Occupy Wall Street

[Passacaglia]

Yes but now tell us why you put the word policies in quotes.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

But that policy the rich has used to take advantage of others - that's a harder thing to articulate and nail down and put on a sign. I don't doubt that that's happened, but what are those policies? What exactly are the rich doing? Which "rich" is it, which members of the top 1% - is only corporate CEOs (how many people is that), or is Manny Ramirez and Justin Bieber involved somehow? That's the biggest issue with being vague, I'm not even sure exactly what the problem is there, let alone how to solve it.

These sorts of things are obviously extraordinarily complex, but I'll try to sum up at a basic argument in a few paragraphs.

Corporate executives have exploited an imperfect corporate governance system for their own benefit, at the expense of the rest of society. Principle-agent problems have always existed, but in recent years corporate executives have taken advantage of them more and more to pay themselves ever-increasing and undeserved salaries while depressing wages for labor and hoisting the externalities of some of their conduct on the general public. Even as one of them dadgum liberuls, I recognize the limits to the ability of legal systems to optimally structure society. It's unfortunate that in an area where the legal system is inoptimal--scholars have tried solving principle-agent problem for years with little success--a small group have people have chosen to break a social contract by refusing to self-regulate themselves in order to promote a more fair society.

Although baseball players may actually be more deserving of their salaries (there are truly objective measures for determining merit), I don't think they're completely free of this taint, because they have benefited from people like CEOs acting in this manner. Owners can afford to pay players outrageous sums of money in part because there are CEOs that have paid themselves enough to buy front-row seats at thousands of dollars per ticket. Or because CEOs decided it's a better use of company money to buy a luxury suite for the year rather than hire an extra hundred workers. And, more indirectly, because the super-rich have made it socially acceptable to earn exorbitant sums of money while disregarding the people that suffer everyday because of an unfair system you're helping to maintain.

As I said, this is just one sort of example for a much more complex problem. More generally, it goes to the point that no matter how much you believe in merit and hard work, you can't disregard that there are factors external to you in the system we have in place that have helped you succeed. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those that have benefited the most from the system to act in a socially responsible manner to try to make the system more fair to those that are less fortunate through no fault of their own (for instance, by ensuring people have access to basic medical care so that they aren't wiped out through an "Act of God").

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Yes but now tell us why you put the word policies in quotes.

Because I don't know what they are.

[stevew]

I wonder if anyone has occupied and claimed squatters rights in Picabo Street? Then again, haven't seen an up to date photo so the real estate may be an urban blight for all I know of.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

These sorts of things are obviously extraordinarily complex, but I'll try to sum up at a basic argument in a few paragraphs.

Corporate executives have exploited an imperfect corporate governance system for their own benefit, at the expense of the rest of society. Principle-agent problems have always existed, but in recent years corporate executives have taken advantage of them more and more to pay themselves ever-increasing and undeserved salaries while depressing wages for labor and hoisting the externalities of some of their conduct on the general public. Even as one of them dadgum liberuls, I recognize the limits to the ability of legal systems to optimally structure society. It's unfortunate that in an area where the legal system is inoptimal--scholars have tried solving principle-agent problem for years with little success--a small group have people have chosen to break a social contract by refusing to self-regulate themselves in order to promote a more fair society.

Although baseball players may actually be more deserving of their salaries (there are truly objective measures for determining merit), I don't think they're completely free of this taint, because they have benefited from people like CEOs acting in this manner. Owners can afford to pay players outrageous sums of money in part because there are CEOs that have paid themselves enough to buy front-row seats at thousands of dollars per ticket. Or because CEOs decided it's a better use of company money to buy a luxury suite for the year rather than hire an extra hundred workers. And, more indirectly, because the super-rich have made it socially acceptable to earn exorbitant sums of money while disregarding the people that suffer everyday because of an unfair system you're helping to maintain.

As I said, this is just one sort of example for a much more complex problem. More generally, it goes to the point that no matter how much you believe in merit and hard work, you can't disregard that there are factors external to you in the system we have in place that have helped you succeed. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those that have benefited the most from the system to act in a socially responsible manner to try to make the system more fair to those that are less fortunate through no fault of their own (for instance, by ensuring people have access to basic medical care so that they aren't wiped out through an "Act of God").

Thanks. I wonder how many of the infamous top 1% are "Corporate executives", and how many of those have legitimate real blame here - I'd imagine it's still a pretty small number.

Is that the only issue at play here? "corporate executives", and specifically, corporate CEOs, getting paid too much? If CEO pay was lower, and taxes modestly higher (Obama proposed tax rates, or Clinton-era tax rates), does that fix everything? It seems like there's still a lot more at play there, maybe even stuff that's not necessarily "evil". Like a new global economy. Some people, like entertainers, certain businessmen, etc, can benefit from having access to 7 billion people in a way a regular American can't. Sure, maybe we can tax those people more so America can benefit from that global economy more too, but I'm not sure simply the fact that they have the wealth to begin with is a big problem. Edit: In other words, is the nature of the evolution of the planet and the world economy contributing, in neutral, non-evil ways, to the benefit of a certain handful of people in a huge way, and is that really something we need to stop (instead of just taking advantage of it).

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

Thanks. I wonder how many of the infamous top 1% are "Corporate executives", and how many of those have legitimate real blame here - I'd imagine it's still a pretty small number.

Is that the only issue at play here? "corporate executives", and specifically, corporate CEOs, getting paid too much? If CEO pay was lower, and taxes modestly higher (Obama proposed tax rates, or Clinton-era tax rates), does that fix everything? It seems like there's still a lot more at play there, maybe even stuff that's not necessarily "evil". Like a new global economy. Some people, like entertainers, certain businessmen, etc, can benefit from having access to 7 billion people in a way a regular American can't. Sure, maybe we can tax those people more so America can benefit from that global economy more too, but I'm not sure simply the fact that they have the wealth to begin with is a big problem. Edit: In other words, is the nature of the evolution of the planet and the world economy contributing, in neutral, non-evil ways, to the benefit of a certain handful of people in a huge way, and is that really something we need to stop (instead of just taking advantage of it).

I guess I was using the corporate executives as just one example. There are plenty of people from other professions--finance, politics, etc.--to which this applies. To me, the more general problem can be summed as such: A small group of people have, in some cases at least, exploited the system to extract more and more for themselves while completely abdicating any responsibility to society.

As for the actual breakdown of the 1%:
How the top 1 percent made its money in two charts - The Washington Post

Executives make up the largest chunk at 31%.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

To me, the more general problem can be summed as such: A small group of people have, in some cases at least, exploited the system to extract more and more for themselves while completely abdicating any responsibility to society.

There are plenty of people in the 99% bracket that do that to.

How about this, we just start expecting more from people instead of them being a bunch of shitbags and mooching off the system. period.

[JPhillips]

The financial industry is a huge problem. There can play a vital role in efficient distribution of capitol, but greed and lax regulation have allowed the financial industry to explode their profits while providing very value for society. It's become a place to get rich quick, consequences be damned. A healthy financial sector should be providing benefits to society, but it's hard to see our current finance kings doing much besides enriching themselves. Returning to Glass-Steagall, adding a transaction tax, putting limits banks' ability to issue credit cards, etc. would help return the industry to it's primary function.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

As for the actual breakdown of the 1%:
How the top 1 percent made its money in two charts - The Washington Post

Executives make up the largest chunk at 31%.

And that doesn't mean CEOs exclusively. As you make your way up the corporate ladder, you are responsible for more and more people and make decisions that affect more and more people.

I want to know what 3.8% fits into blue collar/service. Unless we're talking about the guy who, again, manages an entire operation, I just can't too many in a rank and file who fits into the top 1%.

SI

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The financial industry is a huge problem. There can play a vital role in efficient distribution of capitol, but greed and lax regulation have allowed the financial industry to explode their profits while providing very value for society. It's become a place to get rich quick, consequences be damned. A healthy financial sector should be providing benefits to society, but it's hard to see our current finance kings doing much besides enriching themselves. Returning to Glass-Steagall, adding a transaction tax, putting limits banks' ability to issue credit cards, etc. would help return the industry to it's primary function.

Agree with this. And they benefit from things like deposit insurance and a Too Big to Fail subsidy, without any real cost the individuals that work at these firms.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Mustang

There are plenty of people in the 99% bracket that do that to.

How about this, we just start expecting more from people instead of them being a bunch of shitbags and mooching off the system. period.

Those in the 99% don't often have the chance to change the system so that it's more fair. Those in the 1% do. They also benefit quite a bit more from it.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Those in the 99% don't often have the chance to change the system so that it's more fair.

So, basically what you are saying is that you are just upset at 1% of the people. If someone else is milking the system, hey.. they are just trying to get theirs so.. that's cool. Some people have too much of a woe is me mentality.. I have several of them in my family and friends. They sit around and piss and moan about everything in their life without doing a god damn thing to help themselves and much easier to have a villain to point at as the cause of all their issues instead of looking in the mirror and realizes that 99% of their own misery is self created.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Those in the 99% don't often have the chance to change the system so that it's more fair. Those in the 1% do. They also benefit quite a bit more from it.

I don't agree with this. Voters by and large are idiots and these are the results of it. When people care about "who they want to have a beer with" and who produces the best bullshit propoganda, we get a government like we have now.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, basically what you are saying is that you are just upset at 1% of the people. If someone else is milking the system, hey.. they are just trying to get theirs so.. that's cool. Some people have too much of a woe is me mentality.. I have several of them in my family and friends. They sit around and piss and moan about everything in their life without doing a god damn thing to help themselves and much easier to have a villain to point at as the cause of all their issues instead of looking in the mirror and realizes that 99% of their own misery is self created.

Well, obviously, the 1%/99% dichotomy is just a heuristic. I wouldn't excuse behavior--such as committing Medicaid fraud, for instance--because someone is in the "99%". On the other hand, I have sympathy for the person that uses Medicaid because they attended public schools in a city where the elites send their kids to $25K/year private schools while letting public institutions rot and now won't hire that person for a minimum-wage job, much less provide health insurance. Perhaps you can fault certain individuals for not doing a "god damn thing to help themselves", but I can also see how they would come to that conclusion when the system is so tilted against them.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't agree with this. Voters by and large are idiots and these are the results of it. When people care about "who they want to have a beer with" and who produces the best bullshit propoganda, we get a government like we have now.

By "system", I'm talking about things beyond politics and law. As I said earlier, for instance, scholars have yet to really solve principle-agent problems, much less worry about implementing better policies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask those that benefit most from the system to act responsibly in filing in the gaps where law can't necessarily bind them to a solution more optimal for society.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

True, but if we go to the Clinton-era tax rate, does that wipe out the kind of wealth advances the super-rich have made in recent years? Did the Bush tax crates cause it? Are the tax rates really the issue here, or is it those mysterious "policies" (I don't say mysterious because I doubt their existence, I say mysterious because I really don't know what they are, and I really don't know which members of the top 1% are really guilty in all this).

Edit: If by some miracle, Obama got his tax increases passed, and we still had massive wealth disparity (which I believe we would), then what? What's the real issue here?

It's not really mysterious policies. It doesn't take long to look for sweetheart government deals, shady contracts, and even lost money. When we are giving out $20 million in interest-free loans to a former massage therapist (who happened to marry a wealthy financial executive) so that she can loan that money back to the government at a 3% interest rate, something is wrong. We can look at missing money in Iraq, bailouts, interest-free loans, deregulation, and other policies that have been put in place to only help the top income brackets.

But that's not even my biggest issue. It's that they play in a socialist system (which is funny because they insult the protesters by calling them socialists). They cannot fail. They cannot lose their money in bad investments. And all taxpayers from all tax brackets have to subsidize that. If you or I started a business and took horrible risks, we'd be out on the street looking for work. But when they do it, they are bailed out. This isn't just for business owners, it's for investors too. And not to mention that they are allowed to work above the law as no one will ever be prosecuted for fraud and no one will actually pay the full amount for their fraud (just watch as all the states suing the banks have cowered and are taking shitty settlements).

And if that's the system we want, then fine. But if the government is going to act as a giant insurance policy for the upper class, then the premiums should be paid by them. If a large bank or financial institution goes under, it effects the guy with $10 million invested from a wealth standpoint more than the guy making $12/hour.

I'm not talking as someone who is on minimum wage whining about not getting my share. I actually make good money, own a business, and pay a lot in taxes. But I realize that without a middle class, businesses are going to keep dying. And we're allowing it to happen at the expense of an industry that produces absolutely nothing of value. I'm sorry, but microtrading and derivative trading doesn't effect society at all. They are just parasites.

That's not an anti-corporation screed either. It's that we're letting the one of least value dominate. We should be watching technology, medical, or other industries boom, not a bunch of goons using computers to arbitrage.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Although baseball players may actually be more deserving of their salaries (there are truly objective measures for determining merit), I don't think they're completely free of this taint, because they have benefited from people like CEOs acting in this manner. Owners can afford to pay players outrageous sums of money in part because there are CEOs that have paid themselves enough to buy front-row seats at thousands of dollars per ticket. Or because CEOs decided it's a better use of company money to buy a luxury suite for the year rather than hire an extra hundred workers.

I haven't looked at the numbers too closely, but I assume you're allowing some stories about Yankee Stadium or its ilk to color your perception here - MLB teams make a much higher % of their income from volume of fans, merchandising, and TV revenue than the few white-collar people sitting in the front row talking on a cellphone everyone likes to make fun of. The one sport where luxury boxes go for the most is the NFL - and clearly the majority of their income comes again from a TV contract, which can't be biased towards 1% of households.

On the larger point some are making, I do think the transition away from allowing creative destruction to take place has killed economic growth while supporting those who currently hold the wealth.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Thanks. I wonder how many of the infamous top 1% are "Corporate executives", and how many of those have legitimate real blame here - I'd imagine it's still a pretty small number.

Is that the only issue at play here? "corporate executives", and specifically, corporate CEOs, getting paid too much? If CEO pay was lower, and taxes modestly higher (Obama proposed tax rates, or Clinton-era tax rates), does that fix everything? It seems like there's still a lot more at play there, maybe even stuff that's not necessarily "evil". Like a new global economy. Some people, like entertainers, certain businessmen, etc, can benefit from having access to 7 billion people in a way a regular American can't. Sure, maybe we can tax those people more so America can benefit from that global economy more too, but I'm not sure simply the fact that they have the wealth to begin with is a big problem. Edit: In other words, is the nature of the evolution of the planet and the world economy contributing, in neutral, non-evil ways, to the benefit of a certain handful of people in a huge way, and is that really something we need to stop (instead of just taking advantage of it).

I personally don't care what a CEO makes as long as it's from their company's profits and not subsidized by taxpayers (which every one of those financial institutions is).

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Perhaps you can fault certain individuals for not doing a "god damn thing to help themselves", but I can also see how they would come to that conclusion when the system is so tilted against them.

So at what point is it no longer the system and the person is just (for a lack of better word) lazy.

By your logic, seems that you can rationalize any bad behavior/laziness/lack of personal responsibility by just blaming 'the system'

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed on all counts with what's in there. Glad someone finally stood up and called not just this group but others on redistrubtion of wealth. I'm always amused when some multi-millionaire, especially a politician multi-millionaire (yes, I'm looking at you Nancy Pelosi) says the same thing.

Ramsay earned his wealth. What exactly did Nancy do to earn it? Marry it? Become a career politician?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The Occupy Detroit movement started last Friday. They had a rally on Friday afternoon and started to occupy Detroit right after that. Since then, the Tigers can blown out of the playoffs, Michigan got smacked around by MSU and the Lions lost their first game of the season.

While I have nothing against these people and I probably agree with them more than I disagree, and it's nice to have someone occupying Detroit - we have plenty have space - if the Lions lose two in a row, I think I will rent a bulldozer and bulldoze their little campsite. I can't have them harshing on my good vibe. And, let's be honest, occupying Detroit is not the same as occupying Wall Street. Occupying Detroit is like squatting in an abandon building in the middle of nowhere. Nobody really cares.

Just when Detroit is/was having a great wave of much-needed good vibes, these morons go against it.




Can we define wealth? Is it assets (shares or bonds, ownership of a business or real estate) or income? If the wealth is controlled by x%, is that they hold a lot more equity out of the equity pie in terms of the valuation of their holdings, then won't the value and the generated income off of those assets increase faster than someone who earns their living by a regular salary?

[JPhillips]

I recently saw a study on income inequality and growth. Not surprisingly, high income inequality correlated to slower growth. Without a lot of customers the 1% isn't going to do as well.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I haven't looked at the numbers too closely, but I assume you're allowing some stories about Yankee Stadium or its ilk to color your perception here - MLB teams make a much higher % of their income from volume of fans, merchandising, and TV revenue than the few white-collar people sitting in the front row talking on a cellphone everyone likes to make fun of. The one sport where luxury boxes go for the most is the NFL - and clearly the majority of their income comes again from a TV contract, which can't be biased towards 1% of households.

On the larger point some are making, I do think the transition away from allowing creative destruction to take place has killed economic growth while supporting those who currently hold the wealth.

Again, I was simplifying things. TV contracts raise a more interesting point, but I could still see how they're connected. Although viewers draw in advertisers, the people deciding how much to pay for ads and the TV deal itself are by and large those in the top of the income distribution.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I personally don't care what a CEO makes as long as it's from their company's profits and not subsidized by taxpayers (which every one of those financial institutions is).

Again, disagree with this. Corporate law does not allow for effective governances of these companies. CEO salaries are not set in a free market-they're set in a broken one.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So at what point is it no longer the system and the person is just (for a lack of better word) lazy.

By your logic, seems that you can rationalize any bad behavior/laziness/lack of personal responsibility by just blaming 'the system'

Any sort of rule is going to be under- and overinclusive. Maybe some people deserve blame for their lot in life, but that doesn't mean we should not fix the problems in the system for those that don't (even if it might have the effect of benefiting some that don't deserve it). I'm not sure exactly where the line is, but I'm pretty sure we haven't met it. Providing basic medical care so that losses aren't randomly distributed by "Acts of God" and a quality education so that people are aware and can take advantage of economic opportunities would be a step in the right direction, though.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Maybe some people deserve blame for their lot in life,

Remove the maybe because there isn't no maybe about it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So you're saying there IS a maybe about it? Should we keep the some as well?

edit: It just seems silly to me to argue about semantics on this. Surely some people not doing well have themselves to blame. Surely not ALL of them have themselves to blame. Same with those on top.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Remove the maybe because there isn't no maybe about it.

Disturbing, misinformed and naive perspective.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Disturbing, misinformed and naive perspective.

{reads} {reads again}

You can't seriously be suggesting that there's even a possibility that there aren't some people who bear the burden for their own situation. Can you?

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{reads} {reads again}

You can't seriously be suggesting that there's even a possibility that there aren't some people who bear the burden for their own situation. Can you?

Of course not.

Perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying. I took his elimination of "maybe" to mean that ALL people bear the burden for their own situation. If he just meant there are certainly SOME people that do, I'd agree with that. My initial use of "maybe" was not meant as an open question as to whether some people do, but more in the sense of "although". I should have been more precise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying.

At the very least you & I understood it differently.

You said:
Maybe some people deserve blame for their lot in life,

Mustang said:
Remove the maybe because there isn't no maybe about it.

That would leave:
some people deserve blame for their lot in life

The notion of whether the "some" was meant to be eliminated was raised in a subsequent post by RonnieDobbs2, but that wasn't where Mustang went as far as I could tell.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the very least you & I understood it differently.

You said:
Maybe some people deserve blame for their lot in life,

Mustang said:
Remove the maybe because there isn't no maybe about it.

That would leave:
some people deserve blame for their lot in life

The notion of whether the "some" was meant to be eliminated was raised in a subsequent post by RonnieDobbs2, but that wasn't where Mustang went as far as I could tell.

Fair enough. Assuming that's not what Mustang was getting at, I take it back. Although I'd guess we still have a bit of disagreement about how many people make up that group of "some people"...

[sterlingice]

"Maybe some people deserve blame for their lot in life, but that doesn't mean we should not fix the problems in the system for those that don't (even if it might have the effect of benefiting some that don't deserve it)."

I love how the quotes won't even take the entire sentence- just the first few words- and then blow it out of context.

Near as I can tell, the maybe was being used as a transition word to point out that "some people deserve blame for their lot in life" but some do not.

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Again, disagree with this. Corporate law does not allow for effective governances of these companies. CEO salaries are not set in a free market-they're set in a broken one.

If they don't get bailed out, it is a free market. As shareholder, you vote for the people who represent you on the board.

Personally, I find the stock market no better than playing the tables in Vegas.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If they don't get bailed out, it is a free market. As shareholder, you vote for the people who represent you on the board.

I'm not really sure how to debate this point without sounding like an arrogant prick (so I won't even try to avoid it), but anyone who has put even a cursory amount of thought into this issue would realize your argument relies on an overly simplistic view of the world. Everyone that has studied corporative governance systems recognizes that principle-agent and collective action problems prevent truly effective regulation of corporate managers. Few people have an incentive to run a proxy fight-you bear all the costs, and gain only a portion of the benefit. It's easier to just sell your stock.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

As shareholder, you vote for the people who represent you on the board.

Assuming, of course, you hold voting shares, which is far less common than you might think.

[Ben E Lou]

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Mustang

So, basically what you are saying is that you are just upset at 1% of the people. If someone else is milking the system, hey.. they are just trying to get theirs so.. that's cool. Some people have too much of a woe is me mentality.. I have several of them in my family and friends. They sit around and piss and moan about everything in their life without doing a god damn thing to help themselves and much easier to have a villain to point at as the cause of all their issues instead of looking in the mirror and realizes that 99% of their own misery is self created.

Boy, the 1% should send you some kind of royalty or something.

I'm sure those poor jerks mooching off the system for a bag of groceries feel terrible about it. Jerks.

[Karlifornia]

I'm all for occupations. If not for occupation and standing up for something, anything, I probably wouldn't be alive today. All the cynical people that look down upon the protesters should wish that they had even a feeling strong enough to make them want to do something outside of their daily mundane bullshit lives.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Again, I was simplifying things. TV contracts raise a more interesting point, but I could still see how they're connected. Although viewers draw in advertisers, the people deciding how much to pay for ads and the TV deal itself are by and large those in the top of the income distribution.

Sorry, you're losing me and imo weakening your point by trying to connect everything to it. We can make fun of TV execs for being bad at their jobs, but I think it's pretty obvious that with a few obvious niche shows like golf and Mad Men aside they're trying to appeal to "the 99%", and advertising people generate all kinds of hard data on whether it's working. Just because some of those people are rich, and some of the companies advertising are large doesn't mean they can't be reaching out to the broader audience. You might as well say that professional sports are for the 1% because (almost) all the players are making 500k+, or because they're owned by the super-rich.

I think we can agree that CEO/executive pay is out of control. Trying to blame it for everything those people touch obscures and weakens that point.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Sorry, you're losing me and imo weakening your point by trying to connect everything to it. We can make fun of TV execs for being bad at their jobs, but I think it's pretty obvious that with a few obvious niche shows like golf and Mad Men aside they're trying to appeal to "the 99%", and advertising people generate all kinds of hard data on whether it's working. Just because some of those people are rich, and some of the companies advertising are large doesn't mean they can't be reaching out to the broader audience. You might as well say that professional sports are for the 1% because (almost) all the players are making 500k+, or because they're owned by the super-rich.

I think we can agree that CEO/executive pay is out of control. Trying to blame it for everything those people touch obscures and weakens that point.

Often aimed at selling them a bunch of higher priced, lower quality products.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Often aimed at selling them a bunch of higher priced, lower quality products.

Ok, so this reads to me like you've crossed the line from specific, arguably morally objectionable and quite possibly correctable problems with executive pay, financial trading that merely obfuscates risk and doesn't create anything worthwhile, and the governmental safety net for financial corporations, to the strawman-esque Capitalism/Corporations=Evil.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'm all for occupations. If not for occupation and standing up for something, anything, I probably wouldn't be alive today. All the cynical people that look down upon the protesters should wish that they had even a feeling strong enough to make them want to do something outside of their daily mundane bullshit lives.

well said.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

All the cynical people that look down upon the protesters should wish that they had even a feeling strong enough to make them want to do something outside of their daily mundane bullshit lives.

I think it's possible to believe in a lot, and stand up for a lot, and still be cynical of vague protests against general economic activity.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Disturbing, misinformed and naive perspective.

Really?

Some people deserve blame for their lot in life.

Makes it disturbing, misinformed and naive?

[Young Drachma]

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Ok, so this reads to me like you've crossed the line from specific, arguably morally objectionable and quite possibly correctable problems with executive pay, financial trading that merely obfuscates risk and doesn't create anything worthwhile, and the governmental safety net for financial corporations, to the strawman-esque Capitalism/Corporations=Evil.

Not really. My sense, though, is that the corporations that spend $$$ on television marketing do so to promote products no better than their competitors--the consumer product conglomerates seem particularly guilty of it. Ibuprofen is ibuprofen, whether it's got an Advil label slapped on it or not.

As a sidenote, I'd point out one can generally believe in the value of markets and capitalism, while recognizing that: 1.) markets often fail to reach optimal social solutions; and 2.) corporatism is something different.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'm all for occupations. If not for occupation and standing up for something, anything, I probably wouldn't be alive today. All the cynical people that look down upon the protesters should wish that they had even a feeling strong enough to make them want to do something outside of their daily mundane bullshit lives.

I'm not for or against the occupations. People have a right to do it, I have a right to disagree with their motives and their premise.

That said, I DO disagree with a lot of what these guys are protesting for and if saying it makes me cynical, so be it. They have the right to protest, I have the right to call bullshit.

As for the last comment, would you wish someone to have a feeling strong enough to put on a white, pointy cap and speak out against other races? Or are you just talking about wanting to do something that you yourself support?

Last thing here. . . some people love their daily, bullshit, mundane lives. They are filled with family, friends, entertainment, spirituality and enjoyment. The older I get, the more I'm learning that it's usually the people who think they are intellectually superior who put down other people rather than "rich' people. The intellectually superior person thinks anyone not doing what they do live horrible, dis-interesting and unfulfilled lives.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

As a sidenote, I'd point out one can generally believe in the value of markets and capitalism, while recognizing that: 1.) markets often fail to reach optimal social solutions; and 2.) plutocracy is something different.

Fixed. And this.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Really?



Makes it disturbing, misinformed and naive?

Did you read the other posts? He, I think, misinterpreted me, which led to me misinterpreting him. I myself earlier said that some people certainly deserve blame. If he was claiming all do, I'd take serious objection.

[dzilla77]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

I'm all for occupations. If not for occupation and standing up for something, anything, I probably wouldn't be alive today. All the cynical people that look down upon the protesters should wish that they had even a feeling strong enough to make them want to do something outside of their daily mundane bullshit lives.

Sorry, but there is a difference between standing up and whining (OWS) and standing up and doing something (whatever event significantly impacted your life).

All the OWS crowd is doing is whining about how bad things are and selecting a convenient and reviled scapegoat (the overpaid bankers and execs). They have no real actionable items, no proposals and no cohesive agenda. Change can only be affected by action, not sitting in a park holding up signs.