Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion => Topic started by: Mizhara on 05 Oct 2011, 11:20
-
A very good article on the matter. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html)
I honestly think we're witnessing something that may go down in history. For the first time there's something genuinely new in the world of protesting and/or creating awareness and traditional media have serious problems trying to keep up with it. The communication network and availability of the internet tied so closely to a real life event, not to mention the nature of the event itself is amazing to behold. If we're really lucky, this may very well spark a somewhat different take on news media and for that matter resolving conflicts like these.
Some of us might go 'Wow, I live in the future!' when we read books on a Kindle or find out what country and city we're in by using our Smartphones, then get hotel rooms and plane tickets fifteen minutes later on the same device, but this particular event transcends even that. Reality has caught up to science fiction in the networked communication department and we're witnessing it as it unfolds. I'm enjoying this immensely.
-
Hmm. Very interesting opinion piece, and it did get me thinking.
My opinion? We'll see if any real change occurs. I'm not talking about a week, a month, a year from now. I'm talking five years, ten years, twenty years. Protests aren't new. This isn't new. The use of technology is new, but the bottleneck for change is the message. That's why it's easy to brush off the protesters, and why shortly after the protests end, it will be forgotten by many. It's why traditional media really isn't useful here. They're looking for the ratings, the soundbites, etc. Want to know more? Go online, don't watch mainstream news. The Media should simply inform, not try to entertain (and that's the problem with all the media channels and outlets).
That's not to say that it won't be significant in a historical sense. Will this change the minds, habits and motivations for those who will be influential in the years to come? Will this protest lead the way to future protests? The protests have already spread, and I'm sure that many who protest in years to come will look at this one as an example of how to do it "right". On everything else though? We'll see. Technology is only as useful as those who use it, and as any fan of science fiction knows, it can be used responsibly... or not so responsibly.
-
Based on the opinion piece, I hope it leads to increased dialogue and conversation, not only between those with issues, but between those who have issue(s) and those who the issue is against.
Any successful democratic republic requires an educated electorate to ensure it functions appropriately. Understanding the roots of the issues and what led to this or that situation is critically important.
The problem will come as those in power fight to maintain a Status Quo and the majority (the 80%) trade freedom for security. The remaining 19% will find themselves a minority and under fire.
-
This entire movement is fantastic. What needs to happen now is a clear message needs to be relayed to the rest of the population of north america. Until that happens, the general population watching is going to look at a bunch of young adults who are just acting reckless with no clear goal other then they are unhappy about something.
If the rest of the US and Canada can finally get the message into their skulls and see whats happening, then this event is going to really take off. Until then my optimism will remain skeptical, but I really hope this thing explodes into pure epicness.
P.S. If i didnt have a son to feed, I would so be there.
-
This entire movement is fantastic. What needs to happen now is a clear message needs to be relayed to the rest of the population of north america. Until that happens, the general population watching is going to look at a bunch of young adults who are just acting reckless with no clear goal other then they are unhappy about something.
If the rest of the US and Canada can finally get the message into their skulls and see whats happening, then this event is going to really take off. Until then my optimism will remain skeptical, but I really hope this thing explodes into pure epicness.
P.S. If i didnt have a son to feed, I would so be there.
This, pretty much. I have some very strong (and highly articulable) feelings about the manner in which the financial sector screwed up the economy and continues to profit.
The place where they are going to struggle in the national eye is their inability to be condensed into a soundbite. The traditional media runs on soundbites. If you need more than ten seconds to describe something, you're fucked.
-
Non-traditional media! :P
-
Non-traditional media! :P
Only way to go with something like this. The mainstream will generally distort things, given who owns it and what their interests are.
What makes me smile are some of the Tea Party types who are getting enthusiastic about this. I suspect the groups that funded and set up the Tea Party "movement" are not going to be too happy about that. :lol:
-
You can't beat the network. Me approves.
-
Given everything that is happening, I found this and for whatever reason it seems to be relevant to this discussion. Just sharing.
http://cgiampietri.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-state-of-nature-hobbes-locke-and-rousseau/
edit: found a more detailed and well written version of the above link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
-
Non-traditional media! :P
Only way to go with something like this. The mainstream will generally distort things, given who owns it and what their interests are.
What makes me smile are some of the Tea Party types who are getting enthusiastic about this. I suspect the groups that funded and set up the Tea Party "movement" are not going to be too happy about that. :lol:
The originators of the Tea Party movement have had their message distorted/hijacked by those funding the current Tea Party movement. Arguably it is the neo-cons who did so. And in the opinion of libertarians, the neo-con is just as bad as the social liberal: both support the idea that someone else knows what is best for every individual/family, the difference is who (God/Government).
The "Tea Party-types" you are talking about recognize that they need to be part of the discussion that is occurring in order to get their message to the "revolutionaries" (Jeffersonian definition of revolutionary). The generation coming of age, which lacks the voting power of the previous two, looks at the status quo and sees it cannot work.
There is a Crisis of the Old Order (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/25/the_crisis_of_the_old_order.html). How the world emerges from this crisis is the great unknown and more people are likely to die before it happens - those in power have every reason to maintain the status quo (regardless of their political affiliation).
-
[spoiler](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnw2jtSd2u1qanr6lo1_500.jpg)[/spoiler]
But on a serious note this has been fascinating to keep an eye on and that article was very well written and a good read.
-
Youtube video. "My little nightstick's going to get a workout tonight." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBxPzhXFT6c)
Organized protesters tried to join them, got pepper-spray and baton beatings as a result. (http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Occupy_Wall_Street_Protests_Rock_New_York_City)
[mod]*snip* (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2759.new#new)[/mod]
-
Longer (and disturbing) video of needless violence and police that are apparently either very poorly trained in handling crowds or with hair-triggers for violence. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyTGM4iCf08&feature=related) There's heaps of other videos out there on the violence going on against these protestors. A damn good question I keep hearing the protestors ask the police but doesn't get any answer to:
"Who are you protecting?".
If you're in that city, get the fuck down there and make your voice heard, even if it's just by being another one the authorities have to deal with. Don't let this... this... freakin' fascism happen unopposed. I know there's a lot of Americans here who are decent people and I can't believe you guys will allow your country to turn into... well, THAT.
-
I think every citizen should be informed and critical of the information they receive, regardless of what source it comes from. Everybody's got an agenda.
As someone who's just scraping through this shit-period with a job, I am watching to see what happens pretty closely. I think most people are just trying to get by on a daily basis; when shit gets bad enough that no one can there'll be a mess.
-
One of my favourite internet thingamabobs.
(http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Huxley-Orwell-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.jpg)
-
Hey I like this comicstrip. Its quite good.
Longer (and disturbing) video of needless violence and police that are apparently either very poorly trained in handling crowds or with hair-triggers for violence. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyTGM4iCf08&feature=related) There's heaps of other videos out there on the violence going on against these protestors. A damn good question I keep hearing the protestors ask the police but doesn't get any answer to:
"Who are you protecting?".
If you're in that city, get the fuck down there and make your voice heard, even if it's just by being another one the authorities have to deal with. Don't let this... this... freakin' fascism happen unopposed. I know there's a lot of Americans here who are decent people and I can't believe you guys will allow your country to turn into... well, THAT.
Well I share the feeling but lets not get into broad generalizations.
-
Despite not even living on the correct continent, I've been sharing this over Facebook, and I am pleased to see our media is -finally- starting to report on it after weeks of silence. Am curious how the US media is dealing with this now? Generally we see things here once they get covered there, am wondering if that is the case now too or not.
-
Journalist Luke Rudkowski attacked by police with a nightstick. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXuvhg8Ahw)
Might be considered 'strong' imagery.
-
Fox News propaganda? Say it isn't so! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X07_5A7UgYQ)
-
NPR is doing a decently good job of covering it now; the decentralized nature of the whole thing means they can't really interview leaders, of course, but the reporters like to stick around at those "human microphone" meetings they have to listen in. Mostly now they're talking about where the protests are going next - they've got their spotlight now, and the way things are rolling they aren't going to have to keep focusing on growing that spotlight. So, what now? What concrete, actual, specific items can they present as goals to be met or objectives to be changed?
-
Journalist Luke Rudkowski attacked by police with a nightstick. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXuvhg8Ahw)
Might be considered 'strong' imagery.
That video makes me laugh.
When a crowd is angrily pressing at the police line, ignoring orders to get back, while shouting insults and sometimes attacking the police... things can go south VERY fast. It isn't the police's job to lay down on the ground or stand back when told to. It's the place of the protestors to do that. that people consistently ignore and fight back against the police... then get mad when they're arrested, thrown down to the pavement, or beat with a baton.... that amazes me.
The police are not there to follow your protest, even if they agree with it. They are here to keep the crowd under control so things like looting, vandalism, human stampedes or worse do not happen. They are there to enforce order. If you pressure them, scream at them, insult them, attack them, force them to gather together.. they get nervous and agitated like ANY OTHER HUMAN WOULD.
Whether or not the police are acting out of line, the tone and attitude of that crowd is NOT a friendly or stable one. It's sounding more like a riot. Just remember, when beating protestors back with batons doesn't work anymore to keep the officers safe, guns will be drawn and pointed. Targeting and pressuring the police is going to get someone killed, and I'm surprised and thankful it hasn't happened yet.
It disgusts me that police are so often the hated people, the uncool, the 'pigs'. Yet when something illegal happens to you, who do you turn to for help? Yeah. I thought so.
tl;dr
Stupid kids crowd police, police beat them back by force since shouting isn't working... kids deserved it.
-
I don't entirely agree and I am one of the people who consistently tout the authority of... well, uniformed authority. These are unarmed and for the very most part harmless protestors who have managed to keep a fairly major protest and occupation entirely violence free for two weeks straight. You'll want to note that any violence performed there have been pretty much exclusive to the police forces and that there's a huge abundance of videos showing gleeful use of force by the police. "Oh yeah, my nightstick's going to get a workout tonight!" a burly one says before he starts hitting the ground with a grin, warming up for the beatings.
While I would agree that the police are just there to do their jobs and so on... I do find it somewhat suspicious that there had been no escalation of force for two whole weeks until a certain fellow with a decent sized wallet decided to 'donate' well over four million dollars to the NYPD. Surely just to be a humanitarian who saw an urgent need for the coffee makers to be replaced. Secondly, the police force the situation by pressuring these protestors after (again) two weeks of non-violent and peaceful protesting for no discernable reason. Doesn't strike me as all too sensible to me.
The fact that they lay about themselves with truncheons and pepper spray so readily, documented by reporters who have also been subject to police violence, against peaceful protestors is something I can't just nod and smile at. Yes, if the protestors are the aggressors, the police should have the means and option to unfuck the situation. If there is no documented aggression from the protestors this kind of escalation and pushing the crowd into a fury is completely unacceptable. Especially when there's also been documented events where the police have trapped protest marches in unlawful positions in order to get a reason to arrest them.
The police stood aside as the protestors marched, practically herding them onto the Brooklyn Bridge. What do the protestors find on the other side? A police barricade and the way back out was slammed shut. What did Fox News report? "Protestors blocking a main traffic route and the police restoring order by arresting over seven hundred protestors."
No Katrina... I would on any other day agree with you... but here there's something very ugly going on.
-
I didn't know about those events. I just saw the video, with the police being pushed back by a very angry crowd. Where did you learn about this donation? Is there a link or some such?
-
I had about eighteen tabs open on the OWS subject while researching this stuff and then I accidentally'd my Firefox's "restore last session" option. I might find the stuff again if I try to retrace all my steps but this was fairly wild surfing across quite a few sites. I'll link it if I find it again.
-
Also it is quite common to have trouble makers implanted into peaceful protests to turn them into something more resembling riots.
Has happened pretty much every time there has been one of them G4865 whatever thingamabobs.
-
Well, there have been reports, sadly undocumented, of people leaving the protestor packs and only then revealed their badges. I can't really take that as certain though as there's no proof. It does sound somewhat plausible though, considering it's widespread use.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-protest-thursday.html#previous
Pic 10
Shes to pretty to be arrested, what did she do to deserve this
-
Well, there have been reports, sadly undocumented, of people leaving the protestor packs and only then revealed their badges. I can't really take that as certain though as there's no proof. It does sound somewhat plausible though, considering it's widespread use.
I read an interview through BoingBoing yesterday with some protest organisers that claimed that some of the "protesters" leading the crowd over the bridge had been arresting people the day before...
-
Those claims are made pretty much every time there's a protest that ends with bad things. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd think that in the era of the cameraphone, somebody would be able to provide more than hearsay.
That said, I too am broadly sympathetic to the grievances being aired by these people. A financial transactions tax and equalizing the tax treatment of capital gains would be highly beneficial to the government, economy, and citizens of the USA.
-
Those claims are made pretty much every time there's a protest that ends with bad things. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd think that in the era of the cameraphone, somebody would be able to provide more than hearsay.
That said, I too am broadly sympathetic to the grievances being aired by these people. A financial transactions tax and equalizing the tax treatment of capital gains would be highly beneficial to the government, economy, and citizens of the USA.
Would you propose raising the tax on capital gains for those with a lower income or lowering the tax on those with a higher income in order to equalize treatment of capital gains?
I can see taxation of financial transactions putting a serious hindrance to investment in fresh IPOs of startup companies that have grown beyond "Main Street." I can also see it reducing the number, scale, & frequency of transactions; in general making the market postured towards less risk-taking, possibly retarding overall economic growth. I am not an expert on the financial system, but I can see a financial transactions tax not achieving the desired results as it slows the exchange of goods & commodities and thus revenue and capital gains.
In general, I favor as little government control on economies and markets as possible. Fascist, Communist, & Dictatorial regimes control the people's economy, industry, and lives. A government can choose to buy goods & services from its citizens and I think that has a better injection/impact on the economy than handing money out or attempting to control a complex system of relationships like an economy.
/rant - some of you will not like my position/
An example of that would be a government choosing to make its fleets of vehicles all-electric or its buildings all carbon-neutral. It could buy these products/services off the economy and become an anchor tenant for new industries where the "Wall Street" investor is afraid to go. The government does not need to invest in the company/technology/idea, merely purchase the product/service it produces to better serve its constituents and people.
I understand a significant number of people are out of work, but the temporary "Jobs Bill" are actually going to result in other jobs disappearing.
As an example, decreased funding for the Department of Defense (discretionary spending) has a ripple effect into the economy and jobs market. 1) The number of service members over the limits imposed by Congress are fired and join the unemployed. 2) Military acquisition programs are asked to cut spending and do so in various ways to include a) programs end or 2) a reduction in the number of government managers/employees/contractors for the program. a) & b) both result in companies, big & small not having an income (a contract) and having to fire people in order to ensure the company continues to pay its bills (like medical packages and electricity) and make some kind of profit to return to its shareholders/owners (to include employees). Depending on what program is cut, the entire business may have to close its doors and have a ripple effect through its local economy.
I used the DoD example because it is what I am familiar with, but lots of other discretionary agencies and programs will face the same challenges. Another example is the James-Webb Space Telescope, which is facing cancellation for significant cost overruns. The thing people forget is that while yes JWST will be put in orbit; the dollars are spent on Earth and go towards paying for highly educated engineers, scientist, and technicians to complete the project.
In trying to address voter concerns and show they are trying to do something, elected leaders, politicians, most of whom are lawyers, are messing with systems they have little to no understanding of and which may have differing viewpoints between experts. Economies and large scale human behavior are not as easily understood as Newtonian physics and most politicians have trouble with fully grasping the implications of Newtonian physics.
/rant ended for now/
I will not go into a discussion of "Freedom vs Security" yet...
-
Well, I'm no economics major, but its pretty clear to me that most of the world was wholly unprepared for the consequences of a global economy and the kind of impact it would have when things go south..because things have been relatively stable since its inception. I think the only reason the United States is still shambling along now is because no one trusts China and everyone else (EU) is doing much worse, so people still see us as the shelter for their finances.
I can't speak for any other part of the world, but in the USA the dialogue for resolving the financial crisis has been pretty shitty from our representatives. We have the Republicans, who are against taxes and want to cut spending, and Democrats, who want to spend more money on building infrastructure to reinvigorate the economy.
Again, I'm just a layman, but neither of these positions are tenable to me. Tossing money into construction jobs and 'alternative' fuels feels futile and ultimately not much better than just handing a fat wad of cash to the banks and saying, "here fix yourself up." It's just a patch, and doesn't really resolve some of the long-term issues we are facing. What are those long term problems? Staying competitive in the world economy (infrastructure, incentives), keeping our working population educated to where they can satisfy the economy's needs, and provide a stable platform for long-term investment.
Cutting spending, to me, is like cutting off a limb because you're stuck in quicksand- it might help you keep your head above ground, but you'll wish you had it when you find a vine to grab. This whole anti-government platform that the Tea Party and the Republicans have adopted (out of reluctant convenience) may have good intentions, but the kinds of cuts they are talking about are not exactly the kinds of cuts that are needed in a period of instability when workers aren't faring well financially. Yeah, great, lets run on a platform of killing social security and unemployment benefits when people need it most! Not to mention, the candidates they have running for office are idiots who run on socially regressive policies (Support our troops, unless they're gay. I'm pro-life, but give'em the death penalty! Poor? It's your fault, you didn't try hard enough!) that make me want to vomit.
So, I sit here and look at all these problems culminating at once around me, and then I look at the riots/protests going on across the country, and while I agree with some of the things said it feels to me like a lot of it is misplaced frustration with the entire problem. It's not post-WW2 anymore, and the US isn't the master of the global market any longer and we're just as much victims to tides and shifts as everyone else is. We have to have an effective education system in place to supply quality workers and have an infrastructure in place to entice corporations to want to move their businesses in our country. We have to provide them a valuable resource that is unique to an American- something that can't be replicated and reproduced for 95% less in India or some third world country. If we want to stay at the top of the food chain, we need to be competitive.
The whole 'taxation without representation' thing has been a central theme to the United States since its inception, and this is where I think these protests have actually hit the nail on the head. US politicians have been acting in the best interests of corporate institutions, their profit margins and portfolio growth, rather than the best interests of the American people. Most people probably wouldn't even give a shit either if it meant a majority of people were prosperous, but when there's a 20% unemployment rate and no hope for escape, it's easy to look at the BoA's and their 5$ transactions and blame the system for corporate greed.
In our world, money is power, and corporations have lots of it, and its no surprise that politicians with lots of money can make their message heard to the masses and have an easier time getting elected. It's not hard to find the connection, but sometimes it can be a challenge to find out who pulls a puppet's purse strings. Even the founding fathers of our country had the idea to balance power because they know that any gathering of people with too much influence not left in check will corrupt the process. Unions were formed to counter-weight corporation's authority over its workers, but even today you see examples of where unions are just as corrupt as the corporations they sought to keep in place. Let's face it, it's human nature to take advantage when in a position of authority. The system requires vigilance on all sides and a well-informed populace to make that happen.
Like all things in this world, a balance needs to be achieved in order to reach some degree of harmony. One can recognize that while the presence of government regulations and taxes can stifle growth, there are many examples of their benefits to society, and I think its irresponsible to simply reply to a complex problem like this with a message of 'CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS'. Whether this message is delivered out of gross ignorance or intentionally to galvanize a respective voting segment, pretending like such ideas are even feasible is irresponsible. On the other hand, blaming wall street for the problems of the world, when people are behaving as humans do (taking advantage when it is presented) is just as foolish. What institution failed to uphold the law and why has this been allowed to persist? Who allowed this to continue, and even bail out the reckless institutions that allowed this instability to exist?
I think the whole fucking system is to blame.
-
How are the EU doing worse, if I may ask? I have seen no articles or real life indications of this.
-
There's been lots of talk about the stability of the EU and whether they will survive the insolvent governments going under or if there'll be a bailout. All that talk was going on when one of the credit agency's downgraded the US to AA+ and everyone was afraid of another big wipeout as a result. Instead, it stayed stable (with a slight increase) of investment because of the chaos going over there, or so some of the experts alluded to.
-
Hmm. I probably haven't been paying as much attention to the European financial news, so I'll take your word for it. Besides, living in Norway pretty much means we don't see any of these problems. The average guy's financial situation is largely unchanged. (Hell, mine improved).
-
Linky! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyePCRkq620)
-
Linky! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyePCRkq620)
Thank you, that is quite informative. Especially the comments below noting that it's all due to the International Bankers who wants a New World Order and got China the money. If the Illuminati, Majestic 12 and Masons are really running things through the 'World Bank' or whatever, they're not doing a very good job of it.
-
I don't know if its been noted before, but this is basically a Stand Alone Complex.
-
Dex: It would, to the extremely small extent that low income households have any capital gains, raise their taxes. But it would far more significantly raise the taxes of high income households, who make up that 1% that the Occupy Wall Streeters are protesting. End result is a fairer tax system with a healthier balance between labor and capital.
The bottom line with taxes is that when you tax something, you get less of it. So yes, to an extent that the usually-proposed 0.02 to 0.25% tax would reduce investment, or more precisely purchases of stock and other financial instruments. However, this is a much smaller cost to long-term investors than short-term speculators, because it's a fixed cost. If you buy a stock and sell it the same day, you lose a much larger portion of your profit than if you buy and hold for the long-term, right? Now, I won't tell you that short-term investors have no value to the market, because they do, particularly in normal market operations where they stabilize prices. But when things go wrong, they go extra-wrong, because as much as these investors would like to claim otherwise, they're just as irrational as everyone else.
So if you're interested in reducing market volatility and advantaging long-term investment, you're better off with a financial transactions tax.
You're also entirely right that cutting government spending reduces employment, which I personally thank you for, because so many people don't understand that simple fact. Setting aside questions of efficiency and multipliers and all those pain in the ass technical details, however, it comes down to which is a better way to spend your billion dollars: F-35s and servicemembers or bridges and teachers? They both inject money directly into the economy, but the latter also serve as investments which allow faster future GDP growth.
-
There's been lots of talk about the stability of the EU and whether they will survive the insolvent governments going under or if there'll be a bailout. All that talk was going on when one of the credit agency's downgraded the US to AA+ and everyone was afraid of another big wipeout as a result. Instead, it stayed stable (with a slight increase) of investment because of the chaos going over there, or so some of the experts alluded to.
Can't judge the EU as one entity like you can with the US, really. Some countries are doing really shitty (Greece is one), and some are still going strong (them cold places up north :P). And then you have the ones caught in the middle because we gave our money to the countries that are suffering.
I'm wondering where it is all going to go, really. If one thing falls over, it can spark a chain reaction, because we're still counting on getting that money back. And then there is the effect it has on the Euro. So then there is talk of getting rid of that again. While I would find it inconvenient, on the other hand perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It won't fix anything, but at least it stops our money becoming worth less while we are at the same time pumping money into a broke economy because we're doing that to stop our money from becoming worth less. *breathe*
For as much as I like playing with virtual currencies, this is exactly why I could never get an economics degree. Or well, I could get one, and then not use it, because the topic highly interests me, but fuck that I'm going to work in an industry that requires you to effectively turn off you conscience. Not that other industries are not just as corrupt, but gambling with people's money like it's a super high stakes casino game ranks pretty high on my do not want list.
-
Economics is not the study of how to be a financier, damnit. [/angryguywithecondegree]
-
See, I never bothered to look into the actual degree stuff, sorry to upset D: /stupidITperson
-
There's been lots of talk about the stability of the EU and whether they will survive the insolvent governments going under or if there'll be a bailout. All that talk was going on when one of the credit agency's downgraded the US to AA+ and everyone was afraid of another big wipeout as a result. Instead, it stayed stable (with a slight increase) of investment because of the chaos going over there, or so some of the experts alluded to.
Can't judge the EU as one entity like you can with the US, really. Some countries are doing really shitty (Greece is one), and some are still going strong (them cold places up north :P). And then you have the ones caught in the middle because we gave our money to the countries that are suffering.
I'm wondering where it is all going to go, really. If one thing falls over, it can spark a chain reaction, because we're still counting on getting that money back. And then there is the effect it has on the Euro. So then there is talk of getting rid of that again. While I would find it inconvenient, on the other hand perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea. It won't fix anything, but at least it stops our money becoming worth less while we are at the same time pumping money into a broke economy because we're doing that to stop our money from becoming worth less. *breathe*
For as much as I like playing with virtual currencies, this is exactly why I could never get an economics degree. Or well, I could get one, and then not use it, because the topic highly interests me, but fuck that I'm going to work in an industry that requires you to effectively turn off you conscience. Not that other industries are not just as corrupt, but gambling with people's money like it's a super high stakes casino game ranks pretty high on my do not want list.
What Myrial said, EU is not doing worse than US (considering the huuuuge US public debt, they are in no place to lecture us, especially all the countries still struggling and doing much better than they do themselves).
Then, I do think the removal of the Euro would equate to directly shooting a bullet in our heads. I do not even want to imagine the cataclysm afterwise, especially the countries getting rid of the Euro, with a currency that will be worth absolutely nothing (remember the crisis in 1930 where the smallest bit of bread was worth thousands of units of said currency?). Especially if every country is left alone to deal with that. People are not realizing how helpful is the EU to keep the local markets stable. What will do countries like Norway or Switzerland if all the market crumbles around them ? Or what will do pillars of the EU like Germany and France if everything progressively detaches itself from the core of the EU, slowly dying in its corner ? Nobody live in autarky, and its a spiral : if you create an economic black hole near you, you will get sucked into it eventually.
But I was glad recently to hear that there is a lot of discussions in the european congress to create a commission charged to examine every member's budget and put limitations to it, by (constitutionnal/legal) force if necessary. People will have to spend less and make concessions, yes, but that would at least force our damn politics to stop playing the popularity card, when its actually not fixing anything (as long as you promise people more and more money, again and again, just to please them and get re elected...).
-
There's been lots of talk about the stability of the EU and whether they will survive the insolvent governments going under or if there'll be a bailout. All that talk was going on when one of the credit agency's downgraded the US to AA+ and everyone was afraid of another big wipeout as a result. Instead, it stayed stable (with a slight increase) of investment because of the chaos going over there, or so some of the experts alluded to.
Can't judge the EU as one entity like you can with the US, really. Some countries are doing really shitty (Greece is one), and some are still going strong (them cold places up north :P). And then you have the ones caught in the middle because we gave our money to the countries that are suffering.
Except you shouldn't really judge the US as a single entity either. As an example, policies & labor markets in Alabama & South Carolina are attracting foreign and domestic investment in the Automotive and Aircraft industries. But Detroit/Michigan's auto industry has been in decline for decades and some of its companies received government funding to not go into bankruptcy. California has a huge budget problem and corporations are leaving the state, while Texas is seeing some growth in its economy.
The United States has more than 300 million people and individual component states with economies rivaling those of most nations.
You're also entirely right that cutting government spending reduces employment, which I personally thank you for, because so many people don't understand that simple fact. Setting aside questions of efficiency and multipliers and all those pain in the ass technical details, however, it comes down to which is a better way to spend your billion dollars: F-35s and servicemembers or bridges and teachers? They both inject money directly into the economy, but the latter also serve as investments which allow faster future GDP growth.
I used a DoD program because I know how they work (I am currently one of the government oversight folks). The major point was that procurement programs or well thought-out service programs are, in my opinion, a better way to inject money into the economy than just giving it way.
As for which is better to spend money on, most people will say bridges and teachers. They see immediate and easily understood benefits from such programs. F-35s and service members can have benefits that are not as easily understood or have immediately visible benefits to others.
-
Well, I'm no economics major, but its pretty clear to me that most of the world was wholly unprepared for the consequences of a global economy and the kind of impact it would have when things go south..because things have been relatively stable since its inception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_depression
There have been "recessions" before this also. Capitlism has never been "stable".
-
I, for one, welcome our new fascist police state. Elevation of the corporate elite and rampant spending on the military has NEVER ended poorly before! After all, the corporate entities in the US are the only people who really matter. As long as the top few % can afford to send their kids to college, see a doctor, and maybe live in a neighborhood that isnt a crime ridden shithole, the rest of us should be happy for them! Thou shalt not covet, it says! Amurrikuh!
/sarcasm off
The protest is great. I have my doubts if anything good will come of it in the short term, but at least now the rest of the world can see that, no, not ALL in the US are braindead drones, living only for the new I-phone, PS3 game, or pointless raunchy comedy film.
Police in the US have been taking liberties with "rights" for decades. In my family, getting your ass kicked by the cops is almost a rite of passage. There just werent cameras in every phone in everyone's hands... mostly because there were no cell phones.
-
I'm grabbing a quote from a discussion on the Rote forums because it's excellent and relevant here. Mostly on the subject of the EU, though it applies to the US as well:
Yes and no.
The Euro has always been a Franco-German project. Historically, it has been those two states driving it forward and backing it monetarily (a significant reason for the UK not joining). On starting the Euro, France while smaller was still a 'core' country in the sense that the Euro's legitimacy derived from it. Then Germany's economy left France behind, and worse, people really thought so. then 2008, and we get to today where the Euro's legitimacy is wholly dependent on Germany as noone trusts France to be able to stand behind it. (Numbers are irrelevant here as this is mostly about political and market perception).
The Euro is a political project. Its sole purpose was to drive EU states towards fiscal and political union through monetary union (monetary union doesn't function without the other two, and the other reason the UK did not join). In a sense, the current crisis is designed in. The panic about the collapse of the Euro is because people no longer trust Germany's desire to continue with the project. The other 'AAA' states are economically not strong enough to support it (Netherlands, Finland et al because they're too small, France because it didn't keep up) and the states that had no economic basis for joining (lolgreece) fucked, and the intermediates (Spain, Italy) fucked by association.
Spain actually has one of the lowest debt:gdp ratios in the Eurozone. Italy has run past 90% debt:gdp as long as I can remember. The spread between Greek and German rates on soverign debt collapsed between 1999 and 2003 (implying that market participants were assuming an implicit Franco-german guarantee). That assumption is now under question so the markets are shitting themselves.
There is no necessary crisis (The Eurozone as a whole has a lower debt:gdp ratio than the US, and the collective deficit is also lower). However, there is a crisis in confidence (the implicit guarantee going up in smoke) and a lot of uncertainty.
You have to remember this: when bondholders are asking for guarantees, they're asking governments to say "you know the whole risk:reward balance? Rebalance the risk part so it matches our overoptimistic assumptions. Better yet, just scratch the whole risk thing". At the same time, governments encouraged that behaviour "oh you silly banks, you can hold soverign debt as zero risk weight collateral". That's notwithstanding the risk free rate use within the CAPM being extended and treated as real.
There's a whole bunch of other stuff. The tl;dr is the Euro does not need to be fucked, but the EU and democracy and markets being what they are, will dance along the thin red line for a while. I don't think the German political class is dumb enough to actually let greece default but I have no faith, no confidence, that that is the case. Which is what a lot of people think, (or think other people think) which is why things are so close to fucked. Just to put it in context: Germany alone could purchase every outstanding Greek bond at par (let alone market) and only feel lightly winded. It would barely notice purchasing on the open market, again notwithstanding that to stabilise things it only needs to provide a fraction of the total value.
Debt crises (especially soverign debt crises) are uniformly crises of confidence. Sometimes they're justified, sometimes not. But that is what they are (which is why the US stock markets shat themselves in 2008) and the Euro governments aren't dealing with that.
Real tl;dr: Neither the US or EU needs to be so completely fucked right now (we are a little fucked no matter what, but given 1999-2008, that's understandable). But their respective political classes and atmospheres are putting them in line for some serious pain.
Never thought I'd say this, but the Conservatives in the UK (and the last year of Labour) are actually providing a decent model. I disagree that the cuts here needed to be so severe so soon, but at least they've provided a credible plan and some certainty. The US and EU need to do the same.
-
Love the post, Misan. :)
Well, I'm no economics major, but its pretty clear to me that most of the world was wholly unprepared for the consequences of a global economy and the kind of impact it would have when things go south..because things have been relatively stable since its inception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_depression
There have been "recessions" before this also. Capitlism has never been "stable".
Yep. There are certainly ups and downs. It's why professionals are interested in knowing what causes them so we can avoid the heavy down periods. I think the current problems are systemic, and what's worse is the current establishment of politicians lack the understanding/willpower to correct the problem.
-
http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/10/political-hackathon/
Pretty cool article detailing some of the technical depth behind the encampment of the protesters. This is a solid indication of the dedication happening here. Awesome stuff!
-
Dex. Fair enough. The question is why do you think that? Here I'm going to get into the technical crap and say that it's a question of what we econ types call marginal propensity to consume (MPC). If I give someone a dollar, what percentage of it will they spend, and what will they save? Depending on who you give the money to, that number will be higher or lower. Rule of thumb, the less income you have the less you save. So you have to answer the question, where does that money end up? Given any particular procurement program, some will end up in the hands of the workers and downstream suppliers, some will end up in the hands of management and the company's owners. That'll be a mix of high and low(er) MPCs. However, if you pay unemployment benefits or public worker salaries with that same pile of cash, the average will be higher. So looking strictly at direct stimulative impact, you're really better off giving it away, as long as you give it away to the right people.
Of course, there's other benefits like supporting those industries and such that may push you to support procurement. And to be honest, I'm all for making GSA's fleet more fuel efficient.
Kaleigh: I'm sure you understand this, but I want to make very clear that no serious economist anywhere will claim that you can escape the business cycle. You can nudge it around the edges and mitigate the highs and lows, but it'll be around forever. It's just how human psychology interacts with markets.
As for politicians, I'd say it's not so much them as the incentives our political structure puts into place, with its myriad veto points and the rewards that accrue to ideological rigidity.
-
Dex. Fair enough. The question is why do you think that? Here I'm going to get into the technical crap and say that it's a question of what we econ types call marginal propensity to consume (MPC). If I give someone a dollar, what percentage of it will they spend, and what will they save? Depending on who you give the money to, that number will be higher or lower. Rule of thumb, the less income you have the less you save. So you have to answer the question, where does that money end up? Given any particular procurement program, some will end up in the hands of the workers and downstream suppliers, some will end up in the hands of management and the company's owners. That'll be a mix of high and low(er) MPCs. However, if you pay unemployment benefits or public worker salaries with that same pile of cash, the average will be higher. So looking strictly at direct stimulative impact, you're really better off giving it away, as long as you give it away to the right people.
Of course, there's other benefits like supporting those industries and such that may push you to support procurement. And to be honest, I'm all for making GSA's fleet more fuel efficient.
I prefer the exchange of currency results in a product being provided. Altruism should be done on an individual level in my opinion.
-
Except you shouldn't really judge the US as a single entity either. *snip*
Well thanks for pointing that out, goes to show we don't know it all either. This is why I like the internet, get some local info from the people who do know.
On a somewhat related note, stumbled upon this (http://www.wimp.com/economicsituation/) while catching up on on wimp. Now it's just one guy saying that and generalizing, but hmm, something to ponder on.
-
I'm grabbing a quote from a discussion on the Rote forums because it's excellent and relevant here. Mostly on the subject of the EU, though it applies to the US as well:
Yes and no.
The Euro has always been a Franco-German project. Historically, it has been those two states driving it forward and backing it monetarily (a significant reason for the UK not joining). On starting the Euro, France while smaller was still a 'core' country in the sense that the Euro's legitimacy derived from it. Then Germany's economy left France behind, and worse, people really thought so. then 2008, and we get to today where the Euro's legitimacy is wholly dependent on Germany as noone trusts France to be able to stand behind it. (Numbers are irrelevant here as this is mostly about political and market perception).
The Euro is a political project. Its sole purpose was to drive EU states towards fiscal and political union through monetary union (monetary union doesn't function without the other two, and the other reason the UK did not join). In a sense, the current crisis is designed in. The panic about the collapse of the Euro is because people no longer trust Germany's desire to continue with the project. The other 'AAA' states are economically not strong enough to support it (Netherlands, Finland et al because they're too small, France because it didn't keep up) and the states that had no economic basis for joining (lolgreece) fucked, and the intermediates (Spain, Italy) fucked by association.
Spain actually has one of the lowest debt:gdp ratios in the Eurozone. Italy has run past 90% debt:gdp as long as I can remember. The spread between Greek and German rates on soverign debt collapsed between 1999 and 2003 (implying that market participants were assuming an implicit Franco-german guarantee). That assumption is now under question so the markets are shitting themselves.
There is no necessary crisis (The Eurozone as a whole has a lower debt:gdp ratio than the US, and the collective deficit is also lower). However, there is a crisis in confidence (the implicit guarantee going up in smoke) and a lot of uncertainty.
You have to remember this: when bondholders are asking for guarantees, they're asking governments to say "you know the whole risk:reward balance? Rebalance the risk part so it matches our overoptimistic assumptions. Better yet, just scratch the whole risk thing". At the same time, governments encouraged that behaviour "oh you silly banks, you can hold soverign debt as zero risk weight collateral". That's notwithstanding the risk free rate use within the CAPM being extended and treated as real.
There's a whole bunch of other stuff. The tl;dr is the Euro does not need to be fucked, but the EU and democracy and markets being what they are, will dance along the thin red line for a while. I don't think the German political class is dumb enough to actually let greece default but I have no faith, no confidence, that that is the case. Which is what a lot of people think, (or think other people think) which is why things are so close to fucked. Just to put it in context: Germany alone could purchase every outstanding Greek bond at par (let alone market) and only feel lightly winded. It would barely notice purchasing on the open market, again notwithstanding that to stabilise things it only needs to provide a fraction of the total value.
Debt crises (especially soverign debt crises) are uniformly crises of confidence. Sometimes they're justified, sometimes not. But that is what they are (which is why the US stock markets shat themselves in 2008) and the Euro governments aren't dealing with that.
Real tl;dr: Neither the US or EU needs to be so completely fucked right now (we are a little fucked no matter what, but given 1999-2008, that's understandable). But their respective political classes and atmospheres are putting them in line for some serious pain.
Never thought I'd say this, but the Conservatives in the UK (and the last year of Labour) are actually providing a decent model. I disagree that the cuts here needed to be so severe so soon, but at least they've provided a credible plan and some certainty. The US and EU need to do the same.
I mostly agree with it too, nice post.
Funny thing is I just checked the german public debt, and its over 86% of gdp now. More than France (82%), which means the only reason why people and politics consider germany as the only solid state is mostly due to their economy doing better because of exports. But at the same time they forget that even germans are under the same pressure than everyone concerning their debts. Fact is that maybe with the exception of northern countries one of the problems cited with the euro is the current strenght of the money, definitly not favoring exports while the US and UK are constantly devaluating their currency at the same time, making it harder for all exports in the euro area. Which put Germany in the light for their examplary economics based on strong exports.
And then they all go see if the grass is greener in China.
-
Not exactly unbiased reporting, but it seems like an interesting read nonetheless. Ditching credit cards? That has to hurt people in the 1%. (http://www.usecashmovement.org/whats-use-cash/2010/12/14/americans-ditch-credit-cards-in-record-numbers.html)
-
Huh, how do people continue to buy things online without one?
That is my main gripe atm which seems to be pushing me towards getting a Visa (or other) card. In The Netherlands we had this great system called iDeal where you could instantly pay from your bank account, rather than the usual delay you face, which makes most online vendors restrict you to credit card only. The closest thing to it is using Paypal, and make sure there is a money buffer on that account, or alternatively when you want to buy something put the money on Paypal and then once it has been moved use it to pay online. A five day delay messes with things like one-day promotions in the Steam store though. And not all stores allow Paypal. Recently buying plane and Eurostar tickets online meant I had to poke my dad to do it for me, with his Visa card, and then bank transfer the money back. Do so many people like buy these things still in traditional ways? (I'm not even sure anymore how you buy them without the internet!)
-
Do so many people like buy these things still in traditional ways? (I'm not even sure anymore how you buy them without the internet!)
From what I gather you can still go the old way of the last century : go to the train station or airport and buy it on site.
-
Order by phone. Pay when you pick it up at the airport.
-
I use Visa electron, nowadays it pretty much works with just about every site.
-
Never had a credit card, though I do have a debit card, which I'll grant still does make some money for Visa. (Less than previously, of course, given the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. But still.)
-
The fact that this was considered a need to be filled speaks volumes. (https://market.android.com/details?id=us.quadrant2.arrested)
-
Very stirring, very well edited. My pulse definitely went up. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI&feature=youtu.be)
-
How COINTELPRO really works and destroys social movements: Open letter from former Tea Partier to Occupy Wall Street protesters
I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.
I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about (r)Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.
I am sharing these observations, so you guys know what's going on and can prevent the media from succeeding in painting you as violent slacker hippies rebelling without a cause, or from having the movement be hijacked by a bunch of corporatists seeking to twist the movement's original intentions. If you think this can't happen, it happened to the Independence Party and the tea party movement. Don't let it happen to your movement as well.
Here's how they turned our movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Republican party rebranding astroturf, and this is how I predict they are turning your movement into a bunch of pro-corporate Democratic party rebranding astroturf. I believe many of these things are already happening, so take note.
1- The media will initially and purposely avoid covering your dissenting movement to cause confusion about what your movement is about within mainstream audiences. This is to enrage you and make you appear unreasonable, and perhaps even invisible.
2- While the obfuscation is happening, corporatists/government stooges will infiltrate and give superficial support, focus and financial backing to the targeted movement. In the tea party movement's case, it was the religious Republicans and Koch Brothers. In this case, it's the Public Sector Unions (the organizations as quasi-human entities, not the members themselves) and Ultra Rich liberals who pretend to care, but frankly do not serve liberators and freedom seekers but rather the interests of those who run the Public Sector Unions and the Democratic Party. Democrat, Republican, these parties are all part of the same corporate ruling system. Case in point: http://www.debates.org/
3-The media will cover the movement only after this infiltration succeeds. Once the infiltration is completed the MSM will manufacture public media antipathy towards the movement by using selective focus on the movement's most repulsive elements or infiltrators on the corporate Conservative media side, while the corporate Liberal media will create a more sympathetic tragic hero image -- this is the flip side of the tea party, but same media manipulation tactics. I go into greater detail on this tactic here.
4- Someone in the Democratic Party will feign sympathy for the movement and falsely "non-partisan" entities provide tons of funding and unwanted organization, just as was done with the tea party movement by Republicans. Once people assume that the government operatives are their friends, the government will hijack the movement and the threat of your movement will be neutralized.
If this new Occupy Wall Street movement is to survive, here's what needs to be done.
1- Loudly denounce violence and disavow the violent rabblerousers of the movement. They do not help the cause.
2- Be image conscious. Present your best face and call out those who act like fools within the movement. People are more likely to pay attention to you in your Sunday dress and bringing homemade food, than when you are drinking a bottle of Snapple and chomping on Big Macs while you are looking like a slacker rich hipster/unwashed hippie stereotype.
3- Accept that you've already been infiltrated by the government, and work hard to say, and state what your movement is and is not about. "No, this isn't about unions or Liberals, conservatives or bored spoiled brats. This is about 99% of our population being exploited and manipulated for the sake of profit." "No we will not resort to violence." "Yes, all we want is for for the end of government collusion with corporate entities that are illegitimately recognized as people." And, so forth...
4- Don't forget who you are as the illusions are thrown at you. Corporatists are masters of illusions. That's the most powerful weapon they have. That's how they sell products you don't need and convince you to justify accepting atrocities for the sake of products Don't fall for it. Otherwise, your cause will be lost. Be wary of large donations from special interest groups or non-profit corporations that were not involved this movement from the inception. Special interests groups are not your allies. Non-profit corporations are still corporations, and unfortunately, too many of them care more about donations than doing the right thing. Killing a movement with kindness is easy.
5- Remain independent and focused. If you can, pick a face to represent your movement. Rosa Parks wasn't just a random lady in a bus -- She was chosen. You too can use the power of illusion against those who oppose you.
I wish your movement better luck than we had with the tea party movement before it got hijacked by the theocrats and corporatists. We used to be non-partisan too. We were the older version of you. But, I believe that as the media apparatchik and infiltrators start to twist your cause, you will understand the frustration us early adopter tea partiers felt and that we were not your enemy after all. A fascist oligarchy on the verge of winning is our common enemy. This should be your focus. Don't be dazzled by the illusion as we were. For the sake of our future, know who you are.
Thank you for reading. I would love to read your ideas on the subject. Correct me where I am wrong. Explain what is going right. This is ultimately your fight.
Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters
-
*stuff*
Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters
While I think the author paints the early Tea Party in a much better light than it really deserves, that is certainly a worthwhile read. I think the reason that the Tea Party was so easily manipulated is that all it was was angry. They were really fucking mad about things, but didn't really have much to offer in terms of how to make it better. They were then hijacked and used to elect candidates who are similarly passionate about how bad things are but have absolutely nothing to contribute to fixing the problems.
The biggest difference that I see is that OccupyWallst seems to contain people who are both pissed off about the mess we're in, and willing to look at the problem and say "how do we fix this shit?"
I'm not sure that will make them any less vulnerable to political hijacking, but I have hope. It may help that I agree more closely with them than I ever did with the Tea Party.
-
*stuff*
Rest here: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/235842-How-COINTELPRO-really-works-and-destroys-social-movements-Open-letter-from-former-Tea-Partier-to-Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters
While I think the author paints the early Tea Party in a much better light than it really deserves, that is certainly a worthwhile read. I think the reason that the Tea Party was so easily manipulated is that all it was was angry. They were really fucking mad about things, but didn't really have much to offer in terms of how to make it better. They were then hijacked and used to elect candidates who are similarly passionate about how bad things are but have absolutely nothing to contribute to fixing the problems.
The biggest difference that I see is that OccupyWallst seems to contain people who are both pissed off about the mess we're in, and willing to look at the problem and say "how do we fix this shit?"
I'm not sure that will make them any less vulnerable to political hijacking, but I have hope. It may help that I agree more closely with them than I ever did with the Tea Party.
I disagree with your position that the Tea Party did not offer a solution to the problems.
The early Tea Party solution was for the US Federal Government to strictly follow the US Constitution as much as possible. You may not agree that it is a solution, but it would immediately address the mechanism by which many things people disagree with have occurred.
The simplest example is US military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, & Libya in the past decade and going back all the way to Vietnam. It can be argued these actions are/were unconstitutional and that the War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) is the unconstitutional mechanism by which they are allowed to occur. In addition, it can be argued the large & extensive US military is unconstitutional, specifically a standing national army & national air force. The Constitution allows for the maintenance of a navy, which would engage in protection of US interest aboard like the defense of trade routes and strategic response.
More complex discussion arises when looking at Social Security and Medicare/Medicad. By what Constitutional power does Congress establish these programs? Are they related to Interstate Commerce? The strictest reading would say the power to establish such programs are denied the Federal government and left to the States to enact as they see fit, based on the 10th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s. I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.
-
Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s. I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.
This could turn into it's own discussion, but I think there is a degree to which we have to acknowledge that the Constitution was written in a world very different than the one we live in today, based on beliefs and assumptions which no longer hold true. Even leaving aside the classic example of the 3/5ths compromise, the world and the country in particular have changed in ways the founding fathers never expected. As a result, we've ended up with some strange contradictions, like a representative government where the citizens of the capital (which has a greater population than the state of Wyoming) have are unrepresented in the Congress. When the constitution was written, they simply didn't expect that anyone would want to live there (and they built the city on a fucking swamp, why the hell do people live there anyways?).
So yeah. The Constitution is awesome. I love it. It just needs some tweaking, which the current political climate makes entirely impossible (whoever made 'compromise' into such a dirty word needs to either take a history lesson or be hung as a traitor).
-
This thing is even coming to my town now. Although despite its size not too surprising given the demographics (especially of Carrboro). http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Chapel-HillCarrboro/168592356560355?sk=wall
-
While I wish the protesters the best, the sad thing is their demands won't be met. We're pretty deep in late-capitalism.
-
Or perhaps, the US Constitution is an outdated document and the citizens of the US should consider an entirely new structure of government that was not written in the late 1780s. I think that is an argument presented from many high level politicians.
This could turn into it's own discussion, but I think there is a degree to which we have to acknowledge that the Constitution was written in a world very different than the one we live in today, based on beliefs and assumptions which no longer hold true. Even leaving aside the classic example of the 3/5ths compromise, the world and the country in particular have changed in ways the founding fathers never expected. As a result, we've ended up with some strange contradictions, like a representative government where the citizens of the capital (which has a greater population than the state of Wyoming) have are unrepresented in the Congress. When the constitution was written, they simply didn't expect that anyone would want to live there (and they built the city on a fucking swamp, why the hell do people live there anyways?).
So yeah. The Constitution is awesome. I love it. It just needs some tweaking, which the current political climate makes entirely impossible (whoever made 'compromise' into such a dirty word needs to either take a history lesson or be hung as a traitor).
I think it is the very core of the discussion/debate/etc. What kind of government do we want?
Republican/Democrat ideologies are self-conflicting and lack core ideas applied across the various issues. In some cases they want to tell people they can't do this, but the freedom to do this is scared. Hot-button issues, like the firearms and marriage have conflicting policies on both sides. For Republicans: it is ok for someone to defend themselves & property, but not ok for someone to have a same-gender partner. For Democrats: it is ok for someone to have a same-gender partner, but not ok for someone to own the means to defend yourself.
I think the discussion really is about how government regulates our lives and to what extent, it is a question of security vs freedom.
It also seems clear that I am in a minority of philosophically favoring freedom over security. Hypocritically, I am currently a member of a very socialist organization - the US military.
-
Op-Ed Columnist
Panic of the Plutocrats
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 9, 2011
It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.
And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.
Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.
Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.
Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.
And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”
The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.
Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”
But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.
This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.
So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.
Source: The Panic of the Plutocrats (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/opinion/panic-of-the-plutocrats.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=general)
-
Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/310637_2401946404850_1136777814_3897571_1123034735_n.jpg)
-
The last statement there is simply false. That individual is very clearly part of the bottom 99th percentile of both wealth and income. The rest is largely premised on misunderstandings of what the movement's concerns are. Suggesting the government end "handouts" to large financial institutions or take advantage of historically low interest rates to borrow money to stimulate the economy and repair neglected infrastructure is hardly asking for things to be handed to you.
As for the debt-shaming, remember: Like all market transactions, debt requires two parties. A debtor and a creditor. One who knowingly gives a loan to someone who knows they can't pay it back is just as guilty. Note also the requirements of knowing that it can't be paid. Do you really want to condemn someone who can't pay their underwater mortgage (which the bank refuses to make modifications on account of it being easier to simply mass-foreclose) because they were laid off and have fallen into the ranks of the long-term unemployed or been forced to take one of those wonderful barely-above-minimum-wage jobs?
I wonder too if this individual has a non-minimum wage job lined up for after graduation. The diminished utility of a college degree for young people is also a major complaint.
-
He may be part of that 99%. But it seems he does not appreciate those protesting claiming they are speaking for him.
Did you know the government passed laws that prevented banks from not making loans the bank considered risky?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis
As for the college degree, if everyone can/needs to get a degree then it becomes an expensive high school diploma. If the degree is in Acting or Art History, the individual is unlikely to find as many jobs where the degree has value, especially in comparison to an Electrical Engineer or Management. Yet, for some reason we assign them some measure of equivalency!
So, yes the kid may have a good job lined up, but maybe that is because he choose to study something that would lead to him having a good job.
-
Did you know that not only do the regulations explicitly (http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-6500.html#fdic2000part345.21)1 not do such a thing, but that loans originated from CRA-compliant banks were less likely to be high-cost (http://www.traigerlaw.com/pdf/The%20Community%20Reinvestment%20Act%20A%20Welcome%20Anomaly%20in%20the%20Foreclosure%20Crisis%201-7-08.pdf) (which I'll grant you is not synonymous with subprime, but subprime loans are always higher cost) and more likely to be kept on the banks' own balance sheets? (Which indicates more confidence in a loan's value than securitizing or otherwise selling it.) What's more, banks subject to CRA oversight originated less than 25% of loans in the areas studied. If you have contrary evidence to suggest that the CRA led to an increase in risky loans, please provide it.
Now, telling me that some degrees are more likely to get you a job is fine, if completely obvious, but it doesn't change the fact that employment rates have gone down for all degrees, even the ones with "value." I couldn't find comprehensive nationwide data, so I just grabbed what I could for management grads from my alma mater, Western Washington University--which is, as it happens, a moderately-priced, in-state public university. (Which of course are now less moderately-priced than they used to be, owing in large part to deficits fueled by tax cuts for the much-maligned 1% and the recession they helped create.) Given the small sample size, the data in the attached pic are of course subject to all the usual caveats, but they illustrate the point nicely. It's in chronological order, 06-07 grads at the top, 09-10 at the bottom.
Regardless, my point was not to complain that he may have a well-paying job set up and therefore not understand the hardships--if he does, good for him--but that like so many others, he may very well not, despite all that hard work.
1: See subpart B, section 345.21, paragraph d, "Safe and sound operations"
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:
*picture*
What this is is simply one of the other responses to this mess. This is roughly my situation - mostly broke, working, saving as much money as I can, etc. I am, however, a little annoyed by the tone.
What I mean by different responses:
The person in the picture is stuck in the same economic mess as the rest of us and has responded by busting his ass in order to make ends meet.
The OccupyWallSt response has been to look at the mess, look at what caused it, notice the obvious fact that the people who created the clusterfuck are still making tons of money while the rest of the country and economy suffers, and rather than saying "welp, this sucks, but we'd better make the best of it," to instead say, "This is fucking wrong, let's see what we can do to make it better."
It's good to have a mix because if everyone said "welp," then we'd never fix the problem, but if everyone went "rawr!" then things would shut down entirely. Personally, I'm be joining the "rawr" execpt I'm too busy going 'welp' and working full time at an entry level job which barely pays enough to cover living expenses in this area.
-
Response from an anonymous source via Facebook:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/310637_2401946404850_1136777814_3897571_1123034735_n.jpg)
Thats nice, thats not the point, the point is Wall Street robbed the US of 100's of billions of dollars, and have power and influence in the White House. Corp's should not have any influence or authority within any Government. Think of this as the new church and state.
-
An open letter to that 53 guy. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy)
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.
-
An open letter to that 53 guy. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy)
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.
Good read, but the author lost all my faith on this;
"And is this really your idea of what life should be like in the greatest country on Earth?"
Emphasis mine. I'd disagree here and there could be many, many arguments for why. I won't bother with the flame-fest though and just say, it was an okay read.
-
Translation: "I want to make a jab but still feel like I'm above the debate."
It's clearly a discussion about an American problem between American citizens, and you take issue with someone making a clearly patriotic/nationalist sentiment? Are you really taking issue with someone for expressing positive sentiment for their respective country, or just taking the comment in a literal phrasing to 'take offense' rather than make a substantive commentary at the topic at large?
-
An American problem tends to be a world one. Anyway, right now, this Occupy thing has spread to other cities in the world. Whether they have any coherence is up for debate.
-
The post he quoted was on topic about the USA's financial crisis. Whether it impacts the rest of the world is irrelevant to the point I made.
-
Translation: "I want to make a jab but still feel like I'm above the debate."
It's clearly a discussion about an American problem between American citizens, and you take issue with someone making a clearly patriotic/nationalist sentiment? Are you really taking issue with someone for expressing positive sentiment for their respective country, or just taking the comment in a literal phrasing to 'take offense' rather than make a substantive commentary at the topic at large?
The topic at large is irrelevant to me. I don't care to much to educate myself on the specifics and thus should not take part in the discussion at hand. However.
The link I followed and the work I read in there made sense to me in general and I agree with it's contents, minus one line, thus it was' well made' helping to make even this non-American care about his laid-out views. However commenting on it's quaity was clearly a mistake as I ended up commenting on my view on the line I'm in disagreement with, even when I did not want to de-rail the discussion with my views.
Ergo, I had to explain myself elsewhere (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2780.0), and did.
I did not intend to make a jab at the guy, I did however dislike his jab at all not-America nations out here and states so clearly. Foolish of me.
-
Tonight's activity has been intense and at moments, moving so rapidly it is hard to keep up.
Live streams from all over the U.S. and several other global sites: http://occupystream.com/
2 examples of people being denied the right to enter a banking establishment they are customers of and denied the right to close their accounts:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/bank-of-america-refuses-to-allow-customers-to-close-their-accounts-at-occupy-santa-cruz-video/
The second example involves the bank manager locking the protesters IN the building, still denying them the right to close their accounts, and then claiming they were trespassing and had them arrested:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-street-protesters-reportedly-arrested-for-closing-their-accounts-call-the-ceo/
Video footage of police arresting a woman standing on the sidewalk outside the bank for seemingly inexplicable reasons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8&feature=player_embedded
Way to go fellas, takes 5 of you to "subdue" one woman not really putting up much of a struggle.
I believe in property rights, if the manager wished to bar them access, fine. They should leave peacefully and file a lawsuit for being denied access to their accounts. However, to lock them IN the building borders on unlawful detention, I'm not holding my breath on anything getting done about that.
Confrontations with police were piling up in American cities as police, under the guise of removal of "semi permanent structures" and other pretenses, moved in during early morning hours. I'm postulating for just one moment, that this is typical intimidation and frustration tactics. Protesters have tended to sleep in shifts during the times when this half of the world is dark and these moves came right in the middle of that period of time. While the majority of protesters were released after being rounded up and told they must move to some other location, prompting a middle-of-the-night march of some distance with camping equipment. This is meant to weaken morale and solidarity and is par for the course here in a country that purports to hold "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as among its most foundational principles. With tensions running high, many protesters resist police pressure to be subdued, bound, or otherwise detained...which results in their actual arrest.
In many cases, and most hauntingly familiar in Chicago was the cry in unison, "The whole world is watching." This line was famously chanted in 1968 during the riots that accompanied the Democratic National Convention.
Also, on a brief personal note, I used to live literally half a block and across a street from Grant Park, the idea that Grant Park is "closed" past 11pm on a Saturday night is ludicrous. In fact, I would be willing to bet with protesters, police, and media attention there, LESS illegal activity is taking place in that park if a protest is happening than if not.
In New York, protestors swelled into Times Square, at times, often nose-to-nose with lines of police attempting to keep the streets open to traffic. After repeated orders to back up or face arrests, the crowds roared back at them, "YOU back up."
Yesterday, Rome saw some of the most violence as "black hats" (professional or vacation rioters, not peaceful demonstrators) moved in among a massive march across the city, looting and causing mayhem. Police unleashed tear gas into the crowds in quantities that at times seemed disproportionate to the actual number of trouble-makers and greatly disrupting the demonstrations.
Berlin, as well was a major flashpoint as a locked-arm sit-in style protest before the Reichstag building was broken up with tactics that bordered on disturbing and brutal.
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/319158_226479340745486_100001502658355_612761_854835470_n.jpg
I leave you with this thought:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Edit: A quick perusal of our 4 major U.S. media outlets front pages shows that three of them have the typical "there's parts of the United States that isn't New York?" mentality and the last has nothing about protests "above the fold", their lead is a report on GOP candidates' fundraising efforts. This is after nearly 4-5 hours of continuous confrontation and strife in dozens of cities across the country throughout the night and early morning.
GREAT WORK NEWS MEDIA, KEEP IT UP, WE'RE COUNTING ON YOU!!!!
-
In New York, protestors swelled into Times Square, at times, often nose-to-nose with lines of police attempting to keep the streets open to traffic. After repeated orders to back up or face arrests, the crowds roared back at them, "YOU back up."
Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum).
1. Persons become confrontational towards Police, beginning to endanger the lives of themselves or others (closing streets to traffic without proper planning can have this effect). Police mode changes from standing-by & monitoring to one of heightened awareness.
2. Persons begin to threaten the police themselves (by pushing against the line). Pepper spray, tasers, and other non-lethal means used to gain compliance with police directions.
3. Persons charge at officers. Police draw firearms in self-defense and shoot charging individuals. (Has not happened yet)
In the above scenario, based on their training, the police have likely done exactly what they were taught to do.
if the manager wished to bar them access, fine. They should leave peacefully and file a lawsuit for being denied access to their accounts. However, to lock them IN the building borders on unlawful detention. I'm not holding my breath on anything getting done about that.
I would say it is unlawful detention and that can only be tested by someone pressing charges against the bank. It would be excellent for the case if there was a group of individuals in the bank who were not there to close their accounts and had places to be (like work). The case would test the justice system at this trying time.
That's nice, thats not the point, the point is Wall Street robbed the US of 100's of billions of dollars, and have power and influence in the White House. Corp's should not have any influence or authority within any Government. Think of this as the new church and state.
"Wall Street" - you mean all those publicly traded companies in which Americans (and the rest of the world) work? Or are you talking about the traders, who bet the market would go down and were rewarded for their foresight? Or the banks who received bailouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants) and who have largely paid the money back?
If the American people want to punish the connection between the corporations they work for and the representatives they elect, then they need to elect new representatives when the opportunity arises.
However, by the same measure, they must be willing to accept a government which is not going to guide its business dealings based on the desires of a particular district's representative/state's Senator. The Congress would have to be willing to bar itself from intervening in authorized acquisitions/government spending projects in order to ensure the corporations within their districts get part of the contract and the associated jobs.
The government-corporate-people relationship is an interesting one.
An open letter to that 53 guy. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy)
Definitely worth the read. One of the better explanations I've read of the 99% desires and motivations.
The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.
Also, the author fails to recognize important conditions that separate the 1950s from the 2010s. In 1950, a not insignificant portion of the world was finishing up rebuilding after World War II and others were just preparing to transform their countries (China). The United States, especially between 1945 & 1950, was the world's industrial powerhouse as the rest of the world got back on its feet. Workers were in demand and could not easily be replaced and thus had real bargaining power.
Fast-forward to the 2010s. The United States is no longer the industrial powerhouse it was in 1950. China has ascended and has had (1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Labor_shortages_and_rising_export_costs)) a larger pool of workers willing to work for much less for almost 3 decades. Major corporations are creating jobs elsewhere because they can not afford to expand at home. It may not even be from the US to another country, but from Washington to South Caroline (Boeing is building an aircraft assembly plant in SC and it has the Washington based Union very concerned) or Colorado to Alabama (United Launch Alliance is consolidating). Non-American companies have built plants in places like Montgomery, Alabama in the past 10 years because it made financial sense to them. When an American has an idea they want to realize, they do not pay another American to do the work. The interconnected world allows them to pay a fraction of the "Made-in-America" cost to have it "Made-in-Slovenia" or "Made-in-China."
Arguing for a return to the prosperity of the 1950s without thinking through what made the prosperity of the 1950s possible only sets us up for failure.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_destroys_ca.html
Zizi Elnagouri, a voluble native of Alexandria, Egypt, has spent five years selling pastries on the corner of Cedar and Broadway. She whirled her hands as she spoke, flapping her apron to make a point. “From the beginning of this, we lost all our business,” she lamented. Elnagouri took matters into her own hands, venturing out into the square to tell the occupiers “we are out of business.” Some were glad and others sympathetic. But Zizi was shocked. “I couldn’t believe they were American. Do you see how they look? What they are wearing? I don’t believe. This must be the Third World!” Zizi is accustomed to well-fed New Yorkers in suits, not people begging for free doughnuts. “Sometimes they buy coffee … it depends on who gives them money. I feel sad for them. It’s hard for Americans to start the day without coffee.” But although she said the destitution in the square reminded her of the Third World, the occupation didn’t strike her as another Tahrir. “We were fighting for a big, big thing: for life, to eat, against a giant snake that would kill us.” Unsurprisingly, she employs a smart breakfast metaphor: “Here, they’re not fighting to eat, say, regular bread, but … special bagels or something.”
-
The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.
With a 54% (http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/) favorable rating and no less than 68% agreement with any of the general complaints they're making, I'd say they're doing pretty well on that representativeness thing.
-
Q11. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, A GROUP OF PROTESTORS HAS BEEN GATHERING ON WALL STREET IN NEW YORK CITY AND SOME OTHER CITIES TO PROTEST POLICIES WHICH THEY SAY FAVOR THE RICH, THE GOVERNMENT’S BANK BAILOUT, AND THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY IN OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM. IS YOUR OPINION OF THESE PROTESTS VERY FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE, SOMEWHAT UNFAVORABLE, VERY UNFAVORABLE, OR DON’T YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE PROTESTS TO HAVE AN OPINION?
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/#ixzz1ay7PPVhu
Who on earth could disagree with this question, in the way it is phrased here?
Answer: people who actually know what the protests are like, are about, etc.
-
Have you ever actually made an argument for something you believe, Soter? All I ever hear from you is how self-evident your position is.
-
The point is that the Occupy movement does not actually represent viewpoints of the 99% of people they claim to represent.
With a 54% (http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/) favorable rating and no less than 68% agreement with any of the general complaints they're making, I'd say they're doing pretty well on that representativeness thing.
68% of 787, not 1001. No less than 535/1001 or 53.5% of the individuals polled agrees with the general complaints. It appears we are just as divided on the Occupy Movement as we are in Congress.
But my issue is not with the complaints; I accept and agree with some of their complaints.
I disagree with their preferred solutions.
I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire). I think it will reduce the drive of many individuals and start-ups. 10.5 million US households (2.59 people) are millionaires or ~8.9% of Americans.
I think it is a bad idea to prosecute corporate executives if they did not actually break any laws. They may have built a house of cards, but I am unsure if any actual laws were broken. The precedent set is scary.
I think it is a bad idea for the US government to manage the economy. I am ok with the government regulating activities between member states (interstate commerce) and with other country-states (export/import). Managing and regulating are different things in my opinion.
-
'Punish success', yeah that particular load has been bandied about here too. It's nothing of the sort. It's quite simply that once you get a personal income that allows you to 'pop by Dubai in the Learjet for a cup of coffee with gold in it' you can also afford to pay a few percent more in taxes without losing your lifestyle or capacity for expansion/more investment/further success. It's a sad fact that the richer you get the less you have to actually pay in taxes, percentage wise, once you can afford to start messing around with the legal loopholes, 'invest' in political campaigns conducive to further tax cuts and so on. Especially since the average guy (like myself with a paycheck I can live slightly normally with as long as I forgo certain 'luxuries') often pays more percentage wise.
This is insane. Less money to begin with and then MORE is taken from you?
If you'll excuse me, I have to find the local equivalent of Wall Street and pitch a tent.
-
I did not say keep the tax system as is. I said "I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire)."
This does not mean, "do not close the loop-holes that exist" or "do not institute a luxury tax."
Choices like "pop(ping) by Dubai in the Learjet for a cup of coffee with gold in it" could carry with them some high taxes outside of taxing the actual income of the person. Owning a Ferrari or Learjet can have taxes in it that the majority never see because they are buying VWs, Fords, and Toyotas or a plane ticket on United or British Airways.
Taxing the person who chooses to maintain a used-Toyota for decades, literally wears out the products they buy, works to allow their children to do whatever they want to do and makes it into the "millionaire" club because they worked at it seems like a bad idea to me. Are they successful? Yes! Could a tax system based on just net-wealth/savings punish them for their hard work? Yes!
I am suggesting the solution is not "Your net-worth is in excess of 1-million USD, therefore you should be taxed more than the guy whose net worth is only 10K USD."
I am suggesting that perhaps activities, like maintaining a license on a twin-engine aircraft and buying the fuel for the jet, could carry taxes that unless you take part in them, you do not have to worry about.
You can go pitch a tent if you like. I agree the discussion needs to happen, but I am also very worried about where it will lead and if, in the US, it will be a place I want to live.
-
It's a sad fact that the richer you get the less you have to actually pay in taxes, percentage wise, once you can afford to start messing around with the legal loopholes
I find these types of sentiment quite interesting. The argument that's usually made in favour of having low taxes for the wealthy is that taxes act as a disincentive to work, and people earning a lot of money often have the greatest ability to work a bit more to earn more. That often translates to more economic expansion, and more tax revenue in the end.
The double edged blade of providing poor people with welfare (in all of its forms), is that it creates what are called 'welfare traps': a poor person knows that if they work more, they'll stop getting benefits/food stamps/whatever, and that when you factor this in they only get paid a miniscule amount for an extra hour of work. Therefore, the poor person faces an effective tax rate that's often monstrous.
But the other thing is that the richer you are, the more you can pay accountants etc to search for the loopholes for you. The best solution to this is to simplify the whole bloody system. Remove all these specific taxes, and benefits, and deferrals, and exceptions, and charge everyone the same amount of tax. Ultimately, if everyone pays the same percentage, rich people are paying a LOT more tax anyway: the same percentage of a larger base is more dollars.*
Unfortunately, governments don't like it. And, as a result, you see a large part of government tax revenues provided by middle-income earners.
*and, from an economic perspective, this is more efficient too.
-
Setting aside the fact that success doesn't occur in a vacuum, and relies critically on both chance and collective investment (paid for by taxes), what would you have us "punish" instead? A government has to raise its revenue somewhere, and the wealthy have pretty much universally derived more benefit from government action than anyone else. (If you doubt the part where their income and wealth are built on other people's investments, consider the most basic function of government, per Hobbes et al.: the protection of property rights. The more property, the more protection.) If you're gonna tell me we should cut spending, tell me what. (http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ is always useful for these discussions)
-
I think it is a bad idea to prosecute corporate executives if they did not actually break any laws. They may have built a house of cards, but I am unsure if any actual laws were broken. The precedent set is scary.
Not to derail, but what happens when the law is broken down to the point where completely screwing someone, or taking what isn't yours becomes legal? Just look what happened during the UK's expenses scandal.
Sure, our MPs were operating within the law, but that didn't make it right.
-
The problem I have with all this is how skewed the dialogue is to begin with. This talk about 'taxing the job creators', 'punishing success', and generally anything related to percents, be it 99 or 1, is all just class warfare rhetoric. Making rich people (not corporations) pay more is only a band-aid for the economy, and certainly not a serious/long term solution to resolving the important problems that the country faces, which is invogorating the economy and getting the massive unemployment numbers down to reasonable levels. This in itself will resolve the matter of budgets and spending, because there will actually BE a tax revenue stream.
So while I do think the Occupy Wall street movement certainly has some traction and good points to make, I don't think dividing the nation between haves and have nots is a constructive path to resolving the pertinent issues. And yes, I understand that people with money, especially people who profit from the institutions and laws in place now, will lobby to keep the status quo rolling, but even they know this can only go so far before the system implodes. The government should be looking out for the best interests of all its people; we know corporations look out for the best interests of their investors, and if the investors are making profit, who in the government is failing miserably? Is anyone marching in Washington DC?
-
/me takes off econ hat, puts on poli sci hat.
Given the institutional structures of US governance and the ease with which information travels in the internet age, I'd say that widely spread protests are more effective in prompting government action than a smaller number of people concentrated in the capitol. (But yes, there are people marching (http://occupydc.org/) there.)
Now, I'd point out that inequality is a drag on economic growth in the long run, but overall you're right, Kaleigh, that the recession has caused more damage to the budget balance than the tax structure. Unfortunately, the way you deal with that is through increased government expenditures, which are subject to a large number of veto points in the legislative process. And given a two-party system where one intractably believes in immediate reductions in expenditures and the other believes in long-term reductions, the center of the debate ends up miles away from short-term economic stimulus. So ultimately the effect of the 99% movement is to shift the focus of the political arena away from the deficit and towards growth, which like you said would have the immensely helpful effect of reducing the deficit.
-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_WALL_STREET_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-17-07-40-45
BEIJING (AP) -- China's foreign ministry said Monday the Occupy Wall Street movement highlights issues that are worth considering, but that debates generated by the protests should promote global economic growth.
"We feel that there are issues here that are worth pondering," said Liu Weimin, a foreign ministry spokesman during a regular briefing in Beijing.
"We have also noticed that in the media there has been a lot of commentary, discussion and reflection. But we think that all of these reflections should be conducive to maintaining the sound and steady development of the world economy," Liu said, without elaborating.
Earlier in the year, anonymous online calls for protests in China inspired by those that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa spooked the Chinese government into launching one of its broadest campaigns of repression in years. The calls for demonstrations every Sunday did not draw any overt protesters.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/17/2011-10-17_we_will_clog_the_courts_dismiss_charges_or_else_lawyers_say.html
Lawyers representing about 800 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in the past month demand that prosecutors drop the charges.
If not, they say they won't deal and will insist on going to trial - putting pressure on the already overloaded Manhattan criminal courts.
"I'd like to suggest to the DA's office the appropriate way to deal with these cases is outright dismissal," said defense lawyer Martin Stolar.
"The leverage is, we take them all to trial."
Stolar and other members of the civil rights-focused National Lawyers Guild plan to meet today with prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr.'s office to lay out their position.
Willful manipulation and blackmail of the justice system? wat?
-
Setting aside the fact that success doesn't occur in a vacuum, and relies critically on both chance and collective investment (paid for by taxes), what would you have us "punish" instead? A government has to raise its revenue somewhere, and the wealthy have pretty much universally derived more benefit from government action than anyone else. (If you doubt the part where their income and wealth are built on other people's investments, consider the most basic function of government, per Hobbes et al.: the protection of property rights. The more property, the more protection.) If you're gonna tell me we should cut spending, tell me what. (http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/ is always useful for these discussions)
I am generally against a large Federal government. I am also supportive of reforming the tax system to remove loop holes (which some argue is a tax increase).
I am supportive of both raising taxes across the board and cutting spending. As for cutting spending, I would accept reducing the US Defense budget to a steady 2.5% of the GDP (approximately 61% of the current budget). I would stop trying to build foreign states (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc). Also, large companies that are failing, will be allowed to fail (and the jobs associated disappear). I would suggest reforming the bulk of Mandatory payments (Medicare & Medicad) such that the states bear those burdens as they see fit and that Washington does not manage those activities in a centralized manner (in line with the Constitution).
Raising taxes across the board will also result in more taxes being taken from the rich. Given A>>B, A*C>>B*C. Again closing loop holes and raising taxes across the board I am ok with.
-
Also, large companies that are failing, will be allowed to fail (and the jobs associated disappear).
I personally think this is quite important, and (at work) I've been saying this for a while. The incentives have been skewed for a long time now, because the big players have always known (or strongly suspected) that they would always have governments propping them up. And it makes perfect sense for them to behave the way they have given that knowledge.
Imagine you're taking a coin toss. You bet $100 on it: if it comes up heads I give you $200; if it comes up tails you lose your money. Ignoring issues of risk aversion, you'd look at the odds and consider it a fair bet.
Now imagine the exact same coin toss... only this time, your Dad is standing right behind you. If the toss comes up heads, I give you $200 dollars. If the toss comes up tails, your Dad gives you a big hug, tells you you're silly, and then gives you $80 back.
Suddenly I have a lot more people interested in my coin toss game.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/photos/1303#igImgId_20255
Third picture....is...FANTASTIC!
-
2.5% is a pretty impressive cut, Dex1, but it's already projected to drop to 3.5% (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf)1 by 2021. Make no mistake about it, the long-term deficit is driven by health care. And just punting that to the states is not going to significantly cut those costs, Constitutional or not.
As for bailouts, I'm in general agreement, but I have to ask: What happens to your thought experiment, Dex2, when you're not just losing your own $100, but a bunch of other people's too? When jobs are threatened not just at your firm, but across broad portions of the economy? What should Dad do then?
1: See Table 5.1. Also, that number is for the baseline projection, which assumes a constant level of spending on contingency operations. I couldn't find an estimate for the alternative fiscal scenario, which includes projected drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, in that report. I'm sure they're somewhere on CBO's website, I'm just lazy. At any rate, point is the the realistic number is probably lower. Unless somebody starts another war.
-
Good read.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/17/f-pittis-occupy-economics.html
-
The problem I have with all this is how skewed the dialogue is to begin with. This talk about 'taxing the job creators', 'punishing success', and generally anything related to percents, be it 99 or 1, is all just class warfare rhetoric.
Hmm, but the 1% have been quietly winning the class war for such a long time now, that maybe we need some rhetoric as a basic minimum? Historically, many nations dealt with their entrenched elites with violent revolution. Sure, one elite was replaced by a new one and all those fake socialist nations got overhauled by their capitalist neighbours, but the point is that violent revolution is highly effective at ridding yourself of the burden of the parasitic rich. I think it's fundamentally healthy in a functioning democracy for the powerful wealthy to experience fear of the mob if they get too far ahead of the mean.
The situation right now in at least some of our fine democratic nations is that the gap between rich and poor has grown markedly, and thanks to the endemic corruption and powerful lobbying, there is literally no one you can vote for who won't be representing the interests of some wealthy faction or other. No one notices the reality of the situation during economic good times, but when the shit hits the fan, it's always the people at the bottom that take the hit. It's only right to expect some kind of rebalancing: kill the rich and take their stuff; destroy the establishment and build something new that might be less broken for a while.
-
Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum).
...In the above scenario, based on their training, the police have likely done exactly what they were taught to do.
I was reporting the facts on the ground, not discussing the proportion or disproportion of the response.
However, where in the Continuum of Force would you place shooting pepper spray at people who hadn't committed any escalatory acts or throwing a man with a video camera on the hood of a car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI
Where in the Continuum of Force would you place the this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8&t=1m15s
Seems like several steps got skipped. They were locked in, nobody gave them a "disperse or you will be arrested." They were just arrested.
Funny how the property rights of the banks are upheld (can't be in the bank lobby if the manager says so) but the patrons, not so much (my money is in there and they refuse to return it to me).
Much like a landlord may not just switch the locks on your house without going through a prescribed legal procedure, your bank should not be allowed to refuse you access to your money. How can anyone look at the refusal of a bank to give you money YOU OWN when requested as anything but revealing what a sham it is to believe we truly "determine our own financial situation."
I get the feeling that banks could overnight change their policy to say they are instituting an account surcharge equal to 110% (you owe them the extra) of your current account balance as of today, plus interest generating on any deficit of 50% per day...
...and someone would still dance on the semantics of "well, gee you signed the agreement that said they can make changes to the terms at any time." Somehow, utterly devoid of what the implications are. Can't see the forest for the trees.
I can cite specifically from Chicago, that violation of the Municipal Ordinance which states nobody may be in Grant Park between 11pm and 6am is an offense where you are given a citation and a court date and should not result in arrest. Didn't stop them from getting arrested, did it? Let me state here, the uniformed officers are following orders. The Occupy Chicago protestors themselves have made the case that they "did their best to treat us with the dignity and respect we believe every human being deserves." My opinion of the CPD is actually quite high right now. There was humor and joking between both sides throughout processing. They don't want to be there on extra duty time all night arresting and all morning processing any more than the protestors wanted to be arrested for assembling to discuss what they feel is wrong with our government (1st amendment) in the park they, as taxpayers, own and paid for.
In some cases the rules are fair, but the other side isn't playing by them.
I would say it is unlawful detention and that can only be tested by someone pressing charges against the bank. It would be excellent for the case if there was a group of individuals in the bank who were not there to close their accounts and had places to be (like work). The case would test the justice system at this trying time.
Oh, I see. If it's a non-violent, entirely legal form of protest (in this case, a boycott by closing their accounts) then lock them in. But if it inconveniences anyone else, stop the presses, this is a human tragedy, got it.
This would be like arresting large groups of African Americans for crossing the street on foot against a light (in no traffic) when they were boycotting the busses. A clear example of state-supported harassment of a group exercising their freedom of choice and coercing them back into "compliance."
Again, someone would focus inanely on the jay-walking as if between the two, that is the act to be truly mortified at.
"Wall Street" - you mean all those publicly traded companies in which Americans (and the rest of the world) work? Or are you talking about the traders, who bet the market would go down and were rewarded for their foresight? Or the banks who received bailouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants) and who have largely paid the money back?
From my understanding it is "the system which we have arrived upon in which cold, analytical mathematics have replaced nearly all consideration for what a human being needs to survive and have a fulfilling life."
The situation that currently exists is that corporations are sitting on more money than ever. They earned record-shattering levels of profit this year. Yet somehow we are told over and over there's just not enough to pay more workers with. Meanwhile, executive pay and compensation continues its meteoric rise in ratio compared to average wages.
I'm not doing this just for me. We aren't doing this just for America. This is for the Coffee farmer in Kenya who makes $0.03 a pound for his harvest, but when it shows up at register, it is $5.00 for a 24oz. cup.
I have some real concerns with your bit about traders, too. One should approach the stock market from a perspective of investment for return, not "betting." If you want to gamble, there's venues for that. Also, treating a roll of the dice like it is something admirable akin to hard work. Finally, the very concept of profiting from a situation that will lead to more hardship for the common man.
If the American people want to punish the connection between the corporations they work for and the representatives they elect, then they need to elect new representatives when the opportunity arises.
One does not have to look very long at the process of primaries in this country to understand the problems in it.
In the general elections, money plays a role which makes 1 vote not truly equal to another.
Willful manipulation and blackmail of the justice system? wat?
Acting like exercising your constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury of your peers is something to be ashamed of? wat?
You think lawyers don't try to screw each other over with settled plea agreements even when avoiding trial?
Not to derail, but what happens when the law is broken down to the point where completely screwing someone, or taking what isn't yours becomes legal? Just look what happened during the UK's expenses scandal.
Sure, our MPs were operating within the law, but that didn't make it right.
This.
Legal and Just are not the same thing.
-
The problem I have with all this is how skewed the dialogue is to begin with. This talk about 'taxing the job creators', 'punishing success', and generally anything related to percents, be it 99 or 1, is all just class warfare rhetoric.
destroy the establishment and build something new that might be less broken for a while.
THIS!
-
Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum).
...In the above scenario, based on their training, the police have likely done exactly what they were taught to do.
I was reporting the facts on the ground, not discussing the proportion or disproportion of the response.
However, where in the Continuum of Force would you place shooting pepper spray at people who hadn't committed any escalatory acts or throwing a man with a video camera on the hood of a car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI
Where in the Continuum of Force would you place the this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8&t=1m15s
Seems like several steps got skipped. They were locked in, nobody gave them a "disperse or you will be arrested." They were just arrested.
I was providing insight into police training and how they are likely to react.
Videos showing harsh police action does not show what led up to it; the victim should bring the case to court.
I would say it is unlawful detention and that can only be tested by someone pressing charges against the bank. It would be excellent for the case if there was a group of individuals in the bank who were not there to close their accounts and had places to be (like work). The case would test the justice system at this trying time.
Oh, I see. If it's a non-violent, entirely legal form of protest (in this case, a boycott by closing their accounts) then lock them in. But if it inconveniences anyone else, stop the presses, this is a human tragedy, got it.
I think the case should be brought to trial regardless if there were none protesters involved or not. I think the that bystanders caught by the manager's callous, ill-thought-out acts, who like the protesters, were trying to access their money being part of the legal action will make the case incredibly straight forward. Does this mean the case should not be brought to trial? No. Does it mean that the protester's rights were not also violated? No.
It means that it becomes more than just about the protesters vs the bank in the media. It becomes about the people vs the bank in the media. It is a media/heart's & minds conflict; highlighting the collateral causalities of the conflict serves to better the position of the protesters.
"Wall Street" - you mean all those publicly traded companies in which Americans (and the rest of the world) work? Or are you talking about the traders, who bet the market would go down and were rewarded for their foresight? Or the banks who received bailouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants) and who have largely paid the money back?
From my understanding it is "the system which we have arrived upon in which cold, analytical mathematics have replaced nearly all consideration for what a human being needs to survive and have a fulfilling life."
The situation that currently exists is that corporations are sitting on more money than ever. They earned record-shattering levels of profit this year. Yet somehow we are told over and over there's just not enough to pay more workers with. Meanwhile, executive pay and compensation continues its meteoric rise in ratio compared to average wages.
I'm not doing this just for me. We aren't doing this just for America. This is for the Coffee farmer in Kenya who makes $0.03 a pound for his harvest, but when it shows up at register, it is $5.00 for a 24oz. cup.
Perhaps you should consider turning the cold, analytic mathematics to your advantage. Bill Gates turned those cold, analytic mathematics into the Gates Foundation. He is looking beyond the individual and looking at the problem from that perspective and how to address it on a scale beyond the individual. Feeding one person is easy for most people to grasp, people like Bill Gates see the idea of millions starving or without rudimentary health care as a challenge, but they are good at tackling problems with numbers.
Also, for your coffee example, consider some of the additional cost in that calculation. I agree that disparity is incredible, but there are lots of things that go into it. One response is to challenge the overpriced coffee providers market. Setup your own coffee shop/cart (start small) and calculate what it takes for you to 1) beat the big boy (locally) & 2) live at the standard you desire. Enough businesses start to do this and people stop wanting to work for the big boys. Driving competition is critical to reducing the power of large corporations. It is much more challenging for a large corporation to say "heh, you will take what we give you and like it" if the end result is "nope, I am going to go work for my neighbor Bob."
I have some real concerns with your bit about traders, too. One should approach the stock market from a perspective of investment for return, not "betting." If you want to gamble, there's venues for that. Also, treating a roll of the dice like it is something admirable akin to hard work. Finally, the very concept of profiting from a situation that will lead to more hardship for the common man.
They are gambling. They are taking, hopefully educated, risk with the money they have. They are betting that Apple, Google, Ford, Boeing, US Steel, Exxon, Bank of America, etc continue to grow and our successful. Sometimes they are wrong and lose money on the market.
If the American people want to punish the connection between the corporations they work for and the representatives they elect, then they need to elect new representatives when the opportunity arises.
One does not have to look very long at the process of primaries in this country to understand the problems in it.
In the general elections, money plays a role which makes 1 vote not truly equal to another.
I would encourage everyone to not vote for a main party candidate. I would encourage everyone to choose someone who did not make it out of the primaries. I would encourage everyone to use this amazing tool, called the internet, and vote for the person who in the primaries they most agreed with.
The problem I have with all this is how skewed the dialogue is to begin with. This talk about 'taxing the job creators', 'punishing success', and generally anything related to percents, be it 99 or 1, is all just class warfare rhetoric.
destroy the establishment and build something new that might be less broken for a while.
THIS!
What is your position on the ownership of weapons?
What do you think the Occupy Movement's position is on the US's 2nd Amendment?
-
Videos showing harsh police action does not show what led up to it; the victim should bring the case to court.
I believe ultimately that you are innocent until proven guilty.
I also think if any further pre-lead on the pepper spray did show some kind of unlawful behavior, it had defused for at least long enough to make the pepper spray use seem almost detached from whatever behavior "might" have initially warranted it. However, the fact that he casually strolls up, sprays a burst right in people's faces, and then calmly strides away like he's the man doesn't speak well of the incident. He is not actively coordinating officer's efforts to secure a pen of unruly protestors, he's inflicting harm upon a group of people who have no way to escape from what he just did; fish in a barrel. As to the rest, dragging people across concrete and piling on 6 at a time is not professional police conduct. Professionalism counts, is all I'm saying. The other officer who was being such, he used the full package. Body language, posture, even firm voice, polite. De-escalate. Not surging forward 2 rows deep into a crowd and violently dragging people away. There are good, fine officers of law enforcement that make up the vast majority, and then there are bullies who had to find a way to keep going once people grew up into adults and stopped taking their *ahem*.
I think the case should be brought to trial regardless if there were none protesters involved or not. I think the that bystanders caught by the manager's callous, ill-thought-out acts, who like the protesters, were trying to access their money being part of the legal action will make the case incredibly straight forward. Does this mean the case should not be brought to trial? No. Does it mean that the protester's rights were not also violated? No.
It means that it becomes more than just about the protesters vs the bank in the media. It becomes about the people vs the bank in the media. It is a media/heart's & minds conflict; highlighting the collateral causalities of the conflict serves to better the position of the protesters.
I appreciate the clarification and apologize for the confusion :9.
Perhaps you should consider turning the cold, analytic mathematics to your advantage. Bill Gates turned those cold, analytic mathematics into the Gates Foundation. He is looking beyond the individual and looking at the problem from that perspective and how to address it on a scale beyond the individual. Feeding one person is easy for most people to grasp, people like Bill Gates see the idea of millions starving or without rudimentary health care as a challenge, but they are good at tackling problems with numbers.
I do not lament Bill Gates his success, but neither do I imagine we operate on a level playing field. He enjoyed many advantages in his early life that I had no access to. Again, I do not "blame" him for this. I am not coming at this from a "French Revolution" type mindset. But I just don't agree with the whole "why don't you just become a millionaire, too" over-simplification. Yes, some people have managed a rags-to-riches life, but luck is as much a factor as capability. Circumstances of birth or just happening to find someone willing to be fair instead of give that lucrative job that might take you places to his frat buddy, etc.
Meritocracy has its...merits (*groans*), but lets not pretend we are strictly a meritocracy. It is an idol we pay lip service to, nothing more.
Also, for your coffee example, consider some of the additional cost in that calculation. I agree that disparity is incredible, but there are lots of things that go into it. One response is to challenge the overpriced coffee providers market. Setup your own coffee shop/cart (start small) and calculate what it takes for you to 1) beat the big boy (locally) & 2) live at the standard you desire. Enough businesses start to do this and people stop wanting to work for the big boys. Driving competition is critical to reducing the power of large corporations. It is much more challenging for a large corporation to say "heh, you will take what we give you and like it" if the end result is "nope, I am going to go work for my neighbor Bob."
They are gambling. They are taking, hopefully educated, risk with the money they have. They are betting that Apple, Google, Ford, Boeing, US Steel, Exxon, Bank of America, etc continue to grow and our successful. Sometimes they are wrong and lose money on the market.
I agree in the abstract, but the devil is in the details. Sure, I might be able to operate a shop or even a few franchises to challenge the "evil empire of coffee" :9. However, there will still be no appreciable change in the global commodities market or rampant speculation of the same. I have no respect for the idea of inserting oneself into the revenue stream without adding actual value to the product in question. This is where a great deal of the cost inflation occurs, no change in demand, no change in supply, yet the price grows by multiples (or even exponentially), essentially passing through a series of computers trading back and forth at high frequencies. Nobody is inputting, as I said earlier, any extra value for all of this rise in cost to make sense. We recognize the problem when we talk about the affect on oil prices, but it exists in all markets.
I would encourage everyone to not vote for a main party candidate. I would encourage everyone to choose someone who did not make it out of the primaries. I would encourage everyone to use this amazing tool, called the internet, and vote for the person who in the primaries they most agreed with.
I place this in the same realm as the idea that it was the $5 contributor types in untold numbers that financed the last winning President's election. We don't have anywhere near the same influence. We have a soapbox to stand on and rant, 2 banged up shopping carts and a wobbly card table to serve coffee and donuts with. Meanwhile the "official" candidates have a concert hall with bands playing, hot catered food, door prizes, and stunningly attractive female servers keeping your Chardonnay topped off at all times.
We're not playing the same game they are, even.
What is your position on the ownership of weapons?
What do you think the Occupy Movement's position is on the US's 2nd Amendment?
Destroy does not mean violently overthrow. We are absolutely against violence as a political tool. Given the nature of the movement right now, I try to refrain from interjecting my view as theirs, so most things are broad. In the overall, I think the mood is "The Constitution is what gives us the right to even have this discussion, we are not about changing that."
However, we aren't showing up to our rallies with fully automatic weapons and "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" t-shirts, either.
-
I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire). I think it will reduce the drive of many individuals and start-ups. 10.5 million US households (2.59 people) are millionaires or ~8.9% of Americans.
One of the problems that some people complain about in NZ is that in general, our entrepreneurs want to make enough money to pay off their house, buy a bach (cheap holiday home) a car and a boat, and then they don't want to do 60 hour weeks any more. Whereas I personally don't think that's actually a problem.
And what do you mean by "punishing success" exactly. Asking rich people to pay more tax than they currently do? I'm not sure why that counts as punishment. If, as that hedge fund manager Buffet said, he pays less tax than his secretary, then the tax system is already broken, and could use some amendments.
If I'm earning 10,000 a year and need 9,900 to pay for food, accomodation, clothes etc, and I double my income to 20k, and my fixed costs (understandably) rise up to 15,000 because I want to live somewhere slightly nicer and eat better food, My discretionary money to spend is still 50 times more. If my income rises to 100,000 per year, and my fixed costs rise to 50,000, then I'm 500 times better off. This is why rich people can afford a bit more tax and still be better off than someone earning a lot less than them.
(And those numbers are all (approximately) numbers that I've had in my annual paycheck, if you were wondering.)
I think it is a bad idea to prosecute corporate executives if they did not actually break any laws. They may have built a house of cards, but I am unsure if any actual laws were broken. The precedent set is scary.
Off the top of my head:
There's been numerous examples of banks or their representatives lying in court; Banks weren't following state laws about transferral of mortgage deeds on houses, and when they were called on it, they employed people to sign affidavits claiming that the paperwork was lost, and that the person making the affidavit had done a thorough search, and that they were qualified to state that the bank actually owned the mortgage deed (purgery is the technical term I think);
Banks were caught foreclosing on houses that were actually paid off;
Banks were lying to their investors about the quality of the investments they were selling to them (They would package up a thousand mortgages, and check 100 of them to see if they actually qualified according to their published rules. When 50 of the ones they checked failed, they discarded just those 50, and said that the mortages were not 50% compliant, but 95% compliant with the rules.)
Various investment banks have been doing very dodgy things with the regulation officials involving offering them well paid jobs after their term as investigator, as long as they don't get too enthusiastic about prosecuting the banks in the meantime...
How many have been arrested?
That's stuff I've picked up from a distance without reading the US papers every day.
I think it is a bad idea for the US government to manage the economy. I am ok with the government regulating activities between member states (interstate commerce) and with other country-states (export/import). Managing and regulating are different things in my opinion.
Who would you like to manage the economy? HSBC? There are too many ways to game the system (or suborn the regulators) to rely on regulation alone. Also, every choice the government makes about spending (or not spending) money affects the economy either locally or across the country (otherwise pork-barrel politics wouldn't exist). Would you prefer them to have a plan about what affect they want to have happen? Or to just do things at random? I mean, yeah, they currently look like they do stuff at random, but wouldn't it be better if they had a plan?
Governments should exist to make the lives of the people in that polity better than it would be otherwise. Not just the rich people, but everyone!
-
The problem I have with all this is how skewed the dialogue is to begin with. This talk about 'taxing the job creators', 'punishing success', and generally anything related to percents, be it 99 or 1, is all just class warfare rhetoric.
destroy the establishment and build something new that might be less broken for a while.
THIS!
What is your position on the ownership of weapons?
What do you think the Occupy Movement's position is on the US's 2nd Amendment?
Destroy does not mean violently overthrow. We are absolutely against violence as a political tool. Given the nature of the movement right now, I try to refrain from interjecting my view as theirs, so most things are broad. In the overall, I think the mood is "The Constitution is what gives us the right to even have this discussion, we are not about changing that."
However, we aren't showing up to our rallies with fully automatic weapons and "tree of liberty/blood of tyrants" t-shirts, either.
It was not a question to you Syylara, it was to those advocating destruction of the system.
In my view, the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to ensure the people/States have the right/ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Since ~1865, these rights have been eroded by various means.
I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire). I think it will reduce the drive of many individuals and start-ups. 10.5 million US households (2.59 people) are millionaires or ~8.9% of Americans.
One of the problems that some people complain about in NZ is that in general, our entrepreneurs want to make enough money to pay off their house, buy a bach (cheap holiday home) a car and a boat, and then they don't want to do 60 hour weeks any more. Whereas I personally don't think that's actually a problem.
And what do you mean by "punishing success" exactly. Asking rich people to pay more tax than they currently do? I'm not sure why that counts as punishment. If, as that hedge fund manager Buffet said, he pays less tax than his secretary, then the tax system is already broken, and could use some amendments.
If I'm earning 10,000 a year and need 9,900 to pay for food, accomodation, clothes etc, and I double my income to 20k, and my fixed costs (understandably) rise up to 15,000 because I want to live somewhere slightly nicer and eat better food, My discretionary money to spend is still 50 times more. If my income rises to 100,000 per year, and my fixed costs rise to 50,000, then I'm 500 times better off. This is why rich people can afford a bit more tax and still be better off than someone earning a lot less than them.
(And those numbers are all (approximately) numbers that I've had in my annual paycheck, if you were wondering.)
I did not say keep the tax system as is. I said "I think developing a system of taxation which punishes success is a bad idea (becoming a millionaire)."
This does not mean, "do not close the loop-holes that exist" or "do not institute a luxury tax."
Choices like "pop(ping) by Dubai in the Learjet for a cup of coffee with gold in it" could carry with them some high taxes outside of taxing the actual income of the person. Owning a Ferrari or Learjet can have taxes in it that the majority never see because they are buying VWs, Fords, and Toyotas or a plane ticket on United or British Airways.
Taxing the person who chooses to maintain a used-Toyota for decades, literally wears out the products they buy, works to allow their children to do whatever they want to do and makes it into the "millionaire" club because they worked at it seems like a bad idea to me. Are they successful? Yes! Could a tax system based on just net-wealth/savings punish them for their hard work? Yes!
I am suggesting the solution is not "Your net-worth is in excess of 1-million USD, therefore you should be taxed more than the guy whose net worth is only 10K USD."
I am suggesting that perhaps activities, like maintaining a license on a twin-engine aircraft and buying the fuel for the jet, could carry taxes that unless you take part in them, you do not have to worry about.
I think it is a bad idea to prosecute corporate executives if they did not actually break any laws. They may have built a house of cards, but I am unsure if any actual laws were broken. The precedent set is scary.
Off the top of my head:
There's been numerous examples of banks or their representatives lying in court; Banks weren't following state laws about transferral of mortgage deeds on houses, and when they were called on it, they employed people to sign affidavits claiming that the paperwork was lost, and that the person making the affidavit had done a thorough search, and that they were qualified to state that the bank actually owned the mortgage deed (purgery is the technical term I think);
Banks were caught foreclosing on houses that were actually paid off;
Banks were lying to their investors about the quality of the investments they were selling to them (They would package up a thousand mortgages, and check 100 of them to see if they actually qualified according to their published rules. When 50 of the ones they checked failed, they discarded just those 50, and said that the mortages were not 50% compliant, but 95% compliant with the rules.)
Various investment banks have been doing very dodgy things with the regulation officials involving offering them well paid jobs after their term as investigator, as long as they don't get too enthusiastic about prosecuting the banks in the meantime...
How many have been arrested?
That's stuff I've picked up from a distance without reading the US papers every day.
I do not know how many have been arrested, I assume it was rhetorical and the answer is 0. If there were crimes committed, then those committing the crimes should be arrested and tried in court. The first thing here is for the state to decide to pursue the case. Perhaps that is a desired outcome of the protest?
My point is that a crime must have been committed.
Just as it is wrong for police to pepper spray a cooperative protester; it is wrong to arrest someone who did not commit a crime.
I think it is a bad idea for the US government to manage the economy. I am ok with the government regulating activities between member states (interstate commerce) and with other country-states (export/import). Managing and regulating are different things in my opinion.
Who would you like to manage the economy? HSBC? There are too many ways to game the system (or suborn the regulators) to rely on regulation alone. Also, every choice the government makes about spending (or not spending) money affects the economy either locally or across the country (otherwise pork-barrel politics wouldn't exist). Would you prefer them to have a plan about what affect they want to have happen? Or to just do things at random? I mean, yeah, they currently look like they do stuff at random, but wouldn't it be better if they had a plan?
I do not think an economy the size of the United States can be managed or even well regulated. I did not say the Federal central government should regulate everything, in fact I gave very specific things the Federal government should regulate - Interstate Commerce and Imports/Exports.
I recognize that government spending impacts the economy. I think that national committees of politicians are ill-equipped to understand the implications of how they spend (including pork-barrel projects) money. I think the Federal government should not be seen as having the ability to impact the national economy, beyond a few very select industries.
The construction of roads/bridges/etc in a particular state is not a national need. The continued maintenance of the GPS constellation of satellites is a national (global) need.
The acquisition of new Fire Trucks for a particular district is not a national need. A blue water Navy may not be a national need (something very much debated when the first Frigates were purchased by the US Govt). A strategic Air Force may not be a national need (something not nearly as well debated by Congress as the foundation of the Navy).
I think politicians planning the purchasing for the needs of the United States leads to some of the worst investments of tax payer funds.
Governments should exist to make the lives of the people in that polity better than it would be otherwise. Not just the rich people, but everyone!
The US Federal Government exist to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Article 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution goes on to provide a list of those powers granted the Congress.
The 10th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) expressly states "(t)he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MxupmU4cJOE#!
Looks like Sansha Kuvakei has infiltrated an Occupy movement. Why are they going on in drone-echoes?
-
Human Microphone. When the protestors near Wall Street were banned from using any loudspeaker kind of setup (including bullhorns and such) they had to improvise. It became the 'human microphone' where the speaker paused for all those who DID hear it to repeat it so everyone could hear it. It's quite ingenious but I can't figure out why it's used when she's got a freakin' bullhorn. Maybe it's symbolic or something.
I hear it did quite help keep cohesion and unity there, as everyone said what the speakers said.
-
I can't view that video at work :( but what I recall seeing was that that was their way of dealing with the lack of lowspeakers. They weren't permitted to use them, which meant that people given speaches could only be heard by people within earshot. The solution was to have the people within earshot repeat verbatim what the speaker said, so that the couple dozen voices would carry a lot farther than the individual speaker could manage on their own.
The end result seems a little strange, but I thought it was an excellent way to deal with being denied traditional amplification.
It's entirely possbile that that's not what's going on in that video, i'm just making a semi-educated guess because I can't see it.
EDIT: sniped by miz
-
Human Microphone. When the protestors near Wall Street were banned from using any loudspeaker kind of setup (including bullhorns and such) they had to improvise. It became the 'human microphone' where the speaker paused for all those who DID hear it to repeat it so everyone could hear it. It's quite ingenious but I can't figure out why it's used when she's got a freakin' bullhorn. Maybe it's symbolic or something.
I hear it did quite help keep cohesion and unity there, as everyone said what the speakers said.
Yes, but at the same time, anyone can take the stage.
This becomes an issue when both internationally recognized nazi and communist parties have sided with the Wall Street protests. If people of the same persuasion 'take control' of the human microphone, as they're very well entitled to, then that'd be unfortunate, wouldn't it?
-
Yes, but at the same time, anyone can take the stage.
So have some Tea Party people. That doesn't automatically make it a problem.
This becomes an issue when both internationally recognized nazi and communist parties have sided with the Wall Street protests. If people of the same persuasion 'take control' of the human microphone, as they're very well entitled to, then that'd be unfortunate, wouldn't it?
Why? As someone once said, the solution to speech you don't like is not to restrict speech, it's to have more speech. Say why you think their speech is bad. Also, the human microphone really relies on the buy-in of the relayers; if what you're saying doesn't convince them, then they'll stop relaying it. That's why I don't think it's a particular problem.
-
Setting aside the guilt-by-association rhetoric, not just anyone can jump up and start talking. You remember that brief and overwrought kerfuffle over the fact that John Lewis didn't get to speak? Why do you think that any random nazi could 'take control'? There's no voodoo going on here, people repeat it because they think it's generally useful. If a crazy managed to get a slot on the agenda, and started going off on the menace of the jews, gypsies, and homosexuals, what do you think would happen? The magical mind control of the human mic fires up the pogrom bongs and they all start kristallnachting?
-
My friend found this, I thought it was relevant to the discussion, unforunately I cannot access the original posting. But this is what he pulled from New Scientist today.
"From New Scientist today:
AS PROTESTS against financial power sweep the world this week, science may have confirmed the protesters' worst fears. An analysis of the relationships between 43,000 transnational corporations has identified a relatively small group of companies, mainly banks, with disproportionate power over the global economy.
The study's assumptions have attracted some criticism, but complex systems analysts contacted by New Scientist say it is a unique effort to untangle control in the global economy. Pushing the analysis further, they say, could help to identify ways of making global capitalism more stable.
The idea that a few bankers control a large chunk of the global economy might not seem like news to New York's Occupy Wall Street movement and protesters elsewhere. But the study, by a trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, is the first to go beyond ideology to empirically identify such a network of power. It combines the mathematics long used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs).
"Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."
Previous studies have found that a few TNCs own large chunks of the world's economy, but they included only a limited number of companies and omitted indirect ownerships, so could not say how this affected the global economy - whether it made it more or less stable, for instance.
The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company's operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.
The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What's more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the "real" economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.
When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability.
Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core's tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."
"It's disconcerting to see how connected things really are," agrees George Sugihara of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, a complex systems expert who has advised Deutsche Bank.
Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), warns that the analysis assumes ownership equates to control, which is not always true. Most company shares are held by fund managers who may or may not control what the companies they part-own actually do. The impact of this on the system's behaviour, he says, requires more analysis.
Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Bar-Yam says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.
One thing won't chime with some of the protesters' claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara.
Newcomers to any network connect preferentially to highly connected members. TNCs buy shares in each other for business reasons, not for world domination. If connectedness clusters, so does wealth, says Dan Braha of NECSI: in similar models, money flows towards the most highly connected members. The Zurich study, says Sugihara, "is strong evidence that simple rules governing TNCs give rise spontaneously to highly connected groups". Or as Braha puts it: "The Occupy Wall Street claim that 1 per cent of people have most of the wealth reflects a logical phase of the self-organising economy."
So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. The real question, says the Zurich team, is whether it can exert concerted political power. Driffill feels 147 is too many to sustain collusion. Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest."
-
Here is the link to the superconnected network of world companies.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051008/Are-conspiracy-theorists-right-Study-shows-super-corporation-pulls-strings-global-economy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
-
All is not well in the world of Occupy:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_animal_farm_the_organiz.html
-
All is not well in the world of Occupy:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_animal_farm_the_organiz.html
Cant open the link, what is it?
-
The Organizers vs. the Organized in Zuccotti Park
10/20/11 at 5:38 PM
Comment
It began, as it so often does, with a drum circle.
It began, as it so often does, with a drum circle.Photo: Andrew Burton/AP
All occupiers are equal — but some occupiers are more equal than others. In wind-whipped Zuccotti Park, new divisions and hierarchies are threatening to upend Occupy Wall Street and its leaderless collective.
As the protest has grown, some of the occupiers have spontaneously taken charge on projects large and small. But many of the people in Zuccotti Park aren't taking direction well, leading to a tense Thursday of political disagreements, the occasional shouting match, and at least one fistfight.
It began, as it so often does, with a drum circle. The ten-hour groove marathons weren’t sitting well with the neighborhood’s community board, the ironically situated High School of Economics and Finance that sits on the corner of Zuccotti Park, or many of the sleep-deprived protesters.
“[The high school] couldn’t teach,” explained Josh Nelson, a 27-year-old occupier from Nebraska. “And we’ve had issues with the drummers too. They drum incessantly all day, and really loud.” Facilitators spearheaded a General Assembly proposal to limit the drumming to two hours a day. “The drumming is a major issue which has the potential to get us kicked out," said Lauren Digion, a leader on the sanitation working group.
But the drums were fun. They brought in publicity and money. Many non-facilitators were infuriated by the decision and claimed that it had been forced through the General Assembly.
“They’re imposing a structure on the natural flow of music," said Seth Harper, an 18-year-old from Georgia. “The GA decided to do it ... they suppressed people’s opinions. I wanted to do introduce a different proposal, but a big black organizer chick with an Afro said I couldn’t.”
To Shane Engelerdt, a 19-year-old from Jersey City and self-described former “head drummer,” this amounted to a Jacobinic betrayal. “They are becoming the government we’re trying to protest," he said. "They didn’t even give the drummers a say ... Drumming is the heartbeat of this movement. Look around: This is dead, you need a pulse to keep something alive.”
The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. “Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places,” said Engelerdt. “We’re like, what’s going on here? They’re like the banks we’re protesting."
All belongings and money in the park are supposed to be held in common, but property rights reared their capitalistic head when facilitators went to clean up the park, which was looking more like a shantytown than usual after several days of wind and rain. The local community board was due to send in an inspector, so the facilitators and cleaners started moving tarps, bags, and personal belongings into a big pile in order to clean the park.
But some refused to budge. A bearded man began to gather up a tarp and an occupier emerged from beneath, screaming: “You’re going to break my fucking tent, get that shit off!” Near the front of the park, two men in hoodies staged a meta-sit-in, fearful that their belongings would be lost or appropriated.
Daniel Zetah, a 35-year-old lead facilitator from Minnesota, mounted a bench. “We need to clear this out. There are a bunch of kids coming to stay here.” One of the hoodied men fought back: “I’m not giving up my space for fucking kids. They have parents and homes. My parents are dead. This is my space.”
Other organizers were more blunt. “If you don’t want to be part of this group, then you can just leave,” yelled a facilitator in a button-down shirt, “Every week we clean our house.” Seth Harper, the pro-drummer proletarian, chimed in on the side of the sitters. “We disagree on how we should clean it. A lot of us disagree with the pile.” Zetah, tall and imposing with a fiery red beard, closed debate with a sigh. “We’re all big boys and girls. Let’s do this.” As he told me afterwards, “A lot of people are like spoiled children." The cure? A cold snap. “Personally, I cannot wait for winter. It will clear out these people who aren’t here for the right reasons. Bring on the snow. The real revolutionaries will stay in -50 degrees.”
“The sunshine protestors will leave,” said “Zonkers,” a 20-year-old cleaner and longtime occupier from Tennessee. (He asked that his name not be used due to a felony marijuana conviction.) “The people who remain are the people who care. You get a lot of crust punks, silly kids, people who want to panhandle ... It disgusts me. These people are here for a block party.”
Another argument broke out next to the pile of appropriated belongings, growing taller by the minute. A man named Sage Roberts desperately rifled through the pile, looking for a sleeping bag. “They’ve taken my stuff,” he muttered. Lauren Digion, the sanitation group leader, broke in: “This isn’t your stuff. You got all this stuff from comfort [the working group]. It belongs to comfort.”
And as I spoke to Michael Glaser, a 26-year-old Chicagoan helping lead winter preparation efforts, a physical fight broke out between a cleaner and a camper just feet from us.
“When cleanups happen, people get mad,” Glaser said. “This is its own city. Within every city there are people who freeload, who make people’s lives miserable. We just deal with it. We can’t kick them out.”
In response to dissatisfaction with the consensus General Assembly, many facilitators have adopted a new “spokescouncil” model, which allows each working group to act independently without securing the will of the collective. “This streamlines it,” argued Zonkers. “The GA is unwieldy, cumbersome, and redundant."
From today’s battles, it’s not yet clear who will win the day: the organizers or the organized. But the month-long protest has clearly grown and evolved to a point where a truly leaderless movement will risk eviction — or, worse, insurrection.
As the communal sleeping bag argument between Lauren Digion and Sage Roberts threatened to get out of hand, a facilitator in a red hat walked by, brow furrowed. “Remember? You’re not allowed to do any more interviews,” he said to Digion. She nodded and went back to work. But when Roberts shouted, “Don’t tell me what to do!” Digion couldn't hold back.
“Someone has to be told what to do," she said. "Someone needs to give orders. There’s no sense of order in this fucking place.”
-
To perhaps breath some life into this thread, an update.
The Occupy Oakland protestors have been expelled by riot police from their park-site. At the moment, the protestors are counterattacking, using bottles and other projectiles against the police.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/top-stories/ci_19188125?source=pkg
-
The same complaints the were originally used against OWS were used to justify this action. Accusations that protestors were smoking pot, urinating and defecating openly in public, etc.
Funny how when foreign journalists show up to cover the story, they remark about said complaints and offer that, "I smell no such odors."
It is just classic smearing, ad hominem, poisoning-the-well type stuff. These aren't substantive complaints, just an excuse and an attempt to turn public opinion against them and disregard the blatant abuse of the rights our government it supposed to be restricted from infringing upon.
We have video of police actions against protestors, I'm still waiting to see documented proof of a protestor attacking any officers (there is one of a rock being thrown through a patrol car window and I think that's shameful, but certainly not reason to act against the entire demonstration).
-
Considering the amount of video cameras you see the 'authoritah' waving around when they march lockstep and jackbooted on the protestors I find it extremely odd that there's not one documented assault on police officers. Well, not all that odd to be honest, but a bit astonishing perhaps. I did not expect to see that much police brutality, aggression and violence considering how well known it is that pretty much everything that happens there ends up on youtube.
Some sort of instinct should be going off in their heads, yelling "What you're doing now? Yeah, it's being documented up the fuckin' wazoo. Moderate yourself.".
-
The same complaints the were originally used against OWS were used to justify this action. Accusations that protestors were smoking pot, urinating and defecating openly in public, etc.
Funny how when foreign journalists show up to cover the story, they remark about said complaints and offer that, "I smell no such odors."
It is just classic smearing, ad hominem, poisoning-the-well type stuff. These aren't substantive complaints, just an excuse and an attempt to turn public opinion against them and disregard the blatant abuse of the rights our government it supposed to be restricted from infringing upon.
We have video of police actions against protestors, I'm still waiting to see documented proof of a protestor attacking any officers (there is one of a rock being thrown through a patrol car window and I think that's shameful, but certainly not reason to act against the entire demonstration).
I remember seeing one video posted early in this thread where a protester starts swinging (or swinging back) at an officer. Bad move.
It wasn't a classical hook-swing, but rather more like... slapping down on the officer's shoulders and head while desperately trying to get away, to no avail.
EDIT: It wasn't posted in this thread. I checked. It must have been when I was browsing the tubes for more videos. Anyways, it's probably out of context anyways... but yeah.
-
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4652/occupywallstreet.jpg)
-
It's funny. I remember talking to a recently graduated college guy at a tavern a few months back. Railed on and on about about the evils of unregulated capitalism, and evil financial institutions and corporations who get wealth and power at the expense of America.
Well, for one. Our economy is heavily regulated. Seriously, a list as long as the silk road could list everything congress does to regulate the economy or try to effect it in some way. Taxes, health codes, environmental codes, tax breaks to certain industries, bailing out certain industries, grants, loans, foreign aide, import bans, import taxes (tariffs) the list does go on folks.
Than, I remember saying to him. Congress spends the money, decides where it goes and the same two political parties have been in power since the 1800s. Which they happen to write the election laws that keep them in power too and fund and control the media that covers the candidates whome you think you have a choice in deciding over.
Lets get one thing straight people, if you think giving Government authority and more power over the economy is gonna protect us from a bad economy you are being childish and naive. If you think a Government whose membership is filled with people on the payrolls of people who care little about our rights is gonna safeguard your life liberty and property than you need to grow up.
Government is best when it governs the least.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/KsKme.jpg)
The first time around didn't work either.
It won't work until they are scared.
The silly V masks don't do that. Neither did fat rednecks waving the flag.
TP and OWS are not working, nor will they.
-
They are not 'silly V masks', they are Guy Fawkes masks.
Gunpowder plot and all that?
-
I saw this attempt at quantifying the situation that people are unhappy about:
Slideshow with graphs and shit (http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#lets-start-with-the-obvious-unemployment-three-years-after-the-financial-crisis-the-unemployment-rate-is-still-at-the-highest-level-since-the-great-depression-except-for-a-brief-blip-in-the-early-1980s-1)
My summary is that it's all about the gap. I think most people realise that there has always been and will always be inequality: the problem is that the gap is so wide now. People can be contented when there's at least that false carrot that you could someday join the ranks of the wealthy if you work hard or get on TV or something.
-
It's funny. I remember talking to a recently graduated college guy at a tavern a few months back. Railed on and on about about the evils of unregulated capitalism, and evil financial institutions and corporations who get wealth and power at the expense of America.
Well, for one. Our economy is heavily regulated. Seriously, a list as long as the silk road could list everything congress does to regulate the economy or try to effect it in some way. Taxes, health codes, environmental codes, tax breaks to certain industries, bailing out certain industries, grants, loans, foreign aide, import bans, import taxes (tariffs) the list does go on folks.
Regulations are routinely circumvented and repealed, often containing so many loop-holes as to be equivalent to not having any. An example would be how many corporations that do business here in the U.S. (even touting themselves as "American" corporations), yet manage to not pay one cent in taxes.
Than, I remember saying to him. Congress spends the money, decides where it goes and the same two political parties have been in power since the 1800s. Which they happen to write the election laws that keep them in power too and fund and control the media that covers the candidates whome you think you have a choice in deciding over.
Lets get one thing straight people, if you think giving Government authority and more power over the economy is gonna protect us from a bad economy you are being childish and naive. If you think a Government whose membership is filled with people on the payrolls of people who care little about our rights is gonna safeguard your life liberty and property than you need to grow up.
That's the crux of the issue I hear the most often, though. Our laws and regulations are written in corporate board rooms, handed to the lobbyists, who then dictate them to the lawmakers. Just because the process is obfuscated through several layers of cronyism and corruption doesn't make the statement any less true. I don't see that much demanding for more government control of business, I see demands that business not control the government.
Government is best when it governs the least.
I prefer to say government is best when it works for the people who grant it the authority to govern. As it stands now, the social contract which is supposed to exist between the governing and the governed is in tatters. It is a one-way street now of edicts and restrictions. We have come to a place where the influence of money in the electoral and law-making process completely undermines the idea of "one person, one vote" because some people get "more" vote than others. We pay lip service to the idea of "meritocracy," yet there are thousands upon thousands of people who want to work hard, who want to be a positive contributor to society, but are denied the means to do so. These problems are structural and systemic, not a result of laziness or entitlement (not saying you suggested such, but it gets repeated as a talking point over and over again). There are 6 job seekers for every open position in the country, even if every one of the people voicing their dissent right now went out to seek employment, 80% of them would still be in the same situation. Not to mention, like my own current situation, I didn't work hard and take on debt to get educated so I could flip burgers and wash dishes, that's the exact thing I was trying to avoid! If it comes down to putting food on my table, I suppose I may have to, but it doesn't mean I have to sit quietly and "be glad for what I have." I'm sorry, maybe there's something wrong with me, but I am not so meek and repressed that I will have a celebratory attitude towards the idea of living in poverty for the rest of my life.
A great sign summed this notion up: "I didn't bust my ass for 4 years to graduate Magna Cum-Laude so I could serve you a cappuccino latte."
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Te57eMCPMs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Te57eMCPMs) Somewhat cynical, but interesting to think about. Also, :propaganda:
-
I can't say for certain that my experiences make me more or less capable of understanding the problems with the economy, nor have I conducted any studies on the subject. But what I am aware of in my particular industry (construction - one which involves many small businesses and is one of the hardest hit by the recession), is that the barriers to entry and the costs forced upon us by governmental control are tremendous.
To operate as, say, a carpenter in California, you have to have a contractor's license, a contractor's bond, workers compensation, you must make contributions to the EDD, and you have to do all of this in addition to normal employee payroll, withholding, and etc. Thus, the cost per employee is so high that a new hire may actually cost the employer twice what the employee physically takes home.
One can, of course, make a good argument for any one of these programs. EDD provides a safety net for employees. Workers comp. protects employees from going under financially due to injury. Contractor's bonds insure customers against fraud and shoddy workmanship, while the license stipulates a certain standard of ability.
The problem arises in the fact that all of these costs make hiring a licensed carpenter very expensive. In lieu of this, then, people will do the work themselves, let things go, or, very often, hire an unlicensed carpenter with a few buddies. The law-abiding and conscientious contractor then has to fire employees and simply work longer himself. Perhaps he may just go out of business altogether.
Although the Contractors Board makes a show of trying to crack down on illegal contractors, I would estimate that one half to two thirds of total residential construction work in California is performed by unlicensed workers. These illegal operators can and do perform satisfactory jobs, often work alone, and make far more profit (untaxed!) then a licensed and hard working contractor, and their numbers make enforcement of contracting laws a virtual impossibility.
My point is this: even if every individual regulation is good, at a certain point the weight of policies and regulations makes disregard for the law worthwhile. And while some people may choose to still be law abiding (as my company is), they are penalized for it.
But suppose that enforcement did work? Despite the astronomical cost of such policing, even were unlicensed contractors to be eliminated, we would likely not see much more work. Most people simply cannot afford the price of our services, which is dictated in large part by labor costs. Given the costs we must pay to employ even a laborer - much less a journeyman - there is a point beyond which doing a job actually costs the company money. So, every regulation (a term I am using loosely) placed upon us results in less business overall.
This might not be quite as bad as it is if those who authored such regulations had any conception of the realities of daily business operation in the market. As it is, we often receive plans or lists detailing prevailing wages (prevailing wage is what the government thinks people are being paid for a service in a particular area) according to our enlightened overlords. If a company were to operate using these wage standards, they would go bankrupt in less than a year. At my company, we like to read these lists in a sarcastic frame of mind while commenting on the idiocy of those who propose them.
How can a small business survive, then? Well, at my company, my partner and I work about 60 hours a week each, much of which is hard physical labor (when doing paperwork, we may hit 80 hours a week). I've gone as high as 96 hours in a week, with less to show for it then most.
This isn't a political or economic rant. I'm coming at this from an informal, anecdotal perspective. But I must say that it seems difficult for me to place blame for these conditions upon free markets - we don't operate in one - or even big companies. If we didn't have very cooperative and interested companies supplying us products, samples of new items, and even free clothing, things would be even more difficult. I am well aware that not every company is like that, but the ones that screw us over are invariably the ones the government requires us to deal with.
Those who seem to truly have no connection with reality or sympathy with our efforts are those ensconced in the halls of power, as it were. Rules seem to be made without any consideration of the effects they will have or the additional burden they will impose. Indeed, the attitude prevailing seems to be that we ought to be grateful for being allowed to exist at all. In many ways, the perception is growing both amongst the management and employees of my company that the rules have been carefully constructed to force us to run as fast as we can to stay in the same place.
This sense of futility, and of being exploited, tends to produce a deep and bitter anger. The sense, the feeling, is not that the system does not work, but that it has become a malevolent system, designed to consume us. It is that the welfare state has become adjusted to provide for the welfare of those who run it or collude with those administrators - and all the while, those of us trying to attain to a certain stability, a bit of financial security, are to be forever enticed by it, but forever denied.
This sort of mood will not lead to good things. But the reaction I have seen, so far, seems to either have been an agitation against social liberalism (as if banning gay marriage will make my life better), useless agonizing over how much Warren Buffet makes (even if we confiscated everything the "super-rich" earn, my life would be not a whit improved) or outright condemnation of people like me, people who are trying to make money by earning it.
I'm a pessimist. I don't think that things are going to improve for those of us who work or want to work. I think the solipsistic radicals will continue to smash windows, the Republicans will continue to tout fundamentalism and weird tax schemes (selected to be so weird they will never be implemented), and the Democrats will continue implement more and more burdensome regulations while demanding higher taxes on those who invest or earn. In short, none of those who are in a position to fix real problems wish those real problems to be fixed. The problems grant them power, job security, and something with which to demonize their opponents.
As for me, at least the long hours give me time to listen to Dostoyevsky, Dawkins, Wodehouse, and others on my iPod.
-
Bailing out the banks is basically socialist and acknowledging capitalism isn't currently working.
Solution is naturally the uprooting of the current form of society and establishing a new one. Come on, Russia and China, WW3! Let's go!
-
Bailing out the banks is basically socialist and acknowledging capitalism isn't currently working.
Incorrect assumption to make. While I agree bailing out banks is essentially a socialist action, it does not mean that capitalism is not working. It works very well and is why secondary (black & gray) markets come to exist.
Bailing out the banks was governments favoring security over freedom (or status quo over change). Freedom includes the freedom to fail. Individuals, small businesses, companies, and corporations would have all potentially lost something. Some would bounce back, others would not. Instead, governments chose the status quo and security over change and freedom, but so do most people.
Solution is naturally the uprooting of the current form of society and establishing a new one. Come on, Russia and China, WW3! Let's go!
Major destructive war between major powers will not result in the type of change most people in the western world desire.
The world's economy is incredibly intertwined and no major power will be able to sustain large scale physical warfare, nor do they desire it.
-
Well, dex, the intent of that theoritical world war would be to reorganize the international system away from what you have just described.
-
Actually, WWIII would be an excellent way to get out of this.
Most commodities stay around, and their solid occupation of space keeps them from being as lucrative as they could be. There gets to be a point where there's simply too much money and nothing to spend it on.
Ammunition and weapons have the benefit of being high-demand, one time use items. Build a thousand bombs, the builder gets profits, the factory workers get paid, and tomorrow we need another thousand.
-
Dig a canal with a spoon, etc. Break a window, pay for new window, everyone profits! except for the person who has to replace his windows. . .
-
Dig a canal with a spoon, etc. Break a window, pay for new window, everyone profits! except for the person who has to replace his windows. . .
Leave it to you to put a depressing spin on a world war, Soter. :/
-
Dig a canal with a spoon, etc. Break a window, pay for new window, everyone profits! except for the person who has to replace his windows. . .
Actually, WWIII would be an excellent way to get out of this.
Most commodities stay around, and their solid occupation of space keeps them from being as lucrative as they could be. There gets to be a point where there's simply too much money and nothing to spend it on.
Ammunition and weapons have the benefit of being high-demand, one time use items. Build a thousand bombs, the builder gets profits, the factory workers get paid, and tomorrow we need another thousand.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Forget any idea of what you think World War III could have been (quaint 1960/70s idea).
A true superpower war is likely to open with the destruction of infrastructure and systems upon which the post-Apollo/post-Internet era has become increasingly dependent. A true superpower war will destroy any hope of a world where radicals are marginalized/contained and basic freedoms are the norm.
A true superpower war is unlikely to result in the "reorganization of the international system," it is likely to destroy any concept of an international system. Continental systems (US/Canada, EU) likely disintegrate and even regional systems might breakdown.
At the end of a true superpower war, the population of the planet is likely to be much smaller, the environment much harsher, and the distribution of resources based not on any democratic or electoral basis, but on who is able to take it by force.
Planetary Dark Age.
-
Would EVE still be running? I could live with that...
-
Soter understands the broken window fallacy. <3
I'd rather ignore the minefield of defining socialism and look at the question of whether capitalism works or not. What does it mean for capitalism to work? Adam Smith's great insight was that individuals pursuing their own interest can, given the right conditions, maximize the gain to society as a whole. Given that, is the rise of systemic risk posed by highly-leveraged, highly-interconnected financial institutions a success or failure? Should the freedom to fail include the freedom to drag the rest of the economy down with you?
-
Soter understands the broken window fallacy. <3
I'd rather ignore the minefield of defining socialism and look at the question of whether capitalism works or not. What does it mean for capitalism to work? Adam Smith's great insight was that individuals pursuing their own interest can, given the right conditions, maximize the gain to society as a whole. Given that, is the rise of systemic risk posed by highly-leveraged, highly-interconnected financial institutions a success or failure? Should the freedom to fail include the freedom to drag the rest of the economy down with you?
It is a failure to appreciate the mechanics of capitalism (to include greed) and attempt to force a desired end-state through utilization of other methods.
As an example, monopolies are bound to arise in a capitalist system. However a monopoly generally fails to maintain innovation within its field, it has no incentive to do so. Given time, monopolies (real or de facto) can and are broken by market forces. People, through government, seek to avoid real monopolies, breaking them up when it is no longer beneficial for the monopoly to exist, sometimes accepting cartels (real or de facto) in order to maintain the appearance of a competitive market.
Unions are an interesting response to a capitalist system, but when a company is willing to reward its employees the union is in-effect a manpower subcontractor. The union potentially creates a monopoly of available labor.
In every case, we weigh freedom and security. The freedom to fail, and drag the economy with you, is a potential risk of said freedom. However, with said freedom, there exist potential rewards. If we reduce the risk, reduce the amount of freedom allowed, we can establish a more secure, less dynamic economy in which decline and growth are both minimized.
-
In every case, we weigh freedom and security. The freedom to fail, and drag the economy with you, is a potential risk of said freedom. However, with said freedom, there exist potential rewards. If we reduce the risk, reduce the amount of freedom allowed, we can establish a more secure, less dynamic economy in which decline and growth are both minimized.
In any naturally arising system such as a capitalist economy, attempts to reduce downsides tend also to have corresponding and amplified effects upon upsides. Or, in other words, when you try to reduce lows by 10%, you are likely to reduce highs by more than 10%.
-
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Other wars people believed would bring about the end of the world:
World War I
World War II
Cold War
-
What is wrong with having an economical system that would favor steady and slow growth instead of an economical system that is prone to sudden shifts?
EDIT: There was something great about living under the constant threat of nuclear apocalypse of the Cold War, seeing these irresponsible shits running about without any clue of how that felt is kind of neat :D
-
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Other wars people believed would bring about the end of the world:
World War I
World War II
Cold War
They each did "end the world" in their own way. World ending does not inherently mean species or even civilization ending.
Arguably World War I & II in Europe are interrelated, one setting up the other.
World War I & II led to changes the world over that we have been dealing with for the past 65 years. World War I weakened the European colonial powers and in the wake of WWII, the colonies gained independence and some struggle with it to this day. They resulted in the decline (and destruction in some cases) of the European powers (Britain, France) as world leaders, supplanted by the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Cold War never went to superpower-superpower war, thankfully. But it did change the world, powerful country's with lots of resources feed the resources to scientist and engineers to create the basis for marvels of our modern world, like the Internet and now-retired Space Shuttle. It also showed (as history before it did) how the little power defeats the big power, Vietnam & Afghanistan.
Actual war with Iraq under Saddam was easy, big powers are great at that. The hard part is/was the follow-up occupation/police action, big power militaries are not geared to fight those.
-
Would you propose raising the tax on capital gains for those with a lower income or lowering the tax on those with a higher income in order to equalize treatment of capital gains?
I can see taxation of financial transactions putting a serious hindrance to investment in fresh IPOs of startup companies that have grown beyond "Main Street." I can also see it reducing the number, scale, & frequency of transactions; in general making the market postured towards less risk-taking, possibly retarding overall economic growth. I am not an expert on the financial system, but I can see a financial transactions tax not achieving the desired results as it slows the exchange of goods & commodities and thus revenue and capital gains.
Bull. The financial sector is completely out of whack with the rest of the global economy.
e.g.
(http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-251299-galleryV9-uopg.jpg)
(From here (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,781590,00.html"))
Traders are just pushing money around doing make-work and patting themselves on the back for achieving... nothing (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/30/daniel-kahneman-cognitive-illusion-extract")
-
Actual war with Iraq under Saddam was easy, big powers are great at that. The hard part is/was the follow-up occupation/police action, big power militaries are not geared to fight those.
Well the problem there is using an army as a police force. Which is pretty much the opposite of what an army is supposed to be used for.
-
Would you propose raising the tax on capital gains for those with a lower income or lowering the tax on those with a higher income in order to equalize treatment of capital gains?
I can see taxation of financial transactions putting a serious hindrance to investment in fresh IPOs of startup companies that have grown beyond "Main Street." I can also see it reducing the number, scale, & frequency of transactions; in general making the market postured towards less risk-taking, possibly retarding overall economic growth. I am not an expert on the financial system, but I can see a financial transactions tax not achieving the desired results as it slows the exchange of goods & commodities and thus revenue and capital gains.
Bull. The financial sector is completely out of whack with the rest of the global economy.
e.g.
(http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-251299-galleryV9-uopg.jpg)
(From here (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,781590,00.html"))
Traders are just pushing money around doing make-work and patting themselves on the back for achieving... nothing (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/30/daniel-kahneman-cognitive-illusion-extract")
And thus the world of fiat currency comes tumbling down. . .
-
You've lost me, Dex1. What is "a failure to appreciate the mechanics of capitalism (to include greed) and attempt to force a desired end-state through utilization of other methods," and how does that answer my question of "what does it mean for capitalism to work?" I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I just don't want to misread between the lines and attribute a view to you that you don't hold.
I mean, you mention the rise of monopoly power and unions as things that happen in a capitalist system, but I don't think that's what you're saying is the defining feature of 'capitalism working,' especially since you explicitly said they were examples. (As a side note, any chance I can get a source for the claim that monopolies will naturally break up, given enough time?)
Actually, hell, I'll take a shot at misreading between the lines. Please correct me when I'm wrong here. It seems to me that what you (and Vik) are saying is that, regardless of what it means specifically for capitalism to work, capitalism working necessarily includes higher risk and higher reward. Is that at all accurate?
-
Would you propose raising the tax on capital gains for those with a lower income or lowering the tax on those with a higher income in order to equalize treatment of capital gains?
I can see taxation of financial transactions putting a serious hindrance to investment in fresh IPOs of startup companies that have grown beyond "Main Street." I can also see it reducing the number, scale, & frequency of transactions; in general making the market postured towards less risk-taking, possibly retarding overall economic growth. I am not an expert on the financial system, but I can see a financial transactions tax not achieving the desired results as it slows the exchange of goods & commodities and thus revenue and capital gains.
Bull. The financial sector is completely out of whack with the rest of the global economy.
e.g.
[image removed]
(From here (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,781590,00.html"))
Traders are just pushing money around doing make-work and patting themselves on the back for achieving... nothing (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/30/daniel-kahneman-cognitive-illusion-extract")
Your response seems fair with regards to "general financial" transactions. My response was to a discussion of capital gains and my layman's understanding of capital gains.
Also, why is my opinion bull? Did I claim it as fact? It is my conjecture at a possible side effect of increasing taxation on capital gains.
You've lost me, Dex1. What is "a failure to appreciate the mechanics of capitalism (to include greed) and attempt to force a desired end-state through utilization of other methods," and how does that answer my question of "what does it mean for capitalism to work?" I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I just don't want to misread between the lines and attribute a view to you that you don't hold.
I did not respond to the question of "What does it mean for capitalism to work?" I responded to the other two questions without providing a definition of "capitalism working."
I will try to provide examples of capitalism working to me.
Richard Branson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson)
Elon Musk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk)
Steve Jobs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs)
These individuals have built successful, society changing companies, and transformed existing industries when they enter them. But maybe that is not what you mean?
I mean, you mention the rise of monopoly power and unions as things that happen in a capitalist system, but I don't think that's what you're saying is the defining feature of 'capitalism working,' especially since you explicitly said they were examples. (As a side note, any chance I can get a source for the claim that monopolies will naturally break up, given enough time?)
I can provide examples were I think de facto monopolies are broken up naturally given time. For example, in the mid-90s, Microsoft seemed to have a de facto monopoly, but today other options are gaining significant market share in various areas and some of them with much less in the way of resources than Microsoft.
Another example is the attempt by the government to maintain competition in the space launch market actually led to the merger of the two companies (Boeing's & Lockheed's Launch systems merge to form ULA) creating a monopoly. This monopoly is being targeted by at least an entrepreneur interested in lowering launch cost (SpaceX).
I suppose my claim that monopolies naturally break up is poorly written. It may have been better of me to say "given time, a monopoly will be broken."
Actually, hell, I'll take a shot at misreading between the lines. Please correct me when I'm wrong here. It seems to me that what you (and Vik) are saying is that, regardless of what it means specifically for capitalism to work, capitalism working necessarily includes higher risk and higher reward. Is that at all accurate?
I can not speak for Vik, only myself.
Capitalism, raw capitalism, allows for people to take high risk and be highly rewarded. By placing security nets (bail outs) the risk is lowered / shared by others. It is a trait of it, not necessarily whether it is working or not. It is not working if higher reward does not have higher risk or if low risk allows for a higher reward than a higher risk activity.
-
Would you propose raising the tax on capital gains for those with a lower income or lowering the tax on those with a higher income in order to equalize treatment of capital gains?
I can see taxation of financial transactions putting a serious hindrance to investment in fresh IPOs of startup companies that have grown beyond "Main Street." I can also see it reducing the number, scale, & frequency of transactions; in general making the market postured towards less risk-taking, possibly retarding overall economic growth. I am not an expert on the financial system, but I can see a financial transactions tax not achieving the desired results as it slows the exchange of goods & commodities and thus revenue and capital gains.
Bull. The financial sector is completely out of whack with the rest of the global economy.
e.g.
[image removed]
(From here (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,781590,00.html"))
Traders are just pushing money around doing make-work and patting themselves on the back for achieving... nothing (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/30/daniel-kahneman-cognitive-illusion-extract")
Your response seems fair with regards to "general financial" transactions. My response was to a discussion of capital gains and my layman's understanding of capital gains.
Also, why is my opinion bull? Did I claim it as fact? It is my conjecture at a possible side effect of increasing taxation on capital gains.
Capital gains has historically been much higher in the US during some periods of high economic growth, back when the financial sector didn't dwarf the rest of the economy. The two are intrinsically linked.
I hope that increased capital gains will have a reduction on activity in the financial system, because currently there is far more useless shuffling of money going on there beyond efficient allocation of capital investment in production. Many of the 'commodities' traded these days have only the most tenuous link to reality - derivatives so esoteric few of those actually trading them even understand them properly [disclaim: nor do I claim to, but that's what some people in the business say]
Another pretty good speigel article (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,793896-2,00.html") -
In the 1970s, capital gains tax was 40 percent, and the highest income tax bracket paid a rate of 70 percent. Under George W. Bush, these rates dropped to 15 percent and 35 percent, respectively. For example, it emerged a few weeks ago that legendary investor Warren Buffett earned $63 million last year but was only required to pay 17 percent in taxes.
(http://www.spiegel.de/images/image-276987-galleryV9-bxkl.jpg)
As for myself I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm more anti-corporate. An economy made up to a far greater extent of co-operatives and partnerships would be far more healthy and stable imo.
-
Your response seems fair with regards to "general financial" transactions. My response was to a discussion of capital gains and my layman's understanding of capital gains.
Also, why is my opinion bull? Did I claim it as fact? It is my conjecture at a possible side effect of increasing taxation on capital gains.
Capital gains has historically been much higher in the US during some periods of high economic growth, back when the financial sector didn't dwarf the rest of the economy. The two are intrinsically linked.
I hope that increased capital gains will have a reduction on activity in the financial system, because currently there is far more useless shuffling of money going on there beyond efficient allocation of capital investment in production. Many of the 'commodities' traded these days have only the most tenuous link to reality - derivatives so esoteric few of those actually trading them even understand them properly [disclaim: nor do I claim to, but that's what some people in the business say]
I think we are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow investment and slow overall economic growth. Which is why I was confused by the statement that it was/is bull.
I think our disagreement is on whether or not it is a good thing.
Another pretty good speigel article (http://"http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,793896-2,00.html") -
In the 1970s, capital gains tax was 40 percent, and the highest income tax bracket paid a rate of 70 percent. Under George W. Bush, these rates dropped to 15 percent and 35 percent, respectively. For example, it emerged a few weeks ago that legendary investor Warren Buffett earned $63 million last year but was only required to pay 17 percent in taxes.
[image removed]
As for myself I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm more anti-corporate. An economy made up to a far greater extent of co-operatives and partnerships would be far more healthy and stable imo.
Rephrasing the statement about Warren Buffeet, he was required to only pay $10.71 million last year.
Comparisons with a European country are interesting, they always make me consider some of the other differences between the United States and various European. Also, the disparity between the richest Germany and the poorest German may be less than that of the richest American and poorest American, but what about the disparity between the richest German and the poorest Romanian? Because the study is comparing the the Richest Californian with the poorest Mississippian.
What happens when partnerships and cooperatives grow & become corporations? What about those activities that are challenging for partnerships and cooperatives (like building large airplanes)?
-
Some co-operatives are pretty large and successful already in some places. e.g. the Mondragon federation of cooperatives employs 84k people with a revenue of just under 15b euros, the John Lewis Partnership has 68k employees and a revenue of £6.7b.
We are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow financial sector activity, but I don't expect this will affect useful investment or overall economic growth. Much of what the financial sector does is entirely without worth or benefit to anyone besides themselves.
And no the study isn't comparing the very richest individuals with the poorest individuals, it's comparing upper and lower percentiles - please read it more carefully.
-
Okay, I think I'm getting a better picture of what you mean when you talk about capitalism now, Dex, thanks for putting up with my Socratic silliness. I'll stop asking questions for a minute and lay out what I think it means for capitalism to 'work.' One, Schumpeter's creative destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction#Schumpeter) functions with a low level of impairment, with some degree of exception for public goods and goods with positive externalities, thus leading to a general rise in human well-being. Second, it creates lots of economic surplus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_surplus), which again makes everybody better off.
So when I ask what it means for capitalism to work, I guess what I'm really asking for is an account of the way you think capitalism benefits humanity. (And thanks for helping me figure that out.) You seem to have expressed your answer already, as in, "These individuals have built successful, society changing companies, and transformed existing industries when they enter them." Which is largely the same as what I just said about creative destruction. We just happen to disagree on the best means for enabling those benefits to happen, which is partly factual and partly simple value judgements.
Your examples of monopolies, and especially the rewording, are good points. I would, however, point out that in the modern era, it's much harder to maintain a monopoly precisely because of the government's ability and willingness to prosecute anti-competitive practices, and not so much because of any intrinsic features of capitalism. (Also technological progress, which might have an easier time affecting a capitalistic market but is not in and of itself capitalist.) We saw that in Microsoft's case in the 1990s. (Do you happen to know any good investigative pieces or even books on that ULA thing? That sounds like it'd be really interesting to study the history of.)
And now to get to the point where we really disagree, so I'll go ahead and quote:
Capitalism, raw capitalism, allows for people to take high risk and be highly rewarded. By placing security nets (bail outs) the risk is lowered / shared by others. It is a trait of it, not necessarily whether it is working or not. It is not working if higher reward does not have higher risk or if low risk allows for a higher reward than a higher risk activity.
You are absolutely right, bailouts lead to socialized risk. It's that moral hazard thing, which is definitely, in and of itself, bad. But (always a but) that chance of damaging other parts of the economy that I brought up earlier is also a form of socializing risk. Just like the practice of originating a sketchy loan and then turning around and repackaging and selling it (with the partly-incompetent, partly-unethical help of ratings agencies saying it's just as good as US treasury securities). Or releasing toxins into the environment during your firm's production process.
Point is, there are lots of ways that a purely laissez-faire system allows risk to be socialized, even without government intervention. So my next question is this, do you support (in the abstract) government action to prevent these risks from being socialized? (In economics, we call it a negative externality, or a cost borne by a third party who doesn't benefit from a transaction.)
At the end of the day, we have to answer the question: Which is higher, the cost of allowing firms to fail and harm innocent (more or less) third parties, or the cost of allowing them to think they'll get a government bailout when they blow it? Some of that can be answered by good social science, but some of it too is a value judgement that we're unlikely to ever agree on.
-
And no the study isn't comparing the very richest individuals with the poorest individuals, it's comparing upper and lower percentiles - please read it more carefully.
Comparisons with a European country are interesting, they always make me consider some of the other differences between the United States and various European. Also, the disparity between the richest Germans and the poorest Germans may be less than that of the richest Americans and poorest Americans, but what about the disparity between the richest Germans and the poorest Romanians? Because the study allows for comparisons between the the Richest Californians with the poorest Mississippians.
There I adjusted my statement (in bold) so that it is plural and responds to percentages instead of individuals. The US has more than 3 times as many people as Germany spread over significantly more territory.
Z.Sinraali, I will respond to your questions in time.
-
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
-
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.
I would, however, point out that in the modern era, it's much harder to maintain a monopoly precisely because of the government's ability and willingness to prosecute anti-competitive practices, and not so much because of any intrinsic features of capitalism. ... (Do you happen to know any good investigative pieces or even books on that ULA thing? That sounds like it'd be really interesting to study the history of.)
I doubt there has been much in the way of investigative pieces or books with regards to the Space Launch market. In 2006, a nascent SpaceX brought suite against Boeing & Lockheed Martin for forming ULA (link (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/02/spacex-vs-boeing-and-lockheed-lawsuit-dismissed/)). Today, the US Government launches any large scale satellites with ULA. The wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance)article is probably the best starting point.
The government's ability and willingness to prosecute anti-competitive practices is not universal, as the ULA example shows (the US government currently only launches with American companies and is barred from launching on foreign launchers by law, hence a monopoly). It could be argued that Boeing has a monopoly in the US when it comes to large scale commercial airplanes, luckily the government does not buy fleets of those. Thus Boeing has a few international competitors (which it operates at an arguable disadvantage against*).
Also, monopolies are why I have an issue with unions. Strong unions create a monopoly on manpower and can result in the same ills that come with a monopoly in any industry. Many locales protect unions and their monopoly on manpower.
And now to get to the point where we really disagree, so I'll go ahead and quote:
Capitalism, raw capitalism, allows for people to take high risk and be highly rewarded. By placing security nets (bail outs) the risk is lowered / shared by others. It is a trait of it, not necessarily whether it is working or not. It is not working if higher reward does not have higher risk or if low risk allows for a higher reward than a higher risk activity.
You are absolutely right, bailouts lead to socialized risk. It's that moral hazard thing, which is definitely, in and of itself, bad. But (always a but) that chance of damaging other parts of the economy that I brought up earlier is also a form of socializing risk. Just like the practice of originating a sketchy loan and then turning around and repackaging and selling it (with the partly-incompetent, partly-unethical help of ratings agencies saying it's just as good as US treasury securities). Or releasing toxins into the environment during your firm's production process.
Point is, there are lots of ways that a purely laissez-faire system allows risk to be socialized, even without government intervention. So my next question is this, do you support (in the abstract) government action to prevent these risks from being socialized? (In economics, we call it a negative externality, or a cost borne by a third party who doesn't benefit from a transaction.)
In the abstract, I do not support government action, especially on the scale of 300+ million people. Whether or not it is to prevent risks from being socialized or maintenance of local/regional infrastructure.
Maybe it has not come across, but I am very much in favor of small government. But I am also very much in favor of local governance. When a distant capital dictates, it does so without an understanding of local conditions and creates general solutions which can make some situations actually worse.
At the end of the day, we have to answer the question: Which is higher, the cost of allowing firms to fail and harm innocent (more or less) third parties, or the cost of allowing them to think they'll get a government bailout when they blow it? Some of that can be answered by good social science, but some of it too is a value judgement that we're unlikely to ever agree on.
You are correct, it is a value judgement.
In general, I do not think anyone knows better than I what is best for me (or for you). Whether it is a god or some politician, they do not know what is best for the individual or a group of individuals.
I think there are ways to encourage desired behavior and discourage undesirable behavior besides government action.
Sharing information and developing positions among citizens is critical and the internet is great for doing so. If anything comes out of Occupy, I hope it is a willingness to discuss both government and corporate behavior among citizens/customers.
I want to see a push for action at lower levels of governance - what can your city or town do to help with unemployment or the environment or whatever issue it is?
The central government should enable us to do things that no one community can do, like establishing rules & guidelines to integrate local/regional infrastructure (FAA rules for flying) into a national network or establishing a navigation & timing network (GPS Constellation). The central government should not have to worry about the conditions of every bridge across the nation, a general solution just does not work there (made up example: like every State gets X dollars for road work when the roads in Arizona only need to be repaved very decade, while in Michigan they require annual maintenance).
-
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.
A poor reason to dismiss the comparison imo - particularly when the comparison is about equality.
Just after reunification the difference between the poorest East German and richest West German was far greater than anything found between different parts of the US. The fact that this disparity has been greatly reduced only reinforces the suggestion that their economic system is not promoting inequality to the extent that the American one is.
-
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.
A poor reason to dismiss the comparison imo - particularly when the comparison is about equality.
Just after reunification the difference between the poorest East German and richest West German was far greater than anything found between different parts of the US. The fact that this disparity has been greatly reduced only reinforces the suggestion that their economic system is not promoting inequality to the extent that the American one is.
To be blunt, ask the Turks how integrated they feel into German society.
-
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.
A poor reason to dismiss the comparison imo - particularly when the comparison is about equality.
Just after reunification the difference between the poorest East German and richest West German was far greater than anything found between different parts of the US. The fact that this disparity has been greatly reduced only reinforces the suggestion that their economic system is not promoting inequality to the extent that the American one is.
No, I do not dismiss the comparison, I think the comparison is unfair given the size of the US population and disparities in various economic environments. Different States have different laws (potentially extremely different) with regards to labor, business, etc. I have provided examples elsewhere in this thread where businesses are moving production to what is traditionally less well-off parts of the nation in order to take advantage of local laws (free to work, ie do not have to join an union) and conditions (cheaper labor).
Lastly, I question the accuracy of the data for Germany. The United States conducts routine census (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census) which "include citizens, non-citizen legal residents, non-citizen long-term visitors and illegal immigrants." Does the German data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Germany#Since_1949_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland) include migrate works and illegal immigrants?
-
Integration is a problem that can't be blamed on only one side, and especially way more complex to discuss it in a few sentences.
Since I live there I'll just add that there are a lot of perfectly 'integrated' foreigners here, but also a lot that are staying in their own circles, having problems with the language barrier and would be in need of more help. However, there are also those who don't want to take up what's being offered.
Also I'm agreeing with Borza on his last point.
About the data: I don't think they count illegal immigrants, where there are not that many around, since they are kind of washing ashore in the mediterranean countries and germany is not that restricted regarding immigrants. They should include immigrant workers, since we have a fairly happy bureaucracy going on there. About the homogenity of Germany: While there are differences they are by no means as major as in the US. However, businesses will happily make use of the eastern european states for cheap labor or some of the local tax havens. So that's actually kind of worse.
-
Dex: Your original argument was that a capitalistic system will tend to break up or lessen the market power of monopolies, so while your point that government does not universally prosecute anti-competitive practices is valid, ULA doesn't help the original argument because it hasn't been broken up. You could try to tell me that it hasn't been broken up because the government has interfered with the natural process of the markets, but how do you intend to prove that counterfactual? Microsoft's anti-competitive activities, your other example, were stopped, but government action played a significant role in that case. (As did technological progress, but again that's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism.)
As for unions, they tend to differ from monopolies in a few important ways. One, they don't set the price or quantity singlehandedly. In a textbook monopoly, there is a single seller and many buyers. The buyers have no market power. However, any given labor union sells their labor to a single buyer. (Sometimes more than one, but each contract is negotiated separately, and they can't really say "If you don't hire this guy we'll sell his labor to your competition.") Think of it like the health insurance market: Paradoxically, higher market concentration in insurance markets can reduce the cost to consumers (http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/how-market-concentration-can-be-good/) because they can better bargain with similarly-concentrated health care providers.
Second, except in the widely-banned closed shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement), there really aren't any barriers to entry for someone wishing to sell their labor to a given corporation. Depending on local labor law, they may be required to join the union once they've been hired, but as above the end result is a reduction in the union's ability to set the quantity of labor supplied.
Anyways, my last question for now is this: Besides ideological preference, how do you justify approving of some forms of risk-socialization while disapproving of others?
-
Dex: Your original argument was that a capitalistic system will tend to break up or lessen the market power of monopolies, so while your point that government does not universally prosecute anti-competitive practices is valid, ULA doesn't help the original argument because it hasn't been broken up. You could try to tell me that it hasn't been broken up because the government has interfered with the natural process of the markets, but how do you intend to prove that counterfactual? Microsoft's anti-competitive activities, your other example, were stopped, but government action played a significant role in that case. (As did technological progress, but again that's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism.)
To support my original point, ULA's market monopoly (in my opinion) is in the process of being broken despite a lack of government action and even support for the monopoly. Market forces (cost of launching stuff) has driven someone (SpaceX) to develop an alternative within the market.
Anyways, my last question for now is this: Besides ideological preference, how do you justify approving of some forms of risk-socialization while disapproving of others?
I do not have an answer at this time.
-
meanwhile, in Iceland... (http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/08/25/why-iceland-shold-be-in-the-news-but-is-not/)
-
meanwhile, in Iceland... (http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2011/08/25/why-iceland-shold-be-in-the-news-but-is-not/)
http://grapevine.is/Features/ReadArticle/A-Deconstruction-of-Icelands-Ongoing-Revolution
-
Meh, I wanted to link that article. :D
-
Meh, I wanted to link that article. :D
/me steals thunder
-
To be blunt, ask the Turks how integrated they feel into German society.
Why would I do that? I'm not talking about integration.
Germany isn't exactly a homogeneous country you know, there are still massive East/West disparities even 20+ years post-reunification...
Agreed, but Germany (and most European countries individually) is (are) significantly more homogeneous than the United States.
A poor reason to dismiss the comparison imo - particularly when the comparison is about equality.
Just after reunification the difference between the poorest East German and richest West German was far greater than anything found between different parts of the US. The fact that this disparity has been greatly reduced only reinforces the suggestion that their economic system is not promoting inequality to the extent that the American one is.
No, I do not dismiss the comparison, I think the comparison is unfair given the size of the US population and disparities in various economic environments. Different States have different laws (potentially extremely different) with regards to labor, business, etc. I have provided examples elsewhere in this thread where businesses are moving production to what is traditionally less well-off parts of the nation in order to take advantage of local laws (free to work, ie do not have to join an union) and conditions (cheaper labor).
You can say any comparison between different nations is unfair. No two countries have identical demographics or economies. One can pick apart any attempts to draw parallels if one were so inclined.
The comparison does not need to be perfect in order to contrast the levels of economic inequality between different counties as the difference is quite pronounced - just as glaring as the difference between the US in 1983 and the US of 2007 which was illustrated in the same graphic.
Do you disagree with some part of the suggestion that the US features noticeably greater economic disparity than several other developed countries and that wealth is even more highly concentrated there now than it was several decades ago?
... If not I don't understand your nit-picking. If so please address the point.
-
Dex: Your original argument was that a capitalistic system will tend to break up or lessen the market power of monopolies, so while your point that government does not universally prosecute anti-competitive practices is valid, ULA doesn't help the original argument because it hasn't been broken up. You could try to tell me that it hasn't been broken up because the government has interfered with the natural process of the markets, but how do you intend to prove that counterfactual? Microsoft's anti-competitive activities, your other example, were stopped, but government action played a significant role in that case. (As did technological progress, but again that's not an intrinsic feature of capitalism.)
To support my original point, ULA's market monopoly (in my opinion) is in the process of being broken despite a lack of government action and even support for the monopoly. Market forces (cost of launching stuff) has driven someone (SpaceX) to develop an alternative within the market.
Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Quite true, although my objection would be that the fact that the monopoly exists because of government action means that government action (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/18/business/la-fi-1018-spacex-satellites-20111018) is going to be the what breaks it. It's like a drug patent: Just because generics flood the market as soon as the patent expires does not mean that it's a natural consequence of the market structure. (Of course, it's totally fair to object to government-granted monopolies in their own right.)
-
I think we are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow investment and slow overall economic growth. Which is why I was confused by the statement that it was/is bull.
A capital gains tax is being promoted here as a way to encourage investment in productive assets and businesses, instead of the over-investment in non-productive rental property which pays barely enough to cover the mortgage, but really returns with the capital gains.
So the argument here (In NZ) is that a capital gains tax will actually boost our economy, and reduce housing costs at the same time.
-
I think we are in agreement that capital gains tax would slow investment and slow overall economic growth. Which is why I was confused by the statement that it was/is bull.
A capital gains tax is being promoted here as a way to encourage investment in productive assets and businesses, instead of the over-investment in non-productive rental property which pays barely enough to cover the mortgage, but really returns with the capital gains.
So the argument here (In NZ) is that a capital gains tax will actually boost our economy, and reduce housing costs at the same time.
Are they going to be making adjustments in the code for investment in businesses? Because, typically, the reason you invest in property and similar investment vehicles is to avoid risk while achieving steady, if limited, growth. Businesses are typically a high risk investment. Even large businesses have historically been seen as risky propositions in comparison to property investments, and rightly so.
Moreover, if you make investment in housing more expensive for the holder of that investment, why on earth would you presume that the consequence would be cheaper housing? The most likely result of such a tax would be the aggregation of such properties into the hands of those who can operate such in volume in order to maintain profits, as those who can no longer make a living off of small property units sell to those whose living is made off of groups of property units.
When government acts to increase unit costs, the result is operation/sale of larger aggregations of units by fewer operators in order to maintain profit via multiplying the small margin per unit.
-
You can say any comparison between different nations is unfair. No two countries have identical demographics or economies. One can pick apart any attempts to draw parallels if one were so inclined.
The comparison does not need to be perfect in order to contrast the levels of economic inequality between different counties as the difference is quite pronounced - just as glaring as the difference between the US in 1983 and the US of 2007 which was illustrated in the same graphic.
Do you disagree with some part of the suggestion that the US features noticeably greater economic disparity than several other developed countries and that wealth is even more highly concentrated there now than it was several decades ago?
... If not I don't understand your nit-picking. If so please address the point.
I do not disagree.
The United States of America has noticeably greater economic disparity than other developed countries with smaller economies, smaller populations, lower population diversity, and different cultural attitudes.
My nit-picking is that comparing the United States of America to any single European country does not take into account the scale and diversity of the United States. Americans make the same mistake and point at nations like Denmark or Iceland and say "Why can't we be more like them?" The best response in my opinion is that "there are 300 million of us and only 6 million/600 thousand of them." The comparison fails to appreciate the scale of the United States. Percentages eliminate scale and its associated causes.
I would rather live in a system where success is congratulated and emulated than a system that berates and looks down upon it.
Z.Sinraali: I am contemplating my non-ideological reasons for being ok with some risk-socialization, but not others. A lot of my current thinking is about appropriate scales at which to implement risk-socialization.
-
That isn't the kind of comparison that was being made imo, it was more for a frame of reference for Spiegel's German readership.
Good article here too (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers") about some of the myths surrounding the "1%".
-
Are they going to be making adjustments in the code for investment in businesses? Because, typically, the reason you invest in property and similar investment vehicles is to avoid risk while achieving steady, if limited, growth. Businesses are typically a high risk investment. Even large businesses have historically been seen as risky propositions in comparison to property investments, and rightly so.
Moreover, if you make investment in housing more expensive for the holder of that investment, why on earth would you presume that the consequence would be cheaper housing? The most likely result of such a tax would be the aggregation of such properties into the hands of those who can operate such in volume in order to maintain profits, as those who can no longer make a living off of small property units sell to those whose living is made off of groups of property units.
When government acts to increase unit costs, the result is operation/sale of larger aggregations of units by fewer operators in order to maintain profit via multiplying the small margin per unit.
Our government has generally been fairly low in the interference stakes for about 20 years. "We have leveled the playing field of international trade, but we're the only team playing without a box" was a quote from the mid eighties. Our problem negotiating free trade deals is that we have nearly no tariffs or import restrictions so we have nothing to negotiate with.
I'm pretty sure the current (right wing) government removed the incentives for R&D because they didn't see it as important.
The reasoning behind the capital gains tax, as I understand it, is that there are a bunch of people making isk off investments in property who don't pay any tax on that income. (this also applies to people making money by investing in ponzi schemes shares who get no dividends (which they would pay tax on) but make money by having the price go up because more people are investing in it.) and that this means that if investors have a choice between investing in productive capital (which returns a dividend) and investing in unproductive residential housing, they're choosing the housing.
Combined with the memories of the 1987 sharemarket crash which saw a lot of people take a bath on their share investments, this has made it very difficult for NZ business to raise investment funds inside NZ, since nobody wants to move away from safe as houses property. That has a side-effect of meaning that they do a lot of sourcing of their investment money from overseas, so most successful businesses get bought out and all the profits head overseas...
Various right wing people (including the head of the NZX stock market) are trying to get the government to sell more of it's profitable monopolies to try to get more shares on the stockmarket that are worth having, since a lot of the existing shares are crap at the moment (highly paid executives do not seem to be able to make businesses that are worth investing in in NZ, at least compared to property currently)
A side effect of everyone wanting to invest in property is that there is more money chasing the same number of houses, which drives the price up. This not only puts houses out of reach of people entering the market, but means that tax-free capital gains encourages more people to invest their spare money in the property market. This combines with a lot of city council rules about trying to keep green belts that limit the available properties for new building, which also drives the prices up (more capital gains!).
If there's a captial gains tax, then buying a house and waiting for it to get more expensive is not going to make you as much money as putting it in the bank or buying govt bonds. Which means fewer people will bother buying a second house as a rental, which means less money chasing the same number of houses, which means it gets harder to sell them, and the price comes down. That's the theory anyway.
A lot of quite respectable economists from both the left and the right have agreed that a CGT would remove a particularly distorting affect on our countries economy. It's also a way of pissing off all the upper middle class people who's idea of investment is to buy a second house, rent it out to cover the mortgage, and wait for it to double in price, which is why politicians are often reluctant to consider it.
-
That isn't the kind of comparison that was being made imo, it was more for a frame of reference for Spiegel's German readership.
Good article here too (http://"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers") about some of the myths surrounding the "1%".
Linkfail corrected :P :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers
Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?
I think we can all answer that one quite readily. :D
-
Linkfail corrected :P :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers
This :o :ugh:
-
Jefferson said it well... (http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu84gay1Eh1qzb51bo1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1320967120&Signature=2omJEW0eSj5iBy4ZnGSJBML9ZW4%3D)
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided
Sometimes, I love this country so much it hurts.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided
Sometimes, I love this country so much it hurts.
Can't say I'm quite as enamored. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-police-bloomberg.html)
Especially when it turns out the authorities are blocking press coverage of the events through harassment and arresting legitimate journalists. (http://www.cpj.org/2011/11/journalists-obstructed-from-covering-ows-protests.php)
-
I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
-
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
I really don't think that is the case. There is plenty of evidence of various human groups operating in highly egalitarian manners, both more current and throughout history. I'd dig up specific anthropological stuff, but since I ran across this paper earlier and it happens to touch on just this I'll link it instead: http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/1-4-article-hunter-gatherer-social-existence.pdf . Incidentally while reading it I couldn't help but think about how all of that article ties in with RP and social game-playing (MMO or otherwise) so its worth a look for everyone here.
I'm really not feeling like making a big post, but I'd say that it comes more down to social upbringing and the existing structure of our societies that leads to the formation of hierarchies and stratification even in groups like the OWS protesters.
-
I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
-
They're closing the airspace over Manhattan right now and reporters are told to remove themselves. Last time it was excused with 'it's for your own safety' but helicopter crews were never in any danger to begin with. This is getting nasty. Very nasty.
Edit: There's conflicting reports going on about the news choppers. Someone may be misunderstanding orders from the towers.
-
They're closing the airspace over Manhattan right now and reporters are told to remove themselves. Last time it was excused with 'it's for your own safety' but helicopter crews were never in any danger to begin with. This is getting nasty. Very nasty.
Edit: There's conflicting reports going on about the news choppers. Someone may be misunderstanding orders from the towers.
The airspace over Manhattan is congested as is. The Police (and Emergency Services) aircraft are likely on a common communications frequencies and not reliant on air traffic control to deconflict their paths/positions. Based on the Aviation charts of that area, lots of aircraft can normally operate in the airspace uncontrolled. My guess is that the local FAA is denying anyone who submits a flight plan for in-&-around Manhattan from flying unless they are local, state, or federal services.
Or would you prefer for the collision of aircraft in close proximity to the protest, possibly resulting in one or both aircraft crashing into protesters or those living in the general vicinity?
Edit: The authorities are telling the reporters to stay clear because the police can not ensure the reporters' safety.
-
I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.
-
I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.
Read what I linked, read some of the references. There you go. The mathematical side is actually pretty simple: humans have been around for ~200,000 years and for almost that entire time have lived life as hunter-gatherers. There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return, groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.
Seems like I never remembered to bookmark much of my references for this stuff sadly. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book on the subject.
-
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
Stuff
Sutff
There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return, groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.
I think Senn's point was that people have leaders, and the various 'Occupy' groups have them too. Animal packs have alpha's and leaders. Hunts would've had leaders. Fleets have FCs. People who know what to do tell others what to do because that's the best way to get stuff done.
The occupy protesters aren't anywhere near as "we all have equal say" as they try and paint it. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with the process, it's just that their words don't align with their actions.
And for an international perspective, the "Occupy Melbourne" group in Australia are an embarrassment. Not that I'd support them either way, but they really seem to have lost the plot lately:
(I think the Salvation Army are a pretty reliable source)
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/drugs-claim-at-occupy-protests-20111117-1nl2q.html
-
There is a pretty big difference between the nominal leadership based upon expertise or logistics that you'd see in HG groups and the more authoritarian style of leadership where there isn't the option to disregard the advice/orders of the leader if anyone in the group found it to not be in their interest. So what they practiced wouldn't necessarily be considered leadership today ('take me to your king, leader, etc) because they couldn't make unilateral decisions and expect them to be followed. There is some interesting stuff about evolutionary leadership theory that I might have to go back and actually finish reading to flesh out this train of thought some more.
It might be a rather subtle distinction, but I think it's an extremely important one, especially WRT to how the OWS groups are trying to organize.
-
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.
-
That sort of thing does tend to make cooperation more important, but HG groups did go out of their way to prevent dominance of individuals it seems. It's never really a case of 100% of people did this, but I think it would be fair to extrapolate that the majority did, especially if these same behavior patterns have persisted into modern day in different groups who have no direct contact with each other.
We could make similar observations about human behavioral similarities with Bonobos on the more egalitarian side of things, but I don't think it contributes much to the discussion. So instead of me rambling about stuff that has already been explained better elsewhere, I'll just link what I did earlier again and stick with that. vOv
http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/1-4-article-hunter-gatherer-social-existence.pdf
(Also to keep from derailing this too much into an evolutionary psychology discussion)
-
I try not to respond to cases of "police brutality" during protests. It's simply too irritating of an issue to discuss, and there's rarely room for a stasis issue to discuss in the first place.
No, the reason I love this country is that even when protesters gather up and complain about class structure, they just make their own.
Humans don't operate without leaders and castes. It just doesn't happen. I don't want to say these folks wasted their time, but, it certainly wasn't well-spent.
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
I would positively love to see the mathematical and historical legwork to support that.
Read what I linked, read some of the references. There you go. The mathematical side is actually pretty simple: humans have been around for ~200,000 years and for almost that entire time have lived life as hunter-gatherers. There is strong evidence that hunter-gatherer, especially immediate return, groups were highly egalitarian (again, see linked article as I cba to dig up more right now). It is only in the past ~10,000 years, once we started to shift more towards fixed agriculture and (semi)-permanent settlements that things like the ability to store food and develop systems of trade and private property that we moved towards more stratified social structures. So that puts it at about 5% of human history.
Seems like I never remembered to bookmark much of my references for this stuff sadly. Guns, Germs, and Steel is a good book on the subject.
First off, I feel I should put a disclaimer on the Jared Diamond recommendation. Without going into specific details of specific instances such as his blatantly offensive mischaracterization of various Polynesian cultures, the guy talks out of his ass. He has an agenda that consists largely of assuaging guilty white consciences over the results of Western European colonialism, and he publishes a lot of pseudo-scientific drivel in pop-science journals to support that agenda.
Senn, social stratification is something that doesn't occur in hunter-gatherer societies. It is very limited in horticultural societies as well. We don't see evidence of significant social stratification in the archaeological or ethnographic record until the advent of intensive agriculture. Caste systems are a very extreme example of social stratification, which is only really present in a very small minority of known human cultures.
For specific examples of how hunter-gatherer societies work in relatively contemporary times, there is a wealth of ethnography out there. The !Kung people of the Kalahari desert are a classic textbook example of h/g egalitarianism, and they have been studied by a number of great anthropologists. For some really readable classic ethnography, you might look at Bronislaw Malinowski's work in Melanesia. Just try to keep in mind that Malinowski worked in the earlier part of the twentieth century, and he was a structural functionalist who supported colonialism. Still, his ethnography is great and very accessible to non-academics.
If you must turn to the dark side of pop-science, look for Steven Mithen's "After the Ice." It provides a great, accessible review of human prehistory as we know it through the archaeological record. Unlike Jared Diamond, Mithen is an actual anthropologist with a great deal of credibility in the field of lithic archaeology.
-
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.
There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.
As for the thread of death by starvation, predators, etc, a lot of that is worse in industrial societies than in h/g societies, particularly with affluent h/g's. You do see some statistics floating around about average life expectancy being lower in h/g societies, but that is skewed by infant mortality rates. Infant mortality is much higher in pre-industrial societies, but after that life tends to be much easier on the whole and life expectancies of adults are similar.
Believe it or not, most of your ancestors had it a lot easier than you do now.
-
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.
There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.
I don't see how there's a difference. Put a hundred people in a room and tell them to build a house of cards, there will be leaders and followers. Everything the OWS movement is complaining about is a result of that.
It's the same with capitalism. If everyone started out with $10 on Monday, there'd be millionaires and poor folks on Friday.
-
You do know that it is not the truth?
-
First off, I feel I should put a disclaimer on the Jared Diamond recommendation. Without going into specific details of specific instances such as his blatantly offensive mischaracterization of various Polynesian cultures, the guy talks out of his ass. He has an agenda that consists largely of assuaging guilty white consciences over the results of Western European colonialism, and he publishes a lot of pseudo-scientific drivel in pop-science journals to support that agenda.
Hmm, noted, I read it back in high school so my memory is pretty fuzzy about all the details.
Caste systems for one have pretty much no social mobility, whatever you get born into you get stuck with. That's real different than stratification by wealth where there is a possibility of upward social mobility based on an individuals efforts to improve their situation.
Leadership and followership don't automatically lead towards hierarchical organization, otherwise the H/G societies that Tiberius has been referencing would not have been able to maintain an egalitarian social structure.
-
Egalitarian social organization dominates about 99% of human history.
The constant threat of death by starvation, predators, disease, or the environment does tend to make social classes less of a concern relative to mere survival, but it's rather a bit too much to claim that there were none. We see hierarchies in other primate societies, including chimpanzees, so it is quite a safe assumption to state that we have always had social hierarchy systems ourselves. There was no golden, egalitarian past.
There is a huge difference between a basic hierarchy and the sort of extreme social stratification Senn is referencing. They are not even in the same ballpark of categories.
As for the thread of death by starvation, predators, etc, a lot of that is worse in industrial societies than in h/g societies, particularly with affluent h/g's. You do see some statistics floating around about average life expectancy being lower in h/g societies, but that is skewed by infant mortality rates. Infant mortality is much higher in pre-industrial societies, but after that life tends to be much easier on the whole and life expectancies of adults are similar.
Believe it or not, most of your ancestors had it a lot easier than you do now.
Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal. Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter). You know what else pursues those kinds of activities? Other mammals.
Our ancestors may have had it "easier" in that they only had to worry about those basic essentials (which you can still pursue as a life choice), but they also could not live/cooperate in groups of more than a few dozen.
Human civilization requires specialization. Some of the specialist will be what we call leaders - men and women who are able to organize the other specialist to do something they would otherwise, individually or even as a small group, be unable to do. However, when we specialize, different specialties have different values. If your specialty is rather straightforward and easy to train, it is unlikely to be as highly valued as someone who has a very specialized, hard to train skill-set. Specialization leads to hierarchies and extensive, in-depth specialization requires hierarchies.
Without specialization, and the associated hierarchic that comes with it, we must give up not only modern civilization, but even ancient civilization. Every city must disappear and billions of people must cease to exist.
-
Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal. Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter). You know what else pursues those kinds of activities? Other mammals.
That is simply not true. Please refer to the !Kung ethnography that I mentioned in my previous post. They work toward subsistence about 20 hours a week. They also live an extremely arid and resource poor environment.
You seem to be basing your opinions on a lot of unfounded assumptions.
-
Most of our ancestors did not have time to consider existence beyond getting their next meal. Until humanity began intensive agriculture and developed specializations, each person/group unit had to spend the majority of their day pursuing the basic essentials of existence: water, food, & shelter (clothing being mobile shelter). You know what else pursues those kinds of activities? Other mammals.
That is simply not true. Please refer to the !Kung ethnography that I mentioned in my previous post. They work toward subsistence about 20 hours a week. They also live an extremely arid and resource poor environment.
You seem to be basing your opinions on a lot of unfounded assumptions.
I accept your critic of my first paragraph. It is possible for a small group (a village) to maintain subsistence living and do so in an egalitarian fashion. The paragraph was ill-founded and inaccurate. I mis-wrote and I am peripheral aware of the communities you are referencing.
I do not think it makes the unquoted paragraphs any less valid.
Intensive agriculture and the specialization allows for more technologically advanced human civilization with larger populations.
If everyone is doing the same thing (say farming or hunter/gathering), egalitarian communes do not seem incredibly difficult. Even small communities with a few specialist (blacksmith, mechanic, doctor, priest) providing useful services to the whole it is still relatively straight forward to pursue a largely classless society. I do not think it scales up very well.
In the US today (300+M), 2-3% of the working population (working population ~$145M) is employed in agriculture (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States#Employment)). This means we have a lot of "specialist." These specialist range from people working at Walmart (2.1M!) and McDonalds to doctors and lawyers and everything in between.
-
I agree that social stratification is unavoidable in industrialized and agricultural societies. I was only trying to make the point that this has not been the norm for the vast majority of human history. It is unfounded to say, as Senn did, that stratification is inevitable due to some inherent flaw in human nature. We are, as all other animals are, selfish by nature. This does not mean we have some instinct to set up complex social strata or castes any time we congregate. The archaeological and ethnographic records show us something quite different.
All that being said, sorry for derailing the thread. I think it was supposed to be about something to do with the occupy movement, which I know little and care less about. So yeah, back to your business I guess.
-
Can someone fucking tell me there's going to be accountability for the atrocities committed by the police forces? (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/pregnant-woman-miscarries-after-being-sprayed-with)
A pregnant woman kicked in the stomach and pepper sprayed after yelling that she was pregnant and just trying to get out. Another young non-violent student was sent to the hospital with chemical burns on her face after being sprayed by police officers, for simply having a sit-down with not a single threatening move displayed by any of the protestors around.
When the fuck are there going to be reports of accountability for atrocious displays of police violence?
I hate to resort to the following term, but this is getting to be Nazi conditions. Jackbooted thugs displaying the worst conceivable actions against non-violent protestors short of fucking shooting them. What the -hell- is going on?!
-
In the case of the pregnant woman, she, or someone on her behalf, has to take legal action, accuse the police in question of a crime and allow for investigation and trial. The system will not be fast about it, especially if it is doing it right - treating the accused as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We also lack the perspective of the officers, what was happening around the incident. Her voice was sadly probably one among many - the police may not have even heard her. Is this sad? Yes. Is it an atrocity? I think that language is overly strong.
Non-violent protestors does not mean the protestors are not endangering others or infringing on the rights of others. Protestors ignoring police direction to disperse (say from the middle of an intersection) may be very peaceful, but that does not mean they are not endangering others (like drivers & pedistrians milse away who are now in denser traffic). Non-lethal weapons, Pepper Spray & Tazers are used to gain compliance from non-cooperative individuals.
Do I agree with the technic the officer used? No, I think it would have been more than adequate to spray the Pepper Spray into the air and let it disperse - causing irratation to the protestors. Pepper Spray hurts, I have been sprayed with it in the face and then had to complete a task. Just being in the area of pepper spray can cause irratation.
When will there be accountability for crimes committed by the police? When the victim, or someone on their behalf, accuses the police of the crime within the justice system. This however requires that people, primarily the victim, have faith in the justice system to actually pursue justice.
-
I don't think (s)he's all that interested in your reasoned replies, orange, given the words Nazi, jack-booted thug, and atrocity used in the discussion.
-
Are any of those words unapplicable? Even in the service I never saw this kind of blatant abuse of power, nor failure to adhere to 'minimum level of force required'. Is there really anything else that can be said when war-torn countries display better respect for the civilian population than this?
-
That reminds me of an article I caught a while back, not directly related to this last incident, but close enough. http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-with-crowd-control-training-points-out-oakland-used-methods-prohibited-in-war-zones-2011-10#ixzz1c8ROOQpG
Will leave it at that for now.
-
It's part of the beauty of freedom of expression. Nothing protesters do is ever wrong, and anything a law enforcement officer does is an atrocity.
-
I don't think anyone's ever said that, Senn. There's a reason why I've always sided with the uniformed authority in these things in the past and that is because they should be trained in and using the correct amount of force, if and when it is necessary. In my own experience (and from what most media have shown throughout the last few decades) the majority of police actions have usually been justified, or the overstepping of necessary force have usually been through mistaken threat indications and so on. I've -always- considered the police the good guys and at least in my own country I still do.
The force used against the Blitzers in my own country, (a while ago. Basically they're skinheads and hooligans, but with a bit more political idealism in their core values) was appropriate and the two distinct times the authorities overstepped their limitations there were significant repercussions for those responsible.
What you see endless examples of in the various protests and occupations online is needless violence and sudden escalations in force that come out of nowhere. Shock and Awe should not be a term applicable to a police force's actions, ever. Thuggery and bullying of non-violent civilians is an absolute last resort.
With the sheer amount of protests and occupations going on these days, I'm sure there's a grand majority of the police forces out there that do their jobs well and keep applying only the necessary level of force if and when it is necessary. However, it doesn't really excuse the mindboggling amount of footage out there where there's police brutality and violence on levels I never even saw during my days of foreign service in a third world nation.
If all this footage and all these articles had come from North Korea or wherever, there wouldn't have been a single western voice defending the police forces' use of this level of violence. It's rather telling that 'Oh, it's in our own backyard. It's okay. Let's not talk about it.'.
-
The odd thing is...
Who does this serve?
I mean, such PR bungles by the police forces of the nation do not serve the nation itself.
Mistrust towards the police is not beneficial for the stability of a nation.
Unless it is used as a propaganda tool to cause mistrust towards the government of the nation.
Which seems to be the agenda of one of the political parties.
I'm not sure how things were in the seventies, but wasn't there also violence towards the protesters in the States?
-
That reminds me of an article I caught a while back, not directly related to this last incident, but close enough. http://www.businessinsider.com/marine-with-crowd-control-training-points-out-oakland-used-methods-prohibited-in-war-zones-2011-10#ixzz1c8ROOQpG
Will leave it at that for now.
Police in the US carry bullets prohibited to US military personnel in war zones due to the Law of Armed Conflict.
The US military routinely reviews its weapons for compliance with LOAC and trains its personnel to be compliant with LOAC. There is every possibility that a member of the US military, in the performance of their duties, could find themselves tried in an international court or under a court system with political aims counter to those of the United States. The US military has every interest in ensuring its personnel are trained and operate in compliance with LOAC. Lastly, failure to follow regulations, instructions, etc can result in UCMJ action, to include Court Martial and military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Members of the military, under the UCMJ, are not tried by a court of their peers. All members of the jury are officers of a higher grade. Beyond a reasonable doubt is not a requirement. The individual can be punished without a court case or jury through Article 15s, which for enlisted can include lose of rank, privileges, or pay and confinement to the installation.
Police are not bound by the same fears as the US military. They do not as a rule operate outside their local jurisdiction. They are not likely to find themselves in a non-US court system or in the military court system.
Should the Police ROEs be reviewed? Yes. Should there be investigations, yes. All of these things take time.
With the sheer amount of protests and occupations going on these days, I'm sure there's a grand majority of the police forces out there that do their jobs well and keep applying only the necessary level of force if and when it is necessary. However, it doesn't really excuse the mindboggling amount of footage out there where there's police brutality and violence on levels I never even saw during my days of foreign service in a third world nation.
If all this footage and all these articles had come from North Korea or wherever, there wouldn't have been a single western voice defending the police forces' use of this level of violence. It's rather telling that 'Oh, it's in our own backyard. It's okay. Let's not talk about it.
Do you think that these instances of brutality/crimes committed by the police are mostly getting out in the case of the United States? Or do you think they are indicative of a more rampant abuses of power?
I think in cases like N. Korea or Syria, I think we believe the abuses of power to be more rampant than we do in our own backyard. I hope I have not indicated that I think it is OK or that we should not talk about it.
How brutal/violent do you think the Somali/Afghan/Pakistani/Central African/ warlords are and how many of their victims have camera phones connected to the internet and can upload the video to Youtube within minutes of taking the video?
Again, do you think I have defended the actions of the police? I hope I have indicated a desire for these instances to be brought to trial.
The odd thing is...
Who does this serve?
I mean, such PR bungles by the police forces of the nation do not serve the nation itself.
Mistrust towards the police is not beneficial for the stability of a nation.
Unless it is used as a propaganda tool to cause mistrust towards the government of the nation.
Which seems to be the agenda of one of the political parties.
I'm not sure how things were in the seventies, but wasn't there also violence towards the protesters in the States?
Both political parties want the people of the United States to trust the government, just in different ways/for different things. The scary part is that depending on what happens, it could serve the purposes of either extreme, but only serves to reduce overall liberty.
There is a history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army) of violence against protestors/rioters throughout America's history.
Who does this serve...
The idea of Occupy Wall Street was started by a pair of anarchist. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz) Their stated goal is the destruction of capitalism and the state. I have heard that both the Nazi and Communist parties of the United States have stated their support for the Occupy movement.
When one segment of the mob (for lack of a better term) attacks and burns down a coffee shop or robs a nearby store, it brings additional police presence, and an associated rise in the environment's hostility.
The desire of the idea's originators is instability.
Lastly, the police are not releasing video from their perspective. They are likely legally barred from doing so in order to protect the privacy of those taped, including those who took violent action against the police.
-
I'm not saying I think it's okay for police to abuse their power. I am saying that I've grown to be mistrusting of accounts of "police brutality," which I will admit is the result of anecdotal evidence that shaped my worldview.
When the Democratic National Convention came to my home city in '08, there was an outcry against police brutality in the streets - like there is with EVERY protest. Some protesters were struck in the face with batons, reportedly, and others were sprayed directly with pepper spray.
As it turned out later, the group responsible for the riot leading up to that police action was a gang of self-proclaimed anarchists, who had agreed to protest peacefully and stay in designated quadrants during the protest. This is typical procedure for volatile protest sites, and is agreed to beforehand by interested parties in order for them to be allowed close to the protest site.
Big shock, the 19-20 year olds dressed in black gear with "Kill the Police" and "War Is Gay" signs in-hand, chanting threats to the riot lineup, didn't take long to break the agreement and storm past the barricades put in place to keep the protest from devolving. The ones reporting police violence were the ones locking arms and trying to ram their way past the riot police in order to get inside the building. More than once, protesters managed to surround solitary riot police and close in on the officers. We really don't know why, they just seemed to think it was amusing to keep their cameras flashing non-stop, and only disperse once the officer was forced to attempt to break free of the circle. This was reported as "police beating protesters."
This is the same nation-wide "anarchist movement" responsible for attacks on the WTO, another "peaceful protest" that ended with anarchists using home-brewed weaponry against riot police and bystanders alike, tearing the letters from the WTO building's face to keep as souvenirs, and setting fire to several squad cars for - again - no real reason.
Do I think police get out of hand now and then? Obviously, there are bad people in every group. Was every protester at the DNC a childish "black bloc" dipstick who read the Anarchist Cookbook one too many times? No, I bet a lot of them were actually there to make a point. My problem is when people only read the evidence that plays into their narrative, which in this case is a world where the police convene every night to prepare their insidious tools of oppression, cackling to themselves in anticipation of the fun they'll have hurting innocent protesters.
-
I can't count the number of times I've seen an OWS-related protest march or direct action form human chains to interfere with "black bloc" groups breaking windows or eject troublemakers into police custody.
The night Portland swelled to 8-10,000 people I was really worried when the tense, malevolent voices started stirring. But a few, slightly overlapping "mic-checks" rang out with calls to "take a deep breath, we are peaceful, stay calm" and the crowd would die down to the point of hearing a pin drop. They stood nose-to-nose with riot police for hours without a violent incident.
WTO/G8/NATO protests are largely engineered by "professional" or "vacation" protesters. I'll get a little snooty here and say from my perspective, in a lot of cases these are pampered suburban kids with no real grievance or suffering in their lives that would excuse such violence (they aren't Tibetans forced to poison their own environment with chemical baths, etc). They want to link a picture of their "brave actions against the tyrants" on their Facebook page. The de rigeuer example for me is the Vancouver riots earlier this year. There was even a staged car explosion, packed with Hollywood-style pyrotechnics. However, the actual residents of Vancouver were, again, forming human chains in front of broken windows to stop looting or would surround trouble-makers and prevent them from fleeing until authorities could apprehend them. Then, the next morning, they drove in to work early so they could spend an hour or two helping clean up their beautiful downtown.
This is not the same demographic, these are people who have lost their homes in foreclosures, seen their retirement evaporate before their eyes, their tuitions and loan requirements explode, and more. Yes, some people see fit to use the protection of a sizable protest group to shield themselves from consequences for negative behavior.
That doesn't excuse violent suppression against the entire movement for the actions of a few (who's goals aren't even really aligned in many cases). Do real police work, identify the guilty, apprehend them, build a case and prosecute. Again, there are many people who disapprove of violent elements within the movement and will cooperate with authorities to maintain order.
I'll stop before I get going on the subject of how real community policing has gone missing over the years, but simply put if the community doesn't cooperate, crime doesn't get solved. So applying punishment for the actions of a few to the entire community results in less effective systems of justice over time as you turn the formerly cooperative elements into adversaries willing to hide and condone the actions of those more dangerous elements as they see them as more "on their side" than the police are.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/H1KwI.jpg)
-
Thank you Kala...
Sometimes I'm reminded that it's important for humour to be injected into serious conversations, which you have done admirably.
Sadly, that's all I feel I have a right to comment on in this thread.
-
From how I see it, and according to some of the studies I'm doing (which will have a bias), the US is still living in the 1950s. You can have it all, you can have what you want, and you need not worry about anything. An example of that is Black Friday being marred by violence (again) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15901426).
Stuff of having pisspoor financial management goes back to Marshall Aid. US send grants to European states from the government budget, and the money goes right back to American businesses instead. How does the government get that money back, when there is corporate tax at such a ridiculously low level? It's this whole "America, fuck yeah!" attitude where the US haven't lost a war (Vietnam War doesn't count ofc) and have too much pride and not enough of a reality check. It's a good thing that the population are realizing this with Occupy Wall Street, but blame is not entirely on the 1% plutocrats, since the awsumAmerica attitude goes to such a grassroots level.
Greece is another example, to take the heat off of the US. You could inherit pensions. People didn't have to work because you could just inherit your parent's pensions until death. Moreover, nobody paid their taxes. Their tax collection services didn't ever both to do their job. So where does money to pay unlimited pensions, which is only slightly less than a full-time salary, come from? But it's this whole pride and arrogance which is bringing this whole thing about. The UK, France and Germany, all nations that have "been there, done that" with their glory days, have had sensible management, and while we're feeling the sting of things, it's nowhere near as bad as Ireland, Greece, Italy or Spain. It may just be that the US is a younger country, and has not gone through the trials and tribulations that Europe had to go through during World War Two.
Honestly, I don't know how you lot are going to get out of your $15 trillion debt. I love the US, and as an overseas-born citizen, I have a hidden partiality to wanting it to remain a great place to visit.
-
It's really not an insular issue or one related to age.
The UK is in debt like every other major power and doesn't show signs of repairing itself, either. Not to mention, the countries owed-to are second world.
-
Thank you Kala...
Sometimes I'm reminded that it's important for humour to be injected into serious conversations, which you have done admirably.
Sadly, that's all I feel I have a right to comment on in this thread.
My pleasure :)
-
There's no such thing as censorship or media bias. Oh no. Not at all.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv8nae5rdA1qzpwi0o1_500.jpg)
-
From how I see it, and according to some of the studies I'm doing (which will have a bias), the US is still living in the 1950s. You can have it all, you can have what you want, and you need not worry about anything. An example of that is Black Friday being marred by violence (again) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15901426).
Stuff of having pisspoor financial management goes back to Marshall Aid. US send grants to European states from the government budget, and the money goes right back to American businesses instead. How does the government get that money back, when there is corporate tax at such a ridiculously low level? It's this whole "America, fuck yeah!" attitude where the US haven't lost a war (Vietnam War doesn't count ofc) and have too much pride and not enough of a reality check. It's a good thing that the population are realizing this with Occupy Wall Street, but blame is not entirely on the 1% plutocrats, since the awsumAmerica attitude goes to such a grassroots level.
We may want to think we are still living in the 1950s, but we are not. In the 1950s, the US was the industrial backbone of the world. Europe was recovering from World War II and the US came out of it relatively unscathed. If the Marshall Plan money had gone to European companies, the USG would not have seen any of the money back. But something happened in the 1970s & 1980s. The US opened up trade with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and began exporting its industrial base. This reduces the cost of items, but also means that there are not jobs available for those who now have to go buy those items, horrible cycle and people wonder why I do not shop at WalMart.
Today, US corporations are taxed on their worldwide income (26 USC 11 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000011----000-.html)). I do not know how long that law has been around, but it means that income earned by McDonalds in Moscow is taxed by the US Government. State taxes also exist and range from 0-9.99%. This means that the corporation's gross world-wide income is taxed 35%-45%. Any foreign operations are taxed twice, once by the locals and then by the US government. This leaves <55% of the gross income to pay employees (who will also be taxed), invest in possible growth, and do "3b!l" things that increase corporate income (which would increase total taxes paid).
Lastly, Britain, France, and Germany do not have it figured out. As an example, France has laws in place to minimize the amount a citizen can work, to the point in the US we consider them part-time jobs. But in France immigrants are fine to work more than a citizen; *what wonderful equality and a brilliant show of humility!*
*sarcasm*
How do we get out of $15 Trillion in debt?
1) We stop defending Europe and fighting Europe's wars. The rest of NATO can step up and pay 2% of their GDPs on their militaries. The US, UK, and France are shouldering the majority of the alliance's expenses with Greece and Albania actually paying the required 2%. Most of the alliance is not living up to their commitments and cannot provide material support for operations they political support (see Libya).
2) We place a tariff on goods and services made in countries where workers rights are not protected, like China. This will be painful, but the goal is to break a cycle by which an American citizen loses jobs to foreign competitors without the same protections for workers.
3) We reform our tax code to eliminate loop holes used by the wealthy and corporations. Maybe we raise taxes a little, bu first reform the tax code to figure out how much is actually being brought in.
4) We reduce the overall size of the Federal government, eliminating redundant agencies and pushing roles not assigned the Federal government in the Constitution to the States.
5) We pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.
-
Half the US' problems would go away if we stopped trying to help the rest of the world out.
Really don't see why it's not an option.
-
Half the US' problems would go away if we stopped trying to help the rest of the world out.
Really don't see why it's not an option.
The US gets involved with the rest of the world because it needs resources from some of it. Also having people to sell stuff to can't hurt.
In other news:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063351/Retired-police-chief-arrested-uniform-Occupy-Wall-Street-demo-branding-fellow-officers-obnoxious-arrogant-ignorant.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063351/Retired-police-chief-arrested-uniform-Occupy-Wall-Street-demo-branding-fellow-officers-obnoxious-arrogant-ignorant.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
Has anyone on the American side of the pond seen this? Just for reference the Daily Mail is one of the UK's more right wing tabloids. Not quite at Fox News levels but getting there.
-
Half the US' problems would go away if we stopped trying to help the rest of the world out.
That sounds very Amarrian! :o)
-
In response to Arnulf's link, I'd like to quote a particular segment from it:
Speaking after the Day of Action, he said: ‘You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured.
'If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force.
‘And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation - continue to talk, and talk and talk to people.
‘You have nothing to lose by that. This bullrush - what happened last night is totally uncalled for when they did not use negotiation long enough.’
This is one of the things I've been pointing at since the beginning of the violent suppression of peaceful non-violent protesters in this Occupy thread. Unnecessary and uncalled for violence sending pregnant women to the hospital, giving young students chemical burns in the face through excessive use of pepper spray, censorship of media, violence used against reporters and unwarranted police action in general is frightening to behold from outside your borders.
No matter how much a lot of us disliked the US long before these events, we had a certain amount of faith in the country's capability for at least dealing with domestic issues like a civilized country but this is starting to get very scary. These aren't riots. These aren't warzones or unstable regions with warlords and enemy combatants in civilian clothes. They are peaceful protests and they're being hammered down with scary amounts of force.
This leads to a question for the Americans amongst you: What are you doing about this? You as individuals most likely not directly connected to neither the Occupy movements or the Authorities who try to solve these things with force. Are you doing anything at all or are you just watching this from a distance? I'm curious.
-
People might think I'm joking about this, but I'm not.
I'm looking at investment possibilities so I can afford a ranch out in like, South Dakota, and I'm also looking into home automated defenses.
I'm going to rename the street Mordor, and just watch as the world implodes.
-
In response to Arnulf's link, I'd like to quote a particular segment from it:
Speaking after the Day of Action, he said: ‘You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured.
'If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force.
‘And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation - continue to talk, and talk and talk to people.
‘You have nothing to lose by that. This bullrush - what happened last night is totally uncalled for when they did not use negotiation long enough.’
This is one of the things I've been pointing at since the beginning of the violent suppression of peaceful non-violent protesters in this Occupy thread. Unnecessary and uncalled for violence sending pregnant women to the hospital, giving young students chemical burns in the face through excessive use of pepper spray, censorship of media, violence used against reporters and unwarranted police action in general is frightening to behold from outside your borders.
No matter how much a lot of us disliked the US long before these events, we had a certain amount of faith in the country's capability for at least dealing with domestic issues like a civilized country but this is starting to get very scary. These aren't riots. These aren't warzones or unstable regions with warlords and enemy combatants in civilian clothes. They are peaceful protests and they're being hammered down with scary amounts of force.
This leads to a question for the Americans amongst you: What are you doing about this? You as individuals most likely not directly connected to neither the Occupy movements or the Authorities who try to solve these things with force. Are you doing anything at all or are you just watching this from a distance? I'm curious.
You have been pointing out instances of violent actions against the protest. As you have said, for the most part, the authorities have tried to do their job.
I am not a citizen of New York City, Oakland, Seattle, or a student/parent of a student at UC Davis. I have no input, other than through the Federal government, what those police officers can and cannot do. Telling those locals what they can and cannot do goes against my political philosophy (libertarian).
I have already addressed some of your concerns previously.
As for censorship, the government does not actually censor CNN, Fox News, Time Magazine, etc. The media outlets are businesses and choose what to follow and what will keep their audiences' attention (and thus them watching commercials). They do not think following Occupy will keep their audience's attention.
As for what am I, personally, doing about this? Sharing information with others and trying to put what is happening into some perspective. I do not agree with the founders of Occupy and will not support them. I am not a lawyer in NY, California, or Washington and cannot file suit against the police for overstepping their bounds.
So I am watching from a distance.
A question for you, why are you so interested in Occupy and not focusing on Syria or Egypt (the actual topic of the Time cover you provided)? Why are you highlighting the failures of various local police throughout the US and branding it using inflammatory rhetoric?
-
I'm working, and quite thankful to have a decent job right now.
-
Orange:
On the censorship note: I didn't make myself quite clear there. The censorship I was referring to was how the police forces were denying the media access to the areas during actions. The excuse was 'for your safety' which in turn became rather ridiculous when they also denied any press coverage from helicopters or safe areas. It's not censorship in the newsrooms, but censorship at the level of information gathering itself. There's been repeated protests and complaints lodged from various media entities against these things as they're allegedly unlawful. I'm not familiar with US law to the extent where I can say anything on that, but I'm sure they know what they're talking about there.
As for why I'm so interested in Occupy in the States, and more importantly the violence and force used by the police, well... It's quite simply a matter of self-preservation. The US is, like it or not, one of the major powers in the world. It's one of our military allies and the US dictates a lot of politics around the world. I have a very vested interest in the way the American politics and economy is progressing since it ultimately affects my country as well. Every step taken towards the US turning into a police state, allowing rampant abuse of power, allowing money to dictate politics, allowing excessive violence to be used without repercussion and allowing the police to deny media coverage of important events... they're all steps towards a world where the US becomes a problem instead of an ally to count on.
Egypt and Syria are also on my radar, of course, but they're not as dangerous to me and mine as the US is becoming.
I highlight these failures because each of them is a small step in a very dangerous direction.
All I can do is hope that it doesn't get worse, because if this becomes the norm then we're all going to get fucked before someone manages to put a stop to it all.
Kaleigh:
Sounds good. Hope you'll never be touched by this stuff, then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging any of you that aren't involved in any way. The majority of the people in any given nation fraught with crisis will focus on their own life, which is not a bad thing. My question is simply that, curiosity and maybe there'll be someone who does get involved somehow.
-
Everybody loves the perfect solution,
to bid the odds against the poorest possible substitution.
What you see is never what you're gonna get,
Everybody's playing, Revolution Roulette
:)
-
The US has taken zero steps towards being a "police state."
Folks who use that term so rarely understand what it means.
-
The US has taken zero steps towards being a "police state."
Folks who use that term so rarely understand what it means.
The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.[3]
The blocking of media access to the events, the excessive force used to break protests against the current politics and economical state, the severe restrictions on mobility put on these protests? They're steps towards a police state. I'm not saying the US is one at this point, but it's inching closer than what it was a decade ago.
-
Media access has not been blocked. I'm watching media coverage as we speak.
Excessive force is not an approved method. That's why it's called "excessive force" and why police are brought under investigation.
We are allowed to openly disagree with our government as long as we aren't impeding the function of daily life. This is why we have protest agreements and barricade arrangements.
If I want to, I can leave the house at 9am, purchase a bottle of vodka and a copy of Hustler, go home and blog about how much I hate the government, and thumb through my copy of the Communist Manifesto. Guess how likely it is that an officer will kick down me door, push me up against a wall and put a hollow point round in my skull for doing so.
Because things aren't going how one individual thinks they ought to, does not a police state make.
-
Media access -has- been attempted blocked. There's a reason they've lodged a giant pile of complaints whenever the police starts herding them away from the events and even denies news helicopters access.
Show me the police officers being brought under investigation. I won't claim that I am omniscient, so it may be happening without me seeing it, but so far all I've seen are statements saying that the force used is acceptable and justified.
And like I said before, I'm not saying the US is currently a police state. I'm saying all these little steps towards it are dangerous and need to be investigated and handled before they become acceptable.
-
On the censorship note: I didn't make myself quite clear there. The censorship I was referring to was how the police forces were denying the media access to the areas during actions. The excuse was 'for your safety' which in turn became rather ridiculous when they also denied any press coverage from helicopters or safe areas. It's not censorship in the newsrooms, but censorship at the level of information gathering itself. There's been repeated protests and complaints lodged from various media entities against these things as they're allegedly unlawful. I'm not familiar with US law to the extent where I can say anything on that, but I'm sure they know what they're talking about there.
I think I have given a possible reason for the denial of helicopter coverage. Something to consider when dealing with the issue of censorship is that the media has a vested interest in access and may not give us, the consumer, a full picture of why/how they were denied certain means of access.
In NYC, in the past 4 days, the Police have been ordered not to interfere unreasonably with journalists’ access during news media coverage and warning that those who do will be subject to disciplinary action. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/nyregion/new-york-police-are-ordered-to-let-journalists-work.html?_r=1&ref=newyorkcitypolicedepartment)
As for why I'm so interested in Occupy in the States, and more importantly the violence and force used by the police, well... It's quite simply a matter of self-preservation. The US is, like it or not, one of the major powers in the world. It's one of our military allies and the US dictates a lot of politics around the world. I have a very vested interest in the way the American politics and economy is progressing since it ultimately affects my country as well. Every step taken towards the US turning into a police state, allowing rampant abuse of power, allowing money to dictate politics, allowing excessive violence to be used without repercussion and allowing the police to deny media coverage of important events... they're all steps towards a world where the US becomes a problem instead of an ally to count on.
Egypt and Syria are also on my radar, of course, but they're not as dangerous to me and mine as the US is becoming.
I highlight these failures because each of them is a small step in a very dangerous direction.
All I can do is hope that it doesn't get worse, because if this becomes the norm then we're all going to get fucked before someone manages to put a stop to it all.
It is not the US military, FBI, or even various State police involved in these incidents. The United States government nor its component State governments are interacting with these protesters. It is the local city police and local government.
You asked what we as Americans are doing, but that is a loaded question.
Something I would ask you to remember when looking at the US is just how big and diverse we are.
LA is 4,000 km / 2500 miles away from NYC which is roughly the is the equivalent of Edinburgh to Damascus or Cairo. LA, CA is 600 km / 375 miles from Davis, CA, roughly the equivalent of Edinburgh to Portsmouth. Is it fair of me to ask a resident of Edinburgh what they are doing with regards to the situation in Cairo? Or how they are involved in dealing with the policies of an university in Portsmouth?
Show me the police officers being brought under investigation. I won't claim that I am omniscient, so it may be happening without me seeing it, but so far all I've seen are statements saying that the force used is acceptable and justified.
Occupy protester's miscarriage claim questioned (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016829484_occupybaby23m.html), notice the police are doing an investigation, but they are having trouble finding evidence that she was indeed pregnant.
The UC Davis incident is going to be investigated (http://hosted2.ap.org/apdefault/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2011-11-21-Occupy-Pepper%20Spray/id-c16a7610c0c04c37841d80672f95cac9) and will include students, facility, and administrators in the panel doing the investigation. I suspect Lt Pike will be fired for his actions at the very least.
These articles are not being as thoroughly posted and spread like wildfire over the internet.
-
Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu
-
Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?CMP=twt_gu
It is indeed interesting.
My one question is why is it in The Guardian? If it is an opinion piece, why did she not publish it in the New York Times or Los Angeles Times? If the target audience is actually American voters then she should target us, not the UK.
And to quote one of the commenters:
The specific calls for reform you make are all valid, but they are mixed in with a lot of overblown rhetoric about civil war and vast conspiracies.
'Congress' is hardly a homogeneous group; you seem to have forgotten that Democrats control one house of congress and the presidency. Did Obama order the DHS to launch the 'civil war' against Occupy? If so he must be unusually Machiavellian, having given the movement cautious support a day or two ago. Or are you seriously claiming that Peter King, head of a single congressional subcommittee, has operational command of the DHS while the president is out of the country?
And what is the nature of this Stasi-like security apparatus you imagine that connects university police at UC Davis with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the state police? What of the numerous demonstrations across the country that have not been met with violence? Isn't it frankly more likely that there is no organised conspiracy based on fear of the protesters' demands (in fact legislation is already pending to redress the recent insider trading revelations), but that events are the result of a patchwork of incompetence and brutality within a few local police organisations and individual officers?
-
There's a lot of other commenters that should be noted as well.
I don't understand why Americans are shocked that this has happened. Your government has been arresting and imprisoning people without charge (Guantanamo Bay) and without much challenge from the public. If the government are allowed to behave this way, they will become emboldened. And they will start to move against the citizens in other ways. It reminds me of that saying about the nazis.
When they came for the Jews I did not stand up because I was not a Jew
When they came for the Communists, I did not stand up because I was not a Communist.
When they came for the Homosexuals, I did not stand up because I was not a Homosexual.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up.
The US government started with "terrorists", have moved on to protestors. Who will be next?
As an example.
Now, I'm not saying they're automatically right, but I think it's important to note the sheer amount of people feeling this way, across the entire world. Something is very wrong when the US is considered the next best thing to Germany anno 1940. This was one of the less hateful comments. As for why it's in the Guardian rather than NY Times or whatever... well, I refer you to the picture I linked earlier. This isn't exactly a popular subject in the US, it'd appear.
Very good to see that at least a few of the incidents will be investigated, though. It remains to be seen whether or not there'll be any actual repercussions. Still... it's scary to think that these things have happened in the first place. The size of your country is kind of irrelevant, to be honest. You are still represented in government and a letter, e-mail or a phonecall isn't exactly that time-consuming to send off, and your opinion on the way things have been done so far should be voiced to them whether you think it's a-okay or not.
I have an addendum to the previous post where I answered why I'm so interested in the Occupy movement:
I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States. Unlawful warfare and invasion. Unwarranted as well. Torture and imprisonment without charges or oversight. Money ruling politics and jackbooted stomping on those who protest it. Do you see how insanely scary this is coming from what is supposed to be a 'good' nation? It's very hard -not- to glance at our oil reserves and consider ourselves a possible future target. It's also very hard not to feel ashamed at the fact that we're allied on paper. It's frightening. That is why I'm so interested in these events, because they're very scary.
-
I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States. Unlawful warfare and invasion. Unwarranted as well.
I depends entirely on what you mean as unlawful.
Did the US follow its own Constitution in the pursuit of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya? No. On this point I will agree the invasions are all unlawful.
Did the US have valid reasons for each action? Yes.
Afghanistan - Harboring training camps for the organization that assaulted the US.
Iraq - continued flaunting of UN Resolutions and attacks against US aircraft operating to support a UN resolution.
Libya - Supporting member of international coalition with backing from a UN Resolution.
Did it share the the valid reasons for each action? No, specifically with Iraq, it attributed the presence of weapons of mass destruction based on foreign intelligence. Instead, it might have been seen as justifiable escalation to the decade long flaunting of UN Resolutions and occasional shooting at US aircraft enforcing the UN established No-Fly zone.*
*The follow-up question becomes do you want UN Resolutions to have teeth or are they just words?
Torture and imprisonment without charges or oversight.
I will not and cannot excuse torture.
The question of imprisonment without charges is a much tougher one. Under the Geneva Convention, those detained are unlawful combatants and can be tried in the US Court System. If, however, they are treated as lawful combatants they can be detained indefinitely until the conflict is resolved. 12 June 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled that those being held in US custody are unlawful combatants and should be charged and tried. The charging and trials are underway. (Or was there some other instance you were referencing?)
-
I most certainly support that UN resolutions need to have teeth. I was part of UN forces, after all. There is, however, a rather massive difference between a country/coalition invading a different country/nation and a UN Taskforce. The invasion of Iraq was not a UN invasion and that is where it all becomes very sketchy, especially given the claims of WMDs and this being a 'defending our country' move by the US.
Could the US have actual good reasons for the invasion? Absolutely. Did any of them even get mentioned? No. Nor did the US move for a UN force to pursue these concerns, but instead pursued a direct war between the two nations, citing reasons that were fraudulent at best. The Afghanistan invasion was also condemned internationally, many considering it unlawful. I don't know those legal details myself, so I can't say whether or not this holds water, but the credibility of the US in these things is starting to get frayed around the edges.
As for the imprisonment without charges bit: It's very easy to say something is legal. It's very much harder to say whether or not it was right. Especially given the laundry list of documented crimes being committed in Guantanamo Bay. Lawful combatants can be detained indefinitely... but they are also entitled to a very strict set of rights and even observers from neutral entities to ensure this. This didn't happen, as we all know. There's another very frightening aspect to this, which is the attempt to make the 'War on Terror' an actual war where civilians suddenly end up under the lawful combatant umbrella and subject to indefinite detainment in a conflict that can never end.
Anyway, if you wish to discuss the wars and that part of the past, please create a new thread or move it to PMs. This particular thread is about the Occupy movement across the world and US in particular. I know I'm the one who tangentally brought it up, but let's move it elsewhere to avoid changing the subject too much.
-
Occupy (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-police-declar-unlawful-assembly-on-streets-.html) LA (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/several-occupy-la-protesters-arrested.html)'s "eviction" would appear to call into question the idea that there is a grand conspiracy on the part of government at multiple levels.
BLUF: Protesters were told to clear the streets by 0400 to allow other citizens to go about their business. At 0430, the police arrested those still on the street. Overall the encounter did not escalate significantly.
-
Just for shits and giggles, the Tea Party has its panties in a wad again.
http://biggovernment.com/cowens/2011/11/28/richmond-city-audits-local-tea-party-after-standoff-with-mayor/
While I think the audit is BS, I think there are some distinctions to be made between OWS and the Tea Party and as such have no problem throwing out the invoice they decided to send to the governor.
-
I'm speechless. This shit passed? (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/)
-
Wow.
-
Looks like it says it's likely to pass, not that it has yet. We'll see what happens. Personally, I think Obama might just grow some balls and veto it. Otherwise the Supreme court gets to go lolno, the constitution does still exist even if we ignore a little bit of it.
-
I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States.
At least you are aware of the lens through which you are projecting many of your arguments.
It's more than I can say for many of the folks in my political science classes, who often hold strong opinions and cannot even begin to explain why they do so.
I still don't think fear is a healthy base from which to operate. It leads to faulty thinking.
-
I'm afraid. I'm afraid of the United States.
At least you are aware of the lens through which you are projecting many of your arguments.
It's more than I can say for many of the folks in my political science classes, who often hold strong opinions and cannot even begin to explain why they do so.
I still don't think fear is a healthy base from which to operate. It leads to faulty thinking.
Years of constant pride pumping brain washing will do that.
-
Hence why arguing on the internet about politics is a joke. :P
-
Looks like it says it's likely to pass, not that it has yet. We'll see what happens. Personally, I think Obama might just grow some balls and veto it. Otherwise the Supreme court gets to go lolno, the constitution does still exist even if we ignore a little bit of it.
Or it becomes a test of the officer's oath.
-
I'm speechless. This shit passed? (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/)
And the argument earlier was 'has america taken steps to become a police state yes/no'. If that passes, there won't be much arguments about 'steps' anymore.
Sad. It used to be 'innocent until proven guilty.' Now it might be that it's not even guilty until proven innocent, it's more like 'guilty, fuck the trial.'
This bill passing will make any trooper or officer anywhere who arrests any citizen on suspicions guilty of first-degree treason against their own constitusion. That it's come to this is absolutely absurd.
-
I'm speechless. This shit passed? (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/senate-military-detention/)
And the argument earlier was 'has america taken steps to become a police state yes/no'. If that passes, there won't be much arguments about 'steps' anymore.
Sad. It used to be 'innocent until proven guilty.' Now it might be that it's not even guilty until proven innocent, it's more like 'guilty, fuck the trial.'
This bill passing will make any trooper or officer anywhere who arrests any citizen on suspicions guilty of first-degree treason against their own constitusion. That it's come to this is absolutely absurd.
It will possibly make the officers violators of our oath. Officers in the US military do not swear an oath to support & defend the Congress, President, or People of the United States. We swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I will however note that the Writ of Habeas Corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) has been suspended in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Suspension_during_the_Civil_War) by the President of the United States in certain States. It was eventually found to be legal.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Depending on the degree to which people follow the machinations of a foreign anarchist* & his American conspirator* in pursuit of "equality," the Constitution may actually support suspending the Writ. I consider both these men to be enemies to the United States Constitution and I think there intent is to spur a rebellion in the United States.
*Referencing this article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz).
The question before the Senators (or possibly President/Supreme Court) is whether or not the United States has an on-going Rebellion or Invasion.
Edit: It looks like it may have passed the Senate. However, the President as said he will likely veto the bill.
-
Do you think we're facing an ongoing rebellion? When many of the major demands of the 99% movement are to enhance the power of the government (vis a vis regulating the financial industry) rather than dissolve it?
P.S. Not just officers. Same thing's in the enlisted oath.
-
Do you think we're facing an ongoing rebellion? When many of the major demands of the 99% movement are to enhance the power of the government (vis a vis regulating the financial industry) rather than dissolve it?
P.S. Not just officers. Same thing's in the enlisted oath.
No, I do not think we are facing an on-going rebellion.
The originates and the actual protesters are different groups with different ideologies.
Enhancing the power of government can be unconstitutional and can be pursued through rebellion against the existing government. An individual might lead the overthrow a republic and establish themselves as king/dictator and centralize the government's control, it does not mean it is not a rebellion against the republic.
-
Well I'd say the act of rebellion is necessarily defined in what it envisions for the current government. To "overthrow a republic" is the defining act in your example, not the later centralization.
Though I have a suspicion we're pretty much saying the same thing in that regard.
-
Two Opinion pieces out of the LA Times with regards to Occupy.
A manifesto for the Occupy movement (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-manifesto-20111204,0,463446.story)
I think the first is important and what the larger Occupy movement is lacking, real goals and desires. Everyone gets it, "your angry," but if you cannot tell me what you are really angry about it is really hard to address the frustration.
During the lead up to the SuperFail, some Tea Party Republicans were trying to push to start with tax reform. Established Democrats pushed back and said no deal without higher taxes on the wealthy. Reform, especially evoking Reagan-era reforms, is likely to get a lot of conservative support. Perhaps instead of focusing on the solutions that drive us apart, we can start with solutions everyone can agree to (like Tax Reform).
I think 4/5 issues can be addressed in short order if worked from the middle and not from the extremes. The issue with the rising cost of education becomes a discussion of what level of education should everyone pay for and is it more important to improve primary education than reduce cost of higher education. Education systems across the US are f-d up and just throwing money at the problem will not solve it.
What's so awful about the 1%? (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schiller-who-is-the-one-percent-20111204,0,1375958.story)
This gets back to something I was trying to get across much earlier in the discussion. Plenty of those in the 1% were not born into their wealth, they started as part of the 99%.
-
"1%" has become for the left of the country what "socialism" has become for the right.
It's basically the same tactic McCarthy made use of, back in the day, and to great effect. A group selects one word, or a phrase, and begins using that word as a tag for every negative issue they perceive. For the right, "socialism" gets attached to abortions, gay marriage, lack of employment, etc. "1%" becomes a term for everyone who makes more money than you do, for the left.
Eventually, the word itself is lost - in McCarthyism, "communist" stopped meaning "one who practices communism" pretty quickly. Without realizing it, people forget what the word means, and only focus on its association with everything they place negative value on. People start having a shared understanding of the negativity, without having the same concept attached to it; for one person it means a weakened economy, for the person standing next to him it means prayer in school, but they don't say those things. They say "socialism," or what have you.
It gets to a point where all one has to do is say the magic word, and it doesn't matter what their actual point was. Ten thousand people hear ten thousand things in that one word, without any of it being accurate, but they all agree.
-
It is a very human mechanic and it has been used by every leader in their time.