Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Do You View the Wall Street Protests?
__roo writes "The New York Times reports that the Occupy Wall Street movement has inspired hundreds of Facebook pages, Twitter posts, and Meetup events, and that 'blog posts and photographs from all over the country are popping up on the WeArethe99Percent blog on Tumblr from people who see themselves as victims of not just a sagging economy but also economic injustice.' What do Slashdotters think? Do you relate to the 99% stories? Do they make you angry — either at the system, or at the protesters? If it's at the protesters, is it rational or a just-world effect?"
Even if you're screaming right outside their door, they're just going to call the cops and crank up the volume on the TV. I don't seriously believe that the Occupy campaign are going to do that much to change what is going on. The 1% already control everything. Everything that you buy, everything that you watch and everything that you do is controlled completely by this 1% group. Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days. Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
Want to do something about the current failure of money? Start using Bitcoins. It'll be the biggest protest with the biggest impact in history.
http://www.weusecoins.com/
Here be signatures
From what I've seen, it's actually 80% arguing with 19% about 1%
The problem is a financial system built on making enormous amounts of money without contributing to society.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I'd join the protest if I wasn't taking care of my Mother after my Father died. I think it's a crock how things are but I also feel the top 1% aren't fully to blame. The 99% needs to learn to not be asleep at the wheel half the time and learn to say no together in order to get things done like boycotting things and not just go for "I got mine, too bad about yours" deals.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
These protests lack a specific and/or measurable goal. It's really difficult to reach a goal that you haven't set. I agree with most of the rhetoric being brandied about, but the lack of focus could be a deal breaker for the occupy movement.
Populist rage of the disaffected, only these are unemployed college grads instead of moderately racist suburbanites. And while this group lacks coherent talking points, at least they are angry at the right people.
Oh, wait, sorry . . . I was thinking about last year's protestors.
About time the losing side in the class war started fighting back, I say...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's raising awareness of the issues, that's really all I can expect. What people do after they've become aware is the fun part.
If I was close to where the large areas are I'd be there tearing up my $900/month student loan bills too.
They're too focused on the "greed of wall street," which makes the protesters seem like they're after handouts.
They need to instead focus on financial crimes, the fact that many of the people in the so-called 1% who are responsible for the subprime lending crisis, etc. aren't sitting in jail despite the fact that it's these white-collar crimes which bankrupted many innocent people. If they focus on the tax evasion, insider trading, blatant abuse of trust, and so forth, then they would have a more convincing case.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Middle Ages income distribution per law :
33% lord, 33% church, 33% peasant.
Modern income/wealth distribution :
5% gets 72% of everything. 85% gets 15% of everything.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
even worse, the means for wealth generation, the tools are totally on the off side on the hands of minority, so this means the income/wealth disparage will only grow bigger.
85% of people dont have enough from economy, despite they are being worked to generate that economy. as a result, they are not able to spend. economy suffers. education dives down. culture is neglected. people dont care for anything outside survival.
the top 0.1% of society, which owns and controls entire scheme on the other hand, just hoards. more and more. naturally, as a single person cannot want and spend for an endless amount of things, after a certain point spending on the side of the rich declines, and it turns to extreme luxury and afterwards just hoarding. insurmountable wealth stays in assets and keeps getting bigger through investment tools that do not produce anything solid in stock and fund trading schemes.
situation now is worse than the situation in middle ages. no duke could dream of having 72% of wealth in the nation. all serfs would laugh at modern man taking only 15% of available amenities in the society. and serfs had their livelihood guaranteed by law.
we progressed technologically. we regressed socially.
Read radical news here
The problem isn't wealth distribution, it's the fact that the government can regulate the industry and just print money and give it to the corporations. With a central point of failure (the federal government) it's easy for business to become corrupt.
Treat the source, not the symptom. Get the federal government back to doing the (very) few things that it is mandated to by the constitution.
As for Obama, he didn't really remember much of his campaign platform after he was elected last time, I don't see why it'd be different this time.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
I see a lot of bitterness on Slashdot about the U.S. political system: the sentiment that all the politicians are bought by moneyed interests and are at best indifferent, at worst actively hostile, to the needs of the person in the street or the country as a whole. I see the "Occupy<Location>" protests as expressing the same sentiment.
At this point I think it's more important to build consensus about the need for action, than to determine a specific course of action.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Just saw South Park S06E06 last night (Professor Chaos). Butters is feeling bummed and rejected and isolated and ignored and vows to disrupt life as we know it for everybody. And the power he's revolting against doesn't even notice.
So it will be with these protests unless and until a clearer message comes together, and until protests here and there turn into a real nationwide movement that wields genuine political power.
Back in 1976, Jobs and Woz made their own computers. Today, the iStuff is made in China- nothing is manufactured in America anymore. A lot of Furthermore, technology and globalization has made many other jobs obsolete. We need less secretaries, lawyers, accountants, etc. The resulting drop in employment means government can't continue expanding at union-friendly paces, and government workers are forced to be laid off or give back gains. Years ago, people predicted the 3-hour workday from all the technology . Instead, a lucky few work full-time and the rest are unemployed. This is progress. The singularity is coming because we can't afford to be humans anymore. It's much cheaper to exist in an online-only version.
Yes...you will see Obama use some of the Occupy issues as talking points. No...it is my believe that you will not see change as a result of it. It would take an awful lot of editing of US Laws and Regulations as well as changes in the attitudes of those in Wall Street and running the US Corporations in order to see real change. Most of all, you would need to see real compassion in the hearts and minds of those running the world. This will not happen anytime soon. Most likely, what we will see is a polarized election debate wherein the 99% are pitted against the 1%. The Republicans are going to continue to say No. The Democrats are going to vilify the very people that they will support post elections. The right wingers on Fox news are going to derp some more. The left wingers are going to mock the derping some more and we will be ... still ... at the mercy of the 1%.
It has been this way for more than a thousand years. It will be this way a thousand years from now unless people wise up.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
I think this photo pretty well sums it up.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/down-with-evil-corporations-photo.html
These people are the best chance we've had to turn around a country that's been headed in the wrong direction for at least the past 30 years. We live in a country where Goldman Sachs can commit thousands of acts of felony perjury, and not one person stands trial. They create fraudulent financial instruments, and pay back a small portion of their ill gotten gains as "fines" (bribes). Yet if I were to write a bad check to cover some groceries, I'd be going straight to jail. There's no way to describe this but tyranny.
Barack Obama, the greatest hope in a generation, is either unable or unwilling to do anything about this. If he's unwilling we have a severe political problem. He was elected to bring us change he refuses to deliver, and we have no way to hold him accountable.
On the other hand, if he's unable, we have a much more serious problem. That means democracy is well and truly dead in this country. The corporations have a complete stranglehold on our government. Unfortunately, this is more likely to be the truth.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It may not phase the rich but it sure makes a statement to the politicians. By hanging out at Wall Street, financial dists, etc. It lets the common folk put an arrow at where many of us believe where the problem is located, I applaud that thought.
Iv'e heard some of the politicians say hang out at the white house, etc. That does not highlight the source of the problem from my perspective.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
They finally made it to San Francisco. But they either moved away from their initial location on Market Street, or were completely forced out of the city. What little I saw of them made me think that
* the local homeless and drifters finally found something to do with their free time
* they have no chance in hell of accomplishing anything
Specifically, they won't accomplish anything beyond getting attention. They have hundreds of different, sometimes opposing goals. They're all upset with the status quo, but have no workable solutions. They're largely made up of young, idealistic people with little corporate or political experience. They cannot tap into any networks that carry any weight. They're doomed to be nothing but friendly protesters who will at some point run out of steam.
To some extent, I can understand them. The system we're in is set up to benefit a very small minority (0.5%, from what I've seen actually). There's less and less economic mobility. Profits are privatized, losses are socialized. But they're not the equivalent of the Arab Spring, because they have no solution. Worse, they're pointing at the wrong people when they're asked to point at the culprits of the current situation.
Winter is coming. It's going to be cold. Tthe tent cities will disappear. And with them, the movement. Maybe it will be reborn into something different, something with more teeth, simpler goals, and a better understanding of politics and economics behind it. That is their only real hope. I wish them well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I'd be there with them.
Though I think protesting on the Capitol Mall might be more effective - I'm pretty fed up with the GOP bending over backward for Wall Street and weeping about poor Bankers and Wall Street when the call for better regulation was made after the banking crisis. Also rather sore about the bonuses being paid, right after the bailouts. A lot of the rhetoric regarding "we have to leave these people alone because they enable our economy" fell on my deaf ears - the economy took a right battering thanks to their blind pursuit of margins and percentages on return, never mind the risk.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So, you're saying that unless they are the one person on earth living in the worst possible conditions without actually dieing, they should cheerfully accept their regular ass-raping and just be thrilled that they're not that guy? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
As a slashdotter from Russia, I feel a great curiosity towards the Occupy Wall Street. It shows the U.S. that foreigners like me weren't able to see yet. Other than curiosity, I feel some sadness, as we have two socialist parties in Russia, that get all pro-Socialism votes. What the Occupy Wall Street strives to achieve is a smaller part of our political system, that used to be a greater part once ago. That's why Occupy Wall Street makes me to think about our past, present and future.
I see it (hopefully) within the context of similar protests that have occured throughout US history.
For example, the Pullman Strike. That, and other labor unrest during the later part of the "robber barron" era lead to things we now take for granted such as minimum wage and the 40 hour week.
There were also grass roots leftist movements during the Great Depression.
When you read these histories, some of the things said by actors on both sides are eerily similar.
The hope is that these actions will reform and perfect our republic; but not destroy it. "Revolution" is a word that gets tossed around a lot; but I think there are very few people who want a true revolution (which I would define as a new constitutional convention that unseats all currently elected officials in one fell swoop and replaces them with something else).
The US has been flexible over its history, and that's a strength. We don't need a revolution because it's built into the Constitution in the form of elections and even the ability to ammend the Constitution itself. For example, some have proposed an ammendment that would overturn Citizens United and strip corporations of personhood. I'm not arguing for or against such an ammendment. I'm just citing it as an example of how change can occur within the framework of the Constitution without destroying the nation.
In other words, we have the rights of speech and assembly, and they are being used. I just hope they don't get abused and destroyed.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The simple fact that you're mentioning a class war makes me think you have little useful to say. What's going on right now has nothing to do with class warfare, and all to do with people being sick of bailing out private institutions when their bets failed.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
and what makes you think it'll stop after the 2012 elections? I was thinking 12/21/12 was a better date.
Note that I don't feel strongly one way or another on the protests - from what I've heard the people are justly angry but are focusing it on the wrong people and are asking for the wrong change. It's likely that if they get legislation passed then they will be making the government clamp down on the businesses - which is just as bad, but in the other direction.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
I bet Obama's going to make this an issue in his re-election campaign. If he gets re-elected, hopefully he'll remember it once the election is over...
Well, last election he DID say he'd Spread the Wealth Around. What he didn't tell us is that it would be to AIG, Citigroup, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Its co-opted. It started with those on the left and right who were concerned about financial mismanagement by government and private corporations. Now unions are co-opting it because they fear union money will be restricted along with corporate money, democratic party operatives are co-opting it trying to create a "tea party" like organization that is shadow group for the democratic party, etc. Much like the tea party started with those legitimately concerned with fiscal mismanagement and an ever encroaching federal government and has subsequently been co-opted to some extent by republican social issues and republican party operatives. It will be interesting to see if the tea party can regain its original focus and it will be interesting to see if the occupy wall street movement can avoid the same mistake. Unfortunately it looks like history repeating itself, the only difference being tightly aligned with a different mainstream political party. Sad, since the tea party founders and the occupy wall street founders had an incredible amount of overlap in their concerns and grievances, although you would never really see that given only the incredibly shallow coverage of the "main stream media".
Some 18 year old who finished high school at 16 and college at 18. Complained that he/she barely manages to pay his or her bills.
Or to paraphrase: Whaaaa, I'm 18 and not rich!
Most of them are useless idiots, some I do feel bad for. I'm swinging towards supporting a pseudo single-payer system, health care seems to be the biggest problem. In terms of education - end easy student loans for Basket Weaving degrees. If you are demonstrably intelligent you should get free college through grants/subsidies. Otherwise you should pay for it. By limiting the _demand_ for college education we will force prices down.
If every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get $100k in loans, why _wouldn't_ the higher education system make $100k (or more) the price of an education?
We need to stop the lie that college degree=automatic success. Instead have more trade schools, and send most capable to college.
That has to do with trucks, everyone in the in the Wall Street protests thread thinks these people are unemployed, welfare communists. Yes same guys that bitch about the gov and how they are taking away their rights and bringing down the country are calling the ones who are out there trying to get the ball rolling communists from behind their computer screen.
My view on this is that there needs to be more protests like these. It doesn't matter if these people are unemplayed or on welfare. Its the publicity and if it manages to spark more protests it'll get even more media attention which will being in more protesters.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1) End the Collusion Between Government and Large Corporations/Banks, So That Our Elected Leaders Are Actually Representing the Interests of the People (the 99%) and Not Just Their Rich Donors (the 1%).
2) Investigate Wall Street and Hold Senior Executives Accountable for the Destruction in Wealth that has Devastated Millions of People.
3) Return the Power of Coining Money to the U.S. Treasury and Return to Sound Money
4) Limit the Size, Scope and Power of Banks so that None are Ever Again âoeToo Big to Failâ and in Need to Taxpayer Bailouts
5) Eliminate âoePersonhoodâ Legal Status for Corporations
6) Repeal the Patriot Act, End the War on Drugs and Protect Civil Liberties
7) End All Imperial Wars of Aggression, Bring the Troops Home from All Countries, Cut the Military Budget and Limit The Military Role to Protection of the Homeland
Not sure where this came from, but it was making the rounds on Facebook. Numbers 6 and 7 seem rather "wishlist"-y, but other than that this looks roughly accurate.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
This movement, like the tea party movement before it, is about to get co-opted by the establishment, and then it's just background noise.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Shit, I guess all those taped news broadcasts that I saw of the protests must have been acid flashbacks, then!
the losing side in the class war
Look really closely at the Occupiers, and I bet you find a bunch of elitist bastards from Ivy League and other top-tier Universities.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
It doesn't really seem to be that they are For or Against anything in particular. They just sorta-kinda share a common underlying dislike for folk with a lot of money, for varying different reasons.
If they were all there protesting corporate lobbying or something similar, I would be behind them 100%. However I do not dislike folk based on the grounds that they are the owners of piles of money. I do not dislike folk based on the grounds that they pay more or less taxes than I do. I do not dislike folk based on the ground that they have nicer things than I do.
The problems with corporations and rich folks are not how big the piles of money are. The problem is that government not only lets, but even encourages, the piles of money to hold influence over governance and further to let wield that influence to the detriment of myself and my peers. Crimes against society are not the same as treason, but they are just as serious.
"His name was James Damore."
The problem, is that "wealth" in the modern age is actually an abstraction of the labor of other prople.
You go to work, you get reimbursed for that labor with money. You spend that money for other people's labor.
In and of itself, that isn't a terrifically bad thing.
The problem manifests when such indebtedness can be conjured from thin air, as per the banking system.
This allows a small handful of high capital holding interests to artificially inflate the amount of labor "owed" to them, via their holdings as currency.
Currency should not be so artifically inflated, but should instead be based exclusively by GDP. (The use of a fixed currency like the value of gold won't work, as the natural scarcity of that commodity causes banking crashes like in the 30s.) GDP is a direct correlate to the actual power and value of that labor. This would prevent the creation of "value" from null services, like the creation of currency via loan agreements as per modern us banking.
This alone would not solve the problem, as the very same people would simply adjust their strategies, and still accumulate power in the form of currency. Another limiting factor would be the abolishment of speculation, which would kill the stock market as it currently exists, would eliminate the "short term gains to sate the greed of shareholders" problem, and would greatly limit the speed at which plutocrats emerge, thus limiting their innate power. (It suddenly becomes less profitable to buy politicians, when the rate your coffers fill is less than the prices demanded to buy legislation. You have to be much more picky in which votes you attempt to buy.)
Coupled with campaign finance reforms, and term limits for senators and representatives, and 90% of the problem would be corrected.
I don't want to get political on this site, but I'm still gonna shout it out: Ron Paul 2012! Tired of inflation, tired of gasoline prices (why we are at war for the oil?) tired of bs that comes out every single day! If you share my views mod it up. -- Californian
Who is preventing the videotaping (police or protesters)? I haven't heard about that. Can you elaborate a bit?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
instead of shooting your mouth off.
Dog is my co-pilot.
"I owe $70K in tuition fees to a high end college. My parents are ultra liberals with six figure salaries apiece. I'm in the 99% boo hoo." Well, I guess that (being not in the 1%) is probably true from a strictly technical standpoint, but I have a hard time FEELING SORRY FOR YOU.
Where ever did you get such a broad brush? I must purchase one!
With the first link, the chain is forged.
The country is in transition as the world is in transition. As the American middle class and poor start to wake up and look around they are starting to see that American exceptionalism has become irrelevant in todays global market. Do, we the people, have any relevance today? We will see if this movement grows to the point that forces current American policy to be rethought. Right now people feel very detached from the political process. The frustration people feel is the visual equivalent of an ant trying to pull a elephant. It just does not seem that the current behavior of government, as a whole, is a reflection of we the people no matter how we vote.
In other words... the problem is that industry regulates the government.
only 48% of us vote when eligible. Am I part of the 99%? Maybe, but I'd rather be considered part of that 48%. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are getting riled up and ready to make their presence felt and I agree with everything they're saying, but my question is, where were the other 51% on voting days? I am 26, have +50k in student loans, but I have voted in every major election since I turned 18. I'd much rather see "Occupy the Voters Booths!" then "Occupy Wallstreet."
But isn't wealth disparity just something stupid people complain about?
Thought experiment - let's say the 5% richest people in the US move to Mexico (or Canada, or wherever). Wealth disparity instantly "improves" in the US. Please explain how this great leveling of wealth helps anyone here in the US?
I went to the park Sunday and got a first-hand look at the 'protest', and what struck me was how small the protest is. The park is slightly smaller than a half city block (size of a football field), and there were two or three tourists/observers for each sign-carrying/slogan spouting/sleeping protester.
The lack of a central them or focus allows anyone to identify with theprotesters: against the Fed? Fractional banking? Standardized testing in schools? Tax the rich? End the wars? Against student loans? Out ofwork? Then you can find a kindred spirit in the protesters. If they focused on one thing, the majority of protesters would bolt - they sacrificed any chance of actually effecting change (in my opinion) for the appearance of larger numbers.
The protest will implode on Oct. 15th, when they maximize their numbers, their lack of focus will undermine any advances people imagine they have made.
Ken
These people are pissed off -- and justifiably so! -- at the current system. And like the Tea Party, they shed more heat than light and don't have any practical suggestions regarding how to actually *fix* things.
I find it a natural consequence of holding people responsible for their actions and finances in inverse proportion to the amount of money they have or are in control of.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It really is a new era in politics, and in general, how humans interact with each other. In that public square over the last two years, we had a populist movement in the Tea Party that was, by its nature of being relatively grass roots, wildly inarticulate about the cure, if not the diagnosis. That movement was easily coopted by an already existing deregulatory/social politics arm of the GOP party. This movement is that movement, but without the batshit and with some articulate arguments about the need for a fix. These ideas come at us in a new public square, on Twitter, and are pretty inclusive in an overarching "The Government is bought and paid for, Fox News is bought and paid for" theme. To view the movement through a twentieth century lense is to see it as unorganized, and thus, not powerful. As someone who deals with a very profitable crowdsourcing company, I see this slightly differently. I think we are seeing the rest of America, that does not think the EPA is the devil, does not want to cut NOAA, IMLS, or Family Planning services because of rhetoric but ALSO believe we have a broken financial system and a political system purchased by a very small population. That is how I am seeing it.
The current model is just a race to the bottom for all the society.
What the elite can't understand is that poor people can't sustain a capitalist economy, and that sick people are bad for business. I'm leftist, but I'm aware that a properly managed capitalist economy with a more or less functioning democracy can be really good for workers, like in Japan in the 80's or South Korea now. But, the model of capitalism running currently in the USA is not much different than the pseudo-feudal system running in most Latin American countries, and there is a reason why people from Argentina to Mexico risk their life to get a chance to make a shoot to the American dream: being a pariah in USA was 100 times better than being a pariah in their homeland, but now USA's elite is making every effort to run the nation into the ground, and the common american instead of focusing in improving his country was smug in the satisfaction that well, things were bad and getting worst, but at least they were living better than the mexicans south of the border or any citizen from our banana republics. Now millions of americans can't presume that.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Are you talking about TARP, that was signed into law by George W. Bush a full month prior to the elections?
Sadly, I've learned most Slashdot users will talk from self-perceived position of superiority and mock any and all attempts from people to improve things, exercise their right to free speech or just try to do whatever they can to fight for their rights.
They will gladly complain about the Evil Xs, Ys and Zs until a common person dares to do something about it and ends up being noteworthy. That's when the hate machine will come down upon him. Meanwhile, I wonder what WE do to change anything.
Our level of constructiveness seems to be approx 1 % :/
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
While the Republican response to OWS has been predictable, is anyone terribly surprised that elected Democrats are keeping their distance?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I went down to Zuccotti Park to protest yesterday and it was really inspiring. Considering how screwed up our political system is right now, I think what it really takes to raise awareness is dedication and bravery rather than carefully planned bullet points. Sure, to the average IT guy there are new hairstyles, clothing styles, odors, financial backgrounds, employment statuses etc. represented, but if you want homogeneity you can go to North Korea, and besides, you can find something to criticize about ANY large group of people. What these protesters are doing should be celebrated, and everyone who thinks our government needs to stop weighting decisions by dollars needs to join. The Wall Street protests could easily be ten times the size, and you can always say "no one will listen to them anyway" but at some point you must have your say in whatever way you can. This is a good way.
The reason there is not one coherent set of commands is that anybody can join the protest using the platform. Some demands are bigger than others, but opinions differ wildly among the protestors.
1. End / severely limit corporate spending in politics.
2. Not-for-profit healthcare. I didn't say free, I said not-for-profit.
3. Corporate executive responsibility reform - make CEOs and their ilk personally responsible for their decisions.
4. Extremely simplified tax code with no loop holes.
5. Honest to goodness real welfare reform. No more handouts for people not interested in contributing to society.
I'd be happy with just #1.
giggity
I'd tend to agree, but there's also a case to be made that the Federal student loan program illustrates the disconnect we operate under. What am I talking about?
Well, consider this. Our government SUPPOSEDLY has legislation helping ensure we don't rip each other off or steal from each other, right? Yet we don't have such a thing as a debtor's prison anymore, and if one simply files for bankruptcy, it's possible to wash away pretty much all of your existing debts to other individuals or private businesses. The only debts they won't let you walk away from are the ones owed to the GOVERNMENT itself (such as those Federal student loan debts, or tax debts owed to the IRS).
There's a double-standard, in other words. Break your promise to repay your government, and there's no way out. In fact, refuse to pay what you owe in taxes and risk imprisonment. Break your promise to repay the furniture store you bought all that new furniture from on the "0% interest until 2013!" financing special they offered you, or the debt you ran up on your credit card,or that personal loan you got from Prosper.com from individuals who bid on it? Well... your credit score will take a hit but that's about it. Sucks to be anyone who trusted your promise to repay them.
Furthermore, government is perpetuating the LIE that spending loads of money for a "good education" is the wisest financial move you can make as a young person. Reality is further and further from the truth, as the big colleges and universities prove all the time, burying students in debt while they're unable to get good paying jobs with the diploma they worked so hard to get.
I want to know two things:
1) What are your problems? Not some random vague laundry list like "Wall street is bad," or "The rich suck." A short, specific, list of the things you believe are big enough problems that they warrant protesting over.
2) What shall we do about them? Just whining that there are problems is not useful. Propose solutions. Real, workable, solutions. Understand what the tradeoffs for those solutions are (all actions have cost) and be ok with that.
If you can't identify what it is your goals are and how you might go about achieving them, then I can't really support you because I don't know what I'd be supporting. Also I don't think there is much chance of success.
If you look at the successful stuff along these lines. Like, say, the civil rights movement they had precisely what I was talking about. They could clearly define the problem (that minorities were not treated the same as whites) and the solution (require the same treatment under the law) they desired. There was a goal being worked towards. It was something people could rally behind, and did.
So these people need to figure out what they want and how it should be done, and be able to state that in a cohesive fashion. Until then, I can't be supportive because I won't support something unless I understand what it is I'm supporting.
Yeah like the dark ages that followed the American Revolution, buncha filthy commoners thought they knew better than King George...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
About 20-30 of them, despite the rain. But the attendance has definitely been reduced.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The protesters have been clear that the main goal of the movement is taking back, and protecting, our representative democracy. They have stated that to do so we need publicly financed elections. This means striking down the 'Citizens United' decision which allows entities to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns. I fully support this goal.
I would only add that (1) we need preferential voting, and (2) we need paper trails on votes and clear auditing procedures - the electronic voting machines are way to easy to crack.
Via youtube or news videos since I'm not in New York.
I don't want to sound like one of those stoners preaching for legalization, but I truly believe the debate on the legalization of Marijuana is at the core of this whole fiasco. Here's why. We've already scientifically proven it doesn't have any long term negative health effects, besides when you burn it creating carbon monoxide which when inhaled could potentially give you lung cancer, yet there are things in this country much worse for you that are perfectly legal. Alcohol, fast food, etc. Not trying to say we should ban one thing or another, just let people decide what they want to do.
So the answer to the question, "why is this plant illegal to grow and consume?" is simply because of the huge industries that influence the rules, regulations, and laws in this country. Therefore, everything you and I are allowed or not allowed to do is most likely stemmed from some industry or conglomerate that has lobbied long enough and dumped enough capital in to the government to create the legislation. All I really want is for the Federal Government to just leave business alone. And the businesses need to leave the government alone. Businesses are not supposed to run our democracy. People are supposed to run our democracy. Small businesses have an incredibly difficult time staying afloat thanks to payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, sales tax, etc. They are the lower and middle class of the business world and they too are being treated like shit in this time of economic turmoil. I only bring up the Marijuana thing because it is a perfect example of how businesses influence the law and it has to stop. If you want certain laws to regulate what businesses can and cannot do, then it needs to be controlled on the State level, not the Federal level. Stop wasting our time and money.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
The protests started when the weather changed from Hot to Pleasant. They'll end when the weather changes from Pleasant to Cold.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I can't speak to the "entire" 99%. However, there's a large number who fall in this category: Middle class, busting their ass, struggling with credit cards, student loans, car payments, mortgages. Just making it. They're angry at the right people - but they have the wrong idea. The middle class are more than happy to keep signing up for credit - this is how the rich have become the new Monarchy. You don't kill that power with signs and cries to the government: you do it by choosing to stop giving them all your keys to personal power.
Teach your children: Debt is bad. Go to college on grants and scholarship, bust your ass working to pay for the rest. (Make 70% of a Harvard salary, but with $100,000+ less debt) (You'll have to teach your kids to get past the fantasy they've been sold that college is foremost about the social experience - work your ass off, study your ass off, and if you have any left over time, that's for socializing)
No credit cards. If you don't have the cash (yes, I mean debit card, silly) to buy the latest iPhone/clothes/Christmas present, then plan better. Or accept that you simply can't afford it.
No car loans. No car leases. First car will be garbage. Pay yourself what you'd pay in a car payment - every 3-5 years you'll have a pretty nice car and no debt ever. New cars - never. Horrible loss of value. Always buy something 2-5 years old.
Mortgage: This is the hard one. Most people can't save up $150,000-$300,000. Actually they can.. but let's assume you need to rely on the bank. Never get into a house with less than 20% down. Then attack that mortgage. Don't pay the minimum and keep the rest so you can have the latest shiny beepy and your kids can have the latest plastic happy. Live crazy cheap for 7 years - most people can pay off their house in this time. If you start off early, and have a decent job (and aren't strangling yourself with debt), it's possible to save up and just write a check.
Obviously all this is a bit insane, but let's stop believing the lies: we have to go to the best school, the only safe car is a new car, that credit card payments are a way of life. Your best tools aren't your picket signs and your Tumblog: it's your income. Take it back, and make it the force behind changing your life.
For those already in the hole, there are some sacrifices to be made, but it's possible.
An average person, 100% debt free by age 35, will be a multi-millionnaire by the time they are 70 (assuming they aren't a total idiot about how they spend their $ after debt).
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
(in IT)
I can say that there's a valid anger at the Wall Street folks. First look at the way they operate... they make microtransactions that use computer algorithms operating at the speed of light to buy and sell all kinds of financial property from one bank to another. There is *NO* benefit to the economy here, they are simply playing on the gains and losses through a day, all day, every day. And usually at the expense of everybody else.
Next, they don't have to worry about long term planning, because their bonuses are paid UP FRONT, not on performance over a X year period. So if they make the company $20 million, they might get a $100k bonus, even though those same investments next year will lose the company $100 million. They don't get dinged for bad performance, and it's easy to say "market conditions" any time this happens. Interesting fact... 80% of private finance firms CANNOT BEAT mainstream market indexes, like the S&P 500. That means if you invest your money into an index fund like anything that mirrors the S&P, you have an 80% chance of doing better than most finance firms.
Of course, the way these banks really make money is through fees. They get you 8% return, and take 1.5% as a 'cut'. So you're getting 6.5% return YOY, but the S&P did 8% on its own, and you would have paid a pittance in fees because there's no need to "manage" that portfolio. Of course, nobody knows this, and the investors are happy keeping you in the dark about it.
In addition to all this, add up the fact that the co-opting of banks into our colleges that made credit easy and tuition skyrocket really pisses people off. What's more, is that you CAN'T declare bankruptcy on student loans -- ever. Students graduate with 5-6 figures in debt with almost 30% unemployment and then people say they are wrong in being mad? They aren't wrong. Our system is wrong. It rewards short term risk, encourages stress on our economy whose job is to prop up the work of these banks, and almost no regulation or oversight. Not to mention, most of the people who investigate financial crimes (the SEC) wind up GOING TO WORK FOR THE BANKS. And there are no rules against THAT either. So one day you can be an SEC investigator making 75k a year, and the next day you can work as an "analyst" in a Wall Street bank making $350k a year.
So yea, the #occupywallstreet protests are valid, if not a bit misdirected and full of mixed messages. They need proper spokespeople to get out there and explain their positions in a logical and rational way that hits home with the average person. And honestly, I can think of nobody better than Elizabeth Warren.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Well if they take their lobbying dollars with them, that's a great start! Sure sucks for Canada though...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm all for giving the finger to the 1% man, but do these protests have any real goal other than to just flip him off?
Are we expecting anything out of this, or are we seriously just flipping them off for a few weeks just to go back to our everyday lives?
Because that's going to do a whole lot of nothing, with the exception of helping the media outlets sell more stories...
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Wall street is traded and run almost entirely automatically by the computers now days. The massive amounts of money that is traded on a day to day basis is done in very high volume by algo traders.. AKA computers. While right now the numbers are that 40% of the trades are automatic and by computers I'd bet the reality is the majority of that is the bulk of what is traded on any given day. Point being.. our computer overlords do not care about our problems.. they only care that they make massive amounts of money.. then they don't really care if they don't.. but that is what they are set out to do.
One person can make a choice ... this makes no difference anymore these days ...
BULL. It is still one person one vote in the US. The problem is that voters make very poor choices. Voters are easily "bought", too easily swayed by talk and are reluctant to throw out incumbents whose actions don't match their talk. Basically voters do not hold politicians accountable for their actions. Politicians only have to say the "right thing" on the campaign trail. There is the illusion of corporate control only because voters are overly influenced by TV commercials. What would happen if politicians started getting thrown out if their actions did not match their campaign speeches, if voters voted based upon performance rather than likability or political alignment? I'd wager politicians would be more attentive to the voters.
From what I've seen, they're saying pretty much what I've been saying for a few months now and some of what I've been thinking since the recession. However, with no real definition to them aside from the vague desire to do something about the corporate government and a sense of being on the wrong end of the stick, it's difficult to tell other people (like my grandmother) just what Occupy Wall St and similar protests are about. "Ending corporate control of the government" isn't really enough explanation and the groups refuse to get into more details.
On the one hand, formlessness and lack of unique identity and goals helps them by keeping the doors open to anyone who wants the same goal but may support different methods of it. It also makes taking action against them, whether through the media or law, difficult. On the other, those same traits confuse the hell out of people. Not just the talking heads or the politicians, but other regular Joes that want to understand and maybe support them. It's going to take more than simple anger to gain results.
They're working on getting some details done, but the model of self-government they've chosen (a fully democratic consensus seeking assembly) makes it difficult to get to that point with any real speed. Right now, they have my support. We will just have to see how well that holds as time goes by. The Tea Party had good talking points in the beginning too, but they got co-opted by the Republicans. I'm desperately hoping that sort of thing doesn't happen here, but history is not favoring those odds.
That photo of GWB with the tag line "I fucked it all up, thanks for blaming it on the black guy" is extremely appropriate here.
Obama did not bail out AIG, Citigroup, Bear Stearns.... etc etc
Sorry... no.
Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.
Instead of drowning the federal government in a bathtub (ala Grover Norquist), I suggest we take our government back from the greedy pigs and use that power to set things straight.
Simply getting rid of the sheep dogs because they've sold out to the wolves is not the way to go. If you leave the sheep to fend for themselves, we'll all end up as wolf poop.
What we need is new sheep dogs.
... is not a bad idea. There's a lot to protest for sure. The protests currently going on though? Well from what I've seen they don't know what they're protesting, or why. They're there simply to be there. Which is hardly going to change anything or even cause much of anyone to bat an eye.
99% of everything is crap.
Apple is the largest corporation in the world. The iPhone is notorious for being produced by slave labor (google foxconn suicides). How many of the occupy wall street protesters use Apple products?
If you want to make a difference, vote with your dollars. Demand that the companies you do business with behave ethically. Humane treatment of employees and subcontractors instead of sweat shops. Reasonable CEO compensation with bonuses based on creating value, instead of huge payouts regardless of performance. Holding vendors and subcontractors accountable for their actions, instead of turning a blind eye because the price is right. The 1% has our money BECAUSE WE GAVE IT TO THEM.
I find it ironic that these folks are protesting corporations, to whom we voluntarily give our money in return for products and services, instead of the government who takes it by force.
That which does not kill you, postpones the inevitable.
That reminds me of one of my many favourite lines from Canadian Bacon "There's a time to think, and a time to act. And this, gentlemen, is no time to think."
Just going out and "building consensus for action" is not useful unless what the action is is defined. I will NOT stand behind any movement who's purpose is not defined. I have to know what you and I have to agree with it before I can support you.
What's more, if you look at successful protests, well that is what they have. They have a list of what they believe is wrong and what should be done to solve that. They are the ones that work. As I said in another post, the civil rights movement is a great example.
If it is just a bunch of people whining that we "need to take action" or something without saying what, then I've no use for them.
<p>Look really closely at the Occupiers, and I bet you find a bunch of elitist bastards from Ivy League and other top-tier Universities.</p></quote>
Obligatory: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OSwDLiKxrvI/To-d8_zmQII/AAAAAAAAniE/EqVjpDPvVo0/s1600/111007-down-with-evil-corporations.jpg (I swear it's not gotse.)
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
Well, it's certainly provided an interesting look into NYPD's way of 21th century policing. Apart from that, yeah, good to hear some voices agains tthe unsustainable "more, more MORE!" movement.
Sorry... the class warfare started back in the 80s... and we've been on the losing end for a long long time.
It's about time we started fighting back.
Steal a dollar, get probation
Steal a thousand dollars, get a fine
Steal a million dollars, get home detention
Steal a billion dollars, get a long jail term
Steal a trillion dollars, get a free swag of taxpayer money and become a consultant
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
You did catch the word "some", in the previous sentence? Or did your blood pressure shoot up so fast it caused retrograde amnesia?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Given that around half the people that ever lived are alive now (assuming 100k years of human past, I believe).
That would mean this top 20% is the top 10% not the top .0000000000001%.
Or were you going back to the first organism?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Were all these protesters asleep in history class? Because I was taught that a balanced society was tried several times in the past. most notably the communist republic of the former soviet union. it collapsed because the government wasn't able to keep up with the control needed in a modern society and the capitalist movement took over.
Soon the same will happen in China, that's a huge global market bubble that's ready to blow any minute.
I mean its not uncommon for someone to create a business in their garage that overtakes other almost monopolistic business's, there are countless cases of this happening. in our capitalistic society no one is stopping you from doing that.
-------------------------------------------------
Systems don't make money or contribute to society. People do. The problem with the current system is that those same people are able to manipulate it without their knowledge or consent of the rest of us.
Bitcoin addresses a host of failures of the current system by making financial transactions fully transparent. There is an inability to to leverage money 50 to one like Societe Generale taking accounts to the casino. There is an inability to inflate the currency. There is no need for banks since everyone *is* a bank and can conduct global transactions anytime anywhere for free.
It's not perfect, but the current system is broken.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
The protesters are drawing some attention and venting some anger, but that's about it right now.
There is however a huge opportunity for public education.
Instead of angry faces, and moronic signs like "y u not angry?", it would be nice to see some calm & rational folks down there with signs like:
"Bank Locally"
"Manage Your Own Retirement Funds"
"Reinstate Glass-Steagall"
"End the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel"
And if you talked to these people, they would make suggestions like:
1) Move all of your accounts and loans to a transparent, non-profit, local credit union. Or at least to a trusted small local bank.
2) Withdraw all money from your 401K, 403B, IRA, etc and manage it yourself. (The banks and government have lied to you about the long-term benefits of these accounts...which you will see when your retirement funds, which probably were already reduced by poor money management, are hit with the double-whammy of higher capital gains tax plus hyper-inflation).
3) Lobby your local senators and representative to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, cap usurious interest rates, institute clawback laws for insane compensation of bank execs, place the Federal Reserve under ~government~ control (haha! you thought it was under government control?), etc. Call your elected representatives. Write them. Collect signatures of other constituents who will not re-elect them unless they push for these changes.
Etc.
Using their iPhones and Blackberrys and toting Starbucks cups.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It doesnt, because it is really the issue of those with money using legislation to ensure their returns/profits/power that is the issue. The wealth disparity is symptom.
Remove all the ability to donate corporate money to election campaigns, and unlimited campaign contributions ( elected official buying ), and I expect you will see a difference.
emt 377 emt 4
I think it's good because it has so many people talking. I don't like all for the petty arguments being volleyed about. While the topic is open this is your chance to speak, may I suggest that, rather than argue about which corners have the most dirt in them, we talk about what we want our country and world to be and work from that.
I remember the '60s, they sucked the first time. And the anti-war protests of the '60s tended to be much more focused than this crap.
My view is that it's a lot of naive people, influenced by left-wing hypocrites and by those who will use these well-intentioned protests for their own ends (e.g. the radical anti-war people that got gassed trying to enter the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum on Saturday). But that's just like the '60s, too! I have generally no patience with the far-left agenda that has been so disproven throughout history (i.e. why communism, which sounds at face value reasonable, doesn't work in the large as a "violation" of human nature.)
Now if someone wants to protest with a clear agenda (like, for example many of the gay rights issues such as same-sex marriage), I respect that (even when I don't agree with it.) But I can assure you that (a) I'm not in the 1% of top income, and (b) those protestors DO NOT represent me!
The cost living is a lot higher in the US compared to 3rd world countries. So in a country like India someone could be solid middle class and even have a nanny and a cleaning lady yet still make less money than someone living paycheck to paycheck in the US.
In other words... the problem is that industry regulates the government.
Is this the "job-killing" regulation everyone is talking about?
New cats. http://www.saskndp.com/mouseland
"Sadly, I've learned most Slashdot users will talk from self-perceived position of superiority and mock any and all attempts from people to improve things, exercise their right to free speech or just try to do whatever they can to fight for their rights."
If the protesters themselves didn't try so hard to invite ridicule and instead focused squarely on getting their message out, we'd have a reason to take them more seriously.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I have stories too - the rabble did real well in 20th century Russia, eh? Oh, I know - the glorious revolution got co-opted by corruption. But that's what _always_ happens. Also, those "filthy commoners" setup the system the whiners are so vehemently complaining about, including the onerous concept that you are free to succeed or to fail on your own.
The disparity in wealth makes for tasty factoids that are nice for op-ed pieces or signs at protest rallies, but it's a side issue. Just like the bonuses given to bankers and traders are a side issue (and one that banks would just love us to focus on). What matters is power.
I don't mind an industrialist making billions, or a banker getting a big fat check for gambling on some short term goals. What I do object to is that industrialist being able to influence legislators to the extend that laws are being drafted not with the well-being of the state and the people in mind, but solely to further the interests of that industrialist or his industry. I object to being forced to bail out irresponsible bankers, and pretty much having no choice in where to put my retirement fund... well, I can choose between irresponsible bankers, greedy insurers who charge half the fund's revenue in "fees", or responsible pension funds... that get a big chunk of their reserves appropriated by a greedy government as "overage" (this happened in the Netherlands in the 80s).
The state should be in control. And by that I do not mean the state should involve themselves with the day-to-day of every aspect of business, but they should be ready, willing, and able to step in when the situation demands it, when business oversteps its bounds. Not more rules and regulations, but better oversight.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Have you seen the tumblr blog that started all this? It's not just students on there, and if you watch anything but Faux news you'd know by now they are a VERY diverse group.
as little as possible.
Why wouldn't the unions be involved? Their membership has traditionally supported exactly the same ideas that the occupy movement has. They weren't asked specifically to join, they just pledged support of their own accord.
At least their message is more consistent than the tea party.
I don't get what's wrong with this (ok, the Starbucks thing is kinda funny, their stuff is bloody expensive), what's so wrong with not liking the corporate influence on government while owning corporate products? If a libertarian drives on government roads and drinks government-approved clean water and breathes government-cleaned air while railing against the government on the government-invented Internet using a computer that can communicate wirelessly thanks to government-managed airwaves, does that make him a hypocrite? Maybe he doesn't want those particular things to be affected, or is willing to do without them (good luck).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't disagree, but if you acquired a big time debt going to college (which I did also, and PAID IT OFF MYSELF), *and* your parents are wealthy enough to pay it off with the change under the bonluxat sofa cushions, you defeat the purpose of occupying a park near wall street and crapping on cop cars by admitting that actually, you're a rich spoiled brat. [1]
[1] I mean the literary "you", not, you know, you.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The protests should not be necessary at all. In a democracy its pretty awful to be forced to bail poorly run and overbooked banks out. We live in a rampant capitalist world where everything we hear is how the free market is the god of all humanity. We should take whatever shit the market blows our way. Be it unemployment, foreclosure, seizure, no medics and just about anything else life throws our way.
At the same time we have to take our money, our damn money, and bail the rich bankers and corporations out? This is inverse socialism where the people pays the rich.
Let the damn banks and corporations fail already. The effect on the economy would be short and hard but it would weed the real assholes out of the system. The message we send to the banks right now is to make an ever bigger mess in the near future. Sadly the political system is totally broken.
HTTP/1.1 400
Given time, they'll find their focus. This is the balance I have been waiting for since the Tea Party came into the picture. The US needs a citizen-originated anti-corporatist organization. We need a powerful "grass roots" movement to answer the swing to pro-corporation anti-worker conservatism we've taken. I see OWS as the first step in a corrective turn away from fascism and back towards a more humane democracy. I'm hoping it will eventually provide the yang to the Tea Party's yin. I was a child of the 60's, raised in the 70's when the 60's optimism was still relatively fresh in some people. I've been waiting for the awakening that was promised but never delivered by the great demonstrations of that era. It is long overdue.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
The word "some" just doesn't mean what it used to, does it?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GW Bush initiated TARP, look it up.
1: I and many others who would constitute the "99%" do not stand with them. They need to redo their math. 2: No one forced anyone to take any loan. Personal financial responsibility doesn't go away just because you aren't rich. 3: No one is entitled to give you a job. 4: If wall street was breaking the law, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job. If they were not, then go picket the SEC for not doing its job. 5: Much of the 1% had nothing to do with mortgage crisis.
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
What? No, damnit! I didn't want to post anonymously! Gah, I keep forgetting to make sure I'm logged in here.
I have no tag line
I went to Occupy Wall Street in New York, in Liberty Plaza on Thursday night.
You hear in the news media about how the park is not clean. I stood and watched the General Assembly go on for some time - while I was standing there, people with brooms came by every 15 minutes or so. The OWS people are almost overdoing the cleaning in response to the criticism, I've never seen more sweeping and cleaning than I did in the park. So if you hear on Fox News that OWS is not cleaning up after itself - it is just not true. I've never seen a place cleaned so frequently.
When I was there, most of the people were young people - in their late teens and twenties. They were winding down for the night so they were relaxing more. On one end of the park musicians were playing drums and other instruments, and the young people were dancing. Past them were a lot of sleeping bags. Past that people were being fed by a kitchen. They have a media center being run by a portable generator I believe. Past that is the general assembly where they make decisions. There is no loudspeaker so people repeat what the speaker says for those too far away - kind of like in the Life of Brian, but hopefully with more faithful repetition.
I've followed the internal political discussions about the effectiveness of these kinds of things for a long time. One point is it's a demonstration, in the sense of an example. Food is handed out freely, decisions are made through direct democracy in a general assembly, there's a DIY esthetic for everything, in a spirit of cooperation. So a community is created in OWS that is an antithesis to say the Wall Street financial companies - which are in buildings surrounded by semi-conspicuous barriers, behind which are tall office buildings whose entrances have security cameras, security guards and locked security gates, and up the elevator you have people wearing suits (or as fashions change, business casual) in a high-pressure, competitive, cutthroat hierarchy, run for profit. It's creating the new society in the shell of the old, as it's sometimes put
Then there's the other political considerations. Obviously this is inspired by the demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt and the Arab spring on one level, and perhaps in some dialectical way the Tea Party as well. In the US in the 1930s there were student organizations, labor organizations, labor political parties and parties courting labor for people to get involved in. Nowadays less than 7% of private workers in the US are in a union. But things have changed in the US as well - in the 1930s Detroit going on strike would be shutting down America's economic engine - nowadays if Detroit went on strike, it would be much more minor of a ripple in the national economy. The UAW threatening to go on strike is much less threatening to the powers that be.
One of the biggest laughs is OWS has not come out with a clear program for the ordinary 99% of us not born with a silver spoon in our mouths, to get us into a better position. Well who out there actually is doing that? The corporate media is completely controlled by billionaires, Congressmen collectively get billions of dollars in campaign contributions, Bill Gates and others are trying to privatize all schools into charter schools. These rich heirs control the media, the government, increasingly the schools, and even churches really. Most importantly of all they control enough capital to effectively control all capital, they control who works, who doesn't, and the offices we go into every day, where our labor is kicked up to these heirs in one form or another by way of a quarterly dividend check. And then the real kicker is these people also effectively control or co-opt the organizations made to check their power - labor-oriented political parties and labor unions. That's why I feel that the OWS general assembly gives voice to my concerns in a way that all the other controlled and coopted organizations out there do not. People generally don't think about these things, but as the unemployment rate drags on at 9%, as the housing market stays sluggish and so on, more people dwell on these things.
Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility. It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians. I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One does need to suffer the inequality to claim one is suffering from it without being laughed out of th
That's not to say that their anger is misguided. Those who got us into this mess have done less time in the slammer than the protesters who were unlucky enough to get arrested. Our political system is not so much broken as already bought. And the wealthy in this country, by and large, have every reason to regard themselves as America's upper caste, since they're effectively immune from poverty, or even the rule of law for that matter.
But if there is a message here, it's getting lost in the noise.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
I would pay to see the moment when the people who *do* suffer the inequality turn on the rich brats who are hanging on for notoriety and pity sex. That would truly be a youtube classic.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Or not.
I think the first goal is identification. If you aren't part of the 1% then you are part of the 99%. The people out there are sharing their stories of being in the 99%.
The second goal stems from the first. No matter what your personal crisis / situation is, you all share the same relationship to the 1%.
After that, it gets diffuse as each category does NOT have the same solution. If you're 65 and you've lost your savings then your solution will not be the same as the 24 year old with college debt and no job.
...e room. Or off of Wall Street.
Maybe... The kind of regulation I'm talking about "doesn't exist". Ask Wikileaks.
To what ends? How far down the drain must things slide before they become worth fighting for?
Bingo. Myself coming from the second poorest country in the Western hemisphere, I find it appalling that Americans criticize other Americans because they are fighting for greater equality, accountability and the preservation of the standard of living which is what makes living in the developed world great.
Like yourself, I'm not exactly sure what the hell these holier-than-though-we-have-it-good morons expect. Should things slide till things degrade to the point the average standard of living is no longer what it should be in a developed country?
The total student loan debt in the country is now surpassing credit card debt. When you used to be able to get a college degree with no more than $15K in debt, now you have to acquire debt 2-3 times that amount at least!. Social mobility is decreasing. There are 14 million people unemployed. People who worked hard for years, decades, are now unemployed because their jobs moved to China, and these same people get derided because they never got additional skills - with what money, with what education system, and if you are over 50, with what opportunities to get hired in a new field again?
You can finish college owing $50K and still not have a chance to get a job. And you have no other educational alternative since we do not have a state-funded post-HS vocational education system. Unemployed are being derided for not being entrepreneur and small business owners, but those who deride them conveniently ignore the little fact that capitalism (or any economic model for that manner) cannot absorb a population entirely made of entrepreneurs.
It is a sad indictment that it is cheaper for someone to travel to a third world country to get basic medical care than here. One would imagine that a country with the highest living standards would provide affordable health care for people making the minimum or close to the minimum. You need to make at least 2.5 or more of minimum wage just to afford medical and dental for yourself, let alone your family if you have one.
This might be a country with a very high standard of living, but you can still be poor and live a shitty live. It is an arrogant thing to say the poor in this country that they still have it better. They do, but just marginally with respect to the cost of living in this country. This from someone (myself) that comes from a country (Nicaragua) where there is still people looking for food and recyclables in garbage fields.
I would dare to say that in my old country, so long as you live within walking/commuting distance to a medical center (that is, you don't live in a remote village up in a mountain), you get a better chance to get basic medical care on a regular basis than a poor person in this country.
And that is the saddest indictment of all. People who deride the protesters, claiming that they have nothing to complain, they really don't know what the f* they are talking about.
If "some" means looking at just the "1%" of the stories you being are spoon-fed by the media and ignoring the "99%", then I guess we're taking about the same "some". ;)
It does make that Libertarian a hypocrite IF he's glad that those government-coerced "things" exist.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Also, those "filthy commoners" setup the system the whiners are so vehemently complaining about
Please, the system then was very different from the system now. It could have been updated to match the times, but things took a few nasty turns along the way. For its time it was a radical improvement over other societies.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Obama wanted a class war and now he's got it.
There's nothing I can say without provoking someone on the "other side" into an ad hominem attack. Dialog, or what remained of civil dialog, on any of these matters is pretty much suspended until after the 2012 elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
That was Buffett, a billionaire, in 2005-2006, expressing views that predate that date, that predate the Obama administration. Newsflash for ya: You have been having a class warfare, or more appropriately put, a degradation of the standards of livings for the working class for the last 3 decades, and only morons choked up in GI-Joe kool aid seem oblivious to it.
This is step one. It's a sort of brainstorming in public. We all know things aren't quite right. We can ID Wall Street as a focal point for many of the things that are wrong. It's a good place to start looking and to start discussions.
This isn't the final debate nor is it intended to be. It's just 99% of the people in the room reminding the 1% that just "unanimously" voted that they get all the cash that we haven't even finished drafting the bill yet, much less counted all the votes.
Next step depends on how they respond. Best answer is they sheepishly sit back down red-faced. I don't hold up much hope of that one. The other end of the spectrum is that they get told that they won't get out of the room alive if they don't pout the money down.
Who knows, today it's occupy Wall Street, perhaps tomorrow it becomes a blockade. If participation continues growing at the current rate, they'll have enough people to pull that off no matter what the cops do.
The real problem is that as soon as you elect a mouse, he turns into a cat.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
And you base this on what, exactly? What you see from the media that is not interested in depicting them as a serious movement or in your own personal observation? Or you're just "reading between the lines"?
Have you ever been to a march? What would you advice these people? Do you have any claims? What are you doing about it?
Everything and everyone can be ridiculed if you're intent on doing it and that includes us both.
And the quote you have is awkwardly appropriate , what are YOU doing for your country?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
My interpretation of your statement was that that industry (corporations) regulate (control) the government therefore causing laws that are so corporate friendly that they are designed to create/maintain the so-called "1%".
+5, Insightful.
You've got to have lots of disposable income to buy Smart Phones and drink really expensive coffee. Which pretty much completely negates the whole We're So Poor And Downtrodden meme.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
That is a good thing. The government should certainly discourage people lending to people who are likely going to be unable to repay their debts. If you can't take responsibility for who lend to, then you should not be lending.
You are 100% right. With government able to pick winners and losers by not applying the law the same in every case, companies are able to "contribute" and get favors. The corruption in government enables the crony capitalism that distorts the economy.
I think many of us realize something is wrong... that whatever is supposed to be working is no longer working. Bankers seem to have undermined some basic things in our culture but haven't had to answer for it. Politicians and corporations think they own votes and manipulate both the media and political boundaries to keep it that way.
Maybe it's all coming to a climax of some sort. Corruption on the massive scale that we've had for the past two decades may have reached the breaking point. At some point politicians can no longer do favors for every competing special interest and ignore popular opinion.
Have we reached that point. Are we at an "American Spring"?
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Just doing a little math and public numbers .. assuming the US has a population of about 310M, then 3.1M people would be 1% (since I don't know if it's adults or adults and kids, they are using the 1% nomenclature for, let's just start someplace.)
.,, this is WEALTH, not income. This is stuff people own. (I'll ignore the fact for now that the US has about 25% of the worlds wealth, even though we only have less than 10% of the population. Because if the protestors stopped to consider that, they might realize the hypocrisy and greed of what they are talking about.)
.. all of you kids out there who don't own crap .. get over it. Get a job, start building income, and someday you will own part of that 10%. Probably not until you are in your 30s or later. But I started out as an office clerk, worked decent jobs, took advantage of opportunity, and now make close to $100K/year without going to college.
.. they also both go to school full time, she works and he gets a stipend as a grad student. Since they waited until they own a home and don't live on campus, they save thousands. And their college costs are low enough that their parents can help out a bit (about half) without going into debt themselves.
According to Wikipedia, the total net worth in the US is $55T. That means that if 1% of the population (3.1M) have 90% of wealth, then they have about $50T or about 16M/person, and the rest of us (the 99%) have $17K per person. Now
I'm 51 and my wife and I are above this 10% number (that is $17K * 2 or $34K in assets) when I take into account the equity in my home ($0), the vehicles we own, misc. stuff in the house, and our IRAs.
Thirty years ago, I was waaayyy below this number, like at ZERO wealth. Imagine that, as a young man just starting out I didn't have jack shit. Probably didn't even hit the 10% number until I was almost 40.
So
And don't tell me that opportunity doesn't exist today. My 24 year old daughter and her husband were able to save up the 20% down for a house living at home with their parents while doing this thing called 'working' and 'saving'. She started as a dog bather at Pet Smart at 18, took advantage of their free dog grooming training, and now makes a decent income as an independent dog groomer. These two are married and own a home with a mortgage cheaper than a new car payment, and don't quite have $34K in the bank together, but they are getting close. Oh
Put your priorities in order and stop depending on other people to help you out. If you can't find a job, it's because people don't want YOU. It's YOUR fault, not theirs or society's or the 1% group. My wife has been searching for a full time job for 6 months, but you don't see us out there asking for help. We did this thing called 'budgeting' and 'doing without'.
These may be a difficult concepts for some of you young kids to grasp. But it's obvious you haven't learned how to wipe your bottoms, give it some time and you might learn how to do these things too.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
The lack of goals is a feature, not a bug. Once they announce an agenda or a âoesideâ they lose the 50% of people who self-identify themselves as the âoeother sideâ. This movement strives to be a populist movement that represents 99% of the country. Stating ANYTHING except a general pissed-off feeling will alienate the people who disagree with the thing (whatever it is) you have just stated.
The movement has reached the mass that it has precisely because they have not stated a purpose. And this is something that should be continued.
In my opinion, the endgame to this is simple. Continue to be non-partisan and work hard to gain a mass of people who are sufficiently fed-up with the moneyed interests dominating the government. With enough voting power, vote out all the corrupt scum-bags (both left and right) and replace them with representatives who answer to the people, not to corrupt interests.
This Wall Street protest is one of the most interesting phenomena that's happened in a long time.
We like to think that we know the general pulse and mood of society and that the outcomes are predictable, or at least reasonable.
If Apple comes out with the iPad, it may bomb or it may be popular - both outcomes seem to be likely given the current state of the world. If a cop is videotaped beating a suspect, it will likely go viral. If the president gives a speech, it will have little lasting importance.
The Wall Street protests are different because they are completely inexplicable. Masses of people don't protest without a reason, without a rallying point, or without a charismatic leader. There's always *something* that starts them off, that prompts people to take action. The recent London riots were precipitated by a cop shooting a civilian.
If these protests truly are just a manifestation of general popular mood, then the country could be in serious big trouble, for the following reasons:
1) If this is general popular mood, then the protests are emblematic of the mood of the *entire* population, and
2) These sorts of situations are fertile ground to grow new, charismatic leaders.
Not to Godwin the discussion or anything, but this sort of unrest has similarities to the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Theoretically, potential charismatic leaders exist in our society but never become popular due to social circumstance. If the people are content, it's hard to get a following.
The protests are interesting because of all the unlikely things that have happened: it was unlikely that they would start, it was unlikely that they would grow, it was unlikely that they would spread to other cities, and it was unlikely that they would be sustained for so long.
So many unlikely outcomes are a clear indication that we can't predict the next outcome.
Hence, it's interesting.
reduced to zero, they'd lay off all their workers, who would then be *really pissed* at the elitist bastard protesters.
Then the workers would mostly vote Republican since the Republicans would say, "You had a job until those elitist left-wing bastards destroyed your jobs."
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Maybe he doesn't want those particular things to be affected, or is willing to do without them (good luck).
Or maybe he's just using the system to try to reform the system.
Nobody thinks its hypocritical for itunes to include cd-ripping support, even though no ipod ever has, or ever will, support CD playback. In all of those cases the new are simply making use of the infrastructure that's in place in order to build towards something better.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
But that's exactly their POINT. The protests aren't some form of "dangerous class warfare" as the right wing pundits claim; it's not "the peasants revolting". These are people from the lower class and lower through upper middle class - ie. "the bottom 99% of the population" - speaking out against the completely imbalanced financial and *political* control of a supposed democracy.
The 1% already control everything... ...Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days.
Or you could do a good old fashion socialist revolution, raise taxes to 80%, decapitate a few people and nationalize big cooperations with defacto monopolies.
</sarcasm>
Okay, maybe that's crazy talk, but some less aggressive form of wealth redistribution is what it takes, and as evident from most other western democracies you can do that without decapitating people...
I think all these people at these occupy protests shows there is lots of anger and frustration out there and that the fear and attachment to the status quo are diminishing.
This is a ripe time for a charismatic leader to tell them what to think, and gin up some will to act decisively. Its also notable that heading into presidential elections none of the candidates are that person. Obama is out there trying to be and its not working. These people even if most would be unwilling to say it actually want the current political system gone.
There does need to be a leader though. A friend of mine lives next to a Cleveland Federal Reserve employee, who went down to the street to see what the Occupy Cleveland folks wanted. What he tells us is that he told them look, I am one of these guys, I will be getting on airplanes and talking to Congressmen, Senators, Federal Reserve Board members, some European and World Banks reps and others all next month. What would you like me to tell them?
They protesters were not able to come up with an answer. The group could not come up with a single actionable statement. He was not looking for anything real specific, he just wanted something a little clearer than "JOBS!"
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility."
It absolutely is our responsibility, collectively.
"It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians."
I didn't say corporations were evil. Nor that they were using direct coercion to make us vote a particular way.
Getting elected is all about being able to get money to run the campaign. Making sure all the right sound bites are out there.
( Which ties into the above, yes, we *should* ignore the sound bites and pay attention to policy, but voters run to what is simple. )
As long as the large amounts of money are coming from corporations, those corporations will expect that money to benefit them.
Otherwise, why are they putting it out there?
So, once the politician has had the use of the money to get elected, it will be hard for them to not vote in accord with the corporation's will.
Personally, I vote as you do, but what choices do I have in politicians? Usually it is one idiot democrat against a stupid republican, neither of whom represents "me", nor the electorate he / she / it supposedly represents.
Get the money out, limit the amounts and locations the contributions can come from, then politicians will have to align with their electorates to get elected, which is the main goal to begin with ( proper representation ).
I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
emt 377 emt 4
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My article is kinda long, just focus on Chapter 1: Real-Estate hoarding.
A Young Educated Poor's article
God spoke to me
Unfortunately, they've been misled by the 1% to believe that they live in a democracy, even when anyone with eyes that are open can see that they don't. The 1% control what people see on TV and movies, what they eat, drive, think. No, it isn't a conspiracy where they get together and plan everything out for the rest of us. It's just a byproduct of a system that has always favored the wealthy. Over time, acting in their own best interests, they have solidified their control making it nearly impossible to change the system that is tilted so far in their favor. I think it is as natural for them to try to maintain things as it is for the rest of us to want change.
What the 99% don't realize is that they have no power.
I think everything you said would solve the problem, would actually make the problem worse. I'm fine with keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution, but only if we change the Constitution to cover almost all of what the federal government does. There is very little of the federal government that I would currently do away with, and most of that is the military, which is perfectly Constitutional*.
* except for the Air Force, which is unconstitutional, according to a plain reading of the text.
Its like this; the "protesters" are asking for a revolution and they will be in for a very rude surprise if they get it; no "revolution" ever happened that did not have some nasty consequences. Like people dying for a starter. These naive types think they will view the whole thing in the comfort of a home via the Internet, TV, etc all the while their children go to school in a safe manner, they pop off to the local grocery to stock up at normal prices, etc. The problem is not Wall Street. The problem is our Government and those running it. If it were not for Carter and his dumb-ass Executive Order that removed most of the financial requirements for a mortgage there would have been no need for sub-prime loans. It was his order that essentially forced for the finance industry to make UNSECURED loans and worse of all to those that could not afford them. BTW an Executive Order is a law. Talk about lack of fiduciary responsibility; that falls squarely on our government not Wall Street.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Then there were years of warnings where Congress was informed annually that there was a huge capital exodus from US markets in all types of securities EXCEPT debt securities since 2001. This capital flight in our stock markets was because our production markets became comparatively uncompetitive, also in part due to a tax regime that continued to encourage companies to move operations overseas.
Yet, does Congress accept blame for their actions leading up to the global economic crisis and continuing today as we have very high unemployment and anemic growth? Do they pass the simple laws needed to fix this, which do not require any spending, but merely correcting the economic unintended consequences of a tax policy that is clearly broken in a new technologically based dynamic global playing field?
No! Instead, they try to point the finger at anyone else they can so that no one notices that they are the cause of our problems. Worse yet, they avoid the very simple change needed to fix things because if they passed these laws, people might ask the question, "why did it take so long to realize these fixes were needed?" Their fear of being identified as the cause is the reason they continue to keep the status quo path that prevents us from enjoying the economic prosperity we built our country on.
I am angry at Congress, because they care more about popularity and being elected than actually doing what is needed to put our country on a solid path of economic growth. They refuse to admit to and repent for their past mistakes, and continue to blame others because they are more about re-election than our childrens' future!
Open Standards Portal
Personally, I find a lot of the 'revolutionary' talk by the Occupy Wall Street folks disturbing.
While I am sympathetic to some of their concerns, by no means do I share all of them. For that matter, they need to get a handle on what their concerns are. It seems like they are quickly becoming a magnet for all sorts of far left fringe groups. In that way, perhaps, it is somewhat like a polar opposite of the Tea Party movement.
Regardless, we have a system for changing things in this country and it starts with voting. If these people think they are going to stir things up and start some sort of Great Socialist Revolution, they are going to find out damn quick that they are NOT supported by 99% of the population.
- Necron69
No. If you didn't have government officials willing to take money for favors, then corrupt business would have nowhere to go with their money.
Think of it this way... A parent allows their child to stay up late every night, even though they both know that bed time is 9:30. It's the parent's fault when the kid throws a tantrum when they try to enforce the 9:30 bed time. If the rules were applied the same way all the time without preferential treatment for one child over another, there wouldn't be any tantrums. They would go to bed at 9:30, because that's when bed time is, no questions asked.
If government would apply the law equally, without picking winners and losers, then businesses would have to operate within the law. The will do whatever they are allowed to do, just like children. On the flip-side, over regulation stifles business. There is a balance to what rules the Federal Government should regulate, and I believe those are spelled out in the Constitution. The states can deal with the rest. That way the balance can be investigated in 50 different experiments.
It is about wealth distribution. The top richest 400 families own more wealth than the bottom 50%. Do you really believe that ~2,000 Americans provide more value and have more worth than 150 million Americans?
If wealth, aka money, represents time and skills, do you really think that 400 American families can provide more skills and time to society than 150 million Americans?
If wealth represents physical wealth, such as land, do you really think 400 American families can make better productive use of that much physical wealth than 150 million Americans?
Capitalism is a tool to support society by efficiently allocating resources and promoting individual initiative. Society, and thus capitalism, depends on people to make it work. If 50% of our population isn't benefiting from capitalism, then 50% of our population is going to stop supporting society. And when push comes to shove, it's 150 million Americans against 400 families. Who are you going to bet on? Or do you think that a dwindling middle class is going to keep 50% of Americans in check in order to preserve the top few percent?
"We" don't do anything. Slashdot is the equivalent of an online watercooler - not a very good breeding ground for "getting things done". If I'd hazard a guess, the only way anyone could recruit support from here would be to start some sort of constructive project that can be grasped intellectually (that is, the less abstract socioemotional "hippy bullshit" the better) and that to a rational geeky mind seems to have a reasonable chance of success, and get an article posted about it detailing the specifics in the most straightforward manner possible.
Emotions! In your brain!
People need to stand up and say this isn't right. Taxes are governments only tool for redistributing wealth and decades of tax cuts have crippled most governments and increased the disparity between income classes. Infrastructure is crumbling, education is failing and minimum wages do not keep up with real inflation so the poor become poorer each year. Western societies need to tax wealth heavily, both personal and corporate in order to sustain the society that creates the wealth in the first place. Corporations have managed to gain the status of a person so they should be taxed at the same rate as everyone else. Taxes should be paid in the country and state where the income was generated, no more tax havens. The economic period after WWII was characterized by taxation of wealth and investment in infrastructure. The improved infrastructure encouraged investment in industry and the US became an economic juggernaut. In the 1980's California voters approved a state tax cut that began a tax cut mentality which has lasted until the present day. The tax cuts did initially improve economics but over time they have starved governments of the ability to maintain the infrastructure that supports economic activity. Tax cuts also funneled ever more wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people who don't spend it. If corporations are taxed at 50% on profits of $400 million, they will still continue to operate because $200 million is better than nothing. Also corporations should pay taxes in the jurisdictions that the income was earned. People can't live and work in the US and then claim that they actually reside in the Cayman Islands and thus don't have to pay US taxes. Corporations shouldn't be able to do that either.
The real problem is that as soon as you elect a mouse, he turns into a cat.
Now you're thinking.
Mouseland (As told by Tommy Douglas in 1944)
(You can listed to Tommy tell this story in his own words in our Audio Files section )
It's the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played, were born and died. And they lived much the same as you and I do.
They even had a Parliament. And every four years they had an election. Used to walk to the polls and cast their ballots. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. And got a ride for the next four years afterwards too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big, fat, black cats.
Now if you think it strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats, you just look at the history of Canada for last 90 years and maybe you'll see that they weren't any stupider than we are.
Now I'm not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows. They conducted their government with dignity. They passed good laws--that is, laws that were good for cats. But the laws that were good for cats weren't very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouseholes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds--so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much effort.
All the laws were good laws. For cats. But, oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn't put up with it any more, they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse to the polls. They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats.
Now the white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said: "All that Mouseland needs is more vision." They said:"The trouble with Mouseland is those round mouseholes we got. If you put us in we'll establish square mouseholes." And they did. And the square mouseholes were twice as big as the round mouseholes, and now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever. And when they couldn't take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. Then they went back to the white cats. Then to the black cats. They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up of cats with spots on them: they were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but ate like a cat.
You see, my friends, the trouble wasn't with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.
Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends, watch out for the little fellow with an idea. And he said to the other mice, "Look fellows, why do we keep on electing a government made up of cats? Why don't we elect a government made up of mice?" "Oh," they said, "he's a Bolshevik. Lock him up!"
So they put him in jail.
But I want to remind you: that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can't lock up an idea.
Stock bears no relationship to ownership of the company when the company can give stock to employees in the future.
Wall Street has rigged the game.
Obviously I have done a review of the demands that were put forward (and admittedly more demands were put forward after those ones as well), but generally the people protesting Wall Street have their anger directed at the wrong problem.
Here is what I would demand if I wanted to FIX THE GAME and not just prolong the problem and create more disparity and cause more poverty:
1. End the Federal reserve bank.
2. End IRS, income/corporate/payroll taxes.
3. End CIA and FBI.
4. End all WARS and bring troops home, enforce the Constitution and stop illegality of having undeclared wars.
5. End FDIC, FHA, Freddie/Fannie.
6. End FDA, EPA, dep't of energy, agriculture, education, small business... down the list of all departments that hold unelected power.
7. Constitutional amendment to prevent federal government from passing any business regulations, any subsidies, any spending on any projects that are not military, criminal and contract law. This includes subsidies to businesses, SS, Medicare, minimum wage, labor laws, and 'civil right acts' (which are entitlements/obligations), subsidies to any businesses.
8. Restore the Constitution by enforcing it.
9. Only allow government to be paid for by sales taxes and reduce spending to only what is authorized by the Constitution.
10. Money is gold.
You can't handle the truth.
Yes given that your statement would be correct. However, estimates of the percentage of people who have ever lived vary wildly. I have seen numbers as low as 2% and as high as 12%. Other than your post, I have never seen any justification for 50%.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
this.
lobbying/contributions needs to be called what they are, a bribe.
there was a point in time where, yes, money was needed. ALOT of money for campaigning, but we live in a different world.
your commercials are annoying, if I want to see you smear "the other guy" you can do it in a debate, face to face.
if people believe in you, they can and will donate their time..
go do interviews for "ad time", pump your web site, stand on your own two feet like any of us have to.
is it as "effective" as it is today? how much has voter turnout increased since the advent of "targeted marketing"
this would only work if everyone has to do it.. sure, the rich would have an advantage, already having the money to put towards politicking.. but for the most part, they don't want to.. which is why they "donate" to run by proxy.
Sadly, the opposite has been said on FOX and the radio so many times nobody is going to believe you.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
And in 10 years most of these protestors will be married, have children and be working for the very same corporations they are protesting.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You talk like there isn't anything that person can do. There are those that can't do anything and they should be helped, but 99.9% if the "protestors" aren't doing anything but complaining.
When I graduated from school, the job market sucked. I had a degree in electrical engineering. I was newly married. I worked at Blockbuster and Subway for 6 months while looking for work. I did what I had to do. I'd be willing to be that all of these people could find some type of job to make ends meet. Would it be the job they trained for or went to school for? Maybe, maybe not.
It's not society's job to guarantee anyone a particular outcome. It's society's job to provide the opportunity. Are there barriers? Yes. Are there inequalities? Yes. Is it fair? No. Nobody said life was fair. Get off your butts, do something worthwhile, quit whining.
People on wallstreet and elsewhere in the financial industry have committed some appalling offenses over the last ten years or so (not to say it wasn't bad before). I'm surprised they haven't been burned at the stake for it yet. And I'm more surprised that people are continuing give their money to these people.
Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.
The beginning of that process is called a recession. Look how that turns out these days. The One Percent put the screws to the millions of people who had become dependent upon them for paychecks, and we folded and even gave them "bailouts" to restore the profit they imagined they had been deprived. In centuries past it might have played out differently, with the recession escalating to a revolution, but now the One Percent is much more experienced at manipulating the collective boiling point.
The result of the Revolution was freedom! Freedom to succeed and freedom to fail. As far as I can tell, the "protesters" are choosing to accept their own failure and blaming it on someone else.
Freedom means being able to make a choice. The problem with these people is that they want to "choose" to take from someone else. That is called theft.
My view is that this generic protest against greed would be more effective with better focus. I would support a protest with the goal applying existing laws to Wall Street. Obama claims that Wall Street hasn't done anything illegal, but that is a lie. Unfortunately, it is not widely recognized that the law has been systematically broken, as the mainstream media are owned by the 0.1%. Alternative media and protests are a step in the right direction. If these protests cause people to wonder about the endless cycle of fraud between regulators and bankers, or to wonder whom the existence of the Federal Reserve actually benefits, then they are a success. I generally agree with the following blog post on this topic [market-ticker.org]. http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195649
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
The fact that the coverage of the protests focus on New York and not Washington DC (which would be closer to the root of the 1% problem) suggests the protests are a stealth campaign by backers of the incumbent Obama against the presumed challenger Romney in the 2012 presidential election. The protests are being used to paint Romney's success as villainy, so that casting a vote against Romney is equivalent to casting a vote against the 1%.
Or maybe I'm just being cynical.
Require full reserve (as opposed to fractional reserve) banking. It would remove the pyramid.
Deleted
Look to the people who bailed them out. It's not the financial institutions who are to blame. They asked for help (some were forced to accept help) from the Governement. They were given help. Blame the Government. That's where the protests should be.
I'd say MinistryofTruth speaks well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6yrT-0Xbrn4
As I said, I'm happy, I feel no need to protest. If these people want my support they are the ones that have to do work to clarify their message, grievances, and goals. If they don't, then that's fine, I'll continue to write them off, as will many others.
It isn't my job to figure out what every person who comes along is claiming. It is their job to figure out how to clearly and efficiently communicate that.
It's confusing because there are different causes of wealth disparity. People who work hard vs people who are lazy, for instance, doesn't tend to bother people a whole lot.
What we have today though is the case where some people are essentially privileged by the system. They aren't the beneficiaries of wealth disparity because they're smarter, or harder working, or even just luckier than everyone else. They're the beneficiaries because a broken system funnels wealth their way. It's this system that provokes civil unrest. It's not even the people - at some level, I think everyone understands that in theory they could be a banker, or a politician, or whatever. But in practice not everyone can be a part of that privileged elite.
Maybe you don't believe me that there is such a thing as unfair wealth disparity. Consider this. Somebody smarter than me has created an investment fund. It consistently outperforms the market. How do they do it? The fund tracks the investments of US Senators, in particular junior Democrats. It turns out that US politicians are largely exempt from the laws that make insider trading illegal. Unsurprisingly then, they do a lot of insider trading, and profit off that. By copying what they do, you can potentially get a little bit of that (unless of course everyone starts doing it). But why is this fair? One rule for them, one for the rest is the very often the foundation of civil unrest.
It is class warfare. The rich have been at war with the rest, and kicking our asses, for the past thirty years. They have taken damn near everything we ever had. It's high time we fight back.
Did you ever get a job from a homeless person?
Unless you create your own wealth, then you rely on those who will employ you. They will get wealthier while you work for them (if they know how to run their business). You will also become wealthier, but not at the same rate. You are free at any time in this process to strike out on your own to compete. Maybe you have a better way to serve customers, great! You have the freedom to pursue that, but just remember that you have the same freedom to fail.
Sorry the US was never an anarcho-capitalist country. Try again.
Also paying your fair share of taxes isn't theft. Especially when that's ill-gotten money obtained through government bribes and bailouts.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The real problem with these protests is that no solution is proposed. I have a suggestion that the protesters and the tea party can get behind that might actually have some effect.
I propose a constitutional amendment that is simple and short:
1) Corporations are not people and do not have the rights and privileges provided by the constitution for citizens of the United State. All rights and privileges of corporations are dependent on law explicitly regulating corporate entities.
2) Corporations are explicitly denied the right of free speech. Corporate entities may only engage in speech related to the products or services offered by the corporation. Political speech is the sole right of individuals.
3) Individuals may group together to create entities for the purpose voicing political opinion and political lobbying. These entities must be funded solely by individuals with all contributions being in the public record. These political entities are strictly prohibited from taking part in any other type of activity.
It is a start. I guess you could never get it through but it would spark the right kind of public debate.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Occupy Wall Street seems to want LESS corporate freedom and more repairs to the social safety net provided by the government.
That sounds great to me. We've got to knock the elites down a peg or two.
The unions at the instructions of someone, most likely in the DNC, are trying to co-opt these protest and I wish the protesters the best of luck as they will need it.
The problem is, the DNC doesn't understand the protest but is so desperate to have a counter to the Tea Party they will take what they can get. They really really want a grassroots effort or one that appears as such and all their previous attempts fell flat (the bus loads of union members didn't really feel grassroots now did it, nor the mess they left)
However these protests appear to be somewhat still struggling for relevance. In Atlanta they shouted down/chased out Representative John Lewis here (Democrat, did his time on the race equality forefront) so they aren't showing a party affiliation.
They are way too white as well, way too we still live off of mommy and daddy too. There is a lot of greed being passed off by some in the crowd (pay my student loans, pay me a working wage, all without reason other than *I* declare it fair).
So overall, I hope they can remain independent but I bet they won't. They are too important finally to let the moment pass. All good crisis should be exploited.
Hence, their toast
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Most of the "We are the 99%" stories I have seen have been more along the lines of someone blaming the state of the economy for their own bad decisions. There are problems with big business and some of the truly rich, but those problems are not really the reason for many of the things these protestors are claiming.
Sounds like the Tea Party to me, or people on the short end of the stick in general.
Disclaimer: I'm a social liberal. Hippie, even. My passion is education and my occupation is sustainable transportation. I can't wait for gay marriage to be legal everywhere, I happily pay my taxes to redistribute wealth (I live within my means) and pay for socialized services, dream of the day of fiscally sustainable socialized medicine, and believe that all tax loop holes should be closed (in a perfect world, etc.). I like to donate my time to help other people. I'm a humanist preference utilitarian.
Statement: I think a good deal of the Occupy protesters are as bad as the Tea Party-ers. Few understand the implications of their assertions and demands. Few understand the futility of sit-ins, hunger strikes, and walk-abouts. They have no singular cause... no three points of demands and a plan to achieve them. Instead, they're so very grass-roots, that it's attracted a bunch of people who just feel like they need to yell at someone who's listening.
But no one's listening.
They're angry, they're let down, their parents' generation milked American credit for all it was worth and now they've been told go to fix it. Instead of creating meaningful action and initiative, they're chanting.
Further disclaimer: I marched against the war in Iraq with millions upon millions world-wide. The effect? America still invaded Iraq.
Statement: People have forgotten that the only way for protests to work is for the protestors to be pitiable. What are the memorable photographs of the 1960s? Here's a hint: they didn't involve hyperbolic signs or masked faces. They are of dead people-- having been shot unjustly by the national guard. They are of those being sprayed with fire-hoses and being attacked by police dogs. These protesters aren't allowing themselves to be pitied. They seem too well off for the middle class to care.
I'm a 1%-er (last time I looked up the figures anyway). I'm rich by most of the vary-ing standards I've heard Obama classify them. If you include my wife's meager earnings I'm rich even by the highest entry point I've heard him mention ($250k family). I'm a techie (programmer). I'm an employee, not a small business owner or banker. I work side jobs whenever I can (maybe that make's me a semi-business owner but I'm only making money from myself, not "off the backs of the peasents). I work my ass off and I make a good living.
I don't have a yaught or jet. I rent a modest three bedroom. My wife and I each have newer vehicles (avg 5 years old) in good shape; neither is a luxury brand. I live on a budget, we have buckets each month for groceries, rent, insurance, utilities, child care, etc... We have a modest amount left over each month to go out on dates and we save healthily for retirement. I am the the person that you are protesting.
There are 700 and some billionaires in this country (USA, again, last time I looked). They are the people you picture as you recite bad poetry in your drum circle. They are far fewer than 1%. They are just as likely to be a Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Rockefellers (sp?) or the now late Steve Jobs (all noted liberals/progressives) as a member of the Walton family (who may be left of center anyway but I name them due to the Walmart hate).
I don't have an answer, I'm not even saying that reform isn't needed. I'm stating that I don't think the vast majority of the members of this movement have stopped to think beyond "they have something I want" to understand who or what they are "fighting"
PS initial captcha was "repress"; where's my tinfoil hat? :)
No, Obama didn't want a class war nor does he, actually no one who is sane or even those that are mildly insane want a class war
You don't have to go far back into this nations history to see that this is just another cycle. We had the Robber Barron's and we had Breaker Boys and the contrast was so vivid. Vast political power and wealth was so heavily concentrated among so few that it led this country to a point where we were headed for a "French Revolution" of our very own. Only continued pressure on the coal mining industry and events such as the Lattimer Massacre and the tide of public opinion forced these companies to conceded both wage and safety increases.
Contrast that with what is happening today and although the circumstances are different that basic factors are the same. Once again consolidation of wealth and political power are tilting the landscape to the point where the growing gap between those with wealth and power are widening to the point where it is beginning to reflect a different time.
This era has brought what is essentially corporate blackmail against entire populations. If "Wall street" does not see continued growth in both market share and profit on a quarter to quarter basis then a companies stock is instantly devalued by a market that no longer seeks a solid investment but a quick buck on short term gains no matter what the cost. CEO's are rewarded for simply dumping employees to boost margins to satisfy those that will sell off the stock as soon as it rises a few points. This of course drives companies to threaten the towns and communities where they are located to essentially give them a free ride or they will simply pull up stakes and go elsewhere, burning cash and reserves in the process, pushing down the real value of the company but making the short term numbers look good, thus pushing up short term gains for the wealthy gamblers.
The entire "global economy" is really good for a very few but not so great for the vast majority. Every software development project that is shipped offshore takes away not only local jobs but reduces real income to the people that are supported by those local jobs being in the area. When a manufacturing plant is closed it is not only the workers that have lost jobs but other local small businesses, real estate, etc. etc.
What I like to call the "Wall-Mart'ng" of America is killing this country. Cheaper goods, lower wages and the only people making money are at the top. Wallmart reported 15.1 Billion in Net Income. I can completely see that when you are marking things up and paying $10.80 an hour wages.
The other big issue that is pushing us farther and farther to a point where things can flash is the fact that the Supreme Court granted 1st Amendments Rights to a stack of paper, aka, a corporation. This now gives those with large amounts of money to basically be faceless, nameless and anonymous in putting up whatever sort of campaign they like without having to be an actual campaign in order to greatly influence the outcome of elections.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
I know a lot of broke, unemployed people who sure would love getting into a Pinkerton gig right about now and shillelaghs are cheap.
I think either this movement has no well-spoken people, or the absolute worst people are being chosen to represent them in news interviews. It's as if the media operations want this group to appear inept. The ones who could actually talk about what's wrong with our systems, and why they're worth protesting, never seem to get shown on the news. It reminds me of when events would happen in the ghettos and the news crews would walk past all of the Black teachers, engineers, and other professionals to interview a homeless cocaine user who ends up using profanity and listing off the names of his friends.
Reporter: Could you tell us what's going on here?
Interviewee: The whole thing is bullshit and it's fucked up!
Reporter: What exactly is it that caused you all to be so upset?
Interviewee: All this fucked up shit that's going on. I want to send a shout out to my momma, pookie, and all the boys from 125th street. Fuck this shit, I'm on TV.
and 'hard work' is a lie that the bloodsuckers use to fool the morons.
show me ONE person who accrued a megacorporation by hard work of himself/herself - NOT by getting the proceeds from 100,000 people s/he employs. BUT, if you mean 'making other people work and sucking off 70% of what they produce' as hard work, yeah - you can be a hardworker in that. and THAT's the problem.
Read radical news here
Its for us. its for us, 'the people' to wake ourselves up from the 'hard work' lie that has been used to fool us. the ones hard working are us. the ones getting rich, are them.
Read radical news here
The only debts they won't let you walk away from are the ones owed to the GOVERNMENT itself (such as those Federal student loan debts, or tax debts owed to the IRS).
Actually it's even worse than that. You can't walk away from loans owed to a private bank and guaranteed by the government. If you were borrowing from the government, a non-profit organization, they'd design loans to give you the best chance of graduating and contributing to the economy. If you borrown from a private bank, they design loans that make the most profit for them (high compound interest), regardless of the risk (2-year vocational colleges like chef schools).
Furthermore, government is perpetuating the LIE that spending loads of money for a "good education" is the wisest financial move you can make as a young person. Reality is further and further from the truth, as the big colleges and universities prove all the time, burying students in debt while they're unable to get good paying jobs with the diploma they worked so hard to get.
That's a good point. Most of these loans start with a 17-year-old who is below the age of consent for sex, agreeing to take a loan that they don't understand, with worse consequences than sex, on the urging of college admissions counselors that everybody does it and of course you're going to take a loan, and you'll be able to pay it off when you graduate.
There's an element of fraud, which I think excuses some of the responsibility for paying it back. College loans should have the same bankruptcy laws everybody else has.
Given that around half the people that ever lived are alive now
To reiterate the GP, a sense of scale would be useful, but your senses are apparently WAAAAAAYYYY OFF. Probably well over 100 billion people have ever lived, and that's estimated from 50k years -- just half of your timeframe. That would mean less than 7% of the history of human population is alive now, not 50% (nor the more asinine and more common 75% quote).
If I had mod points right now I'd give you all I could. Nail precisely hit on head.
By Who
Gently reply
The rich pay the majority of taxes in this country, and by any definition pay at least their fair share.
But I'm all for a slightly graduated fair tax. 10% rate for income between $30k and $200k, 15% for anything over $200k - for all income sources of any type.
Just because you don't believe a corporation should be considered a person and given a disproportionately large voice in government (or given any voice in government) does not actually mean that you are anti-corporate. I know I am not anti-corp. I believe corporations are an important part of our economy and our world and I wouldn't want them to go away, but I also don't see any reason to give them the rights of a human being when they don't behave like human beings. They do not have an enlightened sense of self interest. Most don't even have plans beyond 5 years out and many will sell out their own future to make a buck now. Thats fine for a corp but its no way to run a government.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
I see, so you figure the unemployment figures are just because everyone (except for you) is worthless? You figure it never makes sense to demand favorable terms for employment? That plan has been given several decades to work and all it got anyone was declining real income, declining loyalty to employees, and rising unemployment. It is not sane to try some more and expect any different outcome. We'd like to fix things BEFORE we end up as bad off as that poor sod you believe to be the only one with a right to complain.
"Nobody said life is fair", the battle cry of the people who come out for the better because of the unfairness. Occasionally parroted mindlessly by people with a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.
It's society's job to provide the opportunity.
And the protesters are pointing out that the provided opportunities are no longer good enough to count as a substantially fulfilled obligation. If you owe $1000 and you hand over $900 and buy some food, we can understand. If you owe $1000 and hand over a penny and buy a new jet ski, we will not. The latter is what the 1% have been doing.
Very solid advice. I'd add a few more:
- If you get married, learn to live on one income.
- If you do have a second income, use it to pay down debt as aggressively as you can, then to save up for big-ticket items such as a down-payment on a house, a used car, retirement, etc.
- If you plan to have children, don't count on a second income until the youngest is of school age. It's a full-time job to care for very young children. It makes sense to maintain business contacts, go to professional events, and do short contract work to keep your resume current, just don't count on the income. Take care of the kids first, then ease back into work -- and apply that extra income to getting debt-free.
- Don't spend a lot of money on "premiere" vacations while kids are very young. They won't remember any of it when they get older, and it's incredibly stressful on the whole family. Take the kids to the great outdoors instead. National and state parks are amazingly good vacations, and cheap, too.
- Invest early. It takes decades to build up a nest egg. The goal is to have a big enough nest egg so you can live 2/3 off the interest income when you retire, the other 1/3 from retirement insurance plans such as Social Security.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Seriously, if you're going to post that sort of question, at least don't bias it up front. "Do you relate to the 99% stories? Do they make you angry — either at the system, or at the protesters? If it's at the protesters, is it rational or a just-world effect?" -- The "if it's at the protestors" part insinuates if you dislike the protestors, it might be because you have some defect in your logic.
We don't need a revolution. We don't need whiny-ass ex-hippies baiting cops so they can make Internet Protestor Martyr of the Day either. We need to stop being inefficient, overspending, and over-extending credit at all levels: national, corporate, and personal. Problem solved.
...you'd know by now they are a VERY diverse group.
And very, very white. The press repeatedly commented on the fact that the tea party protests were largely white, yet doesn't seem to notice that the "Occupy" movement is even more bleached than the tea party was.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's a good start
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I bet Obama's going to make this an issue in his re-election campaign.
Of course he will. He can't very well run on his record.
Some things to consider. Businesses can come and go as they please, people can not. But it is a standard method for businesses to be charged a license fee to do business in an area. Government are going to have to do their job of "Community First" if this wave of Economic Locus is to be marginalized.
If Corporations want to be treated like people, then let them experience Capitol Punishment for murder.
Very interesting. As a poll worker, however, I am amazed that people feel they have to sleep in the streets to effect change. The number of people who vote in local elections is just a tiny fraction of those who vote in the big national elections. But it's in the local elections where the slate is chosen -- who gets on the big ballot, and who does not. If just 5% more people turned out to vote, we'd have radically different politicians to choose from.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 opened the door for banks to start partying with everyone's money. The case of Citizens United in 2010 then gave these same banks the ability to throw any amount of money they want into lobbying to protect themselves from ever having Glass-Steagall coming back. Until these two items are reversed the 99% aren't going to be able to accomplish. Unless they find a way incorporate themselves into one force able to fight back the massive lobbying tide that has been built against them. But good luck with that.
It's a whole bunch of people who refuse to do any hard work and are upset that the people who did work hard their entire lives were (gasp) REWARDED FOR IT.
Did you hear that straight from Fox and Friends? Instead of believing what you're told about these people, why don't you listen to what they actually say.
These are people from all walks of life. People who are successful. People who aren't. People who made mistakes. People who just had plain old bad luck. People who tried to do the right thing. People who work 3 jobs. People who can't find work. And people who are worried about the future.
The muddle of people griping over their pet causes is what democracy looks like. That is precisely why this movement can't pick a side on any cause. It might come off as a bunch of long haired hippies, but hopefully it causes enough people to question what they think about the system to do something about it. If you feel strongly about it, get out there and make it about what you represent! That's the beauty of democracy.
Really the only thing all of them can agree on, and I would think most of us Americans, and slashdotters think is this: The system is broken. Our representatives don't represent us. Voting one side or the other makes no difference. I can vote for the ones who openly represent only the rich, or I can vote for the ones who secretly represent the rich.
The movement is about taking back our democracy, getting people to actually discuss the issues without preset party lines clouding things and letting all the people who are not ensconced in the parties know that there are plenty of others (probably the vast majority) who are fed up with the way things are and will vote against the corrupt system.
Just doing a little math and public numbers .. assuming the US has a population of about 310M, then 3.1M people would be 1% (since I don't know if it's adults or adults and kids, they are using the 1% nomenclature for, let's just start someplace.)
According to Wikipedia, the total net worth in the US is $55T. That means that if 1% of the population (3.1M) have 90% of wealth, then they have about $50T or about 16M/person, and the rest of us (the 99%) have $17K per person.
First, 90% is way too high. The top 1% of the population probably has between 40-50% of total wealth. Second, income/wealth is obviously not uniformly distributed among either of the two groups being analyzed.
Oh, there is plenty to complain about, but here are the demands (that's my journal going over them, and on top there is a link to the original demand list).
There is plenty to complain about in reality.
Allowing the government to get away from the limits imposed upon it by its law - the Constitution.
Allowing the government to become the king maker, monopoly creator.
Allowing the government to grow to become now 10% of the so called 'economy'.
Allowing the government to wage unconstitutional constant wars and now kill people and specifically Americans without trial just by decree of the POTUS.
Allowing the government to save their preferred monopolies with all these bail outs and stimulus, artificial interest rates and insane borrowing, all of this of-course is destroying the economy and is shifting the problems towards the future generation of tax payers, though I don't think they signed up for this shit.
Allowing the government to become business, which is none of its business. All of the business regulations, income taxes, subsidies to businesses.
Allowing politicians to buy votes by promising free cheese (you know where you find 'free' cheese?)
All of this and more, like destroying the money, getting away from constitutional money, which means the restraints on the banking and government ability to print became only a virtual one - how much ink and paper do you have?
These protesters understand that they are screwed, but most of them have no idea what the actual problems are and where they really should be protesting.
White House, Congress, Senate, Federal Reserve, Supreme Court, CIA and FBI... all of the branches of government and some extra-governmental agencies.
Wall street is a symptom of the rot. The real problem is in the head.
You can't handle the truth.
Nope, fearmongering and spreading FUD doesn't need no E lab or ation!
Their manifesto reads like a laundry list of liberal platitudes.
Rather than advocating liberty by the likes of our founding fathers, Acton, Hayek, Paine, and others, they chant mindless Marxist quotes. This movement is creepy. They think they are fighting for "Freedom for the %99" but all they are doing advocating their own oppression. Their chants for "fairness" are nothing but hallow. They don't want fairness, they want a handout.
Read their manifesto. Covered up Inactive Ingredients? Are you kidding me? Education is a human right.. that no body should pay for? Undermined farmland through monopolization? Nonhuman animals?
And their solution to this.. is to give the government more power? Yeah. Great idea, there kids. They deny reality.
To meet any of their objectives means using force to coerce people to behave a way they other wise wouldn't (education mandates, different pay schemes, less free work laws, stronger privacy laws, etc) and if they are appeased it would only end up with even greater cronyism. They frame every problem entirely incorrectly.
The goal needs to be strip away power from government. That is the solution to cronyism. To give them more laws and regulation WILL just result in more cronyism and more "corporate and state" power.
Many of them out there when interviewed seem to have forgotten that it's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Because it seems to me that many they have interviewed are complete morons.
akma
Wall St. is strangling the economy. Not the president, not congress, not even the lobbyists.
Outsourcing, H1Bs, downsizing, hostile takeovers, monopolies, mergers, automation, corruption, bribes, slave labor...you name it...it's all in the name of putting profits before human beings without exception. We used to have decent protections against these things, but since Reagan they have been systematically dismantled by both parties.
Shareholders & Boards of Directors are paying Lobbyists, and Lobbyists own Congress. If you believe otherwise...you are simply wrong.
Corporations are Sociopaths with shareholders profitting from the blood and suffering of those who get trampled in the process.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --John Steinbeck
What's going on right now has nothing to do with class warfare, and all to do with people being sick of bailing out private institutions when their bets failed.
Now, both the right and the left hate that. There is as near as uniform condemnation of that bailout as the American populace ever agrees about anything. This particular movement, though, is being ran from a purely leftist point of view, and so it deliberately excludes at least half of the population (while claiming to represent 99% of it).
around half the people that ever lived are alive now
I've heard that, but I've also heard that is total bullshit, and I'm inclined toward the source which told me it is bullshit. I don't feel like looking it up, but you might want to if you feel strongly about it.
And drafted largely by the Democrats who controlled both houses.
He who has no
I've heard this schtick about "job creators" before, referring to the rich as people who "produce things and improve society" as you put it. It is bullshit.
Larry Ellison and Charles Koch are not out in their garages building things. They are not personally hiring 20,000 people. Corporations are doing these things. Corporations are the job creators and thing producers.
The rich are just people like any other. Except that they have more money, which they often invest into companies in order to sustain their personal fortune. But that makes them merely investors. Their ranks are easily replaceable by a middle class that can afford to do the same and whose smaller but far more numerous investments would make up for the few-but-large investments of the rich.
Investments help companies create jobs and produce goods, so long as those companies are sensibly run, but you do not have to be rich to invest. So there is no reason for the rich to get special income tax breaks. All this talk of "stimulating the economy" through high-bracket tax breaks is based on trickle-down economics. And trickle-down economics is a superstition which has proven to be bunk.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Much like the failed economic measures of this year that were proposed by Obama but gutted by the Republicans. But of course they call that "Obama's failed policies," not "the Republicans' failed policies."
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
We call that voting.
What country are you in?
(Only partly in jest...)
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The master class own the government and own the institutions.
Class warfare is healthy competition. The elites don't care about lesser humans, and likewise there is NO reason why the mass of peons should not coerce a greater share of the pie from the masters.
There is no good or evil, only self-interest. The rich should damn well pay the rest of us NOT to butcher them and take their stuff, for their wealth and power relies on OUR consent.
I don't have anything against rich or poor, but I do expect my masters to treat me well. Only the wealthy have useful freedom because they have the power to exercise it. If they abuse it, there is no reason the public shouldn't beat them into submission.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Morons. Goddamn morons.
They're not pissed about some faceless banker doing something stupid and having the government bail him out.
* They're pissed because after years of studying they have tons of debt piled on with a nearly-meaningless degree to show for it. And yes Jimmy, there are too many Psych, Media Relations, etc. majors out there earned from over-priced colleges that don't do much other than pile on debt on young people while deluding them with moronic theories rather than give them skills to better survive and prosper in the new world (Ivory Towers of leftists academics are so much different from what you would expect from your boss in a real job).
* They're pissed about the fact that they see their corporate and government entitlements vanish after electing the crooks to power that outsourced this country's industrial base to Mexico, China, etc.
Oh, did I mention that NAFTA flooded the Mexican market with cheap grain/corn thereby forcing millions of Mexicans head north and depress the price of labor? I didn't?
* They're pissed about something different and are simply hogging the media coverage.
* They have nothing to do.
Now, if you really want to do something, do the following (yes, you'll have to call your Congress rep and yell at them, loudly and often).
* Put a cap on how much a college can charge for tuition (with and without
* Bring back the post-Depression banking laws that *clearly* separated investment banking from personal banking. Anyone remember these?
* Kill NAFTA, CAFTA and other absurdities. Because lets face, free trade isn't exactly some sort of universal leveling trade-barriers. It's a backhanded form of protectionism and economic imperialism.
* Kill farm subsidies.
* Reform the tax code to increase taxes on those that make more. Jimmy, did you know that during the 50's we've had taxes over 50% and we were less socialist than we are now? No? Well Jimmy, you're a retard, for not paying attention in history class, just like millions of your red-blooded American country men. Getting behind Obama/Perry/Pelosi/Bachmann/other moron and waving the American flag doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you and ideologue.
* Reform the tax code to promote industrial growth and industrial exports. Mercantilism, people did it because it *gasp* worked.
* Develop a national vision of where you want to be in 20 years, no, not 20 seconds, but actual years.
* Scale back military involvement around the globe.
* Develop fuels that you can easily, cheaply and frequently replenish.
But in all honesty, I wasn't born in America. The politics is interesting, if quite often bordering on insanity. Good luck in the next 89 years!
Anything that gets my fellow 20-something formerly angsty peers out into the sun a bit more cant be bad. No matter the results, we should all end up a bit more sociable in the aftermath.
"I'm fine with keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution, but only if we change the Constitution to cover almost all of what the federal government does."
Reread what you wrote and think about it for a while.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Give me one reason why we should NOT hold corporations accountable for their actions.
Give me one mechanism whereby we can hold them responsible, and you may be on the way to answers.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, the problem is that government exists and is easy to corrupt. If people kept a closer eye on the fed and made sure they were doing a very few specific things, everyone would be much better off. Do you really think 400 families could have accumulated that wealth without bribing some officials in D.C. at some point or another?
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
Is the poor treatment the protesters have given to local businesses and the police....yes I said the police, imagine your job is to patrol a protest that you may even agree with, so that no one gets hurt and nothing gets damaged, just to listen to people scream at you, cuss at you, and even throw things at you.
It's absurd, do the protesters really think the business owner and the police aren't having exactly the same financial issues and fears as everyone else?
I know the police have gotten up to bad things, I am not naive about that, I do feel if you have a message and you want people to care and listen, then say it in a respectful fashion, even when you yourself have not been treated that way.
If you need any more information on this idea read about a guy named Gandhi.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Since they don't believe in paying for the police, who exactly are they going to call?
Of course they'll bribe the police or try to build a private police force, but once again who do the 1% have who they can trust?
I view it as a 99% clue free display of angst and anger. The majority of the protesters mouth slogans without hardly any depth of political, economic or ethical knowledge. Many of those slogans are profoundly anti free-market which is a profound mistake. First because what we have had for a long time is not remotely free-market or capitalism. It is a government run kleptocracy, a fascist economic state. Most of the economic disaster is not from business or even Wall Street but from political attempts to make a Big Lie seem doable. The Big Lie is that government can make a chicken magically appear in every pot, that it can make it so everyone has a nice and easy life whether they do or produce anything or not. Government cannot do this - ever. Yet the demands of the protesters are largely that government do whatever it takes to make the impossible seem real. In this they are idiot children or worse.
Why is this a troll? Have you people actually read the signs people are posting online? Stories of how they ruined their own lives, including people who speculatively bought houses which drove the housing meltdown to begin with, blaming the government or Wall Street for their predicament?
Seriously, actually READ the things people are posting on http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
It's a litany of people who made really idiotic financial decisions for themselves. I'd say maybe 1/3 are people who just got screwed over or had bad luck, but at least another 1/3 did things like real estate speculation or had several children out of wedlock while in college for some liberal arts program that had no future paying out of state tuition with loans while not working. And somehow they thought this would turn out positively for them? The final third are standard middle class people who feel inconvenienced that they can only afford a used iPhone 3GS instead of a new white iPhone 4S, and that this somehow puts them below the poverty line...
Simple.
As faked images on Wikileaks facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/wikileaks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm upper middle class. I'm taxed at 15% for FICA plus about 12% federal income tax rate.. so 27% of my income just for federal income tax.
Either your definition of "upper middle class" is very modest indeed (the 12% average only puts you around the median income), or your income is almost entirely capital gains (15% base rate) in which case you're not paying FICA on it. For most people in the lower 3 quintiles, the actual tax take is quite a bit higher than that.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I've been around here long enough to know that top posting unrelated to the prior comment is bad etiquette, but again, I've been around here long enough to know when it is appropriate. I also know the magic formula for getting modded up is to say "I'll probably get modded down for this but.."
I'll probably get modded down for this but it is important enough to risk it.
The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have any leaders or stated goals or structure on purpose. This is an action deliberately taken in order to have broad populist appeal. The same instant they take a side on any issue, the established political system will immediately use that as a wedge issue to label, then divide and conquer the scraps of popular sentiment and kill any interest. Once a leader is selected, they will find one thing that guy/gal has said publicly, label him as a partisan for it and kill the movement. The parties have been doing this for years and have more experience, skill and money to deflate populist action than can be competed against. The only way to win that game is not to play.
The movement does have a goal and that is to take back our democracy. Get people talking about the issues again without having predetermined party lines or agendas. Once those lines are drawn, almost everyone stops listening or thinking and just go like lemmings how they have always done. The only thing this movement wants is an equal shake at a fair government. They want their representatives to actually represent them instead of representing the highest bidder: usually the rich and the corporations.
The purpose here is not to take any specific issue to congress, it's to overturn congress with people who actually listen to their electorate. If that means voting incumbents out, great, or at least put the fear of the people back into them, good too.
What is their stand on abortion? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.
What is their stand on gay rights? The environment? Housing? Taxation? Big Government? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.
What is their stand on any issue? TBD but we'll talk about it democratically once we have fair representation.
You don't have to agree with this movement on any specific issue and you don't have to hold off on support because they don't have talking points or take stands on your personal hot-button issue. For now it's enough to say that all the issues are TBD until such time as we have fair representation and can figure it all out democratically.
There is a sentiment of discontent in everyone I talk to. Everyone knows the system is broken but nobody has the power to change that. Voting is supposed to solve these problems but voting either way is a vote for the same thing.
Slashdot is typically an open minded place, I think this movement should speak to each of you. The only thing they want is more democracy. I don't blame anyone for thinking there is a hidden agenda, because there almost always is. But this movement has reached enough of a mass with the cause of having no purpose that it would be hard to argue that there is one. When the only underlying cause visible in their message is "More democracy!", I don't see how anyone can be against that. Want to change something about that platform, get out there and discuss it democratically instead of sniping at it from the comfort of slashdot.
This is a movement that is outside of and has rejected the established political system. And it's the only one I've seen in my lifetime that has rejected playing the two-party game. I am very excited that it has even gained some traction and has people talking!!! To me it is a moral imperative that we support this. Even if all it means is getting some people you know to talk out the issue.... even that alone is progress.
Their message is quite clear. They hate the bailouts, the oppression, the control they have on the government, and the unfair free trade agreements.
http://saveie6.com/
I was watching an interview with a sociology major last night who was at Occupy LA.
I feel very sorry for her. Her college lead her down the primrose path of "major in whatever feels right for you", and on top of whatever savings her parents had, she likely had government-guaranteed loans for a major that will unlikely allow her to ever pay them off!
I'll give you that.
So... remind me... who voted for TARP again?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Pure and simple. They're just idiots.
The interesting corollary to that is that the rise of robo-warfare could push back a bit against the nation-state. Nations needed to be large to gather resources for warfare after the cannon came around, but the infantry revolution was what really prompted the rise of nationalism. Without the need for infantry, the existence of the state and its trappings (from a sociological perspective) becomes... what is the word? Outdated, in any event. Suggesting that the state as an entity could become, in effect, a historical accident.
(From an entirely academic perspective--the modern state of course has many other roles, but that was the historical motivator.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Well tell me where I can work? I have a four year degree. No jobs pay above $8/hr. I even worked at some of them. My exwfie has a masters degree and used to make $60,000 a year. She is on welfare. We are both in our 30s now. There are a few openings but about 25 people apply to each one all desperate for work.
Besides starting a business I can't see how I can move up as businesses are not hiring. IN good economic times in 2000 I could walk in at 22 and make $35,000 off the top of my head in many companies starting out. You can't now unless you have many years of experience, an MBA, and know the right people.
In economic depressions its not the persons fault. Just because it worked for you during the boom times of the mid 1980s doesn't mean it will work in deflationary period of the early 2010s. Times have changed John and these kids are angry not because they want to be rich by working 20 hours a week. But because of HUGE student loans debt and no jobs that are entry level exists
http://saveie6.com/
And one more thing: It's not the liberal version of the Tea Party. Both sides would **LOVE** for that to be the big soundbyte for precisely the same reason: Divide and conquer. The right will discredit it to their base as more liberal whack jobs and the left will attempt to co-opt whoever remains with the movement. It's important to reject that notion outright. The movement has NO POLITICAL STAND. The only way to win the game is not to play.
The Democrats would do the same, but that's hard to do from your knees.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I wish they'd come up with something that we could rally around and hope to see results from. But I don't see that. Instead I see signs to "End Capitalism!", I see a will.i.am concert, and I swore I heard someone actually saying that they were there to end poverty. Not that the latter isn't a noble cause but c'mon, isn't that kind of like trying to boil the ocean? Are you really going to stay protesting in that park until poverty is ended? I bet not. Tell us what your mission is. Tell us what you intend to execute that mission. Tell us how you will measure success. If your mission is to bring down the heads of the major banks, then say so and say how you intend to do it. The Arab Spring protesters did this to their respective dictators with strikes and by turning the police and the military to their side, and it worked. It just doesn't seem like this group has the leadership and the cojones to do the same thing. The difference between the Arab Spring and these guys is that the Arab Spring had actual leaders, employed people who knew how to network and lead. This bunch just seems like a bunch of chronically unemployed people looking for a way to pass the time. Give me a reason to buy into your protest and I'll do it. Same will go for the cops, fireman and city employees around you. But so far, you're just making yourselves a nuisance.
You can say Robosigners, corporate greed, etc all day and all night long. However, only ONE side is obligated to future performance. It's the borrower. When you apply for a loan, you are stating in writing you can make the payments. It doesn't matter if a one-eyed monkey rubber stamped your application, cut and paste with huge plastic scissors, and 6 year olds handed you the half million you borrowed. If you borrow $500,000, and see your payments close to $4,000 a month, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to say, "Do I really have $4,000 left over in my checking account at the end of every month? Or if I don't could I comfortably get there?" No math involved...just look at your bank statement for this month, and this month minus one. Do you see your average daily balance increase? Of course, if your rent is already there, no math needed. Another scenario: Paying $2k a month rent? Adjust. Do I have $2,000 left.
Back in 2000, I bought my home for $280,000. I knew it was tight, but I knew between my wife and I we could do it. 4 or 5 years later, we had 2nd mortgage lenders trying to talk us into huge loans, and I knew we couldn't easily afford it. I walked from them. Could I have gotten approved? Easily. Did I notice they were practically begging you to take their money? Sure. However, it's MY signature on the line, and MY credit. I am the one responsible for my actions and my debts.
Back to the OT, the same goes for my outlook on the protestors. You are responsible for your career and life. Life is not guaranteed nor should it be. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. When I was 18, I decided I didn't want a near-minimum wage job and wanted to provide for my soon to be wife. I enlisted in the Air Force, and earned my B.S degree before getting out 7 years later. I had my MBA half done. I took student loans, which 11 years later are still painful, but I pay them and am grateful I earn 6 digits to provide for my family. They live comfortably at my sacrifice. No one gave me anything. I worked from minimum wage, to near minimum wage (junior enlisted through most of the 90s). I positioned myself, got an education and worked my way up. Engineer. Senior Engineer. Senior Engineer II. Director.
Corrupt as Wall St may or may not be, you can still drive your destiny. Don't like corporate greed affecting your lives? Wall Street is the wrong address. Congress and the White House are your destinations for direct change. When you hear Obama is "far exceeding campaign goals," where do you think that money is coming from? What do you think it's intent is for? When you see in California moves to block reform of education and litigation, why do you think you see union and trial lawyer association donations jump up? Just these two items alone have deep, profound impacts upon your daily lives.
So to summarize, they're misguided and utopian. I don't want them to succeed because if one of their primary demands is, "Equal pay regardless of work," then that reeks of decay and socialism. If they really feel that way, I would encourage them to spend some time, say about 2-3 years, working in European countries that heavily legislate pay, benefits, etc and see how that's working for them.
It's not.
Firstly, conversely, capitalism isn't foolproof either. It can develop natural monopolies that require government action to control or to break-up.
Secondly, in regards to your statement that "nothing wrong with capitalism," I would counter that under pure capitalism, *everything* can be bought and sold, including votes. So if government officials aren't supposed to be bought off, then that implies that capitalism has something wrong with it and needs to be kept in check.
I guess I'm saying that capitalism has significant advantages, but it's definitely not the sacred cow that many of our politicians like to portray it as. The real question is when do we start debating as to whether capitalism has failed or whether government has failed or whether the voters have failed or some combination thereof?
As are the Dems. Pretty much every key figure in the 2008 crisis was confirmed by Obama when he took office. You can't expect any change from that.
To do list for Windows
I wonder how many of those 99% posted heartfelt tributes to Steve Jobs?
What is Capitalism? It's simply free people, and their money. Anything else, is not freedom.
Btw, what we have in the US (and the West), is the barely functioning remains of what once was capitalism.. Or, you could make the argument that we recently passed from barely functional to not quite functional. Without functioning capitalism (freedom), we slowly regress to a state controlled economy (serfdom).
I'm wondering how many of the protesters and their supporters vote.
One idea that keeps coming back to me and which was inspired by all this OWS yammering:
Capitalism as a game with a randomized, finite duration. At the end of the game, the score is reset to zero - we redistribute all generated wealth over the ~75-~150 years over which the round was played.
After another ~75 years of a new game, we start rollng the d100 again, once per month. When it lands on a 1, we hit the reset button.
In fact, rather than evenly redistributing the wealth, we could make it even more interesting by distributing the wealth randomly with a reasonable but feasible lower bound.
This should be modded up, imho.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
And how do you feel knowing that most billionaires pay a lower percentage of taxes than you? Once your daughter stops going to school, she will be paying a higher percentage of her wealth to pave roads and send kids to school, than every billionaire in the country.
Is THAT fair? Should 24 year old just-out-of-college kids be spending more of their overall wealth taking care of society and their fellow man, than the mega-wealthy at the very top?
Mostly it's just depressing. It could have been a movement based on two big solutions. Stop voting for democrats and republicans, two political parties which have shown themselves to be corrupt beyond redemption. And try to get your money out of the banks and into credit unions. It's two little things that would make huge changes if people were just more aware of their importance. Instead, it's just protests with a lot of ranting and no way to actually change anything. The whole thing is just wasted opportunity.
Everything will be taken away from you.
I agree with you completely.
I'm 32 years old. I'm probably a bit below that 10% personally but growing up I lived in a household of 6 where the total assets were probably closer to 8k. We got by. Now when college came I chose one that I knew I could afford and had some luck finding a decent job (after a year of unemployment). Now I make an income that is greater than my entire family put together due to that good luck and I am getting better. I was careful and recovered from bad debt management (and that year of unemployment). I consider myself AMAZINGLY lucky as I have moved from below poverty to probably between middle and upper middle class. It was alot of work, skill, and luck. But I'm here.
These people are mostly younger than me college age students. They are carrying iPads and drinking Starbucks. At their age I actually wouldn't have dreamed of paying $5 for a beverage. Hell I didn't even pay that much for alcohol for getting drunk during college (quarter drafts were the best invention I have ever experienced). I have trouble identifying with them as it doesn't seem like they want to go through the struggle I did. I don't know where they want money from. I also don't know why they feel they deserve to be more prosperous than they are without struggling for it.
You can't find a job straight out of college? I had to relocate pretty damn far from home after a year of searching to find a job in a field that had a high hiring rate. Did you pick a good career path?
You can't afford to buy a home or rent your own place right out of college? Maybe you shouldn't be trying to do that in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country.
If they put out a message that spoke about a specific issue or a set of issues like corporations being too involved with the government I could get behind that. But right now it feels like they are whining about sour grapes. Yes the division of wealth in this country sucks and it isn't getting better, but instead of whining about it and hoping someone fixes it for you or the problem magically goes away come up with real ideas about how to fix it or try to protest about specific causes. Heck it doesn't have to be one, but a little more focus would make them sound a lot less whiny.
Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.
To the contrary. Large government benefits large corporations. Complicated regulations like SarbOx are affordable for mega-corps but not for relatively smaller corps (though in fairness tiniest of businesses are exempt). Larger corps can afford a larger lobbying budget to get the regs they want and kill the ones they don't. Larger corps can afford the legal and accounting expenses necessary to navigate our labyrinthine IP and tax laws for maximum advantage. There's a revolving door between the defense department and its contractors, between the FDA and big pharma, between Goldman Sachs and the Fed, etc. Individuals, small businesses and even small corporations are outgunned in this environment. They don't have the resources or the connections to buy the government influence they'd need to compete. I'd love to see smaller government AND smaller corporations. Big government just leads to big rents sought by big rent-seeking mega-corps.
1) What are your problems? Not some random vague laundry list like "Wall street is bad," or "The rich suck." A short, specific, list of the things you believe are big enough problems that they warrant protesting over.
Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
And that's really it. It's a whole bunch of people who refuse to do any hard work and are upset that the people who did work hard their entire lives were (gasp) REWARDED FOR IT.
be sensible, it's a bit hard to swallow that those REWARDS are paid off with public resources. on top of that, if you consider that their "hard work" consisted in injecting puffs into the economy and running away with the bonus, leaving the whole financial system KOd ... you'll understand some of the anger.
of course Occupy will not acomplish anything concrete. it's just fucking healthy, that's it, people HAVE to rebutt this chicanery, at least look at it, even if it is only for mental hygiene. it doesn't hurt either, it may spread some awareness, some food for thought and fuel the desire for change or to figure out better ways. wolves are indeed bad, but it's not that ordinary citizens aren't to blame for their sheepy complacence either.
anyway civil disorder I fear there will be, and I don't believe it will stem from dissent or from this form of anger. it will erupt from sheer misery and mass margination, in a few years. this is bad because it's pure social violence without debate or reflection, and won't change anything either. slashdot baffles me: "they are americans, with high standard of living". lol, who, the 99%? ... well, if you say so. apart from tv-talkshows, have you looked at any serious US economy analysis or forecast, lately? didn't you know that the bailouts just evaporated and there are still a lot of biggies waiting on line to collapse, but the pot is now empty? that state debt is record since ww2 and being downgraded already? that dollar is already in decline as reference currency, and you just want the fed to devaluate it even more? how in heaven do you think US will climb out of its current recession? "working hard"? and for how long do you think this recession will sustain your "high living standard"? It's not a gift of god, sorry to disappoint you
well. throw another war in the recipe and it would start to sound plausible
Tax the Rich Already!
Pure capitalism, just like pure communism is full of fail, and we are about to see the reason why. But not before we do a hell of a lot of damage with it, it will go down swinging in one of the bloodiest civil wars in the history of the Earth. It's far better that it happens than the alternative; we swing full into fascism and start paying our bills through outright global domination.
If you compare and contrast the history of the rise of Nazi Germany with our current events, especially how far our Rightwing has gone to the right, you will be startled, amazed and frightened. Few really do understand the terminology of fascism and it's history. It's tailored like a glove to our times though. I have often wondered how the good people of Pre-Nazi Germany could have been duped into becoming the evil empire that they became. Now I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears the effects of carefully cultivated propaganda.
Where we have failed: Our democracy has been hijacked by corporate interests. We have allowed bribery to not only become legalized, but its an art form. You can't have representative government if the moneyed few can influence the politicians. Our current economic situation is due to our trade policies. "Free Trade" is the biggest lie to be imposed upon the American people in our entire history. "Free Trade" is an oxymoron, business is war, and trade is the mother of all wars. Our founding fathers understood this, and that is why they limited the federal government to collecting funds only through trade tariffs. They understood the need to protect the ecology of the nation's economy.
What we have now are trade policies that are dictated by multinational corporations that call this rape "globalization". It means they can have goods manufactured in countries that pay only pennies for labor, then come flood our markets with these products. This kills kills our industry. It kills our job market. New ideas and innovations can't draw upon our work force, they have been cut out of the loop, and those in power have the markets sewn up. These corporations in power, not only stack the deck in their favor with bought and paid for politicians writing them laws, they also fix the markets for themselves, and get huge stacks of "welfare" from our tax payers.
The first step to correct this is to get control of our politicians back into the hands of the people, and out of the hands of the mega rich and the multinational corporations. This involves campaign finance reform, but that hasn't happened, in fact its went the other direction. It's now even easier to buy politicians with the changes to PACs.
The second step is to correct all of the crooked trade policies and laws that stack the deck in favor of specific corporations and industries, allowing them effective monopolies.
But this isn't going to happen. Those in power have seen this coming for a long time. They have been buying both political parties for decades now. They have been systematically disarming the public as well. They have been building the worlds biggest prison industry, and police state. They own the laws, the politicians, and the law enforcement. They have now the ability to use the military on our civilian population if we decide to have armed revolution. They also control the media, which has proven to be an effective propaganda tool.
The media has done a great job of indoctrinating Americans into believing this corrupt system is "the American way" and to fight to the death to defend it from "liberals, commies, socialists, etc" We have proven how well they control us when they can send our children off to wars that have lasted longer than WW2, and for reasons that are not clearly explainable, we just "have to trust them". We are fighting a "war on terror". This is such a lie. One can't fight a war on an "emotion." It's nonsensical double speak, set to confuse and befuddle the undereducated masses.
The Tea Party was a contrived movement, started by billionaires in an attempt to guide the obvious
Take the Red Pill.
No, you were indeed thinking of this outfit. This is about Big Union money, and the thousand arms of George Soros' various lefty initiatives, through which flow millions of dollars to exactly such activity.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you go there again, please mention my: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."
The text for the presentation is here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf
I sent an email about it to the Occupy Wall Street website. Basically, that outlines alternatives to think about.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
If the Republican minority in the Senate were so *gasp* against it, they could have filibustered. Just like they did with just about every other meaningful piece of legislation.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Congress.
Derivatives play an important role in managing risk for very sensible business reasons for companies in a variety of industries. It is the nature of any derivative transaction that one party is long and the other is short, although perhaps you were meaning "naked" shorting. It is hard to see how in isolation a given derivative could be anything but a net positive, as both the long and short end felt it was in there interest to enter the contract, i.e. two winners an no looser. To the degree it there was a loser, we call that party a sucker.
Of course in fact they did end up having an enormous cost to the economy as a whole with the global financial crisis. But it was brought on largely because a lack of attentiveness to counter-party risk and systemic risk, not inherent flaws derivatives.
We need to ensure there is more collateral put up to better mitigate the counter party risks. That would have gone a long way to preventing the global financial meltdown.
I might be supportive of them if I knew what the hell they were there for. I suppose their point is that they don't like Wall Street. But what do they think their protest is going to accomplish? Wall Street will up and disappear?
I also can't stand how they think that they speak for 99% of Americans ("We are the 99%!") Comes off as a little smug and self-righteous.
Trying to find out more about the "99%" (http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/) just leads to a website where people post pictures of handwritten notes complaining about things that don't seem to be related to Wall Street. The most common seems to be about student loan debt:
One woman has 100k in debt by graduation? Geez, what were you thinking?
Another 42 year-old man owes 40k. Um, you either should have had this paid off by now, or maybe should have saved up to go to school?
Another with 140k! Jeez, have any of you heard of community college?
And perhaps my favorite was the woman complaining about 50k in debt after seven years in college!
Some other complaints were a woman who lost her husband to a heart attack (due to the stress of unemployment?), and another moron who thought it was a good idea to have eight(!) kids on a salary of 40k/year.
All these ramblings make it tough to know what to make of this 'occupation'...
Understand where your money goes - vote with your bucks because that is the only language, religion, force... whatever you and they believe in. I know, I know, we can't stop buying because we really don't have a choice and the system is rigged. However, consider that the moment you refuse to buy from just one company, or make a run on one Bank (by individuals withdrawing their monies, no matter how big or small), that is the moment that will define the 99% Movement as real. Until people say otherwise yet keep their monies and their sales flowing to the same 1%, nothing changes, therefore, they the 1% are not bothered.
Look really closely at the Occupiers, and I bet you find a bunch of elitist bastards from Ivy League and other top-tier Universities.
Actually, I have friends who work for universities who are taking time off from work to do the occupy thing. They're not from Ivy League, neither are they elitist bastards, but they are hippies who have well paying jobs in top-tier universities.
Congress is bought and paid for. That's my biggest gripe, and I believe that most of the problems with our country today stem from this problem. We have crappy regulation of businesses. Everyone gripes about gov. red tape. OK, i'm down with reducing that. But when some jackhole can get 20 odd miners killed because he couldn't be bothered to vent methane out of the mine... and all the EPA can do is throw stupid little fines that the company ignores... Or when the financial industries can lie about the strengths of investments they are selling, when they can bet against their OWN products... and they get a bailout despite being the asses who caused the problem.... It's time for someone to step in a kick some ass. We can't do it. That's why we collectively get together and have this Government thing. Unfortunately, it's too busy taking money to play cop. I wish the Occupy folks would share this vision and narrow their griping to this one topic, but I'm not worried about it. Folks is pissed, and they're letting everyone know. That's right up there next to apple pie for Americanism. I think it's weird so many in the media are painting this as a Left movement. Everyone's pretty pissed right now. I support the Occupy movement. I can't be there, but I did order them some pizza. :D
I do wish they'd get a cohesive message though. Get the money out of politics!
This is a proposal for amendments to the US Constitution in a draft, outline format.There are three basic elements. Silence group influence. Generate the platform and agenda from the populace. Make running for any office ostensibly free, and then select the upper tier for closed competition. I come hopefully from logic and reason, rather than emotion, ideology, or other loyalty.
Proposal:
28. Corporations are not Persons
28.1. Groups, corporations, PACâ(TM)s, unions, political parties, religions, ethnic communities, etc., are not individuals for the purpose of freedom of speech and do not hold first amendment rights, or any rights as individuals. Single persons are individuals. Like minded people are allowed to agree with each other, disagree with others, and vote how they like. Groups may exist or form and may take positions on issues, but have no right to advocate outside of their own forum by paying for any kind of communication, such as paid advertising in any form that is propagated by a group.
28.2. Elected officials may meet with individuals in groups (no private meetings except with staff), not organized groups, though they may meet with disorganized groups i.e. open sessions, both in their hearing rooms and in their home districts (they represent their people, not others). Closed sessions are not allowed for any purpose where other than legislative officials exist, except in the very narrow interest of national security, for an extremely limited number of items.
28.3. Lobbying, by an organized group or causing an individual to lobby for a group, of elected officials, their staff, or non elected officials (bureaucrats) by any group is a felony and all officials, officers, and directors said groups are to be held liable. Individuals may lobby, but may not give gifts or restaurant meals or anything other of significant economic value or any kind of influence. Groups may express their sentiments, but references by an individual to a group constitutes hearsay, and is not allowed.
29. Elections
29.1. Eliminate the electoral college and then fully fund election advertising by requiring broadcasters, newspapers, magazines, etc. to put aside bandwidth or other space or accommodation to allow any and all candidates to communicate with their electorate with equal time and space allotted to every candidate.(see 29.9) Paid political advertising of any kind is not allowed. The government shall run appropriate web services (on secure (two factor authentication), encrypted, audit able Elections Information Server(s) (with multiple redundancy and 3rd party plus off site backup with no expiration date for either audit or historical purposes) with one domain for all election information), organized by election year, making space available to all candidates (Fed, State, County, Municipal) including, but not limited to forums, email, newsgroups, wikiâ(TM)s, podcasts of all media, video, audio, print media, commentary, allotted advertisements, town halls, interviews, debates. No personalized user information shared short of an adversarial probable cause hearing. Media shall be free to cover the various stages though equal time is in force, and since they may not accept any paid political advertising, may freely endorse. Candidates may use other free communication options such as social media or newer technologies. All broadcast options must be opt-in. Yard-signs, bumper stickers, buttons etc. may be personally made by individuals using download-able graphics.
29.2. Data shall be divided between open public domain, and private. Private is anything that might disclose any personal information, location (other than voting district), or any other way to identify an individual and must be absolutely person identifiable. Public facing information and data analysis shall be open source and public domain. Data analysis shall include an algorithm for ranking overall sentiment toward issues, agendas, and/or candidates, and forecast results for accumulated agendas (all 535 congressional agenda
So you had the money to pay rent/food/bills for your daughter. Would she have done so well on her own? Doubt it. Also, you started as on office clerk, and now make 100k. That path no longer exists.
Sorry... no. Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.
The problem is that this country was started because you had the moneyed interests getting pissed off on paying off the war debts the British ran up protecting the colonists from the "dreaded" Native Americans. When they cried as a colony with no representation in Parliament...you had your colonial "Grover Norquist's" who threw off British rule. After the war and the Constitution being ratified...you had Washington using troops to shut down "illegal" local moonshiners who believed the Federal government had no power to tax their whiskey.
Instead of drowning the federal government in a bathtub (ala Grover Norquist), I suggest we take our government back from the greedy pigs and use that power to set things straight.
Personally...I believe it's going to take boarding up some business exec's in their homes with their family and burn the house down with them inside of it. The troops will be called of course...but if you send a message that your business practices and morals are not for the common good...some will change their behavior because they know the same could happen to them.
Whether or not people believe it...the French/Russian Revolutions did put fear into the moneyed elite. Many were shot/hung/decapitated because they did not believe it could happen to them. When the elite believe their money/power will protect them when you have those who are starving and little hope...they will change once martyrs are made. You have martyrs...you have something to fight behind. Ideas are powerful and non-stoppable.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prudential, Safeco, and The Redwoods Group
To specifically answer your question about companies offering Business Income Insurance policies without exclusions foir acts of God. Google is your friend.
-- Terry
Or are all the wall street little startups suddenly advertising the fuck out of every single online publication that publishes an article about the occupy wall street movement?
Try with mozilla aurora and "always ask" on cookies. I used irishcentral and news.google.com for article research.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
That's what liberals tell us all the time.
In a just society every area of activity needs at least two strong opposing forces, each of which prevents the other from running amok. In economics the two are capital and regulation.
No, communism used to fulfill that function.
From 1917 to 1980 or so, communism was a serious political threat to unrestrained capitalism. If capitalism didn't deliver a higher standard of living for the common man in a democracy, it might be voted out. That pushed wages up. Capitalists were scared of the competition. There was a real worry that communism might deliver the goods. It did in some areas. The USSR worked to provide jobs, housing, and medical care for everyone. None were all that great, but they beat being homeless.
In response to this, the US made a big political point of maintaining a continuously rising standard of living. That's what the "American Way of Life" was all about. Through at least the mid-1970s, that position was politically mainstream and supported by both parties. Labor unions helped to keep the pressure on and wages up, both for union and non-union members.
The USSR started to tank when their own people stopped believing in the dream. By 1980, the ideology was an empty shell. It took another decade for the system to run down, but it did.
After that, capitalism was the only game in town. There was no reason to pay workers more than they were economically worth. Money then moved from workers to owners. Unions were crushed.
Without ideological competition, we got to where we are now.
While there is definitely a growing income divide in the country, and the banks are finding more opportunities to screw people to earn bigger bonuses, I don't think protesting will do a lot to stop it. Especially when a lot of the people out there are part of the problem to begin with. People carrying around iPads and shit, bought from companies who don't care what they have to do to turn a profit, and probably bought with credit cards, since in modern society being in debt is the norm.
The pig won't stop getting fat until you quit feeding it.
"Never in history have so many people of this age group spent so much money on âoenon-essentialâ items such as: cell phones, IPads, Ipods, video game systems, video games, jewelry and clothing. The collective purchases and expense of cell phones in 2005 was roughly equivalent to the buying power of this same group in the second half of the 1960â(TM)s combined. Our youth has spent their inheritance and now the prodigal son returns with a vengeance."
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I totally agree, we should have one system for all and ridiculous shit like you mention should be stopped. I think you'll find, however, that it won't stop the core issue. Money, in a capitalist system, tends to concentrate. And capitalism may not be the perfect system, but there's none better.
Unfortunately for everyone, however noble this movement is the combined power of politicians under the thumb of big-business will drown out any dissent this creates.
The only way I can see the greed ending is Americans electing a politician who isn't some spineless coward to bring in the legislative changes needed to stop the political influence businesses have, stop the influence businesses have on specific markets & start making them truly accountable for how much control they yield over the market.
If the GFC taught us one thing, it's that big business yields the most amount of influence on the economy and none of the accountability. It isn't a matter of big verses small government, it's a matter of regulation. Creating balance in the influence businesses can exert and the influence of the population & making businesses accountable for their actions. Nothing else, if governments could do only one thing, it would be to regulate the way businesses operate and how they can operate.
The biggest thing that strikes me about this whole situation is that everyone is angry but they're the only ones actually doing something about it. Seeing also-angry bystanders criticise the protesters because they're (a) hairy (b) drum-playing (c) other ad-hominem issue is sad, pathetic and unfortunately not at all unusual.
Yes, their aims are many, but the issues are many and one doesn't have to have a pithy easily-digested campaign slogan to express dissatisfaction with the status quo.
So many people on /. bitch and moan about the government and corruption but most of you wouldn't get off your ass for a second to stand up for your beliefs. I sure as hell have a lot more respect for those people being actually counted on Wall St (and the satellite protests) than I do for those on /. who throw virtual stones from the cover of Internet anonymity.
! This sounds like a great idea for those of us who might be unemployed. It's a bit below the $20/hour minimum living wage, but it's a start. I wonder about the career progression opportunities, though.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Why are we so pissed off now, but we weren't so pissed off 5 years ago? Why are we protesting now and not 5 years ago? What has changed? The economy tanked, that's what changed.
What happened to the economy? Greedy financiers gambled away our future. Unfettered capitalism ran amok and very nearly triggered the collapse of western civilization.
The heart of the Occupy Wall Street protest, I believe, is the utter lack of accountability and the borderline criminally negligent disregard for checks and balances within our financial institutions. It is clearly the government's responsibility to regulate that industry, to control the greed so that it cannot do such terrible damage ever again.
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
The protesters should advocate breaking up the largest banks in this country. By the governments own admission, the big banks are too big to fail. The government should use existing anti-monopoly laws to break them up into pieces that do not represent a systematic threat. Precedent has already been set: AT&T in the 1970's, Standard Oil before that, and dozens of other large corporations were broken up because they were too big.
Break up the banks so we never have to bail them out again.
It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.
So the real power-brokers are smaller in number and less in the public eye, maybe they are the top 0.1% or 0.01%? I will infer from this (possible strawman) that supporting activities against the top 0.01% is useful but anything more inclusive is a waste of time. Which suggests that being 99% in agreement not enough, only 99.99% will do.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing.
What this attitude misses is that the top 1% includes the power-brokers you mention and the 0.99% buffer people between the top 0.01% and the 99%. The corporate media, economists, bankers, corporate board members and CEOs, corporate representatives in government, and such that make the system possible. Go purely after the top 0.01% and the next 0.99% are very ready to take their place. The 99% gathering sees the systemic problems in addition to the handful of extremely rich families. That is the sophisticated brilliance of the very aware 99% movement.
The 92% rather than 99% actually have jobs and do not occupy anything other than their workspace. They have social obligations, friends, family and they do their part. If you're occupying Wall Street, or DC, you're not looking for a job. Clearly you have time and funds to travel, so travel to a place that has less unemployment than where you come from and get a job. Yes you may have to work hard and do a job that isn't your ideal. Travel a bit to other parts of the world, then you'll come back and like Snoop Dogg, admit that even living in the projects you have it better than most of the world, food, shoes on your feet, a place to sleep, free education, etc.
Occupy This and That are not the 99% and they are not like us.
The posts on http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ reflect my experience. My advanced degree and frugal lifestyle has me making steady financial progress, only I've been laid off on a few occasions - wiping out my nest egg and I'm not really that far along. My experience has me convinced that no one in the government has my back. Lucky my wife has an awesome job - after many years of school where she made nothing and accumulated debt - and we are now in a top income bracket. I know what it is like to not have a job yet be willing to work and have 'in demand' skills. I don't live on the east coast otherwise I'd be out there representing the contingent of society that sweated their way through an engineering PhD. At the end of the day I want my 2yr old to go to a nice school and feel proud to live in this country. I don't see it getting better for him (my wife and I have a large income but will never be 'rich' like Bloomberg, Buffet, Gates, etc.) unless we all stand up now for the 99%.
Occupywallstreet may or may not fizzle out. Either way, I think this is the turning point. I hope this occurs to our leaders and convinces Washington to enact actual campaign/lobbyist reform. That is what I see tying together all the OWS concerns: life may not be fair, but for many it has become completely unfair in the favor of the 1%. Seeing them out there I am inspired because I realize that I am not alone. There are many others out there in the same boat that I am in while I watch the 1% prosper beyond all measure or need. The mere existence of 501c3 organizations - put into law by our own congress - is pretty much proof that our current politicians are nearly 100% corrupt beyond anything we've seen in the USA for nearly a century. Anyone in the world can donate to a 501c3 organization anonymously. Anyone. Isn't this a major national security hole? This country has and can do better than that in its elected officials. If OWS gets snuffed out I think the next movement will be larger and more aggressive. I hope OWS wakes up the conscience of our politicians enough to enact reform and/or wakes up enough of the 99% to start electing officials who will fight, actually fight, for reform.
Well said.
The Age of Paradox [1] provides a nice explanation. A society predicated on efficiency and productivity favors producing the same amount of work with less people, and paying those people more money. Inevitably, this leads to higher and higher unemployment and a situation where the remaining people (employed) are making more and more money. Note he is not referring to the top 1%. He is referring to you and I. Each of us is equally responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today. We work more overtime in order to make more money, and then wonder why there are so many more unemployed (who we just replaced by working more hours). One simple fix (suggested by me, not the author of the book) is to make it less profitable for one employee to do two people's work. As soon as it's more profitable to hire two people and stick to 37.5 hours of work, employment will go up and we'd all be happier people.
It's an interesting book. Give it a read!
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Age-Paradox-Charles-Handy/dp/0875846432
As a former chair of a Tea Party, I was often saddened by the coverage the various tea parties received: "They are dangerous! They are violent! They are racists!!"
Compare that to the coverage these guys get. It's so positive!
Yet no tea party people had to be pepper sprayed to stop them from pushing the guards around at any facility, much less the Air and Space Museum!
How about just a little fairness...?
READ the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other amendments! http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html
Their morals which lack greed as opposed to yours which lack respect of human life.
* except for the Air Force, which is unconstitutional, according to a plain reading of the text.
And the only part that is likely to be changed to being constitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
*Fix for bad typing above*
Their morals which focus on greed, as opposed to your morals which lack respect of human life.
Name one thing that the Government currently does, that they do better and more cost effectively that it could otherwise be done by someone else.
The bigger government gets, the less significant you (or I) become. That IS a big part of the problem right now. We are unable to "donate" enough money to get their attention. They pass laws that are lobbied for.
It's time to start applying some of the checks on their power as laid out in the Constitution. Only when we get it (government) under control, will it do what we need it to do.
We've been trying that here in Canada, no corporate donations, only limited personal donations, public funding based on votes in the last election. Doesn't seemed to have helped much though, we've still got a shitty government who do a good talk but their actions are exactly opposite. They promised to cut spending and re-balance the budget (which was balanced until they got into power) by building lots of prisons, buying lots of military equipment, and cutting taxes more. though they did do away with the public election funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
So let's take all of the assets of these corporations and all of the assets of the 1%. You just funded the government for less than 2 years. Now what? There isn't anyone left who has any money to invest in new ideas or start a new business.
And the protesters are pointing out that the provided opportunities are no longer good enough to count as a substantially fulfilled obligation. If you owe $1000 and you hand over $900 and buy some food, we can understand. If you owe $1000 and hand over a penny and buy a new jet ski, we will not. The latter is what the 1% have been doing.
Who is to decide what is "good enough"? The protesters can decide to not take the jobs that are offered for whatever reason (pay, benefits, etc.) They can create their own opportunities.
The 1% have not borrowed anything from the rest of us. Have businesses been provided money from the taxpayers? You bet they have. Did they deserve it? Not in the least. Government should not be giving out our money to bail anyone out. If they made bad decisions, let them fail. If I make a bad decision, let me fail. Maybe I'll make a better one next time. If you bail me out, you can bet your a$$ that I'll keep gambling with your money!
The answer isn't to take money from those who have succeeded. Everyone should succeed to the level they can. Nobody owes anyone else anything, and nobody should expect anything from anyone else. It's OK for someone to ask and the other to provide as they wish.
Please define "fair share"! You can't! You won't!
If you completely liquidated all of the assets of the 1% and all of the assets of the Fortune 500, you could run the bloated government for less than 2 years!!!! Who will be next in line to pay their "fair share" then?
It has to stop. We can't pay for everyone's everything. There aren't enough people not being paid.
* Fix the last line *
It has to stop. We can't pay for everyone's everything. There aren't enough people being paid.
How many people ran the US following the revolution? Not even everyone had franchise back then. Hell, a large segment of the population didn't even count as legal persons.
There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin! If you're not one of the 1% you're either an idiot, brainwashed beyond all hope or you're the ultimate submissive.
Unless we've declared anarchy, you are wrong, there is a social contract and it has been violated. If we HAVE declared an anarchy, I say we burn the rats out and divvy the spoils!
Where in Canada? Or are you saying all of it?
emt 377 emt 4
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." god help us.
You hear about the person who didn't rely on anecdotal evidence to support his belief system?
Here here., If your town is being overrun by bullies and corrupt cops your solution is not to defund city hall and scrap your local government. Your solution is to clean up and strength your government and justice system with ethics and integrity so that the laws apply to everyone the same.
:)
I think the protestors have very valid emotions and are looking in the right direction of somehow keeping money out of politics. If someone comes along with an actual really good idea about how to do that this grass fire could become a fully involved forest fire.
The hard part is coming up with a really good policy prescription for keeping money out of politics. Especially since the US has been going the opposite direction and full speed since the shiftboaters (PAC's SuperPac's, etc.)
I am not sure what the solution is but I have a strong feeling that the internet will be involved
Well done, wage-slaves of the US, you're finally starting to understand what Marx and Engels were talking about.
Now get your asses back into the salt-mines, or the dogs are going to eat well tonight.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Break the chains of the right left, us versus them, paradigm. It will only serve to distract. Do not allow yourselves to be taken over the democrats/republicans, down that path lies failure. Beware instigators. There will be those who will try to convince you to commit violence, vandalism or other illegal acts. Shun and ignore them. Realize that the media will try to make you appear illegitimate. Defeat their attempts by doing nothing illegitimate. First they mock you... Avoid issues of emotion and divisiveness, focus on that which unites you. The media, which is the tool of the enemy, keeps the masses focused on issues like gay marriage, abortion, socialism. While these issues are important to many, those battles are for later and in many cases are impossible to resolve in todays world. Find mechanisms by which the common man identifies with you. If they see a person in khaki's and a polo, someone like them, being maced the outrage will grow. Find a few uniting issues that EVERYONE will get behind. For example: - The federal reserve system fosters corruption and the redistribution of wealth from the many to the few. It must be abolished - The large international banks are the enemy. Throughout history those who inspire and are admired have fought the international bank. Emulate them. - The wars are the tools of the banks, who fund both sides just like they profit on both sides of each bubble. They care naught for the deaths of our troops, or the civilians of other lands. - Glass–Steagall must be restored. This is one of the main tools by which the banks defeat us. There will be more. Diogenes The 99 h t t p : / / d i o g e n e s t h e 9 9 . b l o g s p o t . c o m /
I've been covering the OWS movement from the angle of the power of the net and electronic democracy. I've dug into pros and cons, picked what I liked best but with an eye towards information and media distribution.
The OWS people are open-sourcing. The First Continental Congress did much the same thing for 51 days; brought up broad acknowledgements, horse-traded, refined and hammered out some basic operating system functions. They DO have several pinpoint agendas, despite what most Lamestream Media pushes. And yeah, they ARE college kids; a few of them I've listened to are economics grads and post-grads. They do have several "planks" in the refining stage; a lot of them are mentioned in several posts here: Glass-Steagall, revoking the legal fiction of corporate "personhood," etc. and there are good solid reasons for those choices.
What's been more interesting to me is their mapping of the "media network" and which nodes are completely compromised (ones you wouldn't think) and which ones are surprisingly open (the Guardian, RT and Al Jazeera). Leveraging the "social media" tech. Watching hashtag and email nonsense and censoring (oops i mean "mistakes in the filters").
They are forming their "central platform" like assembling code: starting out with basic chunks and adding in the polish and extensibility. They are multiplexing the democratic consensus, and that is fascinating to watch; it's also pen-testing the social media space.
The incredible discipline to keep out "the little black anarchy brothers" and remain peaceful (sure they're shouting; they're protesting) is in itself an amazing demonstration of human potential to be more than just a mob of "I got mine,screw you."
A very interesting experiment in human-tech hybrid social networking.
I view it as a continuation of the Arab Spring. I think it's exhilarating to see so many individuals the World over stand up on their hind feet demanding this stupidly broken situation be fixed.
Democracy's death and rebirth?. Ignored, sadly. Damnit.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Votes being bought is a problem with our voting system and with government - any concentration of power like that is liable to be bribed or bought like that.
As for everything being able to be bought and sold, why is that a problem? If I need food and could sell my vote to keep my children fed for another month, isn't that worth it?
And I challenge you to name one monopoly that came into being without government interference - maintaining a monopoly is damn hard when you're not being legislated for.
http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
What did Wall Street do to me this week?
(1) Some guy cut me off at 75 mph this morning, almost causing a massive accident on a crowded freeway.
(2) At work, they promoted an incompetent because she has friends in the sales department and has worked there for 15 years.
(3) Someone put a bag of trash in the back of his pickup truck and got on the freeway, where the wind neatly lifted it out of the back and dropped it in front of a semi. Now trash litters the countryside.
(4) Someone else broke into my neighbor's car and stole a $10 pair of sunglasses (value is approximate, probably high).
(5) At the apartment building across the street, they keep having parties where people throw beer bottles into the street below.
Did Wall Street do all of this?
I think humanity as a whole exists in a moral vacuum, and that's a bigger problem than a few people making billions. At least in my city, there are still good jobs to be had.
I worked at Blockbuster and Subway for 6 months while looking for work. I did what I had to do.
And now Blockbuster is gone and Subway isn't hiring. There were just over 3 million open jobs in July, there are "officially" 13 million people unemployed. What do you think the other 10 million people "have to do"? Start their own company? With what money? And what chances? 80% of new companies fail in 5 years. What waits for them after they try and fail? More scorn? People unwilling to give them a second chance?
It's not society's job to guarantee anyone a particular outcome. It's society's job to provide the opportunity.
Numerically speaking, the opportunity simply doesn't exist. It's all well and good for sjames to argue over whether those 3 million jobs are just crumbs or not, but the simple fact of the matter is that for the foreseeable future, the economy will not be able to absorb the other ten million people.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I'm guessing you're looking for the Pareto distribution probability density function which indeed sounds a lot more posh.
BTW: Its parameter \alpha is related to the Gini coëfficient.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The first step will be to get Congress to be subject to the same laws that they pass for all of us. For example, they are NOT subject to Obamacare. Not subject to Sexual Harassment. One term in Congress? You get a pension at your current pay rate for life. This is all BS. I suppose you could call them Royalty. I could see if a Congressman has been there for 40 years, give him the 80%. There won't be that many of them. But one term? Please. Also, take their publicly funded jet rides. They think that Corporate people don't need them, they don't need them either. Take a commercial jet.
Then move onto how public CEOs can rob a company blind, and get away with it. HP is a good example of how they hired a European, he came over and ran it off a cliff to get fired, and since he's being fired gets his 4 million severance pay in addition to many other things. HP was really taken for a ride. They are taking as much as they can as fast as they can. Many of you say the stockholders can stop it. I've been one for years. They don't care at all what we think. They can do as they please, and do. Drain pension funds, health care funds, etc.. Yet I don't want to hit guys that busted their balls to create a company. They should get rewarded. I.e. the late Mr. Jobs for example. Love him or hate him, he should have been rewarded.
Fair share? How about starting with the same percentage the middle class pays and going from there? That's on capital gains and everything, close all the loopholes. Or just roll back to something resembling JFK-era tax brackets, seems like a good idea.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You're not 100% correct, my middle-aged friend.
The thing that you're overlooking is that there exists another 1-10% somewhere that have to live without anything: without education, homes, income, food, water, medical assistance, etc. (Without going back to sources, I'd say that "1-10%" is probably around 50% of the world's population.)
The system is broken in the respect that many of the remaining 99% (or even you) have (or had) to spend considerable amounts of time working their ass off for under 20 Euros or Dollars an hour *just* to be able to cover their most basic expenses, without having the opportunity to save up!
Another point is that if you want to be a decent, ethical human being, it is especially difficult to save up without putting someone else in debt (be it monetary, emotionally or time-wise).
There's a balance, which was broken under the promise of "it's just for a bit, until we get out, then we'll put everything back where it's supposed to be".
Unfortunately, the bit turned out to be over a life-time and the heirs failed to understand where "it's" supposed to be or to honor their (grand-) parents' agreements.
We are arriving at a point where we can't fix things locally without arousing the anger of others who have less. I.e. "What?! They're protesting for bigger SUVs?! Let's send some planes/bombs/bad mood/whatever!".
We can only fix this by understanding our mistakes and taking the time to learn about ourselves. For instance, by admitting our weaknesses (i.e. greed and jealousy) and setting up barriers to prevent us from being put in positions, where such lowly emotions can put us or others in any danger.
Stop hiding behind your house, cars and other achievements, if what you really did was sell your dreams and soul for shiny things of little value.
Take your time to enjoy a friendly conversation or set up your tent on my lawn if you like it here.
I won't be able to take it with me where I go, but I can use it to make people happier while I'm here!
Now, stop acting like a robot and go out hiking! Go travel! Have a look at what nature has to offer and understand the cyclical relationships abound to free your mind of all those little material things that you mistakenly call wealth!
What these kids want is things given to them, it's not quite the same thing. Most kids growing up don't graduate from high school and then immediately move out. Our kids did not 'depend' on their parents helping out. Both starting going to school without parental help using savings plus I gave my daughter half of the child support I was paying for one semester before she dropped out for awhile. When she went back, ASU had raised their tuition 100% in a little over 7 years. My 'helping out' was only a few grand, no where close to the total amount. I have no idea what his parents have done, but I know he had far more in savings than my daughter did and makes a fair wage as a cart race car instructor.
'Offering' to help is not the same thing as 'depending'. My daughter and I had an understanding, as long as she either had a job or went to school, she could live at home. It doesn't really cost much when your child has a job and pays for all of their expenses to let them live in a room, maybe $20/month for water and electricity. She had her own car (new, I might add) and rarely ate at home at first because I was a single dad and not big on cooking.
Sorry you had parental issues and your parents didn't 'offer' to help you. I only assume that based on the vitriol you are spewing.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Did you even read what I posted?? She lived with me, she didn't need rent. She had a job, I didn't pay her bills. It took me 25 years to get to 100K, my daughter started as a dog bather and is well on her way to being able to run her own business. She stands a good chance of being able to surpass my income someday.
Only the unmotivated and lazy don't know how to start at the bottom and work their way up. Those opportunities still exist, I've seen them at companies I have worked for. But it was the smart, self-motivated people that did it.
And if someone isn't smart or self-motivated, then they earn what they deserve to earn and need to face up to it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
because, if you live under worse conditions than a serf compared to its times, then it doesnt matter what you are named.
Read radical news here
Federal, as far as I know it is largely up to the individual provinces how they implement election donations and I don't remember hearing of limits in any provincial elections.
The federal government here has somewhat more power then the American federal government, at least constitutionally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada, note that Wikipedia is out of date as the per vote subsidy law has been repealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That 1%, 99% of them are Jews.
A patriotic form of socialism, known as National Socialism, is what we need in America NOW!
Twitter: @dainsanefh
Support anything that your enemy is against, Against anything that your enemy supports.
Twitter: @dainsanefh
Do you have actual evidence for this claim (other than your vivid imagination)?
Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
Be so laid.. That's why it's good to be a 1%..everyone sells out and it makes everything better. So screw an even 100%, or a fair society. I want to be a 1%er...
This is my sig.
. . . in the US, you are among the top 1% in the world.
While - this is not strictly "true" . . more likely, you are among the top 2-5%. . . this is a very important point to make. And it's not a point to say. . . "you are just a whiney bitch" - NO.
It is a point to say: keep your eye on the prize. Or, at least know what you are really fighting for.
You are not fighting to regain, or maintain, the standard of living that your parents had, or that you used to have.
That standard was an illusion. It was not sustainable, and it was obtained at the expense of the poverty and suffering of the hundreds of millions of others in the world.
Simply feeding them, in the past, may have made us "feel better". And it drove up their population, and made their problems worse.
What we should have fought for then, instead - - - what we need to fight for NOW - - - is equality, and social justice. Real, lasting, sustainable solutions to these problems.
The #1, first and foremost goal; I believe, is to GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
Eliminate the Money=Speech fallacy.
(I have a strong pro-freedom streak running through me - but there is something wrong with this logic that private money, which can be controlled by private hands, is equivalent to public, political discourse, access to influence the system, right to assemble, and representation. Our mass-media is corporatized, monetized, monopolized, and regulated, and there is NO way that this is equivalent to "free speech") - the more we de-regulate campaign financing, the worse this problem gets. This must be stopped, and soon. Everybody deserves a voice. Everybody has a right to speak. But the money has to STOP. All of it.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The portesters not only don't have a unified agenda but they are protesting the wrong organization. They should be protesting the Federal Reserve and/or Treasury. Although they may be controlled by the 1% the relative size of the assets and power of these agencies are far greater. - and of course the Fed can print cash. It h ad been revealed, without contradiction by the WH that Mr Geithner (sic) does not implement the directives of his boss out of course he came from the NY Reserve Bank. The new head of the NY Fed gave a "speech " to a crowd some time ago in which he said that things were getting better because the prices of iPads was going down. To which somebody replied "Great - but you can't eat iPads"
Is that wealthy people can hire smart people to THINK for them.
This can easily be resolved by always working for more people than are doing the work. Virtue Q.E.D.
Well, to start with your question is an unrelated tangent to what I said, which didn't say anything about "do better" or "cost effective", I merely said I like and prefer the things the government does. (That is to say, I could, and in fact do, prefer some things to be done by the government even if they aren't as efficient because of other benefits besides efficiency.)
Nevertheless, okay, I'll name one, but after this, I'm not going to continue to engage this topic.
Medicare is a social safety net program. It provides health care to the elderly. It is a popular American program which is "done better" than the same program done "by someone else" in that nobody else provides a social safety net of health care to elderly people. The free market doesn't do that, and of course it never could, it's exactly the opposite of what private markets provide. Furthermore, strictly on the merits, Medicare is "more cost effective" than private health insurance, in that identical procedures cost the payer less. There are legit criticisms of Medicare (my favorite is that the "cost effective" nature of Medicare leads to rationing), but "done better" and "more cost effective" are not any of them.
I'll go ahead and throw in a second one: national defense. The government does this "better" than the alternative, which would be, I suppose, roving bands of disjointed mercenaries under the control of wealthy locals who pay them to protect their individual plots of land. It's hard to even imagine that other kind of "privatized" national defense, but I suppose it's possible. Would that be more "cost effective"? I can't say, but I don't even think that's a useful way to even think about that problem.
Don't paint me as some kind of ideologue here, because I'm not at all. Like you I am not perfectly happy with how government functions. I'd make changes, too. But I don't think the "big government" complaint is valid -- I think it's meaningless, I mean truly meaningless, like it has no meaning whatsoever, it is nothing but empty rhetoric.
Do you have actual evidence for this claim
Yes, the very same evidence you have (but which you would appear to be anxious to avoid!). Just look at the laundry list of lefty organizations now carrying signs around all of those locations. Follow the money, via their web sites, right back to Tides and several others. MoveOn operates with millions of Soros' dollars, and they're now in the thick of it. Good ol' "AdBusters" (partly financed by Soros) was one of the originators of the whole "occupy" meme, and is busy cheerleading on the topic from Canada.
You can't swing a dead cat at one of these Eat The Rich events without hitting some drone who works for an entity founded or funded by Soros (himself, of course, an extremely rich person, guilty of insider trading and currency manipulation and worse). The irony is great, but unfortunately, he has an actual, toxic agenda, and these people just eat it up because he makes sure they all get t-shirts with logos on them. Alas, he's not writing checks to the restaurants whose restrooms are getting trashed by all of these people. No, those pizza shop owners are The Man, and should torn down! Down with eeeevil business owners, as soon as we use up the rest of their toilet paper, man!
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is a pity party whipping people in a tough time into a frenzy. It is all emotion and little thought. The point appears to be to punish someone regardless of law. I might take it seriously when it isn't an emotionally driven vendetta and is actually a discussion about fair taxation and regulation. Till then every dollar you spend is a vote for how you want us to proceed. I am not buying Ben and Jerry's for awhile because I feel they are cashing in on this hate spiral.
The only actual people I've gotten jobs from are family (did some babysitting when I was younger). Since then I've only been employed by corporations, which are not people. Those corporations also employ founders/CEOs/other executives that get paid way more money that me for some nebulous job that I have never had satisfactorily explained to me. Hell several of my friends are employed by corporations, that they are the only employee of, that contract their work to other corporations.
The people that get paid the most in the corporation that I work for did not hire me, do not know my name and do not understand what I do. My hiring involved at least five separate people (most or all I get paid more than).
For, you are saying that you are ok now despite you are WORSE OFF than a serf in all kinds of things. just because you are titled 'free'.
you are not. your wealth is worse off than a serf, and now EVERYTHING in your society is tied to how much wealth you can spend. if you dont have the money to do something YOU DONT HAVE THAT FREEDOM. even if they allow you.
moron. people like you, who cant see past the illusion through the practicality of things make world worse off.
Read radical news here
Yes.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
After their sugar daddies told them to vote for it, of course - Wall Street controls Congress, not the other 99% of the voting population who "elected" them. Back to point ;)
If I recall correctly, the financial insitutions were on the verge of forcing an economy shutdown by killing all liquidity. If the government would not have stepped in, within weeks the first healthy corporations would have missed payroll because they could not get any form of credit. With healthy corporations falling, he economy would soon collapse. These companies need credit because their assets were tied up in more profitable venues, exactly as the financial industy dictates. The financial industry, scared by their own failure, refused to do their job. The government decided to give free liquidity to the financial industry, begging them to do their job. Even forcing them to do their job. I think that was a mistake. The government should simply have saved the economy by stepping in, and giving out loans to corporations (forming a national bank), and let the financial industry rot until they wised up again.
im serious. if i limit your freedoms to a lower level than a slave due to ANY means, but tell you you are a free man, does it matter zit ?
Read radical news here
If you're going to be post stuff that is easily checked out you should get your facts right. The members of Congress get the same health care deal as all other Federal employees, no more no less. Congressional pensions are not as you say. To quote my cite: "For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year." I'll give you the sexual harassment one. The only members of Congress I'm aware of that get publicly funded jet rides for normal travel are the Vice President (as presiding officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House who is 2nd in line for the Presidency and that is at the insistence of the Secret Service. All regular members of Congress such as my Oregon Senators and Representatives take commercial jets to travel between here and DC.
She LIVED with you, fool. You were paying many bills. Stop being such a tosser and man up.
If you're going to be post stuff that is easily checked out you should get your facts right. The members of Congress get the same health care deal as all other Federal employees, no more no less. Congressional pensions are not as you say. To quote my cite: "For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year." I'll give you the sexual harassment one. The only members of Congress I'm aware of that get publicly funded jet rides for normal travel are the Vice President (as presiding officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House who is 2nd in line for the Presidency and that is at the insistence of the Secret Service. All regular members of Congress such as my Oregon Senators and Representatives take commercial jets to travel between here and DC.
Ok, Let's start with the health care deal. Check out http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/23/opinion/main6324480.shtml . You can bet, if they get it, others will too. The point is, if it is so wonderful, why the exemption. Perhaps all of those articles out there about this are just wrong? We would know if Obama really was as transparent about these things as he said he would be. Instead just yesterday I found out a couple of Congressmen want to introduce legislation to hide his stuff for many years. Used to be done with an exec order. Probably Way TMI for this discussion.
Now, for the pension bit. Look at the article you cite. It says to take the top earning three years and average it. Then the formula. Then give the example for a typical career politician, which is actually a lot closer to a typical government worker. Same text I saw in a recent class about that. That third year for a Representative would be a zero. If you want the gory details and have a beer or two, here it is http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/retirement.pdf . I called up my source on that. Turns out he was just wrong. Here's a better citation -http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/retirement_for_members.shtml . You're right, I should have checked that one out better.
The one I had in mind for the flights was Peleosi. It was quite a bill. As for a security issue, that's hog wash. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/john-boehner-says-hell-fly-com.html . She abused it and she knows it. She also doesn't care. They are attacking General Aviation as a rich thing. It isn't. It's economical for time as well as tends to keep company secrets secret. Nothing can be done on a commercial jet other than as an executive mailing tube. You never know who is sitting next to you. Like the yatch industry they killed a number of years ago, they will probably do the same thing to the aviation industry. Remember the Yatch bit? You know, only "rich" people have them. Tax it. Rich people stopped buying them cold. BTW, according to recent stuff it seems that they may define "rich" as anyone making over $80,000. In Clinton's time I was able to defend the statement that "Rich" was making over $40,000. That was in 1993 dollars.
It's the same exemption I'm getting because I get health care coverage through my employer, the same as all Federal employees, including Congress, get through their employer.
Thanks for that Washington Post article. I learned something. I had heard that Pelosi, when she became Speaker said that she would be perfectly happy to fly commercial but they wanted her to be in an airplane where she had access to government communication channels in case of an emergency. It sounds like the Bush II administration could have denied her the jet if they had wanted to. As #2 in line for the Presidency I wouldn't begrudge any Speaker including Boehner using a military jet. They make a pretty big target if someone wants to try something.
So... No?
Fanatically anti-fanatical