|
wall street protests...is this the start of the revolution? (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
That actually brought around the change wanted. |
I think you're missing the essential point of the OWS 'protests'.
The participants aren't asking the government or a company to fix something. They are asking each other and the '99%' to take direct action against a corrupt (unholy) government/financial corporate alliance which serves the '1%'.
So whether it 'works' or not can only be measured by awareness, longevity, geographic distribution, and collective consciousness. The change is incremental, psychological, instantaneous. It's each person not in the 1% realizing ', this is a problem' (if they dont already) and then next 'i can make a difference with my actions and also spread awareness to others' |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
That actually brought around the change wanted. |
The conditions haven't been the same. Right now, you're looking at a political polarization that hasn't existed since the 1960's and severe economic conditions that haven't occurred since the 1930's. People have had it.
I'd also point to the Arab Spring. They still seem to be undergoing some chaos but I wouldn't discount their achievement, just yet. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| The problem with a lot of protests is that they do not gain real traction until there is some sort of real resistance to them. The best way the interests these protests are fighting against can make this go away is ignore them or try and not force them out. People get bored, people go home. I believe earlier I posted that people will not really rise up for huge change while they still have even the most basic life functions available to them, and even then it takes a lot. You would think that a country like India would have revolutionized and been made better because of the horrible economic conditions for a huge part of their population, but it doesn't happen. Sometimes people are just too apathetic or easily put down. |
|
|
| Zharen |
Thought this was sort of funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1013490.html
| quote: | Should people who are tired of paying extra fees be allowed to close their bank accounts in protest? One Bank of America official reportedly doesn't think so.
According to Addicting Info, two women involved with the Occupy Santa Cruz movement in California walked into a Bank of America branch earlier this week and attempted to close their bank accounts. In response, the bank manager threatened to lock the doors and call the police on them. Her reasoning? You can't be a customer and a protester at the same time, the manager said. |
If there's one thing this movement is doing, it's having people move their money from the TBTF banks and into smaller community banks and credit unions. |
|
|
| TranceArmstrong |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What's surprising is how little you know about the person you're advocating for. You stated in an earlier post that Alan Greenspan was a failure when dismissing the importance of him being an Ayn Rand acolyte. The man who you are advocating for named his own son after Rand so, for s sake, what makes you think his policies would be any different than Greenspan's?
The more I read from you, the more it's clear that you just do not even begin to understand what you're talking about.
EDIT: I struck through the part of my post which turned out to be complete bull but there's still no refuting the link between Paul, Greenspan, and Rand. |
??
Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan have the same beliefs? Paul has spoken/written out against Greenspan for years, and was doing so long before the housing bubble popped. In the last republican debate, Ron Paul said Greenspan's tenure was "a disaster". why are you so arrogant when you're so wrong about this?
I've never read Ayn Rand by the way, but I'm going to crudely sum up her Objectivist philosophy for the sake of this discussion as one where government DOES NOT intervene in a national economy: No labor rules, no banking rules, no product regulations. (I may be wildly incorrect with these characterizations, someone who actually has the patience to read Atlas Shrugged and knows wtf they're talking about, feel free to correct me.)
The Federal Reserve is by definition at odds with this Ayn Rand philosophy. A government fiat money supply is at odds with Objectivism. Greenspan's actions after 9/11, dropping the interest rate to 1% or whatever, were vital in inflating the housing bubble. They were not however, the actions of a proponent of Laissez-faire capitalism. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
Thought this was sort of funny.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1013490.html
If there's one thing this movement is doing, it's having people move their money from the TBTF banks and into smaller community banks and credit unions. |
It's not funny - this happened here in NYC yesterday as well. It's kind of dumb to bring protest signs into the bank though. I mean just film them going in and out, close the account, and debrief on camera.
It is ridiculous though - if you're a dissatisfied customer you should be able to complain about it and still cut off your connection with the service. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
for sure you can pull your money out of the bank, those dumb hipsters should be steamrolled. You go inside the ing bank with their stupid dumb signs trying to stir up with their ing 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. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| 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 ing bank with their stupid dumb signs trying to stir up with their ing 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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 |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
