argument, feel free.

 

[DaveC426913]

You talked about starvation in your paragraph. I made a reference to that. You said this, I didn't conjure it out of thin air.

Show me exactly where I said anything about debt. You made that jump - yes, out of thin air. It's a straw man. And totally missing the point.You're stuck on the word starvation. Starvation is bad. Agreed? We both agree on that.

Let me walk you through the analogy again.

People who save money by stuffing it under their mattress are analogous to the body stuffing calories into fat cells. The body does this is a runaway fear of some future starvation. Stuffing money in a mattress is also a fear of poverty. Granted, it may be necessary, but that's doesn't make it a desirable or stable plan.

Lethargy in the metabolism is as bad as lethargy in the economy.

A healthy body takes in calories through healthy food and outputs them as healthy exercise. This is analogous to a healthy economy, where cash flows, every one gets to spend - wisely - and no one gets economically lethargic or economically starves. Anjd absolutely no mention of debt.

See it now?

You want critical thinking? Why don't you re-read this entire thread showing a number of people outlining arguments for why debt is a bad thing.

I agree debt is a bad thing. And once again, I never suggested it wasn't. I never said anything about debt. You insinuated that into your response as if I did.

All you are doing is using the straw-man card.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

You are encouraging debt,

Again, do not put words in my mouth or ascribe to me things I am not doing.

So let me ask you a question: if you think the save-for-later system is not a good system,

I did not say it was not a good system. I simply said that the encouragment of healthy economic throughput over saving money in your mattress does not constitute a flaw in the system.

how you define the amount of acceptable debt? Where does it end?

I never suggested anything about debt. I don't suggest any amount of debt is acceptable.

Debt is your drum to beat, and has nothing to do with my post that you so theatrically objected to.

Again, stop trying to ascribe things to me I never said or suggested. You're beating a straw man to death while I stand next to it saying 'uh, hello? I'm over heeeere...'

 

[chiro]

I agree debt is a bad thing. And once again, I never suggested it wasn't. I never said anything about debt. You insinuated that into your response as if I did.

I have to apologize to you, as your are correct about the insinuation of debt remark.

Just realize that some people in this thread have been advocating or at the very least not seeing a problem with debt, and quite frankly I thought that you were advocating the same argument.

 

[mege]

Given your logic - why do we have unions for Government workers? Isn't the Government required to follow the labor laws?

Public worker unions are there because the greedy government makes too much money, and someone needs to catch it!

Then, the government needs to raise taxes because its workers are making more than before. But, if the government raises taxes, shouldn't its workers be paid more too? Then, the government needs to raise taxes because its workers are making more than before... oh...

Seriously though - public worker unions are a taxpayers worse nightmare. I understand the balance that unions provide against corporations, but I don't understand the balance against government. I feel like there's more crony-capitalism because of unions than anything else.