Occupy Wall Street

[Lamrock]

This needed a thread, and this section needs it. I can't imagine too many people will take this seriously, but it excites me as I see it as America's only hope at this point.

What I believe the main thing is, and what I'm so angry about, is the coup that corporate America made, turning us into a glorified plutocracy. They ruined our country by entering gain-less wars and paying (American war contractors who bought the politicians who sent us to war) for them with austerity measures.

[benji]

What I believe the main thing is, and what I'm so angry about, is the coup that corporate America made, turning us into a glorified plutocracy. They ruined our country by entering gain-less wars and paying (American war contractors who bought the politicians who sent us to war) for them with austerity measures.

I think it's America's only hope

[Lamrock]

I know. But you're getting lazy.

[shadowgrin]

"Human interest stories. They tug at the heart and fog the mind."

LOL at this one.

[benji]

Look, here's the problem with your silly theory about how corporate america somehow ruined the country with wars and austerity (lololol) and the entire Occupy Wall Street stupidity. It's ignoring the elephant (and donkey) in the room and then somehow coming to the conclusion that the actual problem is the elephant isn't taking up enough room.

There's only one entity with a monopoly on the use of violence, it's the only one that can legally steal labor, the only one that can engage in wars and the only one that can legally imprison and kill citizens.

American war contractors didn't "buy" the politicians. War is the health of the state, the military the very essence of the power of the state, and that's why every congressional district has either a military base or defense contractor, it creates jobs in the district and ensures the strength of the congresscritter, the military and the contractors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics)

This wasn't a "coup" by corporate America, it's the natural result and goal of progressive politics. You can't "manage" a free market so you have to centralize and consolidate it into large allied powers to eliminate the forces of nature. The "late stage of capitalism" seen as necessary before we usher in the totalitarian utopia doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, it's corporatism, it's crony capitalism, it's capitolism, it's fascism. Of course it fails, it fails like all collectivist endeavors will and since it's been lied about and called a free market or capitalism it gives political cover to the nationalization and subsequent slavery of the populace to the elite.

The government wanted to put people in homes because there's all sorts of "good" results that are correlated with home ownership. So it kept interest rates low, backed mortgages and said "don't worry if this fails, we'll bail you out." So the banks did the logical and rational thing, the bubble popped and the government did what it said it would. Yet we're supposed to be mad at the banks? That's like getting mad at the hippo when it tears you limb from limb after you whacked it in the face fifty times. It's just acting by instinct.

As a result of this the government used the so-called problem, a "market failure" (a nonsensical term that describes something that literally cannot exist, it's like calling a volcano or earthquake or blizzard a "nature failure") to seize greater influence and power within the financial industry giving itself even more riches to dole out or punishments to keep people in line.

The Bank of America $5 fee thing is a perfect example of how stupid people are. The government passed a law, at the behest of giant retailers to get rid of the charges they had to pay and shift it onto the banks, so the banks recoup that cost by making the fee overt and it's Bank of America that people are getting mad at? Not the retailers? Not the government? Now the government has found another "market failure" and thankfully they're rushing in to again save us from the evil evil banks by writing more laws and more regulations which will force greater consolidation, yay!

The government passed an onerous and massive health insurance bill packed to the gills with countless new regulations and contradictory requirements. HHS is handing out thousands of waivers to the law for specific companies. The requirements will force even further consolidation within the health insurance market as smaller insurers will sell to the largest powers. Catastrophic coverage and personal health savings accounts are now things of the past.

Lead was found in toys made overseas by Mattel. The government passed a law to "protect" us from these lead filled toys and created all sorts of new regulations and requirements. Mattel was specifically exempted. The result will be further consolidation within the toy market as smaller companies are driven out by inability to handle the regulations and requirements.

The government gave away half a billion dollars to a now defunct company with a business plan where they would sell the products for half the price it cost to manufacture them and try to make it up in volume. The government has wasted untold billions for the same justifications on ethanol and other "green" projects while also seeking for the power to regulate and tax everything on Earth in the name of "protecting" us from the results of our "sins."

The government threw away a trillion dollars rewarding political constituencies and chasing an illogical fantasy, and the President is going around demanding another half a trillion of the same thing.

The government is not the people, never will be the people and believing it will protect and act for the people is the real fantasy.

This isn't some evil sinister plot by corporations. This is the natural result of government.

The solution is taking away the power of government to steal labor and using the gains to grant favors and create permanent constituencies.

But we don't want that, OWS doesn't want that. Because there will always be people doing things that don't affect us that we don't like and who have things we want.

[Lamrock]

That's why I created the thread. I drunk post a half-baked political view and I get a rational, complete response I agree with a lot of. I need to look into some things before I try any sort of rebuttal

[benji]

You shouldn't have deleted the OP, I was laughing because it sounded familiar:

Corporations steal by forcing people into buying the basic necessities of life such as food. They also use advertising to force people into desiring things they don't need or want. When a corporation steals your money that is money you no longer have and nobody has anymore, instead the corporation holds it. We have allowed corporations to steal more and more money, money which the poor can no longer have while CEOs hide it in investments. This is not right, the people should have the power and own all the money, not lifeless, soulless corporations who only want to find more ways to steal.

...

I think you need to pay attention to the news. Big corporations crashed the economy, and then started firing people, at a time when people needed jobs the most. Corporations do not do what people want, they brainwash them and steal their money. You are being incredibly naive about what corporations have been doing to this country. Grow up, do some research and learn about the real world. Maybe then you will see the threat we are facing in this country that has just been increased by the Supreme Court throwing out the Constitution and opposing what the people want.

...

We are literally facing the destruction of this country at the hands of the corporations, if you do not stand in the way of their invasion, then you are not fit to defend our children against their modern holocaust.

...

It is obvious that you are very young, very ignorant, very naive, very rich and very Republican. Out here on Main Street the American people are struggling to keep their heads above water during the corporate assault on our lives, and we're just asking for the government to put a stop to the crimes these corporations are perpetrating. They also realize that OUR President (yes, he is President of all of us) is doing the best he can against these corporate interests and wholeheartedly support him despite the racist attacks by FOX. (They really need to be legally prohibited from putting "news" in their name because they put on nothing resembling news.)

Of course OUR President focused on massive regulations because the cronies of your favorite President eliminated them and let the corporations destroy the economy on purpose. And of course he focused on spending because without massive spending the demand spiral would take down the rest of the economy even more. He didn't spend enough and now we're facing another recession. Without that spending the entire economy would have disappeared and even your precious oil companies would not be around to destroy our environment and your beloved banks wouldn't be around to steal people's paychecks.

...

Stop watching FOX, reading the yellow journalist rag WALL STREET journal, and listening to hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh and get some actual facts. Anyone who cheerleaded the destruction and looting of our economy at the hands of the corporations is someone who is not dealing in facts.

...

If we do not seize control of these corporations and put them out of business our lives will never be safe from their efforts to enslave or murder us.

...

And they like normal spread the myth about the government. Except the government is run by the people and the only reason the government works against the people is because of these corporations abusing the government. If these corporations were banned, the people could get things done and we could all work without the corporate invasion.

Koberules seems to think that corporations act in a way that does not murder people, and this exposes just how naive he is. Anyone who thinks a corporation will not murder people to acquire greater market share is someone who has not studied economics. And someone who does not think the people should control the corporations instead of CEOs is someone who is in the pocket of said corporations, because no sane human would allow any business to steal their money for essential goods.

Forgot this earlier:

The government passed an onerous and massive health insurance bill packed to the gills with countless new regulations and contradictory requirements. HHS is handing out thousands of waivers to the law for specific companies. The requirements will force even further consolidation within the health insurance market as smaller insurers will sell to the largest powers. Catastrophic coverage and personal health savings accounts are now things of the past.

And when it fails. And it will fail. With insurers closing down, plans dying off, premiums rising, etc. The "solution" won't be to strip away the regulations and requirements. It won't be to unleash the market to innovate and lower costs. It won't be to free up and expand choices for individuals.

It will be, as it was before and always will be, the nationalization of health insurance for everyone. The great success of the fiscal disaster area that is Medicare expanded in magnitude. (pop pop)

And then we'll be properly civilized, a two-tier system imposed by law. Just like K-12 education. A failure of a system in cost, quality and speed that only those with the proper connections, finances, or charity can escape. And an entrenched constituency with tremendous outsized political power that has no regard for the success of the system but the gains of themselves.

And this is one of those willful delusions of OWS and of collectivists in general. They somehow think that democracy and government makes them equal, makes everyone equal, that somehow instead of how much wealth you have deciding what your capabilities are that government can grant capabilities to all through legal fiat. It's wrong, all you do is shift the determinate from financial worth to political worth. And the financial worth to those with political worth. Proles don't have either.

There's this delusion that if we harness the will of the people we can simply legislate things into reality. That somehow everyone can have a PhD and full health care for everything for free if we just declare it so. Even more there's this delusion that you can have a right to education or a right to health care. It's simply absurd.

If we killed all millionaires plus and appropriated their wealth we would pay for the current federal government for two and a half years. (Less actually, because when there's "surplus" there's increased spending.) If we completely eliminated the military and expanded medicare to all, it still wouldn't last beyond that.

Then what do you do? How do you continue to pay for it? How do you pay for the already existing unfathomable debt?

[benji]

It's not fair for me to single handily vaporize this "transcendental achievement of man" that will usher in a beautiful change in humanity itself. (I may or may not be quoting or paraphrasing PhD's I spend time with every week.)

So instead, I will let some third parties assist:

phpBB [video]

I have to vote for Obama ... I like Mitt Romney ... It's not goin to do shit

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

I like that there are multiple people who think they shouldn't have to pay for college. Those damn greedy professors, wanting money to teach people...Knowledge should be free!

All these people have sob stories (some admittedly less sympathetic than others), but what do they have to do with Wall Street, specifically? If it weren't for these banks, these people with underwater mortgages wouldn't have had houses in the first place. Students wouldn't have gone to college in the first place. They wouldn't have even had a chance to fail at a startup in the first place. Now that the economy's bad, it's suddenly the bank's fault that your risky gambles didn't work out? Is it the bank's fault you snoozed through consumer finance and don't understand variable vs. fixed rates or compounding interest?

I'm a proud renter, studied practical subjects in college instead of my favorite ones, avoid credit cards, drive a passable $2000 used car that I repair myself, have delayed having kids with my wife, etc. but I live a generally comfortable life within my means and have a decent amount of savings thanks largely to my frugality, hard work and good decision making. I also feel for people who have had unfortunate health issues, but beyond that, your unwillingness to adapt and your bad past decisions that limit your capacity to adapt are largely your own fault. Stop blaming people who got their crap together for you not having yours together.

By the way, while Wall Street may be responsible for bad things, it is Wall Street who financed putting a million miles of fiber optic cables crisscrossing continents and under oceans. It is Wall Street that financed the thousands of cell towers. It is Wall Street from which venture capital comes to finance startups like Twitter. Thus, tweeting “Down with capitalism” from your iPhone for those around the word to read seems to be the most ironic thing a person can do. The live stream from the protest site, shared with 12,000 (at this moment) people across the Internet is a testament to Wall Street's allocation of capital that these protesters fight against.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... rGPCaZaLRK

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.
“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.
“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

Don't believe in private property, complain about property theft.

He believes "housing is a human right, being fed is a human right, you have a right to a job for a wage that we can afford for ourselves and our offspring. We are not being afforded that right anymore."

Socialism is far away, though. We still have to get beyond "monetizing everything." A festival community in which "if you don't contribute, you get ostracized" is how that process might get started.

Ahh, political ostracism. Much better than having less money.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/oc ... ganiz.html

“[The high school] couldn’t teach,” explained Josh Nelson, a 27-year-old occupier from Nebraska. “And we’ve had issues with the drummers too. They drum incessantly all day, and really loud.” Facilitators spearheaded a General Assembly proposal to limit the drumming to two hours a day. “The drumming is a major issue which has the potential to get us kicked out," said Lauren Digion, a leader on the sanitation working group.

But the drums were fun. They brought in publicity and money. Many non-facilitators were infuriated by the decision and claimed that it had been forced through the General Assembly.

“They’re imposing a structure on the natural flow of music," said Seth Harper, an 18-year-old from Georgia. “The GA decided to do it ... they suppressed people’s opinions. I wanted to do introduce a different proposal, but a big black organizer chick with an Afro said I couldn’t.”

To Shane Engelerdt, a 19-year-old from Jersey City and self-described former “head drummer,” this amounted to a Jacobinic betrayal. “They are becoming the government we’re trying to protest," he said. "They didn’t even give the drummers a say ... Drumming is the heartbeat of this movement. Look around: This is dead, you need a pulse to keep something alive.”

The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. “Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places,” said Engelerdt. “We’re like, what’s going on here? They’re like the banks we’re protesting."

...

Another argument broke out next to the pile of appropriated belongings, growing taller by the minute. A man named Sage Roberts desperately rifled through the pile, looking for a sleeping bag. “They’ve taken my stuff,” he muttered. Lauren Digion, the sanitation group leader, broke in: “This isn’t your stuff. You got all this stuff from comfort [the working group]. It belongs to comfort.”

And as I spoke to Michael Glaser, a 26-year-old Chicagoan helping lead winter preparation efforts, a physical fight broke out between a cleaner and a camper just feet from us.

...

In response to dissatisfaction with the consensus General Assembly, many facilitators have adopted a new “spokescouncil” model, which allows each working group to act independently without securing the will of the collective. “This streamlines it,” argued Zonkers. “The GA is unwieldy, cumbersome, and redundant."

...

As the communal sleeping bag argument between Lauren Digion and Sage Roberts threatened to get out of hand, a facilitator in a red hat walked by, brow furrowed. “Remember? You’re not allowed to do any more interviews,” he said to Digion. She nodded and went back to work. But when Roberts shouted, “Don’t tell me what to do!” Digion couldn't hold back.

“Someone has to be told what to do," she said. "Someone needs to give orders. There’s no sense of order in this fucking place.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tests.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... FYkafMb8UJ

We have compassion toward everyone. However, we have certain rules and guidelines," says Lauren Digioia, 26, who belongs to the "sanitation committee":

"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back," Digioia said. "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled.

TAKERS? ENTITLED? NEED TO GIVE BACK?!?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... MSYIL9xSDL

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

The Assembly announced the three-day menu crackdown announced earlier in the day -- insisting everybody would be fed something during that period.

Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.

Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

Why do they hate their fellow man? Do we not all have a right to organic chicken, vegetables and roasted beets?

[J@3]

I enjoyed this;

phpBB [video]

[Oznogrd]

Much like the picture benji posted...

just so you know without corporations:

You wouldnt be typing on this forum.

You probably wouldn't be able to get that Pho you love so much.

You wouldnt be able to listen to all those bands i cant stand anywhere you go.

phpBB [video]

[Lamrock]

Okay, I'll bite, even though I drunkenly got into a debate when I still don't completely understand or have developed my views on economics and the government.

Look, here's the problem with your silly theory about how corporate america somehow ruined the country with wars and austerity (lololol) and the entire Occupy Wall Street stupidity. It's ignoring the elephant (and donkey) in the room and then somehow coming to the conclusion that the actual problem is the elephant isn't taking up enough room.

There's only one entity with a monopoly on the use of violence, it's the only one that can legally steal labor, the only one that can engage in wars and the only one that can legally imprison and kill citizens.

American war contractors didn't "buy" the politicians. War is the health of the state, the military the very essence of the power of the state, and that's why every congressional district has either a military base or defense contractor, it creates jobs in the district and ensures the strength of the congresscritter, the military and the contractors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_(US_politics)

Thar is a fair point, but just because it's the "health of the state" (remind me, how good were the last two wars for our state's health?) doesn't mean we couldn't do better. I'm not for tearing down the military by any means, but it's too bad that the health of our state isn't one of the institutions of a truly powerful country, like improved infrastructure or something, but I'll admit that I don't have a solution (if it's even a problem).

This wasn't a "coup" by corporate America, it's the natural result and goal of progressive politics. You can't "manage" a free market so you have to centralize and consolidate it into large allied powers to eliminate the forces of nature. The "late stage of capitalism" seen as necessary before we usher in the totalitarian utopia doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, it's corporatism, it's crony capitalism, it's capitolism, it's fascism. Of course it fails, it fails like all collectivist endeavors will and since it's been lied about and called a free market or capitalism it gives political cover to the nationalization and subsequent slavery of the populace to the elite.

The government wanted to put people in homes because there's all sorts of "good" results that are correlated with home ownership. So it kept interest rates low, backed mortgages and said "don't worry if this fails, we'll bail you out." So the banks did the logical and rational thing, the bubble popped and the government did what it said it would. Yet we're supposed to be mad at the banks? That's like getting mad at the hippo when it tears you limb from limb after you whacked it in the face fifty times. It's just acting by instinct.

It was the fault of the people who took out the loans just as much as it was the banks, but should predatory lending be allowed? I don't really think much separates our banks and the government anyway.

As a result of this the government used the so-called problem, a "market failure" (a nonsensical term that describes something that literally cannot exist, it's like calling a volcano or earthquake or blizzard a "nature failure") to seize greater influence and power within the financial industry giving itself even more riches to dole out or punishments to keep people in line.

The Bank of America $5 fee thing is a perfect example of how stupid people are. The government passed a law, at the behest of giant retailers to get rid of the charges they had to pay and shift it onto the banks, so the banks recoup that cost by making the fee overt and it's Bank of America that people are getting mad at? Not the retailers? Not the government? Now the government has found another "market failure" and thankfully they're rushing in to again save us from the evil evil banks by writing more laws and more regulations which will force greater consolidation, yay!

Well I mean, it's not like BoA couldn't afford to take the loss, but I actually agree with you about that.

The government passed an onerous and massive health insurance bill packed to the gills with countless new regulations and contradictory requirements. HHS is handing out thousands of waivers to the law for specific companies. The requirements will force even further consolidation within the health insurance market as smaller insurers will sell to the largest powers. Catastrophic coverage and personal health savings accounts are now things of the past.

I agree that this is a pretty terrible bill.

Lead was found in toys made overseas by Mattel. The government passed a law to "protect" us from these lead filled toys and created all sorts of new regulations and requirements. Mattel was specifically exempted. The result will be further consolidation within the toy market as smaller companies are driven out by inability to handle the regulations and requirements.

Well, better not regulate anything ever because of that case then.

The government gave away half a billion dollars to a now defunct company with a business plan where they would sell the products for half the price it cost to manufacture them and try to make it up in volume. The government has wasted untold billions for the same justifications on ethanol and other "green" projects while also seeking for the power to regulate and tax everything on Earth in the name of "protecting" us from the results of our "sins."

Well do you think Jesus is going to return or something when we run out of resources and the proven fact that is climate change starts to become a real inconvenience? Or should our grandkids go fuck themselves?

The government threw away a trillion dollars rewarding political constituencies and chasing an illogical fantasy, and the President is going around demanding another half a trillion of the same thing.

We're already so far in debt, I think we should try a massive stimulus package because the last one, while a half measure, did help a little. I thought Keynes was a good economist.

The government is not the people, never will be the people and believing it will protect and act for the people is the real fantasy.

This isn't some evil sinister plot by corporations. This is the natural result of government.

The solution is taking away the power of government to steal labor and using the gains to grant favors and create permanent constituencies.

But we don't want that, OWS doesn't want that. Because there will always be people doing things that don't affect us that we don't like and who have things we want

Ron Paul '12!

[benji]

I want to be fair, I'm actually in support of the concept of Occupy Wall Street, but I'm absolutely opposed to everything they think is the solution. They have the wrong fucking target. And they couldn't be going about this more in the wrong way.

They have some strange fetish about the 60s protest in which people protested, Vietnam ended, hurray!

They can't even conceptualize that Vietnam ended because the fucking government was like "wtf are we doing." IT WAS FUCKING NIXON OF ALL PEOPLE who said, holy shit, why are we doing this. NIXON.

NIXON.

And without corporations we would still have PHO, we'd still have forums. The NLSC is phpbb and wordpress, BOTH FREE TO ANYONE.

The flaw is that they don't recognize that markets = nature. And just like they think they can control nature they think they can contol markets.

As an aside, it's great that both Oz and Axel have become more "libertarian" over the years, you guys were supposed to demand more government protection for your HANDICAPS, not align with benji. What's next you're praying to Darko?

Okay, I'll bite, even though I drunkenly got into a debate when I still don't completely understand or have developed my views on economics and the government.

Bro, you gotta understand that some of us like to educate and you shouldn't take it personally that you're a total moron LOL PWNED!

Thar is a fair point, but just because it's the "health of the state" (remind me, how good were the last two wars for our state's health?) doesn't mean we couldn't do better. I'm not for tearing down the military by any means, but it's too bad that the health of our state isn't one of the institutions of a truly powerful country, like improved infrastructure or something, but I'll admit that I don't have a solution (if it's even a problem).

You missed the point here. War isn't good for the state in terms of jobs or the economy of any of that shit. War is good for the state because it justifies the existence of the state. Look at the PATRIOT Act for example, it's not the evil that some proclaimed, it's mostly an extension of the drug war policies that the agencies wanted for years. But it was approved in 2001, reapproved later and has been extended yet again in the last couple years. The state grows from it because it becomes the day to day operation.

The library fearmongering of the Patriot Act was beyond overblown, the Patriot Act is basically a redrafting of prior 1990s laws regarding drugs that didn't get passed, then 9/11, BAM, and we're done.

There's good things about the Patriot Act, there's also a shit load of bad things. For example the Patriot Act helps lift the wall between the FBI and CIA on foreign terrorist shit, I don't have a major issue with that, I doubt many do, but it didn't come alone.

It was the fault of the people who took out the loans just as much as it was the banks, but should predatory lending be allowed? I don't really think much separates our banks and the government anyway.

But it's not "predatory" the government actively said GET ALL THESE FUCKING PEOPLE IN HOMES, and the banks said, FUCK YES, LET'S DO THAT. And then they couldn't actually pay for the shit and we were all what the fuck and the government said, don't worry bro, I got this.

And we stole another trillion from taxpayers to justify our delusions.

Well I mean, it's not like BoA couldn't afford to take the loss, but I actually agree with you about that.

No, they could. But that's not how things work. All costs are passed onto the consumer. It's the delusion of OWS and government that somehow these costs just disappear into the corporate monster. It's a rejection of simple economics.

Well, better not regulate anything ever because of that case then.

You think you're joking, but you're actually closer to being right than you realize.

Well do you think Jesus is going to return or something when we run out of resources and the proven fact that is climate change starts to become a real inconvenience? Or should our grandkids go fuck themselves?

So you accept Creationism? Intelligent Design?

We're already so far in debt, I think we should try a massive stimulus package because the last one, while a half measure, did help a little.

It didn't do SHIT. It will never do shit because it's a delusional fantasy.

I thought Keynes was a good economist.

Oh god I'm dying. Even assuming Keynes was (he wasn't, he was a fool) nobody has followed Keynes for like a century or some shit.
BEST VIDEOS EVER:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
It's the fatal conceit.

Ron Paul '12!

Nope, Gary Johnson.

[benji]

The ultimate question: define a "market failure."

[Oznogrd]

And without corporations we would still have PHO, we'd still have forums. The NLSC is phpbb and wordpress, BOTH FREE TO ANYONE.

The flaw is that they don't recognize that markets = nature. And just like they think they can control nature they think they can contol markets.

As an aside, it's great that both Oz and Axel have become more "libertarian" over the years, you guys were supposed to demand more government protection for your HANDICAPS, not align with benji. What's next you're praying to Darko?

but would we have the capability to access internet in every household that chooses to purchase it? Would we have the infrastructure for people like me (with no job or income outside of interest) to access phpbb and wordpress?

Also, i have come back from the left a long ways lately...i blame your information spreading propaganda and penn & teller. Ive also lately started looking at both sides of issues and realize both extremes are a little more than insane. Guess this is growing up [/blink182quote]

[Lamrock]

I want to be fair, I'm actually in support of the concept of Occupy Wall Street, but I'm absolutely opposed to everything they think is the solution. They have the wrong fucking target. And they couldn't be going about this more in the wrong way.

They have some strange fetish about the 60s protest in which people protested, Vietnam ended, hurray!

They can't even conceptualize that Vietnam ended because the fucking government was like "wtf are we doing." IT WAS FUCKING NIXON OF ALL PEOPLE who said, holy shit, why are we doing this. NIXON.

NIXON.

And without corporations we would still have PHO, we'd still have forums. The NLSC is phpbb and wordpress, BOTH FREE TO ANYONE.

The flaw is that they don't recognize that markets = nature. And just like they think they can control nature they think they can contol markets.

NIXON. He seemed to be a bad person, but was he even that bad of a president, scandals aside? (I honestly am not sure) If you don't control the markets, then what's to stop people from doing bad things that are preventable.

Thar is a fair point, but just because it's the "health of the state" (remind me, how good were the last two wars for our state's health?) doesn't mean we couldn't do better. I'm not for tearing down the military by any means, but it's too bad that the health of our state isn't one of the institutions of a truly powerful country, like improved infrastructure or something, but I'll admit that I don't have a solution (if it's even a problem).

You missed the point here. War isn't good for the state in terms of jobs or the economy of any of that shit. War is good for the state because it justifies the existence of the state. Look at the PATRIOT Act for example, it's not the evil that some proclaimed, it's mostly an extension of the drug war policies that the agencies wanted for years. But it was approved in 2001, reapproved later and has been extended yet again in the last couple years. The state grows from it because it becomes the day to day operation.

The library fearmongering of the Patriot Act was beyond overblown, the Patriot Act is basically a redrafting of prior 1990s laws regarding drugs that didn't get passed, then 9/11, BAM, and we're done.

There's good things about the Patriot Act, there's also a shit load of bad things. For example the Patriot Act helps lift the wall between the FBI and CIA on foreign terrorist shit, I don't have a major issue with that, I doubt many do, but it didn't come alone.

The ends don't really justify the means for me, but then again, I don't see terrorism as this big problem that people should actually worry about either.

It was the fault of the people who took out the loans just as much as it was the banks, but should predatory lending be allowed? I don't really think much separates our banks and the government anyway.

But it's not "predatory" the government actively said GET ALL THESE FUCKING PEOPLE IN HOMES, and the banks said, FUCK YES, LET'S DO THAT. And then they couldn't actually pay for the shit and we were all what the fuck and the government said, don't worry bro, I got this.

It is predatory because they knew what was probably going to happen. "Hey poor person, want to buy a house? Don't worry, we won't suddenly raise the interest rates on you". People should have realized how bad of an idea these investments were but I reckon betraying the banks was not an option the government ever had.

And we stole another trillion from taxpayers to justify our delusions.

Explain?

Well I mean, it's not like BoA couldn't afford to take the loss, but I actually agree with you about that.

No, they could. But that's not how things work. All costs are passed onto the consumer. It's the delusion of OWS and government that somehow these costs just disappear into the corporate monster. It's a rejection of simple economics.[/quote]
Yeah, I'm not mad about this. It's not like you're required to go through BoA, and not some other bank or credit union.

Well, better not regulate anything ever because of that case then.

You think you're joking, but you're actually closer to being right than you realize.

Well do you think Jesus is going to return or something when we run out of resources and the proven fact that is climate change starts to become a real inconvenience? Or should our grandkids go fuck themselves?

So you accept Creationism? Intelligent Design?

Uh, no?

We're already so far in debt, I think we should try a massive stimulus package because the last one, while a half measure, did help a little.

It didn't do SHIT. It will never do shit because it's a delusional fantasy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-2 ... -says.html IS THIS TRUE? If so, is it even good?

I thought Keynes was a good economist.

Oh god I'm dying. Even assuming Keynes was (he wasn't, he was a fool) nobody has followed Keynes for like a century or some shit.
BEST VIDEOS EVER:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
It's the fatal conceit.

Yeah, I've seen those a couple times. Germany seems to be doing okay right now with their Keynesian policies.

[benji]

but would we have the capability to access internet in every household that chooses to purchase it? Would we have the infrastructure for people like me (with no job or income outside of interest) to access phpbb and wordpress?

Yes.

The only other position is that no one would make this exist, and that you must force them to do so. There is no true enforcement mechanism that can properly provide this.

I think an unleashed humanity would enrich us all.

Also, i have come back from the left a long ways lately...i blame your information spreading propaganda and penn & teller. Ive also lately started looking at both sides of issues and realize both extremes are a little more than insane. Guess this is growing up [/blink182quote]

I apologize.

I don't mean to really dredge it up, but our debate over the ADA was because I know you're better than a stupid law. I know that those who truly need help will obtain it, and those like yourself who are strong won't need it.

I don't think humanity needs a law to enforce itself.

I think that ultimately, humans are, if granted freedom, good people. It's my delusion.

Though, I don't think it will happen overnight.

It's not about providing for you or anyone, I would because you're awesome, it's because of the threat of the law if I don't.

If you can't access the internet in every household, I'm truly sorry. In mine I'd do my best. But I cannot make the step to punish others if they don't make accommodations for you.

I cannot allow a situation where some can demand the enslavement of the labor of others. Even if it's in the best intentions.

I apologize.

[benji]

NIXON. He seemed to be a bad person, but was he even that bad of a president, scandals aside? (I honestly am not sure)

Nixon was absolutely terrible. He wasn't a FDR or Wilson, but he was close. Or worse.

If you don't control the markets, then what's to stop people from doing bad things that are preventable.

I totally told you that I was going to cut you.

The ends don't really justify the means for me, but then again, I don't see terrorism as this big problem that people should actually worry about either.

Wasn't that the point of the statement lol.

It is predatory because they knew what was probably going to happen. "Hey poor person, want to buy a house? Don't worry, we won't suddenly raise the interest rates on you". People should have realized how bad of an idea these investments were but I reckon betraying the banks was not an option the government ever had.

THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT SAID GIVE THESE PEOPLE THE LOANS.

It was about putting people in homes because people in homes = good shit. The government didn't give a shit and said it'd back all of this. The banks would have never, NEVER, given loans to people who couldn't pay them back because it's FUCKING STUPID TO DO SO, but the government said to not worry about it, we had all these billions to prop the whole fucking bubble up with. So the banks said, alright, we'll do it. And it went to shit and the government rushed in and made things "right" with billions of bail out money.

Explain?

"Stimulus" is a fantasy, there is simply no way it can work in the real world, there is absolutely no rational explanation for how it could.

Uh, no?

The entire notion demands you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism, that one central, all powerful entity can command the entire world.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/obama-s-economic-stimulus-program-created-up-to-3-3-million-jobs-cbo-says.html IS THIS TRUE? If so, is it even good?

No, it's not. The CBO has a model that spits out the same numbers no matter what. It's like if I had a model that said Elton Brand added 30 wins to any team that had him. So I put Elton Brand on a team and they won 60 games in my model. Would you believe it? What if they wound up only winning 30 games?

Yeah, I've seen those a couple times. Germany seems to be doing okay right now with their Keynesian policies.

You cant be serious.

[Oznogrd]

I think that ultimately, humans are, if granted freedom, good people. It's my delusion.

And thats where you and i tend to differ. Maybe because i live in the south. I think ultimately with no fear of retribution, too many are evil twisted fucks. Fear of hell is the only thing that keeps the baptists from killing all others around here. That could very well be my delusion.

but anyway, how bout them #OWS protesters: are they hipsters or what?

[Lamrock]

I think that ultimately, humans are, if granted freedom, good people. It's my delusion.

Surprising view, though it does make sense thinking about it. I don't necessarily think we are inherently good or bad, but I definitely don't think humans can be trusted to do the right ("right" in most cases I know) thing to do. We need environmental regulations so that our lifestyle is actually somewhat sustainable and we don't lose all the beautiful things that rich people really shouldn't be entitled to destroy. We need a social safety net because everyone starts out in a different place. Republicans are all about fairness when this directly contradicts that. The "American Dream" these days is to get rich. Personally, I think that fact is a shame. We can and need to have rich people, but everybody aiming to get rich is really only a recipe for success in underdeveloped countries. All I want is a comfortable living doing something I don't hate.

I don't think it needs to be extreme - I just want moderation. A far-left government is actually much scarier to me than a far-right one. I don't think we should kick things that protect us to the curb because there's absolutely nothing at all to suggest people in power would wield it even at all responsibly if it hurts their immediate interests. Enough talking in circles here.

Nixon was absolutely terrible. He wasn't a FDR or Wilson, but he was close. Or worse.

[tangent] Top 3 worst things he did?

I totally told you that I was going to cut you.

Well that debunks my statement

THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT SAID GIVE THESE PEOPLE THE LOANS.

It was about putting people in homes because people in homes = good shit. The government didn't give a shit and said it'd back all of this. The banks would have never, NEVER, given loans to people who couldn't pay them back because it's FUCKING STUPID TO DO SO.

Shit.

"Stimulus" is a fantasy, there is simply no way it can work in the real world, there is absolutely no rational explanation for how it could.

The money does a couple things. It severs as a tourniquet of sorts for the economy, giving us the illusion that things are doing a little better. (btw, some people say our economy has been built on bubbles for the last few decades anyway) It also means small businesses who normally wouldn't decide to take out a loan to expand would be able to do so without having to pay it back. It's a little dodgy, but how different is it than assuming that eventually the corporations will decide to start hiring people if we give them enough money?

The entire notion demands you believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism, that one central, all powerful entity can command the entire world.

I'm an Atheist. I was merely questioning your environmental views in a sarcastic way. I'd guess it's probably an Ayn Rand kind of deal.

No, it's not. The CBO has a model that spits out the same numbers no matter what. It's like if I had a model that said Elton Brand added 30 wins to any team that had him. So I put Elton Brand on a team and they won 60 games in my model. Would you believe it? What if they wound up only winning 30 games?

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought might be the case.

Yeah, I've seen those a couple times. Germany seems to be doing okay right now with their Keynesian policies.

You cant be serious.

I'm going to drop this one for a while because I don't have anything solid to back it up. Feel free to enlighten me though.

On a lighter note that's on the topic of OWS, the time I checked out Occupy Seattle, this chick was giving out these free massive bumper stickers that said "WE WANT GOVERMENT FOR THE PEOPLE". Besides that though, most people there are actually rational people who aren't being violent and can articulately explain this much better than I can. I dare you to check out your local Occupy for the lulz and maybe a better perspective than the media's (which only shows the crazy people).

[benji]

And thats where you and i tend to differ. Maybe because i live in the south. I think ultimately with no fear of retribution, too many are evil twisted fucks. Fear of hell is the only thing that keeps the baptists from killing all others around here. That could very well be my delusion.

If humans are not ultimately good people then we have greater purpose to grant them freedom. Else, we have the duty to doom ourselves on the name of the worst.

If humans wind up as "evil twisted fucks" there is nothing we can do.

but anyway, how bout them #OWS protesters: are they hipsters or what?

They're worse, they're totalitarians. Enslavement is fine, as long as they benefit,

[Lamrock]

People are too rational to do good things.

[benji]

Surprising view, though it does make sense thinking about it.

So you're "surprised" about the idea that people have to be forced by violence to act as the majority demands.

I definitely don't think humans can be trusted to do the right ("right" in most cases I know) thing to do.

So, they must be forced to do the right thing!

We need environmental regulations so that our lifestyle is actually somewhat sustainable and we don't lose all the beautiful things that rich people really shouldn't be entitled to destroy.

Ah yes, we must control nature by the name of "the people" because "the rich" wish to destroy that which is "beautiful."

We need a social safety net because everyone starts out in a different place.

Define "social safety net."

Republicans are all about fairness when this directly contradicts that.

Republicans aren't about shit, they're power hungry scumbags just like the Democrats.

We can and need to have rich people, but everybody aiming to get rich is really only a recipe for success in underdeveloped countries. All I want is a comfortable living doing something I don't hate.

This is maybe one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I just want moderation.

OH MY GOD HOLY SHIT I NEED NEW PANTS.

I don't think we should kick things that protect us to the curb

What in the fuck does this even mean.

Top 3 worst things he did?

Wage and Price controls, War on Drugs, EPA, CPSC, and other continued expansions of the federal government and regulations, Watergate.

IThe money does a couple things. It severs as a tourniquet of sorts for the economy, giving us the illusion that things are doing a little better. (btw, some people say our economy has been built on bubbles for the last few decades anyway) It also means small businesses who normally wouldn't decide to take out a loan to expand would be able to do so without having to pay it back. It's a little dodgy, but how different is it than assuming that eventually the corporations will decide to start hiring people if we give them enough money?

Please speak in English. Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense at all.

I'm an Atheist. I was merely questioning your environmental views in a sarcastic way. I'd guess it's probably an Ayn Rand kind of deal.

Jesus christ did you miss the point.

On a lighter note that's on the topic of OWS, the time I checked out Occupy Seattle, this chick was giving out these free massive bumper stickers that said "WE WANT GOVERMENT FOR THE PEOPLE". Besides that though, most people there are actually rational people who aren't being violent and can articulately explain this much better than I can. I dare you to check out your local Occupy for the lulz and maybe a better perspective than the media's (which only shows the crazy people).

She's delusional, anyone who demands more government, aka all of "Occupy", is delusional, they want to be enslaved and think this can save them. Sorry.

"Occupy" won't demand freedom because it frightens them, they desperately need someone to run their lives for them.

Nature frightens these people. It frightens most people. The entire movement is based around a God-King coming forth and lighting the path to our heaven on Earth.

[Lamrock]

Surprising view, though it does make sense thinking about it.

So you're "surprised" about the idea that people have to be forced by violence to act as the majority demands.

Surprising view was yours that humans are basically good. You make a good point that selflessly acting as the majority demands without threat of violence is a pretty high standard to set. Sometimes the ends (threat of violence) justify the means though.

I definitely don't think humans can be trusted to do the right ("right" in most cases I know) thing to do.

So, they must be forced to do the right thing![/quote]
In some cases, yes, they do need to be forced. I'm not in favor of a Paul23 nanny society but if people aren't held accountable, then they'll probably end up causing harm that could have been prevented.

We need environmental regulations so that our lifestyle is actually somewhat sustainable and we don't lose all the beautiful things that rich people really shouldn't be entitled to destroy.

Ah yes, we must control nature by the name of "the people" because "the rich" wish to destroy that which is "beautiful."

What happens when the resources for all our cool shit runs out? Why don't you seem to care about or believe in global warming/climate change? Should people born into wealth be entitled to emit shit tons of carbon for their private jet that is really everybody's (and I'm not just talking about humans)? (This is probably another thread though)

We need a social safety net because everyone starts out in a different place.

Define "social safety net."

You call them "blackholes". I mean just taking care of each other. Institutions we already have but are constantly cutting like education (this one is dodgy because I know the funds are often misappropriated and the stats don't back it up but who doesn't want a more educated and skilled populace (don't answer that )), social security (this one's different because there's no reason to cut it), Medicare and food stamps. Believe it or not, the poor aren't all lazy drug addicts. It is a rigged game but at least with that safety net, the American dream could be (and maybe even was, thanks to our favorite president) theoretically doable for all who are willing to work for it.

It makes us more free even if it technically makes us less free. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor, and it would actually be in their ultimate long-term best interests to pay more taxes, as it would make for a better, more secure population of people, while the infrastructure that would also be improved due to the taxes. We don't need a 90% tax rate for the rich, but having a great country isn't free.

Republicans are all about fairness when this directly contradicts that.

Republicans aren't about shit, they're power hungry scumbags just like the Democrats.

I underdeveloped that sentence. I mean those who vote republican.

We can and need to have rich people, but everybody aiming to get rich is really only a recipe for success in underdeveloped countries. All I want is a comfortable living doing something I don't hate.

This is maybe one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I spent like 20 minutes trying to come up with a rebuttal but then I realized it didn't make sense.

I don't think we should kick things that protect us to the curb

What in the fuck does this even mean.

I believe regulations protect us, and for that reason should be held on to.

Top 3 worst things he did?

Wage and Price controls, War on Drugs, EPA, CPSC, and other continued expansions of the federal government and regulations, Watergate.

Fair enough, though I like the idea of having an environmental protection agency.

The money does a couple things. It severs as a tourniquet of sorts for the economy, giving us the illusion that things are doing a little better. (btw, some people say our economy has been built on bubbles for the last few decades anyway) It also means small businesses who normally wouldn't decide to take out a loan to expand would be able to do so without having to pay it back. It's a little dodgy, but how different is it than assuming that eventually the corporations will decide to start hiring people if we give them enough money?

Please speak in English. Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense at all.

1. Stimulus stimulates the economy. Money circulates for a while, buying some businesses some time and makes people feel better/a little more secure when shit's going down.
2. If giving corporations money creates jobs, so should giving small business owners money.

I'm an Atheist. I was merely questioning your environmental views in a sarcastic way. I'd guess it's probably an Ayn Rand kind of deal.

Jesus christ did you miss the point.

Indeed I did.

On a lighter note that's on the topic of OWS, the time I checked out Occupy Seattle, this chick was giving out these free massive bumper stickers that said "WE WANT GOVERMENT FOR THE PEOPLE". Besides that though, most people there are actually rational people who aren't being violent and can articulately explain this much better than I can. I dare you to check out your local Occupy for the lulz and maybe a better perspective than the media's (which only shows the crazy people).

She's delusional, anyone who demands more government, aka all of "Occupy", is delusional, they want to be enslaved and think this can save them. Sorry.

"Occupy" won't demand freedom because it frightens them, they desperately need someone to run their lives for them.

Nature frightens these people. It frightens most people. The entire movement is based around a God-King coming forth and lighting the path to our heaven on Earth.

I bet the animals would love it if we all let them out of the zoo. I was actually making fun of her spelling of "government", but that's hard to convey when I have several typos in a given post.

[benji]

Surprising view was yours that humans are basically good.

I don't believe this. I think humans are selfish and that this results in enough humans acting in a good manner out of guilt or personal gain.

Sometimes the ends (threat of violence) justify the means though.

Wow. Few eggs uh.

In some cases, yes, they do need to be forced. I'm not in favor of a Paul23 nanny society but if people aren't held accountable, then they'll probably end up causing harm that could have been prevented.

In other words, you'll murder people until enough act in the "right" manner. You claim you're "not in favor of a nanny" state but accept that "ends justify the means" and that people "need to be forced."

That's beyond disgusting from my point of view.

What happens when the resources for all our cool shit runs out?

We adapt.

Why don't you seem to care about or believe in global warming/climate change?

Because it has yet to present a falsifiable theory?

Answer this question for example: What's the proper global temperature?

Second question: If man is affecting the climate unintentionally, why should man further affect the climate but intentionally?

Should people born into wealth be entitled to emit shit tons of carbon for their private jet that is really everybody's (and I'm not just talking about humans)?

Why shouldn't they?

You call them "blackholes". I mean just taking care of each other.

Again, another thing that needs to be defined.

Institutions we already have but are constantly cutting like education (this one is dodgy because I know the funds are often misappropriated and the stats don't back it up but who doesn't want a more educated and skilled populace (don't answer that )),

We spend more on education than any populace in the history of the planet. We spend gobs more than a half century ago. Where's the progress?

social security (this one's different because there's no reason to cut it)

How about the fact it's a fucking hybrid pyramid/ponzi scheme that steals from the minority poor and gives to the rich?

Believe it or not, the poor aren't all lazy drug addicts. It is a rigged game but at least with that safety net, the American dream could be (and maybe even was, thanks to our favorite president) theoretically doable for all who are willing to work for it.

Doesn't justify theft, and especially doesn't justify the disaster of a system that exists today. We can easily provide a better life for the impoverished but it doesn't offer up the graft and political power the system we have does.

It makes us more free even if it technically makes us less free.

Holy shit.

The rich make their money on the backs of the poor

Holy shit.

and it would actually be in their ultimate long-term best interests to pay more taxes, as it would make for a better, more secure population of people

Is this the "the rich better give up their money or we might hang them!" justification?

We don't need a 90% tax rate for the rich, but having a great country isn't free.

Jesus fucking christ.

I underdeveloped that sentence. I mean those who vote republican.

People who vote are wasting their time. People who vote Republican who aren't voting for Gary Johnson, Ron Paul or Rand Paul are fucking scumbags. People who vote for Democrats are even worse.

I believe regulations protect us, and for that reason should be held on to.

And you believe in fantasies.

Fair enough, though I like the idea of having an environmental protection agency.

Yes, again, the idea. The intentions. Learn about the actual entity. The actual regulations.

1. Stimulus stimulates the economy. Money circulates for a while, buying some businesses some time and makes people feel better/a little more secure when shit's going down.

No, it doesn't. It can't.

2. If giving corporations money creates jobs, so should giving small business owners money.

I just...no.

No.

I need to lay down.

[cyanide]

1. Stimulus stimulates the economy. Money circulates for a while, buying some businesses some time and makes people feel better/a little more secure when shit's going down.
2. If giving corporations money creates jobs, so should giving small business owners money.

I have a problem with this.

1. The consequence is debt. It's highly risky, artificial, and misleading.
2. Why should money be given to corporations or small businesses? If they can't make new jobs, they can't. New jobs are being created through demand, innovation, inventions, and so forth. Jobs are being lost and created all the time. There's no sense to hold on to a shaky foundation to only have it collapse after.