Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[AndyDufresne]

Somehow, I think that simply entering the market with a better product (or perceived better product) won't make the market run to you. I think you are overlooking a lot of additional market factors.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Somehow, I think that simply entering the market with a better product (or perceived better product) won't make the market run to you. I think you are overlooking a lot of additional market factors.


--Andy

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE MARKET!>?!?! YOU'RE A MONKEY WHO EATS BANANAS!!!!!!! BANANAS, I SAY!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

I'd love to read the study

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/34/12/1663.abstract
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 011007.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35836844/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... hemselves/
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 58,00.html
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/med ... nkleef.cfm

Until then, what are the consequences of "getting rid of these people"?

I don't mean literally "getting rid of them", as in shooting them in the head or something. I mean getting rid of the concept of allowing a small group of people own a ridiculously disproportionate amount of wealth relative to other people. There should be some limitations to how much you're allowed to own. I don't necessarily want to abolish the concept of private property, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

The consequences of such, I believe, would be beneficial for most.

I got'cha. I'm gonna file this under [READ LATER], but I'll get to it.

I'm against state-mandated prices, but there's likely to be a reasonable tax rate at some optimum rate, so we have room to agree here. I'll write more later because it's more involved than that. if you haven't, read my post here. It discusses this issue from a different angle, but it would lead to a more desirable result, which I think you'd also find agreeable.

[AndyDufresne]

Somehow, I think that simply entering the market with a better product (or perceived better product) won't make the market run to you. I think you are overlooking a lot of additional market factors.


--Andy

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE MARKET!>?!?! YOU'RE A MONKEY WHO EATS BANANAS!!!!!!! BANANAS, I SAY!!!!

You are right, most of my market-knowledge comes from the banana-market, so obviously some things aren't scalable or equally appropriate.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Why do we need the rich?

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Thats right, the top 25% of earners...easily the "rich", pay for 86% of everything.

[natty dread]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math! You can divide the total amount of wealth so that 1% gets 90%, or you can divide it more equally. There is absolutely no reason why we would need a small elite that owns thousands of times more wealth than the rest of us.

I'm against state-mandated prices, but there's likely to be a reasonable tax rate at some optimum rate, so we have room to agree here. I'll write more later because it's more involved than that. if you haven't, read my post here. It discusses this issue from a different angle, but it would lead to a more desirable result, which I think you'd also find agreeable.

I've read it... unfortunately, I'm not very familiar with that particular issue - I don't know how exactly the Federal Reserve operates in your country for example, so I'm not really qualified to comment on it.

However the things you say about inflation seem interesting.

No, a line does not need to be drawn. If you did not earn that money, you have no right to take it away from someone who did. You are NOT entitled to that money. If you want to make that amount of money yourself, then create a product or begin an industry that will be able to make that amount of money. Even better, you'll actually get to succeed in taking away the money from the rich person if you enter a competitive market with him and put out a better product.

Ah, Night Strike. I saved your post for last... you know why.

So you disagree. No surprise there... You feel anyone should be allowed to own as much as they can make. No matter what the impact is on the rest of us. It's like you have this "free market" ideal that you stick to dogmatically... if you can't live in a world with an absolutely free market, you'd rather the whole world would just be destroyed. Right?

Ok so, what happens when one person/entity/corporation eventually owns everything? Is it ok for you? Will you be there saying "no, we should just let them keep it. They EARNED IT! We don't have the right to make them give stuff to us for free! Now stop loitering you dirty hippies and go back to your slave work."

[rockfist]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math! You can divide the total amount of wealth so that 1% gets 90%, or you can divide it more equally. There is absolutely no reason why we would need a small elite that owns thousands of times more wealth than the rest of us.

That is based on a false premise of a fixed amount of wealth. How about we grow the size of the pie instead of fighting over the pie. If the whole pie grows there is more for everyone.

[natty dread]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math! You can divide the total amount of wealth so that 1% gets 90%, or you can divide it more equally. There is absolutely no reason why we would need a small elite that owns thousands of times more wealth than the rest of us.

That is based on a false premise of a fixed amount of wealth. How about we grow the size of the pie instead of fighting over the pie. If the whole pie grows there is more for everyone.

No. That's what the rich guys want you to think. The problem is, when the pie grows, the rich get all the extra, while the rest of us get only crumbs.

We need to figure out a way to limit wealth. There's absolutely no reason why a small group should own thousands of times more wealth than the rest of us. The world does not need those rich guys to function. It's a lie perpetuated by... guess who? The rich guys.

[Phatscotty]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math!

how exactly will everyone have more?

And please stop rephrasing everything I say, cuz that's just dumb

[rockfist]

The world does not need the looter class who only sucks from the government tit to survive either...and guess who is more productive?

[natty dread]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math!

how exactly does everyone get more?

And please stop rephrasing everything I say, cuz that's just dumb

Ok, picture the overall wealth and property as 100 apples.

Then picture the world population as 100 people.

Now if 1 person owns 90 apples and 99 people own about 0,1 apples each... that's the situation we have now. But if we don't allow that 1 person to own more than say, 10 apples, then the 99 people can each own 0,9 apples each. That's how everyone gets more.

So tell me, why should that 1 person be allowed to own 90 apples? What good does it do to the rest of us?

[Phatscotty]

Who else is going to pay for everything? We want more rich people!

Oh my god. Seriously, listen to yourself!

"We need people who own thousands of times more than we so they can give a tiny part of that to pay for things we need!"

How about this: if we don't have those people who own thousands of times more, the rest of us will have more and we don't need them to pay for things! It's simple math!

how exactly does everyone get more?

And please stop rephrasing everything I say, cuz that's just dumb

Ok, picture the overall wealth and property as 100 apples.

Then picture the world population as 100 people.

Now if 1 person owns 90 apples and 99 people own about 0,1 apples each... that's the situation we have now. But if we don't allow that 1 person to own more than say, 10 apples, then the 99 people can each own 0,9 apples each. That's how everyone gets more.

So tell me, why should that 1 person be allowed to own 90 apples? What good does it do to the rest of us?

yeah but the most important thing you miss is you took everything from the people who grow the apples.
Now how many apples does everyone have?

[rockfist]

If say the person with the 99 apples knows how to grow them, while the people with <1 don't, then the person with the 99 apples plants some of them and grows more apples, while the people with less than one eat them and they are gone. Of course most people would know how to plant an apple so this is overly simplistic, but this is capitalism...socialism is why European economies have not grown nearly as fast as the US over the last 30+ years.

[natty dread]

yeah but the most important thing you miss is you took everything from the people who grow the apples.
Now how many apples does everyone have?

Oh my fucking god NO. That's simply bullshit they want you to believe because they have a fucking vested interest in keeping all the apples to themselves.

[Night Strike]

You can divide the total amount of wealth so that 1% gets 90%, or you can divide it more equally.

Then what would be the incentive to work harder, be more productive, or invent new products if everyone is going to make the same amount of money? Even more so, what's the incentive to do those things if your success will just be taken from you and given to someone who doesn't want to do any work? Socialism KILLS economies; it doesn't just magically lead to a growing government because the producers will stop producing (and thereby creating the wealth that is getting redistributed).

[Phatscotty]

If say the person with the 99 apples knows how to grow them, while the people with <1 don't, then the person with the 99 apples plants some of them and grows more apples, while the people with less than one eat them and they are gone. Of course most people would know how to plant an apple so this is overly simplistic, but this is capitalism...socialism is why European economies have not grown nearly as fast as the US over the last 30+ years.

yeah but growing apples for enough to feed everyone, a lot of research has to be done on how much needs to be grown for market consumption, how much for emergency stockpiling, how much for the livestock, how many employees it will take to harvest all the apples at what they will have to study is the best time to pick the apples for maximum efficiency not to mention pest control and insurance for that and flood insurance or possible drought or fertilizer or the science needed to identify soil problems or ph level issues.

but who wants to do all that? SHUT UP AND GIVES ME MY DAMN APPLES! I'm too hungry to think about all that!

[rockfist]

Screw that I want my free government cheese I live in WI don'tcha know.

[natty dread]

If say the person with the 99 apples knows how to grow them, while the people with <1 don't, then the person with the 99 apples plants some of them and grows more apples, while the people with less than one eat them and they are gone. Of course most people would know how to plant an apple so this is overly simplistic, but this is capitalism...socialism is why European economies have not grown nearly as fast as the US over the last 30+ years.

Capitalism is what is getting the whole world fucked right now.

You have to stop thinking in black & white terms, stop looking at the world through partisan glasses for a minute and think. Why does everything have to be socialism vs. capitalism, liberal vs. conservative, etc.?

I tell you why: the big guys find it easier to control you by simplifying all discussion and debate to extreme talking points. They drum up this huge us vs. them mentality where you have to choose a side, because then it's easier to control you - they get you to blindly root for your own side and make you oblivious to the fact that both sides are only a smoke screen, they amount to the same thing in the end.

I don't advocate the type of communism where the state owns and controls all. I also don't advocate the kind of extreme capitalism where corporations are free to do what they want, have politicians in their pockets, and own a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the rest of us.

You see? The big guys want you to think that socialism is evil, they want you to equate everything except absolute free-market capitalism with USSR-type communism where the state owns everything and controls everything, as if there's no middle road there... because IT BENEFITS THEM. They don't want you questioning the capitalistic system which gives them free hands to shaft you in the ass. Then they get you to believe that they're necessary: that without them you wouldn't have a job, that they provide everything for you... but that's a big lie. We don't need them owning everything, just like we don't need the government owning everything.

In a nutshell: they have a huge pile of apples, and they give you some of the peels, and you think you couldn't live without them. Why can't you tell them to go f*ck themselves and let the people grow the apples themselves?

[natty dread]

You can divide the total amount of wealth so that 1% gets 90%, or you can divide it more equally.

Then what would be the incentive to work harder, be more productive, or invent new products if everyone is going to make the same amount of money?

You think people only invent things because of money?

If everyone gets the same income, then no one has to worry about money, and people who invent new things can just focus on inventing. People who produce things can still produce things.

But even so, I'm not even advocating a system where everyone gets the "same amount of money". Like I said, you're just equating everything that isn't absolute free-market capitalism as "communism". Because that's exactly what they want you to think.

What I'm saying is that there needs to be checks in place so the big corporations can't play the system and make obscene amounts of wealth. Because that doesn't benefit anyone either, they'll just gather more and more stuff for themselves and f*ck the rest of us.

[Phatscotty]

Will you bite the hand that feeds?
Will you chew until it bleeds?

NIN

[rockfist]

This may surprise you but I am not for 100% unfettered capitalism. I don't believe businesses should be allowed to get "too big to fail." What I do believe is that if I build a small business into a medium to large sized business employing 100's of people, I should get to keep the fruits of my labors without having a bunch of the gimme gimme gimme crowd come and take it from me.

[natty dread]

This may surprise you but I am not for 100% unfettered capitalism. I don't believe businesses should be allowed to get "too big to fail." What I do believe is that if I build a small business into a medium to large sized business employing 100's of people, I should get to keep the fruits of my labors without having a bunch of the gimme gimme gimme crowd come and take it from me.

There you go.

We should have a system that encourages small businesses, instead of allowing large ones to use their already huge capital to drive them out of business.

If we limit the growth of the large businesses, the small ones have more wealth, and there will be less of a gap between the poor and the rich.

[Phatscotty]

This may surprise you but I am not for 100% unfettered capitalism. I don't believe businesses should be allowed to get "too big to fail." What I do believe is that if I build a small business into a medium to large sized business employing 100's of people, I should get to keep the fruits of my labors without having a bunch of the gimme gimme gimme crowd come and take it from me.

Capitalism generally is a system that benefits people for providing a good or service that people want or need, thus a market is created, birthing jobs that did not exist, thus creating wealth. Only then is there something to even discuss taxing. It is the best system known to man, and it's the best thing that ever happened to poor people.

The one who creates the jobs and risked their own time and money to do it gets the credit and the profits, and the people who fill those jobs (that did not exist) benefit from that.

Creating jobs is hands down the best thing we can do to help the poor, period. The more business friendly we make our country, the more markets we will attract and create, and even more poor will be helped, and all this might I add will be done with dignity and pride.

[Night Strike]

This may surprise you but I am not for 100% unfettered capitalism. I don't believe businesses should be allowed to get "too big to fail." What I do believe is that if I build a small business into a medium to large sized business employing 100's of people, I should get to keep the fruits of my labors without having a bunch of the gimme gimme gimme crowd come and take it from me.

There you go.

We should have a system that encourages small businesses, instead of allowing large ones to use their already huge capital to drive them out of business.

If we limit the growth of the large businesses, the small ones have more wealth, and there will be less of a gap between the poor and the rich.

If you want to encourage small businesses, stop passing massive new governmental regulations. It's the big corporations that are pushing for many of them because they can just eat those costs long enough to drive the small businesses out of the market since the new regulations cost way more proportionally for small businesses. The government is not the solution to our income disparity; it's a contributor to it.

[natty dread]

Capitalism generally is a system that benefits people for providing a good or service that people want or need, thus a market is created, birthing jobs that did not exist, thus creating wealth. Only then is there something to even discuss taxing. It is the best system known to man, and it's the best thing that ever happened to poor people.

The one who creates the jobs and risked their own time and money to do it gets the credit and the profits, and the people who fill those jobs (that did not exist) benefit from that.

Creating jobs is hands down the best thing we can do to help the poor, period.

All hail the glorious capitalism!

The problem with this picture is, that when you allow the big businesses free hands to operate, when you let them gather as much wealth as they want, they're not going to use all that wealth to create jobs. That's not how it works... they're going to create as many jobs as is optimal for them to maximize their profits. And they will find ways to pay the least amount of money to their workers - see all the businesses who outsource their production to 3rd world countries? It's because those places allow them to pay less to their workers, which helps them make more money. For themselves.

When you give the control to the huge corporation, without regulation, they will abuse the hell out of it - they don't care about creating jobs for the market, they care about their own bottom line, and if they happen to create some jobs for some people to get it, fine... but there will never be enough jobs for everyone.

So there needs to be some regulation and limitations in place. To prevent the corporations to use their capital to drive all competition out of the market, and to prevent them gathering wealth by underhanded methods. Make them pay more to their employees, or to hire more people. That would get the money flowing. And it would all still be capitalistic so you wouldn't have to worry about that.