No. Politicians should only be beholden to the people. Not a company. Not a union. Not a lobby group. The wishes of companies, unions, and lobby groups should not be taken into account by politicians. Clear enough?[/quote]
So that First Amendment - which preserves “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”, along with free speech - is in need of changing, in your opinion, aye?
[/quote]
Not at all. I don’t think companies, unions, and lobby groups are people. Nor do I think they are entitled to the same free speech rights as people are.
"The two young founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, quickly made something like $12 billion each by greatly facilitating our information, education, and shopping efficiency. Why should anyone care how much money the founders of Google, Apple, or Microsoft made? Some might object that they earned a larger share of income, but in what sense can we regard their income as shared? Google is something new â?? without Google there could be no income for Google. The Google founders have their income and you have yours. What they earn has nothing to do with how much or how little you can earn, except that their inventions may help you earn more (personally, I feel as though I owe them a really big check).
I truly despise those lazy hippie scum. Banks are their scapegoat, as are the rich. The hippies are failures, not because they are lazy hippies but because SOMEONE ELSE is holding them down. Yeah…
Fair enough. You had said that you “hadn’t seen” the argument for “decent jobs” so I posted.
When you get past the anger and the crazy, it seems to be the shrinking middle class and the loss of decent jobs that is the primary complaint of the protesters. You are right, it’s not “just” full employment that they seem to be arguing for, but a society where the American (middle class) Dream can be recognized. …and it’d sure be nice if “we all” had healthcare too. [/quote]
But from what I can tell, the OWS crowd - nor the author of the article - isn’t representative of nor arguing for a middle class, properly understood. The middle class is not and should not be a standard of living subsidized by wealth external to the middle class. The great value of the middle class in history was/is that it is propertied and independent.
What the OWS crowd wants is something else - a kind of proletarian* class, not a middle class.
*Not necessarily the same thing as the proletariat of the Marxist type
[/quote]
From what little I’ve seen, there is little “proper understanding” in these protests. Like most protests, it’s mostly about expressing emotions.
That said, the middle class in this country does seem to be shrinking. Do you think otherwise?
To me much of the attendance and message is from young people recently out of High school, graduated, or youngsters still in college.
Seems to me there are a lot of spoiled kids out there with mixed messages learned from their anti capitalist radical professors from la-la land. One thing I see is a lot revolves around eliminating college debt.
These people made the choice to spend 4-8 years in expensive college, on a loan, that they signed, for a “Arts” degree, while not looking at the cost/benefit of such a choice. Nobody guarantees that even a 4.0 student can find a good job.
Own up. You signed a document with a bank. Life has risks and is not a “Play Over” video game.
I went to JC for 2 years to curb those loan costs. I came out with maybe a couple grand in debt at most. I worked during school to pay for it too. I did have the “live with mom and dad” opportunity to lower expenses. I did not chose to finance a dorm or apartment and party the whole time.
This movement reeks of Leninism revolution based on the “demands”…at least the ones published and based on sample quotes and interviews. I think it all comes out of the university mentality today, coupled with an “entitled” generation.
To me it’s not a protest, but a showing and proclamation of this county’s youth, having turned into lazy, entitled losers with brainwashed booksmarts.
Also, the military seems like a place that could benefit the bulk of these “protesters” and provide them with an income by way of draft requirements. 19-24 and don’t pay taxes…join up! Put some use to your intellect.
I have already posted the solution in a previous thread. But no one listens.
The solution; avoid all coorperations!
Get your fruit, veges, milk from a farm.
Get your saturday night pizza from the local family run restraunt.
Make your own beer.
Drive your car for 15 years. Ride a bike more often.
Everytime you spend a dollar, you must think where is this dollar going to?
The longer this goes on, and the more I read…I am increasingly convinced the OWS people don’t have 2 brain cells to rub together. Bring back the Tea Party! At least they made sense!
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.[/quote]
Well, as you are not an idiot, would you please explain how inequality is a problem in and of itself?
Well, as you are not an idiot, would you please explain how inequality is a problem in and of itself?[/quote]
Greater expansion of government. Capitalism can survive a great deal of inequality because of the benefits for even those at the bottom (‘poor’ with a cellphone). Getting a small piece of a LARGE and steadily growing pie provides for the peace and order. But only to a limit. I don’t think human beings in general will tolerate too much inequality. And no, I have no hard numbers as to what is too much. Seems to me that human beings are prone to harming themselves if it means they can make others pay their ‘fair share.’ Again, even a great deal of inequality seems to be overlooked. But at some point, if it continues to grow, cable tv or not, humans begin to act like humans.
When capitalism seems to be capital in the hands of the many, people are satisfied enough. When it seems to centralize (growing gap we see today) people begin to look to the old pitchforks and torches. I don’t think peace will be found amongst masses of employees working for distant multinational corporations and high finance institutions. I don’t think such a world can bring the order and satisfaction widespread business ownership can. I think capitalists had best start listening to the analysis of some of the old Distributionists without necessarily adopting their prescriptions.
I think humanity is simply running into the problem of Bigness. Think small. Local governments, local businesses.
That said, the middle class in this country does seem to be shrinking. Do you think otherwise? [/quote]
Yes, I agree it is shrinking. And the way to grow it is to create the conditions in which a middle class can thrive, and let the middle class do what it has always done. Increasing the steady supply of “bread and circuses” paid for by wealth external to the middle class doesn’t cause the middle class to thrive any more than a parent paying a 30 year old child’s rent allows that 30 year old child to thrive.
Those who receive material wealth without earning it are likely to demand more unearned wealth over time, not less. That’s the wrong set of conditions to cultivate if we want to prosper and we don’t want future generatons buried in the costs of the increasing demands of the “bread and circuses” crowd.
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.[/quote]
Well, as you are not an idiot, would you please explain how inequality is a problem in and of itself?[/quote]
Did you watch the video in the first link?
Also, I’m not saying any economic inequality is a problem in and of itself. There will always be an economic scale, the problems come when there is too steep a gradient.
Well, as you are not an idiot, would you please explain how inequality is a problem in and of itself?[/quote]
Greater expansion of government. Capitalism can survive a great deal of inequality because of the benefits for even those at the bottom (‘poor’ with a cellphone). Getting a small piece of a LARGE and steadily growing pie provides for the peace and order. But only to a limit. I don’t think human beings in general will tolerate too much inequality. And no, I have no hard numbers as to what is too much. Seems to me that human beings are prone to harming themselves if it means they can make others pay their ‘fair share.’ Again, even a great deal of inequality seems to be overlooked. But at some point, if it continues to grow, cable tv or not, humans begin to act like humans.
When capitalism seems to be capital in the hands of the many, people are satisfied enough. When it seems to centralize (growing gap we see today) people begin to look to the old pitchforks and torches. I don’t think peace will be found amongst masses of employees working for distant multinational corporations and high finance institutions. I don’t think such a world can bring the order and satisfaction widespread business ownership can. Lovers of private property. I think capitalists had best start listening to the analysts of some of the old Distributionists without necessarily adopting their prescriptions.
I think humanity is simply running into the problem of Bigness. Think small. Local governments, local businesses. [/quote]
Greater economic inequalities are bad for society. As they grow (as they have been), the problems get worse. It’s not a matter of jealousy or “hating the rich” as some idiots would like to believe, it’s about a system which is absolutely 100% doomed to failure.[/quote]
Define…‘Economic Inequality’.
Hopefully, it’s not that Bill Gates makes a lot of money because he’s figured out a massive way to benefit society as opposed to the resentful guy who lives in a tent and smokes pot who can’t get a job. That’s not economic inequality. Both of those guys making the same amount of money would be inequality.