Occupy Wall Street

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Is it? At some level I think corporations need air travel and interstate highways more than individuals. Individuals can make do with with cable TV, beer, and fried chicken. Nobody's violently revolting as long as most people have those three things.

If society falls, guess who's homes get raided first? Guess who's money is worth nothing? The more you have, the more a stable government benefits you.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If society falls, guess who's homes get raided first? Guess who's money is worth nothing? The more you have, the more a stable government benefits you.

Ya, but I don't think people really believe that society is going to "fail", whatever that means....technological advances have brought luxuries like high speed internet and smart cell phones and easy access to entertainment on tv.....how many people really feel "poor" to the extent they're going to start on a murdering revolution with dead bodies and whatnot?

[RainMaker]

It's not going to fall because we have built that infrastructure, have built some safety nets. But it doesn't change the fact that the more you have, the more valuable a stable society is to you.

Despite our safety, what would have happened if every major financial institution had been allowed to go under? Would that have caused enough civil unrest to cause trouble?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

+1 there....shit, I wish we had a clearer objective people could get behind and pull off...we're just not there right now.

I actually see the same solutions being relevant to the OWS, Tea Party, and other groups protesting the general "turmoil" of today's political, financial, & social conditions. But they all start (note: not end) at distributing the authority of the federal government where possible.

One of these days you guys will all back me on that one...I swear it.

[JPhillips]

The protest in one chart:

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The protest in one chart:

JOB CREATORS.

[Young Drachma]

[fpres]

Source: t.co via Amy on Pinterest

[dzilla77]

Originally Posted by fpres

Source: t.co via Amy on Pinterest

This!

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by dzilla77

This!

Except they ARE part of the 99%. I doubt this person makes more than 300,000 a year. Not everyone protesting is jobless or even poor, they just think theres an injustice.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by fpres

Source: t.co via Amy on Pinterest

[Young Drachma]

OWS's Beef: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by fpres

Source: t.co via Amy on Pinterest

Most people can't get scholarships that cover ninety percent of tuition. It's great that he did, but it isn't a realistic plan for everybody.

edit: Nor can everyone get a 3.8 GPA.

[dzilla77]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Except they ARE part of the 99%. I doubt this person makes more than 300,000 a year. Not everyone protesting is jobless or even poor, they just think theres an injustice.

No the 99% are what they are calling themselves, claiming (falsely) to represent everyone who is not in the 1%. This person obviously does not consider himself to be represented by what they believe (and for that matter neither do I), so that's at least 2 people who fall into the "99%" who don't agree with what their message is.

[dzilla77]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Nor can everyone get a 3.8 GPA.

Why not? If everyone deserves equal treatment, they must have equal ability.

I agree with you, not everyone can get a 3.8 GPA, but if you want society to advance, their has to be some incentive to those getting the 3.8 GPAs or else you will end up with a whole society of lazy people who are waiting for the government to hand out everything to them, whether they are smart or stupid, hard working or lazy, or whatever.

[JPhillips]

Nobody is advocating equal distribution of wealth. Do you allow for no limit on the degree of income inequality? Would it be good for society to have two families control 90% of the wealth? My guess is you do allow for some limit, o all we're doing is arguing about where that line should be drawn.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Doesn't this statement prove something is wrong. Shouldn't we aim to create rules that make people trust the stock market, so that companies in need of capital to expand can make use of it. It's supposed to be socially beneficial.

The problem with the market is the focus on quarterly focuses.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is, but infrastructure and stability of society is far more important to people of wealth than those without.

I think it's a give-and-take between both sides. Both sides benefit from the infrastructure and stability of society.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not going to fall because we have built that infrastructure, have built some safety nets. But it doesn't change the fact that the more you have, the more valuable a stable society is to you.

Again, the think the poorer you are, the more you benefit from a stable government and a base of wealthy individuals and businesses.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody is advocating equal distribution of wealth. Do you allow for no limit on the degree of income inequality? Would it be good for society to have two families control 90% of the wealth? My guess is you do allow for some limit, o all we're doing is arguing about where that line should be drawn.

Define wealth for me. Is it assets (stocks, real estate, bonds, businesses, ect.) or income to you? Do you separate the two?

[dzilla77]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody is advocating equal distribution of wealth. Do you allow for no limit on the degree of income inequality? Would it be good for society to have two families control 90% of the wealth? My guess is you do allow for some limit, o all we're doing is arguing about where that line should be drawn.

I hold a fundamental belief that there are natural forces which regulate things like this and artificially interfering with these is what screws up things in the first place. So, basically I see no need to regulate distribution of wealth to some percentage, because it would never get to a level in which society can't function (on its own).

Further, if you are willing to cap income/wealth inequality at the top end, are you willing to cap it on the bottom end - to guarantee that the "1%" always control at least X% of the income? Yeah, that's preposterous, but its only fair. If you're taking away opportunity, you need to limit risk.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by dzilla77

Why not? If everyone deserves equal treatment, they must have equal ability.

I agree with you, not everyone can get a 3.8 GPA, but if you want society to advance, their has to be some incentive to those getting the 3.8 GPAs or else you will end up with a whole society of lazy people who are waiting for the government to hand out everything to them, whether they are smart or stupid, hard working or lazy, or whatever.

kzE8L61319598911.jpg

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by dzilla77

I hold a fundamental belief that there are natural forces which regulate things like this and artificially interfering with these is what screws up things in the first place. So, basically I see no need to regulate distribution of wealth to some percentage, because it would never get to a level in which society can't function (on its own).

Further, if you are willing to cap income/wealth inequality at the top end, are you willing to cap it on the bottom end - to guarantee that the "1%" always control at least X% of the income? Yeah, that's preposterous, but its only fair. If you're taking away opportunity, you need to limit risk.

What natural forces? Given that corporations aren't a natural state of being I'm very curious how natural forces plays a role here.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Define wealth for me. Is it assets (stocks, real estate, bonds, businesses, ect.) or income to you? Do you separate the two?

I do. Wealth is total assets and income is, well, income.

[Galaxy]

My favorite part of this is that they are protesting on Wall Street, which a lot of banks and firms aren't even located there anymore.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I do. Wealth is total assets and income is, well, income.

Do you favor a wealth tax then?

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

My favorite part of this is that they are protesting on Wall Street, which a lot of banks and firms aren't even located there anymore.

Theyre protesting in MANY major cities. Ive known people at occupy protests in Atlanta, L.A., DC, San Francisco, and Boston. The actual location seems to be a way to get attention for the cause as opposed to being directly relevant to the message.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Nor can everyone get a 3.8 GPA.

Not sure that's true anymore at major American Universities.....Well, maybe 3.8 is still pretty good, but I'm pretty sure Cs and Ds have died out. Gotta make everyone feel positive about themselves.

[larrymcg421]

I love that the person made barely above minimum wage, which is itself an artificial means of preventing income inequality. It clearly would've been harder for them without the minimum wage and its various increases over the years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Atlanta chapter of the Flea Party is apparently getting so loony that even the notoriously liberal AJC is starting to poke some fun at them

It’s official: Occupy Atlanta just got strange | Political Insider

[CU Tiger]

IF=

Originally Posted by JPhillips

edit: Nor can everyone get a 3.8 GPA.

THEN= Not everyone deserves equal frivolous pleasures.

And make no mistake, that is what we are talking about here. A TV is a want not a need. Cable/Satellite is a want on top of the TV. A Phone of any kind is not a need, nor is a cell phone or certainly a "smart" phone. A car is not a need. Food beyond substinence is not a need.

Certainly non of the above are "rights" anyone is entitled to.

This is what infuriates me about this discussion most places (to be candid, I actully appreciate that this forum hasn't disolved it this level, yet) it is presented as the big bad 1% are keeping these young folks from ever achieving success or prosperity. There is no lack of the American Dream today. In 1985 I was an 8 year old who lived in a "home" without indoor plumbing, I have managed through hard work, sacrifice and determination to ensure that my kids (nor their grandkids) will ever have to exprience that.

If these protestors would get off the fawking corner and go labor they may find themselves surpised by their prosperity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally, police "arrest teams" are now on the scene of the Atlanta version.

Hard to link, it's being covered locally as "breaking news" so the URL changes frequently. It'll doubtless be on the front of Atlanta News, Sports, Atlanta Weather, Business News*| ajc.com

[molson]

This would all be a lot more convincing too if the focus was on what the poor/lower middle class/middle class lack and not what other people have. I mean, would the movement be satisfied if the rich had a lot less, and they had the same? I think for some, they would be satisfied. And that's just a spirituality bankrupt way to go about life, IMO (not talking religion or anything, spiritual is the best word I have for that). The marchers can and should demand affordable healthcare, a government not tied to corporate interests, a more efficient and less corrupt government, action on the student debt situation (which may actually involve inaction, and an end to government subsidized loans which cause huge tuition hikes and force the non-rich to start out adult life in huge debt), hell, demand student loan forgiveness and mortgage forgiveness - I used to be against that kind of stuff but if we can tie those issues to the fault of a corrupt corpo-government, I get marching against it. But simply whining about other people having more then them, even though they haven't accomplished anything to warrant it falls flat....There's been a smattering of posts touching on this but there's a lot of us in the 99% who resent being grouped in with people who haven't worked as hard, or accomplished as much - even if we do agree that the government has screwed the 99% on student debt, mortgages, and unemployment. The 99% are not equal by a longshot, there's a lot of losers in the group - we are a lazy ass country.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Certainly non of the above are "rights" anyone is entitled to.

Matter of opinion. Rights are societally decided.

And let's be honest, the Great Recession ain't because the "99%" was the group that decided to play Russian Roulette with millions of dollars.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

The marchers can and should demand affordable healthcare, a government not tied to corporate interests, a more efficient and less corrupt government, action on the student debt situation (which may actually involve inaction, and an end to government subsidized loans which cause huge tuition hikes and force the non-rich to start out adult life in huge debt), hell, demand student loan forgiveness and mortgage forgiveness - I used to be against that kind of stuff but if we can tie those issues to the fault of a corrupt corpo-government, I get marching against it. But simply whining about other people having more then them, even though they haven't accomplished anything to warrant it falls flat....There's been a smattering of posts touching on this but there's a lot of us in the 99% who resent being grouped in with people who haven't worked as hard, or accomplished as much - even if we do agree that the government has screwed the 99% on student debt, mortgages, and unemployment. The 99% are not equal by a longshot, there's a lot of losers in the group - we are a lazy ass country.

As per the "Tea Party", anger gets people mobilized much more than actual policy suggestions, or even a calm list of grievances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Matter of opinion. Rights are societally decided.

And let's be honest, the Great Recession ain't because the "99%" was the group that decided to play Russian Roulette with millions of dollars.

It also wasn't the fault of the "evil" 1% that are self-employed businessmen and entrepreneurs, or doctors, or lawyers, or entertainers....let's lynch the criminals and respect and celebrate the successful.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

It also wasn't the fault of the "evil" 1% that are self-employed businessmen and entrepreneurs, or doctors, or lawyers, or entertainers....let's lynch the criminals and respect and celebrate the successful.

I'd venture to say that just about all of the people who were responsible for fiddling around with the money were in that 1%.

And, of course, it isn't much of a stretch to make the claim that the government mostly caters to the richest 1% of Americans.

I think one of the aims of the protesters is against the whole "I made this money all by myself and the rest of society had nothing to do with it" BS mentality.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd venture to say that just about all of the people who were responsible for fiddling around with the money were in that 1%.

What does that even mean? Who are we talking about? Why not judge people by their individual actions instead of simply how much money they make and how successful they are? That's 3rd world thinking - "that guy owns stuff - let's kill him!!!"

What exactly do you mean by "fiddling around with money"? Do you mean committing crimes, or just earning money legitimately?

If you have a problem with what's defined as crime your problem is with the government (just like the tea partiers).

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think one of the aims of the protesters is against the whole "I made this money all by myself and the rest of society had nothing to do with it" BS mentality.

I think at some point, for the movement to be legitimate, you have to acknowledge the fact that in this country, it is possible to make a ton of money through genius and hard work. Yes, not everyone can be a genius. I don't know how we can get past that to the satisfaction of the OWS marchers, but it's reality.

Spend some time reading the biographies of the evil 1%. Many of them come from humble backgrounds. There's a lot of great stories of success out there, that are now being vilified en masse. Sure, they depend on America, and laws, and capitalism for that success, and they should probably pay higher taxes. But they didn't "fiddle around with money" to specifically deprive anyone else. Except the criminals - who should of course, be dealt with more harshly. Like I've said a million times here - tax the shit out of them, let the country and the poor benefit from their success - but that's not going to change the fact that our top 1% has been far, far, more successful in the global economy than the rest of us. It ain't going to change those income disparity charts - the top 1% are still going to succeed, and a lot of other people are still going to suck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And, of course, it isn't much of a stretch to make the claim that the government mostly caters to the richest 1% of Americans.

One of the better LOL's I've seen here in a while.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think at some point, for the movement to be legitimate, you have to acknowledge the fact that in this country, it is possible to make a ton of money through genius and hard work. Yes, not everyone can be a genius. I don't know how we can get past that to the satisfaction of the OWS marchers, but it's reality.

Spend some time reading the biographies of the evil 1%. Many of them come from humble backgrounds. There's a lot of great stories of success out there, that are now being vilified en masse. Sure, they depend on America, and laws, and capitalism for that success, and they should probably pay higher taxes. But they didn't "fiddle around with money" to specifically deprive anyone else. Except the criminals - who should of course, be dealt with more harshly. Like I've said a million times here - tax the shit out of them, let the country and the poor benefit from their success - but that's not going to change the fact that our top 1% has been far, far, more successful in the global economy than the rest of us. It ain't going to change those income disparity charts - the top 1% are still going to succeed, and a lot of other people are still going to suck.

I think that's the reason it's Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy Apple. Wall Street did not earn their money fairly.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you favor a wealth tax then?

In the end that's the point of an estate tax, which I do favor, but I wouldn't favor any other form of wealth tax.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Not sure that's true anymore at major American Universities.....Well, maybe 3.8 is still pretty good, but I'm pretty sure Cs and Ds have died out. Gotta make everyone feel positive about themselves.

Grade inflation, IMO, has nothing to do with making kids feel good about themselves. Consumer driven education models, student evaluations, and accumulated pressure from other institutions are some of the influences.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

IF=


THEN= Not everyone deserves equal frivolous pleasures.

And make no mistake, that is what we are talking about here. A TV is a want not a need. Cable/Satellite is a want on top of the TV. A Phone of any kind is not a need, nor is a cell phone or certainly a "smart" phone. A car is not a need. Food beyond substinence is not a need.

Certainly non of the above are "rights" anyone is entitled to.

This is what infuriates me about this discussion most places (to be candid, I actully appreciate that this forum hasn't disolved it this level, yet) it is presented as the big bad 1% are keeping these young folks from ever achieving success or prosperity. There is no lack of the American Dream today. In 1985 I was an 8 year old who lived in a "home" without indoor plumbing, I have managed through hard work, sacrifice and determination to ensure that my kids (nor their grandkids) will ever have to exprience that.

If these protestors would get off the fawking corner and go labor they may find themselves surpised by their prosperity.

At an individual level that's what I'd encourage, but when you zoom out, not everyone can do that. We simply can't have a country of 300 million successful small business owners. The question for me is does the rest of society have a right to share in the prosperity? Not only do I think the answer is yes, but I think it will benefit the 1% over time.

A study recently came out that showed stronger growth rates for countries with greater income equality. If the 1% takes all the money there won't be any customers left.

[Butter]

There's a reason I stay out of these threads. It seems like all of these discussions devolve into "let's marginalize your opinion by extrapolating your opinions into the most ridiculous examples possible". But then I guess you can't have discussion these days without trying to make the other side look like an idiot.

Some seem to be worse at this than others, but it would be nice to read a well-reasoned argument without it coming to outright stupidity.

Like:

"What does that even mean? Who are we talking about? Why not judge people by their individual actions instead of simply how much money they make and how successful they are? That's 3rd world thinking - "that guy owns stuff - let's kill him!!!""

Who the fuck is even saying that? No one is saying that most successful people didn't earn or deserve their success.

"If these protestors would get off the fawking corner and go labor they may find themselves surpised by their prosperity."

Where exactly are you going to find these, how-do-you-say, "jobs"? That's kind of the whole point of the protest.

As someone smarter than me said:

The poorest of the poor get told to go work and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Forget the fact that there are no jobs.... if you just work hard you can work yourself out of your situation. Somehow.

The middle class gets told that they have no one to blame but themselves for the mess they're in. Never mind the predatory lending or lost jobs or foreclosures. It's your own fault. You borrowed beyond your means. And you know what, I am willing to admit there is some truth to that... UP TO A POINT.

Meanwhile, the richest financial institutions get told they are too big to fail and get billions if not trillions in aid, while everyone else gets told that they are the makers of their own circumstances?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Meanwhile, the richest financial institutions get told they are too big to fail and get billions if not trillions in aid, while everyone else gets told that they are the makers of their own circumstances?

Let's not forget that we also give billions if not trillions in aid to the LOWEST income earners in this country. I actually agree with you, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts at the time and still am not, and think we ought to be prosecuting the criminals behind it, but on the other end of the spectrum TONS of money is poured into the bottom part of the wage scale, too.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Let's not forget that we also give billions if not trillions in aid to the LOWEST income earners in this country. I actually agree with you, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts at the time and still am not, and think we ought to be prosecuting the criminals behind it, but on the other end of the spectrum TONS of money is poured into the bottom part of the wage scale, too.

It has to. I simply has to. Not everyone is going to be successful and society cannot afford to let those at the bottom wither away. I think that to depend on altruism to support those people instead of making it a responsibility of the society as a whole is a misguided cop out by those people who want nothing to do with it.

The harder that those at the top make it for those at the bottom to find any measure of success or sustainability the worst the stratification becomes.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

There's a reason I stay out of these threads. It seems like all of these discussions devolve into "let's marginalize your opinion by extrapolating your opinions into the most ridiculous examples possible". But then I guess you can't have discussion these days without trying to make the other side look like an idiot.

Some seem to be worse at this than others, but it would be nice to read a well-reasoned argument without it coming to outright stupidity.

Like:

"What does that even mean? Who are we talking about? Why not judge people by their individual actions instead of simply how much money they make and how successful they are? That's 3rd world thinking - "that guy owns stuff - let's kill him!!!""

To be fair, the daily summary executions in Zucotti park have really made me question the OWS folks.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Let's not forget that we also give billions if not trillions in aid to the LOWEST income earners in this country. I actually agree with you, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts at the time and still am not, and think we ought to be prosecuting the criminals behind it, but on the other end of the spectrum TONS of money is poured into the bottom part of the wage scale, too.

It's not trillions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The harder that those at the top make it for those at the bottom to find any measure of success or sustainability the worst the stratification becomes.

Let's not tarnish the word "success" by associating it with those on the dole.

And how much longer the level of support currently provided is "sustainable" is one of the things that seems very much up for debate.

[RainMaker]

Welfare is not nearly as big as people think. Look up how much we spend on it a year. Pretty sure just the AIG bailout alone covered that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let's not tarnish the word "success" by associating it with those on the dole.

We are talking about the financial sector and everyone who has large investments, correct?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

We are talking about the financial sector and everyone who has large investments, correct?

You may (or may not) recall that I was highly critical of the bailout & argued against the very notion of "too big to fail", pretty plainly said "hoist them on their own petard".

Happily, my own Congressman was among those who voted No, so that one can't really be laid at my feet. YMMV.