Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Wall Street Flash Blob

Wall Street Flash Blob (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2011, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Money is not power? Why don't you explain how that is so?
Money can acquire power, but it isn't power in and of itself. Think of it as gasoline, it can sit in a tank unused, it only can be converted to power if you start the engine and depress the throttle. If I just invest my money and let it sit in an account, I'm not using any of it's potential. Power is a thing in action, not the fuel that is powering it, and many things can provide that fuel.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
See, what was instituted long ago was a tax cut that would stop the rich from hoarding money, give them an incentive to take equity out of their securities and spend their cash. The thing is, if you raise taxes on cap gains by some ridiculous 70%, they won't cash out their equity, they'll just sit on those securities and borrow small amounts against them to "get by". What you'll end up with then, is less tax revenues because the wealthiest of Americans will become much more Scrooge-like, much more aggressive in acquiring liquid assets without selling those securities, and one way of doing that is to put a halt on future hiring and scaling back on benefits. Well, that is, that's what the few who remain will do, the rest will haul ass for more financially comfortable climates, which would be a disaster because more of the tax burden would shift to the middle and upper-middle classes.

What's the fix?

- A modest tax increase on cap gains, ~5%
- Introduction of a 10-20% VAT on certain "luxury" items
- Legalization of marijuana with a 50% federal sales tax
- Scaling back the defense budget by 40% by closing half of foreign military bases, and taking the troops that would be stationed overseas and shoring up our borders and using them for domestic disaster relief. We'd still have the same number of troops, they'd simply be used for matters closer to home (like finally rebuilding N.O.).
- A tax cut for the lower-middle and middle class of 25%, to stimulate spending and investment

Within just 5 years we'd be able to start paying on our national debt principal, without abusing the wealthiest of Americans and stimulating growth in the broader markets. This is all possible (except maybe the legalization of pot, due to idiots who want to play nurse-maid to other adults). Trust me, I thought about this for 10 minutes, while stoned, it's bound to work.
And what about corporations?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Money can acquire power, but it isn't power in and of itself. Think of it as gasoline, it can sit in a tank unused, it only can be converted to power if you start the engine and depress the throttle. If I just invest my money and let it sit in an account, I'm not using any of it's potential. Power is a thing in action, not the fuel that is powering it, and many things can provide that fuel.

It also doesn't just appear on its own. If you have money you also have connections, you have people that will do stuff for you. You made a good analogy that money is like gas, but it is THE gasoline of power. Sex and intelligence only works in some cars at some times.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
And what about corporations?
Corporations with income of >$10M are already federally taxed at 35% or more, I can't see a reason to tax them at a higher rate. Unless you want to see them start cutting expenses to the bone and laying off people in droves.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It also doesn't just appear on its own. If you have money you also have connections, you have people that will do stuff for you. You made a good analogy that money is like gas, but it is THE gasoline of power. Sex and intelligence only works in some cars at some times.
Ah, but now you're talking about the acquisition of that fuel, which is power that is burning a different fuel entirely; intelligence, sex appeal, love, faith, etc..

As has been pointed out by some in this thread, the OWS crowd has some power, and they have few financial resources. Their raw numbers are their fuel and the power is fear. It's greed vs. fear in a grudge match, and I can't see pure motives on either side.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ashely97
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 01:40 AM
 
You guys are really imaginative, from douche to American crisis!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Ah, but now you're talking about the acquisition of that fuel, which is power that is burning a different fuel entirely; intelligence, sex appeal, love, faith, etc..

As has been pointed out by some in this thread, the OWS crowd has some power, and they have few financial resources. Their raw numbers are their fuel and the power is fear. It's greed vs. fear in a grudge match, and I can't see pure motives on either side.

I don't see pure motives either, and I get just as irritated as many of you probably do with the idiotic off-message protesting that goes on.

My main point, to recap:

The founders created OWS motivated by encouraging change in minimizing fraud and abuse, which is a noble goal we can *all* agree upon. We just disagree with who is the greater abuser between government and corporations, and who should get the bulk of the blame. This finger pointing is ultimately a waste of time though. Unless you think that corporations are literally 0% accountable for fraud and abuse you should be rooting for the success of OWS (although I don't know how to define this success), and even if you do feel this way while the focus of OWS is corporation centric, the government goes hand in hand in all of this. I'm confident in saying that 100% of us feel either (government blame || corporate blame) > 0%

I think you may get this Shaddim, but I think you are one of few in here.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Corporations with income of >$10M are already federally taxed at 35% or more, I can't see a reason to tax them at a higher rate. Unless you want to see them start cutting expenses to the bone and laying off people in droves.
At at any thing over 500 million in profits increase in rate until at 2 Billion it goes up to 95% incentive to spend on business, people, and investments to stay out of that tax zone. And what about making merges, buy outs and hostile take overs illegal.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 06:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, except the status quo for the rest of eternity?

Perhaps you are right that these sorts of things are unfixable facets of capitalism (and hopefully these facets would not be characteristics that the successor to capitalism possesses), but while we are capitalist based it seems like a good idea to fix what we can rather than just shrugging our shoulders.
I'm sorry besson, I know you hate to hear this, but what we have today is not capitalism my friend. It's something altogether different. The unfixable facet of socialism is the marriage between Big Government and Big Corporation. The kids of OWS either don't understand what socialism is that they'd be focused on a symptom of the problem or they're okay with socialism, focused on the Big Corporation angle of the debate because that's the narrative the guy they want to stay in office is peddling.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm sorry besson, I know you hate to hear this, but what we have today is not capitalism my friend. It's something altogether different. The unfixable facet of socialism is the marriage between Big Government and Big Corporation. The kids of OWS either don't understand what socialism is that they'd be focused on a symptom of the problem or they're okay with socialism, focused on the Big Corporation angle of the debate because that's the narrative the guy they want to stay in office is peddling.

I know we don't have a pure form of capitalism, but for the life of me I don't know how you clowns come up with what we have resembling true socialism either in relative comparison to actual non-debatable socialist systems.

As far as the motivations of OWS, again, I repeat, you support the motives of OWS, you just don't realize it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:02 AM
 
The "this isn't true capitalism" sort of reminds me of "the Soviet Union isn't communist" arguments the reds tried to fly past me in high-school.

Okay, show me a better existing example.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't see pure motives either, and I get just as irritated as many of you probably do with the idiotic off-message protesting that goes on.

My main point, to recap:

The founders created OWS motivated by encouraging change in minimizing fraud and abuse, which is a noble goal we can *all* agree upon.
Yes, fraud, and abuse. Can you cite for me some examples of corporate fraud and abuse that have a direct bearing on your livelihood?

We just disagree with who is the greater abuser between government and corporations, and who should get the bulk of the blame. This finger pointing is ultimately a waste of time though. Unless you think that corporations are literally 0% accountable for fraud and abuse you should be rooting for the success of OWS (although I don't know how to define this success)...
You nailed the difference right here. One is merely peddling the narrative of the guy they want to stay in office. They are in essence, insulating the core of the problem from the accountability it so richly deserves for inviting an unprecedented amount of big money influence into its wheelhouse. This movement will have zero success because it is not interested in shaking the system to its core. Protesting Wall St, making messes for the local governments to clean up, is not going to shake Wall St to its core. Do you really think protesting something as ambiguous as greed is going to have any appreciable impact on it? According to the narrative this movement is supposedly founded on, the fraud and abuses are the product of Corporate greed. Their plea to the government is to crack down on corporate fraud and abuse, but this cannot have a direct bearing on them without the vehicle of government. Why?

You're not beholden to corporate interests unless they've been welcomed into the entity that drafts your laws and has the legal authority to take your money. By espousing this Administrations' narrative, you are insulating the primary offenders from the source of the waste, fraud, and abuse that has a direct bearing on your livelihoods. This "war on greed" is simply a means of imposing a new kind of moral value on the collective.

Even if you do feel this way while the focus of OWS is corporation centric, the government goes hand in hand in all of this. I'm confident in saying that 100% of us feel either (government blame || corporate blame) > 0%
I think you may get this Shaddim, but I think you are one of few in here.
Yes corporate greed is very real, but this is an immutable aspect of human nature. Protesting envy for example, is not going to get people to stop wanting what their neighbor has. Protesting lust isn't going to stop the porn industry. The government does go hand in hand with this like a parent directing a child across the street, but merely parroting the father of this unhealthy relationship unwittingly aids and abets the narrative of distraction from the ones who draft your laws and take your money. In other words, corporations have zero powers not granted them by government. Simply put, a government that wants to do more, needs more. The more interested it is in money, the less it can separate from the money interest.

The kids of OWS are not protesting for a government that needs less, they're protesting for a government that needs more and decrying the result of the relationship.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The "this isn't true capitalism" sort of reminds me of "the Soviet Union isn't communist" arguments the reds tried to fly past me in high-school.

Okay, show me a better existing example.
Why would we not simply use the definition of socialism?
  • Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  • The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
  • A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Again, I maintain that folks either haven't a clue what socialism is or they don't appreciate the term being used in a derogatory manner.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:26 AM
 
I'd say we fail on all three counts. By a wide margin.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I know we don't have a pure form of capitalism, but for the life of me I don't know how you clowns come up with what we have resembling true socialism either in relative comparison to actual non-debatable socialist systems.
You either don't have a clue what you're talking about or you don't appreciate the word being used in a derogatory manner. You're welcome to simply caste people with this attitude off as clowns or you can avail yourself of the actual definition of the term.

*Hint, there is no such thing as true socialism. It is by its very nature, transitional.

As far as the motivations of OWS, again, I repeat, you support the motives of OWS, you just don't realize it.
Not that you've been paying attention, but I'll repeat myself for the cause of retention; I wholly oppose their motives while sharing some of their sentiment.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 07:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd say we fail on all three counts. By a wide margin.
Well, what can I say other than I couldn't disagree with you more.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well, what can I say other than I couldn't disagree with you more.
I'm on the train, so I can't do all three right now, but let's start with 1.

You believe the means of producing goods in this country are owned collectively or by a centralized government?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
At at any thing over 500 million in profits increase in rate until at 2 Billion it goes up to 95% incentive to spend on business, people, and investments to stay out of that tax zone. And what about making merges, buy outs and hostile take overs illegal.
The problem is, you believe that corporations aren't responsible when handling large sums of money, and I feel the same way about government. Let's say that over a certain amount, 95% of profits have to be given to charity, and create a council with both government and corporate individuals who will handle oversight. Then all funds distribution numbers are published online so that everyone can see where the money is going. The charities, of course, would have to conform to a certain standard where only a predefined percentage can go to administration and infrastructure, and there would need to be complete transparency regarding their operations.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 10:46 AM
 
Punishing success by limits on how much money a person can make and keep? Where is the incentive?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Punishing success by limits on how much money a person can make and keep? Where is the incentive?
Not people, per se, I was talking about corporate entities. I'm not proposing any limits on individuals.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 11:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, fraud, and abuse. Can you cite for me some examples of corporate fraud and abuse that have a direct bearing on your livelihood?
This product got approved by the FDA Bovine somatotropin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The problem is, you believe that corporations aren't responsible when handling large sums of money, and I feel the same way about government. Let's say that over a certain amount, 95% of profits have to be given to charity, and create a council with both government and corporate individuals who will handle oversight. Then all funds distribution numbers are published online so that everyone can see where the money is going. The charities, of course, would have to conform to a certain standard where only a predefined percentage can go to administration and infrastructure, and there would need to be complete transparency regarding their operations.
Corporations would avoid the 95% level by spending more on wages, more employees more retooling and more growth. They would find ways to spend money to stay away from that 95% to avoid paying taxes. Products would be cheaper too.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Corporations would avoid the 95% level by spending more on wages, more employees more retooling and more growth. They would find ways to spend money to stay away from that 95% to avoid paying taxes. Products would be cheaper too.
They'd do all those things under my proposal too, only the profits over a certain amount wouldn't go to government they would go to top-performing NPOs.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
This product got approved by the FDA Bovine somatotropin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perfect! Thank you Athens.

So... the US Food and Drug Administration approved Bovine somatotropin, but according to your article; In the United States, public opinion has caused a number of products and retailers to become rBST-free. We don't need the FDA to tell us what we can or cannot consume. It seems the public can do this all by themselves.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, fraud, and abuse. Can you cite for me some examples of corporate fraud and abuse that have a direct bearing on your livelihood?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you trying to accentuate the word "direct" to demonstrate that fraud and abuse has only an *indirect* bearing on me (which would be pretty easy to claim)? That corporate fraud and abuse doesn't exist and it's all government fraud and abuse (you did underline the word "corporate")? That the two go hand in hand? If the latter, I already understand that.

This seems like a leading question, why don't you just make the point you want to make and we'll go from there?


You nailed the difference right here. One is merely peddling the narrative of the guy they want to stay in office. They are in essence, insulating the core of the problem from the accountability it so richly deserves for inviting an unprecedented amount of big money influence into its wheelhouse. This movement will have zero success because it is not interested in shaking the system to its core. Protesting Wall St, making messes for the local governments to clean up, is not going to shake Wall St to its core. Do you really think protesting something as ambiguous as greed is going to have any appreciable impact on it? According to the narrative this movement is supposedly founded on, the fraud and abuses are the product of Corporate greed. Their plea to the government is to crack down on corporate fraud and abuse, but this cannot have a direct bearing on them without the vehicle of government. Why?

You're not beholden to corporate interests unless they've been welcomed into the entity that drafts your laws and has the legal authority to take your money. By espousing this Administrations' narrative, you are insulating the primary offenders from the source of the waste, fraud, and abuse that has a direct bearing on your livelihoods. This "war on greed" is simply a means of imposing a new kind of moral value on the collective.

Yes corporate greed is very real, but this is an immutable aspect of human nature. Protesting envy for example, is not going to get people to stop wanting what their neighbor has. Protesting lust isn't going to stop the porn industry. The government does go hand in hand with this like a parent directing a child across the street, but merely parroting the father of this unhealthy relationship unwittingly aids and abets the narrative of distraction from the ones who draft your laws and take your money. In other words, corporations have zero powers not granted them by government. Simply put, a government that wants to do more, needs more. The more interested it is in money, the less it can separate from the money interest.
So government and corporations go hand in hand? I gotcha. You didn't have to write all of this.

You keep on going on about how the government needs corporations to do all the expensive stuff it wants to do. I don't buy that.

That abuse of power has become magnified in recent years. What has changed between now and decades ago? Primarily, the cost of health care, the demise of social security, years and years of racking up a deficit.

It's too little, too late to address health care I believe, our system is just FUBAR. Years ago, I believe there were a number of things that could have been done to keep our costs under control that didn't happen, I guess because one political entity wanted to ultimately change the system and the other wanted to destroy it.

Social security - same sort of thing: this could have been fixed it tackled years ago. It probably can still be fixed. If health care costs weren't out of control our deficit wouldn't be in the dire straits it is in now - the urgency of this whole debate would be tempered.

No other country has the same corporate wealth that we have, yet no other country has health care costs that we have. With the right political leadership, the political capital, and the political interest to solve problems, health care could have been in a much different state than it is in today if tackled years, perhaps decades ago.

The solution? As you always go on about how spending just makes the deficit worse, relying on more shady and dubious connections between government and corporations by way of lobbying, power, influence, etc. makes this problem worse - this is what in large part got us into this mess in the first place. A sizable part of the government has never wanted to tackle reducing medical costs because there are corporations attached to these profits that benefit from the system being the way it is.

We're sort of in check-mate, because there really isn't a practical solution. I would say that the solution is to change all of this, but it's probably too late. However, we have to try.


The kids of OWS are not protesting for a government that needs less, they're protesting for a government that needs more and decrying the result of the relationship.
Respectfully, you have yet to demonstrate any sort of understanding as to what the founders of OWS want. You just think you know. Hint: I'd be willing to bet that the OWS founders are not staunch Obama supporters that feel he absolutely deserves to be re-elected. He may be better than the alternative in their eyes, but that is not inspiring enough to organize something like this.

Since you have also yet to admit some bias and hypocriticalness on your part, I'll ask you this: was the point of the tea party protests to elect Republicans as they were before the party was formed? I'd say the movement was interested in penetrating the Republican party as a whole with candidates that embody tea party ideals, and that's just the point, they weren't interested in promoting and sustaining garden variety Republicans as they were, they were interested in transformed Republicans that champion their ideals.

Similarly, OWS is not interested in today's garden variety Democrats or Republicans, that's kind of the point.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, I maintain that folks either haven't a clue what socialism is or they don't appreciate the term being used in a derogatory manner.

The derogatory thing.

It is hard to take anybody seriously that speaks in such hyperbole and is not interested in accuracy and making down-to-Earth statements and arguments.

The US is the furthest thing from Socialism the world has ever seen in its history, literally. The word doesn't even belong in any reasonable conversation. If you feel that the government is *headed* in this sort of direction, say that, but don't go on about anything that exists today belonging to a socialist government or socialist movement. If you insist on doing this, throw in some references to unicorns for our general entertainment!

It's ironic that charges of socialism would even surface in a thread about a protest movement that was formed because of too much monied interest in politics and society.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Not that you've been paying attention, but I'll repeat myself for the cause of retention; I wholly oppose their motives while sharing some of their sentiment.
Again, you haven't demonstrated an understanding of their motives, so this statement is kind of meaningless to me, no offense.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The problem is, you believe that corporations aren't responsible when handling large sums of money, and I feel the same way about government.
And I feel that they are pretty much the same entity these days. I also think that's kind of the whole point of OWS.

Let's say that over a certain amount, 95% of profits have to be given to charity, and create a council with both government and corporate individuals who will handle oversight. Then all funds distribution numbers are published online so that everyone can see where the money is going. The charities, of course, would have to conform to a certain standard where only a predefined percentage can go to administration and infrastructure, and there would need to be complete transparency regarding their operations.
An earnings cap? If we could ever agree upon where that cap should be set, I think this would be good for society, and I would set that cap high to continue to reward success and just skim off of Scrooge McDuck sort of wealth skimming not to government, but actual audited and bonafide charities. The world would be a better place with the hungry being fed and stuff rather than the Scrooge McDucks being able to dip their balls in gold.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm on the train, so I can't do all three right now, but let's start with 1.

You believe the means of producing goods in this country are owned collectively or by a centralized government?
The Federal Reserve or Centralized banking, insurance, more than half the healthcare industry and growing, Interstate highway system, communications, Airports and airlines, their recent experimental foray into the auto industry including dealership closing orders and income caps, housing, student loans, and a regular increase in Federal regulations... to name a few.

I'm not going to mince words as to whether or not the US is becoming the former USSR as this is just a red herring. Socialism has a definition and by definition, there is simply no other way to view our direction.
ebuddy
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 05:45 PM
 
I've been making fun of these protesters a lot here, but I agree with one of their causes. I think propping up massive banks through QE is completely ridiculous. IF it has to be done, at least give that money to small or medium sized banks so that normal people can actually have access to credit.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I've been making fun of these protesters a lot here, but I agree with one of their causes. I think propping up massive banks through QE is completely ridiculous. IF it has to be done, at least give that money to small or medium sized banks so that normal people can actually have access to credit.
Agreed!

I'd love to know how many of these avid protesters bank with one of the big banks. That would be the epitome of hypocrisy...
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I've been making fun of these protesters a lot here, but I agree with one of their causes. I think propping up massive banks through QE is completely ridiculous. IF it has to be done, at least give that money to small or medium sized banks so that normal people can actually have access to credit.
i also agree but...

according to the conservative doctrine: small government and free market,right?

why then did george w bush AND henry paulson do just that? ie bailout the banks...

let's say they are not "real" conservatives...let's say reagan was in the situation...would he just say let them fail? risking a second depression?

thx
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The Federal Reserve or Centralized banking,
Most of the means to produce banking services in the US is owned by government? And here I'd thought that the Flash Blob was protesting precisely the opposite situation. Not to mention that Bank of America, Chase, Citi, and hundreds of small local banks would beg to differ.

insurance,
State Farm and Allstate and all the various insurance and reinsurance providers out there are government-owned?

more than half the healthcare industry and growing,
Doctors and hospitals (i.e. the means of producing healthcare) are owned by the government?

Interstate highway system,
OK I'll grant you this one. Although I'd posit that most private industry wouldn't want to change this.

communications,
AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Disney, Clear Channel, and many other local entities are government owned?

Airports and airlines,
Once again, UAL, AMR, Delta, and Southwest (among others) beg to differ.

their recent experimental foray into the auto industry including dealership closing orders and income caps,
And then the government got back out. Hardly a move toward socialism. If anything, it's more recently a move away.

housing,
The federal government owns my house? News to me! (State and local authorities I can see an argument given my property tax burden. But the Feds? No.)

student loans,
...and here all this time I thought the role of private banks was to give loans. Silly me, I guess.

and a regular increase in Federal regulations...
Which represent 'ownership' exactly how? Even the founding fathers thought regulating commerce was a good idea and necessary function of government. It's right there in Article I Section 8.

Have there been regulations that have been ill-conceived? Sure. Doesn't make it fit the definition of 'socialism'.

to name a few.
Well, maybe one. Sort of.

I'm not going to mince words as to whether or not the US is becoming the former USSR as this is just a red herring. Socialism has a definition and by definition, there is simply no other way to view our direction.
Correct. By your very definition, there is simply no way to view our direction as anything even remotely approaching Socialism. There is simply zero evidence that the government owns the means of producing goods in this country. If it did, then conservatives wouldn't be admonishing these people to shut up and go find a job (since anyone can do so). They'd be joining in the protest.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2011, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The Federal Reserve or Centralized banking, insurance, more than half the healthcare industry and growing, Interstate highway system, communications, Airports and airlines, their recent experimental foray into the auto industry including dealership closing orders and income caps, housing, student loans, and a regular increase in Federal regulations... to name a few.
Money, highways and loans are goods?

Edit: forget the highways.
( Last edited by subego; Oct 18, 2011 at 11:56 PM. )
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Perfect! Thank you Athens.

So... the US Food and Drug Administration approved Bovine somatotropin, but according to your article; In the United States, public opinion has caused a number of products and retailers to become rBST-free. We don't need the FDA to tell us what we can or cannot consume. It seems the public can do this all by themselves.
Of course the public "NEEDS" to now, because government agencies that are supposed to protect "PEOPLE" are know only tools for "INDUSTRY" that is just one of many examples of how "INFECTED GOVERNMENT" fails due to the cancer of "CORPORATE CONTROL"

Your Welcome.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Money, highways and loans are goods?

Edit: forget the highways.
When used in the broad sense, the "means of production" includes the "means of distribution" which includes stores, banks, and railroads.
Loaning money, guarding it, even counting it, are services. Socialism covers both goods and services.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Of course the public "NEEDS" to now, because government agencies that are supposed to protect "PEOPLE" are know only tools for "INDUSTRY" that is just one of many examples of how "INFECTED GOVERNMENT" fails due to the cancer of "CORPORATE CONTROL"

Your Welcome.
Not one word of that- bolded, quoted, misspelled or otherwise- made an ounce of sense.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 04:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Loaning money, guarding it, even counting it, are services. Socialism covers both goods and services.
Fair enough. I was using the definition provided.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 04:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Of course the public "NEEDS" to now, because government agencies that are supposed to protect "PEOPLE" are know only tools for "INDUSTRY" that is just one of many examples of how "INFECTED GOVERNMENT" fails due to the cancer of "CORPORATE CONTROL"

Your Welcome.
Your view that the government was inherently pure until it was recently corrupted by "evil" corporations is rather naive, and a little disturbing.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 05:02 AM
 
I still think it's a cop-out to list things which were explicitly laid out in the Constitution as duties of Congress to be examples of how we're socialist.

I mean, seriously. Interstates make us socialist?


To be clear. I'm not saying Interstates aren't socialist, I'm saying having them doesn't make us socialist. Having them means we're not stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 05:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I still think it's a cop-out to list things which were explicitly laid out in the Constitution as duties of Congress to be examples of how we're socialist.

I mean, seriously. Interstates make us socialist?


To be clear. I'm not saying Interstates aren't socialist, I'm saying having them doesn't make us socialist. Having them means we're not stupid.

It is for this sort of line of thinking why I just roll my eyes when I hear people talk about us being Socialist, generally speaking. It pretty much just means something generally derogatory, there is pretty much zero precision to this word so often that I just default to just believing that the person saying this is just being overly emotional.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 05:27 AM
 
I think I might be willing to give a little more than you in this regard...

But not with stuff like Interstates.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 05:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think I might be willing to give a little more than you in this regard...

But not with stuff like Interstates.

Give give give is all you do, take take take is all everybody does in return! Won't somebody think of the children?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Your view that the government was inherently pure until it was recently corrupted by "evil" corporations is rather naive, and a little disturbing.
I wouldn't say recent. Its been progressing for the last 90 years and hit its peak in damage in the last 15 years.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I wouldn't say recent. Its been progressing for the last 90 years and hit its peak in damage in the last 15 years.
Hate to tell ya, but there's been corruption in the US govt since the ink dried on the Constitution. People are people and this type of thing has always been around.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i also agree but...

according to the conservative doctrine: small government and free market,right?

why then did george w bush AND henry paulson do just that? ie bailout the banks...

let's say they are not "real" conservatives...let's say reagan was in the situation...would he just say let them fail? risking a second depression?

thx
I'm not talkin' about TARP--which in my opinion was a necessary course of action.

I'm talking about so-called Quantitative Easing. QE is, as many of us know, is doublespeak for "printing" money and giving it to large financial institutions to keep down interest rates and make sure the large banks have healthy balance sheets.

In my view, if the fed is going to print billions of dollars and funnel this money to banks, it ought to go out to smaller banks. Instead, we have mega-banks like BoA, Wells Fargo, etc., sitting on piles of cash, that would much rather lend to corporate clients. These huge banks give short shrift to middle- and low-income customers.

So, for these reasons, I understand OWS's grievances against the banks. But I place the blame with the federal reserve, and not the banks themselves.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Hate to tell ya, but there's been corruption in the US govt since the ink dried on the Constitution. People are people and this type of thing has always been around.
So because there's always been corruption in (insert any human group and organization) that we should just turn a blind eye to it. The scale of corruption has exceeded all previous levels in the last couple decades. Almost ANYTHING companies lobby for in the sake its better for "insert lie" here has more to do with profits then anything else. Look at how companies now take out life insurance policies on people. How they used pension funds to create more profits or abused pension funds to save money. Look at the drug plan that costs old people far more now, what was supposed to "help" people which in reality only harms them and creates greater profits.

So let me get this straight, you did say just ignore corruption because it has always been there right. That is what I took out of what you said.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 06:11 PM
 
( Last edited by besson3c; Oct 19, 2011 at 06:38 PM. )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
So because there's always been corruption in (insert any human group and organization) that we should just turn a blind eye to it. The scale of corruption has exceeded all previous levels in the last couple decades. Almost ANYTHING companies lobby for in the sake its better for "insert lie" here has more to do with profits then anything else. Look at how companies now take out life insurance policies on people. How they used pension funds to create more profits or abused pension funds to save money. Look at the drug plan that costs old people far more now, what was supposed to "help" people which in reality only harms them and creates greater profits.

So let me get this straight, you did say just ignore corruption because it has always been there right. That is what I took out of what you said.
What I'm saying, if you'll take time to let it register, is it takes two to tango. One side is holding it's hand out and the other is putting money in it. Thinking that both aren't equally culpable for corruption is ridiculous. Simply taxing companies at a higher rate so that they don't have money to bribe the government is like taking guns away from everyone just because unlawful people choose to use them to do bad things. You want to take away what rightfully belongs to someone to potentially stop someone else from doing something immoral. Let's just call it the Patriot Taxation Act, but instead of personal freedom we'll just strip them of their cash (which in a lot of ways is the same thing).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2011, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you trying to accentuate the word "direct" to demonstrate that fraud and abuse has only an *indirect* bearing on me (which would be pretty easy to claim)? That corporate fraud and abuse doesn't exist and it's all government fraud and abuse (you did underline the word "corporate")? That the two go hand in hand? If the latter, I already understand that.
No. I used the word "direct" to reiterate that one has an unmistakable bearing on your livelihood in its laws and its funding. There is no greater relationship for the public trust. I'm hesitant to accept the possibility that this movement, which is decidedly focused on those of you and I with material/paper wealth instead of those with a pen; could ever work toward shaking the system.

This seems like a leading question, why don't you just make the point you want to make and we'll go from there?
So government and corporations go hand in hand? I gotcha. You didn't have to write all of this.
They don't go hand in hand, one is the symptom of the other. Of course I don't have to write all this besson. If I were addressing you exclusively I'd say; "we just disagree" and in every thread, every post, and at every opportunity we'd have nothing more to say to one another than "we disagree". I'm posting in a forum because it's more fun for me. Your posts are useful for exploiting and addressing a more pervasive mentality, nothing personal. I'll find a less offensive way of spring-boarding into my rants.

You keep on going on about how the government needs corporations to do all the expensive stuff it wants to do. I don't buy that.
We just disagree

To the forum:
You see, some folks don't understand that government can generally only print, borrow, take money, or inject itself into the free market to compete with you. Yet with all four sources of revenue available to it, continues to amass debt exceeding $14 trillion. IMO parroting this Administration's narrative in protests isn't going to solve the problems apparent in our system. Worse, it insulates the system and turns your attention to you and I because of our incomes. Saying you don't buy the fact that government needs corporations while it actively recruits them to carry out its lofty agenda is not going to be enough at this point.

It's too little, too late to address health care I believe, our system is just FUBAR. Years ago, I believe there were a number of things that could have been done to keep our costs under control that didn't happen, I guess because one political entity wanted to ultimately change the system and the other wanted to destroy it.

Social security - same sort of thing: this could have been fixed it tackled years ago. It probably can still be fixed. If health care costs weren't out of control our deficit wouldn't be in the dire straits it is in now - the urgency of this whole debate would be tempered.

No other country has the same corporate wealth that we have, yet no other country has health care costs that we have. With the right political leadership, the political capital, and the political interest to solve problems, health care could have been in a much different state than it is in today if tackled years, perhaps decades ago.
No one has the healthcare costs we have because our usage is subsidizing theirs and our own expenses are primarily subsidized by someone else. Otherwise, I agree that we should've done something about this years ago.

The solution? As you always go on about how spending just makes the deficit worse, relying on more shady and dubious connections between government and corporations by way of lobbying, power, influence, etc. makes this problem worse - this is what in large part got us into this mess in the first place. A sizable part of the government has never wanted to tackle reducing medical costs because there are corporations attached to these profits that benefit from the system being the way it is.
And the majority of the collective has benefited from the system the way it is.

We're sort of in check-mate, because there really isn't a practical solution. I would say that the solution is to change all of this, but it's probably too late. However, we have to try.

Respectfully, you have yet to demonstrate any sort of understanding as to what the founders of OWS want. You just think you know. Hint: I'd be willing to bet that the OWS founders are not staunch Obama supporters that feel he absolutely deserves to be re-elected. He may be better than the alternative in their eyes, but that is not inspiring enough to organize something like this.
I don't think the majority of the kids in the OWS movement could have an idea of exactly what it is they're missing out on, evidenced by their focus IMO. I think they want their guy to stay in office, I think they're disgruntled at the fact that he's in trouble politically, and I think many of them wished he would shove harder to the left. They don't see anyone on the right who will do this for them and overall, they're concerned a Republican will take the White House so they're attempting to give Obama's message a little boost. They "occupied" the Republican debate last night, but have they occupied any of Obama's numerous visits around the country the past couple of weeks?

Since you have also yet to admit some bias and hypocriticalness on your part, I'll ask you this: was the point of the tea party protests to elect Republicans as they were before the party was formed? I'd say the movement was interested in penetrating the Republican party as a whole with candidates that embody tea party ideals, and that's just the point, they weren't interested in promoting and sustaining garden variety Republicans as they were, they were interested in transformed Republicans that champion their ideals.
I not only admitted my own bias, but insisted that you can't put too much thought into these matters without developing one. I saw the Tea Party as a direct challenge to the Republican party and has manifest as such, again shaking the party to its core and pissing off the establishment. I don't see this movement challenging the system or attempting to shake it to the core. Time will tell, but for now it appears little more than parroting this Administration's talking points about "the rich" while calling for more wealth distribution and more government action. I maintain what they're protesting is the product of a punitive mentality against prosperity and more government action.

Similarly, OWS is not interested in today's garden variety Democrats or Republicans, that's kind of the point.
Right. It's interested in "Wall Street", whatever that is. They'd do well to start by checking their own greed IMO and deciding exactly what it is they want and hope to gain by protesting it.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,