114 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

I guess you're a hard core socialist then. But what about qualities like initiative versus laziness?

You assume systems are responsible for this outcome. I think differently. Personal liberty is not based on the falsehood of written doctrine, although the latter can arguably make things easier if they were ostensibly followed to the letter, which in most cases they aren't, but it always comes down to the individuals creative output. Assuming that corporate capitalism yields more creativity than socialism reveals at the very least that someone does not understand what either system of governance really is, I.E a stepping stone of an agreed upon schematic of civility.

Edited by TheFountain, 21 October 2011 - 12:44 AM.

[hivemind]

Inherited abilities are no different from inherited wealth.

I guess you're a hard core socialist then. But what about qualities like initiative versus laziness? Is there nothing that would justify different outcomes for different people? I'm not trying to argue against a social safety net; but I don't think it should be so cushy that it would induce people to be unproductive. How would you structure an economy to provide the best outcomes given your belief about inherited qualities?

If it is possible for the safety net to be cushy then why not?

It may not yet be possible however. Maybe technology will free people from working in the future, just like it will maybe free them from aging.

[niner]

Inherited abilities are no different from inherited wealth.

I guess you're a hard core socialist then. But what about qualities like initiative versus laziness? Is there nothing that would justify different outcomes for different people? I'm not trying to argue against a social safety net; but I don't think it should be so cushy that it would induce people to be unproductive. How would you structure an economy to provide the best outcomes given your belief about inherited qualities?

If it is possible for the safety net to be cushy then why not?

It may not yet be possible however. Maybe technology will free people from working in the future, just like it will maybe free them from aging.

No, I don't think it's possible today. We can't even maintain our roads and bridges, or fully fund corporate and public pension funds, much less provide health care to all of our citizens. How do you think the economy should be structured between now and the Singularity?

[hivemind]

No, I don't think it's possible today. We can't even maintain our roads and bridges, or fully fund corporate and public pension funds, much less provide health care to all of our citizens. How do you think the economy should be structured between now and the Singularity?

I like the Scandinavian model.

[Brainbox]

How do you think the economy should be structured between now and the Singularity?

- For starters, decrease military expenses
- Have the willpower to change some minor but important flaws in our financial system
- Don't kill the financial achievements accomplished since WW2 in the process please
- Do a strength - weakness analysis of national and global capabilities
- Do a fit - gap analysis of what we need to add value to the world and what we are able to
- Educate and invest to get rid of our gaps.
- Stop fearing Chinese and Indian economical developments
- Really live up to the existing global trade agreements and create new ones


And last but not least: get rid of a 2 party political system if you have one!

(And the rest will follow automatically)

Sorry, I did intend to lurk for a while but could not resist......

Edited by Brainbox, 21 October 2011 - 05:37 PM.

[Brafarality]

Personally, I don't understand the envy part of it all. Throughout my life I have constantly run in to people that believe they are owed something just because they are alive, that everyone who has more than they do are greedy and got everything unethically. I understand OWS's point about "Wall Street" having some ill-gotten gains - mostly handed to them recently by Obama. I understand the points about crony-capitalism and bailouts, but I do not understand the envy. I know a lot of business people who got rich by working hard and taking risks. I know a lot of money managers and financial planners who saved money and invested wisely. They have big houses and take lavish trips to exotic places. They eat fancy food. It does not bother me. They worked for it. Sometimes they saved all of their lives, in order to retire comfortably. I would never go protest to take their money away. That is what I see in OWS - envy, more than anything else - with a lot of communism thrown in to boot. When they march on D.C. and the White House, then I will know that they understand the problems more comprehensively.

Agreed 100%. I think social protest is an innately benevolent thing, so I would never condemn the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I do think it is misguided. I hate to say it, but there is so much opportunity in this country that it is ridiculous. So much democratization of wealth.

They are protesting Wall Street but dont realize how little is actually there and how much wealth is first generation, how much is in Silicon Valley and other tech hubs, and with the hugely heightened (in recent decades) incomes of entertainers and athletes. There are still those out there who think there is this 'old money' secret society of polo games and tennis sweaters who have the 'real' wealth. And the perceptions of Wall Street as an old school arm of that wealth is still out there to some degree. It is ridiculous.

If you add up the wealth of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Paul Allen, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Larry Ellison (all First Generation, all have Nothing to do with Wall Street), you will have more wealth than the top 1000 of Wall Street. And that is just for starters. If I throw in 10 more names, it will become apparent that New Money makes Old Money (incl. Wall Street) look like homeless people. New Money is so mind bogglingly huge in magnitude that people cant even wrap their minds around it, so it is understandable that a more fathomable target like Wall Street would be targeted.

There has been an enormous democratization of wealth in recent times but, paradoxically, it has resulted in an even more extreme divide between the haves and the have nots. But, the problem is that the have nots could be the haves. Tough stuff.

Most of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, I am willing to bet, are graphic artists, English lit and other majors and professions. Unfortunately, society will not pay well for those niches across the board. Of course, the cream of the crop authors and designers are fabulously wealthy, but it is not a reliable field, like law, medicine, accounting or engineering, and so many today do not want to go those long, reliable, tedious routes.

So, I have hugely mixed feelings. Am I missing it? Is it really that hard to get to the level of the top 1%? It might be. I have never desired it, so I am not sure. But, when I got it together for a few years, it wasnt that hard to do OK, but I am sure I would have to work much harder to get to the 1%, and I just dont have the work ethic. But, I never ever want to take anything from anyone, so this whole thing troubles me, though I do love that people still take it to the streets. It is good and necessary.

Edited by Brafarality, 21 October 2011 - 11:58 PM.

[TheFountain]

^^^^ Then kindly explain why there is such a high rate of absolute poverty in the united states (higher than most other civilized nations in fact)? Laziness derived from envy? REALLY?? I deal with these people every day at my job, unemployed because they either cannot find work in the field they are educated in or there are just simply a deficit of jobs. Is everyone suppose to become a weekend CEO of their own little company? Is that possible given the limitations of 'the market'? What we're dealing with is a legislative manipulation of the so called 'free market' capitalist economy that is redesigned to favor the few over the many. Do we all magically transform into the few somehow? Till you work with people in absolute poverty and see just how many there are you simply don't have enough perspective to speak of their position, sorry to say.

Edited by TheFountain, 22 October 2011 - 12:14 AM.

[TheFountain]

If you are talking about the advantages of inherited wealth, then I could see the point. If you mean that people who are smarter or more creative or have whatever god-given talent shouldn't get ahead of the less fortunate, then, well, that isn't the way it would work in nature.

Ah once again, the fallacy of comparing economical system to 'nature'.

Please understand that economies, like every other aspect of modern civilization are outcroppings of the human mind, nothing more. We make it up as we go along. There is nothing inherent there. please cease confusing actual nature with unnaturally designed delimited market concepts.

[rwac]

^^^^ Then kindly explain why there is such a high rate of absolute poverty in the united states (higher than most other civilized nations in fact)?

Have you seen the poor people in the US? Most of them have cars and tv. We must have the richest poor people in the world.

[TheFountain]

^^^^ Then kindly explain why there is such a high rate of absolute poverty in the united states (higher than most other civilized nations in fact)?

Have you seen the poor people in the US? Most of them have cars and tv. We must have the richest poor people in the world.

Fallacious argument since most of these things, including cell phones, can be had on credit, which invariably leads to debt. Remember that talk of raising the debt ceiling a couple months ago? It's not just the government but the people who are in debt. I swear sometimes I feel like the majority of people who occupy this community are well to do middle aged white men. I sense very little sympathy on this site for those in real poverty, and to be honest it's sickening.

[TheFountain]

And it's no accident that the majority of the people who equate the economical system with some kind of abstract darwinian-like natural order are white males, those who invariably end up on the 'winning end' because they believe themselves superior and smarter than everyone else. get some perspective people, this 'i'm wiser and more evolved than you' precedent you're attempting to set does not address the issues at hand, nor does it help them in the least.

[niner]

I hate to say it, but there is so much opportunity in this country that it is ridiculous. So much democratization of wealth.

Well, it works for me, but tell that to the fifty year old guy who can't get anyone to hire him. I guess he's supposed to start a web consulting company...

If you add up the wealth of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Paul Allen, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Larry Ellison (all First Generation, all have Nothing to do with Wall Street), you will have more wealth than the top 1000 of Wall Street. And that is just for starters. If I throw in 10 more names, it will become apparent that New Money makes Old Money (incl. Wall Street) look like homeless people.

There's a flaw in this analysis. None of those guys have had to be bailed out with billions of taxpayer dollars. The Wall Street guys have this really cool system of heads they win, tails the taxpayer loses. Google doesn't do that.

There has been an enormous democratization of wealth in recent times but, paradoxically, it has resulted in an even more extreme divide between the haves and the have nots. But, the problem is that the have nots could be the haves. Tough stuff.

This is just comical. How would democratization of wealth result in a more extreme divide? Can you tell us how the have nots could be the haves? I think they would like to know the secret.

So, I have hugely mixed feelings. Am I missing it? Is it really that hard to get to the level of the top 1%? It might be. I have never desired it, so I am not sure. But, when I got it together for a few years, it wasnt that hard to do OK, but I am sure I would have to work much harder to get to the 1%, and I just dont have the work ethic. But, I never ever want to take anything from anyone, so this whole thing troubles me, though I do love that people still take it to the streets. It is good and necessary.

It's not that easy. You'd need an AGI of $380354, which means an income of significantly more than that.
But the way in which you are missing it is that you're buying the Fox News analysis that Occupy is about "taking" things from people. It's more about stopping Wall Street from taking things from us. Wall Street (some parts of it; I'm not trying to smear the entire financial industry, some of which is good) has engaged in criminal acts over the past decade or so, has privatized profit while socializing risk, has stolen from your or your parents' pension funds through the use of elaborate front-running schemes employing high speed trading and market distortion; the list goes on. Part of the way all this works is that the financial industry provides money to politicians, and the politicians do them favors. Part of it was an erroneous belief that the market could "regulate itself".

[maxwatt]

OWS came to my neighborhood yesterday, marching from 125st St to Columbus Circle. Police escort. The helicopters were overkill, and their noise roused the roused the neighborhood.

Demo started in the afternoon in Harlem, for a local issue, protesting New York City's "Stop and Frisk" law, an authoritarian measure that allows police to stop and frisk anyone, for whatever reason. A tiny percentage of the 800,000 stops a year result in arrests, those mostly for marijuana possession.* 85% or the stops are black or Hispanic, and the whites stopped are overwhelmingly young. Princeton professor Cornell West was arrested when they marched on the 28th precinct house in Harlem. When evening came they began marching toward the 25th precinct, which brought out the police and news helicopters, at 95 decibels in my living room. Thus roused, I walked with the disparate group for about a mile down Broadway. The helicopters left -- the evening news cycle was over, and the threat level wasn't enough for a helicopter escort, but a lot of police were blocking a lane of traffic keeping the protestors on the sidewalk which was uncomfortably narrow for the 300 or more wending downtown. The crowd grew as people came out of bars and restaurants to join up for a bit, others waving and giving thumbs up signs. Some young men wearing yarmulkas seemed to disapprove. A few OWS chants: "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out" , "the people united can never be defeated" and "this is what democracy looks like/" Guitars and drums. Sometimes singing "We Shall Overcome", "This Land is Your Land" and other 60's movement chestnuts, from people who probably hadn't demonstrated since the sixties. My phone's camera cannot track in dim light, and I did not get good pictures.

Like Occupy Montreal, this and other OWS groups are beginning to focus on local issues, as well as the predominant theme that a tiny percentage of the wealthiest percentage of the population is exercising undue and undemocratic control of the government and of [our] lives., to which they have not yet issued specific remedies. Yes, this concern echoes the Tea Party. Instead of focusing on government, which is the tool used by the elite to control the populace, they seek to look behind the curtain at the elite who are manipulating the government, Government is but a tool, a weapon. It is a sword that cuts two ways. Those who would weaken the government do not wish it to interfere with their business, and use it to their advantage, against the general population, but it is the only tool that might curb corporate excess and enable us to deal with the real problems our technology has created. The free-market is only a feedback mechanism, it does not address purpose or direction.

*Another New York law forbids arrest for mere possession, as long as it is concealed, so technically these arrests are invalid, but unless a lawyer points this out and gets it dismissed, the arrest results in a criminal record. That prevents receiving student aid or joining the army. Almost like getting arrested for carrying supplements, which it may come to yet. My neighbor, a lawyer, tells me the cops often plant marijuana during the frisk, especially near month end to meet their arrest quota, which the station chiefs deny exists. Usually if a court appointed lawyer points out the arrest was near month end, the judge will try to find some technicality to dismiss the charge. But not always. Orwell and Kafka lacked imagination compared to this.

[Brafarality]

OWS came to my neighborhood yesterday, marching from 125st St to Columbus Circle. Police escort. The helicopters were overkill, and their noise roused the roused the neighborhood.

Demo started in the afternoon in Harlem, for a local issue, protesting New York City's "Stop and Frisk" law, an authoritarian measure that allows police to stop and frisk anyone, for whatever reason. A tiny percentage of the 800,000 stops a year result in arrests, those mostly for marijuana possession.* 85% or the stops are black or Hispanic, and the whites stopped are overwhelmingly young. Princeton professor Cornell West was arrested when they marched on the 28th precinct house in Harlem. When evening came they began marching toward the 25th precinct, which brought out the police and news helicopters, at 95 decibels in my living room. Thus roused, I walked with the disparate group for about a mile down Broadway. The helicopters left -- the evening news cycle was over, and the threat level wasn't enough for a helicopter escort, but a lot of police were blocking a lane of traffic keeping the protestors on the sidewalk which was uncomfortably narrow for the 300 or more wending downtown. The crowd grew as people came out of bars and restaurants to join up for a bit, others waving and giving thumbs up signs. Some young men wearing yarmulkas seemed to disapprove. A few OWS chants: "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out" , "the people united can never be defeated" and "this is what democracy looks like/" Guitars and drums. Sometimes singing "We Shall Overcome", "This Land is Your Land" and other 60's movement chestnuts, from people who probably hadn't demonstrated since the sixties. My phone's camera cannot track in dim light, and I did not get good pictures.

Like Occupy Montreal, this and other OWS groups are beginning to focus on local issues, as well as the predominant theme that a tiny percentage of the wealthiest percentage of the population is exercising undue and undemocratic control of the government and of [our] lives., to which they have not yet issued specific remedies. Yes, this concern echoes the Tea Party. Instead of focusing on government, which is the tool used by the elite to control the populace, they seek to look behind the curtain at the elite who are manipulating the government, Government is but a tool, a weapon. It is a sword that cuts two ways. Those who would weaken the government do not wish it to interfere with their business, and use it to their advantage, against the general population, but it is the only tool that might curb corporate excess and enable us to deal with the real problems our technology has created. The free-market is only a feedback mechanism, it does not address purpose or direction.

*Another New York law forbids arrest for mere possession, as long as it is concealed, so technically these arrests are invalid, but unless a lawyer points this out and gets it dismissed, the arrest results in a criminal record. That prevents receiving student aid or joining the army. Almost like getting arrested for carrying supplements, which it may come to yet. My neighbor, a lawyer, tells me the cops often plant marijuana during the frisk, especially near month end to meet their arrest quota, which the station chiefs deny exists. Usually if a court appointed lawyer points out the arrest was near month end, the judge will try to find some technicality to dismiss the charge. But not always. Orwell and Kafka lacked imagination compared to this.

Yeah, unfortunately, the cops are dragging us down, as a nation, to their level of ignorant violence.

Anyone who hates this nation and wants to see us deteriorate should be cheering police behavior in these instances, since they are helping to promote an atmosphere of fear and ignorance: just what this nation DOESNT need if it wants to have some shot of continuing to lead the world (economically, at least).

If I were a full on conspiracy theorist, I would suspect these cops were planted here to destroy us from within. Destroy our liberties. Stifle vision, innovation, boundless spirit. Create just enough of a vague atmosphere of fear of being different, fear of standing out, fear of innovating, that it will doom us.
It almost seems like they are doing all the work of our enemies.

And, it's worse cause I bet all of these cops are flag wavers and feel really patriotic and warm themselves with 'America First' talk while they drink em down at local bars, but their deliberate attempt to quell the individual liberty and spirit that marries so well with American capitalism will practically guarantee that China will overtake us in the next 25 years.

People want to blame immigrants. They do nothing but enhance us as a nation.
People want to blame Wall Street. Thieves and liars, but not destroying American liberty.
Sadly, it's cops, judges, some politicians and some other figures in industry and media, etc. that are deteriorating our most precious asset: a feeling of boundless opportunity and a reverence for individual liberty and innovation, risk taking and (possibly to a fault) laissez-faire capitalism.

With the right blend of all of the above, we can continue to demonstrate what IS good about us.
But, again, what we least need of all things is law enforcement figures, among others, quelling any and all of these values and rights.

And, to the cops:
Keep waving those flags as you drag us down into ignorance and violence and ensure we will be behind in the decades ahead. Great job. See how much your 'patriotism' (which is a laugh, since you are actually traitors and, if I didnt know better, as I mentioned above, would say you were planted here by our enemies) swells with pride when we are behind China and India in 50 years.
You should be arresting people for ignorance and for not fully realizing their potential, not for social protest, which is a powerful American tradition.

Note: Not that either of these countries don't deserve all they have lying ahead of them. It's just that some here will lament our decline, and those that will most lament it will have probably done the most to bring it about.

Edited by Brafarality, 22 October 2011 - 04:40 PM.

[maxwatt]

What my friend in China said on viewing some of the OWS videos of cops misbehaving, especially the unwarranted macing and some uncalled for baton beating. (He demonstrated during Tian An Men 25 years ago, and comments on excesses by Chinese police and politicians)

"ALL DOGS BARK THE SAME."

Voltaire said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities."

Edited by maxwatt, 22 October 2011 - 08:14 PM.

[TheFountain]

Paul, a perfect example of everything you just said is how the media blatantly ignores Ron Paul despite the effect he has on the general populace post-debate polls notwithstanding.

I don't agree with him on everything but for someone running on a quasi-conservative, libertarian ticket, he does have the right idea about a few things.

How can we even begin to protect our own liberties in this country, or to garner the attention of those who need to see it our way when these people can't even see how blatantly wrong it is to occupy all these other nations across the world? Or maybe, and even more frighteningly, they do see how wrong it is but are unaffected by their actions and motivations?

This is why, if politics is to remain a paradigm that matters to we the people, we need more people like Ron Paul and Dennis kucinich in government. At least these men stand for some semblance of sanity.

[niner]

[maxwatt]

Yesterday morning the Occupy Oakland group camped across the street from City Hall were forcibly evicted by police. It has been confirmed that tear gas was used, though protestor claims rubber bullets were used haven't been substantiated. Police stated they fired bean bags into the crowd. Curiously this was almost buried in the national news, with no mention that those arrested are being held on five and ten thousand dollar bail, surely designed to discourage further activity. Throughout the day, demonstrations continued outside city hall, with police in riot gear cordoning off the park. Oakland has a severe drug and crime problem, and a high homicide rate. Mayor Quan is at odds with the police, her police commisioner resigned October 15, and it is possible the police were over-interpreting orders.

[maxwatt]

OWS: Fighting the politics of illusion

http://english.aljaz...8525806842.html

My son turned up this interesting analysis:

Since the financial crisis began in 2008, political discourse in the US has been awash in defence mechanisms.

For three long years since the financial crisis began, American politics has been dominated by the politics of projection, displacement and denial - three basic subconscious ego defence mechanisms that are tremendously powerful in defending the indefensible. On the personal level, such defence mechanisms - analysed by Anna Freud in her 1937 book, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence - protect the ego from conflicts that seemingly threaten its destruction, or at the very least weaken its foundations. They are, in a sense, helpful and adaptive at an early stage, since ego survival is a precondition for everything else. But they can take on a life of their own, “protecting” the ego from things that must be dealt with in order to grow as it should. The same is true when these mechanisms function socially, “defending” large groups of people - even whole civilisations - against facing up to their most important challenges, and preventing them from resolving conflicts that threaten to destroy them.
Such has been the establishment's response to the financial crash of 2008 and its ongoing repercussions until now. In one short month, Occupy Wall Street has begun to change all that. While Occupy Wall Street is purportedly raucous, incoherent, and lacking in clarity, it has done more than anything else in the past three years to begin stripping away the dangerously irrational nonsense protected by and embodied in those three social defence mechanisms. [denial, projection and displacement] In the wake of its global coming out day on October 15, it is a good idea to take stock of this remarkable accomplishment. ...

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.

- Robert Burns, To a Louse

The entire article is worth a read.

http://english.aljaz...8525806842.html

[okok]

Not all that much into economics and politics, but when reading up i found this article - Why the Miracle of Compound Interest leads to Financial Crises. Sure the net is rife with explanations, but this article seems to deliver a concise yet thorough picture (of history repeating).

[Brafarality]

Personally, I don't understand the envy part of it all. Throughout my life I have constantly run in to people that believe they are owed something just because they are alive, that everyone who has more than they do are greedy and got everything unethically. I understand OWS's point about "Wall Street" having some ill-gotten gains - mostly handed to them recently by Obama. I understand the points about crony-capitalism and bailouts, but I do not understand the envy. I know a lot of business people who got rich by working hard and taking risks. I know a lot of money managers and financial planners who saved money and invested wisely. They have big houses and take lavish trips to exotic places. They eat fancy food. It does not bother me. They worked for it. Sometimes they saved all of their lives, in order to retire comfortably. I would never go protest to take their money away. That is what I see in OWS - envy, more than anything else - with a lot of communism thrown in to boot. When they march on D.C. and the White House, then I will know that they understand the problems more comprehensively.

I was initially skeptical about the movement but now support what I believe it really stands for and not what is on that list. At the heart of it all is squandered potential, knowledge, mental capital, talent, and so on. A society that has no meaningful employment for 100,000 out of work graphic artists and art historians, computer animators and biologists, anthropologists and astronomers, is a society that is in trouble.

If there are 10,000 biologists driving a cab, I really dont want to hear about how they shouldnt complain, or how they shouldnt feel a sense of entitlement for their college degree, or how they have to pay their dues like everyone else: I want to know what is wrong with a society that has allowed this to happen at all. I want to know how many breakthroughs didnt happen as a result.

I am not sure what needs to be done to remedy this, and I am not sure who or what is qualified to socially engineer the large scale solutions, but it should happen at some point.

And, economically successful people shouldnt look down at the 150 million people who came up short so far, despite having college degrees, knowledge, intelligence and talent, rather, they should worry about the society they live in that has allowed that to happen, and what may happen to that society in the long term. They should worry about how many breakthroughs and discoveries in CGI, astronomy, medicine, history, art, sociology and so on are NOT happening because of a lack of structured opportunity for so many. It is just deleterious for society to squander so much talent.

And, I dont want to hear that if they want it enough, they will struggle till they get it. That only makes it certain that 'determined' people make it, which is great and all, but I would rather that society take a moment to encourage a budding Van Gogh who may need a kickstart than have 100 Thomas Kinkades struggle hard until they are commercially successful artists. I know the example doesnt apply, but its the thought: Dont resent these people. Fear for society because of their plight.

Then again, I advocate nothing for now because I am not sure who, if anyone, can bring about benevolent change at this moment. And, despite the previous tirade, I strongly believe in laissez faire capitalism, so there is some contradition here, and I apologize for that since I havent worked it out yet.

Edited by Brafarality, 28 October 2011 - 04:48 PM.

[niner]

they should worry about the society they live in that has allowed that to happen, and what may happen to that society in the long term.

This. The wealthy have a stake in the lives of the 99%. If the 99% goes to hell in a handbasket, so does the country. The rich can flee to Monaco if they want, but I don't think very many of them really want to.

[firespin]

A society that has no meaningful employment for 100,000 out of work graphic artists and art historians, computer animators and biologists, anthropologists and astronomers, is a society that is in trouble.

If there are 10,000 biologists driving a cab, I really dont want to hear about how they shouldnt complain, or how they shouldnt feel a sense of entitlement for their college degree, or how they have to pay their dues like everyone else: I want to know what is wrong with a society that has allowed this to happen at all. I want to know how many breakthroughs didnt happen as a result.

I am not sure what needs to be done to remedy this, and I am not sure who or what is qualified to socially engineer the large scale solutions, but it should happen at some point.

This specific problem existed before the recession, and I don’t believe majority of it has anything to do with Wall Street. This problem is due to mainly two factors:
1. Not enough job demand or companies seeking people with such degrees to hire all.
2. Not all degrees are considered equal by employers; even if it is from the same university/college, and more so for colleges with lower rankings.

For example let’s say you have two newly graduated biologists from the same Ivy League school applying for the same job. The difference is one biologist was a straight A student with a 4.0 GPA; the other a C student with a 2.6 GPA. As an employer of course you are going to hiring the A student. Now the Ivy League C student will eventually apply to a less lucrative job, and he might be chosen over a C student from Podunk U due to his degree prestige. This pattern continues all the way down to less desirable jobs. Eventually society is left over with a bunch of biologists with huge student loans that cannot find a job for their degree they went to college for. The longer they do not get a job in their field the less desirable they will be to future employers. This example doesn’t even enter the fact that there are biologists from other countries who are willing to immigrate that are applying for the same jobs in the US. Even in recessions the most qualified find it easier to get a job and are hired eventually by a company.
So now society have a bunch of biologists who are driving taxi cabs.

Unless there are limits on who can get specific degrees based on high school grades, what specific colleges are allowed to give such degrees, and job demand, I don't think this problem will ever be solved. This would be a slippery slope and nobody wants to be remembered as the person who created such limits.

Edited by firespin, 29 October 2011 - 12:35 AM.

[Ark]

Yeah, Ive been thinking about posting this, but at the start this seemed like mostly gatherings of groups of idealistic Rage Against The Machine college fans, basically the same kind of folks who go to riot in WTO meetings, so I didn't pay much further attention to the developements.


It's great to stand against all the bad stuff in the world, but do they have any tangible propositions appart from "End Corporate Greed" ? I fear this movement may fade into irrelevancy just like the Spanish Indignados did, due to lack of the will to actually effectively introduce changes through the political process, by for ex. putting out candidates for Representatives.

EDIT: OK, I took a look at the list of demands on one of the sites. Some of the stuff in there is pretty wacko, to say the least:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.


Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the Books - World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the Books. And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

LOLs at Demand Eleven ("And I mean all debt on the entire planet"), and Twelve.

What I see as the real problem here is....

All these solutions would have worked pre-90s but today , it's wishful thinking at the MAX.

Althought I would support a complete change in our monatary policy and hell if it was possible I'd say do all the reforms. It would benifit me in the long run and my children as we don't have a stock in Walmart and have been in muck with the rest of the middle class.


It's time for real change, but what change will truely lift our problems off our head and not place it on our childrens heads , like we've done in the past.

Edited by Ark, 29 October 2011 - 01:04 AM.

[Rational Madman]

A contraction of the money supply is a fairly important correlate of recessions, and I doubt that acquiescing to the demands of a mob will have a positive impact. Especially considering the bleak forecasts, the new---and condition determined---capital requirements for risk weighted assets, the reluctance of the Fed---and systemically important central banks---to aggressively expand its balance sheet, the present political divisions, the regressive demands of fiscal austerity---and its impact on fiscal stimulus, the level of joblessness, and the recession provoked loss of household wealth.

Given our anemic state, It might seem comforting to reduce the economy to a single variable, but almost without fail, it's simplistic. Indeed, the present---and past---level of risk taking in the financial services sector barely explains the deficit in aggregate demand, market confidence, the disappointing responses to countercyclical policies, and the possible double dip. Rather, alternative explanations need to be considered, like: the failure to govern capital flows, imprudent monetary policy, poorly designed regulations, an education system that paid little attention to market demands, the barely checked growth in household consumption, outdated rules for political decision making, protectionism that bordered on mercantilism, the failure to adjust to automation---and increased labor market flexibility, and more generally, complacency during a period of relative affluence.

And then there's the wealthy, who've unsurprisingly, become more wealthy. But unlike the beginning of the last century, this wealth isn't for the most part inherited, and acquired with relatively little effort. Instead, it's more of a function of the growth of wealth making opportunities---especially in finance, the value of education---and majors---from leading institutions, the growing level of market integration, and hard work. Increasing taxation of higher income brackets is inevitable, but changes in tax policy needs to be balanced---consumption, VAT, etc.---and automatically determined by levels of inflation and output---higher during more productive periods, and lower during more stressful periods. Further, heavily taxing the wealthy will have only a marginal effect on redressing the situation, and might be regressive, given the changed physics of the marketplace. Instead, there needs to be greater emphasis on stimulating growth by any practical means---even targeted tax cuts, for the sake of reaching a consensus---and calming the markets with an iron clad commitment to make spending cuts in certain areas---or automatically tying spending to economic measures.

Edited by Rol82, 07 November 2011 - 10:07 PM.