Occupy Wall Street

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
645

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

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. [/quote]

Good post

646

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

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. [/quote]

Agreed. I also think a lot of protesters would agree.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Sure, but again–setting aside your personal distaste for the people protesting-- I think a lot of people who support the protests are asking for the “American (middle class) Dream” that you yourself seem to be advocating.

In short, “yep.”

647

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Agreed. I knew a lot of people in college who wasted their student loans on things they didn’t need. Most common was someone barely getting by but still managing to pay bills/tuition would take out a student loan to buy “fun” stuff. If they really wanted to discourage student loans don’t give them out to students in their first 2 years at a 4 year university, if you can’t afford it then go to JC first. The main problem is whoever gives student loans will benefit from them so there is never going to be an incentive to reduce the amount of loans given, only way for that is for people to stop taking out loans to begin with.

648

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

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. [/quote]

Agreed. I also think a lot of protesters would agree.

No, from what I can figure they are demanding the ‘American Middle Class Dream’ be provided for them.
I say if you have a $5500 laptop and a dick-load of free time, you could be looking for a job. I bet in the past month half these dip shits could have found a job if they tried.
I am gainfully employed and I can’t afford a $5500 Apple laptop.

If the government did what I wanted, these rich people that people whining about would be broker than a two-dick dog if they bankrupted, chopped up and sold off the ‘to big to fail’ companies. If your too big to handle your own shit, your two big to exist, cut’em up and sell them off.

649

Do not take my post as any real sympathy for the heavy leftist/socialist tilt of the OWS. The call for higher taxes and redistribution is infantile. We could confiscate all the of their (the 1%) wealth and still wouldn’t be able to hold off the bankruptcy of the nation. Not to mention all the giveaways these people keep asking for.

650
651

[quote]pat wrote:

No, from what I can figure they are demanding the ‘American Middle Class Dream’ be provided for them. [/quote]

Well, I’m certainly no expert on this movement, and to say it is “diverse” would be an understatement; but from the facebook posts and online postings that I’ve seen (including the one I posted on here a number of pages back), many people are decrying the loss of the middle class and the ability(inability) to “make it.” They are asking for “middle class” jobs that allow for a “middle class” life. The article I posted said something like 8hours of work, 8hours of sleep and 8 hours of family time.

If they just want to be lazy and have everything provided, then sure, no one would (or should) support them.

[quote]
If the government did what I wanted, these rich people that people whining about would be broker than a two-dick dog if they bankrupted, chopped up and sold off the ‘to big to fail’ companies. If your too big to handle your own shit, your two big to exist, cut’em up and sell them off.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand this, but I think I agree. There should not be a “too big to fail.”

652

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do not take my post as any real sympathy for the heavy leftist/socialist tilt of the OWS. The call for higher taxes and redistribution is infantile. We could confiscate all the of their (the 1%) wealth and still wouldn’t be able to hold off the bankruptcy of the nation. Not to mention all the giveaways these people keep asking for.[/quote]

It wouldn’t make a dent.

653 
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

    275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
    65 percent for the next 19 percent,
    Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent,
    and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

This is what conservatives have to acknowledge, study, and think up policy for. It can’t be ignored.

654

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How to Make It in America, Cont’d | National Review [/quote]

Good read. Thanks.

655

[quote]Sloth wrote:
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

    275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
    65 percent for the next 19 percent,
    Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent,
    and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

This is what conservatives have to acknowledge, study, and think up policy for. It can’t be ignored.[/quote]

this.

And we should not forget the generational aspect of these protests.
These numbers are the result of policies decided decades ago, when the protesters weren’t even born.

And we can be grateful that our great-great grand children are not born yet, because if they were, they too would be in the street right now. We are basically living at their expense.

656

[quote]Sloth wrote:
CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

    275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
    65 percent for the next 19 percent,
    Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent,
    and 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

This is what conservatives have to acknowledge, study, and think up policy for. It can’t be ignored.[/quote]

So how exactly did ‘policy’ cause this?
And why do we need ‘policy’ to change it?

Why the fuck can’t people be the masters of their own ship without having to blame their lot on anything outside of themselves? This is really pathetic. Even if they got their ‘policy revisions’, they would think of some other way to fail.

657

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

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.
[/quote]

Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.

It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.

658

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

So how exactly did ‘policy’ cause this?
And why do we need ‘policy’ to change it?

Why the fuck can’t people be the masters of their own ship without having to blame their lot on anything outside of themselves? This is really pathetic. Even if they got their ‘policy revisions’, they would think of some other way to fail.[/quote]

659

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
One thing I see is a lot revolves around eliminating college debt.
[/quote]

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Own up. You signed a document with a bank. Life has risks and is not a “Play Over” video game.
[/quote]

They are angry for good reason then. The way college loans are handled in the US is a complete clusterfuck. It is basically another way for the banks to extort the people with the governments blessing.

Lets look at it for a bit:

  • You cannot discharge college debt by declaring bankruptcy.

  • Interest rates are 7%+ on student loans

  • Risk free rate (i.e. tbills) is <1%

So the government essentially guarantees student debt by not allowing you to discharge it during bankruptcy. But banks are charging well over the risk free rate. Hence the banks are scamming the students.

So now what happens? Well banks are happy to loan to basically any idiot and are happy to loan huge amounts. After all the government has made sure it is an almost* risk-less activity. This significantly pushes up the price of education

*There is still the risk that a person may never earn enough over their life to be able to pay it back.

What else happens? Well a lot more people go to college. And what does this do? Well it sets a new minimum standard for jobs. Suddenly you need a college degree to do almost any kind of white collar job. For example I couldn’t even get a job as a flight attendant without having a college degree.

So students who don’t want to go into a trade are almost forced into college. And this again causes problems.

Simple solution: Get the government out of the student loan business. Yes this will mean less people will go to college…but it will stop banks giving out really dodgy loans and curb the cost of education.

Another potential solution: Have the government be the only entity to grant loans that cannot be discharged during bankruptcy. They can give out student loans up to a certain nominal figure charging interest at the t-bill rate + 1%.

Is it something worth protesting about? Certainly. It is one of the biggest issues in the United States.

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
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.
[/quote]

Rockstar, what year did you start college? How much do you estimate living with your parents saved you? And finally did you have a job earning significantly more than minimum wage?

From what I can see a decent public uni costs around $12k/year for instate students. Other living expenses would be around $10k/year if not living with parents. That is $22k/yr. A job at minimum wage is what? $8/hr.

Now if you only have 2 years at college that is around $44k debt. That is 5500 hours to pay it off. Or around 2.75 years of working 40 hours a week for 50 weeks of the year at minimum wage.

And unless you are a really smart guy it is incredibly difficult to do well at college and work full time. So of course to get your degree would take significantly longer than normal.

660

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

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.
[/quote]

Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.

It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call that ‘Economic Inequality’. That’s ‘Economic Diversity’.

And yes, the ‘Rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Since when is that news? It’s in the Bible for chris-sakes because its a TRUTH. You can have a winning, conquering, everything-is-on-my-side mentality…or you can hide in a tent, smoke pot and complain. Whatever you choose, you’ll reap your own reward. Sorry, it always comes back to the individual’s CHOICE.

661

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

So how exactly did ‘policy’ cause this?
And why do we need ‘policy’ to change it?

Why the fuck can’t people be the masters of their own ship without having to blame their lot on anything outside of themselves? This is really pathetic. Even if they got their ‘policy revisions’, they would think of some other way to fail.[/quote]

Nice!
And as a side note…this is a song that actually does not redundantly repeat its lyrics over and over and over…as if they couldn’t think of anything else to say except the Title. A rare find indeed.

662

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

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.
[/quote]

Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.

It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call that ‘Economic Inequality’. That’s ‘Economic Diversity’.

And yes, the ‘Rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Since when is that news? It’s in the Bible for chris-sakes because its a TRUTH. You can have a winning, conquering, everything-is-on-my-side mentality…or you can hide in a tent, smoke pot and complain. Whatever you choose, you’ll reap your own reward. Sorry, it always comes back to the individual’s CHOICE.[/quote]

I don’t think you’re quite following. I’ll try to explain.

Its not the fact that certain people make more than others, ok? That’s not the problem.

Its not the fact that the top X percent makes more than the bottom X percent, ok? Thats not the problem. Thats “economic diversity”.

Of course, in every society, you’ll have people who make more money, and people who make less money. Thats just natural, and theres nothing wrong with that, in and of itself.

Follow so far?

Ok, now, when “economic diversity” (some make more than others) starts having a problem with “economic inequality” is when TOO MUCH of a countries wealth goes to TOO SMALL a portion of the population.

Get it? Please, say you get it. Please say you see that its not about “This one guy vs that one guy” but a comprehensive look at the country as a whole.

And, yeah, in every country where “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, that society collapses. It’s an entirely doomed system - I’m not saying extreme economic inequality is wrong based on some abstract morality, I’m saying it’s functionally, pragmatically wrong.

As to your “mentality”… I dont even want to get into how misguided that philosophy is.

663

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

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.
[/quote]

Economic inequality is a matter of how the total wealth of a country is distributed among its citizens- i.e. how much the top 1 percent make, top ten percent, etc.

It’s not a matter of individual cases. That’s an insanely myopic approach.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call that ‘Economic Inequality’. That’s ‘Economic Diversity’.

And yes, the ‘Rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Since when is that news? It’s in the Bible for chris-sakes because its a TRUTH. You can have a winning, conquering, everything-is-on-my-side mentality…or you can hide in a tent, smoke pot and complain. Whatever you choose, you’ll reap your own reward. Sorry, it always comes back to the individual’s CHOICE.[/quote]

Well, one would expect the “poor” to have fallen below subsistence level at some point so there should not be any left.

Alas, they live better than they ever did.

So, all in all, that saying is so prima facie, demonstrably not true it is a wonder that the spine of someone uttering this does not reach up to throttle the brain in a desperate attempt to better the gene pool…

… one more vote for evolution not working on a group level, otherwise people would have a self destruct mechanism.

664

[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
A rare find indeed. [/quote]

My sarcasm detector is off, but if you don’t know Simon and Garfunkel, I’d suggest checking 'em out.

But be careful, they’re on drugs
Wait. You've been kissing. - YouTube