Occupy Wall Street Protests

Post by MyTie

Post by Heckler

Here's a humorous protest sign from one OWS protester that you might like if you're familiar with the Federal Reserve (because the sign has some semi-censored bad language, the link goes to Paul Krugman's blog where I found it. You can find a link to the poster there though).

And related to my prior post on taxation, here's a nice summary of State taxation for all 50 States by income level. The regressive nature of these graphs is amazing (especially when combined with the flat nature of the previous Federal numbers). It's also really surprising to me that Property Taxes are regressive in general -- Adam Smith's justification for progressive taxation was stated about property tax.

Also, the OWS New York City General Assembly adopted this: Declaration of the Occupation of New York City enumerating their grievences in specific language. Worth a read =)

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Post by Magician22773

What I don't quite get is the outcome that people want. Consider the following scenario:

1) Banks don't get bailed out by government.
2) Banks avoid making losses on poorly performing property, instead, hold onto them and jack up rentals.
3) Instead of people paying taxes to government for bailouts, they pay for the subprime lending debacle in the form of higher rent (and flow-on costs).

The same principle can be applied to pretty much every other "big business is getting money they don't deserve" argument. If the government doesn't pay for it, the cost will be spread out over the private sector anyway, or the service won't be provided.

Squish,

I was extremely affected by the housing crisis and the bailouts, because my business was dependant on new residential construction. I witnessed it from personally from start to finish, and saw what free-market capitalism can do, and government bailouts can't.

Prior to the collapse, the county I live in, and the surrounding counties were among the fastest growing in the nation. Builders were selling houses faster than they could build them. Hell, anyone with half a brain, and half a job could qualify for a home mortgage. During that time, the price to rent a nice home or apartment was between $750-1000 a month. One of the big selling points for the starter homes was you could own for less than you could rent.

When the subprime lending collapsed, these starter home neighborhoods disappeared, and thousands of homes were left empty or forclosed on. The inablity to finance a house led to an explosion of apartment complexes and townhomes being built. Combined with the flood of new homes that could not be sold becoming rentals, there is now a massive amount of competition for renters in the area, and those same $750-1000 rentals are now $500 a month. Many places are offering 3 months free rent, free cable TV and high speed internet access, and offering to pay penalties if you break an existing lease to move into their property.

Supply and Demand will always win out over goverment intervention every time. Its no different than playing the AH in the game, once everyone starts farming mats, the price is gonna drop, as long as someone needs what you have.

Post by gamerunknown

If government is allowed to control people's campaigns, what is to stop a party from taking control of government?

Well hopefully a party does take control of government, though a coalition would work too - just not permanently. The opposite slippery slope applies too. If money buys ads and people respond to ads (and pretty much all market research makes that assumption), then who is to say that it isn't always the campaign with the most dollars in backing that wins? Shouldn't a candidate win based on the strength of their ideas?

Post by Heckler

who is to say that it isn't always the campaign with the most dollars in backing that wins? Shouldn't a candidate win based on the strength of their ideas?
The campaign with more dollars won 94% of Congressional races and the Presidency in 2008 (src).

What I don't quite get is the outcome that people want.
One view is that the bailout should never have been allowed to become necessary in the first place. If the Glass–Steagall Act hadn't been repealed in 1999, many of the causes of the banking bubble and collapse would have been prevented. As such one of the OWS goals is the reinstatement of Glass–Steagall.

Additionally, the bailout was designed to help banks, with public funds; so the natural expectation of the taxpayer was that the banks would reciprocate this action back to the customer in some way. They got in over their head, and we helped make sure they didn't drown; they reacted by foreclosing mercilessly on underwater mortgages (a very similar situation to the one we helped them out of, except that it wouldn't have been possible without their irresponsibility).

The outcome people want is twofold: carry the action of the bailout through to its actual purpose of correcting a failed housing market risk scheme while keeping commercial banks afloat, and prevent those banks from gambling with funds that weren't intended for gambling use. But the failed scheme hasn't been corrected, the housing market hasn't been righted, and the Commercial Banks are still allowed to gamble with grandma's deposits.

If the government doesn't pay for it, the cost will be spread out over the private sector anyway, or the service won't be provided.
The kick-in-the-pants was that the government did pay for it, and then the banks spread the cost over the private sector anyways, brutally in most cases.

There's a couple different views to have. If you're a pure capitalist, then you should agree that the banks should have been allowed to collapse. They made high risk investments that failed, and the word "risk" only carries a meaning if consequences (like bank failure) are a reality.

The problem is, when Gramm-Leach-Bliley removed the Glass-Steagall wall of seperation between Investment banking and Commercial banking, this allowed "Regular Joe's" deposits into the hands of people who were taking these high risks, meaning they weren't just putting their investment firm (used by rich investors) at risk, they were putting the entire banking structure (used by everyone) at risk. In that regard, the bailout was (possibly) in our best interest given the circumstances and consequences -- the banks most definitely had us by the 'short hairs' (although it would have been interesting to see the consequences if the banks had failed. Most people who are currently the most 'screwed' would have been completely insured by the FDIC, and I assume the total outlays of the FDIC would have been less than the bailout. But anyone with over $100k in the bank would have been hurting, and they sign the bills.)

The anger arises when in response to the bailout, the banks continue the same practices which caused it in the first place. They show no "compassion" for or "understanding" of the devastatingly high number of underwater mortgages and flooded housing markets which currently cripple the economy (which were caused by their failed high-risk investments in the first place!), and the bailout language did not force them to have this "compassion" (or do anything really), as any well-defined public grant should have done.

So it represents a large cascaded failure, spread across both political parties and the entire banking sector, and the largest victim was (and continues to be) the American taxpayer. Worst of all, the entire debacle is set to repeat itself because 'the powers that be' haven't "fixed" the structural problems which caused it in the first place -- and that's where the need for public action arises.

Post by MyTie

Also, the OWS New York City General Assembly adopted this: Declaration of the Occupation of New York City enumerating their grievences in specific language. Worth a read =)

Thanks for this. I had no idea what they were about. They seemed to be disjointed. Now, I know, and I must say, I found a bit of it laughable...They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.Animals in the US, by and large are treated quite well. I'm expecting someone to link 4 or 5 exceptions, but those are exceptions.They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.Unions have demanded unaffordable stuff from companies, that HAS to end at either of two logical conclusions: outsourcing or bankruptcy. Now they complain about outsourcing?They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.I was in the military, I can't count how many times I was ordered to march into the press buildings by a company.They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.I wish this statement were a little less specific.They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.And politicians have accepted that money.They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.They block, or don't invest? I mean, why would anyone invest in alternate forms of energy when it is obviously a bad investment *cough* *cough* *solyndria* *cough*. I think I need glass of water for this cough. What I mean to say is that Solyndria is a perfect example of why people don't invest their money in ~~garbage~~ alternate energy.They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.This is common practice, don't you know. People are always getting murdered by those evil corporations. This sounds more like a Stephen Segal movie than it does reality.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.Is there one example of this? One would surprise me. How do corporations find time to do this in between all the torturing of people and animals?

These people despise capitalism. They hate it. They will do whatever they can to paint it as the devil, so they can slit its throat on the alter of more government power. These people are either really really stupid, or communist. Seroiously, WMDs? on wall St? *sigh*

Post by MyTie

All of their grievances are directed at specific companies, and what those companies have done wrong. But, instead of standing outside those companies, or trying to make a law against those actions, they are standing outside Wall St, protesting the system that those companies, and all other companies, run on. When their specific grievances aren't endemic to the system, why are they there? They use these specific outrages, performed by specific companies, to try to undermine the system of capitalism as a whole, and with no viable economic alternative. What would they like wall st to do to fix the injustices? What petition have they authored? They have no viable solution because they don't want the situation solved. They want it destroyed.

Post by gamerunknown

They block, or don't invest?

Who killed the electric car? It'd be stupid of corporations financially to not vote (and by vote I mean found and fund lobby groups and Congressmen), as not voting essentially constitutes voting against one's interests. One's interests in this case being one's paycheck.

As for weapons of mass destruction: there is no internationally recognised definition of "weapon of mass destruction". The United States has a vested interest in not defining weapons of mass destruction, since they are the only country to have used nuclear weaponry during war, which by any reasonable stretch of the imagination would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction. Nuclear weaponry is currently produced by Lockheed Martin. Worth pointing out that the US is not a signatory to the treaty to ban land mines, though to be fair the last land mine that I know of to have been produced in the US was in the 1960s and I'm fairly sure that was by government workers. Also worth noting that it was actually an atomic land mine.

Actually, anyone have a list of treaties that the land of the free and the home of the brave are as obstinate as Ron Paul about not signing? Usually in congress with Israel and sometimes North Korea.

Edit: Don't you think it would be fairly reasonable to not allow companies that produce nuclear weaponry to not be permitted to trade publicly?

Post by MyTie

Edit: Don't you think it would be fairly reasonable to not allow companies that produce nuclear weaponry to not be permitted to trade publicly?

No.

Back to what I was saying earlier. Take a look at the picture in this article. Read the sign that says "The whole system has to go. Capitalism is organized crime."

Post by gamerunknown

No.

What if they had a sideline in drugs or child pornography?

Post by xaratherus

Both McCain-Feingold and the amendment you are bringing up limits the way people can spend campaign money, and how people can donate to those campaigns. I do not think the government should have ANY hand in who runs, or how they run. The government is there to count votes. Remember the 'slippery slope' of the Al-Awlaki killing? Don't you see the slippery slope here? If government is allowed to control people's campaigns, what is to stop a party from taking control of government?

There's a rather wide difference between "allowing the government to control people's campaigns" and "govenrment oversight and limitation of campaign financing to ensure that elections are won or lost based on the candidate's political ideas, and not how much money they were able to raise to get their faces on billboards and television".

As it stands right now, those with the most money control who runs, and how they run, and to me that's just as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than allowing the government additional oversight of the process.

Post by MyTie

Post by xaratherus

As it stands right now, those with the most money control who runs, and how they run, and to me that's just as dangerous - if not more dangerous - than allowing the government additional oversight of the process.

But what is the problem here? Is the problem the money that people raise for their campaigns, or is it voters just voting for what is on a billboard, instead of their platform? The idiot masses are to blame here, not campaign finance.

You seem to be missing the point. You seem to be implying that campaign finance is intended to fix the problem of voter education, when it's not.

It's meant to fix the fact that when candidate A has exponentially more money than candidate B, candidate A has a major advantage because regardless of the validity of their platform, they can get their name before more voters (and, in some cases, ensure that should candidate B have a more sound platform, candidate A can ensure that few people find out about the platform).

Campaign finance isn't meant to force voters to learn about the candidates, which is a wholly separate problem; it's meant to ensure that candidates are on equal footing when it comes to getting their platforms before the eyes of voters.

Post by MyTie

You seem to be missing the point. You seem to be implying that campaign finance is intended to fix the problem of voter education, when it's not.I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying that the money spent on a campaign influences voters, when it should not, but that they should be influenced by being educated about the candidates. It is not the money spent that is the issue here, it is the education level of the voters. I am saying that that CANNOT be fixed by anybody but the voters. I'm saying that YOU are implying that regulation of campaign finance should be used to fix the problem of voter education.Campaign finance isn't meant to force voters to learn about the candidates, which is a wholly separate problem; it's meant to ensure that candidates are on equal footing when it comes to getting their platforms before the eyes of voters.They are not "wholly separate problems". If the voters were actually educated about the candidates, then one candidate could spend no money at all, and the other could spend every ounce of gold bullion on earth, and it wouldn't matter. The education is the ONLY problem here. If voters were entirely educated about their candidates, then tell me why the way those candidates spent money would matter at all?

Post by Heckler

Here's another article concerning the Dylan Ratigan "Get Money Out" idea:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/obama-congress-trade-bill_b_999866.html

Definitely worth a read =)

Also, Paul Krugman's column from today was about OWS, also worth a read =)

Post by MyTie

Also, Paul Krugman's column from today was about OWS, also worth a read =)

Ugh. Democrats hand out money to banks. Banks take money. Democrats get angry at banks for taking money. This is a victory for democrats? The collective idiocy is nauseating.

Post by Heckler

The bailout was carried out under Bush, written by his cabinet.

The collective idiocy is nauseating.
lol, I agree.

Post by MyTie

The bailout was carried out under Bush, written by his cabinet.

The collective idiocy is nauseating.
lol, I agree.

Bush wasn't a conservative. Bush wasn't a friend of capitalism.

Occupy Wall Street Protests

Post Reply