TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- wall street protests...is this the start of the revolution?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

for sure you can pull your money out of the bank, those dumb hipsters should be steamrolled. You go inside the fucking bank with their stupid dumb signs trying to stir up shit with their fucking expensive hipster glasses and iphones and tight ass skinny jean pants.


here is some information about what the top 1 % pays in taxes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxf...t.cfm?Docid=203

thats the top 1 % paying 20% more income taxes than than the 99% of individual IT.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit for sure you can pull your money out of the bank, those dumb hipsters should be steamrolled. You go inside the fucking bank with their stupid dumb signs trying to stir up shit with their fucking expensive hipster glasses and iphones and tight ass skinny jean pants. here is some information about what the top 1 % pays in taxes. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxf...t.cfm?Docid=203 thats the top 1 % paying 20% more income taxes than than the 99% of individual IT.

People making over 10 million a year should pay 80-90% taxes in my opinion. If you cant live off of 1-2 million a year you are doing it wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong so Little Tommy is why we have to operate 30,000+ post offices at a loss and give special treasury loans to? Little Tommy requires hosts of employees and a 5 billion dollar pension shortfall this year?

that wasn't part of the debate. you insinuated that the private sector could and would provide better services (to everyone) than the UPS. i pointed out that his is demonstrably incorrect.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Rates are not what they SHOULD BE if a central bank arbitrarily sets them. That's why I called them artificial.

so you're part of the looney fringe that thinks citibank should set monetary policy?

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I used the term permanent because if a marketplace were truly "self-correcting", interest rates fluctuate based on market demand, not remain low because the Fed decrees it so.

let's just point out that the fed sets inter-bank lending. banks are free to set any interest rate they wish.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong For the decade leading up the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve policy of low interest rates encouraged bad investment/credit expansion into the housing sector. Not to mention a distortion of traditional safe havens (savings accounts, etc.). Not a self-correcting market in my eyes, but rather a recipe for a volatile boom and bust cycle.

we've already established that the Fed lowering the funds rate in the wake of the dot com bubble set the scene. that didn't force or make people make bad decisions; these decisions were made because the people making them were bad decision-makers.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong If this is true, then capitalism is a disease which will end up killing the patient.

perhaps, but unlikely. what i think the right need to understand is that competition creates winners and losers, and that the winners swallow the losers and get progressively bigger. and bigger. massive corporate dominance is the logical outcome of free market capitalism (given enough time).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Which goes back to why I would rather take my chances with "crazy" Ron Paul

paul is a nutter and his ideas are awful. maybe not ALL of them, but enough.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong and his free market of currencies

one of his extra stupid ideas. you don't recall what happened when the free market created currency? complete abortion. not to mention the ridiculousness of going to the store and asking for change in 5 coca cola dollars, 3 IBM credits and 50 Walmart cents.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong reduce federal spending positions

there are plenty of people other than paul that want to lower spending.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong instead of having to always keep taxpayer funds on hand to bail out banks who invested too heavily in scam mortgages.

nobody kept money "on hand" for a possible bail out of banks. and the overall cost of TARP will end up being quite modest. would have loved to see RP in charge when it mattered, see how high he'd let unemployment go and how deep he'd let the financial system collapse before he'd give up his ridiculous ideology.

additionally, the fed's activities engendered a record profit to the US tax payer.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan have the same beliefs?

no, at least greenspan is an economist.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Paul has spoken/written out against Greenspan for years, and was doing so long before the housing bubble popped.

more accurately, paul has been outspoken against the Fed. any governor would come in for criticism.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong The Federal Reserve is by definition at odds with this Ayn Rand philosophy. A government fiat money supply is at odds with Objectivism.

great isn't it!

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong They were not however, the actions of a proponent of Laissez-faire capitalism.

that's incorrect. it's saying NO member of the fed can ever be a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, by virtue of their employment. greenspan's tenure is exactly what one would expect from a laissez faire proponent.

quote:

The Federal Reserve�s former chairman says he�s in a state of �shocked disbelief� that self-regulation didn�t work in the banking sector. He now admits regulatory changes must be made in the areas of fraud, settlement and securitisation, �as much as (he) would prefer it otherwise�. While this tepid mea culpa from the �maestro� was unexpected, he�s hardly the first to recognise the shortcomings of his hands-off approach. The criticisms of Greenspan�s Fed are widespread and have merit. It was lax on monetary policy, argued against oversight of new financial instruments and took an extremely relaxed view of its regulatory responsibilities over banks. His overarching flaw, however, was his inability to entertain the idea that individual financial actors� hubris and greed could hurt the system � and themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ial-crisis.html

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby People making over 10 million a year should pay 80-90% taxes in my opinion. If you cant live off of 1-2 million a year you are doing it wrong.

If you were making 10 million a year would you want to pay 80-90% tax.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced If you were making 10 million a year would you want to pay 80-90% tax.

Uh yea? I wouldn't have said that if I didn't want to. More like Scandinavia, less like central Africa kthx.

That video would be more inspiring if the cops were actually beating people down... But when they are just standing there looking bored it kinda makes him look like a raving lunatic.


Also, the real question this thread should be posing is: Will Nef turn against these protests once they get too mainstream?

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby That video would be more inspiring if the cops were actually beating people down... But when they are just standing there looking bored it kinda makes him look like a raving lunatic. Also, the real question this thread should be posing is: Will Nef turn against these protests once they get too mainstream?

if they become overly politicized and commercialized - absolutely. that would defeat the entire purpose.

If they do not become politicized then how will they affect change? Sorry to break it to ya baby but change = politics, either at the end of a pen or an AK-47.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that wasn't part of the debate. you insinuated that the private sector could and would provide better services (to everyone) than the UPS. i pointed out that his is demonstrably incorrect.

You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so you're part of the looney fringe that thinks citibank should set monetary policy?

Kind of. A free market economy requires a free market of currencies. Managed currency is at the core of central planning. I just don't like the historical track record of fiat money.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN let's just point out that the fed sets inter-bank lending. banks are free to set any interest rate they wish.

Yes, my bad.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN we've already established that the Fed lowering the funds rate in the wake of the dot com bubble set the scene. that didn't force or make people make bad decisions; these decisions were made because the people making them were bad decision-makers.

Those low interest rates brought on bad decisions. Easy credit alters the production structure. The environment of low interest rates gives birth to speculative ventures. (tech stocks, real estate, could be anything). The entire economy is affected. Real capital flows into these speculative ventures and people get screwed. A policy of cheap money discourages saving at the expense of these speculative ventures, and the cycle continues.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps, but unlikely. what i think the right need to understand is that competition creates winners and losers, and that the winners swallow the losers and get progressively bigger. and bigger. massive corporate dominance is the logical outcome of free market capitalism (given enough time).

Massive government dominance is the logical outcome of a managed, redistributive economy given enough time.

In a truly free market, the "winners" gain all of their "dominance" by servicing their customers. That "competition" is what brings about innovations that make lives much better. People fail at most of the things they do in life. Most businesses fail. I'm ok with this. Nike dominates shoes. McDonalds dominates fast food. I can live with that as long as they don't force me to eat their shit and don't suppress my desire to eat differently.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you don't recall what happened when the free market created currency? complete abortion.

No, I don't. What happened? When was this? Not even trying to sound snide, I just want to know.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN not to mention the ridiculousness of going to the store and asking for change in 5 coca cola dollars, 3 IBM credits and 50 Walmart cents.

I don't think it's that ridiculous. Banks and retailers and credit cards and institutions would step in to streamline the process.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there are plenty of people other than paul that want to lower spending.

Not really like he wants to though. Not for military spending. The one thing I really like about RP, which outweighs the things I don't like about him, is that his supporters have picked up the slack since the anti-war left abandoned their principles after Obama's election.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nobody kept money "on hand" for a possible bail out of banks. and the overall cost of TARP will end up being quite modest. would have loved to see RP in charge when it mattered, see how high he'd let unemployment go and how deep he'd let the financial system collapse before he'd give up his ridiculous ideology. additionally, the fed's activities engendered a record profit to the US tax payer.

An economy that requires perpetual stimulus and nationalization is doomed to fail, whether it fails now or later. A Paul presidency in 2008 might have been as rough as you say. But I think taking the moral hazard out of play, coupled with significantly reducing federal spending would have the economy on better footing moving forward. Without implicit or explicit promise of taxpayer bailouts, large firms wouldn't be as debt-based and wouldn't engage in as many risky activities.

edit: this post is obnoxiously long, sorry

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

I am not sure how its not providing good service, but it is making a huge loss that could be minimized.

I am not one though that believes that all government services should run a profit. They should if they can, but only if it doesn't sacrifice their services to the sector they are in.

The government is there to run unprofitable businesses that provide a core service that private companies will not provide because they can not make a profit off of it. Cops and firefighters do not turn a profit, but their services are essential, same as the post office. Thats the reason we pay taxes, to provide for services that no private person or organization would be able to or willing to take on.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong You can defend the post office all you want. It's a disaster that needs serious restructuring. It's not providing "better services to everyone" operating the way it currently is, at a massive loss.

No arguments from me. im sure most government agencies (around the world!) could do with a re-structure.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Kind of. A free market economy requires a free market of currencies. Managed currency is at the core of central planning. I just don't like the historical track record of fiat money.

Let�s just point out that a system of free currencies would also be denominated in fiat. Free currencies is a ridiculous idea (even capitalizt retreated from the idea after we bashed him over the head for long enough). I�ll also point out that fiat money has had a much better history than �sound� money in the 19th century and/or free currencies issued by banks.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Those low interest rates brought on bad decisions. Easy credit alters the production structure. The environment of low interest rates gives birth to speculative ventures. (tech stocks, real estate, could be anything). The entire economy is affected. Real capital flows into these speculative ventures and people get screwed. A policy of cheap money discourages saving at the expense of these speculative ventures, and the cycle continues.

Saving is overrated! but I do agree with you. I don�t think there was an issue with setting the rates low necessarily, it was keeping them that way for so long that proved problematic. But I disagree it was as important as you�re making out; subprime loans could and would have still been marketed to people who couldn�t afford them.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Massive government dominance is the logical outcome of a managed, redistributive economy given enough time.

Perhaps, but we recognise that issue. Most people do not recognise the logical outcome of big business.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong In a truly free market, the "winners" gain all of their "dominance" by servicing their customers. That "competition" is what brings about innovations that make lives much better. People fail at most of the things they do in life. Most businesses fail. I'm ok with this. Nike dominates shoes. McDonalds dominates fast food. I can live with that as long as they don't force me to eat their shit and don't suppress my desire to eat differently.

I don�t need a lesson on free market talking points 101. At no stage have I advocated against free markets. Just free markets with rules that everyone must abide by (and that the majority of mistakes that caused the GFC occurred in the private sector).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong No, I don't. What happened? When was this? Not even trying to sound snide, I just want to know.

Research the history of bank panics in the US before the fed was created. Banks created their own currencies and routinely collapsed, taking their customers� deposits with them.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I don't think it's that ridiculous. Banks and retailers and credit cards and institutions would step in to streamline the process.

Well, except when im at a shop that doesn�t accept my Nike dollars. How many different denominations do you think fit on a price tag?

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong An economy that requires perpetual stimulus and nationalization is doomed to fail, whether it fails now or later.

How is either the stimulus or nationalisation �perpetual�? Including nationalisation is particularly strange- do you think these businesses will remain shackled forever? Of course not. At some time in the future, when it will be to government advantage, these businesses will be sold off for profit. Hardly ideal we know, but better than financial collapse.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong A Paul presidency in 2008 might have been as rough as you say. But I think taking the moral hazard out of play, coupled with significantly reducing federal spending would have the economy on better footing moving forward. Without implicit or explicit promise of taxpayer bailouts, large firms wouldn't be as debt-based and wouldn't engage in as many risky activities.

Well, they engaged in risky activities before they were bailed out and moral hazard was at play so not sure what you mean (there was definitely no implicit or explicit promise for bailouts either). RP would engender significant cuts in government expenditure? I presume he would be in charge of a completely separate house and senate? much expenditure is already baked into the cake.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don�t need a lesson on free market talking points 101. Research the history of bank panics in the US before the fed was created. Banks created their own currencies and routinely collapsed, taking their customers� deposits with them.

Sorry for the talking points. Incidentally, I'm verging off into "looking up Hayek writings" territory right now which is a sure fire sign that an internet argument has gone on too long. I know there were bank runs and panics. But Fed-initiated stimulus/expansionary credit policy and currency debasement has brought on its own host of ills. I maintain that a government monetary policy that sets out to both stimulate the economy while curbing inflation will only lead to **more volatility

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well, except when im at a shop that doesn�t accept my Nike dollars. How many different denominations do you think fit on a price tag?

I think this could be solved. Retailers would pretty much be forced to accept whatever currencies people were using. Backed by gold, silver, bitcoins, nike, whatever. I think some kind of 'forex' exchange would emerge on a more local scale. It does sound a little heretical, I admit.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN (there was definitely no implicit or explicit promise for bailouts either).

I think there was some of that

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Sorry for the talking points. Incidentally, I'm verging off into "looking up Hayek writings" territory right now which is a sure fire sign that an internet argument has gone on too long. [/qutoe] Hayek sucked massive testicles. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I know there were bank runs and panics. But Fed-initiated stimulus/expansionary credit policy and currency debasement has brought on its own host of ills.

Correct, however even factoring those concerns in the financial sector is far more stable and reliable than it was before central banking.


I maintain that a government monetary policy that sets out to both stimulate the economy while curbing inflation will only lead to

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I think this could be solved. Retailers would pretty much be forced to accept whatever currencies people were using.

How very FREE market of you!

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong Backed by gold, silver, bitcoins, nike, whatever.

Backing money with anything is silly. Money is �backed� by the faith in the government it is issued by that the currency can be used to satisfy all debts denominated in that currency. Currently money is �backed� by what people are willing to pay for it (pretty free market imo).

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong I think there was some of that

Hadn�t heard the term �greenspan put� before but I disagree it could be labelled as the government keeping money aside to bail banks out.

jesse jackson is down at the camp. he just locked arms with people as the police tried to forcibly remove the medical tent, and the police walked away, they seemed to have disobeyed their officer's orders because they started yelling at one another, or else they talked sense to the officer. no one wants to arrest jesse jackson lol.

reggie jackson would have beat all those pigs.

Worth watching for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Worth watching for sure.

excellent.

Have the protesters made any specific demands or are they still just running around complaining?

Building awareness about a huge wealth gap is great and all, but do they have any suggestions on what to do?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Have the protesters made any specific demands or are they still just running around complaining? Building awareness about a huge wealth gap is great and all, but do they have any suggestions on what to do?

Why do they think they are building awareness about a huge wealth gap.....no shit there is a huge gap....there always has been and there always will be. You would have to be living under a rock to not know this.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Why do they think they are building awareness about a huge wealth gap.....no shit there is a huge gap....there always has been and there always will be. You would have to be living under a rock to not know this.

...

Obviously the concept of a wealth gap is not unfamiliar to these people. It's the fact that the gap has gotten wider and wider in the last (I would say) decade that they are angry about.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Have the protesters made any specific demands or are they still just running around complaining? Building awareness about a huge wealth gap is great and all, but do they have any suggestions on what to do?

the wealth gap we have is a problem, but the major issue is simple:

financial institutions basically preyed on people's consumerist aspirations, which they used to create unsound short term investments meant to generate enormous profits for a small group of people, while socializing their enormous risk among everyone else. because these institutions essentially own our government and politicians, they managed to get away with this, while everyone else has been left by the wayside. one could also argue there are some other industries that operate somewhat similarly (pharmaceuticals, food, energy, etc) (that is, by creating demand for things people don't need, then trying to make a ton of money off of it with no consideration given to global consequence), but this movement confronts the financial sector.

the movement is avoiding making specific demands at this point for a few reasons. first of all, the real revolutionary potential of the movement is direct democracy powered by social media and technology. it's kind of impossible for a leaderless organization to create specific demadns this early on. the goal is solidarity, discussion, and consensus. because of this, the process will undoubtedly take a long time. first you need to build solidarity and awareness, which raises discussion in a democratic environment outside of the media talking-heads feedback loop, and then eventually consensus is requested for specific actions and demands.

but i think you will see eventually that demands that come from political action associated with this movement (not from the occupation itself, which is not a political body), will center around regulation of the financial industry, bailouts for ordinary people as well as banks, fair tax laws, and campaign financing and lobby reform.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec the major issue is simple

You only have one warning left.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.