114 replies to this topic

[firespin]

Notice how the SEIU union goon try to intimidate Andrew Breitbart by stalking him while he questions the protesters at “Occupy LA”. The protesters openly admit to be anti-capitalism and socialist.

Edited by firespin, 18 October 2011 - 10:01 AM.

[niner]

firespin, on 18 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Notice how the SEIU union goon try to intimidate Andrew Breitbart by stalking him while he questions the protesters at “Occupy LA”. The protesters openly admit to be anti-capitalism and socialist.

Brietbart is a paragon of reliable journalism.  He would never shade the truth.  

[rwac]

Douglas Schoen is a democratic pollster, is he sufficiently reliable for ya?

http://online.wsj.co...ss_opinion_main

Quote

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

... it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth ...

[Brainbox]

Quote

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

... it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth ...

Robin Hood parody. "Dang, this redistribution of wealth is more complicated then I thought"

[youttube][/youtube]

[niner]

rwac, on 18 October 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

Douglas Schoen is a democratic pollster, is he sufficiently reliable for ya?

I wouldn't call the WSJ opinion page a reliable source of unbiased facts, sorry.  Schoen does say this:

Quote

By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Wow, those are some scary commies!  That's super radical!

[aim1]

‘Occupy Cleveland’ Protester Alleges She Was Raped.  Fuck the USA songs in Seattle.  Scum protester takes a dump on a cop car in public.  What a classy group.  Just like the TEA Party right?
You never seem to mention any of this... Just that Ruppert Murdoch/New York post Wall Street Journal biases.  Never a word of the majority of the leftist in the main stream media. Never a word about the influence of George Soros.
Money in politics...so laughable...The worst president ever to be elected raised over a billion dollars in the last election...huge sums from Wall street and questionable sources.  Proven voter fraud from around the country...all ignored by the former republican.

[Ben]

Seems like some members need a stern lesson from Friedman.

Milton Friedman - Greed




Friedman talking again about greed and corporations.



Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place




These issues are as old as civilisation. Friedman covers them better than anyone I know. Educate yourself on the issue before spouting nonsense. Darn socialists. Is there anyone more evil?

Edited by Ben, 19 October 2011 - 10:31 AM.

[hivemind]

Friedman is a dead man. World was different in his time.

Also, it's a matter of opinion and values. Friedman's utopia has never existed.

Edited by Trip, 19 October 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[maxwatt]

What has happened since Reagan is a radical redistribution of wealth, from the middle class to the top few percent of the population.  That the protestors are asking for a return to the past, reversing this redistribution, makes them the true conservatives, protectors of traditional American egalitarian values.  Not radicals.

There is no  real left in this country, which has allowed the liberals drift right of center, to the point they no longer serve as a safety valve for the frustrations of the masses.

I observed occupy Montreal over the weekend.  The French have maintained a leftist tradition this past half-century; most of the French-speakers were espousing local Quebec issues.  The Anglophones were expressing the same broader concerns as the people I saw near Wall Street in Liberty Square.

the US now ranks 93rd in the world in "income equality." China's ahead of us. So is India. So is Iran.

[maxwatt]

[mikeinnaples]

There is no doubt that the middle class is disappearing in the United States. There is no doubt that there are glaring problems when you see things like a CEO makings millions of dollars the year the company is forced to layoff hundreds of workers. There is no doubt things need to change in both the business and political sectors. Unfortunately, until the government changes, there is no chance to change 'wall street'.

We need to stop electing democrats and republicans to office. Instead we should be electing the best person for the job into office. This simply isnt going to happen until political parties are abolished. Unfortunately that will never happen.

[maxwatt]

never say never

40 years ago, the CEO of a big corporation mad 40 times as much as the average employee.  Today the CEO makes 300 times the working stiff's salary.  Not to mention stock options.....

[Brainbox]

Ben, on 19 October 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

Seems like some members need a stern lesson from Friedman.

Trip said:

Friedman is a dead man. World was different in his time.

The last 2 decades, at least in the EU, were characterised by a good synergy between social and capitalist approaches. Keyness and Friedman shook hands, so to speak.

What happens now, after a minor hick-up, is that the old polarization is re-introduced, resulting in moving from a solution in stead of contributing to it. We are trying to solve the problem as if we are still in the 80's of the previous century. We in this discussion, and especially the "sit and sing on a square people", are solving the wrong problem with the wrong ideologies.

And indeed, in historical perspective we are experiencing a relatively small hick-up.

Edited by Brainbox, 19 October 2011 - 07:08 PM.

[niner]

Brainbox, on 19 October 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

And indeed, in historical perspective we are experiencing a relatively small hick-up.

What are you comparing it to?  The Black Death?  The only comparable event in the past century that I can think of is the Great Depression of the 1930's.  I wouldn't characterize 2008 as a small hiccup.  You make it sound like a run-of-the-mill recession.  If that's all it was, it would be over now and we wouldn't even be discussing it.

[maxwatt]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, either.

[Brainbox]

Niner, I'll come back to that, just need to find an overview article that I read on good old paper the other day on the net somewhere in a proper language. Please understand me right, I don't want to play down the current situation, but I find it difficult to not polarize my ass off in this setting. It is of course a big crisis, but we survived several greater economical crises with significantly less hype and media turmoil. We are able to create a self fulfilling downwards spiral in a situation where some minor but tough measures could fix the problem. It seems that in certain environments sinking a nation can be part of an electorate strategy.

People have their own responsibility regarding the situation they are in as well. It;s not or / or but and / and. It's just to easy to blame the banks or the government. There's a Dutch proverb (I think it has a Dutch origin, but not sure), "vote with your feet". It means something like "go to the shop that sells the good stuff and ignore the shop that sells the rubbish". Take matters in your own hands and let the (economical) market work.

If counter-counter-counter measures are your thing, look here: The 53 % movement.

Quote

Those of us who pay for those of you who whine about all of that... or that... or whatever.

[niner]

Brainbox, on 20 October 2011 - 02:50 AM, said:

It is of course a big crisis, but we survived several greater economical crises with significantly less hype and media turmoil.

Really?  In the past century?  Aside from the 1930's?  There was a lot of turmoil in the 30's, to put it mildly.  Are you thinking of LTCM?  The Asian Contagion?  Those weren't trivial, but they didn't rise to the level of 2008.

Brainbox, on 20 October 2011 - 02:50 AM, said:

People have their own responsibility regarding the situation they are in as well. It;s not or / or but and / and. It's just to easy to blame the banks or the government. There's a Dutch proverb (I think it has a Dutch origin, but not sure), "vote with your feet". It means something like "go to the shop that sells the good stuff and ignore the shop that sells the rubbish". Take matters in your own hands and let the (economical) market work.

Some people are in bad situations of their own making.  In other cases, it's not so clear.  There are millions of people in America who have lost their jobs, and a lot of them can't find any work because the few jobs that are available go to younger workers.  It is really hard for some older to workers to get hired, and employers don't like to hire people who are unemployed.  They prefer to hire people who already have another job.  Strange but true.

I'm not blaming the banks or the government, I'm blaming the fact that the wealthy have BOUGHT the government.  That and a government and population half infected with a non fact-based ideology.  The Occupy protestors ARE voting with their feet.  They are taking matters into their own hands, and trying to restore a free market that can work for more of us, not just the 1%.  A lot of the Occupy protestors and supporters have jobs.  The current system is working great for me.  I support Occupy because I think the system is morally bankrupt and will ultimately create a country that won't be so nice to live in.   I'm not sure what you find so polarizing about this; it's not about communism vs capitalism, it's about capitalism vs crony capitalism, about democracy vs plutocracy, about good government vs corruption.

[hivemind]

Natural resources are limited, economic growth will stop. Future world is a zero growth world.

Living standards have to come down in wealthy western countries. What right do they have for such huge consumption compared to the rest of the world?

Edited by Trip, 20 October 2011 - 07:48 AM.

[hivemind]

niner, on 20 October 2011 - 03:43 AM, said:

it's not about communism vs capitalism, it's about capitalism vs crony capitalism, about democracy vs plutocracy, about good government vs corruption.

It's about capitalism vs. democracy

Edited by Trip, 20 October 2011 - 07:52 AM.

[Mind]

Quote

I'm not blaming the banks or the government, I'm blaming the fact that the wealthy have BOUGHT the government.  That and a government and population half infected with a non fact-based ideology.  The Occupy protestors ARE voting with their feet.  They are taking matters into their own hands, and trying to restore a free market that can work for more of us, not just the 1%.  A lot of the Occupy protestors and supporters have jobs.  The current system is working great for me.  I support Occupy because I think the system is morally bankrupt and will ultimately create a country that won't be so nice to live in.   I'm not sure what you find so polarizing about this; it's not about communism vs capitalism, it's about capitalism vs crony capitalism, about democracy vs plutocracy, about good government vs corruption.

Sorry Niner. I understand the hope for good things from OWS, I really do, but the reality is (based on a vast volume of available video and audio from the protest) a free market is the exact opposite of what most in OWS want, particularly the ones out on the street. I grant that are a few smarter protesters posting some interesting and smart things on the net, but the ones on the street are calling for the antithesis of a free market.

[Mind]

maxwatt, on 19 October 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

What has happened since Reagan is a radical redistribution of wealth, from the middle class to the top few percent of the population.  That the protestors are asking for a return to the past, reversing this redistribution, makes them the true conservatives, protectors of traditional American egalitarian values.  Not radicals.

The American ideal that I understand is egalitarian in opportunity, not outcomes. Someone who works hard, takes risks, uses his/her creativity, and gets weatlhy does not deserve to have their wealth forcibly taken from them. That is an ugly egalitarian value in my view. Unfortunately, OWS is having a hard time separating ill-gotten gains, from people who deserve their wealth. They need to get their act together and stop promoting tyrannical communism, IMO.

[Mind]

I mentioned earlier that OWS seems blind to political corruption. They are focusing exclusively on Wall Street when the true "mob bosses" live in Washington DC and the White House. OWS are big supporters of president Obama even though he continues to ignore crony-capitalism run rampant. Take this recent example: Bank of America is transferring their derivative book/losses into their regular bank holdings, making it FDIC insured. Think of it as BAC putting their hundreds of billions of gambling losses on the backs of taxpayers. Here is a perfect issue going on right now for OWS to focus on. They could finally have an issue. They could finally do some good. All they have to do is pressure the FDIC and Obama to stop this in its tracks. Unfortunately, Obama will do absolutely nothing (I predict) because one of his "friends" and fundraisers, Warren Buffet, just invested in BAC. Obama cannot let it go bankrupt because uncle Warren will lose money (and face) and a BAC bankruptcy would also hurt his other major contributors from Wall Street. HE....WILL....DO...NOTHING.

People have rightfully criticized OWS for having no plan, no issues, no demands. So far they are just professional protesters doing their thing. After more than a month, their greatest victory is not getting evicted from "their park". Despite some people who hope they will get behind the BAC issue, I predict they will not because this is an issue of fundamental fairness. Instead of more crony capitalism, BAC should go bankrupt. The management should be out of a job and the investor should lose money. OWS will not get behind this because there is nothing in it for them. Again, from the vast majority of reporting I have seen, most of them are just asking for handouts. If they can't stop or even make the BAC taxpayer theft an issue, then they deserve to be mocked.

Edited by Mind, 20 October 2011 - 04:27 PM.

[hivemind]

Mind, on 20 October 2011 - 04:06 PM, said:

The American ideal that I understand is egalitarian in opportunity, not outcomes. Someone who works hard, takes risks, uses his/her creativity, and gets weatlhy does not deserve to have their wealth forcibly taken from them.

Equality of opportunity is nonsense. Everything is based on competition. Hard work means nothing if you do not have a competitive edge to other people. That means inequality of opportunity. Nobody deserves more just because he is born with more. More resources, more abilities etc..

Equality of opportunity is some kind of self-deceit on the part of fortunate people who try to rationalize why they deserve more than other people. They have more, but they really do not deserve more.

[niner]

Trip, on 20 October 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

Equality of opportunity is some kind of self-deceit on the part of fortunate people who try to rationalize why they deserve more than other people. They have more, but they really do not deserve more.

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.  If person A works hard, and person B smokes a lot of weed and plays WoW all day, I think person A deserves to have more money.

[hivemind]

niner, on 20 October 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

If person A works hard, and person B smokes a lot of weed and plays WoW all day, I think person A deserves to have more money.

If person A has the IQ of a rock and person B is a genius, then person B makes more money despite those facts.

Inherited abilities are no different from inherited wealth.

[niner]

Trip, on 20 October 2011 - 05:20 PM, said:

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?

[niner]

Mind, on 20 October 2011 - 04:25 PM, said:

I mentioned earlier that OWS seems blind to political corruption. They are focusing exclusively on Wall Street when the true "mob bosses" live in Washington DC and the White House. OWS are big supporters of president Obama even though he continues to ignore crony-capitalism run rampant. Take this recent example: Bank of America is transferring their derivative book/losses into their regular bank holdings, making it FDIC insured. Think of it as BAC putting their hundreds of billions of gambling losses on the backs of taxpayers. Here is a perfect issue going on right now for OWS to focus on. They could finally have an issue. They could finally do some good. All they have to do is pressure the FDIC and Obama to stop this in its tracks. Unfortunately, Obama will do absolutely nothing (I predict) because one of his "friends" and fundraisers, Warren Buffet, just invested in BAC. Obama cannot let it go bankrupt because uncle Warren will lose money (and face) and a BAC bankruptcy would also hurt his other major contributors from Wall Street. HE....WILL....DO...NOTHING.

People have rightfully criticized OWS for having no plan, no issues, no demands. So far they are just professional protesters doing their thing. After more than a month, their greatest victory is not getting evicted from "their park". Despite some people who hope they will get behind the BAC issue, I predict they will not because this is an issue of fundamental fairness. Instead of more crony capitalism, BAC should go bankrupt. The management should be out of a job and the investor should lose money. OWS will not get behind this because there is nothing in it for them. Again, from the vast majority of reporting I have seen, most of them are just asking for handouts. If they can't stop or even make the BAC taxpayer theft an issue, then they deserve to be mocked.

Thanks for bringing this BAC outrage to our attention.  This is certainly the exact kind of thing that OWS is opposed to.  It's the socialization of risk/privatization of profit story all over again.   I don't think that Obama would be in favor of this either.  How about the Republicans and the Tea Party?  Where do they stand on it?  I think you're being a little hard on OWS expecting them to stop something like this when the movement is just getting started.  The Tea Party (and for godsake, the Republicans) have a bunch of people in freakin' Congress!  Why aren't they doing something about it?  Now to be fair, if I just learned about this today on ImmInst, probably a lot of the country is unaware of it.  Maybe we should give the various political players a minute to take a stand on it.

[Mind]

Touche' Niner! You are correct that the Tea Party and Republicans should be taking this up as well.

[Brainbox]

Oh boy, I find it quite difficult to understand the background and motives of US political movements. And during the moments I think I do I sincerely hope I'm wrong. It's just not possible for me to comprehend this discussion let alone participate in it without getting more confused and starting to compare apples and oranges. Probably my EU background, lack of knowledge of some of the facts in the US and my subsequent projection of the US on EU situations is prohibitive in that....

Anyway, now I'm looking for a "Introduction to US politics for EU dummies" book. Seriously, I really am!  

Edited by Brainbox, 20 October 2011 - 09:05 PM.

[TheFountain]

Mind, on 06 October 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

The list of demands is so dissapointing, basically union/socialist/communist talking points. Too bad OWS isn't promoting liberty. Sad.

Yea because liberty always means capitalism.

I think there is ample evidence to the contrary, especially considering the corporate capitalist dogma we are subjected to constantly in this country shows that we are pretty much living in a society that's almost a precursor to feudalism. And how did we get here? Good ole capitalist manipulation.