Occupy Whatever Street and the Pussificaton of America. I am not against the spirit of the movement, but the means of, I am. Here's a good video that for the most part sums up my feelings.
Occupy Whatever Street and the Pussificaton of America. I am not against the spirit of the movement, but the means of, I am. Here's a good video that for the most part sums up my feelings.
Yup, I saw that when it was linked to in the other OWS thread. Mostly, he's right. I know - from first hand experience - that you really appreciate bread after you spent hours collecting cattail pollen or grinding acorns to make your own flour.
The thing that bothers me is that we paint this in black or white; i.e. as though your support either the dirty hippies beating drums or bankers who swap CDOs. It is possible to believe in capitalism without backing robber barons. Personally, I like what Tim O'Reilly said at the start of this mess:
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy655?hl=en The attendees were mainly scruffily dressed young people, whose attire and approach was too easily dismissed by those in authority. The smirk on the face of the Fox News reporter who was interviewing various participants said it all. "These people are easy to dismiss." I couldn't bear to see him goading these idealistic young people into making bombastic statements (the reporter is a tool of AIG was one comment I overheard), so I stepped over and asked if I could speak to him. I told him that I run a company with about $100 million in revenue, and that it isn't just kids who think that Wall Street bankers got away with a crime. There are a set of people who constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud. They took our country to the brink of ruin, then got off scott free, even with multi-million dollar bonuses. I'll be interested to see if Fox runs my comments anywhere.
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/dDwpT4yfk5j I was hoping to get on camera to voice my support for some of the key ideas behind this protest - that many of the companies in our financial sector have started extracting far more value from our society than they provide to it, and that we need businesses to remember a more honest form of capitalism, where companies make money by providing sufficient value to customers that they are happy to pay for it, where the gap between the amount extracted in profits to owners doesn't so far outstrip the amount paid to workers in the business that those workers need to go into debt to pay for ordinary living expenses, where government protects all its citizens, not just those who can afford lobbyists, and where society as a whole feels the virtuous circle that can only happen when companies create more value than they capture for themselves.
In reply to JoeyM:
I think we can agree that here on this forum we have a wide variety of people who can look past the skin of this kind of issue.
Most people here can think in three dimensions.
I didn't read the article yet (I will...gotta do some meetings first) but I certainly think the movement itself could use some leadership that can project a message the rest of us can identify with. Still, I am glad to see Americans angry and motivated enough to get out there and take a stand for "something". The people on the news last night getting herded by riot police were not dirty hippies. They were well dressed, normal americans for the most part. They were mostly peaceful too. I wish they would give me a reason to identify with them.
N Sperlo wrote: In reply to JoeyM: I think we can agree that here on this forum we have a wide variety of people who can look past the skin of this kind of issue. Most people here can think in three dimensions.
Agreed. We have a good bunch here.
[...and fast. You replied before I could get my edit done.....I wanted to make it clear from my personal "making flour" experience that what the video says is largely correct.]
Thats a pretty good point...so long as the Corporations know their role in society and are kept to those roles, and their leverage is hedged by the govt through regulation. The balances are all over the place right now. The 2 most voted comments on youtube for that video are in direct contrast to each other, but both offer a valid point:
Jobs get outsourced because unions have made it to expensive to hire Americans.... who are the unions? democrat/socialists. We get further in debt because we let people who get free handouts from the governments vote.
I couldnt agree more - if youre not ante-ing up, you dont get to play the game
What is the fundamental unit in a democracy? Humans or corporations? Are corporations tools of humans to get human needs met? Or are humans tools of corporations to get corporate needs met. The aristocracy started with a 'deal' between the people and the nobles: you protect us and we'll work for you. Eventually it tipped into the nobles beliving they owned the people, and the people were convinced it was only natural. The foundation of the US was the breaking of those chains.
Again, very true - SOME corporations have stopped being employers and providers, and have moved into roles as de facto legislators - in as much as a politician in your pocket has become your vote in legislation, not their constituents.
The afterburner guy touches on some great points about our 1st world problems...but he also smooths over some pretty rough terrain while he condescends just a lil too much...Kids should be introduced to hardship early - thats what boyscouts and summer camp are for...but to say we need to offer praise to the almighty oligarchy for mercifully bestowing their presence upon or soil is taking that point a step too far...the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
N Sperlo wrote: Occupy Whatever Street and the Pussificaton of America. I am not against the spirit of the movement, but the means of, I am. Here's a good video that for the most part sums up my feelings. Here, watch this.
I liked the video, and I agree with much that was said, but I don't think 3-1/2 days would be enough for most of those people. I say make it a full year. That will ensure that they understand that they will reap what they sow, and not give them the option of fasting for three days.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I certainly think the movement itself could use some leadership that can project a message the rest of us can identify with. Still, I am glad to see Americans angry and motivated enough to get out there and take a stand for "something". The people on the news last night getting herded by riot police were not dirty hippies. They were well dressed, normal americans for the most part. They were mostly peaceful too. I wish they would give me a reason to identify with them.
Very true. Flip side, I was watching the StL protest as the metropolitan police were arresting some, but only the ones trying to interfere with traffic. Its hard to see what they looked like from a chopper. 
So have you been to an Occupy Whatever Street? This troll's arguments don't ring true to me at all, nor does his characterization of the protesters. Those protesters aren't protesting people doing meaningful labor. A lot of them are vets, homeless or unemployed manufacturing sector folks. And those people are talking about the same things the kids are talking about. Everyone is pissed off, not about the work corporations do, but about how the system has evolved into something controlled by money and no longer democratic. Direct democracy is the point of these protests, when you really get down to it. It's a forum as much as it's a protest.
Of course there are going to be middle class white kids there. They have TIME to be there.
That was also true of the civil rights or anti-war movements in the 1960's. He could be talking about 1968. That doesn't make either movement about rich white kids being unable to cope with reality.
These people have camped out for weeks in the cold, built their own communities with communal infrastructure, gone out and solicited for donations and formed a loose governance structure and he's suggesting they aren't willing to work hard. You know what? berkeley him. I respect anyone who is willing to take pepper spray, fire hose, dog attacks or a rubber bullet to the face for something they believe in. They're out there trying. Tea Partiers, Occupiers, G20 protesters, whatever. At least they care enough to do something.
4cylndrfury wrote: Thats a pretty good point...so long as the Corporations know their role in society and are kept to those roles, and their leverage is hedged by the govt through regulation. The balances are all over the place right now. The 2 most voted comments on youtube for that video are in direct contrast to each other, but both offer a valid point: + Comment one:Jobs get outsourced because unions have made it to expensive to hire Americans.... who are the unions? democrat/socialists. We get further in debt because we let people who get free handouts from the governments vote.I couldnt agree more - if youre not ante-ing up, you dont get to play the game
I've been trying to stay out of this, but this kind of thinking that is so "anti" really burns me.
While it is true that unions have not been doing themselves favors, one has to understand the entire POINT of unions- which is to avoid being abused, and have SOME worker rights. 99% of union workers actually earn their pay by working. Yes, we do get to see the ones who do not, pasted all over the news to make us mad. But if you've ever been to a plant, stuff DOES get built by them. and their job is horrible. Roads and bridgets get built. Teachers teach, musicians play, etc. The point is to not take advantage of the average worker.
Most of them work their rears off, and many times the reaction to ask for more is a reply to the upper management who give themseves 100-1000% bonuses at the end of the day. Which does happen- makes salaried people pissed, but we have no recourse.
Socialism isn't a dirty word, unless they are accused of being evil. If you have health insurance, you voluntarially pay to be part of a socialist system (everyone pools their money, and when one person gets sick, the masses pay for it- yet we think it's ok for the person who is pooling the money to skim some off the top)
+ Comment two:What is the fundamental unit in a democracy? Humans or corporations? Are corporations tools of humans to get human needs met? Or are humans tools of corporations to get corporate needs met. The aristocracy started with a 'deal' between the people and the nobles: you protect us and we'll work for you. Eventually it tipped into the nobles beliving they owned the people, and the people were convinced it was only natural. The foundation of the US was the breaking of those chains.Again, very true - SOME corporations have stopped being employers and providers, and have moved into roles as de facto legislators - in as much as a politician in your pocket has become your vote in legislation, not their constituents. The afterburner guy touches on some great points about our 1st world problems...but he also smooths over some pretty rough terrain while he condescends just a lil too much...Kids should be introduced to hardship early - thats what boyscouts and summer camp are for...but to say we need to offer praise to the almighty oligarchy for mercifully bestowing their presence upon or soil is taking that point a step too far...the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Not sure where you are going with that point, but I do want to say that so many of you don't want to give free handouts, or think that many tax subsidies are bad.
Well, why do we give a tax subsidy to Wall Street? Explain to me how investors earn to pay a different tax on their earnings vs people who make stuff?
If you REALLY hate tax subsidies, then get rid of the capital gains tax cuts- and make them pay exactly what everyone else pays for their earnings. And stop letting them pass bad decisions off for numbers of years- which you can write off losses. Wall Street should 100% pay just like the rest of the country, no difference.
One last question- since it's pretty clear that this last recession was caused mostly by business people, why in the world would we want a business person running the country? It's pretty obvious that they are not capable of decently running just the economic part of the country, let alone everything else.
In reply to ppddppdd:
I don't think you're arguing against my point, but in case you are, read sentence two of post one. I'm more or less against people taking dumps on banks, taking handouts for a week and beating up the person donating when they can't afford it, or the people speaking out against corporations by tweeting it from the device that company made.
Corporations used to live and die through demand and the relevancy of the value they created. I'm not sure this is true for all corporations anymore.
There's an Occupy movement at my University campus on the regular. When they told me I was the 99%, I quickly reminded them that I am planning on being the 1%, and they might want to also set their sights a little higher.
Maybe it's the inner elitist douche bag / troll in me, but that felt good.
In reply to Taiden:
Corporations do good things and bad things. The occupy people have good reasons to be angry. I will never be the 1%, because I have decided my path in life will not allow me to attain much wealth.
It's the childish actions of some of the occupants, I will call them, that makes them all look bad.
alfadriver wrote: One last question- since it's pretty clear that this last recession was caused mostly by business people, why in the world would we want a business person running the country? It's pretty obvious that they are not capable of decently running just the economic part of the country, let alone everything else.
It's pretty obvious that using a sweeping generalization to discount another sweeping generalization isn't a good tactic.
You're unequivocally saying that business people are incapable of placing country over business. That's a rather specious pretense.
oldsaw wrote:alfadriver wrote: One last question- since it's pretty clear that this last recession was caused mostly by business people, why in the world would we want a business person running the country? It's pretty obvious that they are not capable of decently running just the economic part of the country, let alone everything else.It's pretty obvious that using a sweeping generalization to discount another sweeping generalization isn't a good tactic. You're unequivocally saying that business people are incapable of placing country over business. That's a rather specious pretense.
As opposed to the sweeping generalization that business people would be good as politicians? That's a rather arrogant assumption.
Yes, I am making that gereralziation, but it's also based on the current result of "washington outsiders" who have really taken us a few steps back.
And since business people have consistently chosen profits over customers (by removing people who could pay for their product from the payrolls and paying people who can't afford the product), I do very much think that business people are incapable of placing country over business.
Let alone the complaints about environmental regulations. And worker right regulations. And the general economy vs. making a ton of speculative money. Acutally, there are few business that do put country over business, the more I think about it.
alfadriver wrote:oldsaw wrote:As opposed to the sweeping generalization that business people would be good as politicians? That's a rather arrogant assumption. Yes, I am making that gereralziation, but it's also based on the current result of "washington outsiders" who have really taken us a few steps back. And since business people have consistently chosen profits over customers (by removing people who could pay for their product from the payrolls and paying people who can't afford the product), I do very much think that business people are incapable of placing country over business. Let alone the complaints about environmental regulations. And worker right regulations. And the general economy vs. making a ton of speculative money. Acutally, there are few business that do put country over business, the more I think about it.alfadriver wrote: One last question- since it's pretty clear that this last recession was caused mostly by business people, why in the world would we want a business person running the country? It's pretty obvious that they are not capable of decently running just the economic part of the country, let alone everything else.It's pretty obvious that using a sweeping generalization to discount another sweeping generalization isn't a good tactic. You're unequivocally saying that business people are incapable of placing country over business. That's a rather specious pretense.
He does pretentious pretty well, we love him anyway. Yeah, I disagree as well Alfa, I would even go as far as saying that the government created the issues, not businesses, but that's for another time.
In reply to tuna55:
Our government isn't far from being a branch of corporate America.
Unions used to have a purpose. Nowadays, people dont lose arms to machines because the company is too cheap to install guards, and laborers get a real break schedule since the company had to remove the chains holding them to the machine from their legs. Thanks for all the work you did UAW in getting us here. Your job is done, you can go home now. If/when theres ever an actual need for you, we will give you a call. Till then, dont call us, we will call you.
And before you point fingers, I worked as a mechanic, and in a factory, and doing other hard/manual labor jobs. I never was a union member, and I never felt like the man was keeping me down or that I needed someone to go to bat for me - if I feel Im being abused, Im not going to whine and get a gang to force my employer to hand me more money or a longer lunch break or better benefits, Im going to leave. Ive always worked in a gasp MERITOCRACY...I had to earn my position, my pay, my employment - it was not mandated by a contract that I should be on a pay scale timeline laid out ahead of me, based solely on the duration of time I simply showed up for work. I had to actually DO GOOD WORK!
There may be union members that do work hard, Im not disputing that. But when the compensation you receive for your work is not based directly on the work youre doing, theres no incentive to work hard. When a person sees paying a union to keep them employed without regard to the work they do as a better means to generating income than working hard and doing a good job, then theres a problem with the way people are educated about employment.
When a company sees financial maneuvering through shady accounting and loophole manipulation as a better means of generating income than providing a quality product - or worse, buying an advantage by bribing a corrupt legislator - woops, I mean CONTRIBUTING A GAZILLION DOLLARS to their 9th re-election campaign, then we have a bigger problem in our business sector, and our elected officials.
Ive floundered entirely too much. I shouldve removed the Union bit from the quote I pasted...its not really germane to the topic regarding OWS. I didnt really want to get into my opinions of Unions in this thread.
With regards to the taxation on investment earnings deal, I dont give a subsidy to anyone, and am not a fan of tax subsidies, tax shelters, or creative accounting, Im not sure where YOURE going with your point...
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to tuna55: Our government isn't far from being a branch of corporate America.
I contend they are equal partners.
Our government is for sale, it's a sellers' market and the sellers rarely change. It's an illusion to think that corporate America bears the bulk of the blame. Their power is granted to them by those who wield the power of legislation.
Change the rule-makers and the rules they create and corporate America will follow. Yeah, they'll kick and scream but devastating financial penalties and/or jail time can make for a useful epiphany; see "Jack Abramoff".
In reply to oldsaw:
So, if we elect more business people to government, does that increase or decrease the liklihood that it's all for sale?
We've been chaning the rule makers for a few decades now- for "outsiders". Doesn't seem to be doing any good.
Keep business people out of running the country, and the odds of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" to fellow BOD members will also go down.
4cylndrfury wrote: With regards to the taxation on investment earnings deal, I dont give a subsidy to anyone, and am not a fan of tax subsidies, tax shelters, or creative accounting, *Im not sure where YOURE going with your point...*
Sure you do. If you can earn a living on one year capitol gains, you pay a current maximum tax of 15%. That's lower than the lowest wage earner. And it's not hard to do that- ask Warren Buffet- he has stated more than once that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Tax breaks = tax subsidies, at least in this current environment. Assuming you mean the right business. Can't give a loan out to a risky busniness, but we sure need to eliminate taxes for wall street traders. drive me nuts.
There are some really easy ways to make tax fairer, and increase revenue. Tax investment earners the same rate that real workers pay tax- that will go a LONG way.
alfadriver wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: With regards to the taxation on investment earnings deal, I dont give a subsidy to anyone, and am not a fan of tax subsidies, tax shelters, or creative accounting, *Im not sure where YOURE going with your point...*Sure you do. If you can earn a living on one year capitol gains, you pay a current maximum tax of 15%. That's lower than the lowest wage earner. And it's not hard to do that- ask Warren Buffet- he has stated more than once that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Tax breaks = tax subsidies, at least in this current environment. Assuming you mean the right business. Can't give a loan out to a risky busniness, but we sure need to eliminate taxes for wall street traders. drive me nuts. There are some really easy ways to make tax fairer, and increase revenue. Tax investment earners the same rate that real workers pay tax- that will go a LONG way.
I do agree with you, at least in part, with your tac ideas. I would tend to explode it farther than you, though. I argue that any income earned over a certain amount gets taxed exactly the same percentage, whether earned by a person, a corporation or a mutual fund.
Sure you do. If you can earn a living on one year capitol gains, you pay a current maximum tax of 15%. That's lower than the lowest wage earner. And it's not hard to do that- ask Warren Buffet- he has stated more than once that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Berkshire Hathaway's IRS Dispute
As soon as old Buffett there pays his bills, I'll take him as something other than a hypocrite.
In reply to DoctorBlade:
If you were undergoing an audit, would you go ahead and pay all the contested amounts before a decision was reached about what you actually owe? Not me.
DoctorBlade wrote:Sure you do. If you can earn a living on one year capitol gains, you pay a current maximum tax of 15%. That's lower than the lowest wage earner. And it's not hard to do that- ask Warren Buffet- he has stated more than once that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.Berkshire Hathaway's IRS Dispute As soon as old Buffett there pays his bills, I'll take him as something other than a hypocrite.
I have always said that there are two really easy ways to be a liberal (or a socialist): Being really really rich, or being really really poor.
You'll need to log in to post.
