Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[meadandale]

[quote=briansd1]Back to the Occupy Movement. I went with friend who is a university professor. We were joind by a husband and wife couple both of whom are PhDs in the bio industry. We stayed for about 3 hours.

snip…

But I believe that there is wide support from professionals who believe that, finally, American social consicience has awoken. This is an American phenomenon that has spread worldwide[/quote]

You, an outspoken liberal, went to what is mostly a liberal event with a bunch of college professors, who are most likely liberals.

I don’t call that ‘wide support’.

There is not a single person in my circle of friends, family or business acquaintances…except for the extremely liberal ones, who have anything positive to say about the occupy movements. Not one.

[Anonymous]

[quote=meadandale]There is not a single person in my circle of friends, family or business acquaintances…except for the extremely liberal ones, who have anything positive to say about the occupy movements. Not one.[/quote]

So nobody has anything positive to say about it, except for the ones who do.

Got it.

BTW, you are quite liberal with the use of the word “liberal.”

[blahblahblah]

Back to the original question, after seeing the appearance of many of the protesters, I do think that these protests will spread — ringworm.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]

Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]

Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.[/quote]

Just stating what I believe to be likely outcomes.

We can choose to spend money back into the economy, and into the hands of the productive workers who form the foundation of the economic pyramid, or we can choose to allow a handful of people to hoard and control access to the world’s assets and resources — making the structure of the pyramid top-heavy and unstable.

The world is full of sociopathic megalomaniacs who seek out and take advantages of weaknesses in the system so that they can gain control of others. As you know, the consequences of this are rarely positive.

The ONLY way to prevent these people from getting into power is to keep the majority of power in the hands of the greatest possible number of people. Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”

Institutions (and individuals with massive amounts of wealth) will always have more power than ordinary workers, which is why workers need to work in unison to keep them in check.

[SD Realtor]

“Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”

So where is your arbitrary line of “spreading out” money? If you make 100k a year? 50k a year? 30k a year? Who decides that arbitrary limit?

Even the poorest of American citizens are vastly wealthy compared to 10s or even hundreds of other people around the world.

Or do you say the rules only count for the USA and tough break for the other people?

I am not happy seeing jobs leave the USA but there is a flip side that millions of others have had a much higher standard of living outside the USA because of that. Don’t get me wrong, I am not thrilled that the USA has suffered because of it, I just think that your argument breaks down because it doesn’t work on a macro-level. It only works on a subsidized level with national boundaries and paying workers more for goods and services then other workers outside the USA would do the same job for. Thus the value of all those goods and services is artificial and inflated…

Again, I am not saying that there is an easy solution, I just think that there are factors that should be considered and your argument could be arbitrary.

Kind of like housing!

[jpinpb]

[quote=CA renter]We can choose to spend money back into the economy, and into the hands of the productive workers who form the foundation of the economic pyramid, or we can choose to allow a handful of people to hoard and control access to the world’s assets and resources — making the structure of the pyramid top-heavy and unstable.

The world is full of sociopathic megalomaniacs who seek out and take advantages of weaknesses in the system so that they can gain control of others. As you know, the consequences of this are rarely positive.

The ONLY way to prevent these people from getting into power is to keep the majority of power in the hands of the greatest possible number of people. Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”

Institutions (and individuals with massive amounts of wealth) will always have more power than ordinary workers, which is why workers need to work in unison to keep them in check.[/quote]

Great post.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]

Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.[/quote]

Just stating what I believe to be likely outcomes.

We can choose to spend money back into the economy, and into the hands of the productive workers who form the foundation of the economic pyramid, or we can choose to allow a handful of people to hoard and control access to the world’s assets and resources — making the structure of the pyramid top-heavy and unstable.

The world is full of sociopathic megalomaniacs who seek out and take advantages of weaknesses in the system so that they can gain control of others. As you know, the consequences of this are rarely positive.

The ONLY way to prevent these people from getting into power is to keep the majority of power in the hands of the greatest possible number of people. Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”

Institutions (and individuals with massive amounts of wealth) will always have more power than ordinary workers, which is why workers need to work in unison to keep them in check.[/quote]

So, people have to union together to ensure that they take more taxpayer money than corporations do. Got it.

[jpinpb]

[quote=sdduuuude]
So, people have to union together to ensure that they take more taxpayer money than corporations do. Got it.[/quote]

You do have a way to twist things.

[jstoesz]

I think we all understand your goals jp and CAR, and they are not wrong. I think most everyone wants the middle class to be making more money, and top executive compensation to go down.

Where we disagree is how to go about having this happen. Your solutions, at least in my eyes, will corrupt society making it more dependent, not less dependent on government, entrenching an unproductive class of “workers.” We all want the middle class to have more money. But I want them to earn more because they are more productive, not because they wrangled more money out of the rich people and stuffed it into their pockets. We should think up constructs where people are encouraged to be productive.

If people learn they can make more through coercion then increasing their production, we will have a society of thieves.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]I think we all understand your goals jp and CAR, and they are not wrong. I think most everyone wants the middle class to be making more money, and top executive compensation to go down.

Where we disagree is how to go about having this happen. Your solutions, at least in my eyes, will corrupt society making it more dependent, not less dependent on government, entrenching an unproductive class of “workers.” We all want the middle class to have more money. But I want them to earn more because they are more productive, not because they wrangled more money out of the rich people and stuffed it into their pockets. We should think up constructs where people are encouraged to be productive.

If people learn they can make more through coercion then increasing their production, we will have a society of thieves.[/quote]

Here’s where we disagree. The wealthiest Americans earn the majority of their money NOT from being productive, but from skimming off of the labor of the productive workers. We need to give that money BACK to the productive workers who earned it in the first place.

Not sure where you get the idea that “workers” are unproductive. If they are unproductive, can you point us to a single example (country, etc.) where they don’t exist (since they are “unproductive,” their absence shouldn’t affect things for the worse), and where things have turned out well over a period of time?

—————–

“Since almost 75% of the income for the top 400 comes from capital gains and dividends, it’s not hard to see why tax cuts on income sources available to only a tiny percent of Americans mattered greatly for the high-earning few.”

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]

Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.[/quote]

Just stating what I believe to be likely outcomes.

We can choose to spend money back into the economy, and into the hands of the productive workers who form the foundation of the economic pyramid, or we can choose to allow a handful of people to hoard and control access to the world’s assets and resources — making the structure of the pyramid top-heavy and unstable.

The world is full of sociopathic megalomaniacs who seek out and take advantages of weaknesses in the system so that they can gain control of others. As you know, the consequences of this are rarely positive.

The ONLY way to prevent these people from getting into power is to keep the majority of power in the hands of the greatest possible number of people. Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”

Institutions (and individuals with massive amounts of wealth) will always have more power than ordinary workers, which is why workers need to work in unison to keep them in check.[/quote]

So, people have to union together to ensure that they take more taxpayer money than corporations do. Got it.[/quote]

Money is fungible. I don’t discriminate between public or private entities, because the two are closely entertwined. I’m far more offended if my money is going to a private entity (or public entity) where the earnings are concentrated into too few hands than I am by my money going to “government” (or a private entity) where the money is distributed more equitably among the people who actually work. It doesn’t matter to me if they operate under a “public” or “private” banner. Money works the same in either case.

IMHO, the benefits received from the government (clean air, water, safe food supply, medical R&D/technology, physical infrastructure, military protection, social/safety services, etc., etc.) are FAR, FAR greater per dollar spent than what we get from most private sector companies.

There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.

[jpinpb]

CAR – I’d go a step further and say the 1% is unproductive.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]I’m far more offended if my money is going to a private entity (or public entity) where the earnings are concentrated into too few hands than I am by my money going to “government” (or a private entity) where the money is distributed more equitably among the people who actually work. It doesn’t matter to me if they operate under a “public” or “private” banner. Money works the same in either case.

IMHO, the benefits received from the government (clean air, water, safe food supply, medical R&D/technology, physical infrastructure, military protection, social/safety services, etc., etc.) are FAR, FAR greater per dollar spent than what we get from most private sector companies.

There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.[/quote]

Since all computers are produced by private-sector companies and “capitalists,” perhaps you should stop using them.

[jpinpb]

[quote=pri_dk]
Since all computers are produced by private-sector companies and “capitalists,” perhaps you should stop using them.[/quote]

I’d say they are probably “produced” by some underpaid worker in China. Too bad we are not producing them here, but that would be less money for the 1%.

[Author]

Posts