News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[Lapidus]

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.

You do realize that there are now 3.3m unemployed workers between the ages of 25 and 34. That's more than twice the level in 2007. There are over 2m unemployed college graduates of all ages; nearly three times the level of 2007.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/11/unemployment", which I recommend reading.

What are you people getting so worked up over these protests?

One of the main reasons why the US economy is right now in the toilet is because of a uncontrolled and unregulated greedy finance industry and a growing inequality in income and oppurtunities. (more can be read in thishttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146837/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Why are you not angry at that, but instead at the people that protest against these things?

When and if should it be ok to protest? Another financial crisis? A wider gap in the income distribution? Do you think all these economic problems go magically away when everybody is just looking for job?

I think you people here have simply not realized how screwed up things are...

 

[nsaspook]

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.

Their movement is on the ash heap.
http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-videos/Raw-Video-tour-of-parks-cleanup-project-133821208.html

It does seem to confirm that total democracy leads to disarray very quickly while under stress.

 

[Oltz]

Can one of you please finally give a single actual reason why this is Bad and one concrete thing it causes other then jealousy?

When and if should it be ok to protest? Another financial crisis? A wider gap in the income distribution? Do you think all these economic problems go magically away when everybody is just looking for job?

AFAIK the "poor" in the US still live better then the Majority of the population of the rest of the world even on the conservatative side in estimates.

Ohh yes it is terrible here we need to destroy the entire system and start over. We are so sick of people not starving to death and having access to amazing technology at reasonable prices that even the "poor" can afford. Technology that a decade ago was unheard of or incredibly expensive.

Who made that possible?

When and if should it be ok to protest?

Protest all you want but do not complain about not having a job when you are sitting in a park for 2 months.

People always reference "greedy" companies and industries but guess what its a bussiness they are in it to make money. I could say the same thing about those greedy welfare recipients wnating all that money when people in the sudan have so much less.

They are not a charity its a company and they have the right to make a profit and do whatever they like with it. I would not care if they took a million dollars in 1 dollar bills down to the park and BURNED it in front of the protesters as a counter protest. They earned it by doing something somebody else was willing to pay them for who are you to say they do not deserve it?

IMO "Hoops" is a stupid game and nobody playing it should get more then minimum wage. Do I have the right to Occupy the staples center ?(only arena I know the name of)

 

[WhoWee]

One of the main reasons why the US economy is right now in the toilet is because of a uncontrolled and unregulated greedy finance industry and a growing inequality in income and oppurtunities.

This is just not correct - the finance industry is highly regulated.

 

[Diracula]

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.

Is your company a financial company? Even if it's not, how can you possibly say a poorly run company does not effect anyone outside of the company? Even tiny companies have SOME effect on the economy as a whole, or at the very least they effect other individuals and companies close to them. Do you think the panic around the time of the financial meltdown was made up? (i.e. do you think we would actually have been completely fine had we let all those financial institutions fail?)

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.

Then when the company fails, they are bailed out with no repercussions to the CEO, the board of directors, nor the public investors. Moral hazard anyone?

I would not have a problem with this should the company simply go bankrupt and the investors lose all their money for their crappy decisions and investments and no one else is affected. However, once you realize these large companies are intricately connected to all areas of the economy and if they collapse the whole thing is at risk of collapsing, you realize it is a problem.

I don't think high pay for executives BY ITSELF is a problem, and I don't think anyone else does either.

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

Can you post the link again? I'm skeptical that massive financial companies on the verge of collapse requiring infusion of huge sums of capital to solve their liquidity problems could pay back the loans so quickly. While at the same time fixing whatever systemic problems were there in the first place causing it's near total collapse. Even if the bailout money was repaid in full, how sure are you that it won't happen again and the problems were fixed? Because the board of directors say so?

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?

Uhm how are you coming to these conclusions? Are the opinions and knowledge of OWS protestors REALLY this uniform? I thought the big gripe was that there was NO uniformity across the protest? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bacle2]

This is just not correct - the finance industry is highly regulated.

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

I'll look up the refs. I don't enough know about the world of finance, but in many industries, regulations passed have as a goal to benefit a company X over others, e.g., by requiring
certain industry-wide specs that are precisely the ones found in company X's gadgets.

That's why it's funny when many businesses complain about the excess regulations, not bothering to mention the fact that many of these regulations are not intended to protect the consumer, but instead have been promoted (i.e., lobbied ) by company X to gain competitive advantage over company Y.

 

[Diracula]

Can one of you please finally give a single actual reason why this is Bad and one concrete thing it causes other then jealousy?

Why what is bad?

AFAIK the "poor" in the US still live better then the Majority of the population of the rest of the world even on the conservatative side in estimates.

lol, "it could be worse" is not an argument. Particularly when we're living in the richest country in the world. "But... you're richer than starving people in Somalia! Jeez I can't believe you're upset we're looting the economy to it's near total collapse. It'll just get bailed out with tax dollars and you'll be fine! And you even have more food than those Somalians!"

Ohh yes it is terrible here we need to destroy the entire system and start over.

Yeah, no one in the history of the internet has ever said this.

We are so sick of people not starving to death and having access to amazing technology at reasonable prices that even the "poor" can afford. Technology that a decade ago was unheard of or incredibly expensive.

Who made that possible?

Innovative scientists and engineers? (That's the answer you were looking for right?)

Protest all you want but do not complain about not having a job when you are sitting in a park for 2 months.

You're aware that most of the protestors have jobs, right?

People always reference "greedy" companies and industries but guess what its a bussiness they are in it to make money. I could say the same thing about those greedy welfare recipients wnating all that money when people in the sudan have so much less.

Again, the problem is not that they are making a lot of money. It is the way they (some of them) are making the money. "WHO CARES IF THEY CAUSE A SYSTEMIC COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY!1! AT LEAST WE'RE NOT SUDAN!1"

They are not a charity its a company and they have the right to make a profit and do whatever they like with it. I would not care if they took a million dollars in 1 dollar bills down to the park and BURNED it in front of the protesters as a counter protest. They earned it by doing something somebody else was willing to pay them for who are you to say they do not deserve it?

Mobsters made money by doing things people were willing to pay them for. What right do we have to say they don't deserve that money?!?

Notice a problem with this type of reasoning?

IMO "Hoops" is a stupid game and nobody playing it should get more then minimum wage. Do I have the right to Occupy the staples center ?(only arena I know the name of)

Depends. Are basketball teams making their money by doing things that put entire economies at risk?

HMM maybe the answer to that question is important and it's not about "omgosh they make so much more money than me".

 

[Bacle2]

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.

I meant to say that there is an impression; I believe so too, but I don't know if there is enough evidence. My point was that it is not just the reaction, but the rage and the mobilization and the intensity of the reaction over the fee increase that seems to show animus. I think some of the reasonable companies may be unfairly taking a beating for what some of the WS firms have done.

 

[Oltz]

Why what is bad?

The Gap between high and low income.

lol, "it could be worse" is not an argument. Particularly when we're living in the richest country in the world. "But... you're richer than starving people in Somalia! Jeez I can't believe you're upset we're looting the economy to it's near total collapse. It'll just get bailed out with tax dollars and you'll be fine! And you even have more food than those Somalians!"

Who is looting the economy? From what I recal in the late 90's the government mandated that banks could not deny loans based on the ability to repay. The banks turned around and issed Adjustable rate mortgages for these "high" risk loans. The loans were then bundled and traded as High risk investments often are. The thing is none of this was illegal nor was it anything outside of the system that is tightly regulated. The bailouts aer a separate issue and happened because enough people stopped making payments on those high risk loans the major institutions went backwards and were over leveraged. I would have supported a market correction instead a bail out, but the Government Bailed them out so again nothing to do with wall street. Sounds more like an issue with your elected representatives maybe send a letter?

Innovative scientists and engineers? (That's the answer you were looking for right?)

I was thinking large companies with enough backing to be able to afford the risk of investing in an unproven product with an unknown market.

You're aware that most of the protestors have jobs, right?

Wish I could have a job that let's me sit in a tent in a park for 2 months...

Again, the problem is not that they are making a lot of money. It is the way they (some of them) are making the money. "WHO CARES IF THEY CAUSE A SYSTEMIC COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE ECONOMY!1! AT LEAST WE'RE NOT SUDAN!1"

Again, wall street did not cause the downfall of the economy they were a symptom of unintended consiquenses of poorly planned government intervention in the housing market.

Mobsters made money by doing things people were willing to pay them for. What right do we have to say they don't deserve that money?!?

Notice a problem with this type of reasoning?

Notice the difference of with in the bounds of the Law and against the law? strawman?

And guess what the money the mob does legally make from its fronts as long as they pay taxes on it they have every right to.

Depends. Are basketball teams making their money by doing things that put entire economies at risk?

HMM maybe the answer to that question is important and it's not about "omgosh they make so much more money than me".

So this is not about the 1% its only about the 1% that were involved with the market drop and housing bubble and bailouts...So politicians Brokerage firms ,GM Auto workers union and everyone who signed a mortgage they knew they could not afford if they needed to pay it and not simply sell the house. I see the poor brokers who traded the bundled loans did not create them nor did they force anyone to sign a mortgage they could not afford. They simply bought and sold a high risk potentially high yield bundle of other peoples debt that was created legally. I see

 

[Diracula]

The Gap between high and low income.

I'm not sure that it is bad on its own, but I'm not an economist. It would seem to me actually having a middle class as opposed to serfdom would have advantages to economic growth, but what do I know.

At any point, do you think it is "bad" for the economy to have too much wealth concentrated into too small a percentage of the population?

Who is looting the economy? From what I recal in the late 90's the government mandated that banks could not deny loans based on the ability to repay. The banks turned around and issed Adjustable rate mortgages for these "high" risk loans. The loans were then bundled and traded as High risk investments often are. The thing is none of this was illegal nor was it anything outside of the system that is tightly regulated. The bailouts aer a separate issue and happened because enough people stopped making payments on those high risk loans the major institutions went backwards and were over leveraged. I would have supported a market correction instead a bail out, but the Government Bailed them out so again nothing to do with wall street. Sounds more like an issue with your elected representatives maybe send a letter?

Do you think sending a letter would have a greater or lesser effect than wall street donating huge sums of money to politicians to get them to pass the laws they want passed? (Serious question, I think)

Do you think the financial system is regulated exactly how it should be? It seems you are saying "tightly regulated" equals "perfectly regulated". lol?

I was thinking large companies with enough backing to be able to afford the risk of investing in an unproven product with an unknown market.

Yeah, I'm not sure what your point it. I don't think anyone is saying all companies are evil or looting the economy.

Wish I could have a job that let's me sit in a tent in a park for 2 months...

Hey maybe you could go work on wall street, get legislation passed that allows you to make enough money to purchase a fleet of yachts then you can retire early and go camping in your yacht fleet for 2 months.

Again, wall street did not cause the downfall of the economy they were a symptom of unintended consiquenses of poorly planned government intervention in the housing market.

It's oh so simple! If people just didn't buy houses they couldn't afford our entire economic structure would not have collapsed! Clearly everything is tightly regulated so nothing should be changed. OWS just wants handouts!

Notice the difference of with in the bounds of the Law and against the law? strawman?

Yes, because the law is clearly perfect and wall street firms donating huge sums of money to politicians can in no way distort the law-making process. It just doesn't happen. Ever.

Just to be clear, I'm taking your position as if a mobster was able to influence a politician to pass a law in his favor so that he can make money, then however he utilizes this law to make money is good for the economy as a whole and there's no way it could be bad. Because it's legal. Right?

And guess what the money the mob does legally make from its fronts as long as they pay taxes on it they have every right to.

I'm not assuming our laws are perfect. Do you really think that they are? Really?

So this is not about the 1% its only about the 1% that were involved with the market drop and housing bubble and bailouts...So politicians Brokerage firms ,GM Auto workers union and everyone who signed a mortgage they knew they could not afford if they needed to pay it and not simply sell the house. I see the poor brokers who traded the bundled loans did not create them nor did they force anyone to sign a mortgage they could not afford. They simply bought and sold a high risk potentially high yield bundle of other peoples debt that was created legally. I see

I didn't say anything about brokers specifically. Not exactly sure why you are so defensive towards brokers.

 

[Char. Limit]

I promised myself I'd never post in this thread again, but I just had to report this:

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness. Manissa McCleave Maharawal writes on Racialicious regarding her block. In fact, the Declaration of the Occupation of Wall Street would not have been released if not for the blocking power of a different document a week prior by the Speakeasy caucus (for non-male identified and traditionally marginalized people:(

http://feministing.com/2011/10/04/guest-post-my-hope-for-occupy-wall-street/

Do not want movement anymore, if it's going to be racially and gender discriminating.

 

[mheslep]

...
One of the main reasons why the US economy is right now in the toilet is because of a uncontrolled and unregulated greedy finance industry and a growing inequality in income and oppurtunities. (more can be read in thishttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0691146837/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Have you read Rajan's book? I have not, but I've read several reviews which do not agree with your summary that the economy is down because of the finance industry was "unregulated". In it the book the author (Rajan) makes the statement,

We miss the point if we find a scapegoat in the financial sector. It was doing what so many people wanted. And not many people were asking questions, ...

He also goes on to point out how the CRA helped set the stage for the mortgage crisis. And then there is the role of Fannie and Freddie:

On average, these entities [Fannie, Freddie, FHA] accounted for 54 percent of the market across the years, with a high of 70 percent in 2007. He [Ed Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer Fannie Mae] estimates that in June 2008, the mortgage giants, the FHA, and various other government programs were exposed to about $2.7 trillion in subprime and Alt-A loans, approximately 59 percent of total loans in these categories. It is very difficult to reach any other conclusion than that this was a market driven largely by government, or government-influenced, money.

http://books.google.com/books?id=HY...num=1&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=CRA&f=false

 

[Lapidus]

Have you read Rajan's book?

I don't want to go off topic in this already very busy tread. You are right in that he gives a more complex answer to how this crisis came about. But his analysis, in my understanding is that the roots of the financial crisis lie in rising income inequality in the United States, and the political reaction to that inequality, which again led to wrong incentives in the financial sector.

(The author is not a lefty, he is a Chigaco university economist.)

 

[WhoWee]

I don't want to go off topic in this already very busy tread. You are right in that he gives a more complex answer to how this crisis came about. But his analysis, in my understanding is that the roots of the financial crisis lie in rising income inequality in the United States, and the political reaction to that inequality, which again led to wrong incentives in the financial sector.

(The author is not a lefty, he is a Chigaco university economist.)

What do you mean by "wrong incentives in the financial sector"?

 

[Bacle2]

Oltz said, in response to Diracula:

"Why What is bad"?

"" The gap between high and low income""

It seems the larger the inequality, the harder it is to move up; the analogy being with it being harder to clim wider rungs. And the harder it is to move up the more resentment there is; if you see someone driving a jag and you believe you have a reasonable chance to do that yourself by working hard, then it's not that big of a deal; if you do not think you have a chance, it is a bigger deal, and it breeds resentment.

Unfortunately, my computer crashed recently, and I lost my links; I will add sources later if I can find the sources within a reasonable time. I did take some of this from Time magazine's cover article (paraphras) is it still possible to climb up?

 

[WhoWee]

It seems the larger the inequality, the harder it is to move up; the analogy being with it being harder to clim wider rungs. And the harder it is to move up the more resentment there is; if you see someone driving a jag and you believe you have a reasonable chance to do that yourself by working hard, then it's not that big of a deal; if you do not think you have a chance, it is a bigger deal, and it breeds resentment.

Couldn't you buy a used Jag - a realistic and achievable goal?

 

[Evo]

It seems the larger the inequality, the harder it is to move up; the analogy being with it being harder to clim wider rungs. And the harder it is to move up the more resentment there is; if you see someone driving a jag and you believe you have a reasonable chance to do that yourself by working hard, then it's not that big of a deal; if you do not think you have a chance, it is a bigger deal, and it breeds resentment.

That's life, that's reality. Some people are smarter, or more business savvy, or better at manipulation, or were born rich. SO WHAT. I say to the whiners - Grow up. Deal with it. Whining about how some people have more than you is the most ridiculous thing there can be to whine about.

 

[Bacle2]

Couldn't you buy a used Jag - a realistic and achievable goal?

Yes, it could be, but I'm referring to the research as I remember it.


re my "refusal" to use quotes : I explained my 'quote' button often is disabled, and it just does not appear on the screen, so that, until/unless I have a chance at an apprenticeship under a cyber version of Harry Potter, I do not know how to conjure it into appearing on my screen.

 

[Evo]

re my "refusal" to use quotes : I explained my 'quote' button often is disabled, and it just does not appear on the screen, so that, until/unless I have a chance at an apprenticeship under a cyber version of Harry Potter, I do not know how to conjure it into appearing on my screen.

Then use quote tags, a lot of us add the tags manually. Just be sure that you are not using the "new reply" button on the left, if you use that, you won't get a quote button.

 

[Bacle2]

That's life, that's reality. Some people are smarter, or more business savvy, or better at manipulation, or were born rich. SO WHAT. I say to the whiners - Grow up. Deal with it. Whining about how some people have more than you is the most ridiculous thing there can be to whine about.

That is not the basis for the complaint (or, depending on your perspective, the whining)as I see it: the basis is that the playing field is too far from being leveled, and that this is not being addressed. The claim is that the chances are unreasonably and unfairly harder for some than for others, _but_ also that this is so for structural reasons--which one perceives are not being addressed or recognized. That is what I was referring to. I mean, it is not likely the field will ever be perfectly-leveled, but when it veers way too far off (or one perceives it to be so), and one's chances are too low for reasons that _can be changed_ (by addressing the systemic) issues, then that can be jarring.

 

[WhoWee]

That is not the basis for the complaint (or, depending on your perspective, the whining)as I see it: the basis is that the playing field is too far from being leveled, and that this is not being addressed. The claim is that the chances are unreasonably and unfairly harder for some than for others, _but_ also that this is so for structural reasons--which one perceives are not being addressed or recognized. That is what I was referring to. I mean, it is not likely the field will ever be perfectly-leveled, but when it veers way too far off (or one perceives it to be so), and one's chances are too low for reasons that _can be changed_ (by addressing the systemic) issues, then that can be jarring.

What changes are you suggesting - please be specific.

 

[Bacle2]

What changes are you suggesting - please be specific.

I'm not suggesting anything myself; I am citing what I believe is the position of many, and what I believe the research says (again, I will look for the actual sources). I would have to give that question very serious thought before throwing something out there; I was just pointing out that there is a difference between whining/complaining when you don't get what you want and whining/complaining when you believe the system is structurally unfair. I will give it some thought, tho.

 

[Bacle2]

I'm not suggesting anything myself; I am citing what I believe is the position of many, and what I believe the research says (again, I will look for the actual sources). I would have to give that question very serious thought before throwing something out there; I was just pointing out that there is a difference between whining/complaining when you don't get what you want and whining/complaining when you believe the system is structurally unfair. I will give it some thought, tho.

EDIT: Added later; just throwing something in:
BTW, there are some tools to determine, measure the degree of inequality; you may be more familiar with them than I am, since this seems to be your area: the GINI coefficient is just one. Maybe restricting the influence of money on politics, e.g., by not allowing corporations to be people in the sense of having free speech (because of their outsize resources, unmached by most individuals), doing something serious to end Gerrymandering so that incumbents with bigger coffers do not have an unfair advantage. Maybe too, changing the way primary-level education is funded by using local taxes, which gives richer districts a very large advantage in terms of educational resources; specially in today's world, where education is so important, maybe even necessary to clim up.

Basically, I have trouble believing that whining and self-pity are enough to fuel a movement of thousands of people for almost two months now, and that there may be something solid. If the movement had lasted a week, maybe two, even a month, then maybe you can chalk it up to self-pity, but I have trouble believing that a movement can last that long without a sound reason, or at least with a common perception (which is what matters here) that there is something structurally wrong.

 

[Evo]

I'm not suggesting anything myself; I am citing what I believe is the position of many, and what I believe the research says (again, I will look for the actual sources). I would have to give that question very serious thought before throwing something out there; I was just pointing out that there is a difference between whining/complaining when you don't get what you want and whining/complaining when you believe the system is structurally unfair. I will give it some thought, tho.

Thanks for using quotes!

Also, for being honest. There is nothing unfair. Everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else. Sure, some people have an advantage, they may have a family business, they may have family contacts, but it's been that way since man walked the earth. So the real criminals here are obviously those with family connections.

I started with nothing, I began my "career" as a telephone operator, and climbed up the ladder by educating myself, bidding on better and better jobs, making sacrifices, working ungodly hours, doing the things that no one else would do, so I would get noticed, and I ended up in management at a Fortune 50 company making a 6 figure income. I didn't whine about the fact that I had to do everything on my own. Nothing was handed to me, I did not come from a wealthy family. My dad was blinded in the war, but he went to school at night and worked all day and put himself through college, the first in his family to do so. He was the youngest of ten children who's father left during the depression and they were destitute. My mom didn't work until after I was married, and then her health forced her to stop after a year.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not suggesting anything myself; I am citing what I believe is the position of many, and what I believe the research says (again, I will look for the actual sources). I would have to give that question very serious thought before throwing something out there; I was just pointing out that there is a difference between whining/complaining when you don't get what you want and whining/complaining when you believe the system is structurally unfair. I will give it some thought, tho.

IMO -if "they" aren't suggesting any level of specific change - then "they" are whining.

It's easy to complain and talk about the idea of change (ask President Obama) - it's much more difficult to deliver.

 

[Bacle2]

IMO -if "they" aren't suggesting any level of specific change - then "they" are whining.

It's easy to complain and talk about the idea of change (ask President Obama) - it's much more difficult to deliver.

Agree entirely; they should put up.

 

[Evo]

Basically, I have trouble believing that whining and self-pity are enough to fuel a movement of thousands of people for almost two months now, and that there may be something solid. If the movement had lasted a week, maybe two, even a month, then maybe you can chalk it up to self-pity, but I have trouble believing that a movement can last that long without a sound reason, or at least with a common perception (which is what matters here) that there is something structurally wrong.

When you look at the majority of people there - drug addicts, new age weirdos, homeless, mentally ill, people with nothing better to do, they would be there as long as the free food and drugs kept coming. Some were just there because, gosh darn it, they wanted to be a part of something, is it wrong to want to feel wanted? Some wanted to manipulate others, some wanted to spout their personal agendas, some just wanted to bang drums.

 

[Bacle2]

Thanks for using quotes!

Also, for being honest. There is nothing unfair. Everyone has the same opportunity as everyone else. Sure, some people have an advantage, they may have a family business, they may have family contacts, but it's been that way since man walked the earth. So the real criminals here are obviously those with family connections.

I started with nothing, I began my "career" as a telephone operator, and climbed up the ladder by educating myself, bidding on better and better jobs, making sacrifices, working ungodly hours, doing the things that no one else would do, so I would get noticed, and I ended up in management at a Fortune 50 company making a 6 figure income. I didn't whine about the fact that I had to do everything on my own. Nothing was handed to me, I did not come from a wealthy family. My dad was blinded in the war, but he went to school at night and worked all day and put himself through college, the first in his family to do so. He was the youngest of ten children who's father left during the depression and they were destitute. My mom didn't work until after I was married, and then her health forced her to stop after a year.

But don't you think your position can be taken to an extreme? Why have, e.g., a civil rights movement, or, why make efforts to stamp out child labor, etc.? I don't mean to misrepresent (nor misunderestimate your position, but it seems it would, taken to its logical ends, imply the previous. It sucks you had to go thru all those hardships; don't you think if somethinghad been done, things may have been easier?

 

[Evo]

But don't you think your position can be taken to an extreme? Why have, e.g., a civil rights movement, or, why make efforts to stamp out child labor, etc.? I don't mean to misrepresent (nor misunderestimate your position, but it seems it would, taken to its logical ends, imply the previous. It sucks you had to go thru all those hardships; don't you think if somethinghad been done, things may have been easier?

There was nothing wrong that had to be fixed. I had the opportunity to improve, same as today. There is nothing that needs to be fixed now. Except overpopulation. "occupymaternitywards" Too many people, not enough jobs. People need to get up off their bottoms and make themselves employable. I have two children in their early 20's and that's what they're doing. You won't find them whining and banging drums in a tent in a park.

You keep saying things need to be done. What needs to be done? Don't say things need to be done if you don't know what that means.

And what on Earth do civil rights or child labor have to do with anything??

 

[Bacle2]

There was nothing wrong that had to be fixed. I had the opportunity
You keep saying things need to be done. What needs to be done? Don't say things needs to be done if you don't know what that means.

QUOTE]

I gave three specific proposals on what I thought could be done.

 

[Evo]

I gave three specific proposals on what I thought could be done.

What you said about politicians and free public education? Uh, not that I see. I went to terrible schools. So bad, that as a child I took it upon myself to educate myself. And people can go to school outside of their district, you know that, right? And what do you expect politicians to do, steal from the rich and give to the poor?

Explain how anything you said would help a problem that you haven't even explained yet. What's the problem that needs to be *fixed*?

 

[mheslep]

I don't want to go off topic in this already very busy tread. You are right in that he gives a more complex answer to how this crisis came about. But his analysis, in my understanding is that the roots of the financial crisis lie in rising income inequality in the United States, and the political reaction to that inequality, which again led to wrong incentives in the financial sector.

(The author is not a lefty, he is a Chigaco university economist.)

Agreed.

 

[ThomasT]

Basically, I have trouble believing that whining and self-pity are enough to fuel a movement of thousands of people for almost two months now, and that there may be something solid. If the movement had lasted a week, maybe two, even a month, then maybe you can chalk it up to self-pity, but I have trouble believing that a movement can last that long without a sound reason, or at least with a common perception (which is what matters here) that there is something structurally wrong.

Of course there's something structurally wrong. The financial sector has gained inordinate influence/control. What this has so far entailed is a reduction of the general economy. The interesting thing about this phenomenon is that the rich can get richer in this situation, while everybody else gets, effectively, poorer.

The rich, not the people, run the country. Is there any doubt about this? Hence, the motivation for the demonstrations.

But one can do something about it. Don't vote for major party candidates. Don't vote for Democrats and Republicans. After all, they're the ones who got us into this mess.

For that matter, just stop voting. I'm curious to see what might happen if, say, only a few thousand people out of a couple hundred million eligible voters turn out for national elections.

 

[Diracula]

And what on Earth do civil rights or child labor have to do with anything??

I believe he is taking your position of "everyone has equal opportunity, quit your whining" literally and applying it to all contexts.

Rosa Parks should have just quit her whining and quietly filed a complaint from the back of the bus. After all, those white folks were just better at manipulating the system and working hard, she should just stop complaining and get a job!

 

[Oltz]

I believe he is taking your position of "everyone has equal opportunity, quit your whining" literally and applying it to all contexts.

Rosa Parks should have just quit her whining and quietly filed a complaint from the back of the bus. After all, those white folks were just better at manipulating the system and working hard, she should just stop complaining and get a job!

Ahh I see what he was trying to say, but I also assume he was aware that she was referring to current conditions.

Those situations were ACTUAL discrimination and action needed to be take the system really was imbalanced.

At what age should the "playing field" be level? Right now it is level at the moment of birth and in the eyes of the law and the courtroom for your entire life.
Should everyone be forced to do the exact same thing until they are 20? 18? 30? 6? nobody can read any extra books or work extra hard or choose not to work on learning math or practice drawing or run cause that might make it unfair.

When people say we need to evel the playing field I honestly do not know what on Earth they want. Anyone like to take a swing at this one?

 

[WhoWee]

Ahh I see what he was trying to say, but I also assume he was aware that she was referring to current conditions.

Those situations were ACTUAL discrimination and action needed to be take the system really was imbalanced.

At what age should the "playing field" be level? Right now it is level at the moment of birth and in the eyes of the law and the courtroom for your entire life.
Should everyone be forced to do the exact same thing until they are 20? 18? 30? 6? nobody can read any extra books or work extra hard or choose not to work on learning math or practice drawing or run cause that might make it unfair.

When people say we need to evel the playing field I honestly do not know what on Earth they want. Anyone like to take a swing at this one?

label this IMO - although based on observations of people from third world countries in US cities.

I think we need an exchange program with a few third world countries. At the age of 18, we should offer all under-achieving high school graduates an opportunity to relocate to a third world country where they'll have an advantage over the local population, give them a little start-up capital $10,000(?), and surrender their US citizenship. They should be captains of industry in no time?

Accordingly, one citizen of that third world country (someone that has proven a desire to excel in the classroom) would be given a conditional US citizenship (must graduate and no welfare) and an opportunity to attend a state university in the US (student loan), live in a dorm and work a minimum wage job to pay expenses.

My guess is the exchange person wouldn't expect or need any additional motivation or barrier removal.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/13/occupy-wall-street-protests-college-campuses_n_1091503.html

"BERKELEY, Calif. — Goodbye, city park, hello, college green.

As city officials around the country move to disband Occupy Wall Street encampments amid growing concerns over health and public safety, protesters have begun to erect more tents on college campuses."

 

[czelaya]

label this IMO - although based on observations of people from third world countries in US cities.

I think we need an exchange program with a few third world countries. At the age of 18, we should offer all under-achieving high school graduates an opportunity to relocate to a third world country where they'll have an advantage over the local population, give them a little start-up capital $10,000(?), and surrender their US citizenship. They should be captains of industry in no time?

Accordingly, one citizen of that third world country (someone that has proven a desire to excel in the classroom) would be given a conditional US citizenship (must graduate and no welfare) and an opportunity to attend a state university in the US (student loan), live in a dorm and work a minimum wage job to pay expenses.

My guess is the exchange person wouldn't expect or need any additional motivation or barrier removal.

I believe this is the reason why my parents and all of my extended family (aunts and uncles) became so successful when they immigrated to the United States.

Successful, in the sense, they worked 70-80+ hours a week for years and saved. Sacrificing was an everyday event, and indoctrinated deeply within. McDonalds maybe once a month (it was real treat for us). My father, being a citizen for over 40 years, finally, bought his first new automobile. EVERYTHING was paid in cash. The only loan made was on our first home, which my parents got for a good price because it needed a new roof, some structural problems, and serious landscaping work. Luckily my father was a carpenter. The house was paid within 8 years. Then he bought another home and started the process 5 more times.

It's difficult for many people to understand that my family accomplished this with low wages and income(initially), without any governmental assistance. But hey, that's why it's called "sacrifice". Many people would call the events my parents went through some type of hardship but all my father/mother say is they still can't believe the opportunities living in the US have brought them.

All my aunts and uncles own multiple homes and one of my aunts is a millionaire.

I still remember the last time I went to Honduras and seeing extreme poverty. Believe me, it's more than enough reason to realize how well we have things in the US. There you can work as hard as you want and you will barely get ahead. So, I think your exchange program would be beneficial.:)

 

[WhoWee]

I believe this is the reason why my parents and all of my extended family (aunts and uncles) became so successful when they immigrated to the United States.

Successful, in the sense, they worked 70-80+ hours a week for years and saved. Sacrificing was an everyday event, and indoctrinated deeply within. McDonalds maybe once a month (it was real treat for us). My father, being a citizen for over 40 years, finally, bought his first new automobile. EVERYTHING was paid in cash. The only loan made was on our first home, which my parents got for a good price because it needed a new roof, some structural problems, and serious landscaping work. Luckily my father was a carpenter. The house was paid within 8 years. Then he bought another home and started the process 5 more times.

It's difficult for many people to understand that my family accomplished this with low wages and income(initially), without any governmental assistance. But hey, that's why it's called "sacrifice". Many people would call the events my parents went through some type of hardship but all my father/mother say is they still can't believe the opportunities living in the US have brought them.

All my aunts and uncles own multiple homes and one of my aunts is a millionaire.

I still remember the last time I went to Honduras and seeing extreme poverty. Believe me, it's more than enough reason to realize how well we have things in the US. There you can work as hard as you want and you will barely get ahead. So, I think your exchange program would be beneficial.:)

Do you think an 18 year old armed with a high school diploma and $10,000 would have a fair chance to succeed in Honduras?

 

[Evo]

I believe he is taking your position of "everyone has equal opportunity, quit your whining" literally and applying it to all contexts.

Rosa Parks should have just quit her whining and quietly filed a complaint from the back of the bus. After all, those white folks were just better at manipulating the system and working hard, she should just stop complaining and get a job!

Well, then that's a ridiculous thing to bring up since she didn't have basic human rights. Nothing at all to do with the topic in this thread. A bit of a red herring, no? Posts of this kind are against the rules.

 

[daveb]

When people say we need to evel the playing field I honestly do not know what on Earth they want. Anyone like to take a swing at this one?

Legally, yes, the laying field is level, which I think only a few people would disagree with (perhaps those that feel the Citizens United decision was wrong would disagree?)

I think the main focus of the OWS desire to "level the playing field" is more of a social one than a legal one. I don't think anyone would argue that the more money you have the more politcal influence you have since this gives you access, the ability to contribute heftily to a SuperPac, etc. In addition, the perception that the corporate world in general, and the financial sector specifically (because of the "too big to fail" attitude), is largely immune to the bad economy, is rampant. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, since, as they say, in politics, perception is everything. And money is politics (and vice versa) nowadays. The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

 

[WhoWee]

The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

my bold

Is this a fact?

 

[czelaya]

Do you think an 18 year old armed with a high school diploma and $10,000 would have a fair chance to succeed in Honduras?

With $10,000 American currency-yes. However there would have to be some type of liaison. There's a lot of corruption, so you would need to know the total cost of doing any venture.

 

[WhoWee]

With $10,000 American currency-yes. However there would have to be some type of liaison. There's a lot of corruption, so you would need to know the total cost of doing any venture.

Perhaps a bank line of credit would keep transactions more accountable?

 

[Oltz]

Legally, yes, the laying field is level, which I think only a few people would disagree with (perhaps those that feel the Citizens United decision was wrong would disagree?)

I think the main focus of the OWS desire to "level the playing field" is more of a social one than a legal one. I don't think anyone would argue that the more money you have the more politcal influence you have since this gives you access, the ability to contribute heftily to a SuperPac, etc. In addition, the perception that the corporate world in general, and the financial sector specifically (because of the "too big to fail" attitude), is largely immune to the bad economy, is rampant. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, since, as they say, in politics, perception is everything. And money is politics (and vice versa) nowadays. The fact that governmnetal conservatives absolutely refuse to raise a single tax but are only interested in spending cuts adds fuel to that perception. After all, if the poor and middle class (the ones who would largely be affected by the spending cuts) are the only ones affected, but the wealthy are not, then the perception is that the system is rigged for the wealthy.

So again how do you level it? what do you level ?at what point should it be level?

Does the government take every child to ensure all are raised the same so its "fair" nobody knows who their family is so no benefits can be accorded to relatives and no "inheritance" exists. If people truelly want a "level" playing field how else can they have one?

They still want to "play" so at some point inequality is ok what point is that? when you finish mandatory college? At what point do you allow some to excel and others to fail?

The top 10% already pay ~40% of the federal budget of course it isn't fair and the majority has power to vote themselves more benefits and lesser burden.

If corp. stop contributing unions need to as well I would be fine with that.

By the way in a Fair system each decile would pay the same proportion of tax as the wealth it controls i.e. the top 10% have 25% of the wealth they should pay 25% of the total burden so right now it really is not fair at all...IMO

Again the entire thing makes no sense to me will somebody who supports this "leveling" please provide an opinion/plan to achieve it so I have somewhere to start from to understand what on Earth these people really want.

 

[Oltz]

Alexander Tyler. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Bold Mine

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." --Voltaire

"Do we really think that a government-dominated education is going to produce citizens capable of dominating their government, as the education of a truly vigilant self-governing people requires?" (ALAN KEYES)

Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so. --Frank Chodorov

 

[daveb]

my bold

Is this a fact?

Um...how about the http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge" this pledge.

 

[WhoWee]

Um...how about the http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge" this pledge.

I think the pledge specifies no "new" taxes - not adjustments to current rates?

 

[ThomasT]

By the way in a Fair system each decile would pay the same proportion of tax as the wealth it controls i.e. the top 10% have 25% of the wealth they should pay 25% of the total burden so right now it really is not fair at all...IMO

Are you saying that this is the actual number, or just using it as a 'for instance'?

Afaik, the top 10% households control something closer to 75% of the wealth, and the top 25% between 85% and 90% of the wealth. If this is true, and I don't know that it is, then the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans aren't even close to being commensurate with the wealth they control.

I'd guess that between 30% and 35% have no net wealth. Again, the actual percentage might be lower. But it seems to be increasing.

I don't think this a healthy state of affairs for the US. But I could be wrong about that.

We do have to keep in mind that even though a significant portion of the US population controls a rather tiny portion of the total wealth, it's still a fact that the bottom, say, 25% in the US have it better than most of the people in the rest of the world.

But is this how we should be looking at it? Or, can (should) the state of affairs in America be improved?

 

[John Creighto]

Well, then that's a ridiculous thing to bring up since she didn't have basic human rights. Nothing at all to do with the topic in this thread. A bit of a red herring, no? Posts of this kind are against the rules.

Does, the right to sit at the front of a bus trump: the right to free speech, the right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to be informed of the charges against you in a reasonable time?