Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 17.10.2011 at 13:11

Written by Valentin B on 17.10.2011 at 13:02

...more than suffices for a very comfortable lifestyle

Not with my lifestyle
But I refuse to go into debt in order to make it more comfortable, unlike many people I know who are mad about their debts. but got them by wanting a plasma TV, three holidays abroad a year etc etc.. So, it's their own fault they have those debts and not that of the banks and corporate companies.

yeah, there's also a Michael Moore documentary about that, I don't agree with some of the things he says but it shows people with huge SUV's they suddenly found out they can't afford, and tries to present them in a favorable light, something completely unacceptable and vile.

Oh, 3 holidays abroad, knowing people over there aren't exactly budget travelers you can only guess just what huge sums are being paid for that stuff.

Currently my mom is indebted to 2 banks, but thankfully we managed to reduce it to only a fraction of what it used to be. And i definitely don't blame the government for any of that.

Written by Valentin B on 17.10.2011 at 13:28

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 17.10.2011 at 13:11

Written by Valentin B on 17.10.2011 at 13:02

...more than suffices for a very comfortable lifestyle

Not with my lifestyle
But I refuse to go into debt in order to make it more comfortable, unlike many people I know who are mad about their debts. but got them by wanting a plasma TV, three holidays abroad a year etc etc.. So, it's their own fault they have those debts and not that of the banks and corporate companies.

yeah, there's also a Michael Moore documentary about that, I don't agree with some of the things he says but it shows people with huge SUV's they suddenly found out they can't afford, and tries to present them in a favorable light, something completely unacceptable and vile.

Oh, 3 holidays abroad, knowing people over there aren't exactly budget travelers you can only guess just what huge sums are being paid for that stuff.

Currently my mom is indebted to 2 banks, but thankfully we managed to reduce it to only a fraction of what it used to be. And i definitely don't blame the government for any of that.

The only debt I have is for University studies, but that debt is almost paid off. My parents don't have any debt. The house is mortgage free, they have paid off the mortgage and refused to take another one, which surprised the bank that much that they said: But if you take a new mortgage on the house you can buy all sorts of stuff.
My dad just told to fuck off and that he didn't intend on making the house property of the bank

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 17.10.2011 at 13:11

Written by Valentin B on 17.10.2011 at 13:02

So, it's their own fault they have those debts and not that of the banks and corporate companies.

Words of wisdom.


People blame banks coz it's the easy way, but they should first think why did they come to this situation.

Written by Guest on 12.10.2011 at 20:10

Okay, this libertarian bullshit about how "government should just step the fuck back and let the free market work its magic" just bugs the shit out of me. If Ayn Rand's economic theories were true, we should be living in a golden age by now. Does this look like a golden age to you? Oh, and the examples of when "government stepped the fuck back" are laughable. When the government "stepped the fuck back" during the 20s, Wall Street decided to play dangerous games with the world's money, which is exactly what they did before the current recession started. Then there's this talk about how giving the super rich enough money will benefit everyone else that started back in the 80s. We gave the rich shitloads of money and they just kept it for themselves. The money didn't trickle down at all. If anything trickled down, it was massive trails of piss that were falling on the heads of those less fortunate.

First of all, Ayn Rand was a philosopher, not an economist. In my opinion, although she effectively promoted self-determination and individualism, her defense of the free market was not very cogent. If you'd like to understand how the free market works, I would suggest that you read into Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek before discounting the libertarian ideal of unregulated markets.

Secondly, I must address your lack of knowledge on the Great Depression. It is not as simple as saying that the unregulated "greedy bankers" caused the Depression. Undoubtedly, blaming bankers, "greed," and free market capitalism is so much easier than evaluating the policies that led to the downturn. In fact, that is what liberal protesters like yourself are doing right now with Occupy Wall Street - ignoring government's role and irrationally consigning blame to the free market. Just as any rational human being should evaluate all facts before concluding his opinion on a topic, you and the other "anti-free market" liberals should too on the subject of economic recessions.

The Federal Reserve and the government were the two primary culprits behind the initiation and prolongation of the Great Depression. That investors speculated and invested foolishly is undeniably true, but it is only half of the story. The other half reveals irresponsibility on the part of government. During the period of 1921-1929, the Federal Reserve engaged in truly reckless inflationary measures by artificially reducing the interest rates on loans. Although these measures were intended to spark growth, they only succeeded in encouraging reckless speculation and foolish investment. In other words, poor investment could not have succeeded without government endorsement.

Furthermore, a very important fact to consider is that, as evidently seen in the Great Depression and in OUR current recession, governments always exacerbate recessions through deficit spending and low interest rates. People following the Keynesian school of economics believe that government intervention and deficit spending stimulate economic growth. They unabashedly cling to the conviction that if interest rates are kept low by a central bank (as they are right now) and government adopts stimulus policies, economic downturns can be efficaciously reversed. Yet history reveals this conviction to be an irrational myth that proves the success of the free market.

To elaborate, I will direct your attention to a highly informative article comparing the Great Depression to the 1920-1921 recession.

Quote:

Despite what many readers undoubtedly "learned" in their history classes as children, Herbert Hoover behaved like a textbook Keynesian following the 1929 stock market crash. In conjunction with Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, Hoover achieved an across-the-board one percentage point reduction in income tax rates applicable to the 1929 tax year.

Hoover didn't stop with tax cuts to bolster "aggregate demand"?though analysts at that time would not have used the term. He also signed into law massive increases in the federal budget, with fiscal year (FY) 1932 spending rising 42 percent above 1930 levels. Hoover ran unprecedented peacetime deficits, which stood in sharp contrast to his predecessor Calvin Coolidge, who had run a budget surplus every year of his presidency. In fact, in the 1932 election FDR campaigned on a balanced budget and excoriated the reckless spending record of the Republican incumbent.

It wasn't merely that Hoover spent a bunch of money. He spent it on just the types of things that we associate today with Roosevelt's New Deal. For example, he signed off on numerous public-works projects, including the Hoover Dam. Of particular relevance today is the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) established under Hoover, which quickly injected more than $1 billion to prop up troubled banks that had made bad loans during the boom years of the late 1920s?and this was when $1 billion really meant something.

It is true that Hoover eventually blinked and raised taxes in 1932, in an effort to reduce the federal budget deficit. Today's Keynesians point to this move as proof that reducing deficits is a bad idea in the middle of a depression. Yet an equally valid interpretation is that it's horrible to hike tax rates in the middle of an economic disaster. After the bold tax cuts pushed through by Andrew Mellon in the 1920s, the top marginal income-tax rate in 1932 stood at 25 percent. The next year, because of Hoover's desire to close the budget hole, the top income tax rate was 63 percent. Given this extraordinary single-year rate hike, it is no wonder that 1933 was the single worst year in U.S. economic history. (For what it's worth, the FY 1933 budget deficit was still huge, coming in at 4.5 percent of GDP. Despite the huge rate hikes, federal tax revenues only increased 3.8 percent from FY 1932 to FY 1933.)

Following the stock market crash, the New York Federal Reserve Bank immediately slashed its discount rate?how much it charged on loans?in an attempt to provide relief to the beleaguered financial system. The New York Fed continued to slash its discount rate over the next two years, pushing it down to 1.5 percent by May 1931. At that time, this was the lowest discount rate the New York Fed had ever charged since the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

It wasn't merely that the Fed (along with other central banks around the world) was charging an unusually low rate on loans it advanced from its discount window. The entire mentality of central bankers was different during the early years of the Great Depression. Writing in 1934, Lionel Robbins first noted that during previous crises, the solution had been for central banks to charge a high discount rate to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those firms that were truly solvent but illiquid would be willing to pay the high interest rates on central-bank loans to get them through the storm. Firms that were simply insolvent, on the other hand, would know the jig was up because they couldn't afford the high rates. Yet this tough love was not administered after the 1929 crash, as Robbins explained: "In the present depression we have changed all that. We eschew the sharp purge. We prefer the lingering disease. Everywhere, in the money market, in the commodity markets and in the broad field of company finance and public indebtedness, the efforts of Central Banks and Governments have been directed to propping up bad business positions."

We therefore see an eerie pattern. When it came to both fiscal and monetary policy during the early 1930s, the governments and central banks implemented the same strategies that the sophisticated experts recommend today for our present crisis. Of course, today's Keynesians and monetarists have a ready retort: They will tell us that their prescribed medicines (deficits and monetary injections, respectively) were not administered in large enough doses. It was the timidity of Hoover's deficits (for the Keynesians) or the Fed's injections of liquidity (for the monetarists) that caused the Great Depression.

This context highlights the importance of the 1920-1921 depression. Here the government and Fed did the exact opposite of what the experts now recommend. We have just about the closest thing to a controlled experiment in macroeconomics that one could desire. To repeat, it's not that the government boosted the budget at a slower rate, or that the Fed provided a tad less liquidity. On the contrary, the government slashed its budget tremendously, and the Fed hiked rates to record highs. We thus have a fairly clear-cut experiment to test the efficacy of the Keynesian and monetarist remedies.

At the conclusion of World War I, U.S. officials found themselves in a bleak position. The federal debt had exploded because of wartime expenditures, and annual consumer price inflation rates had jumped well above 20 percent by the end of the war.

To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what today strikes us as incredibly "merciless" policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion?a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.

On the monetary side, the New York Fed raised its discount rate to a record high 7 percent by June 1920. Now the reader might think that this nominal rate was actually "looser" than the 1.5 percent discount rate charged in 1931 because of the changes in inflation rates. But on the contrary, the price deflation of the 1920-1921 depression was more severe. From its peak in June 1920 the Consumer Price Index fell 15.8 percent over the next 12 months. In contrast, year-over-year price deflation never even reached 11 percent at any point during the Great Depression. Whether we look at nominal interest rates or "real" (inflation-adjusted) interest rates, the Fed was very "tight" during the 1920-1921 depression and very "loose" during the onset of the Great Depression.

This stark comparison alone highlights how the free market corrects itself: by "separating the wheat from the chaff". Allowing interest rates to rise accomplishes this task, as it liquidates debt and sets the stage for economic recovery. Because history defends this free market argument, the Federal Reserve and Washington D.C. could alleviate this current crisis by doing what BitterCold suggested: "Backing the fuck away."

The point behind all of this is that Wall Street could not have incited either the Great Depression or our current recession by itself. Regarding our current crisis, it requires a government and its central bank to make it expedient for banks to trade high-risk mortgage securities and other derivatives with the confidence that government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy them after a government-licensed rating agency surreptitiously labels them AAA. It requires a government to incentivize the inflation of a housing bubble. It requires a government to reallocate the people's credit for the purpose of bailing out bank failures.

BreadGod, I understand that you are livid. Many people are rightfully angry. But if you intend to protest JPMorgan and Bank of America, please be sure to also protest the White House, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Congress, because by itself Wall Street could have never caused the recession. The failure to look past ruinous corporations is the failure to understand that it required more than just corporate greed to sink this economy to such abysmal depths.

Written by Axe Argonian on 17.10.2011 at 19:19

[wall of text]

Do you seriously believe the corporations would do the right thing if the government kept its hands off and let them do what they wanted? To say that the market will work better without rules or regulations is downright ridiculous. These corporations aren't interested in helping the community or doing the right thing. They don't have your best interests in mind. They're only interested in making money. They don't care about the destruction they cause. The communities that have been affected by fracking can attest to that. That's the main problem with the libertarian belief of having the government "stay the fuck back" when it comes to business. They don't take human nature seriously.

Written by Guest on 17.10.2011 at 20:37

Written by Axe Argonian on 17.10.2011 at 19:19

[wall of text]

Do you seriously believe the corporations would do the right thing if the government kept its hands off and let them do what they wanted? To say that the market will work better without rules or regulations is downright ridiculous. These corporations aren't interested in helping the community or doing the right thing. They don't have your best interests in mind. They're only interested in making money. They don't care about the destruction they cause. The communities that have been affected by fracking can attest to that. That's the main problem with the libertarian belief of having the government "stay the fuck back" when it comes to business. They don't take human nature seriously.

Even in a free market, corporations and businesses are subject to law. If they are discovered committing fraud, polluting your neighborhood, or misleading the public, they can be prosecuted in a court of law. Contrary to popular belief, the laws that apply to individuals also apply to corporations. What's even better is that in a free market there is no incentive to commit any of the things I listed simply because the voice of dissension can be used to damage their businesses. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is an excellent example of using the power of the pen to successfully bring change to an area of the market (the food industry, in Sinclair's case). Yes, it is true that corporations are solely interesting in generating revenue. But to do so, they too need to comply with the law. Otherwise, they'll lose business.

Moreover, you say that corporations do not care about people. Yet, you consider not that a corporation needs committed consumers to generate revenue. If a corporation doesn't cater to public demands, it simply will not succeed in the free market, consequently losing customers to competitive entities that do pander to consumer demands. For what company succeeds by selling something people do not care about? How long can a company survive selling products that are not demanded? And in the matter of life-and-death, how can a company succeed by killing its consumers? (Of course, the tobacco industry is the exception to this rule. ) The answer is that no company can survive doing these things, UNLESS it is subsidized by the State. Otherwise, it will collapse and declare bankruptcy in the face of no demand.

Now, I suspect you might respond with, "But Wall Street got away with their bullshit!" Would you really blame Wall Street for being granted impunity? Or would you instead consider that impunity can only be granted by the power of the State? Remember, Wall Street could not have been bailed out without the State first authorizing the bailout. To vent your fury only toward corporations is to ignore the entity that redeemed them.

Written by Valentin B on 17.10.2011 at 12:19

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:24

Written by Valentin B on 16.10.2011 at 23:20

What I remembered now is that in the USA the income tax (and the general level of taxes) is ridiculously low. I myself pay 32% of my salary in taxes, and the VAT is 24% (in the US the maximum sales tax is 13%).

My opinion though is that this is a necessary step. It might be because i'm used to it, but really it beats having to take one of those stupid loans and then paying it back in about 20 years just to have a goddamned piece of paper which says you passed college.

32% is pretty high but coincidentally,that's exactly how much gets taken out of my boyfriend's paychecks. He makes $44k a year but only brings home $30k. That includes health insurance, pension, and a few other things as well besides taxes. Taxes themselves don't make up that 32%, they probably make up well over half of it though. Does your 32% include health insurance or anything else?

It contains the following: 16% state health insurance (which includes some subsidized medicine prescriptions, free consultations and some free check-ups, and free emergency care regardless of what's wrong, including ambulance service, yes, even for people who don't actually contribute to the system like the homeless or unemployed), 0.5% unemployment fund contributions (let's hope I won't need it haha), and 16% income tax. This might be a ridiculous amount by traditional US healthcare standards but I am really grateful we have this system (which isn't without its faults, obviously, we're not talking the NHS here). There's even the "European Health Card" which we can use when travelling and it entitles you to medical care in all EEA countries (not sure if it also includes non-emergencies though, thankfully I never had to use it).

I remember until I was 14 I broke my hand playing basketball, football and football with a basketball (haha) a total of 4 times, and they put my hand in a cast. It's completely unfathomable for me to have to pay for something like that, or the simple service of a doctor looking at me and putting a diagnostic. I think that in a modern state, it is necessary for the state to provide adequate healthcare to ensure the safety and well-being of the population, not leave this to corporations who can literally put a price on your life. Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko" was pretty eye-opening, and it exposes the rotten flaws in the US commercial healthcare system as opposed to the NHS and French healthcare systems.

ohh ok so yours is about the same as my boyfriend's then. The only difference is that his health insurance comes from his job, not the government. It has all the same benefits you described. I don't think we think it's ridiculous either, that's just how it is...insurance is not cheap!

When he broke his leg, the total bill was close to $120,000 when all was said and done and he only paid $5000 and the insurance covered the rest. Since health insurance is privatized here, we have copays and deductibles so that's why he wound up paying the $5000. That includes whatever his deductible was and all the copays from physical therapy. He was in physical therapy for almost 9 months so it added up but thankfully his insurance covered the rest! Also, how it works here for privatized insurance is that once you pay your deductible, the insurance covers the rest no matter what the cost is or how many times you go see the doctor within that year. But once a new year starts, you have to pay that deductible amount again.

My boyfriend's mom was on cancer treatments for years and years...they probably paid close to $20,000 out of pocket total but her treatments came close to a million dollars (of which the insurance company paid). Cancer is not cheap so having good health insurance is key!

I didn't see that documentary you mentioned but I know he tends to put a left-wing spin on things. I will say his climate change documentary was pretty legit though.

Technically, here, if you have a health problem, even with no insurance, the doctors are supposed to take care of you. I'm not sure if that applies to those who are terminally ill though.I do like the idea of how your health insurance system works...it makes sure nobody gets those huge medical bills! I'm just not sure if it will work for 300 million people...almost half of those people don't even pay income tax (myself included). Until most people in this country make enough money to pay income tax, a public health insurance system simply won't work, especially now that we're trillions in debt.

Technically we have a public health insurance system...medicare and medicaid. Medicare is for disabled people and elderly people and the Medicaid is for poor people. They have very strict requirements for Medicaid though. Being poor alone doesn't mean you can automatically get Medicaid. Veterans also get medical benefits under the Veteran's Health Administration...one of my ex-roommates is a veteran and whenever he got sick, he went to the VA hospital and paid nothing for his treatments. Yeah, so it does exist here, just not to the majority of the population. Of the majority, most of us have private insurance, usually through an employer. And the rest don't have any insurance...maybe 15%. 15% of 300 million is still a fuck ton of people though...just hope nothing horrible happens to them or else they're screwed!

For example, one of my friends had a ginormous benign tumor taken out of her spine a few years ago and since she had no insurance, she's stuck with a $25,000 medical bill. She doesn't have the money for it so of course it's not getting paid so it's fucking up her credit. She's my age too.

I had no insurance for years and I am just so freakin glad nothing happened to me during that time. My school requires students to have health insurance so I had to buy the school's insurance plan.

Yeah it is fucked up here. Those who have it are ok and those who don't have it are fucked if something happens to them...they'll get fixed if they get hurt but they'll be in huge amounts of debt.

lol I'll stop writing now!

I'm happy to see discussion and arguments beyond myself trying to keep this going

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:25

On the flip side, those who took out loans should've done what I did and got a scholarship (there are thousands out there)

...I'm a little confused what your point is here. The economy is fine! As long as you are one of the top couple thousand students/athletes in the country that is....
(and btw, the number of goverment issued scholarships has gone down drastically since you we to college...)

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:25

The economy busted because too may people lived beyond their means, not because rich people pocket their money (it is their money after all).

Their is more than one reason the economy crashed. You just named two of them. The thing is, Bush's tax cuts were 'sold' to the country on the a sort of Reaganomics/trickle-down. If we tax the rich less, the rich can invest more, create more jobs, everyone's happy. In reality, it doesn't work. Tax the rich less, they put it in a Swedish bank account, move American jobs overseas, send their kids to million dollar summer camps in the Pacific, and pay off politicians to keep their taxes low. Or if they do invest, it's in Wall Street, which doesn't exactly help anybody do anything, and the income gained there is taxed at a miniscule 15% compared to most income. (I am generalizing of course, but these actions had a much larger effect on our recession than people buying houses).

I don't understand blaming 'main street' for the recession. Yes, people over-spending, especially on Credit Cards, was a huge part of the recession. Bad housing loans was also incredibly important. However, how do you (or the politicians you beleive in) plan on running a country on individual responsibility? (I found this an interesting article about individual responsibility). Yes, I absolutely agree that a huge part of the recession was idiots over spending. However, how do we stop that? Is it by letting the NYPD beat-down protesters who may or may not have partaken in the over-spending, but are definately feeling the effects? Or should we mock the protesters that are trying to make change in the country? Or, should we put regulations on banks to not give out huge housing loans, with huge interest rates, to people with bad credit scores and/or people that are already in debt? The banks won't do it by themselves, because they looooove big interest rates, and knowing that they are basically insured by the US government (government bailouts).

You blame the people for being irresponsible, and seem to ignore the incredibly dangerous practice banks were using that came incredibly close to bankrupting our national banking and currency system. The policies the banks were practicing were so dangerous, that it blew-up in their face so bad they were days away from bankrupcy, and in the mean-time, pushed our country in to a deeper recession, and a deeper debt than anyone going on a shopping spree from their credit card. [sarcastic font]But yeah, you're right, it's totally the people's fault for taking the loans.[/sarcastic font]

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:25


And most rich people worked their asses off to get where they are so I don't blame them for keeping alot of their money. Most do donate to charities, foundations, scholarships etc so the lower class can have an easier time with life.

And by work their asses off, you mean got a nice inheritance, invested it in some stocks, and made a couple million of hardly taxed income? Yeah, that really helps society a lot. Instead of hoping that all these super-generous rich people everywhere continue to give to charities and scholarships, why not just tax their capital gains at a normal 35% or so, and put that money towards those scholarships? Then we don't have to hope that these super-generous rich people (that for some reason despite being so generous, are willing to fight for their super low taxes when compared to that of other countries) to continue giving to charity. Wouldn't that be a good idea? Hey! That is largely common theme among Occupy Wall Street protesters. Imagine that...

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:25

I think one of the biggest problems with my generation as that most of us expect everything to be given to us. That is so unrealistic. I earned what I have: good grades in high school got me that 4 year scholarship, the money I earned from my job paid for the extra classes I need, plus my rent, continued good grades throughout college got me accepted into grad school, and those grades also got me accepted into the US Air Force as an officer. I've had to work my ass off studying, working, writing essays for some of these things and I don't regret any of it. I come from a piss poor family so I know what hard work is. Those fuckers who expect handouts piss me right the fuck off! Work for your shit, be responsible, own up to your mistakes and move on.

Well, I'm very happy for you. However, just hypothetically, what if you had gotten sick or injured during any of that. What if you had a disability that didn't allow you to have those grades? What if you are from such a bad neighborhood with such bad funding for schools, that even a 4.0 means nothing because colleges know your schooling was a joke? You're just supposed to suck it up, flip burgers for the rest of your life, stay with the status quo, not say anything, and accept that you are stuck in an inferior social class for the rest of your life? I personally can't accept a country run like that. As that article in the Americano states, the ability to not be able to pay medical/education/housing bills is the American freedom (although he paints the picture a lot sunnier), and being rich and having to pay globally regular taxes is an oppressive government.

I agree that people should act responsibly. I do not however, agree that just by saying that, we are helping the country. Instead, regulations on banks and corporations, and taxing the rich instead of hoping they give donations are a lot more stable ideas to run a government by.

//////////////.......////rant.

Quote:

Written by MetallicA on 17.10.2011 at 05:25

I think one of the biggest problems with my generation as that most of us expect everything to be given to us. That is so unrealistic. I earned what I have: good grades in high school got me that 4 year scholarship, the money I earned from my job paid for the extra classes I need, plus my rent, continued good grades throughout college got me accepted into grad school, and those grades also got me accepted into the US Air Force as an officer. I've had to work my ass off studying, working, writing essays for some of these things and I don't regret any of it. I come from a piss poor family so I know what hard work is. Those fuckers who expect handouts piss me right the fuck off! Work for your shit, be responsible, own up to your mistakes and move on.

Well, I'm very happy for you. However, just hypothetically, what if you had gotten sick or injured during any of that. What if you had a disability that didn't allow you to have those grades? What if you are from such a bad neighborhood with such bad funding for schools, that even a 4.0 means nothing because colleges know your schooling was a joke? You're just supposed to suck it up, flip burgers for the rest of your life, stay with the status quo, not say anything, and accept that you are stuck in an inferior social class for the rest of your life? I personally can't accept a country run like that. As that article in the Americano states, the ability to not be able to pay medical/education/housing bills is the American freedom (although he paints the picture a lot sunnier), and being rich and having to pay globally regular taxes is an oppressive government.

I agree that people should act responsibly. I do not however, agree that just by saying that, we are helping the country. Instead, regulations on banks and corporations, and taxing the rich instead of hoping they give donations are a lot more stable ideas to run a government by.

//////////////.......////rant.

I think this is where we find middle ground. Sometimes the hand you're given in life isn't the best it could be. Maybe you are raised in a rich family of "old" money and can simply take on the family business and do well. But I think the beauty of America is that no matter what you can see the most viable options for success and make your own decisions. My father was in the Air Force, as his father before him, but I chose the path of college (which is pretty much a joke nowadays). If I could do anything different, I would have joined the Air Force after my 4 years of AFROTC, but I wanted to actually experience "youth" for what it is in the college life. The truth is, once you stop challenging yourself and expect some "entity" to take care of you, you lose all self-responsibility. We are one of the first generations to have it all at our fingertips. The major thing we are missing is the actual experience. I think if more people get out there and off their keyboards we can refind, or even make the first true discovery, of what makes humanity so great. My (British non-citizen) mother recently decided to volunteer at a Hospice because for some reason she felt the desire to. She invited me to join her one evening and it may have been the most depressing thing I've ever done. Depressing because I realize all the bullshit people supposedly dedicate their lives to, which actually have no meaning besides boosting their own egos. There are human beings struggling in our our midst that need someone, anyone to give them the time of day. Maybe helping out is the ultimate selfish act (because we feel better about ourselves), but it is something I feel goes unnoticed. We all want more things, more material goods, more attention, but try to find the cracks in reality, that is where true peace can be found. /rant

Written by Axe Argonian on 17.10.2011 at 21:13

Even in a free market, corporations and businesses are subject to law. If they are discovered committing fraud, polluting your neighborhood, or misleading the public, they can be prosecuted in a court of law. Contrary to popular belief, the laws that apply to individuals also apply to corporations. What's even better is that in a free market there is no incentive to commit any of the things I listed simply because the voice of dissension can be used to damage their businesses. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is an excellent example of using the power of the pen to successfully bring change to an area of the market (the food industry, in Sinclair's case). Yes, it is true that corporations are solely interesting in generating revenue. But to do so, they too need to comply with the law. Otherwise, they'll lose business.

Moreover, you say that corporations do not care about people. Yet, you consider not that a corporation needs committed consumers to generate revenue. If a corporation doesn't cater to public demands, it simply will not succeed in the free market, consequently losing customers to competitive entities that do pander to consumer demands. For what company succeeds by selling something people do not care about? How long can a company survive selling products that are not demanded? And in the matter of life-and-death, how can a company succeed by killing its consumers? (Of course, the tobacco industry is the exception to this rule. ) The answer is that no company can survive doing these things, UNLESS it is subsidized by the State. Otherwise, it will collapse and declare bankruptcy in the face of no demand.

Now, I suspect you might respond with, "But Wall Street got away with their bullshit!" Would you really blame Wall Street for being granted impunity? Or would you instead consider that impunity can only be granted by the power of the State? Remember, Wall Street could not have been bailed out without the State first authorizing the bailout. To vent your fury only toward corporations is to ignore the entity that redeemed them.

You say that laws that apply to individuals also apply to corporations. With the exception of Bernie Madoff, I don't really see any of that. A hedge fund manager who steals 1,000,000,000 dollars is treating with far more respect in court than a thief who has stolen 1,000 dollars. The oil company that poisons the well is treated with more respect than the lone miscreant who poisons the well. At the end of the day, the thief and the miscreant go to jail, but the hedge fund manager and the oil company go free. You keep saying the government allowed it to happen, but that's because the government has been thoroughly bought out by these corporate entities. The federal reserve that authorized the Wall Street bailout, the federal reserve you claim is the real enemy, is run by corporate pawns. The organs of government have been taken over by corporate pawns, and they now work to serve Wall Street's desires. You claim the government is the real enemy, but that enemy is nothing more than a puppet controlled by corporate overlords.

Sorry, forgot about this. Meant to reply earlier, but shit happens and whatnot.

Written by JCJen7 on 07.10.2011 at 07:46

Written by Doc G. on 07.10.2011 at 07:06

http://takimag.com/article/99_wrong#axzz1a28Bl7Xi

I'm about as left-wing as you can get, but I still see this as a fruitless endeavor backed by severe hypocrisy.

I can understand why you would think that, considering the article you are reading spent more time on what he thinks they smell like (I can only guess he hasn't even gotten close enough to the protests himself to be sure, considering the lack of information he displays) than what they stand for, or what their purpose is in the odd form of protests.

I think the point he was trying to make was not about the smell but was trying to display how these people who are bitching and moaning were people that weren't exactly contributing to society.

Quote:

Written by Doc G. on 07.10.2011 at 07:06


Not so much an attack on the American Government, more of an aimless attack on corporations.

The purpose at this point, is that it doesn't have a direct 'aim'.

That is exactly my problem I guess. People love civil disobedience, but it loses it's power if you're throwing peaceful protests constantly with no vision. This protest won't amount to anything but a lot of wasted time unless someone gets their shit together and comes up with a realistic, attainable and fair idea for an outcome. I'm all for civil disobedience, but I'm not going to throw my lot in with people who don't really know what they want. Come up with some realistic goals and I might join in. As it stands, I still see this as a fruitless endeavor.

Written by BitterCOld on 12.10.2011 at 09:06

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

This is about the only demand I can actually get behind. More public spending is the key, mostly with healthcare and early education. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the free college shit, as student loans, government grants and scholarships exist for a reason, but elementary & high school spending in the public sector is needed; just because a kid has the misfortune of being born into a low-income family doesn't mean they deserve sub-standard education. Healthcare is similar, methinks.

Written by Guest on 18.10.2011 at 07:50

Written by Axe Argonian on 17.10.2011 at 21:13

Even in a free market, corporations and businesses are subject to law. If they are discovered committing fraud, polluting your neighborhood, or misleading the public, they can be prosecuted in a court of law. Contrary to popular belief, the laws that apply to individuals also apply to corporations. What's even better is that in a free market there is no incentive to commit any of the things I listed simply because the voice of dissension can be used to damage their businesses. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle is an excellent example of using the power of the pen to successfully bring change to an area of the market (the food industry, in Sinclair's case). Yes, it is true that corporations are solely interesting in generating revenue. But to do so, they too need to comply with the law. Otherwise, they'll lose business.

Moreover, you say that corporations do not care about people. Yet, you consider not that a corporation needs committed consumers to generate revenue. If a corporation doesn't cater to public demands, it simply will not succeed in the free market, consequently losing customers to competitive entities that do pander to consumer demands. For what company succeeds by selling something people do not care about? How long can a company survive selling products that are not demanded? And in the matter of life-and-death, how can a company succeed by killing its consumers? (Of course, the tobacco industry is the exception to this rule. ) The answer is that no company can survive doing these things, UNLESS it is subsidized by the State. Otherwise, it will collapse and declare bankruptcy in the face of no demand.

Now, I suspect you might respond with, "But Wall Street got away with their bullshit!" Would you really blame Wall Street for being granted impunity? Or would you instead consider that impunity can only be granted by the power of the State? Remember, Wall Street could not have been bailed out without the State first authorizing the bailout. To vent your fury only toward corporations is to ignore the entity that redeemed them.

You say that laws that apply to individuals also apply to corporations. With the exception of Bernie Madoff, I don't really see any of that. A hedge fund manager who steals 1,000,000,000 dollars is treating with far more respect in court than a thief who has stolen 1,000 dollars. The oil company that poisons the well is treated with more respect than the lone miscreant who poisons the well. At the end of the day, the thief and the miscreant go to jail, but the hedge fund manager and the oil company go free. You keep saying the government allowed it to happen, but that's because the government has been thoroughly bought out by these corporate entities. The federal reserve that authorized the Wall Street bailout, the federal reserve you claim is the real enemy, is run by corporate pawns. The organs of government have been taken over by corporate pawns, and they now work to serve Wall Street's desires. You claim the government is the real enemy, but that enemy is nothing more than a puppet controlled by corporate overlords.

Exactly.

Indeed, only through the power of the State can corporations manipulate the economy. The origination of pernicious power lies not on Wall Street but at Washington, simply because there is a nexus between politics and corporate power. By itself, Wall Street can not do anything to abuse you, but with political power, it can. That's exactly why I see no fruit in solely protesting the banks and the corporations. If you're truly interested in change, set your sights on Washington, because without it, there would be no monopolies, no bailouts, and no artificially low interest rates.

I do agree that there should be a chasm between political power and corporate power. That is one OWS demand with which I strongly agree. But to bring it to fruition, we all need to pressure Washington and elect grassroots politicians that actually have standards (Not many exist, but a couple, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, do well in representing their bases without pocketing corporate dollars).

@JCJen7: I never said my scholarship was government issued. The state lottery funded my education. Scholarships are not that hard to get, it just takes time and effort on your part. Are you willing to put in that time and effort? They are not handouts...you have to earn them.

you do bring up a good point that the banks were being irresponsible. It's both the people's fault for taking out loans they knew they can't pay back and it was the banks fault for giving them out in the first place. Credit cards are used for more than just shopping sprees. By using the term over spending I meant buying houses, cars and anything else they can't afford. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions...including corporations, banks and of course the people. I think the last part is what OWS is forgetting.

If I had a nasty injury there's no telling what would've happened...like I said I'm glad nothing did happen. If I had a disability I would've gotten government benefits probably through medicare. And I like how you assumed that I didn't live in a bad neighborhood or went to a shitty school. You probably also think I come from a rich family. I also never said let's not tax the rich and hope they give donations. That's ludicrous.

Nothing was just given to me. I earned what I have and I can look at what I have and proudly say that my hard work is paying off. But hey, you're 17 and haven't had to deal with having to support yourself completely just yet so you'll learn soon enough. Now I don't know what you've been through but once you start having to pay your own rent or mortgage, car payment, tuition and any other bills then I bet your tune will change. You won't want to give up your hard earned money to some irresponsible freeloader either.

Written by MetallicA on 20.10.2011 at 05:13

I never said my scholarship was government issued. The state lottery funded my education.

I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't that be government issued? Regardless, that doesn't really matter, all I meant is that there are a lot less scholarships available then 6 years ago when you probably started college (2005 was a pretty boomin time in the economy).

Written by MetallicA on 20.10.2011 at 05:13

And I like how you assumed that I didn't live in a bad neighborhood or went to a shitty school. You probably also think I come from a rich family.

Good job insulting me on incorrectly assuming that I assumed you weren't from a bad neighborhood/shitty school. And then making your own false assumption that I think you came from a rich family (especially false, since you already told me otherwise). Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy. Though all that is very irrelevant.

Written by MetallicA on 20.10.2011 at 05:13

Nothing was just given to me. I earned what I have and I can look at what I have and proudly say that my hard work is paying off. But hey, you're 17 and haven't had to deal with having to support yourself completely just yet so you'll learn soon enough. Now I don't know what you've been through but once you start having to pay your own rent or mortgage, car payment, tuition and any other bills then I bet your tune will change. You won't want to give up your hard earned money to some irresponsible freeloader either.

Ya know, I am getting pretty tired of my views being viewed upon by conservatives as liberal only because I am young. That is not fucking why! I am pretty involved in my families finances. I have a job, I see the little box that says how much the payroll tax is taking. I know how much my family pays in taxes, and I know the current tax systems in place in our country. My opinions aren't out of ignorance, however you guys repeatedly assuming they are are making me start to assume that maybe yours are. Any tax that is as regressive as the payroll tax is my opinion is completely idiotic. While I pay about 7% of payroll tax, someone that makes a couple hundred thousand dollars pay about .005%. It's pretty ridiculous.

The most successful times in our economy we could not have had more polarized tax systems. After icnome tax became 'cemented' in 1916 (i think), the top tax rate was quite high (about a 75% income tax on the top wage-earners), then through the 20's it dropped dramatically to about 25%. Inequality spread, people couldn't keep with spending, and the Great Depression started. FDR attempted to put a 100% income tax on the top graduation of income, and congress compromised at 94%, where it stayed in the 90's until the mid 60's. From there, it started to drop, and the following 70's and early 80's were among the worst time for our economy in history. Clinton raised it again to about 40%, but one of Bush's first moves as president was to pass a bill lowering it back to 35%, and our country was immediately back in to an annual deficit.

My point is, I don't support heavier taxes on the middle and lower class (as that ridiculously stupid 9-9-9 bullshit Cain preaches), I want to go back to having these high tax rates at the top of the graduated scale. In my opinion, all income over about 500 million (I have never really done much research on what the number should be) should be taxed at about 85%. And then have that gradually get smaller, until it gets to the 35% range at about 500k a year. On top of that, I think we should have a graduated tax system on capital gains, starting at about 10%, and going up to about 30%, with a .5% tax on all transactions. I am sorry to preach my own personal ideas, but I am stressing that even with all these 'radical smelly liberals' running around preaching craziness, most of it will really only effect the top 1, or maybe .1% of Americans. And, most of these tax policies they want, were around in the most economically succesful times in our countries history.

Written by MetallicA on 20.10.2011 at 05:13

You won't want to give up your hard earned money to some irresponsible freeloader either.

I would rather have to pay for the occasional 'freeloader' than have our country go deeper and deeper into debt so that the richest percent can pay the lowest taxes in our nations history, and buy a couple more yachts.

Occupy Eugene is getting hyped like a motherfucker at the moment, which is exciting in a way, it's just it's kinda funny to see the anarchist, freegan-types around here, who make a show of not giving their shits for material things, (just now) getting angry about that 1 percent who have so much stuff. Especially in a town where the majority of people are using vast amounts of other peoples' money to go to school. All for getting riled up over corporate greed and incompetence, though. The arguments I've heard from people around here just happen to be on the totally incoherent side of the spectrum (stop corporatations from raping islam, for example--saw that shit the other day chalked onto a sidewalk directly next to the we are the 99 percent slogan).

I just find it interesting people would rather talk about who and why people are protesting, and not what they are protesting, and if you agree with that.

I find it interesting how you choose to argue, not what you choose to argue. We get it, you think this movement is worth something. A lot of people agree with you, a lot of people don't. The way you've been going about this thread seems rather immature to me though. It's like you're attempting to make your opposition side with you by playing some psychological game.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 24.10.2011 at 03:25

I find it interesting how you choose to argue, not what you choose to argue. We get it, you think this movement is worth something. A lot of people agree with you, a lot of people don't. The way you've been going about this thread seems rather immature to me though. It's like you're attempting to make your opposition side with you by playing some psychological game.

Well, not on purpose i guess...?
I would have lost interest in argueing awhile ago, if I didn't think that so many of the comments bashing it were based 99% on the protesters looks, shallow assumptions about why they are out there, or radical parties that are either completely individual or have used the movement to get a voice. I guess I considered a lot of the bashing to be incredibly immature, and I have hardly heard anyone actually disagree with any of the common themes among the protesters. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a young liberal.

Written by JCJen7 on 25.10.2011 at 05:13
But hey, what do I know, I'm just a young liberal.

That's what I mean. I was understanding towards your explanation and then you play some stupid guilt card. I'm not attacking you because I'm an old conservative either. I'm 20 and I vote Liberal.

Again, your quote was:

Quote:
I just find it interesting people would rather talk about who and why people are protesting, and not what they are protesting, and if you agree with that.

My initial point was that you focus so much on the emotional aspect of the argument that you lose sight of the topic at hand. Your responses read more like a TV ad pressuring the viewer to donate to starving children. It's not so much about the problems the country is having, it's more about making the viewer feel bad for not helping.

To be honest I'm almost completely apathetic towards this entire thing. I think it's a little funny, but mostly just irritating.

I threw that last thing on there as a joke, not a guilt card, what would the guilt card even be used for? I suppose I was wrong to state that, just something that I hear quite a bit, including on this thread that kinda bothers me. but back to the other topic...

This whole time, I thought I was trying to steer the conversation away from what you are talking about. Almost everyone that responded wanted to say something about hippies, the "gimme free stuff generation", hypocritical rich people protesting, lazy pot-smokers, or their own personal experiences on how they are so incredibly smart and financially sound that they have made the current system work for themselves. I think there are times and places for personal experiences, usually when debasing a stereotype, but saying the current system in the government works because you currently are in a good situation in your life seems silly, and I consider that stuff more emotional and politically irrelevant than my last couple of posts.

Have you guys/girls seen what happened in Oakland.
During the peaceful protest they opened up with tear gas. One tear gas canister hit a fellow Iraq War vet in the head and he is now in critical condition. Complete fucking bullshit.

I'm absolutely infuriated by what happened in Oakland. The protesters weren't causing any bit of harm. What the police did was completely out of proportion.

That's unacceptable.. I sometimes wonder if riot police get psychologically screened in any way before being hired, or if they're just skinheads or anarchists themselves out for a little fun.

Written by Guest on 28.10.2011 at 04:24

I'm absolutely infuriated by what happened in Oakland. The protesters weren't causing any bit of harm. What the police did was completely out of proportion.

Its getting crazy over there. Its hard to even ride your bike without being harassed by the cops

Now the police are shooting up protesters in Denver. It's fucking madness.

Written by Guest on 30.10.2011 at 07:25

Now the police are shooting up protesters in Denver. It's fucking madness.

Honestly there might be some kind of revolution here in the US if this shit keeps up.

Written by Guest on 31.10.2011 at 18:07

Written by Guest on 30.10.2011 at 07:25

Now the police are shooting up protesters in Denver. It's fucking madness.

Honestly there might be some kind of revolution here in the US if this shit keeps up.

Also, what the police don't realize is that by attacking non-violent protesters, they only galvanize the movement and grant it legitimacy. If they think they can suppress the movement by cracking down on it like this, they got another thing coming.

Written by Guest on 31.10.2011 at 18:38

Written by Guest on 31.10.2011 at 18:07

Written by Guest on 30.10.2011 at 07:25

Now the police are shooting up protesters in Denver. It's fucking madness.

Honestly there might be some kind of revolution here in the US if this shit keeps up.

Also, what the police don't realize is that by attacking non-violent protesters, they only galvanize the movement and grant it legitimacy. If they think they can suppress the movement by cracking down on it like this, they got another thing coming.

The GOV here in California was thinking about bringing in the national guard to keep citizens safe from the police.

A general strike in Oakland has begun. They already successfully shut down local branches of Citibank and BoA.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/02/359714/scenes-from-oaklands-general-strike-activists-shut-down-local-citibank-chapter/

Written by Guest on 02.11.2011 at 22:05

A general strike in Oakland has begun. They already successfully shut down local branches of Citibank and BoA.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/02/359714/scenes-from-oaklands-general-strike-activists-shut-down-local-citibank-chapter/

Looks like its getting out of control. Its a good thing. I hope it goes well.