Occupy Wall Street

[marharth]

Oh, and by "informed" I mean: masters in sociology, something like half a bachelors in political science

 

plethora imbecellic this argument is uneducated rather folly

Well, I have a GED. And a master's in keepin' it real. From the School of Hard Knocks. I got, um... I got street smarts, yo.

 

People are protesting the EFFECTS of the system and yet still supporting the system... Its the same as protesting that my car produces carbon-monoxides yet I fully support oil-fueled vehicles.

Okay, I lied; I'm an industrial chemist. Carbon monoxide emissions can be reduced by adding an oxygenate into the fuel to enhance combustion. The EPA actually mandates their use. And manufacturers have been consistently improving cars' fuel economy, which cuts all emissions proportionally.

 

It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but your little digression shows a misconception you have that crops up a lot later: Systems don't have nearly so many inherent effects as you think. Especially political and economic systems, which are simply artificial abstractions that we can change at will.

 

[*]Social and economic inequality is the basis on which the US capitalist system is defined. It is impossible to change this inequality without changing the structure of the socio-economic system.

The inequality we have right now is by no means inherent to the system. Right now, the richest 1% control 24% of the nation's wealth, and we have a higher Gini coefficient than many third-world dictatorships. In 1972, it was 8%, and our income distribution was similar to that in the UK, Sweden, France, and Germany. What happened? The top marginal tax rate in 1972 was 70%, down from 91% (!) in 1963. It has since fallen to 35%, even as the salaries of corporate executives have skyrocketed. “The US capitalist system” isn't invariant; it has parameters, which can be adjusted to get whatever level of income inequality you want.

 

Do you think the bankers who devised the sub-prime-loan system were actually sitting malevolently behind closed doors scheming how they would ruin american families?

SEC Accuses Goldman Sachs of Selling Mortgage Investment Designed to Fail

“I waited for the lenders to offer the most risky mortgages conceivable to the least qualified buyers... [then] I liquidated most of our credit default swaps at a substantial profit.”

 

In order to become an elected official in the USA, one must campaign heavily - otherwise nobody knows about you and you arent going to get any votes. This requires mass amounts of private funding, because it is each on his own, and there are no public funds for office seekers... This system in the USA has always been very unregulated... Media plays a huge role, of course, in elections.

Yes, there are. There's also an equal-time rule. And there are definite rules regarding campaign finance – the problem is that right now, as in taxes, we're taking giant leaps backward with stuff like SuperPACs and the general weakening of McCain-Feingold. Infrastructure and rules are already in place for fairer elections that aren't decided by private funding. It isn't unreasonable to ask that we use them.

 

I understand why they are protesting, and what they are protesting for - unfortunately they do not.

It just occurred to me that you would be a very poor dinner guest. Oh, and you are also a very poor human being.

 

if the people who gain all the power over markets are humanitarian and spread the wealth back into their employees... Back in the fuedal ages that is basically how things worked.

Yes, medieval serfdom is a system we can all get behind.

 

my children

please for the love of god don't reproduce

 

Cuba is in fact the western hemisphere's #1 democratic country - thats a scientific fact

You keep using the word “fact”. I do not think it means what you think it means. Cuba is ranked as “not free” or “authoritarian” on all recognized scales of political freedom. It's imprisoned more journalists than any nation besides China.

 

I was going to question how you could live in Cuba and not notice the human rights abuses, but then it hit me that the only thing you really seem concerned about is getting your own needs met. So of course you wouldn't notice other people's lack of freedom. (I mean, you've got yours, right? So screw 'em!) You know what? You would actually fit in perfectly with the richest 1% over here!

 

Of course...the americans reading this, brainwashed since birth, to hate these buzzwords "socialism" and "communism" etc

Look at my post. Now look at my username. Now look back at my post. I am batting for the other team in this thread because you are just that insufferable.

Why don't you post here more :biggrin:

 

Here is Keith Olbermann saying all of the 22 things I said before. Think there might be more then 22 here, but I didn't count. This is the full statement for those who do not know.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N8o3peQq79Q

Edited October 8, 2011 by marharth

[lukertin]

LOL, that's exactly what I said.

And you still don't seem to understand.

 

I have never contradicted myself once. I said protest is good, no matter the reason. That does not mean that protesting for a good reason, with purpose, and achieving change, is not a good thing.

I never said it was. You, however, claimed: "Sticking it to The Man is very important, even you can't quite articulate what it is exactly that you're so pissed off about." http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/441388-occupy-wall-street/page__st__50

 

I.e., "I don' t need a reason to protest, I should just do it because protest without aim is good." You believe that protesting is good even if you have no actual reason to protest. When questioned by two other posters as to whether this was actually your stance, you failed to repudiate and clarify. Therefore, you have undertaken it as your stance. If you mean to backtrack then say so explicitly, don't fiddle around and claim the moral high ground when someone criticizes you for holding a ridiculous position that you have so far failed to support with any sort of intelligent argument.

 

Yes, they were.

Go educate yourself, you are severely lacking in knowledge of this country's history.

 

The Constitution was written by a committee of delegates from 12 colonies, with the exception of Rhode Island. The sole and only correct author of the Bill of Rights was James Madison.

 

You can go look this up anywhere on the Internet, any history book, any document written from 1780's. Every source will verify what I have stated here. Your blind belief that it isn't true doesn't make it false.

 

It is a distinction without a difference. Ask Egyptians how important freedom of assembly is for a protest movement.

Actually it is a distinction. If there wasn't a distinction, then local governments could not pass so many ordinances setting out the distinct rules and requirements needed to hold a protest, and they would not be able to respond to protests they way they do, without as much reproach.

 

There's some merit to that, I would listen to the arguments. Not really relevant to this topic though.

It's relevant because it shows how poorly thought out your stance is.

[grannywils]

"For, indeed, what is the civil law? A thing which can neither be bent by influence, nor broken down by power, nor adulterated by corruption; which, if it be, I will not say overwhelmed, but even neglected or carelessly upheld, there will then be no ground for any one feeling sure either that he possesses anything, or that he shall leave anything to his children."

Cicero, Pro Caecina

 

Just a little quotation from our OP's signature, for a change of pace....

[Harbringe]

If I were to sum up the sense of what OWS is about and for that matter the Arab revolt , protests in Europe , S America and Asia its about disenfranchisement , that sense that their civil , political and economic liberties are being stolen from them and when it comes to being disenfranchised I think this guy said it best. Contains a few curse words , hope that doesn't offend anyone or break some Nexus rule. ( I did check couldn't find anything that said I couldn't post )

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

[lukertin]

However, the real problem is rooted in the structure of the system.

Lets take each of OWS arguments ("demands") and analyze them.

1) "protesting against social and economic inequality"

Social and economic inequality is the basis on which the US capitalist system is defined. It is impossible to change this inequality without changing the structure of the socio-economic system. Therefore this argument is uneducated and too vague to achieve anything.

The US doesn't have a capitalist system. Its government is best described as corporatist. I'll go into this later.

 

2) "corporate greed"

Once again, corporate greed is just a bit of slander on corporations. Corporations/Companies work for profit, because that is the system and such is its design. Those that do not make profit, collapse. That is also the system, and its design. Wait a second though...What does profit mean in this type of system? Profit is when one entity gains monetary (resource) value from the cost - so profit can only be generated when, effectively, someone else loses.

If it cost me 50 ounces of gold to make a house but you are willing to pay me 60 ounces, how is my profit your loss?

 

Stock trading is the ultimate example of this.

No it isn't, stock trading is an attempt to evaluate the worth of companies in real time. It is ineffectual and a poor measurement, and is further twisted by the fact that stock = ownership = control over a corporation.

 

Corporations do not have to be greedy. They simply have to obey the systems rules and do "good business" ie: make profit.

Yes, they do have to be greedy. It's why people buy their stock: to get money from dividends (i.e., a corporation's profits are paid out in dividends to the stockholders--that is the entire organization of a corporation and how it exists under the laws). If a corporation does not act to maximize profit, the stockholders will elect a new board of directors who will act to maximize profit.

 

Do you think the bankers who devised the sub-prime-loan system were actually sitting malevolently behind closed doors scheming how they would ruin american families? No...they were just being good bankers in the capitalist system and coming up with perfectly LEGAL ways to raise profit in their banks: by making more loans available for private purchases.

That wasn't really the problem. They were sitting behind closed doors scheming how to pass off the ridiculous amounts of risk they were taking on from selling mortgages to people who couldn't afford them.

 

3) "the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government" ... "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics"

This is also by design the exact method by which USA has structured its political machine.

The USA hasn't structured its political machine in any way. Corporate money and lobbyism was never a part of the US political machine until the presidential race of McKinley v. Bryan in 1899-1900, and was the first recorded campaign in history where corporate interests bought an election by outspending the opposition by a factor of almost 7:1.

 

* In order to become an elected official in the USA, one must campaign heavily - otherwise nobody knows about you and you arent going to get any votes. This requires mass amounts of private funding, because it is each on his own, and there are no public funds for office seekers.

1. Campaign heavily? Not really true. Most Americans vote along party lines during elections, just like in Europe. I didn't even know who I was voting for in the last election when I cast my vote for my Congressional representative and State Senator. I had no clue who was running, or what their stance was.

2. No American will vote for a measure whereby their tax money is spent on campaigns for people they don't like.

 

Since it is more or less a requirement of political office seekers to recieve backing from wealthy entities, it is therefore a system of "making deals" with those who fund them. Obviously I am not going to donate money to your campaign if you arent going to make policies and laws that benefit me.

* This system in the USA has always been very unregulated, with few to no rules regarding what can be done in these monetary-for-political "deals". Thus, the USA is a not a political system by definition, it is a "politics for sale" system with a very weak and nearly insignificant checks-and-balance system called "the general population" (because, apparently, the population still has to vote someone into office).

I don't care enough about these allegations to actually do research on them. I'll grant you that they're true. Even so, so what? The US government is actually quite insulated to change, with the legislature changing every 2 years (and that change is staggered) making laws, the President who is elected every 4 years executing them by appointing people to head agencies who are tasked with executing the laws, and have basically blank check discretion as to how to run things.

 

* Media plays a huge role, of course, in elections. Media is newspapers, TV shows, magazines, billboards, radio, etc. These are, also, owned by someone - the bigger the media, the bigger the company, the bigger the corporation. Once again, privately owned media can say and do what it likes to support its own agenda. Thats why true journalism is dead and media is nowadays just Propaganda for whoever is holding the media corporation's hand (hint: it isnt always a politician).

You don' t have a point here because journalism was always like this.

 

* In the back-end, Washington is not a forum for politicians to go make laws and policies for the good of the people - rather it is a forum for big businessmen, corporate owners, media, and the elected politicians to make deals. Thats what theyre doing all day. Making business deals. On the offhand that some politician who actually cares about the public (whom arent present at these deals) actually slips into an elected office, then you sometimes see a politician like Kennedy who spends his entire career trying to make a difference for the normal citizen. Few are like this however, and those that are will not get funding from the people that they need funding from in order to truly make changes.

"Heaven is high and the Emperor is far away"

The Federal government's actions really don't have that big of an impact on the day-to-day of everyday Americans. Every so often they do things like force states to pass laws raising the drinking age to 21, or otherwise withhold highway construction funding.

 

So, the entire goal of OWS is rather folly. I understand why they are protesting, and what they are protesting for - unfortunately they do not. This is, again, ironically, the crux of the problem: education. Education is not very good in the U.S. and it is purposefully not very good, especially when it comes to things like politics or philosophy.

'purposefully not very good'? LOL. Ok, bud, my high school teachers woke up every day thinking to themselves "How can I stunt the instinctual growth of my students today to become brainwashed citizens of the future?" That's the most delusional, ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

 

That is why nobody has so far been able to even understand the root of these problems, why they exist, how they work, and how to change them. For most people in the modern world, problems like this are quite easy to fix. Indeed in Spain and Greece, what they are protesting is much less of a corrupt and broken system than what the U.S. has.

Yes, let the Americans take lessons from countries that have had unemployment rates over 15% for the last decade, those people know how to run countries.

 

They are protesting against having privately owned debt being paid off by tax money AT ALL (they refuse to pay a cent, and rightfully so) - while in the U.S. this has been the norm since the early 1910s (its just seen a surge with the recent "crisis").

You mean the people in Germany are protesting against having the privately owned debt of Greece being paid off by their tax money. Greece has no money, because they don't produce anything, which is why they have been borrowing heavily.

 

The simple fact is that the U.S. economy and political system was designed to do, exactly what it is doing right now. It is a capitalist system.

Capitalism is:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[4]

(from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

There's a difference between a capitalist economic system (which the US does not have) and a government sanctioned monopoly economic system (which better describes the US).

 

For those that dont fully understand what this means, "means of production" implies a wide umbrella of things.

1) It implies that raw resources (metal ore, oil, water, energy, communications, transportation, fish, trees, food crops, animals...) are all up for sale - to be privately owned, and profitted on.

So?

 

2) Labor itself is up for sale. When you do work, you are selling your labor to your employer. Since most industries have an excess of labor than need, employers are then able to set the terms of employment; ie: the price you get for your labor is decided by the employer.

So?

 

3) Federal regulation of this system is usually frowned upon. If you have heard the term "free market" then you have heard politicians bashing someone who supports regulations. "Free market" in fact means that those who have power over a market, are "free" to do as they want. There are many typical economic tools that businesses use to raise profit. For example: hoarding (keeping demand high by not releasing all of a product for sale), and flooding (making prices drop by flooding the market with a product) are the 2 most simple. There is no regulation on this, ie: "free market". In fact the only federal regulation regarding market control in the U.S. system is the anti-monopoly laws that came into effect only more or less recently (after many markets had already been monopolized in the early 20th century). This policy however just minimally forces a company that has cornered a market - and can do whatever it likes with it (making huge profits on little work) - to allow competition to exist.

The US would be much better off if it had a true free market. The US does not have a true free market. Everything from water, to electricity, to our phone lines, television access is monopolized by local governments and handed over to state-run or state-owned utility companies. Everything is rather heavily regulated, by virtue of state sanctioned monopolies.

 

Ironically, capitalism is hailed (by capitalists) as the best system for stimulating competition - yet it is the single most destructive system ever devised towards actually doing that. U.S. capitalism has created markets with single leaders or at most a half dozen leaders, whereas a healthy product market should have hundreds of competitors.

Is any other country's competitive system different?

 

A little example: Microsoft owns the majority of the OS market among other things. All it has to do is prop up the status quo, defeat any possible competition that might arise, and it will forever be the "ruler" of its market. It charges exorbiant fees for simple services, and outrageous pricetags on simple digital copies of its OS. Microsoft does very little work, and makes huge profit.

Microsoft retains control of the OS market? Funny, tell that to Apple and all the Internet servers that still run Unix-based systems.

 

In nearly every single market there is the same issue: one company, or a small handful of companies, have dominated the market and do whatever they need to kill competition and maintain control - so it is only natural that their successors will also have this control. They are in effect the new age lords - but they have no responsibilities to the people that make them rich.

Wow, perhaps the biggest gross simplification of economics and corporate economic functions I have ever seen.

 

Ignore that laws in almost every 1st world country implement serious bars to monopoly by preventing any company from having over 50% of market share.

 

Ignore that every manufacturer in the world buys its parts from hundreds, if not thousands, of subcontractors situated all over the world, which effectively defeats your belief that monopolies own the 'means of production'. They don't.

 

Indeed, the demands that I put on my country are far beyond what OWS and the USA would even be capable of implementing in the forseeable future.

Pretty much, a country that is almost 50 times larger than yours with a population 10 times more culturally diverse and a population another 30 times larger than yours will not be able to implement the same things. Big surprise there. For someone who thinks he understands the US political system so well, you have thus far failed to impress me. You think the USA is one giant country, it's actually a union of 50 squabbling states that bicker back and forth with the Federal government every day, and the Federal government can barely keep up. Hmm...kind of like how the EU is completely incompetent to deal with the problems of its member nations, eh? Who would have thought. Go compare your Sweden to our Massachusetts, compare your Greece to our Alabama.

 

(Yes Ive lived in Cuba, and if you want a model of a real, participatory democracy...Cuba is in fact the western hemisphere's #1 democratic country - thats a scientific fact.)

Why don't you go visit a town in New England, where the purchase of a new toilet in the town hall's bathroom will be voted on by the participants in a town meeting?

 

And heres the kick in the teeth...

After hearing about all these good things that I get from my country over here...what I always hear from americans (especially americans), is "oh but you have to pay insane taxes...I dont want to pay that much tax". But the kick in the teeth is actually this: Tax rate for average Swedish employee (who works 6 hours a day, btw, as standard) is less than 30%. Ya, thats right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

I call complete BS. I used to work at this company that just hired a new CEO from a Scandinavian country, when he came over to give a speech he mentioned how he "likes it better here because he got to keep more of his money"

 

You see, when taxes are actually spent on the people, and not towards corruption, its a hell of a lot of money that can be used to do something good. For example I had an IT job in the government once where I made ~3500 USD per month and paid 28% tax on that. However, after paying taxes and cost of living for my 2 room apartment and eating out at a nice restaraunt nearly everyday for lunch still let me pocket about ~1000 USD per month. So the end result of saying that is this question: I had a salary of $120,000 in the US working in silicon valley some years back - that was in the top 2% of the US salary range. I rented a 3 bedroom house, and shared it with 2 other people, in a small working class neighborhood - we lived cheaply, we cut costs as much as we could. Indeed, the place we lived and quality of our food and lifestyle wasnt nearly as good as I enjoyed having in Sweden on my ~3500 a month. But the end all question is: after paying for health insurance, paying taxes, having to pay for costs of vehicle and everything else...how much did I pocket each month? About ~3000 out of my ~7,000 salary per month (after 36% tax). Which is less than what I would pocket in the same private sector job in northern europe - yet I would also get so much more for the taxes I paid in Europe: higher quality living standards, well kept roads, public transport, clean cities, free education, hobby/activity/sports clubs, and on and on and on...

 

What's your point? I used to work in the public sector in the US, made ~6k USD a month and took home over ~3k after expenses. I had a 1br apartment that cost less than $900/mo, had free public transportation that let me go anywhere within the DC metro whenever I wanted. All you seem to be saying is that that California is a crappy state afflicted by urban sprawl and a dysfunctional State government that is bankrupt because the people vote on every legislative bill in public referenda (it's 100% participatory because the State constitution allows for it, by the way!) and down vote every tax increase, while approving every budget increase? Again with your poor understanding of the US political system, you blame the Federal government and how it operates, and attribute that to the failures of the individual states.

 

Now those same people are watching their children, and their grandchildren, pay the price of their stupidity and greed. Because thats what capitalism actually is. Its a system based on greed.

Funny thing is - the more americans that come here, the more that end up staying. Believe it or not but the US has quite a huge emigration issue with the highly qualified/educated fleeing the country to live in countries that take care of their citizens and have a mutual respect for everyone to live quality lives together. The funny part of that?? Is that the US is one of the most resource rich countries on earth.

No, the funny part is how your country has one of the most stringent citizenship standards in the world because your government is afraid of the world's poor congregating on your doorstep to take advantage of your generous state-sponsored welfare and cause your country to go bankrupt.

 

In fact, Cubas political system is the exact solution that OWS is protesting for, ironically enough. In Cuba, political campaigns are not allowed any financial backing. Everyone who wants to be a candidate for office fills out a standard form sheet and it gets posted up in their centro comunidad (community center). People go there and read each candidates form, which outlines their agendas, goals, political ideology, and even gives you contact info if you want to go talk to them about something. In Cuba practically everybody is involved in the government. Elections are the most free and fair in the world (also another scientific fact - you can find these details in the UN's factbook) with a general turnout of more than 97%. It is truly a government by the people for the people. I remember living on a typical street, renting out a room, in Santiago de Cuba (ie: poor end of Cuba is the east end) where out of 25 houses on that street, in more than half of them lived people that had been in office somewhere - in the community, municipality, state, or federal level. I used to enjoy having coffee and learn about politics with a neighbor, a 60+ year old retired shoemaker, who was for 8 years a federal official in Havana when he was younger. All because he was elected first in his community - by his community, then in his municipality - by his municipality - and then in his state - by his state. A pure democracy without any monetary political backing, where candidates are given equal representation by the state-sponsored media.

The US isn't a democracy, and it was never meant to be a democracy.

 

Where the "state" = the people.

Another amazing fact in Cuban politics: when you take office in Cuba - any office; your salary is paid by taxes and is equal to your salary from whatever job you had before going into office. If you were a mechanic, you make the same salary, if you were a doctor, you make the same doctor salary while in office.

Did you know, in New Hampshire, state legislators are paid a salary of $100/year? Guess not, because apparently the USA is the same everywhere according to my learned sociology master friend.

 

This is what democracy and true representation is. Of course...the americans reading this, brainwashed since birth, to hate these buzzwords "socialism" and "communism" etc....to support-unto-death the buzzwords "capitalism" and "free market"...even though those are the exact things they are protesting against now - and dont even know it.

We aren't brainwashed to hate buzzwords like 'socialism' or 'communism'. The Republican party is not the United States, and the United States is not the Republican party. For example, did you know a few years ago the Hawaiian legislature basically seized property owned by the top 1% of the wealthy and redistributed it to the people who actually lived on that property? No? Can't expect you to.

 

Yes, you know who you are. I know what your response will be. But guess what. I already left the US...and you are the reasons why. So I bid you to just give up, and enjoy living in squalor, in dirt, and in continually worsening conditions; to enjoy licking the boots of your capitalist masters. Because that is exactly what your country is about. Unless you really want to change it and live a dignified life? You reap what you sow.

No thanks, I would much rather support a Northeastern Secession from the Union.

[marharth]

Err, how was the USA not intended to be a democratic country?

[Ghogiel]

Err, how was the USA not intended to be a democratic country?

I'm going to guess a republic.

[marharth]

Couldn't you still have a republic with a direct democracy?

[Marxist ßastard]

Couldn't you still have a republic with a direct democracy?

That's where things get interesting. There is no such thing as a completely democratic system, even if every government decision were made by popular vote. Some demographics would always be underrepresented. The minority would always gets shafted, because it's hard to negotiate a compromise between a hundred million people. In a republic, you can tweak the system to represent constituents more fairly or less fairly (see? there's that theme again). In the best case, it's better than direct democracy. In the worst case, it's technical one-party rule.

 

One parameter you can change is the voting system. The founders had a big electoral hard-on for 18th-century-British–style, winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections. It's since become clear that there are much fairer electoral systems; but since they arrived in the US in the middle of the Red Scare, we rejected them as communist conspiracies. Yet state governments could still feasibly reform their own voting systems. If New York or California elected their House Representatives using STV, it would be a game-changer. Even if Ohio or Florida just cast proportional votes in the electoral college, that would still be a big move toward fairness.

 

But let's say that we're still stroking the founders' boner (that metaphor will not die, ever). The current system still allows for changes in how we draw congressional districts, and that hugely affects fairness. Observe:

There was recently a census, and right now the Republican Party is undertaking a big effort to gerrymander swing states. It is reasonable to ask for reforms here. And it doesn't require that the US be invaded by insufferable Swedish ex-pats/welfare-queens/chefs.

[Lisnpuppy]

What is the topic of this thread again?