# I'm having a hard time supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protests...



## rgames (Oct 11, 2011)

I support the principle behind the protests but they seem to have moved too far away from any truly meaningful discourse. There are two reasons I feel this way:

First, as discussed elsewhere, there's no logical way to decry corporate greed while praising social media like Facebook and Twitter. Wall Street would *love* to achieve the types of concentrated wealth creation seen in the tech sector.

Second, seeing a bunch of 20-somethings complain about being broke just doesn't pull on my heart strings. They're supposed to be broke.

If they manage to shift the focus off themselves and away from Wall Street, then maybe I'll feel better about supporting the movement. Right now, however, it lacks logical consistency and emotive force, so neither my right brain nor my left brain can muster support. I remain hopeful, however, that the protests can serve as the catalysts to a more meaningful discussion about how we can reinvigorate the American middle class.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Oct 11, 2011)

Many people seem to target on the lack of focus of the protests, but in reality most protest movements are born this way and galvanize after a period of initial growth.

There is a very valid bottom line here, the system is failing us. It might have taken the better part of a century to get here, but capitalism has hit an extreme state and is now beginning to break down as an economic model. The way the stock markets operate is not even human anymore, essentially thousands of machines perform millions of micro transactions per second making $.001 per transaction and accumulating massive amounts of money for the firms who run them. The money is constantly changing hands between the handful of investment firms who dictate the market flow. It is a game, not much different than monopoly, except this game is having real consequences to the rest of the country...it just took this long to get to the point where the effects are palpable.

The unemployment rate among workers with at least a college degree is the highest it has been since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking such data, in 1970. If you're in your 20's, the unemployment rate for your age group is well into the double digits. These are alarming statistic and they should pull at your heart strings. Contrast and compare the way the baby boomers experienced adult life to the way today's upcoming generation is, they are worlds apart.

Finally, you keep comparing tech/social media corporations to financial institutions, and keep mentioning that you can't be mad at one without being mad at the others. I disagree, as it's been pointed out elsewhere, you can't put blame on Facebook or Apple for the financial crisis that is still very much threatening to destroy our economy. This is compounded with the lack of any judicial punishment for those responsible for what can really only be called fraud on a global scale. The proverbial heads that should have rolled are still very firmly attached to the necks of the people responsible for this disaster and I think sooner or later that was going to piss people off (particularly give the fact that the economy is still on its hands and knees 3 years later).

What the Occupy movement needs now is a spokesman, a leadership that can coalesce these thousands into a single voice in much the same way that the tea party arrived at where it is at now.

I think after so many decades of unbridled capitalism, it's time for a shift towards a more socialistic mindset. The old curmudgeons might not like the idea of their tax dollars benefitting the poor or the less fortunate, but I believe that the upcoming generations will demand more and more equality among humans. 

There is absolutely no reason in the world why a single human being should be worth billions of dollars, and no reason why another should be worth zero, it's a fault in the system that should be corrected and hopefully will.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 11, 2011)

Nothing is going to change, the rich run DC and New York and figured they'd pretend to care, afterall it's their elections at stake, Wall Street guys stay as long as the numbers are good, they don't fear some temporary politicians, they usually give both sides money as a hedge bet, Afterall they invented it, and bought the laws they are protected by. I do agree though, change is needed. But until the money used to buy laws becomes illegal, the shell game will continue.

I'll be going to the Las Vegas " rally " to see old freinds and hang for a while.
Here in Vegas they'll have waittail cocktresses serving drinks, getting extra tips, sounds like fun.
In New York everything is illegal, here in Vegas people are trusted to use good judgement so they can do what they want until the people decide they must go. 
Then usually they are beaten, robbed and sent off with the cops to spend the weekend with drunks, crackheads and trannies fighting over a roll of toilet paper to use as a pillow.

I think these protests are great, and even though a few elites in DC are saying stupid shit or pretending they support free speech all of a sudden nobody I know pays attention to them anymore.
We will though in 2012. 

BTW, you already are supporting the protests with your tax dollars.
The Unions are kicking in strike funds, bus rides, and BBQ's for their memebrs, but in NY and Connecticutt unemployment checks are 550-790 USD, then they have Food stamps too.
Vendors in NYC accpet the EBT cards thanks to Bloomberg. He knows how to make a buck.

The protestors there are being offered money already to stay and clean when its all over, but it just shows you out of touch politicians are.
Once you get past the 6 months, you cannot even accept a part time job. Dependning on what state you're in, more than 8-1200 USD in a single quarter disqualifies you for the extensions.
So Big Government boys want you to lie everyweek by saying you're looking or not working, and you can continue....
If you work you are penalized....

Brilliant Big Government Approach As Usual....


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

Good post, Kays - I too don't get why you keep mentioning FB and Apple, Richard. This fundamentally isn't about not liking rich companies, it's about the financial sector turning the entire economy into Las Vegas. It's stuff like short selling and the deliberate massive complexity of smoke-and-mirrors financial products that is destroying everything, as far as I can understand.

Neither is it about trying to switch to socialism, even though that's how it'll be portrayed by the socialism-obsessed US media and right wing politicians. For many in the movement, it's about reforming to a capitalism so that it works and isn't extreme and dysfunctional. Currently, a global collapse is inevitable unless there is structural reform, so the protesters most definitely have a point.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

Chim, I hear the Vegas police force is into ultra-violence. One ex-Vegas cop told me they have a bad tendency to shoot miscreants in the back, running away.

Of course, that's probably just hearsay and a vast generalization. Kinda like your statements about New York City, generally one of the most tolerant places on the planet.
We don't cotton much to guns, that's true. On the other hand, the murder rate has been vastly down from the 90's on here. How about Vegas?

Btw-"but in NY and Connecticutt unemployment checks are 550-790 USD, then they have Food stamps too. "

I sure hope you're talking monthly, 'cause my wife, former director of a multinational corporation, didn't get anything near that weekly.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

Richard-just as soon as we need to bail out Facebook and Twitter (and I know you wanted to throw Apple in there) to the tune of many many billions, then not only not _prosecute _ company miscreants but instead let them walk away with_ huge_ golden parachutes-I'll agree with you.

As to the protests, I agree. Too unfocused. On the other hand, so are the Tea Party rallies.
One thing's clear- a lot of people seem unhappy. Herman Cain said if they're unhappy about being unemployed and not rich, they should go get a job. I don't see Herman going the distance, somehow.

I read a great exchange that was purported to have happened between Nixon and Deng Xioaping- Nixon asked him what he thought the effect of the French Revolution had been, and Deng replied: "It's too early to tell".


----------



## P.T. (Oct 12, 2011)

"Btw-"but in NY and Connecticutt unemployment checks are 550-790 USD, then they have Food stamps too. "

I sure hope you're talking monthly, 'cause my wife, former director of a multinational corporation, didn't get anything near that weekly."

The director of a multinational corporation makes less than 40,000 a year?


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

Nope. Huh??? He was talking about unemployment benefits. See "former".


----------



## P.T. (Oct 12, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Nope. Huh??? He was talking about unemployment benefits. See "former".



That's what happens when you're not getting enough sleep.

Now that you point it out, it's obvious.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> you can't put blame on Facebook or Apple for the financial crisis that is still very much threatening to destroy our economy.


But that's not what the protests appear to be about - they're about wealth concentration. And you can't get away from the fact that Apple, Facebook and others are much more guilty of that charge than any of the banking institutions.

Yes, the financial sector can share a lot of the blame for our current economic problems. But that's an issue apart from concentrated wealth and does not appear to be what the protests are focused on. The protestors at least have that part right - it's (basically) a waste time to focus on finger pointing. Better to focus on making the changes necessary to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And one of those changes is redistribution of wealth back into the middle class. In order to redistribute that wealth, you (obviously) need to look to see where the wealth is going. And again, yes, some of it is going to the financial sector. But a lot more of it is going to the tech sector.

Here's a good comparison for you: Goldman Sachs and Apple employ about the same number of people. Which one do you think takes more of peoples' hard-earned dollars? (More as in nearly twice as much). I'm guessing you know the answer... So if you're protesting unfair concentration of wealth, why focus on Goldman Sachs and not Apple? It just doesn't make sense.

Again, I support the principle behind the protests but they're way off in terms of their focus.

If you think the protests are not about wealth concentration, then OK, I'm way off. But from what I've seen that is the focus (to the extent that there is one).

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 12, 2011)

Unemployment benefits are the best stimulus we have had since that money goes into the goods and services sector of the economy immediately. Same with Food stamps.
We do need Son Of Stimulus, but we cannot allow these parasitic elites to disperse the funds without accountability again.
Having some accountability attached to the dispersal of the funds will ensure the money gets to the people instead of yet another failed Green business where elites have relatives, and campaign donors first in line for a payback. It just shows you how they really dont care about people but rather their sickening addiction to more cash, and desperately looking for a win somewhere amongst their 100% failure rates of anything they touch.
If saving public employees with our money is their only claim to success, they're history. 

FWIW if the new slogan is 1% needs to share their money, they need to look no further than California representatives for redistribution.

Nacy Pelosi............Billionaire.
Daryl Issa..............Billionaire.
Diane Feinstein.........Billionaire.
Barbara Boxer...........ditto......

They seem to promote capitalism and are extremly successful
Feinstiens husband had insider information which led him to gobble up entire neighborhoods and resell the properties back to the taxpayer and Banks at a huge profit.

I find it odd that the Liberal politicians are the wealthiest politicians in DC.

John Kerry........
Harry Reid........
John Edwards......
Al Gore..............
Chris Dodd.........

You can count on these wealthy elites to blame others for their 100% failure rate, and hearing them beg to get another term is sickening.
But brainwashed followers look at the Preachers on the GOP side of things and really have no choice there either.
So the game continues, the status quo remians, and the above elites laugh as they get to steal even more money, as they promise more scraps from their tables.......

God Bless The USA... o-[][]-o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> But that's not what the protests appear to be about - they're about wealth concentration.



To be fair, there are a LOT of aims of the movement, perhaps this is understandable given there's a lot wrong. Actor Mark Ruffalo wrote a piece about their aims a few days in here - 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 9-per-cent

They are asking for a more progressive tax system and sure point out that the top 1% of people own a third of the wealth. They point out the cost to the environment of corporate greed. So yeah, I guess the Apples of the world qualify on that score, given their poor environmental record. But the heart of the problem is in the financial sector. As he writes:



> The people on Wall Street and in the banking industrial complex that destroyed our economy must be investigated and brought to justice under the law for what they have done by stealing people's homes and savings



I think what raises the ethical problems is a company or system who abuse their position, either through a monopoly or cartel, to the cost of the environment or people who have no choice but to suffer the consequences. If a company makes a whopping great profit without negatively impacting anyone, it's nowhere near the same issue.

Personally I think that's how capitalism needs to be rewritten. There needs to be a new first priority above the need to return a profit to the shareholders, in terms of corporate responsibility enshrined in law. All the while profit is your no1 responsibility to the exclusion of everything else, ultimate systemic collapse becomes inevitable. Exactly how you could make such a fundamental change in a global marketplace - heaven knows. Realistically it could only happen after a major global crisis at an international summit, as a species we are incapable of making rational collective decisions outside of complete catastrophe, it seems.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> The people on Wall Street and in the banking industrial complex that destroyed our economy must be investigated and brought to justice under the law for what they have done by stealing people's homes and savings



And when those investigations and prosecutions are done, we will have added zero jobs and the wealthy will still be wealthy.

So sure, go after them. But don't confuse that activity with the actions that need to be taken to restore wealth to the middle class. It will do nothing to address that problem.

I'll add another comment that I've made before: while the financial sector facilitated the risky activities that made people lose their homes and savings, they still required those people to take the gamble. Every time you see a commercial for an investment product it very clearly says "returns are not guaranteed" or something along those lines. If you want to gamble, then you really shouldn't whine when you lose.

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> I'll add another comment that I've made before: while the financial sector facilitated the risky activities that made people lose their homes and savings, they still required those people to take the gamble. Every time you see a commercial for an investment product it very clearly says "returns are not guaranteed" or something along those lines. If you want to gamble, then you really shouldn't whine when you lose.
> 
> rgames



...and I'll add mine that I made before - in the UK, institutions have been majorly fined in the past for not adequately explaining the risks associated with a product. Oh, and the drugs analogy is fair - I hate the pushers far more than the users, however weak the users might be.

I think we're going round in circles, aren't we?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 12, 2011)

But the activities weren't known as risky, which sort of defeats your whole point. The average person thought that their home would rise in value, so they figured purchasing it at something of a premium would be OK, since they could sell it at a profit later. The people who were *supposed* to be evaluating the risk factors were just as fooled as everyone else, so literally everyone outside of the people orchestrating the scheme was completely in the dark as to how risky these mortgages really were. 

Considering even seasoned investing professionals and some financial services companies were unaware of the inherent risk, instability and housing price bubble, how could you possibly expect the average person to? How could you blame them? Furthermore, if there was any greed on the part of average people simply taking out mortgages, it was easily eclipsed by the greed of investment banks who were not simply content to make money from mortgages; they had to try to trade them like stocks, bundle them together and make a quick buck.

OWS it not about anti-wealth, it is not about anti-corporations. It is simply the manifestation of our discontent with the way things are now. It is people saying that the system we have is not working and things need to change. But unlike the Tea Party, which was astroturfed and promoted heavily by corporations like Fox News, this is a true grassroots effort. You know that's true because it took weeks for any news outlet to even bother reporting on it (even NPR didn't mention it for quite some time.) And rather than having their rage directed at the government, it is (rightly) directed at the smallest subset of the private sector that is practically defined by greed and corruption.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

Big difference emotionally is what it has always been... those fat cats on Wall Street and in Washington don't make anything, so we are offended by their greed.
Andrew argues that the activities weren't known as risky. I guess he's right -- but it's laughable in the way a guy who is on a hot streak in Vegas doesn't realize what he's doing is risky. A mortgage is a highly leveraged bet on housing. If you don't understand it, well, a fool and his money. And if you believed that housing would rise and your client would just refinance when the rate adjusted then you weren't evil, just stupid. And they were mostly that.
That the smartest guys in the room were largely stupid too is a great lesson in greed and crowd mentality. They too weren't evil, just stupid, and greedy.
Occupy Moody's, truly their job was to be right. Not the guys moving commoditized mortgages. The anger is mostly misplaced.
Oh and put the old regulations back and think of some new ones because the next bubble cometh sure as hell.
Redesign capitalism to have all the good and less of the bad? Good luck with that.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

And while they might gradually add some focus to this movement, as Richard said, a lot of this is still grand philosophy and anger. 
Wealth distribution.
Good luck with that too.


----------



## midphase (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> If you think the protests are not about wealth concentration, then OK, I'm way off. But from what I've seen that is the focus (to the extent that there is one).
> 
> rgames



The protests are not about wealth concentration, they are about unregulated capitalism and financial practices that are destroying the world as we know it...there is a difference.

Realizing that you come from an engineering background goes a long way towards understanding your extremely pragmatic and black and white analysis of things, but reality is often much more nuanced.

At the time, the focus is towards the most onerous culprits of the financial crisis, the people who have benefitted the most, and offered the least. Ultimately, the people who got caught with their pants down and yet simply pulled them up and walked away as if nothing happened. You simply can't deny that the architects of the economic crisis that is currently going on on a global scale, are based in NYC's Wall Street district. As a matter of fact, if you care to guess which company aided Greece in fudging their debt numbers in order to allow them in the EU in the first place (and for all intents and purposes aided Greece in committing fraud), you'd be on the right track to guess a certain financial institution whose initials are G.S.

If the protests are successful in pressuring the government towards an economic-financial reform of how things are done and how the system works, then rest assured that Apple, FB and Google will be equally affected.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 12, 2011)

I believe in coincidence and since Classical Piano has provided me with an excellent memory I can only offer an alternative theory, which I am sure angers worshippers of the various elites on Wall Street and DC.
They are in total collusion and the term denaible plausability have their origins there.

9/11 was a major catastorphy in terms of life, and capital.
I belive for the sake of stability we were not told of the real damage it caused world economies.

Coincidence #1....
Frank, Dodd and Bush all agreed on pressuring Banks and Financial Institutions to take excessive risks as they realized the problem and while their " Bi Partisan " approach to the problem was well intended, it failed.
So while properties were being given away the Deutsch Bank was allowed to re finance current equities in homes which would result in millions of people getting 40-50k in cash back.....Remember Ameriquest....?
That money being re circulated didn't work but was an effective bandaid, so the next attempt was the Middle Class Tax Rebate checks, more billions to be re circulated........So you can see the goods and services sector of our economy was getting massive jolts and since the reverse mortgage programs weren't working, DC then attempted to get Seniors to spend more of their savings by having the Prescription Drug Plan, which was targeted at Seniors and like the other bandaids, just didn't work.

You can see where TARP then became a necessity as DC and Wall Street desperately tried to bolster their bottom lines.

Finally the Federal Reserve allowed a real stimulus instead of these shots, and if those funds would have targeted the proper areas of the private sector, as well as the public employees, it would have worked.
But politicians were in charge of something they knew very little abpout, hence the acedamia experts got their chance..........again.......a massive bandaid with way too many politicians abusing the funds for political gain like Health Care votes for stimulus treats, personal Airports and Railroads, Green Corporation funding.............as expected all complete failures.

So I see Wall Street and DC in collusion and the fact some politicians want to blame people for buying the house or Wall Street firms gambling like fiends we can see that DC has a pathetic record of fixing anything, or creating jobs. 

The Federal Reserve will dictate the terms of the next stimulus and in all reality we need a long plan, no quick fix. 2.2 trillion dollars is what I have read and the plan sounds promising.

But it's success relies on these 2 fake parties having nothing to do with the dispersion of the funds. Creating an all Union work force to recieve the infrastructure money is only a part of what needs to be done, but IMHO we need a more competitive approach where everyone qualifed can work, and have a federal wage that isn't based on boom time wages.
Sacrifice must be made.

People who want to work should be allowed to work regardless of Union affilliation.
I do want my fellow Tradesmen to get the jobs they were promised by the elites 3 years back, but there are many smaller jobs where we could use non union contractors and workers.

Nevada, Texas, Alaska, South Dakota and Florida are prime examples of where Big Unions and Non unions work together, not against each other.

Jobs costing the very most that are extremely dangerous require well trained Union hands, but tilit up building, and road repair could be for the smaller paying Non Union contractors and workers.

Politicians need to be kept out of this process and have experienced businessmen and women work this stimulus.
Americans will not tolerate these bums siphenning anymore money for their " handling fees ", or pathetic Green Energy jobs. 
Al Gore needs to pony up the billions he scammed from people to save the Planet and actually use that money he stole to build something.
Talk about a Phuck head....


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

zircon_st @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> The average person thought that their home would rise in value


Like I said, if you want to gamble, don't complain when you lose.

To your point about financial experts being fooled: the people who were fooled were those who thought financial experts exist. Those "experts" aren't any smarter than you or me. Investments gain and lose value on the whims of groups of people. There's nobody who can predict that. They'll tell you that they're smart and they can read the tea leaves but they can't. They'll certainly charge you for their sage advice, though, won't they?

The real failure that led to the most recent financial crisis is the fact that people thought there *were* experts who could guarantee returns on risky investments. There's a word for that: stupidity. Hopefully we've learned that lesson.

But that's all OT...

If you think the financial sector is the only sector characterized by greed then you clearly have never looked at any SEC filings. Not even close... like I said, the technology sector is way ahead.

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Big difference emotionally is what it has always been... those fat cats on Wall Street and in Washington don't make anything, so we are offended by their greed.
> Andrew argues that the activities weren't known as risky. I guess he's right -- but it's laughable in the way a guy who is on a hot streak in Vegas doesn't realize what he's doing is risky. A mortgage is a highly leveraged bet on housing. If you don't understand it, well, a fool and his money. And if you believed that housing would rise and your client would just refinance when the rate adjusted then you weren't evil, just stupid. And they were mostly that.
> That the smartest guys in the room were largely stupid too is a great lesson in greed and crowd mentality. They too weren't evil, just stupid, and greedy.
> Occupy Moody's, truly their job was to be right. Not the guys moving commoditized mortgages. The anger is mostly misplaced.
> ...



So.... what? That ordinary people are stupid and they deserve what they get? Even though the smartest people in the room didn't get it either?

I get the cynicism and apathy. I don't think anything will change either, at least not this side of a total system collapse. But it doesn't make any of it right.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 12, 2011)

It's about standing up to the Man! What's so hard to get Richard? You act like you where never in your twenties.

Listen to some Rage Against the Machine or some Public Enemy. Links provided below for your convenience.

Make sure you've got your volume up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WHe5fxS ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> the people who have benefitted the most, and offered the least.



That's exactly what I'm getting at: how much does a corporation take? And how much does it give back? When you ask those questions you realize that the financial sector is not even close to the tech sector in terms of an unbalanced ratio.

If the result of these protests is new regulations on the financial sector I don't think it will change much in terms of restoring wealth to the middle class. The bigger culprits are elsewhere.

You're mixing two issues: the banking crisis and the wealth gap. The banking crisis certainly exacerbated the wealth gap, but it didn't create it. Even if the banking crisis never happened we would have to address the wealth gap. The wealth gap existed long before the banking crisis, so it clearly is a separate issue.

The fear I have is that the continued focus on the banking crisis (and its culprits) will shift the focus away from the real issue, which is the wealth gap (which, of course, includes jobs because it's the middle class whose wealth is most affected by unemployment).

Yes, the banks were bad. Naughty naughty. Let the heads roll. But those rolling heads won't create a single job or shrink the wealth gap. So continuing to focus on Wall Street seems like it's completely missing the point. Yes, they're part of the problem, but only part, and not even the biggest part.

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Yes, the banks were bad. Naughty naughty. Let the heads roll. But those rolling heads won't create a single job or shrink the wealth gap. So continuing to focus on Wall Street seems like it's completely missing the point. Yes, they're part of the problem, but only part, and not even the biggest part.



The UK bailed the banks out in 2008 to the tune of $850 BILLION dollars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Unite ... ue_package . This is small fry?


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

With respect to housing alone, I don't know what it would mean for them to deserve it, Guy. But they didn't necessarily get fleeced either. Strict roles? Good guy bad guy? I never saw it. I saw a bunch of people believing trees grow to the sky acting in self interest.
It's kinda like what I think you said, maybe it wasn't you... you blame pushers, not junkies. I think that's a great analogy. Blame those reasonably expected to prevent disaster. Here I happen to be not all that angry at the pushers either. My most culpable are the gate keepers. Law makers and bond rating agencies. So I wouldn't be occupying Wall Street. 

But I am considering the matter. I like finance. I like markets. I like short selling. The only thing I don't like about Wall Street is that it makes 3-bedrooms in New York very very expensive. So maybe I don't wanna see things differently.

And then yes, I moved on to cynical part. The 1% are gonna stay the 1% and go from 35% of the wealth to 50% in short order. I'd bet heavy on that. So I'm getting used to the idea.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcs ... r_embedded


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 12, 2011)

> It's kinda like what I think you said, maybe it wasn't you... you blame pushers, not junkies. I think that's a great analogy. Blame those reasonably expected to prevent disaster. Here I happen to be not all that angry at the pushers either. My most culpable are the gate keepers. Law makers and bond rating agencies. So I wouldn't be occupying Wall Street.



The reason why Wall Street is the target is because Wall Street companies exemplify the mentality we hate. Apple didn't gamble away our 401ks by trading toxic mortgages. Microsoft didn't get bailed out by the federal government using our money. Google isn't the one sitting on massive coffers of cash and not loaning it out. Tech companies are highly capitalistic, but they're not the ones causing the problems OWS is talking about. Furthermore, people are more forgiving of tech companies (and other big corporations) because they actually create products with value. Generally speaking, the richest people in the country (the 0.1%, as it were) are not doctors, lawyers or small businessmen. They are in financial services. They make their fortunes by essentially shifting money around and making bets, not contributing something perceived as useful to society at large. And when they mess up, they get massive bailouts, subsidized by everyone else.



> Yes, the banks were bad. Naughty naughty. Let the heads roll. But those rolling heads won't create a single job or shrink the wealth gap. So continuing to focus on Wall Street seems like it's completely missing the point. Yes, they're part of the problem, but only part, and not even the biggest part.



Again, the point of OWS isn't "punish the banks". It's "change the system". Less corporate influence in government and lawmaking. Stricter regulations. Close loopholes. Fix the myriad of problems being generated in the private sector (at least, a small subset of it.)


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

zircon_st @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> > It's kinda like what I think you said, maybe it wasn't you... you blame pushers, not junkies. I think that's a great analogy. Blame those reasonably expected to prevent disaster. Here I happen to be not all that angry at the pushers either. My most culpable are the gate keepers. Law makers and bond rating agencies. So I wouldn't be occupying Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason why Wall Street is the target is because Wall Street companies exemplify the mentality we hate. ... Furthermore, people are more forgiving of tech companies (and other big corporations) because they actually create products with value. Generally speaking, the richest people in the country (the 0.1%, as it were) are not doctors, lawyers or small businessmen. They are in financial services. They make their fortunes by essentially shifting money around and making bets, not contributing something perceived as useful to society at large.



I edited out a couple of sentences, but did I not open with that?



madbulk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Big difference emotionally is what it has always been... those fat cats on Wall Street and in Washington don't make anything, so we are offended by their greed.


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the banks were bad. Naughty naughty. Let the heads roll. But those rolling heads won't create a single job or shrink the wealth gap. So continuing to focus on Wall Street seems like it's completely missing the point. Yes, they're part of the problem, but only part, and not even the biggest part.
> ...



Sorry, but you've lost me. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Let's put ourselves back in 2005. There was no bailout, but there was a wealth gap. The wealth gap is independent of the bailout. It existed before the bailout and continues to exist after it. They're two separate issues.

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:
> ...



OK. $850bn is a pretty serious chunk of the UK economy, in 2009 this was $2.17 trn according to Mr Google. Unless I'm missing something, that's 40% of our entire GDP, handed right over to the banks (I still don't understand how this was even possible). Whatever the wealth gap issue (and yes I agree it is really a separate issue), the financial sector has brought the global economy to its knees once, and is perilously close to doing it again. So... we hand over 2/5ths of our GDP to the bankers, who award themselves million dollar bonuses all round, and carry on changing absolutely nothing. And now, we're told, AS A RESULT OF CHANGING NOTHING (other than awarding themselves huge bonuses), another crash will make the last look like small fry. That's why I'm pissed off with Wall Street and Threadneedle St. Do you accept that this is THE major issue? Cos your previous post made it sound like this was all trifling small fry and the real culprits here are Zuckerberg and co.

Richard, you seem totally fixed on the wealth inequality issue. And sure, there's plenty of folks at OWS who will be worked up by this - the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis, not the other way round. I'm struggling to see why you can't see that?


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

zircon_st @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> The reason why Wall Street is the target is because Wall Street companies exemplify the mentality we hate. Apple didn't gamble away our 401ks by trading toxic mortgages. Microsoft didn't get bailed out by the federal government using our money. Google isn't the one sitting on massive coffers of cash and not loaning it out. Tech companies are highly capitalistic, but they're not the ones causing the problems OWS is talking about. Furthermore, people are more forgiving of tech companies (and other big corporations) because they actually create products with value. Generally speaking, the richest people in the country (the 0.1%, as it were) are not doctors, lawyers or small businessmen. They are in financial services. They make their fortunes by essentially shifting money around and making bets, not contributing something perceived as useful to society at large. And when they mess up, they get massive bailouts, subsidized by everyone else.


I think I agree with you on the principles but you don't seem to have a very good grasp of the facts or the issues at hand (much like a lot of the protestors, actually...).

If you put money in a 401k or mortgage a house then you're gambling. If you lose, tough luck. I'm done repeating that.

The tech companies are, in fact, sitting on huge amounts of cash (Apple had more cash than the US government for a brief time a few months ago). So they have the power to reinvigorate the middle class by reinvesting in America. They choose not to. Plus, compared to their revenues, the financial sector generates *many* more jobs than the tech sector. I'm done repeating those facts, too.

The tech companies are, in fact, creating exactly the problem OWS is talking about: concentrating wealth. And they do it at rates much higher than the financial sector. I'm done repeating that fact, too.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Richard, you seem totally fixed on the wealth inequality issue. And sure, there's plenty of folks at OWS who will be worked up by this - the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis, not the other way round. I'm struggling to see why you can't see that?



Well, like I said to Kays, yes, I do think the wealth gap is the primary focus of the protest. The coverage I've seen sure seems to indicate that as the focus. If the focus is not the wealth gap but the banking crisis then yes, you are correct that it is appropriate to focus on Wall Street.

So maybe we'll get some tougher regulations. That'll be good. But the reality is that people need to look inward: the banks offered the opportunity to be stupid but the problem didn't arise until a lot of people chose to do so.

Again, though, punishing naughty bankers might make some people feel good but it isn't going to create any jobs and it isn't going to shrink the wealth gap. So I'm not sure it's a particularly good use of a protest movement...

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2011)

> the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis



The financial crash - basically the run on the banks - was what exploded, but actually it's at the very root of this crisis, Guy, at least in the US.

Middle class wages have been flat for decades, the wealth has all gone to the top, resulting in the borrowing that led to this crash.

Please take 2:38 - that's minutes and seconds - to watch Robert Reich's video.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

The protest is unfocused. So the wealth gap is just on the list somewhere. Like Kays said, the system is failing us. That's as focused as it gets. Even Alan Grayson's quicky rant covered the whole thing, wealth, unemployment, underwater mortgages, he even mentioned nationalized healthcare.
But even on this thread we see a bunch of different hot points that get under our individual skin.
If OWS's point is Guy's point -- that it's disgraceful that nobody has done a perp walk, and that it's disgraceful that tippy top execs took huge bonuses on the heels of massive bailouts, fine, give me a bongo too.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard, you seem totally fixed on the wealth inequality issue. And sure, there's plenty of folks at OWS who will be worked up by this - the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis, not the other way round. I'm struggling to see why you can't see that?
> ...



Predatory lending affected the old, the young, the uneducated or undereducated, people whose language skills were minimal and the struggling middle class who were offered a magic ticket to wealth and should have known better.

"Naughty naughty" doesn't cover the egregious bilking of the public with debt instruments no one understood, not even the CEO's of the companies that participated in credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and all the other scams that packaged debt into completely fictitious parcels. "Naughty naughty" doesn't cover no prosecutions and golden parachutes for financial criminals.

The bailouts were a contextually astounding example of socialism in action, done to prevent a worldwide crisis for sure, but the irony of a socialist American bailout for the zealots of capitalism can't be lost on any student of history or economics.

Again, I agree with the unfocused aspect of the "occupation", but I find your assertion that "people should have known better" to be dubious and simplistic.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> > the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Forgive - what was the link to that? (liked PJ O Rourke one!)

I've no problem with there being a link there between the middle classes and the crash, but right now the financial system is what has to be addressed first and foremost. This line that "no jobs will be created by holding bankers accountable" is absolutely absurd, as are the bongo bongo comments from O Rourke and madbulk. It's not about making ourselves feel better because someone goes to jail, it's about avoiding a financial meltdown. And guess what - there's this wild chance that a meltdown will affect jobs, it's sort of what happens in a depression.

That's the point of non-accountability. No lessons have been learned, the status quo continues, let's just get ready now pile on another few trillion to the bankers to give ourselves another year or two's grace shall we? Then in 2015 we can pile on another 5 trillion or so. If a few people get obscenely wealthy off the back of these interventions, that's the least of our worries. The current form of capitalism is utterly broken, and it's taking down the world economy. Anyone who points out the bleedin' obvious is ridiculed by the elite that stand to gain, of course. But I hope OWS turns into a mass movement bigger than the peace protests of the Vietnam era. I guess I still have a naive streak in me that believes the system could change with enough pressure and before a collapse. Staggeringly unlikely, but a slim, slim hope.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 12, 2011)

You linked us to Alan Grayson which BTW, was a great video.
I like him especially after his die quickly chart in Congress.....'
That was excellent, unfortunately he learned in DC nobody wants the truth, and they surely dont want some upstart revealing the inner workings of these 2 fake parties.
I can assure you that the Golden Parachutes we paid for on Wall Street are a necessity to keep secrets locked away with large sums of cash, and terrible penalties for breaching said contracts.
So Anthony Weiner and Al Grayson were paid a nice sum and we take care of their health care benefits ( exempted from the peasants Obama Care ) for life.
Pelosi wouldn't even try unseating Charley Rangle as with decades of service, both " sides " agreed that keeping him in DC was wiser than allowing him the oppurtunity to write a book. Then everyone would really know the truth about the real rulers in DC. Rangle was there right when the Federal Reserve and Pentagon took over after the JFK Coup, so he knows what's up. The more you know the longer you stay, and the more personal wealth, and beachfront property you acquire.....



I do admire Reich regardless of his inactions and silent voice regarding cutting the Pentagon and defense spending budgets.

So please hook me up, I'll gladly give someone who actually succeeded at defunding the Pentagon a fair listen. 
Funny how we ended up with a surplus in 4 short years under Reich and Clinton presiding over a GOP house and Senate.

Comprimise is always the way to represent all people..


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 12 said:
> 
> 
> > > the rich keep getting richer - and they may well have a point. But it's all secondary to this crisis
> ...



Nick's Reich link is here... http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE
and I think you misinterpreted my bongo reference.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 12, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Nick's Reich link is here... http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE
> and I think you misinterpreted my bongo reference.



Sorry if I did! Great link. Still begs the question of how you reverse that very slow burn process.... the financial system is the crisis, that video helps explain what put it there and keeps it there. I think the political influence of the rich is the very important point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2011)

I agree with that and every other thing you've said, Guy. It's just the connection between income inequality and the crash that are important for people to understand.

And as Brian says, that's the part that can't be sustained. It's not exactly the first time in history that this has exploded, of course.

Really the only mystery is why it's taken this long for people to start protesting on Wall St.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 12, 2011)

Well there is very little to do down there other than work on wall street.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Unemployment benefits are the best stimulus we have had since that money goes into the goods and services sector of the economy immediately. Same with Food stamps.
> We do need Son Of Stimulus, but we cannot allow these parasitic elites to disperse the funds without accountability again.
> Having some accountability attached to the dispersal of the funds will ensure the money gets to the people instead of yet another failed Green business where elites have relatives, and campaign donors first in line for a payback. It just shows you how they really dont care about people but rather their sickening addiction to more cash, and desperately looking for a win somewhere amongst their 100% failure rates of anything they touch.
> If saving public employees with our money is their only claim to success, they're history.
> ...



Net worth statements- You need to check your facts. They're certainly rich, but billionaires?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php

John Edwards -no longer in politics
Al Gore- no longer in politics
Chris Dodd-no longer in politics


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 12, 2011)

Kerry, Pelosi, Feinstein, Issa etc. have spouses that help out immensely when hiding assets and using fancy accounting jargon. The FEC allows slack when reporting net worth. The Center for Responsive Politics will show you some of the various tricks of the trade.
If you really think a Rockefellars' net worth is 65 Million, you haven't been to West Virginia lately.

Chris Dodd is in DC politics but here's the trail of jive we were told.

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac ( IndyMac ) were in deep shit. Since Dodd recieved beachfront property in Ireland while millions of Americans were destroyed the wealthy Liberals decided he needed to leave DC and then save his district since that is more important than anything to wealthy elites, plus he was sure to ousted like we saw in Massachussetts.

So suddenly he wanted to spend time with the family. I remember the pathetic speech, but the heat was still on as his buddy Mozilla was singing to the Federal Prosecutors, so the story was refined ( elites use this word for LIE ) and now the poor Senator was stricken with Cancer.........How sad.
But Lo and behold he was right back in DC breaking the very laws he sold by being active in politics as a lobbyist, The hell with the law that states 2 years must pass before further aggregious activities can resume....

So yes the elite 1%'r's' took good care of Brotha Man Chris.

John Edwards will never do a day of jailtime, he won't even loose his license to practice law. He has too much dirt on the true rulers and a book from a former Presidential Candidate is worth millions. He is such a typical wealthy Liberal. I like the part where he is worth millions, but uses tax payers dollars to fund his affair. He even got busted for a 400 dollar haircut and was forced to repay that during the campaign.
So if they are such thieving little pricks on what they consider irrelvant issues, is it any wonder the Stimulus money disappeared like a Fart in the wind...?

Al Gore is deeply involved in politics. He is now a Global politician, and as he flies the Globe in his personal Jet to and fro UN meetings where they try and come up with a new way to siphen funds for saving the Planet, he prays that hundreds of trees will be planted by peasants around the globe to offest his tiny footprint.

I was relieved though to see him buy an 8 million dollar Beach house in Malibu.
For a while there I actually believed the part in his movie where Polar Bears were floating on Ics, and the subway in NYC were underwater, and 20 feet of California coastlines disappeared.
So it's nice to see that he doesn't believe his own words and scare tactics.....

I really don;t have time to list all of the crimes the elite GOP does, but since they dont claim to be saviors of the poor, they get a pass, but once they start on pretending ot be out for the middle class I'll bust their lying ass with equal pleasure.

Back to the evil 1%..........
This protest will gain real steam if they go to Congress and the Senate. There's 500 evil 1% r's in the same building.
I doubt the Van Jones/Obama/AFL-CIO/SEIU/George Soros backed chaps will be there except to hand more scripts to the pathetic actors they command.......


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> The Center for Responsive Politics will show you some of the various tricks of the trade.



Ummm...that's where the net worth link is from....so...?


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 12, 2011)

Read the part where Gulliani had a net worth of 60M, but only had to report 18M.
And he's another example of a rich elite. A former Prosecutor who really was good at his job, took down the mob family his father was competing against when pops was working for the rackets... o-[][]-o 
He was a great mayor and obviously made tons of money.

Search for the FEC requirements, it shows him as an example and other " estimations ", but still, they are evil 1%'r's, so trying to appear less rich is a must when you want to pretend you are a representative for the downtrodden and poor, or in the GOPs' case for the working man.
Of course they're for the working man while campagining, but once elected they pole dance for anyone with cash, foreign governments, etc.

I must say though I admire Gulliani, as he did come up from little.
And when a Suadi Prince offered him a check that any wealthy Liberal would have accepted, he was man enough to refuse the insult.
John Edwards, Chris Dodd or Al Gore would have taken a picture with him smiling as the check was handed to them.
Shameless mooches that they are....


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 12, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> Read the part where Gulliani had a net worth of 60M, but only had to report 18M.
> And he's another example of a rich elite. A former Prosecutor who really was good at his job, took down the mob family his father was competing against when pops was working for the rackets... o-[][]-o
> He was a great mayor and obviously made tons of money.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you admire him for refusing the check to NYC. Perhaps if his firm, Giuliani and Partners, had been offered it directly a few years later....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/28/politics/animal/main3653103.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/ ... 3103.shtml)


----------



## synthetic (Oct 12, 2011)

This is a good presentation which shows what people are mad about: a system that creates income inequality. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wal ... 11-10?op=1


----------



## midphase (Oct 12, 2011)

Great link!


----------



## midphase (Oct 12, 2011)

And here's yet another great rant by The Amazing Atheist about the Occupy Wall Street protest:

http://youtu.be/iN2LZ8N2uj0


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 12, 2011)

Great link is right.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 13, 2011)

P.T. @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> The director of a multinational corporation makes less than 40,000 a year?




you mean in salary or dividends? :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 13, 2011)

Just to be clear, in non financial corporations, a Director is just a highly placed middle manager. To hit the golden jackpot, it's all about VP level.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 13, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> And here's yet another great rant by The Amazing Atheist about the Occupy Wall Street protest:
> 
> http://youtu.be/iN2LZ8N2uj0




hahaha thats good. glad he mentioned AIG. time to go to work and fuck people in the ass once again. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 13, 2011)

If, like me, your middle class idea of direct action is to spend 11 seconds clicking on a weblink, then this petition supporting AWS is absolutely perfect - http://www.avaaz.org/en/the_world_vs_wa ... 17&v=10657 . Aiming for million sigs.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

synthetic @ Wed Oct 12 said:


> This is a good presentation which shows what people are mad about: a system that creates income inequality.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wal ... 11-10?op=1


Now do the same thing for the tech sector instead of the financial sector.

Then you'll really be pissed...

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 13, 2011)

http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherb ... QGL-6F.cfm

I for one think this is long overdue, and sadly it's still not focusing on those who sell the laws in DC.
Why don;t they arrest the white guys...?


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

chimuelo @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> http://www.supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron6100/SR56x0/H8QGL-6F.cfm
> 
> I for one think this is long overdue, and sadly it's still not focusing on those who sell the laws in DC.
> Why don;t they arrest the white guys...?


Chimuelo, your intellect often leaves me baffled. But this time, especially so.

Perhaps the wrong link?

Or maybe you've figured out a way to solve a political problem with a motherboard? If so, you truly are a genius!

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 13, 2011)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... u6KEHa5IFQ

Thanks chief. I was fighting with my kid to get to school early so I can avoid the full parking lot of feverish parents all disobeying signs and fighting to all leave the same single exit.......
There's the proper link.
I left the embarrassing post up to remind me I am a flawed human.

I also have a slave that follows me around which gets scraps from my table and gas money.
When I enter the gig every night I am greeted by crowds of cheering followers, so my slaves sole purpose in life is to whisper in my ear every few minutes......." you're just a man. "

Always lover those Julius Ceasars stories....

Thanks RG.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

Okay, I'm switching back to being mean again now... 
Sentences like this crack me up...
(from that great list of reasons OWS'ers are angry)
"And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intact—if it were easy to work your way into that top 1%. But, unfortunately, social mobility in this country is also near an all-time low."
Yeah, the inequality doesn't bother me so much either, it's just that it's really hard for me to move up into that 1%.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

Richard, I'll join you in repeated table pounding... Nobody cares about your damn tech sector. They make iPhones. Gordon makes nothing. He owns.
(And he levers up, loses, and gets bailed out.)

What I WOULD like to see is a bunch of these charts that look at real wages over time, wages as a percentage of GDP, net worth of 1% 5% whatever, etc... and be able to ex out certain industries.

Like... what happens to an executive pay chart ex-Tech or even ex Financials. To your point. 

In the last 30 years we've had a revolution in how we work. A few folks at Google create a lot of value for a lot of people and make a lot of money.

And ownership is akin to wealth distribution and ownership has changed. I saw a chart recently that said something like 50% greater stock ownership among top 50% of earners since 1985 or so. The bottom 50% aren't invested. Guess what happens to relative net worth of the two groups?

Do I have a point? Nah. 
Except that I want better charts. 
And no, I'm not charting stuff myself. I don't want it that bad.


----------



## MacQ (Oct 13, 2011)

I bought an iPod. I bought an iPhone. I bought a Macbook Pro.

I use these products daily ... and they have real value.

The tech sector isn't the demon. Investment "banking" is the demon. It's not about concentration of wealth if the wealth is earned cash-for-goods. I don't even fault Walmart, even though I think every store is a temple to crass commercialism.

The problem is conjuring money out of thin air ... extracting billions from an economy while adding NOTHING of value. I love that the U.S. GDP includes investment banking revenues, AND health-industry "revenues". As if the amount of money you spend on healthcare is something that should inspire pride.

Too much rampant corruption ... from Wall Street to the Oval Office. I think I'll stay in Canada, thanks.

~Stu


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2011)

> And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intact—



That's sort of the point i'n it? We're in an unsustainable situation.

And by the way Paul Krugman disagrees with me. He's certainly not in favor of income inequality, but he says this:

"...is economic inequality the source of our macroeconomic malaise? Many people think so — and I’ve written a lot about the evils of soaring inequality. But I have not gone that route. I’m not ruling out a connection between inequality and the mess we’re in, but for now I don’t see a clear mechanism, and I often annoy liberal audiences by saying that it’s probably possible to have a full-employment economy largely producing luxury goods for the richest 1 percent. More equality would be good, but not, as far as I can tell, because it would restore full employment."


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> > And, by the way, few people would have a problem with inequality if the American Dream were still fully intact—
> 
> 
> That's sort of the point i'n it? We're in an unsustainable situation.


It is, and we are, but you cut my punchline to serve your selfless motives. :(


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2011)

Sorry.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> Nobody cares about your damn tech sector.


The trouble is that they should. I haven't seen anyone really dig into the facts on this issue, certainly not the protestors. It's the same thing that happened with WMD in Iraq: there was a highly vocal contingent, everybody bought in and nobody stopped to think. Then, after the fact, everyone collectively said "Crap. We really screwed that one up..."

Yes, the tech sector adds value. But how much? Again, the simplest way to look at it is in terms of how much they take and how much they give back. And by that metric, the tech sector is far greedier than the financial sector.

If someone thinks it's OK for Apple to hoard wealth because they make iPods and iPads, then OK. I do not. Nor do I think it's OK for the investment banks to hoard wealth. I don't distinguish: in my personal philosophy, it's not OK for anyone to hoard wealth at the levels we've seen in the last 20 years.

Saying "We hate corporate greed, unless it's the greed behind products we like." is ridiculous. You either hate the greed or you don't. If greed is OK for someone because he manufactures an iPad, then you have to accept that greed is OK because someone runs an investment bank. Two different companies, two different products, same greed. You can't complain about one but not the other, especially when the one you're complaining about is the lesser problem. It doesn't make sense.

The people collecting all the wealth need to return to the America of old: pay it back, pay it forward. Invest in the country and its people. The sector of the economy most fit to do that right now is the tech sector. And yet we have protests against the financial sector. It's just stupid. Can't think of a nicer way to say it.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

Nevertheless.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

And what's Apple supposed to do exactly?
They need to see ROI.
If they announce they're buying Ford and putting half of Michigan back to work, Larry will go nutso. That money is going to be a dividend someday. Or buy Hulu.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

madbulk @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> And what's Apple supposed to do exactly?


Well, for one thing they could take all that cash and establish a manufacturing facility in the US. Think of all the jobs that would create...

Yes, dividends are nice, but the folks who are hurting right now tend not to get those, do they? All that does is concentrate the wealth at the top even more.

They could at least create some type of charitable foundation, like all the investment banks do (Goldman Sachs is the same size as Apple but with about half the revenues, yet they somehow manage to give away hundreds of millions of dollars a year). Actually, Apple created something like a foundation about 10 years ago but they killed it because they said "society is better served by investing in Apple" or something along those lines. Man, talk about greed...

Of course, let's not forget that Apple is just one part of the tech sector. They're easy to pick on because they're the among most visible but they're not alone in this behavior.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

I say more arrogant than greedy. How bout instead of your manufacturing facility they create a smartphone that in turn creates a 100 billion dollar app dev industry?
And who the dividends go to isn't the point. The point is they're LARRY'S.


----------



## midphase (Oct 13, 2011)

One way to look at it is that part of the reason for the tech companies' over valuation is due to Wall Street. How else can you explain tech companies who are still way in the red but are valued in the billions by investors?

Once again, it all begins with Wall Street and it's absolutely right that the focus of the protests at this stage starts there. But if we are successful in changing the system, all will be affected, including the tech sector.

Now can someone explain to me why nobody from the tea party has stepped up to endorse and support the Occupy protests?


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> One way to look at it is that part of the reason for the tech companies' over valuation is due to Wall Street


I'm not sure what you're getting at - stock values are a separate issue. I'm not talking speculative value, I'm talking revenues that turn into cold hard CASH sitting in a bank. You buy a gadget and the money goes to Company X. The investment side of Wall Street really has nothing to do with that.

Your comment brings up an interesting point that's part of the problem: people no longer view wealth the way they used to. Wealth used to be about how much you do for others, nowadays it's about how much you do for yourself (hence the greed). Whereas names like Rockefeller and Carnegie have their names attached to foundations, libraries, concert halls, etc. that exist apart from themselves most modern Rich Guys have their name attached to some type of investment portfolio or other speculative entity like stock options that involve only themselves. Bill Gates is the only one who's really come close to the old model (through his foundation). Maybe some others... can't think off the top of my head...

rgames


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 13, 2011)

I do get what you're saying, Richard and sure it's important. Apple for example have a poor record on labour and environmental issues, and that's very important.

The bottom line though is that, right now, the financial sector issue is far MORE important. The bit of your argument I don't get is when you say no jobs will be affected by the banking crisis. Since it has the potential to wreck the global economy, nothing is more important than this for jobs. And just what DO we do next time they come running to Daddy asking for another trillion or so dollars? It's the lack of any effective measures as a result of the last one that is so worrying - never mind the injustice, its the real world implications for the future, and the lack of any major political force to deal with it. And we all know why THAT is.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 13, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> midphase @ Thu Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > One way to look at it is that part of the reason for the tech companies' over valuation is due to Wall Street
> ...



1. Warren Buffet (joined the Gates Foundation to avoid double overhead)
2. Michael Bloomberg
3. Ted Turner
4. Mark Zuckerberg

There are a bunch of others: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/04/us-wealth-philanthropy-billionaires-idUSTRE6733F520100804 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/08/ ... F520100804)

a list: http://givingpledge.org/#enter

Now, admittedly, the new model is different. The pledge they have signed is to give away at least 50% of their wealth (over time) to charity rather than pass it on to their progeny or favored ones.


----------



## rgames (Oct 13, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> 1. Warren Buffet (joined the Gates Foundation to avoid double overhead)
> 2. Michael Bloomberg
> 3. Ted Turner
> 4. Mark Zuckerberg
> ...



Yes, there's hope. But, at present, I think Gates is the only one who's really put his money where his mouth is, right? To date, I think he's up to $20 billion in philanthropy or something like that. Is there anyone else on that list who's even close? In terms of percentage or gross value.

I believe Buffet will pony up the cash - he might have started already but I sort of got the feeling that he wanted to die with his fortune, then give it away. The other folks, let's hope so. Lots of people promise great things....

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Oct 13, 2011)

That's not it.
And this conveniently dovetails with my Apple rationalization, but that's just a coincidence. 
Buffett like Wall Street makes nothing of value. Buffett sells insurance and owns stock. He super duper hoards his wealth. And he believes, as Apple does, the money is better off with him -- that he'll put it to the greater productive use. 
His kids are happy and quite loaded and getting up there in age, btw. One of them is a composer. They do lots of charity work, have foundations, etc.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 13, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 13 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 13 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Warren Buffet (joined the Gates Foundation to avoid double overhead)
> ...



Buffet has indeed started.

If you'll look around, you'll see that Bloomberg has been one of the top philanthropists in the world over the past few years. Turner, I believe, is a major philanthropist, Zuckerberg recently gave $100 million to the Newark school system. Paul Allen has a number of inititatives.

Personally, I think this is a trend that's pretty believable.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 13, 2011)

Buffet is a smart guy too, that's why he won't give the Pole Dancers in DC any tips, but 50% goes to the Gates Foundation.
Once a private sector man, always a private sector man.
The smartest businessmen and wealthy people in the world have already lined the whores in DC's pockets when they purchased favorable legislation. Pole and Table dances were already costly enough, the lap dances just aren't necessary..


----------



## P.T. (Oct 13, 2011)

This may be a bit off topic, but I think it is related.

I just heard a report today on NPR that banks are now destroying foreclosed houses and saying that it is cheaper to destroy them than to sell them.

I smell lots of rats.

How is destroying a house getting a bank any money? Plus there are demolition costs.
If they sell at least they are getting the current value even if it is below what the loan was originally made for.

Either there is some tax nonsense going on, and that would be because of government idiocy, or they are trying to raise house prices by destroying housing stock.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2011)

Kays wrote:



> How else can you explain tech companies who are still way in the red but are valued in the billions by investors



In the abstract I don't see anything wrong with that. It simply has to do with investors expecting them to make profit in the future. Most companies start off in the red, of course - they get seed money. And companies can owe lots of money but still be making a lot and hiring a lot of people in the interim.


But it's also true that big money attracts big money, and that's how bubbles form. That's when it's bad.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2011)

P.T., I saw Mark Cuban interviewed a couple of weeks ago, and he suggested that all the foreclosed houses be torn down so that people could be hired to rebuild them!

It's an obscene waste of resources, but other than that it's true that the economy would pick up.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 14, 2011)

Before we boost the economy tearing down houses in order to just rebuild them we would be better off building real infrastructure like water treatment plants or power plants or roads and bridges or schools or...a million things that would give us something rather than the equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 14, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> P.T., I saw Mark Cuban interviewed a couple of weeks ago, and he suggested that all the foreclosed houses be torn down so that people could be hired to rebuild them!
> 
> It's an obscene waste of resources, but other than that it's true that the economy would pick up.



Are there no homeless in America?

Give them the houses and if make-work jobs are needed, rebuild the damn infrastructure, which is crumbling.

(not that I truly advocate the first, but better that than Cuban's solution!)


----------



## P.T. (Oct 14, 2011)

And, then, who is paying to tear down and rebuild these houses?

If it is the banks then isn't that going to have the effect of something like turning a former $100,000 house (at current prices) into, roughly, a $200,000 house?

The idiocy of this is beyond astounding.

The NPR story I heard said that the banks claimed it would be cheaper to tear them down than to sell them.

How does that even make any sense?


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 14, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> Before we boost the economy tearing down houses in order to just rebuild them we would be better off building real infrastructure like water treatment plants or power plants or roads and bridges or schools or...a million things that would give us something rather than the equivalent of paying people to dig holes and fill them in again.



thats a valid point and a pet hate of mine. in the uk which i am about to leave they are embarking on the same thing and they call it here low cost housing. yeah low cost. this is where they start building shitty crap on green belt land so that in 5 years time it wont be low cost anymore. the uk leader is looking more and more like a buffoon as time goes on but hey thats par for any leadership on the planet right now. look at europe just as a starting point and then check out the states.

their unemployment figures came out yesterday and shock horror theyve gone up. so they think they can build their way out. uhhhh no.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 14, 2011)

Emminant Domain Laws are forcing developers with money on the sidelines to invest or lose the property to the State here in Nevada.
Local politicians have been effective in pressuring the Banks to get involved and lend money if the developer qualifies by prooving hardship.

Imagine if we could see States working so creatively, and having Federal support like the new Jobs Bill passed.

Why do the States and middle class schmucks like me know better...?

Leon Panetta says it best IMHO.
The biggest threat to our National Security and Economy is Congress in election mode. Our enemies know this too as recent plots have revealed.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 14, 2011)

*Is it just me?*

I'm still having trouble understanding the ideology and wanderings of the protests. I thought checking out the protest's main web sites would help, but I must confess I feel more confussed and disappointed now. I had to stop just after-

http://occupywallst.org/ second post "10-15-call-to-action/"
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ totally confussed as of how everybody's life stories have got to do with Wall Street greed.

One of the various feelings I got was that there is a certain 'comunistoid' feeling to some of those stories. It bothers me when I read something like "we should all be the same...", or more generalist comments on global markets such as "... a system that ravages the global south and creates global financial crisis - crisis in Spain, in Greece..."


----------



## midphase (Oct 14, 2011)

I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get why the Occupy movement is happening, you probably never will and are on the side who ultimately favors less corporate taxes and regulations, and that believe that anyone who is not successful in this country is because of their own doing.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Oct 14, 2011)

Wherever one stands on this one thing is almost undeniable and that is that the U.S. middle class is shrinking and that is what has people worked up. Even someone with a decent job is finding his standard of living reduced and is only a few missed paychecks away from desperation. And yet CEO and CFOs of US based companies that are performing poorly still get massive salaries and bonuses way out of proportion to their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and China.

I don't know what the solution is but I am glad to see some people bringing it to the discussion with protests.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 14, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get why the Occupy movement is happening, you probably never will and are on the side who ultimately favors less corporate taxes and regulations, and that believe that anyone who is not successful in this country is because of their own doing.



+1

Thomas Jefferson said that if there wasn't a system in America to redistribute wealth that what would arise is an aristocracy that is more brutal and more oppressive than the aristocracy that this country revolted against in Europe. Unfortunately that's what has happened. Big corporations and corporate fat cats are richer than ever and yet we have an unemployment at 9.1% and wages stagnant for the last 30 years. I remember growing up in a family that in the 80's was making close to $90,000/year. Yet you look today 30 years later and the average household income is $40,000 with the prices of things even as basic as food being 300% higher than it was when I was growing up. I honestly don't understand how we're even still alive these days. And, I'm not kidding. My family makes now twice as much as the average household income and we're struggling like crazy to stay afloat. I can't image what it must be like for a family of 4 living off of $40,000/year. That must be a nightmare.

In the end this idea that the top 1% can usurp the nations wealth and turn the rest of the nation into indentured servants needs to be attacked at every level. Unfortunately for us all the normal person has is government and we've all see how ineffective that can be. So now there are protest. Next month it could be a civil war. As much as I abhor violence I'd almost welcome it.

And now that I'm venting, why does Obama have to be such a pussy?! Bill Clinton and Al Gore are more in front of the OWS movement than our supposed "liberal" president that ran on a platform of righting the wrongs of corporate greed. Jeez, Obama needs to grow a pair.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 14, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> Thomas Jefferson said that if there wasn't a system in America to redistribute wealth that what would arise is an aristocracy that is more brutal and more oppressive than the aristocracy that this country revolted against in Europe. Unfortunately that's what has happened. Big corporations and corporate fat cats are richer than ever and yet we have an unemployment at 9.1% and wages stagnant for the last 30 years. I remember growing up in a family that in the 80's was making close to $90,000/year. Yet you look today 30 years later and the average household income is $40,000 with the prices of things even as basic as food being 300% higher than it was when I was growing up. I honestly don't understand how we're even still alive these days. And, I'm not kidding. My family makes now twice as much as the average household income and we're struggling like crazy to stay afloat. I can't image what it must be like for a family of 4 living off of $40,000/year. That must be a nightmare.



That's a really interesting post. In the UK - someone feel free to disagree - it's not that bad. Bad yes, but not that bad. How much of the difference is to do with the huge burden of healthcare? Check out these comparisons:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... orld-obama

You guys spend over DOUBLE what we do on health, per captia. That can't help.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

And our president - one of the more talented speakers to come along in our lifetimes - is doing a pathetic job of communicating what Jefferson saw very clearly 225 years ago.

Instead he's snipping at the threads on the edge, opening himself up for accusations of "class warfare socialism" when that is SO not the point.

Yes chimuelo, I know I know I know. Biting the hand the feeds him.

But what he should be communicating is that of course we want successful people to be rewarded, of course we want people to be able to become rich by working hard. However, we also need an environment in which the country can move forward, and instead a gross disproportion of the pay - and along with it, political influence - is going to the executive class at the very top (because of crony capitalism).

That has the special virtue of being right, but it's also a winning political argument against the party that must not be mentioned.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 14, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> I've come to the conclusion that if you don't get why the Occupy movement is happening, you probably never will and are on the side who ultimately favors less corporate taxes and regulations, and that believe that anyone who is not successful in this country is because of their own doing.



Could you explain what does success have to do with this? I don't think I'm especially successful in anything specific. Do I have to be? I simply work long days to support my family, I'm an honest citizen, contribute with my community and I'm responsible with the environment. I'm proud of it too.

I'm in favor of a fair, just system (social, financial, legal), with equal *opportunities* for everyone. I don't think we have such system in place. But having that system in place does not guarantee everything will be perfect and everyone will live great either.

Interesting, I just realized the protests' origin traces back to Europe, Spain. That helps explain some ideological aspects of it. Please don't get me started, but just some food for thought:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/11/20/europe-s-problem-isn-t-just-debt-but-productivity.html

and if you look into this, ehmmm...., more official one, click on the first data table at the bottom and you will see the *variation* in productivity (or in their terms: "Average annual compound rate of change") over the last 30 years or so-
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod4.nr0.htm

Anyhow, I just read this which makes a bit more sense thatn anything else I'd read before:
"Organizers have high hopes to turn Saturday into a day of protest against politicians and the financial elites they serve all over the world. "

Should the protest not be exclusively centered in totally shutting down DC? Paris? Madrid? London?

Sorry, I got to get back to work.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 14, 2011)

Yes, that is what Democrats are in favor of. Equal opportunity. That is what Republicans are NOT in favor of, quite simply.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 14, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> And our president - one of the more talented speakers to come along in our lifetimes - is doing a pathetic job of communicating what Jefferson saw very clearly 225 years ago.
> 
> Instead he's snipping at the threads on the edge, opening himself up for accusations of "class warfare socialism" when that is SO not the point.
> 
> ...



Yes! It's like everybody is afraid to be democrats and they haven't even learned the lesson of the midterm election. Take Harry Reid for example. He didn't shy away from being a dem. He stated it boldly. He won hands down. I looked across the nation at the dems that were able to hold on to there seats and they unabashedly held Democratic viewpoints of more fairness and equality economically. Yet not a peep from the pres on this. I don't get it. Maybe it's me but I really don't care what party you belong to. I personally like guys like Rick Scott and Alan Greyson that stand up for what they believe is right. regardless of the political cost. At least with Rick Scott I may not agree but I know what to fight. But, Obama as much as I like him personal is just too scared to speak up most of the time. I personally would rather go down in the polls fighting for what I thought was right rather than go down in the polls trying to play the political middle. Wake up dude. This isn't 1990. There is no political middle any more.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 14, 2011)

Mid term elections were a direct result of massive/expensive ad campaigns that were now legal thanks to the Supreme Court decision to change Campaign Finance Laws. 
Coincidentally, this Conservative blessing happened during a super majority prior to them getting their grubby paws on Stimulus money.
And since Uncel Ben was fronting the cash for both, nobody made a peep, but waited for their cut of tax payer and Chinese money.......

2010 elections didn't even have to use much money really, the AFL-DIO and SEIU took down several Democrats knowing their puppet didn't stand a chance.
Here's an intersting take too.

Obama was destroyed in 2010, yet the GOP oddly allowed him to rise from the ashes during the Lame Duck session........?
Further polling revealed that the Elderly Americans were in the GOP camp 100%..........
Here's another coinicidence, and coming from such an educated chap was a shock as his stupid, unnecessary, poorly timed Bill split the Elderly vote right down the middle and sent that voting block back to the DNC...........Why on Earth would such intelligent people ressurect their supposed enemy twice within months....? BTW the Ryan Plan wasn;t asked for or needed, and allowed the DNC to stand tall again and have ads of Grandma going over the cliff, etc. the usual death and mayhem scare tactics of these pathetic script readers.

Simple.
The 50/50 split is what ClubFed thrives on. They inject influence and cash at well coordinated points in the process and change results immediately....

I am totally 100% convinced of this shell game and each year that goes by further convinces me.

Does anyone here ever think Mr AntiWar Obama would assinate American civilians over seas, and in Pakistan.......?? Not Me, but I would vote for Obama again as I enjoy his massive troop deployments, and recent incurrsions into Libya and Somalia.
He is super warlike, and I really don;t think his Bosses from the AFL-CIO or George Soros want this, but the real bosse at the Pentagon and ClubFed definately want this.....

So for me to even think this fake Consevative nonsense, or Liberal equality rhetoric is ever going to materialize is a joke.
Status Quo rules DC, and Money ensures that process stays intact.

Do you honestly think ClubFed wants to shoot itself in the foot and give away expensive medical procedures to the poor, when they barely help their own soldiers in the field.........??
The bill was desgined to fail, and designed to be repealed, and you were designed to believe these entitlements would happen.....

Thanks for the tax dollars though, Oh and BTW for bailing out the Banks we gave you a break and decided to bend over your kids instead of you....

There's a dose of reality..


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> And yet CEO and CFOs of US based companies that are performing poorly still get massive salaries and bonuses way out of proportion to their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and China.


Again, this is one point that everyone keeps missing: the money going to the CEO's is of almost zero consequence. You can take EVERYTHING they have and the net effect will be almost nothing for the middle class.

If you really want to help restore wealth to the middle class, you need to look to see where the wealth is going (makes sense to me, anyway). And the VAST majority of it is being stashed in the coffers of corporations (particularly tech corporations), not CEO's. Yes, some of it winds up in the hands of CEO's but that amount is almost nothing compared to what's necessary to make a difference.

So, again, feel free to go after the CEO's. And when you get everything they have you'll have solved 0.01% of the problem. If that's the type of change you want to spend your time on, well, OK. Go for it.

I think it's a waste of time. Great political rhetoric, sure, but a waste of time.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Oct 14, 2011)

Richard,

What's wrong with going after all of it...including obscene CEO salaries? What does it have to be mutually exclusive? Nobody is only going after CEO's, the discourse seems to me to be casting a pretty wide net (some would say too wide).


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> What's wrong with going after all of it...


Nothing.

However: if a patient comes into the ER in cardiac arrest, it seems stupid to waste effort on the splinter in his finger, doesn't it?

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 14, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet CEO and CFOs of US based companies that are performing poorly still get massive salaries and bonuses way out of proportion to their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and China.
> ...



You're right in this-it completely stops the "velocity' of money", a term my wife kindly explained to me last night. What happens when money is stashed and hoarded like this is that it lt becomes completely stagnant. Instead of buying goods and services, companies, new technologies, and hiring new employees, it becomes dead money, useless to the economy. The corporations are doing this, so are the banks, who are stashing their 0% money borrowed from the government money in interest bearing government bonds.

The CEO compensation discussion is another issue entirely. People knowingly sold financial instruments they didn't understand (or later pretended not to) and brought the largest financial institutions in the world perilously close to bankruptcy, then walked away with golden parachutes instead of jail time. If you think this is a non-issue at a time when the middle class is struggling, you're not tuned in to the anger that's out there.

Personally, I think a few show trials would leech a lot of the infection. John Mack, Lloyd Blankfein, re-try Angelo Mozzilo, John Thain. The Congressional hearings did nothing.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 14, 2011)

Mozzilo is Dodds boy, he ain't going anywhere.
The Beach front property in Ireland for access to the tax payers money was a small favor in their eyes. They consider their kindness in giving away our money to their favorite gangsters something we should be grateful for....

Face it guys, we are the chumps who have to obey the laws they write, pay the taxes they spend and steal and no matter what speeches they give, when the shit hits the fan they circle the wagons and point fingers and guess what, everybody falls for the " Democrats want equality " and " Conservatives want smaller Government "..........Please.... =o

Focus on their success while the middle class tumbles into second place behind China where all of these elites have homes and investments too.
Even Mr Global warming himself ( Maurice Strong ) who paved the road from Al Gores success lives behind gaurded walls in China......I guess Mr UN doesn't mind Human rights violations afterall........

Can you imagine how much of our tax dollars goes to his guarded secrets and luxurious life style.....???


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 14, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet CEO and CFOs of US based companies that are performing poorly still get massive salaries and bonuses way out of proportion to their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and China.
> ...



they missed the point from day one. you get this word that keeps cropping up in reports. fair. its not fair. wtf is fair? what does fair mean? they still think that the banks are mostly to blame for the economic downturn. thats funny but is now wearing thin on the nerves. wtf is an obscene salary and wtf is it obscene? its because its not fair right? its obscene to some poor sonofabitch pinko bastard thats for sure. but only because he would like to make more in his sleep than you do when youre awake. o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

Richard.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S OF ZERO CONSEQUENCE?!

It's of the utmost consequence! The whole reason we're in this mess is exactly because of that reason!

Why would you even want to make such an absurd argument?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

Larry, your wife is absolutely right about that concept of the velocity of money being the whole thing. By definition, people are buying stuff when the economy is doing well and not buying stuff when it's depressed.

It has very little to do with the *amount* of money in our economy; that doesn't go down when people owe money, it just changes hands. And right now it's in the hands of people who already buy as much as they're going to - in other words they're rich.

The velocity of money is also why stimulus money has to be spent quickly to have a big effect. Spending $250 billion over ten years has a lot less effect than dropping it into the economy immediately.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

^ I've been reading a lot about all this stuff over the past couple of years.


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S OF ZERO CONSEQUENCE?!


I mean exactly what I said - you can take everything they have and you'll have basically zero effect on the American middle class. If your goal is to generate political talking points, go for it. If your goal is to help the average American, the salaries of CEO's is, in fact, of (nearly) zero consequence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the mess we're in" but if you're talking about the current economic problems, then you're partly right. But I (and the protestors, at least ostensibly) am talking about restoring wealth to the middle class. That problem is independent of and existed long before the current economic problems.

The capital that is necessary to get the economy moving is in the corporations, not in the bank accounts of CEO's.

If you really want to make a difference, go after the corporations. Not the CEO's. 

If, however, you just want to keep spinning the wheels of the media/political machine, well, have fun. They're both laughing all the way to the bank because they've been able to keep you from complaining about the real problem.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> Personally, I think a few show trials would leech a lot of the infection. John Mack, Lloyd Blankfein, re-try Angelo Mozzilo, John Thain. The Congressional hearings did nothing.


I agree with you, but, again, if we get those show trials it's not going to do anything for the average American.

Is the guy with no job going to feel better that there's a show trial or is he going to feel better when he gets a job?

Which do you think he would rather have us fight for?

rgames


----------



## midphase (Oct 14, 2011)

Well, I for one would rather get my finger splintered than get kicked out of the emergency room with no care whatsoever!

Anyone in Los Angeles, let's hang tomorrow:

Saturday, October 15, 2011 - 11:30am
10:30 AM meet-ups at both Pershing Square and the South side of LA City Hall. Join together at 11:30 at Pershing Square for 12:00 rallly and march!! We are marching from Pershing Square at 12:00 noon through the financial district (via Spring Street) in solidarity with our brothers and sisters occupying worldwide. Please come!


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 14, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S OF ZERO CONSEQUENCE?!
> ...



I wonder why you keep ignoring the banks. Are you lumping them in with "corporations?"


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 14, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I think a few show trials would leech a lot of the infection. John Mack, Lloyd Blankfein, re-try Angelo Mozzilo, John Thain. The Congressional hearings did nothing.
> ...



In all honesty, and without politics? Both. Though your argument holds water logically, you are ignoring the emotional aspect of all of this, and as certain French royalty once found out , emotions can boil over most unpleasantly.

This thing isn't a horse, it's a Hydra.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

How do you figure that it won't help the middle class if we adjust taxes so the top 1% don't take home 24% of the national income?


----------



## midphase (Oct 14, 2011)

Nick...you going tomorrow? Wanna grab lunch at Philippe's afterwards?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

Maybe! I have something to do before then, but if I can go I will.


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> I wonder why you keep ignoring the banks. Are you lumping them in with "corporations?"


I'm not ignoring the banks - yes, I include them in "corporations". Call them whatever you like - they're a business entity that takes your money.

I've said all along that banks are part of the problem. But in terms of restoring wealth to the middle class, there are bigger fish to fry, and they exist in the tech sector.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 14, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> How do you figure that it won't help the middle class if we adjust taxes so the top 1% don't take home 24% of the national income?


It will help, but not enough to make a difference.

Increasing taxes on individuals is fine. I support it. But you're kidding yourself if you think there's enough there to make a difference.

There are HUGE amounts of cash sitting in the bank accounts of corporations - if we can get them to invest in the country, it will provide MUCH more money to the middle class than any government activity ever could.

The Federal Government is only about 15% of the US economy. Why focus on the 15%? Why not focus on the 85%?

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 14, 2011)

Okay. How do you propose to fry these fish? (like Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, ATT, Verizon, etc) :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2011)

> Why focus on the 15%?



I've already told you several times.

But consider that 15% of a $14 trillion economy is $2.1 trillion, and we're operating at about $1 trillion beneath our means.

You're simply incorrect that "taxing the job creators" won't make a difference. It's enough to solve about half our budget deficits long term, according to estimates I've read.

Or look at it this way: our states are out of money, and they're firing teachers and firemen to make up for the shortfall. The federal government can and should be helping the states (maybe by offering them at-cost loans - currently at negative real interest rates! - payable back when unemployment drops). This would be a good way to help fund that.

Plus you know the statistic I quoted: if just the top 25 hedge fund managers paid normal income tax levels rather than capital gains, that would be enough revenue to re-hire every teacher who's been fired.

As to freeing up the $2 trillion, I for one AM focused on that - intently. The only way to free it up is to create customers, and the only way to create customers is STIMULUS.

If I'm able to join Kays tomorrow, my sign is going to say "Where's the Troubled Infrastructure Relief Program?"


----------



## P.T. (Oct 14, 2011)

What's supposed to be wrong about taxing the job creators.

The people who work for the job creators are creating the job creator's wealth for him.
Let's see him do it without the workers.

Taxing the personal income of the job creators isn't going to make their business or the jobs go away.
Even if he sends the jobs to China he will still have to pay higher taxes on that personal income.

I'd also put an import tax on products an american based company has made in a foreign country and imports into the USA.
The idea of letting them increase their bottom line by sending jobs overseas is obscene.
Let them move their entire company to china and force them to move to China as well if they want to play the game that way.
These are not american companies.
They are based here to take advantage of our laws and courts, but pay wages to foreigners who pay taxes to foreign governments and spend there money in their home country, not in america.

Even if chinese workers who make products for american companies were to buy american products it wouldn't help the american economy because those products were made in china.
The procedes from those sales pay chinese salaries and fund the chinese government.
In what way is the american economy helped when Chinese buy american products that are made in China.

americans who support any US company that sends large percentages of its work to foreign counties is supporting their own destruction.

Why are you so concerned about the bottom line of a company that doesn't give a damn about america or the american people but only cares about its bottom line?

Why would you care if a company that doesn't hire americans goes out of business.

They manipulate our government and do absolutely nothing for us.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 14, 2011)

Also, why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than earned income?

Some people say that it is to encourage investment.

If I buy 100 shares of Apple on Monday, Apple doesn't get that money. It goes to some prior owner of those shares.

Most trades take place on the secondary market.

If they want to give a tax break to the people who buy the initial offerring, which is money that does go directly to the corporation issuing the shares, that would be different and could possibly encourage investment that aids a company.
But, then, if that corporation sends most, or a large percentage, of their jobs overseas then screw them.
Why should an american give a damn about them getting investment capital? And why would the government give tax breaks to people who support corporations that outsource their jobs?


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 15, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> Also, why are capital gains taxed at a lower rate than earned income?
> 
> Some people say that it is to encourage investment.




thats right and thats where the real money is. very few people use any or all of their capital gains allowance.

did someone mention Lloyd Blankfein in the same breath as the words show trials.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

keep them coming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EjdC0pj ... re=related


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2011)

Hey 99ers, I hope as many of you can get out today! It's raining and cool in Montreal, but that's not going to stop a bunch of Canadians!


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2011)

PS: I have to admit the title of this thread is disappointing.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 15, 2011)

Well I don't particularly hang on Facebook but it appears many of my Bro's even in Bangladesh are taking to the streets.
Scope users worldwide on Facebook privately turns out to be an interseting use of social networking, and most of the users are in their 40's and 50's.
Rome is also alive, but my Bro there say ther are getting violent so he won't participate after today.
I hope Midphase and Nick have fun and keep it clean.

Finally a way for Independants, Conservatives and Liberals to agree on something and focus on that, instead of being distracted and divided with the race, hate and left / right jive games.
I am seeing the very politicains who voted for TARP and Stimulus taking to the streets to support the move now too.

Well, nice try, but in 2012 I think we need a big reBoot.

Have fun my brothers. I will be back in Vegas just in time for the fun.
Here most of us will be using masks though as the Casinos over the last 20 years have brough in the best security services available and I dont want to end upo in one of the many camps here in Nevada that seem to built for some uprising, etc.

Be careful out there, people who spend 1 billion dollars on lobbyists to buy laws, will surely spend another billion trying to de rail the process...


----------



## rgames (Oct 15, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Oct 14 said:


> You're simply incorrect that "taxing the job creators" won't make a difference. It's enough to solve about half our budget deficits long term, according to estimates I've read.


That might be right - let's say it is. How many jobs go along with that activity? Answer: zero. We can handle the deficit - jobs are the real problem right now. So why focus on the deficit?



> Plus you know the statistic I quoted: if just the top 25 hedge fund managers paid normal income tax levels rather than capital gains, that would be enough revenue to re-hire every teacher who's been fired.


Like I said, you can take their money and solve a small piece of the problem. Unemployed teachers are a small piece of the problem. Once you re-hire all those teachers, what do you propose to do for the other 98% of unemployed people? Tell them tough luck?

As I've been saying all along, these activities are addressing only a tiny piece of the problem this country faces. Why people continue to place their focus there is baffling to me. Well, actually it's not - it's the baloney they're being fed by the media.

All is not lost, people will start to wake up soon 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 15, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Oct 15 said:


> PS: I have to admit the title of this thread is disappointing.


Perhaps - I've said all along that I support what they're fighting for, I just think they're going about it in a way that will have minimal effect. They've really missed the boat on this one and it's turning into a huge waste of political capital.

Hopefully the movement will obtain a logical focus - once it does, I think we'll see the potential for some real change.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 15, 2011)

dude, have you been in a WTO protest??!!? 
i have.. its a circus!! this is about the same. 
missing are the guys dressed as turtles fighting for the rights of penguins (yes.. random as hell)

anyways, what do u think should be the focus, or better yet, what action should they do to make their focus be clear and straightforward?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 15, 2011)

We got there in the afternoon when things had died down a bit, but here's the sign I made (and left behind):

http://gallery.me.com/virtualinstrument ... olor=black


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 15, 2011)

And that's my answer.

Nothing I've said is at odds with your challenges to me in your last two posts, by the way - except that the lost teachers hit me close to home, having a daughter in high school.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 15, 2011)

Richard, you syt people will wake up soon. Okay, what will they awaken to, and how will they effect change? In your opinion, what's the way forward?


----------



## midphase (Oct 15, 2011)

I was downtown LA today marching with the crowd which I would estimate at around 2000-3000 people. I don't think there was any sense of an unclear message coming from the protesters, the system is broken and it needs to be fixed and less regulation and less taxation is not the way to go.


----------



## rgames (Oct 15, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Sat Oct 15 said:


> Richard, you syt people will wake up soon. Okay, what will they awaken to, and how will they effect change? In your opinion, what's the way forward?


There are two pieces: one is government, the other is society in general.

The bottom line is that we need to get corporations to start investing in America once again. The private sector in this country has a long history of doing that but it seems to have gotten lost in the last 20 - 30 years. Much of it has to do with moving work overseas. Corporate profits are not an issue - they're plenty profitable. But they've figured out that they can be really friggin' profitable without employing any Americans, or paying them relatively little money - those two factors are the fundamental basis of the wealth gap. The corporations that leech off the American economy but choose to give little or nothing back need to suffer some type of consequence. That was why I posted those numbers on revenues vs. number of employees a while back - that gives you a pretty good indication of who the real culprits are (not the banks, by the way...)

On the government side, we can do a number of things, including higher import tariffs and setting up a tax structure that favors companies that reinvest their revenues in the US (via jobs or using US suppliers) instead of sending them overseas. The problem there is that doing that might actually mean giving more favorable tax deals to corporations, and that's a tough sell right now. But it can work - it worked through the 90's and early 00's. Remember the budget surpluses and low unemployment? If there's a favorable climate for business, more of it will stay in the US.

Things like government-funded infrastructure development are a good idea but it's a short-term fix: those folks need something else to do in 3-5 years, unless you just want to start building roads for the heck of it... That's not sustainable. There are pieces of it that are sustainable in the long-term, like putting together the infrastructure we need for green energy. But that's not enough to get us anywhere near full employment - the private sector needs to kick in to make that happen.

On the society side, we need to get back to a society that values contribution to the greater good more than individual net worth. High-net worth individuals are almost demi-gods these days regardless of what they've actually done for America (e.g. Steve Jobs). We also need to shift away from the "post-your-favorite-link" society: the ease with which people can access information has prevented them from thinking through these kinds of topics. Hence the Wall Street protests that seem to be based on demands that, if met, would produce nowhere near the effect they intend.

Another great example of the lack of rational thinking is coming up shortly: the 2012 presidential candidates have already passed a couple hundred million dollars in fundraising (the vast majority of it going to Obama). Obama said he intends to raise $1 billion. And everyone is throwing money at it, all the while complaining about CEO salaries that are a fraction of that amount. There's no logic behind that. Are you concerned about the middle class or not? If so, quit throwing all that money at politicians who are going to use it for nothing more than self promotion (and who aren't in the 99% that really need that cash). Would you really rather use your hard-earned dollars to produce another political ad rather than providing assistance for an unemployed person? Just think what we could do with that $1 billion that Obama intends to raise... The fact that nobody balks at statements like that (especially the protestors - sheesh...) is a testament to the fact that too many Americans are brain dead.

I remain hopeful, however, that people will wake back up. Better happen soon, though...

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 16, 2011)

Thanks for your response. As usual with your postings, it was a thoughtful one, whether I agree with your point of view or not.

I'm going to mull over your thoughts on problem solving before I respond. One thing I've come to think is that we're all commenting a lot on the seemingly hopeless nature of this confusing financial behemoth, and not discussing ways to fix it. Nick has his p.o. v.- added spending and injected liquidity. I agree with that to a point, but there's no question in my mind that the last round of stimulus went flying about in a very disorganized and very hard to account for manner. I don't think we can have that again.

Anyway, I'm mulling. I'll respond soon.


----------



## midphase (Oct 16, 2011)

Richard,

There are a couple of issues with what you say:

1. Regarding tax incentives for corporations spending here in the USA, that is relative to how much those tax incentives weight vs. investing overseas. No tax break can overcome a developing country with an incredibly favorable exchange rate and workers willing to work for peanuts. Is Apple can produce an iPhone for $40 overseas, and in the USA that same production would cost $180...there are no amount of tax incentives that will convince Apple to build iPhones in Kansas...dig?

2. Regarding campaign donations, you can't ask to stop contributing to Obama, without also stopping contribution to Perry, Romney and (gasp) Cain. Plus the major contributions end up coming from corporations (again, we're back to Wall Street) and we're back to were we started. What really needs to be enacted is a complete overhaul of the campaign process which the Supreme Court ruling doesn't help. Unfortunately every time a congressman brings up an effort to reform campaign finance, it gets sideswiped (mostly by Republicans, but also Democrats). So it's a vicious circle, the politicians are not going to voluntarily change campaign reform in any meaningful way, and the politicians themselves are not going to change until the campaign donation process is turned on its head.

Please mull over that for a while.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2011)

> there's no question in my mind that the last round of stimulus went flying about in a very disorganized and very hard to account for manner



Some of it probably did, but I think there are a number of issues to do with lack of communication that lead people in that direction. The big one is that it was sold as a $780 billion stimulus that would cap unemployment at 8%, and it was the ideal size. It was none of those.

A third of it went to tax cuts that do very little to stimulate.

A third of it was aid to states so that they wouldn't have to fire as many public employees. 
That's a good thing, but that wasn't explained to the public, who think this is $780 billion down the toilet.

Only a third of it (these are all round thirds) went to actual stimulus, and trying to fill a $2 trillion hole at the time with $250 billion is laughable. It did work to the extent that it could - and part of "it could" is that it was done in an emergency, so there's going to be *some* waste - but that isn't being sold properly. 

All that opened things up for stupid people to say that stimulus doesn't work. Of course it does, in fact it's the only thing that will work any time soon.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2011)

> Things like government-funded infrastructure development are a good idea but it's a short-term fix: those folks need something else to do in 3-5 years, unless you just want to start building roads for the heck of it... That's not sustainable.



The answer to all of what you're saying about getting corporations to invest their money is DEMAND.

What's stifling demand? Is it high taxes? Anti-business government? Uncertainty? Lack of confidence? Too many environmental regulations? The Chinese?

If the answer is yes to any of the above, it's a very small piece of the picture. The main answer is private debt; people can't sustain our 70% consumer economy as long as they owe money.

So the whole point of stimulus is to jump-start and support the economy until people have paid down their private debt and can buy things again.

That's number one. Number two is that people are sitting idle wasting potential - a human tragedy! Surely putting them to work doing something useful for a period of time, contributing to our world and spending money that circulates and comes back to government coffers through taxes (to say nothing of not suffering) is better than having them on welfare!


----------



## rgames (Oct 16, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Oct 16 said:


> Richard,
> 
> There are a couple of issues with what you say:


Regarding #1, I agree - that's why I said only part of the problem can be dealt with through government regulations, the rest has to come from pressures from the general public. The government can put together a combination of incentives and penalites to enable part of that change but the companies, themselves, are going to have to decide that capitalism at any cost is not the way they choose to do business. How much money do they really need to make? That can also happen through pressures from the market: if you disagree with how much wealth a company hoards, then don't buy that company's products! Alternatively, if you're OK with Apple and Facebook hoarding huge amounts of wealth, then don't bitch about Wall Street doing the same. You either agree with it or you don't. The current protests, though (stupidly) focused on a small piece of the problem, might be the catalyst to get people thinking this way on a larger scale. If that happens, then maybe that will enact the societal piece. And once that piece is in place, the government activity can complete the process and create some real change.

Regarding #2, I also agree. It seems you're implying that I think only Obama needs to be regulated - of course not, though he is the biggest money-maker. The entire campaign process needs to be regulated. Again, it would be great if we could get Americans to stop and think about what they're doing rather than enact new regulations. But in the absence of that epiphany, I think we need to consider at least some type of regulation to end the campaign spending stupidity. Technically, we have regulations in place (the ones that Obama initially agreed to then backed out of in 2008) but they're not particularly effective. The regulations need to be made broader than limits on the candidates - the national parties need to be dealt with somehow.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 16, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Oct 16 said:


> Regarding #2, I also agree. It seems you're implying that I think only Obama needs to be regulated - of course not, though he is the biggest money-maker. The entire campaign process needs to be regulated. Again, it would be great if we could get Americans to stop and think about what they're doing rather than enact new regulations. But in the absence of that epiphany, I think we need to consider at least some type of regulation to end the campaign spending stupidity. Technically, we have regulations in place (the ones that Obama initially agreed to then backed out of in 2008) but they're not particularly effective. The regulations need to be made broader than limits on the candidates - the national parties need to be dealt with somehow.
> 
> rgames



The Supremes made this matter ten times worse. Now the big corporate and union interests who buy elections don't even have to brown-bag piles of cash. They can legally give whatever they want. Awful decision.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of the Supreme Court.

Nine unelected dictators to overrule 500 elected members of congress?

What for?
To keep 500 from making a wrong decision?
Isn't it more likely that the nine will make a wrong decision?

A Nation held hostage to the rulings of nine unelected officials?


----------



## midphase (Oct 16, 2011)

I agree that the Supreme Court is too politically affiliated to rule with the people's interests in mind. Lately they have been on a roll with the weird rulings, I guess we can thank whoever put Alito, Scalia and particularly Thomas who is a disgrace.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 16, 2011)

Through the years, Supreme Court has done many good things as well.
If we're honest, the partisan nature of the Court tends to disturb us more when our political leanings are not those of the majority.

This decision in particular seems as ill-timed as any they've made.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2011)

Right now the Supreme Court is a total disaster. It has five total freaks on it, and they're making some of the worst decisions in history. Bush vs. Gore was treasonous, and Citizens United is about the worst decision since Dred Scott.

But the idea is to have a third balancing branch balance the Executive and Legislative branches - one with members appointed for life and are therefore therefore beyond politics.

That's worked sometimes, but it sure doesn't work when the majority consists of right-wing nuts (Thomas and Scalia), right-wing total POS assholes (Roberts and Alito), and a conservative (Kennedy).


----------



## P.T. (Oct 16, 2011)

It's not right/ left to me.

I just don't like the idea of these unelected people having so much power over 500 elected people.

If we become a dictatorship will you say that dictatorship is OK as long as the dictator does things that you like? 

They should never do any more than just rule if legislation is constitutional or not.
Nothing more.


----------



## rgames (Oct 17, 2011)

P.T. @ Mon Oct 17 said:


> It's not right/ left to me.
> 
> I just don't like the idea of these unelected people having so much power over 500 elected people.
> 
> ...


Keep in mind that the United States of America is not a democracy - it's a republic. In fact, one of the guiding principles when the US was founded was preventing the "Tyranny of the Majority". Part of that included the establishment of a Supreme Court who could check the power of the Congress and the President.

So yes, when the Supreme Court steps in makes a ruling it is un-democratic. And that's how it's supposed to be.

The Supreme Court is, in fact, passing judgement on what is constitutional and what is not. If the Congress doesn't like the ruling, then they have the option to change the US Constitution.

We might not like the results it achieves, but the system is, in fact, working the way it's designed to.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2011)

Actually - surprise - I disagree that it's working the way it's designed to. Yes it works very well in a lot of ways, and the Constitution is an incredibly forward-thinking document, but there are big problems, and it's much more than not liking the results.

For one, all three branches have become paralyzed by the pull of the radical right. That's getting worse, but we also have a mockery of democracy, with all that money in the elections.

That's not an argument against having a Supreme Court, but we certainly need to take the money out of our elections as a first step to restoring our democratic system.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 17, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Oct 17 said:


> Keep in mind that the United States of America is not a democracy - it's a republic.
> rgames



Clarification- Two different things you're talking about there. A republic is one thing, a model where goverment represents the people, and is elected by the people. Contrary to a Monarchy. Democracy and Oligachy are two ways power can be concerntrated; both are forms of government in a Republic.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 17, 2011)

Nickie B is 100% correct. Once the money is no longer the motive for legislation, the people will be represented.

I use to believe that sending rich folks to DC would ensure they were above bribery, but that false sense of security is disproven dozens of times daily in DC.

Wall Street, Corporations and Banks had total control of our legislative branches too long.'
Their shareholders were well represented. And it was all done legally, but those laws were sold, and the lobbyists spent billions doing that.
So perhaps we can save them billions in 2012 by getting rid of every last one of these self serving asswipes.
If my theory of ClubFed and the Pentagon is true, perhaps a shot across their bow is needed.
Auditing these institutions is our right, and such a process should not cause the death of a nation as they try to describe.
I'd love to see a President call them out, or members of Congress, after all they are suppose to represent us locally, and in DC upon arrival, not rich former politicians that hide under the name Lobbyist...

Let's demand this from whoever we send there.
I'd love to see 3 parties and a watchdog branch like we have watching cops. The DC IAB is needed.


----------



## Udo (Oct 17, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> Keep in mind that the United States of America is not a democracy - it's a republic.


Definitions of democracy and republic often appear to be mixed up in the US (and the confusion is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a "Republican" and a "Democratic" Party - both parties support a democratic republic).

Republic and democracy are descriptions of two different things - one is a form of goverment, the other is the system of goverment. E.g. the Netherlands was a republic and democracy, but became a monarchy and democracy; the former Soviet Union was a republic, but not a democracy; the USA is a republic and democracy (but, as more and more people start to realise, the democratic part leaves a lot to be desired  ).

BTW, there was a publication by the US Army in the 1920's that contained interesting definitions of democracy (it was quietly withdrwn soon after release). It included statements like:

- results in mobocracy
- results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy
- attitude toward property is comunistic, negating property rights.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2011)

The reason people call the American system of government a republic is that it's a representative democracy rather than a direct one. I think that's all the word means in this country, and that's what Richard is saying.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 17, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Oct 17 said:


> P.T. @ Mon Oct 17 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not right/ left to me.
> ...



It's not working any more. People have long lost the intelligence required to pass any kind of judgement as regard to the philosophic document of government that is the constitution. Including the supreme court. There are some many things that are going on now that are so blatantly against the constitution that I sometimes wonder when the supreme court is actually going to do their job. Chief among them is the office of the president has now become the chief legislator. I think mostly due to the fact that the legislative branch is dysfunctional. It's a mess right now and things aren't working at all. Also, this idea that corporations are somehow people and have the same rights as people is gotten way out of hand.

Also, we live in a democratic republic. Not just a republic. Originally it was setup constitutionally that the house of representatives was comprised of elected officials(democracy). Then the states would chose 2 senators for the senate and the senate chooses a president (republic). It makes a lot of sense that way. In that way the senate and the president would also be shielded from the popular vote. Over the years that has changed and we are now more of a democracy than a republic. It's kind of a shame. Makes it so that our elected officials now only work for the next election and when they have time, maybe, they might actually get something done, if it's not too politically unpopular. :roll:


----------



## Udo (Oct 17, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> The reason people call the American system of government a republic is that it's a representative democracy rather than a direct one. I think that's all the word means in this country, and that's what Richard is saying.


I think most western democracies (if not all) are representative ones. In a representative democracy elected individuals represent the people in the decission making process, although in many countries some aspects of direct democracy are provided in addition, e.g. referenda/plebicites.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 17, 2011)

I try very hard to be open-minded, so I am willing to try another style of government here in these Fractious States of America.

I hereby nominate myself for Emperor.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2011)

> the legislative branch is dysfunctional



Again: the reason is the pull of the radical right. 100%. Without those f-ers we would be just fine.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 18, 2011)

Trickle down in 1850...

1) The slaves have it tough.
2) The plantation owners employ the slaves.
3) In order to help the slaves, Washington should increase the power and wealth of the job creators, er, plantation owners.

Back on topic, the breakthrough message of the Occupy Wall Street protests is to highlight the increasing gap between rich and poor. The "99 percent" message is what resonates - especially when the police are included as part of the 99 percent, rather than the 1 percent that they are often seen to represent.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 18, 2011)

Glad to see ya' back JF.


2011......Stimulus trickle Down


Now the Plantation owners are Black and live in great mansions with Hispanic Slaves. 
Progressive Government favors the elites just like the evil days of the GOP super majority, not much of a differnce, just redistributed wealth to their friends and themselves. Peasants get scraps but are grateful, and hope their kids don't give up and go to Boot Camp instead of College.
Those are the only jobs the Feds have made...............but they saved thousands during the " Shovel Ready " period. Wall Street basically provided more temporary jobs for minorities " Shovelling " the cash out of dozens of 40' trailers backed up at their doorstep.

The 1%'r's in DC are doing an excellent job of selling....................ooops
...............I mean passing the Laws and picking Bail out partners for shakedown money in 2012.


----------



## Udo (Oct 18, 2011)

When you're taking part in protests, there's now a useful Android app. If you're arrested, it will notify family and friends (and legal team  ) with a single long press.

"http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20119537-12/help-im-getting-arrested/?tag=nl.e415 (I'm Getting Arrested) lets you quickly notify your family, friends, and crack legal team (if you have one) of your situation with a single tap of your finger. Just initially enter a custom message and some SMS-ready numbers to contact in the event of your arrest. Then, as you're about to be corralled into the back of a squad car, fire the app up and long-press the bull's-eye for 2 seconds. From there, you can rest assured that your message will be sent to the appropriate contacts."


----------



## José Herring (Oct 18, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> Glad to see ya' back JF.
> 
> 
> 2011......Stimulus trickle Down
> ...



It's been a long time comin'!

Oh, wait. I'm black and HIspanic. I guess I'll have to work my own plantation.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 18, 2011)

Udo @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> "http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20119537-12/help-im-getting-arrested/?tag=nl.e415 (I'm Getting Arrested) lets you quickly notify your family, friends, and crack legal team (if you have one) of your situation with a single tap of your finger.


Does it allow you to use different contacts for different situations? For example, can it be set to contact family members if you've been arrested during a protest, but contact your best buddy when it turns out that that hooker was really a cop?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 18, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> Udo @ Tue Oct 18 said:
> 
> 
> > "http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-20119537-12/help-im-getting-arrested/?tag=nl.e415 (I'm Getting Arrested) lets you quickly notify your family, friends, and crack legal team (if you have one) of your situation with a single tap of your finger.
> ...



No, that one's set to speed dial the wife's divorce attorney.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 18, 2011)

Go for it Bro. 
First you'll have to unseat QuackSeen...............sorry......Maxine Waters
and good luck there. 
Her and hubby own part of a Bank now with the stimulus funds she was to spread around the community. Nobody wanted any, so she deposited it.

Just like the old white slave owners, the large numbers benefit the top dog in the food chain, and she's doing really good while in her own district 40% of brotha's under 30 are out of work.

Im quite sure the California elites who own the Prisons are licking their lips thinking about a whole new generation to incarcerate.
So I totally understand the anger towards the 1%'r's'. But not just the ones on Park Avenue. Just the ones responsible for this whole broken thing.

You'll notice though just like the left/right supposed hatred, the loyalty that binds them, is they all become lobbyists, never let a fellow DC elite go to jail, and by letting the criminals on Wall Street go unpunished, they are way more valuable once you turn them, and have 'em working for you.
I bet Geitner didn't even have to make a phone call for campaign donations this year........They called him.... /\~O


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 18, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> Go for it Bro.
> First you'll have to unseat QuackSeen...............sorry......Maxine Waters
> and good luck there.
> Her and hubby own part of a Bank now with the stimulus funds she was to spread around the community. Nobody wanted any, so she deposited it.
> ...



Tim Geithner's running for elective office?


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 18, 2011)

No, but that's the beauty of it. ClubFed elites are quite active overseas, and right here at home wherever there's vast amounts of cash and corruption. They answer to nobody except the Wizards behind the curtain.
I got a laugh when media Parrots were acting like Geitner was Obamas' chosen Head Of Treasury, and should he resign, etc. Obama don't know anyone, he's just a lawyer from Chicago. 
Geitner is being groomed for a top slot in the Corporation. Read up on his Grandfather. He was the advisor to Ike with so much power in the Defense Industry he scared the Hell out of Eisenhower. He's only been stateside later on in life. Lived all over the world, learned Mandarin in Beijing when it was still called Peking.
He doesn't just collect for Obama, he's the conduit for DC to Wall Street.
Hedge Fund Managers are experts at " hedging " their bet.
When you see Wall Street Brokers giving more to the DNC than the GOP, common sense dictates the winner long in advance, and that's also why you never hear exactly how much is given.
Even the AFL-CIO gives money to both parties.
To pick just one is an insult to both, since they are really both the same, and take orders from the same bosses.

I actually see more and more signs at these protests reflecting my personal beliefs recently, except for the Illuminati and all that ritualistic jive. These guys have Gods, but they're all Dead Presidents on various bills they print.
I must say I can relate to their quest for cash.
I always maintained that praying to Reverend Benjamin Franklin was more likely to be recieved than some ancient astronaut that booked 1000's of years ago.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 18, 2011)

chimuelo @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> No, but that's the beauty of it. ClubFed elites are quite active overseas, and right here at home wherever there's vast amounts of cash and corruption. They answer to nobody except the Wizards behind the curtain.
> I got a laugh when media Parrots were acting like Geitner was Obamas' chosen Head Of Treasury, and should he resign, etc. Obama don't know anyone, he's just a lawyer from Chicago.
> Geitner is being groomed for a top slot in the Corporation. Read up on his Grandfather. He was the advisor to Ike with so much power in the Defense Industry he scared the Hell out of Eisenhower. He's only been stateside later on in life. Lived all over the world, learned Mandarin in Beijing when it was still called Peking.
> He doesn't just collect for Obama, he's the conduit for DC to Wall Street.
> ...



I did look it up, and you're right-it's interesting as hell. However, Wall Street is now giving substantially more money to the Repubs, so I guess they've made their bet for 2012.

Along the way, I found out Obama's mother was a major player in micro-finance-who knew?? She had a doctorate in Anthropology, which I really have seen very little comment on.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 18, 2011)

We're way far away from the really interesting stuff.
ClubFed waits for summer 2012 when all of the cash and favors have been squeezed from foreign Governments, Banks, Corporations, etc.
Then they can actually step in and change the game.

They specialize in transitional periods, lame duck sessions where Liberals are suddenly Conservatives for a brief spell, and Conservatives call for free abortioins and extended welfare benefits, etc.

We always pass tons of fast agreements in a lame duck session.
The big Jobs Bill was promised months ago, and the fact it hasn't passed means ClubFed wants to hold onto what the Banks paid us back for a little while longer, but we'll see Bernancke give a fast " memorized " sentance on CSPAN, then the choppers will fly back to Andrews and the men behing the curtain can sit back and watch us snap out of the last Keynesian Coma with another half trillion...


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 18, 2011)

That's a prediction. What i said about Wall Street placing it's bet on the Repubs is fact, at least as reported by multiple sources, at least up to the moment.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 18, 2011)

DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER POLL OF OWS:

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... caucus-wsj

FYI


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 18, 2011)

Peter Alexander @ Tue Oct 18 said:


> DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER POLL OF OWS:
> 
> http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 ... caucus-wsj
> 
> FYI



He polls for Democrats, but gets published by the WSJ and works for Fox News? Hmmm... (puts on thinking cap)


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 18, 2011)

Of course the OWS protesters are more ideological than most Americans. Duh.

This isn't a well-funded political machine trying to get elected. It's a group of people who are working to make the ever-growing wealth gap part of the national conversation.

_"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

-Louis D. Brandeis (Supreme Court Judge)_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 19, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 19 said:


> He polls for Democrats, but gets published by the WSJ and works for Fox News? Hmmm... (puts on thinking cap)



Quite.

All so far going exactly as predicted - the mainstream (ie ultra-right-wing) media is portraying the movement as a tiny but dangerous faction of socialists, who are - essentially - the usual suspects. And to a degree that's true - the first people to mobilise will be those who are already the most ideologically committed.

What is interesting about this movement though is in its potential. All the debate here - and it's interesting stuff - is largely irrelevant, because this isn't a pressure group who will lobby for some tweaks to the system. The status quo is far too powerful to allow it's basic mechanisms to be undermined by a mere pressure group anyway. This is a genuinely revolutionary group in aim. What happens next will be entirely dictated by economic events - unless there is a full scale 2nd major collapse, this movement will wither and die and we'll all carry on as normal. However, introduce real fear and / or hardship among the masses, where they perceive a great unjustice, and suddenly this movement could explode. That's the way of revolutions... but first there has to be a genuine need among the people, and right now there still isn't one.

Required viewing right now - The Motorcycle Diaries and Che Part One.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 19, 2011)

noiseboyuk @ Wed Oct 19 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Oct 19 said:
> 
> 
> > He polls for Democrats, but gets published by the WSJ and works for Fox News? Hmmm... (puts on thinking cap)
> ...




:lol: 

have you ever been or lived the states? even the left wing know these people are talking rubbish. if you had a major collapse as you call it the first people that would suffer are the people who are standing in wall street or outside st pauls or wherever. this is not got anything to do with wall street or any other street.

if there was another recession and it looks very possible it's going to hurt everyone and not just guardian readers. michael moore was on your news channel last night and talked more rubbish. taxing the wealthiest indivduals and corporations in the states wont do anything to to stop recession or depression. itll make it worse because they will go somewhere else visa vi tax and any shortfalls will result in more unemployment. what they should now be thinking about is actually reducing taxes across the board. and i might add particularly in your country. in the uk you now have a major problem thats going to get out of control fast unless they tackle it hard. inflation. much worse than most other places. they cut their interest rates to soon and too hard and everyone in the city more or less knew that day one. youve had extreme low rates now for over 2 years and it hasnt worked. if they dont tackle inflation right now youl get a lot more unemployment which by th the way has nothing to do with banks or brokers. this problem was always to do with personal debt which has led to almost zero demand. those low rates have subsidized people in debt and rising inflation is subsidizing people on benefits. they have also played havoc with the value of the uk pound making exports very expensive while at the same time imports seem cheap but because of global demand dont make up for much.

i never found anything interesting about anything with zero potential.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 19, 2011)

:mrgreen: 

Hey here's an ironic situation. 
A guy the GOP didn't like before seems to be the favorite this time, one of those New Englanders who disagrees with himself more than anyone else, a Consevarative that believes in Universal Heath Care, and he's running against a former Federal Reserve Banker disguised as a singing Pizza Man, who is leading in the polls and is suppose to be broke, and he's Black.......... >8o 
He might run against the a die hard Liberal who kills in the name of Human rights and has more troop deployments under his belt than any hawkish conservative before him.

God Bless THe USA.........

But Ron Paul, the only one with balls to call out the Feds gloabal war machine is called the kook, the nutty old man who's never been anywhere, etc.
Oddly he served his country and his district, and his voting record is something you never see in DC...... consistency and truth.

And guess what decides who wins in these races.............MONEY.
Nothing else. That's why you see the Fed and Pentagon represented from both sides, their as wise as Wall Street and probably called an old favor in by getting Cain involved.

But I would enjoy seeing a nation full of white racists voting on which black guy would be our President.............that's priceless.


----------



## midphase (Oct 19, 2011)

I don't like Ron Paul...or I should say I like a lot of what he says, but then he's gotta ruin it with some crazy shit that comes out of the same pie hole.

Having said that, I don't understand why he is systematically ignored by the media and by GOP and tea party supporters while lunatics like Cain get massive attention. Yesterday NPR was almost exclusively discussing the 999 plan...as if it had any relevance to reality....WTF???


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 19, 2011)

> what they should now be thinking about is actually reducing taxes across the board. and i might add particularly in your country



When will stupid conservative bullshit talking points like this stay dead? They've been slammed into the ground by reality over and over, but they just refuse to die.

It's amazing this pile of lies even survived the Reagan era.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 19, 2011)

I've said before - probably in this thread - that the communist armpit protesters at OWS (or I should say the ones I saw when we went to Occupy LA) aren't doing anyone any good.

But the underlying theme is not communist armpit, it's patently obvious.


----------



## rgames (Oct 19, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Oct 19 said:


> Having said that, I don't understand why he is systematically ignored by the media and by GOP and tea party supporters while lunatics like Cain get massive attention. Yesterday NPR was almost exclusively discussing the 999 plan...as if it had any relevance to reality....WTF???


Is Cain really a lunatic? Dunno - he's kind of an oddball but I don't know about lunatic.

He reminds me a lot of the "Rent is Too Damn High" guy. How cool would it be if they ran on the same ticket? That would be a fun campaign to watch 

I guess if we can't count on politicians to do anything meaningful we might as well have them do something entertaining...

rgames


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 19, 2011)

So let me get this right.
People here actually believe that the lies these wealthy elites spew on their tours and campaign debates is even going to happen...?

Just look back to line by line earmarks, Guantanamo, no more wars, CSPAN to expose the treacherous deals.....
You don't see any of this happening, so what makes you think some silly 9-9-9 plan will even be passed...?
Only if ClubFed allows it. This decision will be bought and paid for with cash just like everything else.

But if picking the left hand of ClubFed or the right hand hand of ClubFed makes you feel warm and full of hope, by all means pick your favorite hand. But if the marble is lying under the other shell you didn't choose, don't feel bad, you weren't suppose to get it right.

I really don't care which mouthpiece gets the gig, I just hope the 1%'r's in DC share some of our ideas, but at the end of the day, you mean nothing to them, they despise you even more for believing the Bull Shit that rolls from their mouths....

I once had a girlfriend who was fine, but really not my type, but what a bod. She wanted to be lied to, and treated like a mushroom, I was happy to oblidge, but I got bored with her and fell for my 2nd wife who was a hard worker, talented, beautiful, and I can't even steal a piece of her Pastrami w/o getting busted.
I respect her. And still try and earn her respect back.

Which wealthy Liberal or Conservative thinks like this.....
Well since they are 1%'r's'..............I'd say 99%...

They need your vote, its good for business, and during campaign seasons ClubFed can place troops and money anywhere they want as we are distracted by a 4 year term, which is only a 2 1/2 year term now with a 1 1/2 of campaigning..
We will be promised Nectar and Lotus leaves, freebies never dreamed of before, and whoever you choose has to listen to the man when they sit in the chair at the Oval office, or in the Halls of Congress where our laws are sold....

They love all of us Fools equally........


----------



## José Herring (Oct 19, 2011)

chimuelo @ Wed Oct 19 said:


> :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> But I would enjoy seeing a nation full of white racists voting on which black guy would be our President.............that's priceless.



I know. What's this country coming to fo' Christ Sake!

I half want Cain to win just because I want to see the two black guys going after each other. Love to see who blurts out a "yo, mama!" first.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 19, 2011)

I think Obama can come out in the Apollo Creed outfit, with the Abe Lincoln hat, and Cain could come out in the white robe he used when singing........

Here's a snippett of an interview....

Anderson Pooper: President Obama, do you accept the challenge of a debate with Herman Cain......
Obama: I refuse the challenge, because Herman Cain is no challenge, but I'd be happy to beat up on him some more.

It's such a rigged fake game, so having a certain amount of entertainment adds immense ratings for General Electric......sorry.........I meant CBS.

Cain could come out and sing a Yanovic style song denegrading Liberals and have Bachman and Palin as back up singers dressed up like Ho's wearing those escape proof heels, etc.

It's so insulting anymore watching this fake, rigged mockery of democracy, let's make it fun....otherwise, just have the Rothschilds, Rockefellars, EU Banking giants and other " real " rulers hold a debate, and ask questions like, if I want you to invade another country to beat the Chinese by getting contractual agreements for Oil and Lithium, will you do as instructed....?

I want to see Suadi and American Jets invade Iran so it will appear as and Arab/American success like in the 1st Gulf War, can you make it happen.....

Obama...........Yessir Mr. Wizard, we'll say were protecting Human Rights and take out their infrastructure and Uranium enrichment facilities while sending in Red Cross teams to bandage up any survivors......

ClubFed: But what about the people....?
Obama: Tell them we'll redo their constitution line by line, and give them free food and water, cut back on religious loudspeaker propaganda, and have the process on CSPAN....

ClubFed: Excellent idea.......Herman, you can leave, we'll let you have Head of Treasury......

Cain: Coolness.......Beotch !!!!!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 19, 2011)

Ha! 

Or, an Obama speech on Taxation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cH-yoY1zEU


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 19, 2011)

Chim_ I pretty much enjoy reading your posts, but I'm way tired of "ClubFed".

It's way too simplistic, it's the same jingoistic crap as "Obamacare" or "America, love it or leave it.". Yes, big money affect politics, vastly. Yes, the Federal government is presently dysfunctional. On the other hand? The racist (which I agree with) public in these here United States elected an African-American to its highest office in 2008. What do you make of that? You can't have it both ways. Trust me-the fix wasn't in for Obama. I NEVER believed this country would vote for a black man for President, in ANY circumstance. I voted for Hillary in the primaries on that basis. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Regardless of the special interests and the puppet masters, history has shown people will only tolerate being crushed to a certain degree, then heads roll.


----------



## midphase (Oct 19, 2011)

Technically Obama is also half-white.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 19, 2011)

Think Jesse Helms woulda thought so?


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 19, 2011)

Midphase...............you racist.! :lol: 

When you say he's half white, it insinuates the white part is better.....I don't know how but Axelrod has something in his playback for such comments.
In the politically correct world where thin sklinned pussies live, Obama is multiracial, and so am I, if you really want to get technical.

I am really trying to be kind and sensative to the Putos of the world.
I even call the bagger at a grocery store an Agrcicultural Product Organizer.....

NYC I am just having fun chief. 
We might lose the race card game in 2012 if Cain wins, but Obama will have a billion dollars so Axelrod will hire hundreds of Lawyers and find some whiny 50 year old White guy that Cain called a Cracker and fired back in 1978..


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 20, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 19 said:


> > what they should now be thinking about is actually reducing taxes across the board. and i might add particularly in your country
> 
> 
> 
> ...




pinkos live in denial.

conservatives live with the consequences.


but what does paul say about all this?


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 19 said:
> 
> 
> > > what they should now be thinking about is actually reducing taxes across the board. and i might add particularly in your country
> ...



What does it say when one uses perjorative terms to describe the beliefs of others?

Answer-it means that any reasonable debate is stopped dead and the name calling and generalizations begin. It means that maturity ends and junior high lives forever.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> What does it say when one uses perjorative terms to describe the beliefs of others?
> 
> Answer-it means that any reasonable debate is stopped dead and the name calling and generalizations begin. It means that maturity ends and junior high lives forever.



+1


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Oct 16 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard, you syt people will wake up soon. Okay, what will they awaken to, and how will they effect change? In your opinion, what's the way forward?
> ...



I agree with a lot of what you've said. Point by point-

Yes, we need to try to get the corporations to repatriate their tax bases and their jobs. Yes, we're going to have to do it by a combination of tax breaks and incentive programs ( perhaps amount of tax break commensurate with the amount of jobs created?) However, this really is a problem, because regardless of idiotic Supreme Court decisions, corporations really AREN'T "people". They are entities that exist to make profits for their shareholders and to pay out huge amounts to their Boards of Directors and top brass. That's their function-not necessarily to make anything, not to do things for the public good, just to make profits-so appealing to some sort of civic responsibility seems fruitless to me.

I agree with higher tariffs, but as you know, with global trade these days, that sort of thing is difficult and fraught, especially when dealing with major holders of our debt. It's not shooting fish in a barrel, but I agree-has to be done.

I think your demi-gods should be taxed a good bit higher than they are at present. I notice you don't present this in your thesis. If you believe that "jobs creator' bullshit and think these people cant pay substantially more in an era where they are doing very nicely indeed, I don't see why you would ignore that source of revenue as part of your plan. Tax rates for the very wealthy are historically low, and most of them slide through loopholes anyway.

More later.


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> I think your demi-gods should be taxed a good bit higher than they are at present. I notice you don't present this in your thesis.


I have said several times that I have no problem raising taxes for high-income earners. I have also said several times that there's not enough there to make a difference on the problems we face right now. So if it's not going to have an impact, why waste time on it?

If you want to join in the political/media circus, go for it. And when you get everything the super-rich have then you'll have solved a teeny-tiny-itsy-bitsy piece of the problem. But you'll probably have your face all over the news - really good if you're running for president or you like seeing your face on TV.

If, however, you want to make a real difference in the lives of Americans, your time is better spent elsewhere.

The corporations hold the key to getting this country back on track. Super-rich individuals are a media-led diversion.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2011)

> I have also said several times that there's not enough there to make a difference on the problems we face right now.



You have also been straightened out several times; saying it several times doesn't make it true.

Never mind anything else, the president's jobs plan was going to be financed by a surcharge on incomes over $1 million a year.

And you're also wrong - once again - that the corporations hold the key to getting this country back on track.


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 20, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> And you're also wrong - once again - that the corporations hold the key to getting this country back on track.



+1. Look deeper, within.


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> > I have also said several times that there's not enough there to make a difference on the problems we face right now.
> 
> 
> 
> You have also been straightened out several times; saying it several times doesn't make it true.


Nor does your repeated insistence that I'm wrong make you correct 

Instead of repeating myself, I'll repeat you: you stated that those taxes on the super-wealthy could be enough to re-hire every teacher laid off in the last few years.

Let's say you're correct. That's, what, 0.5% of the unemployment problem?

I guess I really don't have to argue my point when I have you to do it for me 

rgames


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> George Caplan @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 19 said:
> ...



you mean like conservative bullshit?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 20, 2011)

George do you know the history of the conservative movement, where it came from and why it was brought about? I say this not in a condescending way, but it has often baffled me, once I learned about the history of conservatism, why people continue to call themselves conservative. It's actually a really negative thing. And, I'm not making it up out of some sort of bias.

Jose


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

George Caplan @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> ...



Yes. I'm no happier with Nick's method of debate than I am with yours, and I've said as much. That doesn't get you off the hook, however.

Add to that that "pinko" reminds me of the McCarthy era, and it seems unseemly at best.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I think your demi-gods should be taxed a good bit higher than they are at present. I notice you don't present this in your thesis.
> ...



I think sufficient evidence has been presented that it would make a substantiallly larger difference than you are presenting, and your statements following your assertions seem to suggest that not doing it is more about your politics than your logic, as do your flaying of Obama for his political fund raising. As to campaign spending, I completely agree with you, but if you think the Republicans will be asleep at that wheel, you're missing the big picture. So Obama raises 1 billion, and the Republicans only raise 850 million?? I blame The Supremes and the lack of campaign reform legislation. I believe in limited public financing for campaigns.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> Things like government-funded infrastructure development are a good idea but it's a short-term fix: those folks need something else to do in 3-5 years, unless you just want to start building roads for the heck of it... That's not sustainable. There are pieces of it that are sustainable in the long-term, like putting together the infrastructure we need for green energy. But that's not enough to get us anywhere near full employment - the private sector needs to kick in to make that happen.
> 
> On the society side, we need to get back to a society that values contribution to the greater good more than individual net worth. High-net worth individuals are almost demi-gods these days regardless of what they've actually done for America (e.g. Steve Jobs). We also need to shift away from the "post-your-favorite-link" society: the ease with which people can access information has prevented them from thinking through these kinds of topics. Hence the Wall Street protests that seem to be based on demands that, if met, would produce nowhere near the effect they intend.
> 
> ...



To address your other points, we agree that infrastructure job creation,especially sustainability-based government funded green jobs, are a short term fix. In my view, a very necessary one. This economy/country/national gloom needs a kick start. For the anti-federalists among us, I'd be quite happy to have the states administer these programs, with the proviso that the money was spent ONLY to create new employment, not to maintain the status quo nor to pay down present debt. Regardless of who administers it ( state or feds) I think there should be serious oversight and accountability to insure that the money is spent as intended. Some of those "green" jobs may turn longer term. Regardless of the Solyndra debacle, government has to continue fund new initiatives that might create employment. There will be wins and losses, but we have to try everything.

To your points about society, as I said earlier, I think high net worth individuals should be taxed more heavily, but as to changing hearts and minds re/ who is doing good with their money and who is not, I think that's a useless enterprise. I admire what Gates/Buffet/Turner/Bloomberg are doing with their money, but it could be argued that in giving it to charity, they are halting the velocity of that money except for the healthcare/research industry, which seems to be pretty well financed already. Your particular obsession with Steve Jobs is interesting. Having created a 5000% profit for his shareholders since inception, a lot of investors (I am one) were made pretty happy by his industry, and it created wealth that went back into the economy. Apple created a lot of jobs. Pixar created a lot of jobs. I understand parts of your argument, however. Certainly, there is limited American manufacturing going on here, but that's endemic to American corporations in this era, and as we agree upon, we need to find solutions to this.

As to "post your own link" affecting thinking, more information, right or wrong, is not a bad thing in my view. The lack of critical thinking and a general laziness in analysis were going on long before there was an Internet, and idealogues rarely become critical thinkers.

Whereas I agree that the Occupy Wall Street thing is murky, it does indicate, like the rise of the Tea Party, a general dissatisfaction among the middle class as to their diminishing lifestyle. To your last point, people *are* waking up....in a bad mood.


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> I think sufficient evidence has been presented that it would make a substantiallly larger difference than you are presenting


Like what? All I've seen are Nick's comments which amount to nothing more than "You're wrong" or other arguments (like the funding for teachers) that actually prove my point.

Here are the facts: the top 1% of income earners pay about 40% of the taxes. In 2010, the IRS collected about $1100 billion in income taxes, so the top 1% paid about $440 billion in taxes.

Let's REALLY stretch and say you can get another 50% out of them. That's an extra $220 billion. After the federal government gets done with it, it's probably a quarter of that amount that actually gets back out to the Americans who really need it. So $55 billion is what you'll get to help all those unemployed Americans.

Apple, all by its lonesome, has about $75 billion cash on hand. One company. $75 billion. How much do you think is out there in ALL the corporate cash on hand? It dwarfs the measly $55 billion you get from your protracted political battle, if you can even make it happen. Going after the corporations, however, would require less political wrangling to effect the necessary changes to get that cash back into the economy.

You really think going after the $55 billion is a good use of time? No way.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2011)

Go back over this thread, Richard.

My debating technique is quite a bit more than shouting "fuck you."

I say "conservative bullshit" to George because I don't have the energy to explain trickle-on economics yet again. And he knows full well why I say it's bullshit.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2011)

By the way, I have a problem with the parallel between the Koch suckers' teabagging and the OWC demonstrations.

The former is a very negative movement of manipulated morons without a clue, the latter is a few morons without a clue plus a whole lot of people who absolutely do have a clue.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I think sufficient evidence has been presented that it would make a substantiallly larger difference than you are presenting
> ...



Firstly, your math is about guesstimates. You make assumptions, ok, here's another one. Let's say your $220 billion figure is accurate. Let's say your figuring of the percentage given to jobs stimulus is wrong by half, so now-$110 billion for jobs. A YEAR. That dwarfs whatever could be garnered from Apple's money, (and btw, once, again, what puts Apple in your scope and removes every other Microsoft, Cisco, Exxon blah blah blah? Even if Apple is the most egregious hoarder, why is it ALL about them? You never mention any other).

$110 billion a year would be well over a trillion in ten years. That's a lot of jobs. Add that to corporate profit and job re-patriation, we're getting there.

Btw-so we're clear-of COURSE $55 billion is worth going after. How could it not be?? $110 billion even more so-ESPECIALLY if there is, and I think this is of paramount importance, a shit-ton of oversight to insure the money collected is being spent as it should be.


----------



## Udo (Oct 20, 2011)

Jose's question to George Caplan:


josejherring @ Fri Oct 21 said:


> George do you know the history of the conservative movement, where it came from and why it was brought about? I say this not in a condescending way, but it has often baffled me, once I learned about the history of conservatism, why people continue to call themselves conservative. It's actually a really negative thing. And, I'm not making it up out of some sort of bias.


Even a 2003 study funded by the conservative Bush govt, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition", concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2011)

And it can be explained in neurological terms: "inadequate reasoning facilities."


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 20, 2011)

Also Evangelical Infiltration.....


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> Even if Apple is the most egregious hoarder, why is it ALL about them?


That's exactly my point: Apple is only one of thousands. So the money you can get by increasing taxes is LESS than that available from only ONE of those thousands of corporations. Get it? You're looking at a TINY amount of revenue compared to what you could extract from the corporations.

I guess my point didn't get across. So I'll try again:

There's a pool of trillions of dollars sitting out there that could be used to reinvigorate this economy if the corporations were incentivized to do so. And you can get at that pool MUCH more easily than you can get at the pool of cash collected by the super-wealthy.

So, let's review. Given the choice to focus on increasing taxes on the wealthy or incentivizing corporations:

A. Going after the wealthy is harder to achieve.
B. The benefit is substantially less.

So why bother? Is our time really best spent on the more difficult task with significantly less payoff? Of course not. It just doesn't make sense.

95% of the benefit can be had from the corporations but 95% of the focus is on the wealthy. That's absurd.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if Apple is the most egregious hoarder, why is it ALL about them?
> ...



"Let's review." How pedantic and supercilious of you, not to mention unfortunate.

Richard, when you are done ignoring our every point of agreement, ignoring perfectly logical points I've made, and indulging yourself in: 

1.Pushing your talking points, 

2.Cherry picking one part of a discussion to win a high school debate, and 

3. Generally lecturing rather than discussing;

then perhaps we can have a conversation.

I am neither an ideologue nor an idiot, and won't tolerate being spoken to as either.

I got your point. I agreed. I still think we need to go after EVERYthing. There's no waste of time or energy- there will have to be MANY simultaneous initiatives to go at this problem. The widening gap between 1% and 99% is not something to be shrugged off-it's not good for ANYONE, not even the 1%, many of whom couldn't spend their wealth in 3 lifetimes....and they put themselves at risk if the great beast of the lower middle class rises up. Therefore, the collecting of more taxes is both economically and socially helpful.

However, I am starting to believe you're not particularly interested in agreement. I believe you're interested in being "right". Welcome to polarized America circa 2011-you're in the zone..


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 20, 2011)

Don't forget about the Hundreds of Billions in fraud and waste, + the duplicative programs that we were told about 2 years ago....
I can understand the Liberals wanting to keep that for later feastings, but why don't the budget cutters go get it......? 

I guess it's the good old 2 party sytem watching each others backs privately. But I do enjoy the staged cat fights, and silly speeches about rapes and murders that will occur if we don't spend this money right away. 

Both of these " parties " have us distracted with more crisises but seem to have lost the 5-600 Billion of TARP and Stimulus Grande that has been returned with interest, and the other 350-400 Billion in fraud and waste.
There's a trillion bucks, and I find it really strange that we have to " search " for money. Borrow, print or tax anything....??

There Ya' Go, and now that I have fixed the economy single handidly, I will try and find a real journalist to ask these questions, but they're in the tank, and would hate to have any advertisements pulled, so maybe one of those real journalists from Al Jazeerah, or those Mexican journalists that risk getting beheaded.....at least they're doing their jobs.
Our 2 parties, their bosses and the entire media is in bed together, or we'd be hearing questions like this instead of the usual softballs, and worshipping remarks....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... world.html

Let's just start with the first name in that group of 50 corporations.
Then find the patrician leaders name, and you'll see .............
Since you've gone this far google him and see who he's married to.
Now imagine some of the reasons why I don't buy the shell games and elaborate corporate backed media, or it's ads which are also lies.
At least Warren Buffets insurance company bombards us with funny commercials....


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> "Let's review." How pedantic and supercilious of you, not to mention unfortunate.


Well, that's not my intent. Your reply seemed to indicate that you missed the point I was making. I wasn't singling out Apple. I was using Apple to show that their piece is bigger than the ENTIRE benefit from increases in taxation on the wealthy, and they're only a fraction of the pool of cash out there, so focusing on increases in taxation on the wealthy is silly. There's a solution to the sluggish economy; sure, taxes on the wealthy can help, but it's a *tiny* part of the solution. So why put the focus there? Why not focus on actions that will produce *much* more benefit for struggling Americans?

And sure, assume your $110 billion number is correct. That's still nothing compared to the corporate cash sitting there doing nothing. Yes, my numbers are estimates. But any rational bounds that you can place on those estimates still shows that going after the wealthy is pointless. That's the point of estimates: I could be off by a factor of 2 or 3 and my argument still stands. If it's $55 billion or $110 billion or $165 billion doesn't matter: they're all tiny compared to the cash on hand in corporate America. So who cares what we could get by focusing on the wealthiest 1%?

That's been my point since the very start of this thread: the focus of the OWS protests is in the wrong place.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > "Let's review." How pedantic and supercilious of you, not to mention unfortunate.
> ...



How many times do I have to say "I get it" to your point and agree with the parts I agree to until you get it? Do I have to "review" or are you mostly about re-stating?

Do you get my point that the financial problem needs to be attacked from multiple positions, and that leaving hundreds of billions fallow makes no sense? Please answer yes or no, unless of course-you'd like to re-state your re-statement of your position.


----------



## rgames (Oct 20, 2011)

NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> Do you get my point that the financial problem needs to be attacked from multiple positions, and that leaving hundreds of billions fallow makes no sense? Please answer yes or no, unless of course-you'd like to re-state your re-statement of your position.


Of course we should go after it from all angles. I've already said that multiple times, so now I'm re-stating per your request 

The point is that the focus is not on all angles; it's on one angle, and it's the angle with the least impact.

I'll feel better when the protestors wake up to that fact.

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 20, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> NYC Composer @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you get my point that the financial problem needs to be attacked from multiple positions, and that leaving hundreds of billions fallow makes no sense? Please answer yes or no, unless of course-you'd like to re-state your re-statement of your position.
> ...



I think you'll be feeling the pain for a while then, because the Occupy movement is far too ragtag and disorganized to start "realizing" much of anything in a focused way.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 20, 2011)

A tax cut to a corporation is no incentive for them to brings jobs back to the USA.

They can hire a Chinese for $10-20. Maybe a little more these days.
There are also not much in the way of labor laws, business regulations or polution control laws.

How will a tax incentive overcome that?

I suggest a tax on any product they import. A stiff tax.

If they want to use foreign labor then they should move their company overseas.
Really, who needs them if they pay salaries to Chinese or Indians who then pay taxes to China or India and spend their money in China or India, who needs them here.

Even if they use their salaries to buy US goods it doesn't help the amerian people.
Not if the company making those goods is using foreign labor.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Oct 21, 2011)

I must admit, in general I'm far more interested in the movement itself than the endless arguments here over what we'd personally like to see happen. Hence my failed effort at starting a different thread, about which there was no interest whatsoever so I guess I'm on my own here!

But on the off chance that anyone here is interested in the movement itself and what might ACTUALLY happen, this is a really interesting piece from Simon Jenkins' - the Guardian's resident contrarian - who spends most of his time winding up the regular readers. This is a very good piece, I broadly agree - the movement is simply to comfortable without anything like enough wider discomfort for it to be successful. What Simon doesn't entertain, however, is what might happen if the economy lurches scarily downwards again, which is my real interest in the movement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ir-scenery


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 21, 2011)

P.T. @ Thu Oct 20 said:


> I suggest a tax on any product they import. A stiff tax.
> 
> If they want to use foreign labor then they should move their company overseas.
> Really, who needs them if they pay salaries to Chinese or Indians who then pay taxes to China or India and spend their money in China or India, who needs them here.
> ...



there's a big misunderstanding about labor producing goods abroad. after all if its produced in china then its not foreign labor.  it doesnt necessarily mean loss of jobs at home or loss of earnings.

import tax already exists but if we went big on that then trade war possibilities loom. very fine balancing act


----------



## Gusfmm (Oct 21, 2011)

There also seems to be some lack of clarity on some of the argumentation on Wealthy vs. Corporations.

1) Taxing the Wealthy implies a couple of things:
- Closing the gap between tax levels for the regular Joe and tax level for these "super-wealthy".
- This tax increase bites into the wealthy's profits, to help balance "public/common interest" matters. The Wealthy will continue making money, and looking for ways to make more.

2) Taxing more a Corporation most of the time means:
- Reducing stakeholder's value (returns).
- Corporation turning to having to compensate. 99% of the time, that happens by reducing *workforce*, which doesn't help fix unemployment.

If I had to start somewhere, I'd definitely start by fixing 1). However, the problem(s) have way deeper roots. I had an old-school economics teacher who used to say: You take away all the wealthiest of the world's wealth, and give it to the poor, and in 5 years, the poor will have spent it all and continue being poor, and the wealthy will have made their fortunes back...


----------



## midphase (Oct 21, 2011)

Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 21 said:


> I had an old-school economics teacher who used to say: You take away all the wealthiest of the world's wealth, and give it to the poor, and in 5 years, the poor will have spent it all and continue being poor, and the wealthy will have made their fortunes back...




Yeah...but what an awesome 5 years it will have been!


----------



## P.T. (Oct 21, 2011)

George Caplan @ Fri Oct 21 said:


> P.T. @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest a tax on any product they import. A stiff tax.
> ...



I don't know what you're talking about.

If an american company is having it's products manufactured in China by what logic is it not foreign labor?

As for trade war, China has little to no economy other than doing manufacturing for other nations.
The US is probably their biggest source of income.
They will have little choice but to deal with it.

And the real issue isn't China paying import duties.
I think I was clear that I was talking about american companies having their products manufactured in China.
It would be the american companies paying the import tax.

I am specifically advocating a stiff penalty tax on american corporations who outsource jobs and then wish to import the goods into america.

Though I am also in favor of import taxes on Chines goods made by Chinese companies. Not a punitive tax, just one that is based on the difference in the cost of living and, therefore, the cost of manufacturing goods.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2011)

> I had an old-school economics teacher who used to say: You take away all the wealthiest of the world's wealth, and give it to the poor, and in 5 years, the poor will have spent it all and continue being poor, and the wealthy will have made their fortunes back...



Right, but of course nobody is suggesting that we confiscate anyone's fortune and give it to the poor. The issue - and yes, Richard, it's not the immediate crisis, okay okay okay - is that over the past 30 years all the growth has gone to the top at the expense of the middle class.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 22, 2011)

P.T. @ Fri Oct 21 said:


> George Caplan @ Fri Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > P.T. @ Thu Oct 20 said:
> ...



then youre a moron.

by pure definition foreign labor is labor that exists in YOUR country or the country of origin. for example if goods were being made in the states by chinese workers that are not american citizens then they would be classed as foreign labor. goods that were designed and corporately owned in the states like lets say Apple that are then manufactured in china or any other country apart from the US are made by chinese labor and certainly not foreign labor. you cant be foreign labor in your own country.
if apples were manufactured in china by labor that was not by a chinese citizen then that is foreign labor indigenous to china but not the US.

overseas manufacturing is a great help to economies and has been for many many years and im not getting into the whys of that. look it up. there is a massive difference between manufacturing overseas and the more recent perceived rise in foreign labor.

this is simple basic economic stuff and im amazed that you cant see that. although im not really surprised in this day and age.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2011)

Being a moron, it seems to me that overseas manufacturing is a sword with many facets.

We get cheap goods, the Chinese get millions of people lifted out of total poverty, we lose manufacturing jobs, investors make more money because of the lower manufacturing costs, the Chinese buy dollars/lend us money very cheaply to buy those goods, that lowers their currency and makes their exports less expensive.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 22, 2011)

Gusfmm @ Fri Oct 21 said:


> There also seems to be some lack of clarity on some of the argumentation on Wealthy vs. Corporations.
> 
> 1) Taxing the Wealthy implies a couple of things:
> - Closing the gap between tax levels for the regular Joe and tax level for these "super-wealthy".
> ...



With regards to your 2nd point, we are seeing workforce reductions even with corporate taxes being low and corporate profits being very high.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 22, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Oct 22 said:


> Being a moron, it seems to me that overseas manufacturing is a sword with many facets.
> 
> We get cheap goods, the Chinese get millions of people lifted out of total poverty, we lose manufacturing jobs, investors make more money because of the lower manufacturing costs, the Chinese buy dollars/lend us money very cheaply to buy those goods, that lowers their currency and makes their exports less expensive.



yes. the sword with many facets is a good way of putting it. but the point i was trying to make is there seems to be lets say a misguided view in the US at the moment that manufacturing overseas is foreign labor and costing us jobs. not really the case in fact. how the hell can a chinese working in china be foreign labor?

foreign labor has become almost a racist insult in some places in the world. not here on this forum i hasten to add. it is the same easy cop out that people use for being a total loser and the inability to make money. thats what it really means. i would argue to the death for the US to come good and employ everyone but the overseas manufacturing is not part of that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2011)

I think it's part of that but not the whole picture.

Before Volker put the final nail in the coffin in 1981, the US had a whole lot of manufacturing. Since then it's gone overseas.

And of course it's not just manufacturing that's gone overseas. If I have the statistic right, import/export is 18% of our economy. The number of exported jobs in that isn't insignificant, but it's not the main problem.


----------



## rgames (Oct 22, 2011)

George Caplan @ Sat Oct 22 said:


> there seems to be lets say a misguided view in the US at the moment that manufacturing overseas is foreign labor and costing us jobs. not really the case in fact. how the hell can a chinese working in china be foreign labor?


I'm not sure I follow - are you saying it's not foreign labor because the US companies are purchasing manufacturing services and not the labor? If so, that's true but not a valid argument because the labor goes along with the product. Sure, the US companies aren't directly hiring foreign laborers but they are sourcing items from factories that do.

I think the wealth gap in this country has a lot (maybe everything) to do with moving manufacturing (and services) overseas. Here's why:

Consider two separate pieces of the labor force: the laborers and the overseers. The laborers include everyone who is "touch labor" - i.e. the people who actually touch the product while it's being manufactured, basically the factory workers. The overseers include the executives, engineers, lawyers, etc. - i.e. the people normally referred to as the "professionals". These two groups are also broadly referred to as "Blue Collar" and "White Collar".

Throughout the history of America, The American middle class has relied heavily on those Blue Collar jobs for their income. The White Collar workers, however, can just as easily make a living whether the Blue Collar workers are in the US, China, India, or anywhere else.

So, if the Blue Collar jobs shift out of the American economy, the middle class loses a large portion of its traditional income. However, the White Collar workers are now overseeing operations with lower costs because the foreign labor is much cheaper than US labor, so they make even more money.

Therefore, the White Collar Workers get richer and the Blue Collar workers get poorer. Therein lies the essence of the wealth gap that has emerged in the US over the last 30 years or so.

QED 

rgames


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 22, 2011)

I think we're getting into issues of semantics here. Obviously a Chinese worker in a Chinese factory cannot be called a foreign worker, since they are working in their native country. However, if that Chinese worker is being paid by an American company to produce goods designed by Americans and sold TO Americans, then from our viewpoint, that would be foreign *labor*. In other words, the WORKER is native but the WORK is not (the work is being funded by another country and is for the benefit of another country.) 

I say this is getting into semantics because "labor" can be defined as both work/activity (eg. the abstract concept of producing widgets) as well as people doing the work (eg. the tangible group of people producing the widgets.) So ultimately it's accurate to call an group of immigrant gardeners in the U.S. "foreign labor", and it's also accurate to call the idea of outsourced manufacturing "foreign labor".

Also, I don't think the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs has much to do with the wealth gap. Specific companies and industries may have been affected by this, but the U.S. has been transitioning to a service economy for quite some time now. The issue is decreased regulations (allowing for mega-mergers and financial activities that benefit only a tiny group of people), poor tax policy (loopholes benefiting the rich, lowered tax rates benefiting the rich, etc.), corporate greed (profits soaring up while corps refuse to hire more or give raises) and inflation of goods/services like education, transportation and housing, all of which hurt "the 99%" far more as these things have a flat cost as opposed to a % cost.


----------



## NYC Composer (Oct 22, 2011)

Semantics and silliness. Everyone but George knew what was being talked about-the outsourcing of jobs to other countries for the purpose of bringing labor costs down for companies that originate in the United States.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 22, 2011)

It's a little deeper than outsourcing though. An exchange of technology and information in exchange for an endless debt that only exists on paper.
The Chinese were handed an Amercian deep water port during the Monica Lewinsky distraction, where naturually nobody is ever charged with anything, but the media is happy to do its job.
In the meantime during 98-99 COSCO ships immediately started off loading container ships, and to this day little if any regulation or taxes are applied.
Our children get toys with Lead in them, we buy back back our rubber in the form of counterfeit tires, etc. 
FWIW Americans aren't allowed there, but they finally stopped having Red Army guards walking the perimeter. 
But make no mistake they own that part of California...

I imagine California Senators and Congressmen spoke with their consituents on this important matter. Nope, they followed orders, took their favors and cash, and told themselves it was National Security, or the usual we know what's best for you.

Im quite sure they were more than happy to blame it on Clinton, that's the usual game once a group of elites has left office.
The very same elites now have Bush to blame, and Romney/Cain will have Obama to blame, and the sad thing is none of these Presidents even had a choice....like TARP.....Why would Bush resist, he's leaving...Such great timing these elites have 'eh..?

So who made this happen...?
Where's the bought and paid for media...........well in this case, they were doing their job. To not report it, especially while we were all watching the phony trial where nobody as usual gets convicted.

Those are the people we should concern ourselves with, but Sam has his shit together.
We all like to blame the President, the Left Hand, The Right Hand, etc.
Sadly people forgot that the Brain tells the left and right hands when to move.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 22, 2011)

George,

I can see how you might have misconstrued my Oct, 20 10;12 post even though I thought it was fairly clear that I was 

talking about american companies that do their manufacturing overseas.
I was not referring to goods made by a Chinese company.


But, in my reply to your 3:57am post I think I made it clear enough for anyone to understand.
My 10/21 11:15 post is quite clear that I was talking about american companies having their manufacturing done in 

factories in China. What is commonly known as outsourcing.

I begin to wonder if you know what outsourcing is.

If you can't be bothered reading the posts you are responding to then you might want to reserve words like moron for 

yourself.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me.
Or even calling my positions idiotic.

However, you have shown that you either do not read the posts you comment on or that you have no idea what 

outsorucing is.

Maybe you might consider going back over the posts and actually read them and ytou might understand how Chinese 

workers working in Chinese factories can be foreign labor.
It has to do with who is hiring them.
If an american company is bypassing the american worker, going to china and building a foctory and hiring Chinese to 

work in it for that american company, or the american company is contracting a Chinese factory to do the 

manufacturing for that american company then that american company has hired those Chinese workers.

As I posted in an earlier post, the american company is paying foreign workers, instead of american workers.
That is money leaving america.

Those Chinese workers then pay taxes to the Chinese government. That is tax loss to the american government that an 

american worker would have paid had that american worker been hired instead.

Those Chinese workers then spend that salary in China, which is a further loss for the american economy because an 

american worker would have spent that money in america.

Even if the Chinese workers was to use the salary to buy an american product, if that product was manufactured in 

China then the money is still just staying in china because the american company that made the product made it in 

china and pays salaries to the Chinese workers.
That money does not enter the american economy.

This is an entire losing proposition for the american people.
The only people who benefit are the Chinese and the corporations.

Cheap good are no consolation for people who don't have jobs.

When I said that these good should have stiff import taxes I was referring to these goods made through outsourcing.
I would also tax Goods manufactured by Chinese compnies because they already tax our imports and because taxes that are based on the differences in costs of living and therefore in cost of manufacture are simply meant to create a level playing field.

If the Chinese see this as a trade was, then so be it.
They are the ones who will suffer the most as they depend on the USA for a very large amount of their income and there booming economy.
They make very little that we need other than what they make through outsourcing for american companies.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 23, 2011)

zircon_st @ Sat Oct 22 said:


> So ultimately it's accurate to call an group of immigrant gardeners in the U.S. "foreign labor"



that is correct



zircon_st @ Sat Oct 22 said:


> and it's also accurate to call the idea of outsourced manufacturing "foreign labor".



that is not correct.

and good luck the next time you buy stock for your 401k too. :D 


seriously, if you came into my old offices and shouted hey everybody we re overun with chinese foreign labor they would peer over their screens at you and hit the sell tab pretty darn quick. or go out and hire as many as they could for their massive gardens.


to think that just because a thing is designed here and made somewhere else is something new and costing us jobs is naive in the extreme. if we turned it around and said we re now doing all our own manufacturing in the US and turning off the tap then /they/being china etc would turn off theirs. government debt doesnt fund the private sector. it funds blue and white collar public sector workers. dont believe it? ask greece.
trying to make china devalue and also to expect them to become more of a consumer society is a great idea but it has to be remembered that at least 95% of the pop are still peasants. same with india.

we have historically a very large internal market in terms of retail activity whereby we as consumers have always gone out and bought. and that has been a sustaining economical factor over time. not so many years ago there was a great deal more retail activity and demand than today. when all that demand was high china amongst many other overseas manufacturers were still doing most of the making of these retail items being bought.

what does that tell you?

it works both ways. uk residents will tell you that if it wasnt for asian and european companies setting up in the uk they would have had much higher unemployment even in the faux labor boom years. in other words demand was covered by debt. and at the same time their labor government was racking up enormous debt and selling things like gold at knock down prices. and then throwing money at the public sector and crazy social schemes. that is why theyre where they now are. along with a lot of other euro countries although theyre lucky theyre not part of the eurozone.

no one said anything about the next couple of years being easy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 23, 2011)

> it funds blue and white collar public sector workers. dont believe it? ask greece



Greece happens to be the only example.

I'm not sure how you can make the argument that outsourcing isn't costing us (or the UK) jobs.


----------



## P.T. (Oct 23, 2011)

"we have historically a very large internal market in terms of retail activity whereby we as consumers have always gone out and bought. and that has been a sustaining economical factor over time."

If those goods are manufactured in China, even if they were manufactured by an american company, that retail activity does next to nothing for the american people and the economy of the american people.

It is only good for the corporate economy.
Admittedly it will sustain jobs for the people working in the retail stores, but the money from the sales that goes to the corporation gets sent back to China in the form of salaries and manufacturing infrastructure.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 24, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Oct 23 said:


> > it funds blue and white collar public sector workers. dont believe it? ask greece
> 
> 
> 
> ...



greece is the only example if you will thats very open at_ the_ moment. everyone in europe on the edge needs a bailout for their public sector just to be paid. not just greece although greece is the highest profile. 

outsourcing is a better term than foreign labor but overseas manufacturing has been going on for longer than anyone can remember. do you want that to stop? i mean really? :shock: :D 

ie apple make computers and peripherals. they are made in china. china do not sell those goods to us. apple sells those goods to us. apple sells those goods all over the world. not china. 
if you go out and buy say a brand new mercedes automobile do you regard that as being made by foreign labor? or being outsourced? does it really matter who designed it? if you buy a second hand model does it concern you that you could be costing someone a job that makes new models?

and think about how much a mercedes or an apple would cost if it was manufactured here in the states excluding currency exchange fluctuations etc. a lot would say cheaper than but i wouldnt be so sure about that.

re the uk. that is becoming a very small part of the world economy and not really as important as it once was. you can quote figures but i cant see it. the uk will just be part of the overall european economy as time passes. it will be part of the eurozone one day if the whole thing doesnt crash first. no choice.

as for myself im waiting on wednesday and the figures the eurozone comes out with. if theyre disappointing then that could be painful.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Oct 24, 2011)

> that is not correct.



Care to explain why? I mean it really is just semantics, but since you've called people names for not agreeing with you on the definition I'm curious what your explanation is.

The act of manufacturing widgets is labor, which I think we agree on. Now, it seems like you're saying that act of manufacturing widgets in China is not "foreign" regardless of whether the labor is funded by an American or a Chinese company for American or Chinese purposes. That simply doesn't follow logically. Clearly that is not the same labor.

Put another way, you're saying "outsourcing" is a better term, but that's saying the same thing as "foreign labor". Outsourcing means that company X is paying an external company Y (eg. a foreign company) to do something (eg. labor) that is part of company X's business process (eg. manufacturing.) Foreign labor.

Regardless, I'm also not sure I understand your explanation of how outsourcing doesn't cost us jobs or remove money from our economy. Let's say Company X makes widgets. In the U.S., they have 50 people making widgets in a factory, paying them a total of $2 million per year. They decide to outsource those jobs to Thailand. Those 50 Americans no longer have their jobs. It's not very complicated; the act of outsourcing caused us to lose jobs. Furthermore, any wages paid by Company X to the Thai workers are gone from our economy. Sure, Company X might be saving money (let's say $1.5 million) but that still leaves a loss of $500k from our economy. 

I'm not saying outsourcing is bad, but by definition it means that work is moving from one company/country to another...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2011)

> greece is the only example if you will thats very open at_ the_ moment



Sure, we're going to see an avalanche. But you were saying or implying that all European-style democratic socialism leads to Greece. Not true.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 24, 2011)

SPY is up about 12% since the occupation began -- like 1% a day. Wonder what Jamie Dimon has banked in that time.

edit... sorry it's only about 10%


----------



## Udo (Oct 24, 2011)

*Most of Europe's economic problems are directly attributable to the US*



> .... greece is the only example if you will thats very open at_ the_ moment. everyone in europe on the edge needs a bailout for their public sector just to be paid. not just greece although greece is the highest profile.


Most of the current economic problems in Europe are directly attributable to the US:

- Goldman Sachs helped Greece "cook the books" for nearly a decade, so they could join the EU (and the GFC greatly exasserbated their problems once they had joined). 

- Most of the other European economic problems are attributable to the aftermath of the GFC, which was caused by the US (as even concluded by a US govt review panel).

I'm not going to elaborate here; there's plenty of evidence available.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 24, 2011)

Hats off to the President again for using Executive Priveledges to sidestep Congress.
I doubt we will hear the real details in the media, but anyone who pays Personal Property Taxes funds Public Union Jobs.

While this won't create or rehire new employees, it will give the States a shot in the arm.
When appraisal rates dropped 40-50%, and non payments were at 20% it crushed the States revenue for funding these programs.
Since Mortgages all have included Personal Property Taxes, this Executive Order kills 2 birds with one stone.

I don't agree with these endless bail outs, but these are tough times and on my street alone there are 10 empty homes now, I have to cut 2 lawns for the Bank and plan on charging them according to the Zoning Laws. Im gonna bend them over as far as I can, and tell them Im Union....
They came and Painted and cleaned up the houses, planted signs, and then they're gone like a fart in the wind.
Im an asshole when it comes to having a decent looking yard, I even bought a flat plastic pan and stuck it under my neighbors piece of shit leaky car..

Screw Congress, do the right thing, as long as we use the returned stimulus money and quit pretending we have to borrow from the CHinese to keep our classrooms a certain size..

I hope one time in my life I can have just one week go by where nobody lies to me.....I was lied to when I was born.
Santa, God, etc............now polticians and the media, my own damn kid, my old lady, the Fillipino Mailman, ,,.......they're killing me..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2011)

According to this (linked from my Main Man Paul Krugman's blog), it could create a whole lot of jobs if the Feds buy mortgage-backed securities as well.


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 25, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 24 said:


> > greece is the only example if you will thats very open at_ the_ moment
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, we're going to see an avalanche. But you were saying or implying that all European-style democratic socialism leads to Greece. Not true.



no i said those on the edge. which has been covered here over and over. today is a nervous day. im on the edge. :lol:


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 25, 2011)

*Re: Most of Europe's economic problems are directly attributable to the US*



Udo @ Mon Oct 24 said:


> Most of the current economic problems in Europe are directly attributable to the US:
> 
> - Goldman Sachs helped Greece "cook the books" for nearly a decade, so they could join the EU (and the GFC greatly exasserbated their problems once they had joined).



crap.


----------



## Udo (Oct 25, 2011)

*Re: Most of Europe's economic problems are directly attributable to the US*



George Caplan @ Tue Oct 25 said:


> Udo @ Mon Oct 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the current economic problems in Europe are directly attributable to the US:
> ...


George, did you get that directly from your friends at Goldman Sachs? Don't they call it "creative accounting"? Anyway, "crap" is probably a more appropriate description for that type of deceit.  

The whole purpose of their (and there were others) machinations was to help conceal the enormous Greek debt and to circumvent the EU deficit rules.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 31, 2011)

Well the original message of Government in Collusion with Cronie Capitalism and Wall Street Financial Institutions is the main message here in the Las Vegas OWS camp out. We visited them and brought 50 gallons of water in 10 gallon jugs.
The Unions were no where to be seen or the COmmies and Soros Socialists, and Obama wouldn;t go within a mile of them last week while he was here.
Also not seen in the media was the fact not one single COngressmen or Senator, Governor or local poloitician greeted him other than Oscar Goodmans wife ( married to the x mafia lawyer who has been mayor for 12 years ).
In a right to work State Unions get all of the big pay jobs, and can be voted out by the citizens at any time, so this pretty much provides a balance.
State like New York and California where politicians have created the taxpayers covering members pensions, while Union dues are given back to politicians for campaign contributions is the main reason why those State remain Union. Also why they are the states with the largest deficits and powerless to have Union leaders negotiate techers benefit reduction to remain on the job.

Local Casinos are even comping meals for the protestors as they seem to be a left wing version of the Tea Party who actually is calling on their own to stop colluding with Wall Street.
But since Liberals are some of the wealthiest members of DC their voices will be smothered out by the voice demanding we need more politicians to feed us and give us more breaks on loans for school and mortgages.

Makes me proud to be a Nevadan.....


----------



## George Caplan (Oct 31, 2011)

chimuelo @ Mon Oct 31 said:


> Well the original message of Government in Collusion with Cronie Capitalism and Wall Street Financial Institutions is the main message here in the Las Vegas OWS camp out.



how about they help the people that just lost their jobs at MF Global today. about 2000 in all. no surprise they went down because not long ago they downgraded to junk bond status. thats what risk is all about though. same as camping out in wall street. the risk of bad weather and getting cold versus loosing your job. the euro situation needs to be taken in hand before it turns really bad for us.


----------



## chimuelo (Oct 31, 2011)

Liberal Billionaire John Corzine was removed as Governor by the Prosecutor who actually jailed politicians for a living. He turned his state around and who knows what the wealthy Liberal Corzine would have done to save his failing ponzi scheme if he still had the power of New Jersey tax payer mponey behind him.
But he really does care about the little people, protector of the poor and homeless.

Now he'll lose his Jets, and SUV's but don't expect to see him on a train or an electric car, those are for the peasants that send their kids to public schools, a place Corzines children never have stepped into before.....

God Bless The USA............ 0oD


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 1, 2011)

no h in jon.  

but the question today is this.

is the greek prime minister mad? because what are they going to do if they veto the eurozone decision in a referendum?

if i was germany or france today i would suggest that they may be seriously considering leaving the eurozone.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 1, 2011)

You know I can handle the extra taxes, higher gas and food, it's just part of life that reminds us it's a feast or famine world, not the fairy tales the elites claim wait for us in the utopia they dream of.
But last night was the saddest Halloween I have ever seen and I never miss one,
When children start becoming affected from the horse shit these rich pricks in DC shovel out I get angry.
Entire neighborhoods are dark now. When I was a kid we filled 3 or 4 pillow cases full of food and then my mom and dad would check the booty jusy in case some freakbag stuck us with a turd covered in chocolate or something.
But we got a half of pillowcase of candy and had to drive to certain neighrboods just looking for porchlights.
I blame these elite game players in DC with their speeches of higher rapes and murders if we dont pass the Jobs Bill, and the usual racism as a way to divide up people into groups for targetting.
My son and his friends know nothing of racism and only hear it from these " leaders ".
I hold them responsible for every single failure and economic trouble we are seeing.'

THe housing boom exists only in DC right now as thousands move there for work and feasting. I plan on hitting every town hall meeting from here on out and showing my total lack of respect for these bums.

When my child and children in the neighborhood are all sad faced that's where I draw the line, and it starts right in DC...

They have fleeced us for enough tax payer money and sold out our people to appease global banks for campaign money.....I am on a mission now, remove Harry Reid and the rest of the wealthy Liberals who are the " protectors " of the people...


----------



## midphase (Nov 3, 2011)

The official corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but that would be tough to tell by looking at the financial statements of some of the nation's largest companies.

A new study out Thursday found that 280 of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies faced federal income tax bills of 18.5 percent of their profits for the past three years, or a little more than half of the official rate. Furthermore, 30 of the companies faced an average annual tax bill of less than zero between 2008 and 2010, and 78 companies posted at least one no-tax year during that stretch, according to the report from the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice. 


Full article here:

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/03/corporate_tax_study_some_on_fortune_500_paid_no_taxes.html (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/ ... taxes.html)


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 3, 2011)

Yepp, and who is getting the best deal of all....? Jeff Immelt who sits in on Obamas Cabinet meetings, and is even the head of the Jobs Council which is suppose to help create jobs in the USA....... :mrgreen: 
But while Obamas Bro made 14.8 Billion in profit last year and didn't pay a single penny in taxes, he even moved his entire XRay Medical Division to CHina and helped them create 25,000 jobs... :lol: 
Make no mistake it's not the Corporations fault, they pay Obama and other Liberals big money for the laws they purchase. You can't blame them.

The DNC use to hide the fact they danced for Wall Street dollars and sold legislation for corpporations, but now they don;t even try to hide it.
Just look at who sits in on Obamas Cabinet meetings....
Each one of them paid lots of money, and gets lots of laws for their campaign contributions........


----------



## rgames (Nov 3, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Nov 03 said:


> The official corporate tax rate is 35 percent, but that would be tough to tell by looking at the financial statements of some of the nation's largest companies.
> 
> A new study out Thursday found that 280 of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies faced federal income tax bills of 18.5 percent of their profits for the past three years, or a little more than half of the official rate. Furthermore, 30 of the companies faced an average annual tax bill of less than zero between 2008 and 2010, and 78 companies posted at least one no-tax year during that stretch, according to the report from the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice.
> 
> ...



Yes, but wouldn't you rather spend your time trying to get taxes out of wealthy individuals rather than corporations? After all, it's politically much more difficult and the benefits are much smaller. Sheesh...

See, I told you people would eventually wake up... 

rgames


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 3, 2011)

No, I'd rather do both-as I've said over and over and over.

"A few billion here, a few billion there, and after a while you're talking about real money".


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 3, 2011)

A few Billion here and there is nothing to a DC Lawyer, lobbyist or politician.
They prefer big chunks where the siphening process is less noticable...

And regardless of the silly debt clock, I don't believe we owe that much money. Nobody is too worried about it as they flock to buy billions of US Treasury Bonds.

IMHO we were bamboozled by the real powers who used TARP and Stimulus as a way to consolidate their power.


----------



## P.T. (Nov 3, 2011)

The problem with taxing corporate profits is that the corporation then raises it's prices so that the consumer ends up paying the tax.

I think taxing the people that make the money makes more sense.
Just raise the highest tax brackets.

There used to be a 90% tax on income above a certain level.
While I don't advocate a 90% tax, they could certainly raise the current rate of 33% (I thing that;s what it is now).

They could raise it to 40%. That wouldn't be 40% of the total, but 40% of the amount over a certain ceiling.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 3, 2011)

The bloggers and media have finally got everyone talking about taxes, they've succeeded.
Why go after the 350 billion in waste and duplicitive programs already discovered by Obamas committee.....?
Why use the returned profits and original TARP funds that have been returned in the neighborhoo0d of 500+ Billion.....??

Well because our " leaders " are committed to division, you see it in this thread, in the various cities where the Bill Ayers types and Union leaders are promoting violence. This is the confusion and divisiveness needed to keep people fighting amongst themselves so the status quo will remain.

Congradulations.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 3, 2011)

> The problem with taxing corporate profits is that the corporation then raises it's prices so that the consumer ends up paying the tax.



Not if there aren't any consumers.

But the real issue is that the government bailed out the banks that broke the country unconditionally, but we haven't bailed out the country. We should be investing in infrastructure and stopping the foreclosures.

And we would be if there weren't a Republican party ruining our country.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 4, 2011)

Ah don't worry Nick, those you worship made millions in kickbacks and Green investments. And the Conservatives won't ruin anything because ClubFed has it's shit together. They decide the rules of the game and when it starts and stops, not some silly script readers.

The returned stimulus money is something I have been tracking for a while with no luck what so ever. But the Inspector General has frozen these assets I believe through injunctions, since there are over 100 Criminal investigations currently underway. It's also one of the reasons that Corzine has lost 600 million dollars and can't seem to find it.

It has been frozen through an injunction. That's what happens when the big boys call in the chips. The music stopped and he was the last one standing. Just more proof that ClubFed wants the GOP to win in 2012 so the shell game and finger pointing can continue.

But go ahead and blame the GOP, there are millions like you who blame the DNC, and it's that level of thinking that allows the shell game to continue.

I think by 2016 you might start seeing how DC really works. Sure you and I want to vote for those who promise things to benefit us or our neighbors, and they are humane and kind, etc. But we get broken promises, and its the same game every decade.

These false parties make promises but they cannot be kept without the tacit authorization of their employers at ClubFed.
That's the way it has been for decades, and since these global banking giants have gobbled up thousands of smaller credit unions and banks and consolidated their power with the Stimulus money ( shovel ready ) they are stronger than ever. 

The real decision makers are choppered in from Andrews Air Force Base from around the Globe and these silly script readers are just for show.
What's really sad is they are terrible actors and actresses, and so many believe the spewed rhetoric.....

Just imagine Cain with Gingrich as the VP in 2012........
What a media circus and show that'll be.
Maybe he'll sing at the State Of The Union speeches, and have Pizzas delivered for the Press Corp....... /\~O


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 4, 2011)

there are no consumers. there is no demand out there. anywhere. china cant sell to the chinese and the japanese have massive problems with their currency plus the fact that japanese and chinese save rather than spend. in the west its not a question of saving but more a question of getting the personal debts like mortgages down which in effect is saving. its certainly not spending because in order to spend freely as was the case but 4 or 5 years ago most of the spending was done on the back of borrowing. catch 22.

when any of us talk about politicians just go back to the greek prime minister for a second and what can only be described as an aberration a couple days ago. its not just our politicians but politicians everywhere. just pray that these eurozone people get their act together and stop any contagion in italy and spain. because believe me if that were to happen no one anywhere will be doing anything.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Nov 4, 2011)

alongside all of the discussion, it would be lovely if you would consider dropping your banks:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90064103?Americans%20to%20take%20a%20stand%20against%20big%20banks%20on%20November%205%2C%20Bank%20Transfer%20Day%202011 (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles ... Day%202011)


----------



## P.T. (Nov 4, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Nov 03 said:


> > The problem with taxing corporate profits is that the corporation then raises it's prices so that the consumer ends up paying the tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, if there are no customers there are also no profits to tax, or incomes to tax either.

Tax the incomes made through the corporation.
Tax the incomes of workers, CEO, Shareholders, bond holders.
Tax the rich at a higher rate than other people and at a rate that is higher than it currently is.

I'm no fan of corporations.


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 4, 2011)

We must bail out Greece just to keep this major babe as head of the Socialist movement. I might even join if there's trim like this.
But in the USA it's usually the Rachel Maddow butchy haired broads with big buts.
This gal must be saved....

Why can;t we have politicians like this. I love being lied to by fine women, she could spend trillions and have it all disappear into the bottomless pit of public education, and I would let her have more...


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 4, 2011)

"Politicians Gone Wild"


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 4, 2011)

chimuelo @ Fri Nov 04 said:


> We must bail out Greece just to keep this major babe as head of the Socialist movement. I might even join if there's trim like this.
> But in the USA it's usually the Rachel Maddow butchy haired broads with big buts.
> This gal must be saved....
> 
> Why can;t we have politicians like this. I love being lied to by fine women, she could spend trillions and have it all disappear into the bottomless pit of public education, and I would let her have more...



:lol: 

yeah lets tax everything so that it just leaves the planet.

i know what you mean about some lady politicians. even had to deal with them in a former life. looking like a 350 pound sack of potatoes in a dress 30 milliseconds before getting hit by a steinway that just fell from a 15 story balcony. it can be grim.


----------



## NYC Composer (Nov 4, 2011)

Buy another Porsche, soothe yourself.

Oh-and buy one for the lady politician who had to deal with you....


----------



## synergy543 (Nov 4, 2011)

A refreshing point of view by Bill Moyers here.
http://www.truth-out.org/how-did-happen/1320278111


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 5, 2011)

I can't believe I'm finally seeing this become a popular theme.
The GOP had made an art of it in the late '80's as Reagan actually had refused certain contributors, but was also backed by the AFL-CIO. Now that's a successful politician to get everyone behind you to the point you can refuse donors considered nefarious.
The problem is these days they don't care who gives them cash to waste, they sell any favor for any amount for self preservation.

The fact that the DNC finally has been exposed for their Cronyism is a sign that the message is 5 by 5 and well understood now.
The most recent despicable " bill " passed was the Dodd-Frank Bill, where their buddies were allowed to keep borrowing Billions every year since they're too big to fail, but the failed executives not only recieve 900,000 USD as a yearly salary for their continued failures, but over 12.5 Million in bonuses............ >8o 

I wouldn;t imagine these provisions were conveniently left out in return for some campaign contributions.....

I maintain that when the money leaves the Capital as the main source of policy, all Americans will benefit, and we can return to those days where shareholders were the members of the company. Not some faceless profiteer with no concern for decades of hard work by people responsible for the sucess of said company...

I still remember my Father drilling into my head that you get a job with a company that provides a generous pension and allows rapid promotion from growth.

I can;t think of hardly any that operate like that, but I am far removed from such businesses, but hear of freinds losing their jobs after 15 years of work with little warning, etc...

I sure hope in my lifetime I see a party or movement that changes these wealthy Liberals and Conservatives rules and runs them out of town.
I want my son to be satisfied and have a good life like I have.
Not one riddled by debt from the Pole Dancing big spending whores from the Bush and Obama era....

FWIW Anyone who lives in Clark County is welcomed with open arms to the IBEW Credit Union.
The lines are longer at the windows since there's only 3 branches, but they have accepted all AFL-CIO, Culinary, Carpenters, etc. for years, and are now opened up to the public.

But if you're voting for Obama in 2012, you'll probably want to keep your money in the big banks since that's some of his Crony capitalist bros that get special bail outs and favors over smaller banks.......
But he really does care for all Union....................ooops..................I mean all working Americans.


----------



## George Caplan (Nov 10, 2011)

youre in the hands of the bond traders. i told you that months ago. the bond traders rule your ass. and dont forget it. :lol:


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 10, 2011)

We have the best Bond sellers at the Federal Reserve. Remember that big bond sell off a couple months back timed perfectly for the Downgrade of our credit...?
THis is why I feel safe. Sam has his shit together...
JUst look at at how many world leaders we've changed in the last year, and with any luck Chavez in Venezuala will go soon too, I think Sean Penn wants his gig though, or Fidels gig, not sure which one.
Then Micheal Moore a fellow 1%'r can have whichever gig Sean doesn't want. When actors want to become Mao or Stalin it's always interesting to see how they will explain the bad evil capitalist way, whlie hoarding their millions for the greater good....
I think they'd be better off as Governor of California, Californians seem to love actors like Reagan, Schwarzeneggar,
Now that Europes crashing, do you think they'll buy more Bonds from Uncle Sam.....?
Seems like the safe play to me. We probably are holding out the bail out money in front of them for the sale of the Bonds.........
Great scams, I really do feel safe knowing the Federal Reserve and IMF have their act together, just think what would happen if this " Pooper Committee " actually had any power......
Talk about bad actors.....

It seems like old Margeret Thatcher had the right idea when Europe thought the Utopian Socialist society was they way of the future.
She was right, eventually you run out of other peoples money to spend.....


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 13, 2011)

Occupy protest in my hometown is making the national news as the police try to flush them out after a midnight deadline. Several hundred people have occupied two blocks downtown and outnumber the police probably 20-1. It's really hard to tell what is going to happen. The police tried to move some people, but couldn't, and one idiot threw an firework that hurt a cop.

I should note that I support the police in every way. I hope no one gets hurt, but the police have been very restrained and patient, and enough is enough. It was enough weeks ago.

I also feel the 99ers, while originally have a valid complaint and I support that complaint are not represented here. These people need to understand the difference between occupy and organize.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Nov 13, 2011)

They are in good company. On July 28, 1932, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton went down Pennsylvania Ave in Washington DC to remove protesters. 

_"After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers."_

And who were these protesters? World War I veterans who wanted a bonus paid during the depression for their previous services.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army ... tervention


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 13, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVkC7kRFV8c


That has me incredibly upset. Berkley *turns down* 50,000 applicants a year, i.e. they only choose very strong students. My daughter is applying there for next year. If one of those MF bastards so much as thought about beating her with his penis baton, I'd sic every lawyer in the universe on him.

Why was it not in the news?


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 13, 2011)

JonFairhurst @ Sun Nov 13 said:


> They are in good company...


Jon - I know you are from my area, but I work about three blocks from ground zero here, and these people are not the same as WWI veterans fighting for benefits. The principles of the 99% who have been shafted by corruption and collusion between the government and some of the super wealthy and connected, absolutely yes. I'm part of _that_ 99%. But not these people. Of the 200 or so that were left down there last week before the crowds gathered to fight the cops and city's eviction notice, I'd say maybe 20 were principled to the cause, but even they didn't know how to properly organize and remain with little cohesion. The entire park area had become a completely pummeled, ugly, smelly, rodent infested, near biohazard area, with people smoking weed, and even meth with two ODing in the last week or so. Now, the people that have showed up are opportunistic, anti-police, anti-everything it seems, with a fair number of them from out of town now. It's just an ugly mess. 

Furthermore, it is my opinion that they are hurting their original cause. This has been taken to such an extreme, and been taken over by such a fringe element of law breakers with no voice to call for any serious reform, that it's causing damage to whatever anti-corruption, pro-labor hopes there may have been to effectively organize and cause real change.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Nov 19, 2011)

This is, simply, superb. Wait til he gets warmed up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoG9PmdGaT8


----------



## Dan Selby (Nov 19, 2011)

+1

Thanks, Guy - that is a great watch.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 19, 2011)

This is another take-down of f-ing Bloomberg (on a different subject). Matt Taibbi is just brilliant:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mike-bloombergs-marie-antoinette-moment-20111103 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... t-20111103)


----------



## snowleopard (Nov 19, 2011)

Wow, Bloomberg really is clueless. That comment is right up there with some of the things the GOP Presidential candidates have said. 

Search the web anywhere to see see the student protesters pepper sprayed in Davis. 

Coming on the heels of my previous comment, which I still stand by, I will firmly state that this was completely unnecessary, and is essentially police brutality.


----------

