Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Z.Sinraali]

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)

[Milo Caman]

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.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

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?

[Z.Sinraali]

* Z.Sinraali 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 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.

[Julianus Soter]

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?

[orange]

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.

[Dex_Kivuli]

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.

[Invelious]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/photos/1303#igImgId_20255

Third picture....is...FANTASTIC!

[Z.Sinraali]

2.5% is a pretty impressive cut, Dex1, but it's already projected to drop to 3.5%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.

[Invelious]

Good read.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/10/17/f-pittis-occupy-economics.html

[Wanoah]

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.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force.
...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 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.

[Invelious]

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!

[orange]

Based on a Police Officers Training (which includes the Continuum of Force.
...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 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?

[Syylara/Yaansu]

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.