News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[Bacle2]

Listen, at the end of the day, you have not addressed most of the
substance of my claims: what is so valuable about what these WS firms
do that merits the pay and bonuses they receive? $25 mill a year: what,
do they: cure cancer on Monday, get a Nobel prize on Tuesday, etc?

 

[Bacle2]

I personally never tried to defend F&F nor their bonuses. And you may want to contact the OWS people before deciding what their position on F&F is or will be; again , you assume they are aware of it, which they may not be, and you assume they have not yet addressed it, etc. I don't know either way, and it doesn't seem like you do either.

 

[mheslep]

I personally never tried to defend F&F nor their bonuses.

You are arguing against strawmen. You asked "who is defending" F&F; now you have an answer.

And you may want to contact the OWS people before deciding what their position on F&F is or will be; again , you assume they are aware of it, which they may not be, and you assume they have not yet addressed it, etc. I don't know either way, and it doesn't seem like you do either.

So far OWS has little or no common declared position on anything; it is certainly not possible to contact anyone who can speak for them all. About the only thing one can state factually about OWS at large is where they camp out at night. They have not protested at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

 

[mheslep]

Listen, at the end of the day, you have not addressed most of the
substance of my claims: what is so valuable about what these WS firms
do that merits the pay and bonuses they receive? ...

What is so valuable about a guy who can use a stick to knock a ball out of an arena? Those stick and ball guys don't work for me, so I really don't care what they make. Unless the government steps into rig the system in some way with tax dollars or preferential laws, then I care.

 

[mheslep]

No longer?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1402754450/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Documents how Fox reporters are "encouraged" to give a conservative perspective on the day's events. No counter offered by Ailes, who refused to be interviewed.

Fox is the flip side of Kos.

The documentation refers to memos from the Fox VP of news John Moody who gives general guidance on how to pursue a story, as VP's of news are want to do everywhere I imagine.

Roger Ailes has given numerous interviews on a variety of topics. Fox is a professional news outlet with a bias. Kos is little more than blog, at which pretty much anyone who is down with the movement can sign on and write as an authority.

 

[Evo]

Fox News is an accepted mainstream news source. Their bias is known, same as the bias of CNN, MSNBC, etc... There is also control over who can report, the biases of these people are known. This is why blogs are not allowed. Huffington is allowed, even though it's just a glorified blog, you need to take articles there with a grain of salt, in other words, like wikipedia, I'd check their articles against mainstream sources.

 

[Bacle2]

What is so valuable about a guy who can use a stick to knock a ball out of an arena? Those stick and ball guys don't work for me, so I really don't care what they make. Unless the government steps into rig the system in some way with tax dollars or preferential laws, then I care.

The value, I would say, is that there is a fan base composed of millions of devoted fans, who are apparently willing to pay good amounts to be entertained by it, buy souvenirs, watch games, I would say. These fans benefit by the enjoyment they get out of the game.

Still, say there is no basis. Just what is it that WS does (not the whole industry, but the main WS firms where people get paid millions+ millions in bonuses+ millions in golden parachutes after burning the firms to the ground.) that is worth that much?

I guess you may then repudiate the internet, the interstate highway system, the national parks, etc. all of which was made possible by the government.

 

[Bacle2]

You are arguing against strawmen. You asked "who is defending" F&F; now you have an answer.

So far OWS has little or no common declared position on anything; it is certainly not possible to contact anyone who can speak for them all. About the only thing one can state factually about OWS at large is where they camp out at night. They have not protested at Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.[/QUOTE]

a)No, I'm not; all my posts were replied with lines about F&F, as if I had been defending them, which I never tried to do.

b)There you go again about F&F; do you have anything else of substance to say? Would you care to comment on this, instead of on technicalities: Many believe the game is rigged, and that they have a lower chance of moving up than their parents did, and there seems to be some data to support this. It seems like the bigger the divide between those up and those down, the harder it is to climb up. Some data also suggests that the US is not as upwardly-mobile as it used to be, and that many European countries are more mobile than we are.?

 

[Evo]

The firms that were bailed out have mostly repaid the loans, the pay has been investigated.

Government officials said it isn't clear exactly what type of pay might fit in that category. Many firms, including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley, have repaid their government funds, often at a profit to the U.S. taxpayer, a move that could be seen as being in the public interest, one government official said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704841304575137784246308728.html

 

[Bacle2]

Basically, I made several points, which you may or not agree with, while all you did was bring up F&F, which I had never brought up myself. I was pointing out that fact, that my points were completely unrelated to F&F. And then you kept on bringing up F&F yet again, for some reason I do not yet understand.

 

[Bacle2]

Well, MHSLEP, let's take the flip side of your position: where/when have you, or has the WSJ, or the inverstor community mentioned that the automakers were back in black and that they had repaid their loans? Must every single issue be addressed for someone's position to be considered?

Still: what justifies the $ million paid to some of the main firms? I don't care if baseball pay is justified or not--tho I offered my (non-expert) opinion*. It this pay does not come from or is proportional to the economic productivity that WS contributes to: where does it then come from?

*Baseball fans are willing to pay for tickets, for souvenirs, they watch games --which pays for advertising, cable revenues to employ people, etc. At some point these fans may decide the pay is not worth it, then the pay would go down. Same for Hollywood, etc.
Note I am trying to explain, not justify.

 

[LaurieAG]

My problem is that the OWS are bungling things. I am for Social Security, I am for student grants, I am for medicare. But these people are doing no good because they are not organized effectively. I actually feel that they are doing more harm than good.

Hi Evo. Any creditable alternative would probably be considered an organised threat to the system anyway so what OWS is doing is probably the best anybody could expect to do considering the circumstances.

 

[Evo]

Still: what justifies the $ million paid to some of the main firms? I don't care if baseball pay is justified or not--tho I offered my (non-expert) opinion*. It this pay does not come from or is proportional to the economic productivity that WS contributes to: where does it then come from?

The amount of pay reflects the amount of money the firms make, but it's still an obscene amount, IMO.

 

[Bacle2]

The amount of pay reflects the amount of money the firms make, but it's still an obscene amount, IMO.

But shouldn't there be a match between the money made and the contribution to the general economy? But I don't see this being the case. I can see, e.g., how baseball players get paid thru royalties, TV contracts, etc., and if the fans decide baseball is not worth it, they will not pay, and the game will fizzle. But I don't see the correspondent relationship with what WS does. Basically: can a pay of this sort be sustainable if it does not reflect the value created by the company, or must this money come from somewhere else in the economy?

 

[Evo]

But shouldn't there be a match between the money made and the contribution to the general economy?

No, a company is in business to make money. Why on Earth would anyone think they have to share the money they make? It's their money.

 

[Bacle2]

No, a company is in business to make money. Why on Earth would anyone think they have to share the money they make? It's their money.

This is not what I suggested. Maybe if you could considered the possibility that you misunderstood my post, you would spare me your condescension . You seem to automatically consider the most absurd interpretation of my position, which I would
imagine a moderator would seek to avoid.

 

[Evo]

This is not what I suggested. Maybe if you could considered the possibility that you misunderstood my post, you would spare me your condescension . You seem to automatically consider the most absurd interpretation of my position, which I would
imagine a moderator would seek to avoid.

Then explain what you mean instead of stooping to attacking me.

 

[Bacle2]

Then explain what you mean instead of stooping to attacking me.

Me attacking you? You once in this thread implied,here publically, without any basis, that I did not know what I was talking about, when you had not understood what I said (about the difference between unions and companies), wrongly attributing to me positions I never held (that there is no major difference between a union and a corporation, which I _never_ stated) and now you are publicly condescending me, assuming the most absurd interpretation possible of my posts, instead of asking a followup. So, who's doing the attacking?

 

[Evo]

Me attacking you? You once in this thread implied,here publically, without any basis, that I did not know what I was talking about, when you had not understood what I said (about the difference between unions and companies), wrongly attributing to me positions I never held (that there is no major difference between a union and a corporation, which I _never_ stated) and now you are publicly condescending me, assuming the most absurd interpretation possible of my posts, instead of asking a followup. So, who's doing the attacking?

That's enough. Don't attack me again. You seem to keep accusing people of misinterpreting you. Did it occur to you that perhaps the problem is with you, that you aren't explaining yourself adequately? If I *misunderstood* you, then why don't you explain what you meant?

 

[Bacle2]

How have I attacked you? It is _you_ who insinuated here that I did not know what I was talking about. I reject that claim. I never condescended you that I know off, nor otherwise attacked you that I can tell.

BTW, your *misunderstood* seems like an open invitation to a friendly conversation, right?.Why the asterisks otherwise? It just seems you have already concluded both that I attacked you, which I do not believe I did, and then you are already questioning that there was a misunderstanding.

My point is that there seems to be something wrong when the pay is not proportional to the contribution made. An extreme case to illustrate (not suggesting there is a perfect match between this example and WS): If I get paid $1,000,000/yr for watching TV all day, that money , it would seem, would have to come from somewhere else in the economy, as the contribution to the economy is basically nil. Where does it then come from? Is this salary sustainable/healthy, if it does not reflect a proportional contribution to the economy?

 

[WhoWee]

My point is that there seems to be something wrong when the pay is not proportional to the contribution made. An extreme case to illustrate (not suggesting there is a perfect match between this example and WS): If I get paid $1,000,000/yr for watching TV all day, that money , it would seem, would have to come from somewhere else in the economy, as the contribution to the economy is basically nil. Where does it then come from? Is this salary sustainable/healthy, if it does not reflect a proportional contribution to the economy?

Does this satisfy your contribution criteria?

http://moneycentral.hoovers.com/global/msn/index.xhtml?pageid=1946

 

[Evo]

How have I attacked you? It is _you_ who insinuated here that I did not know what I was talking about. I reject that claim. I never condescended you that I know off, nor otherwise attacked you that I can tell.

I apologize that I made you feel bad, I should be more careful.

BTW, your *misunderstood* seems like an open invitation to a friendly conversation, right?.Why the asterisks otherwise? It just seems you have already concluded both that I attacked you, which I do not believe I did, and then you are already questioning that there was a misunderstanding.

In your rant you threw so many things out there, I honestly had no idea what I *misunderstood*, that is my way of trying to make clear what I am looking for an answer to.

My point is that there seems to be something wrong when the pay is not proportional to the contribution made.

Ok, this is where you lose me. What do you mean by *contribution*. Contribution for what, and why?

An extreme case to illustrate (not suggesting there is a perfect match between this example and WS): If I get paid $1,000,000/yr for watching TV all day, that money , it would seem, would have to come from somewhere else in the economy, as the contribution to the economy is basically nil. Where does it then come from? Is this salary sustainable/healthy, if it does not reflect a proportional contribution to the economy?

Lost me again. In the case of the WS employees, they earn commissions for making money for their clients. That is where the money comes from, client investments. What do you mean by

Is this salary sustainable/healthy, if it does not reflect a proportional contribution to the economy?

What do you mean by *contribution to the economy"? It's money invested which makes people money, which goes into the economy, it stimulates growth, it creates jobs.

A business makes money for themself. They have no obligation to give away their money aside from taxes. Of course most businesses do buy materials or services from other companies, and they pay employees that spend money, so money does go back into the economy.

 

[Bacle2]

O.K, thanks both for your posts; I will look into it. I have made efforts to inform myself about the economy. I have taken the basic micro and macro classes, accounting but I do not know much about financing. I read the papers and books whenever possible to inform myself, and I look for sources on both sides, but maybe I need to, and will do, more reading.

Still, as a general comment, the best way of defending a position is by being able to explain that position clearly-enough to non-specialists (such as myself), and to explain away the attacks to the claims. I am still training myself to do it in my own area.

 

[DoggerDan]

i) When you earned your degree: where the college prices as high as they are now? $5,000+ per semester is not unusual, and loans only go so far.

These days, at the state school I attended, total in-state tuition and fees for the entire school year are just a little over $5,200. I think paying twice that is a bit foolish.

When I attended, tuition, room, board, books, transportation, and entertainment came to less than $7000 a year. Of course that often meant four guys in a two-bedroom, one bath apartment, potatoes and similarly cheap food many nights, seeing movies in the student center (50 cents) instead of the theater ($3).

Still, your advice on how-to I think would be welcome to many.

Thanks! I'm not miserly, but I do pinch pennies.

ii)AFAIK, a college degree is highly correlated with income, at least in today's information society, so your best bet is getting one; otherwise, your job may be automated or farned away somewhere else. Ask the steelworkers, many other unemployed factory workers today.

I agree it's a nice thing to have, and I'm not knocking it in the least. My concern revolves around people going to a pricey school because they believe "you get what you pay for." While it's true the better schools tend to cost more, it's not true that just because a school charges a lot of money means that it's a better school. I chose my undergraduate program because it was a good program with a good reputation at an affordable price.

 

[Bacle2]

Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.

Your right, DoggerDan, about state schools; this book: http://highereducationquestionmark.com/book

Argues, convincingly, I think, that there is no real advantage to getting degrees in the ivies and in the more expensive schools. On the contrary, there is the disadvantage of the greater cost, with the accompanying loans, but people fall for the prestige and the name.

And I also grant that you may have a point about hardships; and this may be a flip/dark side of the optimimistic nature of our society (without taking away the some of the OWS claims that I think are legitimate): every generation expects to do significantly-better than the previous (i.e., their parents), and maybe when/if they do not see the level of progress they expected, this may lead to frustration and maybe something of a sense of entitlement.

Still, it is always good to hear of someone like you, who went thru hardships and turned out well. Good going.

 

[OCR]

Hello Bacle2,

If your quote button doesn't work, you can manually place quote tags "around" the text you want to quote.

Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.

This is how and what tags to use...

[ quote]Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.[/quote]

I put a space after the bracket, and before the q, so you can see the tags... for this method to work, you can not leave a space anywhere between the brackets.

You must also remember to put a stop / (slash) a the end... or you get this:

Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.

If you want to attribute the quote to a person, do this...

Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.

Sorry about the hijack...

I should clarify a bit, too... of course, you must copy and paste the text from the post you want to quote, into the post you are composing...



OCR

 

[Evo]

Sorry, my 'quote' button is not working, it is somehow disabled.

I doubt that it's disabled bacle2, it works for everyone else. What happens when you hit the *quote* button at the bottom of the member's post that you wish to reply to? You hit the quote button *in their post*, and not the *multiquote* button. Or else manually add quotes (as OCR explained) to copied text if you are opening up a new reply box instead of a quote.

 

[OmCheeto]

Portland Occupy Crime stats.
http://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2011-11/3056/49225/Occupy_Stats_111109.pdf

Police blotter (with Occupy Portland reports): http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=3056

Interesting links.

The pdf shows that there was an ~20% increase in crime in the same "Occupy Portland" time period of 2010 and 2011.

The blotter kind of confirms my thought that the "Occupy Where-ever" areas tend to attract scuzzbuckets.

I was listening to NPR yesterday, and one of the local newspaper reporters was describing the camp:

On one end, you have the OP people. On the other end, you have the "A" camp. Which stands for either Anarchists or Alcoholics.

http://www.kgw.com/home/Fourth-overdose-reported-at-Occupy-camp-as-deadline-approaches-133742433.html"
November 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM
...
The city and Occupy members have both agreed a growing level of violence and drug use have co-opted the group's original aims. By Friday, there had already been three near-fatal drug overdoses in which medics were able to revive the victims.

An interesting video of our Mayor and one of the leaders of Occupy Portland, sitting side by side, being interviewed by PBS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1v0i1ncRgs
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/occupyportland_11-11.html"

Mayor of a big city vs some kid

Oh. And just in case no one's heard, our Occupy is going away tonight:

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/...w.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter"
Saturday, November 12, 2011, 4:20 PM
...
Among those who left Saturday was Dean Huffman, who had been in the camp 11 days, spending most of his time working in the makeshift kitchen. He said he decided to leave after hearing people in a tent near him talk about becoming disruptive if police start making arrests. He said he worried it would be unsafe for him and his three dogs, which he calls his "kids."

"There is a bad element that has infiltrated Occupy Portland," said Huffman, who recently was laid off from his job at Intel, where he was a product support engineer. But he said he's proud of the movement and of his time spent there, and he thinks it made a valuable point.

"When the politicians fail to take action, they're leaving it to the people to take action, and this is what happens," Huffman said, as he packed his belongings into a small station wagon.

News that the camp was on the verge of shutting down attracted a number of sightseers, some snapping photos for posterity, others with children in tow so they could witness a distinct part of Portland culture. Among them was state Rep. Sara Gelser, D-Corvallis, who walked through the parks with two daughters.

"This is their civics lesson," Gelser said.

Bravo Sara.

Bravo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQtRsSmU-6k
​

 

[Bacle2]

Then explain what you mean instead of stooping to attacking me.

Sorry, I did not mean to attack you. I meant to say, I did not intend the post to be an attack, sorry if it came off that way.

 

[WhoWee]

A third rape at one of these Occupied locations.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/woman-raped-at-occupy-philadelphia/

"Woman Raped at Occupy Philadelphia"

"The alleged rapist is reported to have been arrested multiple times in connection with a string of armed robberies in Kalamazoo, Mich., officials said."

Also, 2 police officers injured during an Occupier march in San Francisco.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-two-sfpd-officers-injured-during-march-.html

"Two San Francisco Police officers were injured Saturday afternoon during a march by demonstrators from Occupy San Francisco, police said.

One was slashed in the hand with a razor blade and the other sustained a cut on his cheek during separate incidents around 3:30 p.m. near the intersection of the Embarcadero and Broadway. "

Where are the tearful pleas of Nancy Pelosi to stop the violence? Surely this is more troubling to her than peaceful TEA Party demonstrations?

 

[OmCheeto]

Have been watching the http://www.kgw.com/live-stream" for the last 24 hours. A professor from the local university was just interviewed and he said it was an interesting conclusion to a fairly anarchistic movement.(There are no leaders.)

Our encampment is gone, but our movement continues.

 

[Evo]

Our encampment is gone, but our movement continues.

What's your movement? I am honestly still unable to find anyone that has come forward as the leader with an explanation of what their legitimate grievance is. I honestly don't think they have one. How much a person at a company gets paid is not an issue, it's a whine. "he gets paid more than I do, it's not fair" I don't get what they don't get about people getting paid differently for different jobs.

And that's all I hear, [whine]It's not fair that people get paid a lot of money and we don't[/whine] It's absolutely absurd to me that people actually think that it's unfair that some people make a lot of money. Hey, if they think they're qualified, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for a better job. Could it be that they're not qualified? I know I'm not.

 

[edward]

A shooting near occupy Oakland. Who would have thunk it?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp....osb&fp=9161e2c00f8072b6&biw=960&bih=399&bs=1

 

[MarcoD]

And that's all I hear, [whine]It's not fair that people get paid a lot of money and we don't[/whine] It's absolutely absurd to me that people actually think that it's unfair that some people make a lot of money. Hey, if they think they're qualified, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for a better job. Could it be that they're not qualified? I know I'm not.

That argument made me laugh because it really reminds me a lot of our republicans: [whine]It's not fair that some people are royalty and we are not.[/whine] #OccupyBuckinghamPalace

I personally like OccupySesameStreet the most: 1% of the monsters eat 99% of the cookies!

(OccupySesameStreet is in favor of OWS, I think. Just a humored version of it.)

 

[WhoWee]

A shooting near occupy Oakland. Who would have thunk it?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp....osb&fp=9161e2c00f8072b6&biw=960&bih=399&bs=1

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in...ed-for-arrests-occupy-oakland-shooting-photos
"The fatal shooting, say police, took place at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland.

Police are offering a reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the persons who carried out that shooting.

According to KTVU News in San Francisco, police responded to a call at the Occupy Oakland encampment, at 4.57pm. There they found a man in his 20s injured with gunshot wounds to the head."

Still no comment from Nancy Pelosi - since throwing her support behind them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...et-Nancy-Pelosi-comes-support-protesters.html

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has spoken out in support of the growing national Occupy Wall Street movement as the political debate around the protests has intensified.
Pelosi said that 'people are angry' as two Republican presidential candidates accused the protesters of carrying out 'class warfare' and New York mayor Michael Blomberg said they are 'trying to destroy jobs'.
At the same time protest organisers raised concerns that they were being infiltrated by party goers and homeless people looking for sex, drugs and free food."

 

[Evo]

That argument made me laugh because it really reminds me a lot of our republicans: [whine]It's not fair that some people are royalty and we are not.[/whine] #OccupyBuckinghamPalace

I personally like OccupySesameStreet the most: 1% of the monsters eat 99% of the cookies!

(OccupySesameStreet is in favor of OWS, I think. Just a humored version of it.)

ROFL *OccupyBuckinghamPalace* [whine]it's not fair that they're royalty and we're not![/whine]When is the whining going to stop?

Sure, I want to have millions. Have I done anything to deserve it? No. Do I blame anyone other than myself? No. Have I worked 92 hours a week for years without complaining? Yes. Am I poor? Yes. Is it because some people are stockbrokers? No.

 

[Diracula]

What's your movement? I am honestly still unable to find anyone that has come forward as the leader with an explanation of what their legitimate grievance is. I honestly don't think they have one. How much a person at a company gets paid is not an issue, it's a whine. "he gets paid more than I do, it's not fair" I don't get what they don't get about people getting paid differently for different jobs.

And that's all I hear, [whine]It's not fair that people get paid a lot of money and we don't[/whine] It's absolutely absurd to me that people actually think that it's unfair that some people make a lot of money. Hey, if they think they're qualified, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for a better job. Could it be that they're not qualified? I know I'm not.

Evo,
A couple questions:

Do you think it is good for the economy as a whole if a CEO runs a company into the ground for short-term profits, netting himself huge bonuses in the process while at the same time getting massive severance packages worth millions when he abandons ship as the company tanks? And do you think if this occurs at essential financial institutions necessary for functioning of the economy as a whole the public should be forced to bail out the institution with tax dollars? While the CEO still continues to net millions in compensation?

I think this is an example of what OWS protestors are "against". I'm a bit baffled that you keep equating this type of behavior with "but we don't like how much they are getting paid!".

 

[OmCheeto]

What's your movement?

Occupy Everything

I am honestly still unable to find anyone that has come forward as the leader with an explanation of what their legitimate grievance is.

We have no leaders. So it up to every person to have their own grievances.

I honestly don't think they have one.

Some have tried to pin it down to one grievance. I would describe it as the loss of the people's control of the nation through elected officials, to the control of the nation by elected officials influenced by excessively wealthy individuals.

How much a person at a company gets paid is not an issue, it's a whine. "he gets paid more than I do, it's not fair"

I agree. But I would say how much a person is taxed is not a whine. Tax rates in the past were much higher. There was someone a few years ago that made $3.5 billion in one year by shorting subprime morgages. If that was post tax income, then the pre-Reagan tax cut would have netted him $1.8 billion for that year. And how many times does the name Solyndra come up in this thread? LOTS! That's how many. And how much was that? Less than 1/3 of the amount that guy above got in a tax cut. Why is it that one person that got a tax cut, that exceeds by 3 times the amount that the entire nation is getting pissy about, can't have his taxes raised? Because our representatives have signed some freaking contract with some non-elected jerk called Norquist?

[multiple F-bomb expletives preemptively deleted]

I don't get what they don't get about people getting paid differently for different jobs.

And that's all I hear, [whine]It's not fair that people get paid a lot of money and we don't[/whine] It's absolutely absurd to me that people actually think that it's unfair that some people make a lot of money.

I don't know who you are talking about. You must be getting a different news feed than I am.

Hey, if they think they're qualified, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for a better job. Could it be that they're not qualified? I know I'm not.

I don't think that's it at all. But what it is about, exactly, still alludes me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...et-Nancy-Pelosi-comes-support-protesters.html

... two Republican presidential candidates accused the protesters of carrying out 'class warfare' ...

That's interesting. The yack radio station I've been listening to for the past year has been going on and on lately about how we've been having class warfare for the last 30 years, and how the middle class is coming out the loser.

It might be time for me to admit that class warfare can be a good thing, but only if both sides know there's a war going on.

 

[Evo]

Evo,
A couple questions:

Do you think it is good for the economy as a whole if a CEO runs a company into the ground for short-term profits, netting himself huge bonuses in the process while at the same time getting massive severance packages worth millions when he abandons ship as the company tanks?

That's what our previous CEO did and the shareholders booted him, he only got a $20 million bonus, but it was cheaper than keeping him. Then he was replaced by our current CEO who was named the "most overpaid CEO in America". But it doesn't affect anyone outside of the company. the CEO doesn't appoint himself and decide on his pay, that's done by the board of directors that answer to the stockholders. They are the ones that agree to these pay packages. The stockholders are the public investors, so blame the public.

And do you think if this occurs at essential financial institutions necessary for functioning of the economy as a whole the public should be forced to bail out the institution with tax dollars? While the CEO still continues to net millions in compensation?

And do you realize that those loans were repaid quickly and with extras that benefited the public? I already posted that link.

I think this is an example of what OWS protestors are "against". I'm a bit baffled that you keep equating this type of behavior with "but we don't like how much they are getting paid!".

Uhm, because OWS protesters don't keep up with the news? Because they wrongly think that stock brokers pay is public money? Because OWS protesters do not understand that these are privately employed people on commissions?

 

[Bacle2]

http://www.examiner.com/top-news-in...ed-for-arrests-occupy-oakland-shooting-photos
"The fatal shooting, say police, took place at Frank Ogawa Plaza in Oakland.

Police are offering a reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the persons who carried out that shooting.

According to KTVU News in San Francisco, police responded to a call at the Occupy Oakland encampment, at 4.57pm. There they found a man in his 20s injured with gunshot wounds to the head."

Still no comment from Nancy Pelosi - since throwing her support behind them?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...et-Nancy-Pelosi-comes-support-protesters.html

"House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has spoken out in support of the growing national Occupy Wall Street movement as the political debate around the protests has intensified.
Pelosi said that 'people are angry' as two Republican presidential candidates accused the protesters of carrying out 'class warfare' and New York mayor Michael Blomberg said they are 'trying to destroy jobs'.
At the same time protest organisers raised concerns that they were being infiltrated by party goers and homeless people looking for sex, drugs and free food."

Not that you have spent much time neither trying to understand OWS, nor to criticize the tea party, right? A sample of your posts strongly suggests this.
Why not go to a hard-right site and go congratulate each other on how right you are? I have found way too many hard-left and hard-right sites, and I was hoping it would be different here.


And, BTW, I did express my opinion on what the beef is: there is an increasing level of inequality, and the larger the inequality, the larger, it seems, it is to climb up the ladder; the extra money makes it easier to rig the game. The odds of climbing up from your decile or quintile have gone down, and the odds of doing so here in the US are now lower than in many European countries. And even those who go to state schools end up with massive debts, which lower your chances at moving up and having a reasonable life style. There may be some degree of sense of entitlement, but that does not take away from many legitimate claims. I need to look up the sources for all these which I looked up from Time magazine's last week (paraphrase) Is it still possible to move up?

 

[OmCheeto]

... Because OWS protesters do not understand that these are privately employed people on commissions?

The average protester might not understand, but why would the following person want change?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-and-used-it-to-help-start-the-protests/"
October 17, 2011, 2:05 pm

Robert S. Halper, a retired Wall Street trader, spends time each day in Zuccotti Park talking to protesters about politics and their thoughts on reforming the banking system.

...

Is he jealous because he only made several million?

And what about this girl? She seems to know what's going on:

http://tomdwyer.com/2011/uncategorized/occupied-portland-report-from-the-front-lines-of-the-class-war/"
October 31, 2011
...
Carrie Medina, who had been camping in the park for about a week, was working at the Media Tent when I met her. Because her “day job” is in computers and can be done remotely, she has been free to spend up to 20 hours a day volunteering on Occupy.

[PLAIN]http://tomdwyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Feature2cap0061.bmp[/CENTER]
Asked what brought her into the streets, she answered “I’m pretty lucky. I do have a home, and its quite nice compared with my tent. But finding out that JP Morgan, Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Allied Financial took bailout money and then started illegally foreclosing on mortgage holders, I thought that was just disgusting. It’s just not right.”
​

And while we're discussing class warfare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html"
November 26, 2006
...
Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

There was one other thing I wanted to point out.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/03/360340/gates-champions-transactions-ta/"
Nov 3, 2011
...
DeFazio told ThinkProgress that while Gates’ stated purpose for the tax may be different, he welcomes Gates’ support for an idea already proven to work. He noted that the United Kingdom already imposes a 0.25 percent transaction tax on the sale or purchase of stocks which, as Center For Economic Policy and Research notes, “has very little impact on people who buy stock with the intent of holding it for a long period of time” but will deter those who high frequency trades that exacerbate or lead to market crashes. The policy helps return Wall Street to its days as a place “where people with good ideas go to raise capital” for production rather than a place for “gambling” schemes, said DeFazio.

DeFazio has been pushing this for years, and has been financially attacked by Wall Street for even considering it. Perhaps with Gates pushing it overseas, and their refusal to do it unless we do it... ​

 

[Vanadium 50]

What's your movement? I am honestly still unable to find anyone that has come forward as the leader with an explanation of what their legitimate grievance is. I honestly don't think they have one. How much a person at a company gets paid is not an issue, it's a whine. "he gets paid more than I do, it's not fair" I don't get what they don't get about people getting paid differently for different jobs.

And that's all I hear, [whine]It's not fair that people get paid a lot of money and we don't[/whine] It's absolutely absurd to me that people actually think that it's unfair that some people make a lot of money. Hey, if they think they're qualified, there is nothing to prevent them from applying for a better job. Could it be that they're not qualified? I know I'm not.

Yuval Levin (who is not exactly a friend of the Left) has perhaps the most concise summary of this.

There is much to complain about regarding Wall Street and its cozy relationship with the government, but the Occupy Wall Street protesters do not seem to have a clear idea of what that complaint might be, or what should be done about it.

What I find more surprising is that after two months, the movement hasn't addressed this complaint and come up with a coherent message, instead choosing to bang drums ever more loudly.

 

[Bacle2]

But the point remains, many people believe the game is rigged; BOA's retraction of their $5 seems to support this:

http://www.consumer-action.org/pres...fee_retraction_shows_effect_of_consumer_rage/

 

[WhoWee]

And, BTW, I did express my opinion on what the beef is: there is an increasing level of inequality, and the larger the inequality, the larger, it seems, it is to climb up the ladder; the extra money makes it easier to rig the game. The odds of climbing up from your decile or quintile have gone down, and the odds of doing so here in the US are now lower than in many European countries. And even those who go to state schools end up with massive debts, which lower your chances at moving up and having a reasonable life style. There may be some degree of sense of entitlement, but that does not take away from many legitimate claims. I need to look up the sources for all these which I looked up from Time magazine's last week (paraphrase) Is it still possible to move up?

my bold

Perhaps you don't understand my opinion?

The Occupiers camped out in tents - surviving without jobs or a need to hunt and gather food - have it much better than people living in real poverty in third world countries.

The world doesn't owe you anything. If you want to attempt an above average income - you need to be prepared. If preparation in your field means a PhD - then seek the funds and do the work.

You might note Gates and Zuckerberg both dropped out of Harvard because the opportunity outweighed the need to finish. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=496815

Where is the inequality in these examples - access to Harvard or the wealth generated from their efforts?

The world does not require you complete your education to be successful - in the US it's possible to work 100 hours per week at minimum wage and achieve an income not possible in the third world.

I agree with Evo - the movement is a whine-fest.

 

[mheslep]

But the point remains, many people believe the game is rigged; BOA's retraction of their $5 seems to support this:

http://www.consumer-action.org/pres...fee_retraction_shows_effect_of_consumer_rage/

The notion that the game is rigged is unconnected from the example of BOA retracting its fee. Some business attempted to increase a fee on some a customer service, the customers balked and the business retracted. Attempting to tie the two together is illustrative of the problem with the OWS protests: pointing to this or that valid complaint about life and using it as an example of why the entire system is broken.

 

[D H]

But the point remains, many people believe the game is rigged; BOA's retraction of their $5 seems to support this:

http://www.consumer-action.org/pres...fee_retraction_shows_effect_of_consumer_rage/

How could you possibly infer that "Bank of America fee retraction shows effect of consumer rage" means that the game is rigged?

The game would possibly be rigged if BOA had been able to announce that effective immediately, fees will be increased by thus and such. They can't do that per the new regulations. This alone is a sign that the game is not rigged, or at least not as much as it hypothetically was prior to the new regulations.

The game might still be rigged if BOA announced in advance that fees will be increased by thus and such and every other bank took advantage of this move and bumped their fees, too. They didn't. Yet another sign the game is not rigged. Competition is to some extent still alive and breathing.

The game might still be rigged if BOA customers felt they had no other real choice and went with the flow. They didn't. Some moved their accounts elsewhere, others vented their ire. BOA was forced to backpedal. This is anything but a sign that the game is rigged.

 

[mheslep]

... The odds of climbing up from your decile or quintile have gone down, and the odds of doing so here in the US are now lower than in many European countries. ...

Do you mean very recently, i.e. last five years or longer term? Is there a Time reference?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3590658&postcount=52

 

[lostcauses10x]

Years ago I found myself in California on business. it happened to be at a time when for some reason the prices of gass in that state went through the roof. Of course when I crossed the state line and found the cheap gass I was relived, yet the thought at that time was with in a few years that situation would occur across the rest of the country if not the world.

That thought turned out to be correct.

what people are fighting against today is a marketing strategy that is designed to get the most out of a product or service.
It is not so much to just make a profet, it is now set up to make the MOST profit by manipulation and testing of the market to see how far it can be pushed for the most profit.

These folks want to protest were it will do the most?? Go after them oil companies that are still showing the highest profit margins the ever could hope for. go after the governments for ignoring such and its result in inflation of almost every thing.

It is not going to get BETTER until some controls are set up: which of course will not happen.
It is all going to get worse.

 

[russ_watters]

And while we're discussing class warfare:

Are you aware of the serious controversy over Buffett's comments? Just posting the quote without acknowledging the controversy is pretty weak.