This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Your analysis is reasonable, but even if all your points are exactly true, it would do nothing to stop the anger / pain being felt by the
middle class
.
Of course it doesn't, but that's because the
zeitgeist
is inherently irrational. If people stopped comparing themselves to the Joneses, they'd realise that they're not actually in that bad a place. The problem is, the average pleb's desire to be something more than they are, buying bigger houses than they need and iPhones on credit, results in their financial despair. There are only a few people who can really claim to be in pain, and they're mutually exclusive with the
middle class
. Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but I really couldn't care less about those in the 10-99%, despite being one of them.
You act like this "transition to a service economy" is inevitable and unavoidable, and therefore the consequences aren't worth pointing out or fighting against. You act like this "global recession" should give the figures a pass without considering that the data and actions behind the figures may have caused the global recession in the first place. This idea that it's well and proper to put more and more money into the richest people's hands, because that money will support the economy eventually in some way -- I don't think that will carry much public support either; money that goes into the hands of labor does that too, in a much more direct sense.
Yes, I think it's unavoidable, and the negative consequences aren't worth fighting against unless you want to give up the positive ones as well (see below). No, the global recession wasn't caused by excessive corporate profits - it was caused by the risk taking of the international banking sector and the poor financial management of a couple of European countries. In fact, GFC 2.0 isn't even caused by anything in the US or Australia; we're just dealing with the global consequences of the problem.
Basically, if your line of reasoning is that "well you have no reason to be angry because what's happening is completely normal and proper and expected" -- I don't think America (or anyone else) is going to, or should, agree with you. If this is normal, then it's time to redefine normal (again).
Anti-globalisation is very '90s. Yes, I do think that globalisation and outsourcing to countries with competitive advantages is normal. On the back of your argument, it sounds like everybody in America is willing to pay three times as much for their consumer goods to have them "Made in the US" as opposed to "Made in China", is that right? To be honest, I didn't think that was the case, and I'd be curious to see how you support that notion.
Post by
Heckler
I think you have a point that does apply pretty broadly. But there's still a large legitimate class of wronged people out there. Problems with education funding, health care costs, the banking system, and the employment market have left a lot of people who did everything "right" struggling to keep a roof over their head. It's not about comparing yourself to the Jones', it's about being economically mobile enough that you're not born into Serfdom to the transnationals because of things outside your control.
I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough on the ins and outs of globalization to form a good counter argument to your question about "three times the price" (even though I've taken two classes on the subject, I suppose I should have paid more attention) -- clearly it's a difficult question. If goods at three times the price also come with low unemployment numbers, healthy well-funded communities, and higher wages across the board due to a high number of
good
jobs; then maybe they would. Not all globalization is bad either, just the type that move opportunity and profit away from the domestic market in order to dodge the social contract. I'm also not saying it should be illegal to import goods, or export jobs; but I definitely think our tax structure should discourage this behavior rather than reward it.
I find it interesting that you're willing to disentangle "corporate profits" from "excessive banking risk" -- seems to me they're 2 sides of the same coin. And I'll stand by my point that the average American would not accept "this is how globalization happens, get used to it" as a proper explanation of the various facts and figures supporting OWS' views.
Post by
gamerunknown
There's nothing wrong with comparative advantage (which I believe you meant, rather than competitive advantage). The issue is when global companies use the fact that they have access to cheap labour to abuse the native population: I think any worker for an American company deserves to have the same rights as an American worker. Perhaps not the same pay, but certainly enough to elevate them out of poverty in their country, otherwise they are wage slaves nonetheless.
Also worth considering is aggressive marketing in third world countries to get the native population spending disposable and non-disposable income on products they don't need. From an epidemiological perspective, it's not nice.
Also, language like:
The problem is, the average pleb's desire to be something more than they are
shows a divorce from the democratic argument. The plebiscite represented the people as opposed to the aristocrats. By using "pleb" as an insult, you're not trying to identify and discriminate between the Platonic ideal of the 99%, you're actually acknowledging their existence and showing your hostility to them. The fact that people will strive to purchase more and produce more and that demand will never be sated is actually something that all modern markets are based on.
The fact that the majority of the 99% are not in the bottom 10% is meaningless when one considers that wealth in the US does not follow a normal distribution. When one delineates earning bands in the population, there is a right skew as most of the population earn under x amount. There are fewer standard deviations between the 20th and 60th percentile than there are between the 98th and 99th (if my statistics module from last year serves me correctly). So it's much easier for someone in 80th percentile to empathise and imagine themselves in the position of the 5th percentile than it is for the 99th percentile to imagine themselves in the position of the 59th percentile, even if the quality of life decrease from 99th to 59th isn't as huge as that of the 60th to 5th. Especially when one considers rising unemployment and wealth disparity.
Post by
Squishalot
@ Heckler: goods at three times the price cause inflation if they exist simply to drive wage growth. And realistically, people don't go significantly out of their way to buy "Made in X" at present, so it's clear that the demand isn't there, suggesting that people don't think it's worth it. For the few industries that do have the level of community support (e.g. motor vehicle manufacturing), we see it occurs. For the textiles and consumer electronic goods industry, we see it doesn't. To me, that's the market in action, working as intended.
I agree that the average American won't accept it as a suitable answer, and I already responded - that's because they're irrational.
@ gamerunknown: I'm not using 'pleb' as an insult, that's something you've inferred. I'm referring to 'plebs' as exactly what they are - the people. In Australia, 84% of credit card customers are constantly revolving debt and paying interest on balances*, meaning that 84% of credit card customers are either a) financially incompetent, or b) intentionally living beyond their means. I'm not insulting them, I'm simply saying it as it is.
As for the bottom 10%, you're missing my argument. Heckler says that the middle class feel pain that they're not getting their fair share. I'm saying that I have no sympathy for the middle class, because they're forgetting that their grass is much greener (and in fact, sufficiently green to have a comfortable life if they managed it properly) than the poverty class, which I do have more sympathy for.
And yes, I did mean comparative advantage. It's been a long time since economics. Thanks for correcting me.
* Source: internal reports at a large bank I used to work for, when I was profiling their 10 million customer database.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't think it read as a neutral term in context, but I'll leave that up to the reader.
And what is credit apart from living beyond one's means? I'm fairly sure that any highstreet bank that wasn't an Islamic one would have to cut the majority of their employees if they didn't have the steady income of people paying off the interest on their credit card balance.
For the textiles and consumer electronic goods industry, we see it doesn't. To me, that's the market in action, working as intended.
As has been brought up earlier in the thread, the best advertised product or candidate is usually the one that receives popular support. There's no short term reward to being an informed voter or consumer.
I'm saying that I have no sympathy for the middle class, because they're forgetting that their grass is much greener (and in fact, sufficiently green to have a comfortable life if they managed it properly) than the poverty class, which I do have more sympathy for.
Well, the middle class is perilously close to the poverty class (at least compared to the very wealthy) - a change in interest rates wouldn't make a substantial difference to people that are holding their wealth in an offshore account and as Heckler said, socialising their debts, but it could mean shifting perhaps 5% of the working class into the poverty class. You may also be missing the point that they could be showing camaraderie: recognising their lives are much better than those that are literally starving and perhaps too weak from their untreated ailments (due to lack of insurance) to actually attend such rallies, but also conscious of the fact that they as a class donate a greater proportion of their wealth to charity than the 1%, even though that proportion has a bigger impact on their quality of life. So we have the same data (1st percentile to 98th closer on wealth than 99th to whatever, 99th and 40th closer in quality of life than 40th to 1st), we just choose to interpret it differently.
Post by
Squishalot
And what is credit apart from living beyond one's means? I'm fairly sure that any highstreet bank that wasn't an Islamic one would have to cut the majority of their employees if they didn't have the steady income of people paying off the interest on their credit card balance.
...
Well, the middle class is perilously close to the poverty class (at least compared to the very wealthy) - a change in interest rates wouldn't make a substantial difference to people that are holding their wealth in an offshore account and as Heckler said, socialising their debts, but it could mean shifting perhaps 5% of the working class into the poverty class.
If a small change in interest rates is going to push people into poverty, I would argue that they're living beyond their means.
Banks make precious little from their credit card teams. The vast bulk of the profits come from corporate and project lending, with a decent amount coming from retail mortgages, at least in Australia. Credit cards, at the bank where I worked, made up barely 8-10% of the net profits of the business.
According to the Bank of America 2010 Annual Report (
link
), BoA lost 6.6bn on its credit cards. The profits it generated came out from the Global Banking and Markets, and Global Commercial Banking divisions. That is, the profits BoA recorded came from other companies, not from screwing over the plebs. (page 23)
The disconnect is the top graph on that same page - credit cards brought in 25.6bn in revenue. So the average person sees that they're paying all these fees and interest, but they don't realise that the bank is losing money just to provide the service. Same goes for having branches and ATMs open for business.
As has been brought up earlier in the thread, the best advertised product or candidate is usually the one that receives popular support. There's no short term reward to being an informed voter or consumer.
Again - irrationality.
those that are literally starving and perhaps too weak from their untreated ailments (due to lack of insurance) to actually attend such rallies
Source? If anything, the homeless in the city would gravitate to these rallies.
but also conscious of the fact that they as a class donate a greater proportion of their wealth to charity than the 1%
Again, source? I would point out that Warren Buffet has explicitly said that he would give to charity, if he thought they could manage the money as well as he did, so instead, he bequeathed shares in Berkshire Hathaway, rather than gifting cash.
My point is that middle class people only have themselves to blame for their financial predicament. Everybody can say that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Only some can honestly say "I did everything I could to grow my grass well and I'm still financially insecure / in poverty". In theory, I should be comrades with the other folk. In practice, I dislike the fact that they expect others to cough out for their own inability to manage their finances.
Funny, that's exactly the criticism they have of Wall Street! How ironic.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Heckler
Only some can honestly say "I did everything I could to grow my grass well and I'm still financially insecure / in poverty".
Social / economic mobility are quite low in the U.S. (one
source
, there's plenty more) -- bad luck can very easily knock down a life's worth of progress. I understand your position, but I think you're generalizing a huge chunk of people away as this tiny minority, when in reality, almost everyone in America is one accident/illness from being ruined, and ending up in the "working poor" (I would blame this chiefly on Health Care, but the problems in that sector are symptomatic of the overarching problems). Shouldn't we work to offset this "bad luck factor," and promote mobility where possible? Are economic policies designed to reduce income disparity fundamentally bad?
Post by
Squishalot
Insurance is a tool of financial management. I make sure my health insurance, car insurance, house insurance are all paid for and up to date, and cover the key financial risks I have.
That being said, I'm all for public healthcare reforms. If there are specific issues that cause people's problems, those specific issues should be addressed. I would have no qualms if they were protesting for better health or support services (government regulated services). Instead, they're protesting against corporate greed (shouldn't be regulated), executive pay (shouldn't be regulated) and the fact that companies pay little tax by having off-shore structures (is already regulated, which is why companies go off-shore).
In Australia, we have the Medicare levy - a 1.5% of taxable income levy applied to all taxpayers, irrespective of tiered income levels. Suppose this sort of public health care funding system was applied in the US. From what I've heard, the majority would not support this, as it is perceived to be coming at a cost to them, despite the fact that the health service would essentially be subsidised by higher income earners. So despite the fact that it would reduce income disparity and remove financial risks associated with accident/illness, why isn't that seen as a way of moving forward?
Post by
Heckler
It's the wrong thread to discuss why simply keeping your health insurance paid for and up to date isn't enough in the United States, so I won't -- but it isn't.
why isn't that seen as a way of moving forward?
Personally, I do see a public health system as a way to move forward, on many many levels. You'll have to ask someone who disagrees for an answer about why we don't. I already covered U.S. Medicare and Social Security taxation on page 2 of this thread, so I won't repeat myself. Opening Medicare to all Americans was suggested in 2009 and shot down by both Political Parties.
Post by
Heckler
Another good read from Krugman's column yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/krugman-wall-street-loses-its-immunity.html
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
executive pay (shouldn't be regulated)
Except when a company receives taxpayer money, either through subsidisation or bailout.
and the fact that companies pay little tax by having off-shore structures (is already regulated, which is why companies go off-shore).
No, companies go off-shore or use other loopholes because of the profit motivator, not because of the regulation.
If a small change in interest rates is going to push people into poverty, I would argue that they're living beyond their means.
Well, the average credit card debt for those that had it in the US was $15.8k. So it's by no means not widespread. Perhaps those that didn't have credit cards would already be a part of the poverty class if they're using their balance as a form of loan to pay off amenities. Which leads me to my next point:
Banks make precious little from their credit card teams. The vast bulk of the profits come from corporate and project lending, with a decent amount coming from retail mortgages, at least in Australia. Credit cards, at the bank where I worked, made up barely 8-10% of the net profits of the business.
According to the Bank of America 2010 Annual Report (link), BoA lost 6.6bn on its credit cards. The profits it generated came out from the Global Banking and Markets, and Global Commercial Banking divisions. That is, the profits BoA recorded came from other companies, not from screwing over the plebs. (page 23)
If the bank of America is a for profit company, why provide a service that results in a loss? Unless it's a charitable service, but then why chase up interest and foreclose houses? It just perpetuates a debt cycle.
Source? If anything, the homeless in the city would gravitate to these rallies.
You were characterising the OWS as being a middle class protest: I was providing a reason why the middle class would want to stick up for the 10%. Harvard Medical School found 45k people die due to lack of health insurance a year in 2009. I think a subsequent study mentioned earlier in the thread found that most of the uninsured can't afford to get insured. The people that are literally dying are unlikely to get to the rally.
Again, source? I would point out that Warren Buffet has explicitly said that he would give to charity, if he thought they could manage the money as well as he did, so instead, he bequeathed shares in Berkshire Hathaway, rather than gifting cash.
Here
. One could argue that it's because they're less financially aware, but Jay-Z, for example, spent $250k on champagne in a night and a gambler spent $180k on one bottle. Perhaps one could argue that it's all part of a PR stunt, but I'd say it's more to do with having a disposable income... and it would do a lot more for their reputation in my eyes if they donated that money.
My point is that middle class people only have themselves to blame for their financial predicament.
Isn't that blaming the victim? What precisely should they do about their financial predicament? People need to borrow responsibly and manage their finances, but laws should be in place to ensure that banks do not compound the problem.
Everybody can say that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Only some can honestly say "I did everything I could to grow my grass well and I'm still financially insecure / in poverty". In theory, I should be comrades with the other folk. In practice, I dislike the fact that they expect others to cough out for their own inability to manage their finances.
Look up the Just World Theory and the concept of socialisation. It's certain anyone would do what they did with the same environment (including socialisation) and genetics.
Funny, that's exactly the criticism they have of Wall Street! How ironic.
The irony swings both ways and has been brought up before. It's less amusing when one considers that a bank customer doesn't have the right to take away their manager's home.
Insurance is a tool of financial management. I make sure my health insurance, car insurance, house insurance are all paid for and up to date, and cover the key financial risks I have.
Evidence points to a public healthcare option being better for a country both financially and socially. Every country with better healthcare outcomes than America is spending less per capita and almost every developed country has a public option without blocking the private. I think I brought it up before, but Cuba's difference in lifespan to America is statistically insignificant and they have less than an eighth of America's expenditure per capita.
Post by
Squishalot
Except when a company receives taxpayer money, either through subsidisation or bailout.
That's like saying that a welfare recipient shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on luxury goods like alcohol, holidays, ice cream, etc.. Now, I happen to agree with that view - I think that a company should be repaying taxpayer money if it's a loan (note that in the case of a number of the bank bailouts as far as I'm aware, it's an investment in shares, and the government receives the benefit of partial ownership / dividends), and that welfare recipients should be restricted to spend 80+% of it on core necessities or save it. But having said that, I'm not sure you'll agree with me, despite it being the only non-hypocritical conclusion.
No, companies go off-shore or use other loopholes because of the profit motivator, not because of the regulation.
Wrong. They go overseas to avoid the regulations, because said regulations give them a profit motivator to avoid tax.
Well, the average credit card debt for those that had it in the US was $15.8k. So it's by no means not widespread. Perhaps those that didn't have credit cards would already be a part of the poverty class if they're using their balance as a form of loan to pay off amenities. Which leads me to my next point:
I never said that it's not widespread. I said that they're stupid (or at least, implied it) for doing so.
If the bank of America is a for profit company, why provide a service that results in a loss? Unless it's a charitable service, but then why chase up interest and foreclose houses? It just perpetuates a debt cycle.
1) Governments and communities apply political pressure on for-profit banks to provide loss services.
2) If they don't chase up interest and foreclose houses, the losses would be even worse, and even the US Government wouldn't be able to bail them out without destroying the US dollar. Consider that every dollar that is sitting in a house that people aren't paying off, is a dollar that the bank owes to somebody else and is having to pay interest on.
You were characterising the OWS as being a middle class protest: I was providing a reason why the middle class would want to stick up for the 10%. Harvard Medical School found 45k people die due to lack of health insurance a year in 2009. I think a subsequent study mentioned earlier in the thread found that most of the uninsured can't afford to get insured. The people that are literally dying are unlikely to get to the rally.
I'm not - I'm criticising the middle-class component of them. There's a difference. If we're talking about the bottom 10%, there are
thirty million
of them in the US. I don't see the same hordes of people crying out about the 2 billion people living below the poverty line across the world.
Here
. One could argue that it's because they're less financially aware, but Jay-Z, for example, spent $250k on champagne in a night and a gambler spent $180k on one bottle. Perhaps one could argue that it's all part of a PR stunt, but I'd say it's more to do with having a disposable income... and it would do a lot more for their reputation in my eyes if they donated that money.
Criticisms of that study:
1) It's 10 years old, and not reflective of the position today (when executive pay is skyrocketing).
2) It's a survey, and is prone to bias.
3) The people who give more, as reported by the Guardian, shows that they earned less than 5k, i.e. aren't even on welfare. These aren't representative of the bottom 10%.
I would also be curious what proportion of those donations are tithed to churches. The Guardian, after all, points out that religious middle-income earners donate more than non-religious middle-income earners, suggesting that tithing (i.e. 10% of income to the church) is likely to be a factor, noting that higher income earners are unlikely to give a full 10% of their income away.
Isn't that blaming the victim? What precisely should they do about their financial predicament? People need to borrow responsibly and manage their finances, but laws should be in place to ensure that banks do not compound the problem.
They should not get into them in the first place. What you're suggesting is that thin people should subsidise the cost of fat people's health dilemmas. Or, in fact, that it's okay for the government to assist the banks who are in financial predicament. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Look up the Just World Theory and the concept of socialisation. It's certain anyone would do what they did with the same environment (including socialisation) and genetics.
The Just World Theory is precisely that - a theory. Funnily enough, it's the corollary of itself - its existence as a theory symbolises the tendency to want to believe that the world is injust and that everyone is against you.
That aside, are you trying to say that the world is deterministic and we can't change anything?
The irony swings both ways and has been brought up before. It's less amusing when one considers that a bank customer doesn't have the right to take away their manager's home.
No, the bank manager just loses their job, can't repay their own home loan and they lose their home too. It does swing both ways, and that's entirely the point of the irony :P
Evidence points to a public healthcare option being better for a country both financially and socially. Every country with better healthcare outcomes than America is spending less per capita and almost every developed country has a public option without blocking the private. I think I brought it up before, but Cuba's difference in lifespan to America is statistically insignificant and they have less than an eighth of America's expenditure per capita.
You're not responding to my point here, and not telling me anything that I feel I need to respond to either.
Post by
Heckler
I don't understand this article at all. If you want to protest about lack of education and infrastructure, why OWS? He even says it himself: the perceived problems with Wall Street have happened because of policy shifts.
From what he's saying, OWS is protesting against symptoms, not against the cause.
In many ways, I agree with this, I think you can find a lot of problems with OWS methods. However, what I've convinced myself of is that regardless of their method, the ultimate goal is to promote a more open discussion on the things they're protesting, and spread information / awareness.
That's why I think it's funny how much effort some groups are putting into discrediting OWS -- if you look at it objectively, OWS is sort of discrediting itself already. But if even a few people see the Occupy protests on TV, and then do a little research on their own... even if in the process of convincing themselves that there are policies that need change they also convince themselves OWS isn't going to be the medium to enact that change; the net effect is still a more involved and active populace, which can't be a bad thing.
Personally, that's all I see OWS accomplishing, and probably destroying itself in the process. Someday there will come a point where a transition to a full-fledged PAC is necessary, and OWS won't do it -- they'll just keep standing in the park.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
For the most part, I've avoided this thread. Partially because it would suck a lot of my time out of me, and partially because I think it's a complicated issue where both sides have valid points. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
In defense of OWS, there are a lot of legal mechanisms and back door deals that are in place right now, that should not be part of a free market system, which are protecting companies who are making poor financial decisions from the consequences of those decisions. I do believe that capitalism leads to stronger economies, and encourages work ethics. I also believe that some goverment oversight is necessary. However, the oversight they're getting seems to be to keep them profitable just as often as it is to keep them honest.
In a truly competetive market, something like medical insurance should never have happened- the cost of medicine and medical care should have scaled normally with inflation and been limited by the laws of supply and demand. Without insurance, medical practices would have had to keep prices in line with what most people could afford to pay, because they would not have gotten enough daily business to keep their doors open, and because competition would have sent people to more affordable facilities. However, since insurance is covering he majority of the costs, the entire industry took off in a direction that leave us now with a large number of people who cannot afford healthcare, because the pricing is so unreasonable compared to the normal wages of people.
Also, the government bailout of the banking and auto industries was obscene. If companies want to have the freedom to make as much money as they want through their business practices, then they also have to suffer the consequences when what they do doesn't work. The banking and credit industries spread themselves too thin and gave away a lot of credit irresponsibly. They made a lot of money off of people who weren't financially literate enough to make smart credit decisions. Then, when what they were doing was costing them more than they could handle, they turned to the government and got bailout money from the taxes of the same people who they then turned around and sued for not being able to pay back loans that they never should have taken. It's not right that all the risk is on the consumer, and none on the company. If these companies want the government to leave their profits alone, then they should not expect a damn thing when they're about to collapse. Right now, they get to have their cake and eat it too.
The auto industry also would have adapted, if they had been left alone. Some would have gone under, and some would have looked at the situation and figured out how to make a 6,000-8,000 dollar car, which would be more affordable to the average person, and not rely so heavily on being backed by the over-extended credit industry. But they didn't- they got bailed out, and continue to make a product that people can usually only afford through financing.
So, yes. OWS has a lot of valid points to be concerned about- things that are not right. Opponents of OWS seem to argue that all they're complaining about is capitalism in general, and that anyone who is against the way big business works is going to see the country crumble. They fail to realize that big business in this country DOESN'T ask for a free market system. They ask for free-market principals to be applied to what they're allowed to do and how uch money they're allowed to make, but they want a government that will catch them is a safety net and bail them out when they would have failed- basically a corporate level welfare system.
HOWEVER, OWS's focus isn't on the specific problems of why the way the government handles big business is killing the economy and unfair to the average person who funds these bailouts. They have made it into a stuggle of the haves vs. the have nots. They have labeled anyone making a lot of money as having done something evil, or wrong. They look at what exists, without looking at who created it, and they have decided that they just deserve more.
If big business were actually operating in a free market, without government padding, then the corporate leaders shouldn't be penalized for making more money than the other 99%. Because it IS proportionate to the amount of production that they add to the country. Every person who is making 7 figures from successful business ventures is providing the decision making and the capital for the other 99% to live. Without the incentive to do so, industry would stagnate. Percentages don't mean as much as actual assets. If you cut down the profits of the top 1% by 50%, and then that causes half of the existing companies to close or downsize because the extra effort isn't rewarded, and there's not reason to invest money when you won't get anything back, then the other 99% will end up having half as much as they have now, even though the percentage of the total money might go up. One third of a cake is still better than 75% of a cookie, and if you don't give people a reason to bake the cake, then all you're going to have are cookies.
So many people are concerned with who has more than them, than with whether or not they have enough. Not enough to buy I-pads and compete with the other people on the block, not enough to go on vacations to exotic locales. Just enough to live, comfortable, and enjoy the average comforts and diversions that cost much less than flashy tech toys and large houses. So many people who live in other countries would look at the life lived by the people marching on Wall Street, and be sickened that those people are grouping themselves with the rest of the world in being the "downtrodden 99%". There are people starving in the streets, with no body fat reserves, dying of fevers that could be helped by a 3 dollar bottle of tylenol that is far out of their reach. And those are the people whose suffering you are parading in front of Wall Street, saying that because your kids didn't get the toys they wanted for Christmas, or because you had to work overtime this year to keep your 3 bedroom appartment, that your plight is the same as theirs. As offensive as the lifestyle of the top 1% seems to you- that's how offensive your lifestyle would seem to someone who actually has nothing, especially if they knew that you felt like you were victimized.
All of the things that people want- the money, the housing, the food, the ammenities- they have to come from somewhere. They don't fall out of the sky and into rich people's laps. Again and again we've seen in many countries where business is controlled by the government, that the percentage of what's going to each person is higher, but the overall quality of life is much, much worse, because there's just so much less to go around. The people who want to take what exists now, and redistribute it "fairly" (I use quotes because their definition of faily means evenly, rather than according to effort and contribution to the generation of those assets), are being short sighted. If we take all of the assets out of the hands of the people who built them...where are the next set going to come from? When the luxuries, and the food, and all of the nice things that we have now have been handed out and used up, and start to break down- who's going to make more? If the last group of people who did it got little or no reward from it, who is going to step up and get the financial education and work the 80+ hour weeks to run a large corporation successfully when they could make as much as a teacher and have summers off? Who is going to take money out of their bank account- money that could be used for things for their kids, or to go out and have a good time, or to live on and not have to work- and invest it in businesses to create jobs for other people if the government says that no matter the risk, you're not going to make that much back on it?
I find this attitude of "They have too much" to be short-sighted, fueled by petty jealousy and greed, and for the majority of people not based in any understanding of how they got what they have, or how what they do creates the things and the money that they have. They use this broad term for tax deductions of "loopholes", without actually understanding what the deductions are for, or why they were implemented. If someone gets a deduction on the $1 million that he invested to open a new branch of his company, do you think the law is there because "He's rich- we should totally have his back" or because "Wow, that money was used to create 25,000 jobs for people who were unemployed. It shouldn't be taxed as though it were for personal use, because then he won't go and create another branch with 25,000 more jobs in 6 months."
If you have legitimate complaints about the government using our tax money to bolster businesses so that they can continue abusive business practices which should have led to them shutting down from consumer backlash, then you're absolutely right. The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. If you believe that the top 1% should have to play by the same rules as we do in terms of being held accountable for their decisions, then I agree. If you think that the taxes that are paid to our government need to be spent in ways that benefit a larger number of people, rather than on special interest groups goals, then you have every right to feel that way and I agree. But if your argument is that everyone should have more, regardless of who actually created or maintains the production of what we all want more of, then you are really just having a temper tantrum because you want your neighbors toys.
TL;DR- There are a lot of mechanisms in government right now that actually hinder the free market system in favor of big business, and those mechanisms are giving businesses a license to push the market in ways that are damaging to the economy and the rest of the people in this country, because the companies are protected from the consequences of what they do. But the majority of people in the OWS movement are there because they have this general sense of entitlement to "more," and the percentage of their arguments that are valid and important and need to be addressed are overshadowed by the part of the argument that is whiny, self-centered and uninformed.
Post by
Heckler
I pretty much agree with everything Elhonna said (which I suppose puts me on the "proper" side of OWS support). The only thing I would disagree with is that a "majority" of OWS protesters fit on the "improper" side of the description. I only disagree because I'm not sure where the majority sits, but either case is believable -- I would like to think there's just as many, if not more, people who are just looking for a level playing field and a fair shot; not a handout, just an equal chance.
Maybe I'm wrong about who's the majority, I don't know. But I know how I feel, and I know what I believe, and I know that nearly all of the attacks against OWS are mistargeted if applied to my personal line of reasoning -- and so I'd like to believe that there's plenty more people who would think exactly the same way I do, given the same set of facts. I'd also like to think that the vast majority out there would agree with me (and with the "proper" arguments made by Elhonna above) if they had more desire to be involved and informed (this includes people who want to "smash capitalism" due to being uninformed as well as those who have no opinion on OWS whatsoever).
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I must be more cynical than you, Heckler, but I'm not targeting OWS with this. I think that in most political, economic, or social movements that are fueled by sweeping public support of one segment or another, 90% of the people who are championing the cause haven't done much research. They support it based on rhetoric of charismatic movement leaders, bullet point ideas that sound good but may or may not be realistic, and social pressure in their peer groups.
Most people I know have very strong political loyalties to either the right or the left, but a lot of them, if asked if they'd read the bills that they were supporting or opposing, or what particular actions they disliked or liked about a particular politician, would tell you that their information came from a 30 second overview on the nightly news, a chain e-mail, or their knitting circle. A lot of people in this country have very strong opinions about what Islam is and is not, and many of them have never talked about religion with someone who was Muslim, never read a book about it or read the Quran. Hell, a lot of people who identify themselves as a particular religion haven't even read their own book. I once had someone come to my door with a petition to pass a bill, who hadn't read the bill he had with him, and whose scripted 1 minutes explaination was actually fairly inaccurate. And when my roomate showed him what the bill actually said, he was speechless- because he hadn't had any idea what he was actually getting people to sign.
People want something to be passionate about, but not a lot of them want to do hours of research into what the issues actually are. They trust the people around them, the news organizations that they listen to and the political figures whose rhetoric appeals to them to have done the research for them, and so they parrot their slogans and push their cause with only the most nominal understanding of the issues they want to change. And that's so dangerous. And I think it's unavoidable, unfortunately.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
One third of a cake is still better than 75% of a cookie, and if you don't give people a reason to bake the cake, then all you're going to have are cookies.
I love you.
We've gone over this :P
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.