Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: A strategy to defeat the corporations

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 4:13 p.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A corporations lifeblood is money! Cut it off, and it will force them to obey we the people! The choice of where we spend our money is our greatest weapon and the hunger for our dollar is their greatest weakness. March your dollars elsewhere and they will hear us. Blockade the flow of dollars to their bank accounts and they will see us. Protest with your dollar and they will surrender! There are no police who can arrest us for this act. Do not support the enemy and we will conquer!!

In order to prove the strength of this strategy, I propose a complete boycott on the big 4 cereal makers. General Mills, Kellogs, Post, and Quaker Oats. Cereal has one of the highest markups of our basic food sources. A 1 pound box of cereal contains just 11 or 12 cents of grain, but costs 3 dollars or more! The most expensive ingredient is the advertising. In comparison, a pound of beef takes 10 pounds of grain to produce. If it was marked up at the same rate as cereal, a pound of beef would cost 30 dollars.

The essence of the disparity in wealth is due to our lack in understanding this most basic principle. That when a person consistently trades his labor, his money, for something that is of less value, he will become poor and the seller will become rich. There is no law that can remedy this. Only your decision to trade your labor for an equal amount in return, will inequality end!

95 Comments

95 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

Buy local, be a job creator.

[-] 1 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

is your internet connection local? Dump the internet connection, really revolt! gasp Self imposed austerity is REALLY radical.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

LOL. My internet dumped me for about a week. It was revolting...it's a monopoly so far. Here, radical is ok.

Change tax laws, healthcare, while repairing the economy. Self employ. Posted Oct. 25, 2011, 12:35

The payroll deduction system has not worked, except for the IRS, congress and corporations.

By changing to the below five point system, there would be thousands more small business start ups, creating more non corporate jobs. Full employment would increase wages and lower each person's taxes, while increasing tax revenues, which would fund social services.

One of the leading causes of new business closures is that the management must manage not only their own but also employees tax and benefits. Default of rules and payment of Income, SS, MC, sales taxes, permits and fees are reasons the IRS, state and local tax enforcements close many. Even without employees, the self-employed are threatened by the present system being a tax and healthcare minefield.

The production of products or services is what the entreprenuer should be spending their work time on. Business accounting would replace tax planning.

The new plan would:

1.Require that full earnings be deposited at a bank.

2.Eliminate sales tax collection by retailers.

3.Have federal, state, and local governments deduct their tax revenue from earnings when they are deposited.

4.Offer benefits desired by the worker/owner as an optional cafeteria plan. Insurance, retirement plan, education savings, charities, christmas club, etc, with payments deducted and fowarded from earnings.

5.Require that earnings and salaries from business be deposited/taxed the same as a wage earner. (larger deposits, larger tax %). Reinvestment in business would be therefore pretaxed.

This plan greatly enhances the freedom to quit a job, start a business, hire employees, with everyone having equal benefit availability. All employees would have to be lured with better pay and a more desirable job.

[-] 1 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

You missed the point... dump your internet connection. It's a MYTH that you need it, propagated by corporations. I agree with what you say, but the problem is, since occupiers all are wearing logo'd t-shirts, logo'd hats etc, they refuse to stop buying corporate, as I was just told, this is because without a logo on your shirt, you're Euell Gibbons... so anyway, nothing will change. I saw the 60's, the revolts, the protesting, nothing happened, because they didn't have the power... in this situation, only not consuming will give us the power and we are programmed that we have to consume or we are Euell Gibbons.... this is not so, but unfortunately, young people are very susceptible to this kind of belief, they've be programmed for 2 decades of tv that they have to keep buying... and hence, they will always be fodder for control.

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 2 years ago

The internet helps me learn from others like you, from outside my community.

There's problems with local governments and local businesses, that don't like competition either. Living off the grid, is not an option, but it's good to see people respecting independent thinkers, occasionally.

The market is there for homemade consumables, (by folks who have extra money), but the cards are stacked against new ventures, even locally.

TVs and radio has facilitated the demise of creative thinking, except the thought on buying brands.

[-] 1 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

I get it, considering to the rest of the world, YOU are part of the 1%. I get it, you want to keep consuming like there's no tomorrow, KEEP giving the even higher 1% all your money, You just want to set down laws on what they can do with your money? As a disabled person who's made money on the side with homemade consumables, take my word for it, I had no extra money to do it with. I see a lot of creative thinking, though that is pretty rare nowadays, but I definitely see the demise of actually DOING anything about it... specially when the idea of a little self denial scares the dickens out of Americans... OMG, I DESERVE that $5 coffee that I bought myself!

[-] 3 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 2 years ago

"I hope we shall CRUSH in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.

How sad that we did not heed this wise man's counsel!!

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Even worse, how the defenders of the status quo so skillfully co-opt the language of our founders for their own gain (and how eagerly many people buy into their bullshit)?

[-] 2 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

I hope this gets in. I may be pushing the rules, but... I think we need to cut through the crap and use the power of the unions and labor to effect world transformation. My idea is simple. The ramifications are enormous, though. I say a movement might be started on the web to get as many workers and unions around the world, on a pre-set date, to walk-out, and lead to a possible, (at-least partial), global work shutdown. With OWS supporters helping on the picket lines. And stay shut down until the powers bend over and accept a new one- world, democratically-elected representative body of all the planetary citizens, and an end to borders. As well as wars, poverty, human rights abuses, discrimination, etc. You see, we either all sink, or we all swim to better waters. If enough people jumped on board... Something must be done to get the ship back on course. Things could then be constructed in a way that distributes power more equally among the world’s populations. Local committees from each region, comprised of elected officials could then be connected to the rest of the representative bodies around the world. No need for a central power. No need for military or police. Any sort of global police force would be potentially feared, and could lead to more problems than without. Especially if only law abiding citizens were allowed to arm themselves. I’m against weapons, morally. But it beats having to have police. And police show up after crimes are committed, anyway. It’s a little late by then. Then a type of economy that gives the profits back to the workers, while at the same time being co-owned by all the workers, would work well in conjunction with competition from within to keep prices down, and diversity in the marketplace.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A government works best if it is local. Larger and more distant allows it to become a beast, devouring our liberty.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

You didn't get what I said. I said a world with power equally distributed around the globe, made up of small, locally elected, interconnected councils in every region of the planet.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"one- world, democratically-elected representative body of all the planetary citizens, and an end to borders."

Sounds like a one world government to me. By local government I mean complete autonomy.

[-] 1 points by london2z (21) 2 years ago

If you had a world made up of local autonomous governments, only, then you may as well have countries. It amounts to the same thing. There would be too much conflict between them, and no cohesiveness.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Conflict between countries is mostly due to the manipulation by international bankers. Pass Glass Steagall, we bankrupt those guys and they loose their power to create conflict.

Once that's done, international treaties would be a better route. Countries need such treaties to assist each other in economic development.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (4891) 2 years ago

Establish laws at the local level http://occupywallst.org/forum/american-prosperity-initiative/ and create co-ops, more specifically, the 'CoMart'. Simply targeting corporations for boycotting and protesting, especially by people portrayed as being a bunch of jobless, whining, hippies, leads nowhere. Ports have been temporarily shut down, has anything significantly changed? Protest without actual positive action leads nowhere. Protest is supposed to draw attention to things. Allow protesting to draw attention to positive activities that people can take part in in addition to drawing attention to the negative corruption and influence of the corporations. Make a real difference by building something economically real and affecting the local laws to limit corporate advantages. Otherwise, it's business as usual.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Protesting with your dollar by not purchasing their products is the most positive action that can be taken. When the CEO's see sales plummet, they will have to respond by lowering prices. Drying up their excess profits will also dry up their contributions to political candidates. Bypass elected officials promises of legislation and take the law into our own hands.The consumer is the law in a free market when it has the knowledge! We will resume buying from them only as long as they cease to influence our elections and provide fair value for their products.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (4891) 2 years ago

The general public is unlikely to boycott anything for too long if at all. However, the general public of a municipality is more likely to have an interest in the economic well being of their local community and the will to pass initiatives that greatly limit corporate influence. In addition to the support of local businesses, co-ops are also local businesses that can provide alternatives to supporting the big corporations. With the support of co-ops, no one need ever resume buying from the corporations again.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Fair value is what people are willing to pay for it. Anyone can buy the knock off brand of cereal for 99 cents if they want. If someone wants to pay $3.99 and the store is willing to sell it for $3.99 then that is fair. People are very brand conscious when it comes to cereal so they pay extra for it.

Personally, I get the name brand one but I get it at a wholesale club. You get the equivalent of about 3 boxes for for $6-7. Add in a gallon of milk and that is a lot of meals for under 10 bucks total.

[-] 2 points by Nuadormrac (8) 2 years ago

The problem is when instead of fair value as to where the supply side and demand side has come to agreement; we're left instead with supply side economics which would ignore the demand side altogether. Then lay people off, to get cheap labor at those 3rd world dictatorships, who won't pay their citizens an honest wage for an honest day's labor, due to local corruption with people our own foreign policy doesn't exactly support, but wouldn't oppose either in the name of sticking with "the devil you know", and then has a race to the bottom approach to labor here, as things keep getting outsourced. So much so, just try to call tech support for instnace, and see if you can get someone who can speak English, when you need to communicate with them for product support.

A lot of the brand consciousness, is also instilled by the advertisers; and in this the businesses know how to play the public's psyche, and the public largely goes along with it. But it isn't without design. The other side of advertising, is marketing research, and for this research companies have not been unknown to hier psychiatrists to assist them in "targeting a advertising campaign to the public 'more effectively' ". They give personality tests, and the like, to figure out how people tick, so they can employ psychological tools to help influence people's decisions. Branding is also considered an effective marketing tool in and of itself....

Unfortunately I came in on a different side of this when I was in college, and for a time studying politics until I became disgusted, and changed majors. Classes such as public opinion, I kid you not, they weren't just teaching us how to measure public opinion, but also how to influence it to make it more favorable. We went on from studying WW II propaganda, to other techniques, and even went to profiling how strong an opinion, belief, or whatever is, and how likely it could come to influence or change. They were teaching us how to do this stuff, I left class each night with a case of mental indigestion, and after passing the class (did get an A), I chose to change majors. It's just not the sort of person I want to be. But they had taught me a bit of the mechanics in how this stuff is done. From the impression I get, a lot of corporate PR seems to follow the same principles of word smithing, etc.

Actually, it kinda reminds me of this semester where I was taking mass media studies, and we had a section on PR, following one on the advertising industry. One of my class mates, her mother worked in PR. And so out of curiosity she asked her mother what she does at work. Her mother told her, "I lie for a living, dear". The teacher who at one point had worked in PR just started laughing, and after she laughed a bit, she started back tracking "I'm not sure I would call it lieing. I used to work in PR, and that seems an offensive way to put it. Massaging the truth for the benefit of our clients, so they are seen in a more positive light, sounds nicer" /rofl

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The result of paying what you consider "fair value" is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If it's fair, why the economic inequality? It is not fair and only a little knowledge and action are required to reverse it.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Last year, General Mills had a net profit margin of about 12%. Considering everything they do to process a grain field into a box of Reeses Puffs (my secret addiction), it seems like fair value for both of us.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Looks like 19.5% profit to sales ratio. CEO only made 12 million. That's a bargain. Out of their sales was also paid 1.6 billion dollars on 645 million shares to shareholders. Looks like they got richer and you got poorer. It "seems like a fair value" is the illusion they have created. Look at your bank account and tell me you believe it?

General Mills Fiscal 2011 results summary

Net sales grew 2 percent to $14.9 billion. Segment operating profit rose 4 percent to exceed $2.9 billion. Diluted earnings per share (EPS) increased 20 percent to $2.70. Excluding certain items affecting comparability, diluted earnings per share grew to $2.48, up 8 percent from $2.30 in fiscal 2010.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

It is 12%, I just did the math again. And again, that is really not a very high profit margin. There are a lot of companies that do much better. Apple does like 60%, you should tell people not to buy their overpriced stuff. Hell my dental practice does about 35%.

And those 645 million shares make up millions of Americans pensions, 401Ks, IRAs, etc. Anyone who can use this forum can open a cheap online brokerage account and become one of those dirty shareholders.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So what do you suggest we do stop corporate influence in government?

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

By petitioning our Congressmen. Just as a company does not want to loose profits, a politician does not want to loose votes. And they are the only ones that can change the law.

This will obviously take several years and election cycles and certainly won't happen unless Occupy or similar groups are able to involve more people. Politicians will need to be shown that acting on something like this is worth more votes than the corporations money can buy.

Personally, I don't think any major change will come anytime soon. A large chunk of Americans still live pretty comfortable lives. It is going to be tough to get a lot of them on board simply because they won't have the same motivation to change things as a less fortunate person. Also, a lot of the rheotoric coming out of Occupy needs to be toned back if they are really to gain the support of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The politicians are also the one per cent. Congress' net worth averages about a million dollars each. It would take incredible persistence by the voters to effect meaningful change.

The problem lies in the fact that our votes rubber stamp either of the two parties candidates. To think that the 99% elects our politicians is an illusion. They are preselected by the 1% and are bought with their contributions to play by the 1% rules. They are a corrupt bunch that we have for decades been voting out of office, but ones just as corrupt take their place.

Something else must be tried. That is why I think removing the monetary influence out of the corporate interests hands is the only effective way to put democracy back into the hands of the people. Instead of playing by the 1% rules, they will play by the 99% rules.

One thing I have learned. No one gives up power unless they are forced to. And the force we must use is money.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

All it takes is a handful of Congressman to introduce a bill limiting contributions to a candidate and then people will have to petition their congressman to go along with it.

Like I said though, I don't think either would really work because most people are comfortable enough where they are not that motivated to either write their congressman or go without the things they have grown accustomed to buying.

[-] 2 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 2 years ago

There already is a law limiting contributions. they are getting around it because there is no law governing the Super Pacs.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It will be interesting to see what happens this spring and summer. The movement will either whither or produce fruit.

[-] 1 points by Opportunity (19) 2 years ago

Attacking the business of corporations does work if we can gain enough support to cause significant damage to a corporation's business. This method will force corporations to take OWS more seriously because they do care about their revenue. While this thread targets the more general corporations, this thread targets the banks: http://occupywallst.org/forum/overlooked-ways-to-legitimately-attack-financial-b/

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

It's funny...reading all these comments about what to do, how to shut down the corporations, hit the rich where it hurts...etc. What we have here is the failure to look at the big picture! What everyone should be doing is stocking up on those necessities you rely on that those fake Corporations trickle down to you...food, water, clothing, electricity...etc. Now, around our area the public utilities are shutting down 5 plants...more layoffs, more blackouts, less help! We already see some of the shelves becoming less full of food in the stores, but they got plenty of furniture, ipods, tv's, computers, and clothing! The fracking is killing the water's purity and the health industry is pushing out more pills to make us more ill and dead!! It doesn't matter whether you boycott, march or whatever, there is a bigger picture here and it is about saving you and yours. Communities are going to have to band together to feed, clothe, and take care of one another.
Forget the corporations....they are trying to grab as much as they can because this whole system is broke and about to be shut down. Don't you get it?? What you all are doing is minuscule compared to Universal Law.
I don't mean to preach but if all the stores were boarded up when you woke up tomorrow, no one shooting electricity or water into your home anymore....and the MILITIA...guarding the streets because of the chaos... What would you do? What did they do overseas? Think about it!!

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 2 years ago

what about all of those people who work at the plant that makes cereal? should they lose their jobs?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Good point. That would be up to the CEO. General mills paid 1.6 billion dollars in dividends to it's shareholders last year. Would he cut jobs, or cut dividends? Hopefully he would cut political contributions first, then dividends, and jobs last. The workers who lost their jobs would find employment with the growing cereal manufacturers who do not contribute to political campaigns. The demand for cereal remains the same as do the number of workers needed.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

It's that obvious, is it? Ah, I can only marvel at your powers of deduction.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

jr, tell us.......are you shorting Kelloggs?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Don't need to. Buy generic and the profits are tax free.

[-] 1 points by Joeboy32 (72) 2 years ago

Corporations work on "design" period.

For example, the cheap cereal is the exact same as cheerios or raisin bran. What you people are really buying (or paying more for) is a "design" on your food, products and etc.

Corporations use "symbols" to separate themselves from the cheaper brand to make you "feel" as if, you have a choice and a status above those who are unfortunate to your standard of living.

Rich people shop cheap in my area, while the middle class and welfare shop at Target and Wal-Mart and continue to go broke. They save nothing, when stores like this give you so much to buy at a sales price, you don't even realize you just spent $1,000 dollars easy.

Support your communities period. You can trust the people that "live" in your community versus people who don't (and wouldn't either by the way). That's the truth to the matter. We support people who don't give a damn about us, until we stop supporting their business. That's your power really.

The general public will always have some greater than voting in the next president and that's "supporting" power. You can make or break any corporation if you choose. That goes the same for your jobs, stores, automobile companies and gas stations even.

They "need" you and they get you by giving you what you "think you want".

Your not allowed to save money, unless it's saved to support their system later. If you had real choices, then wouldn't just accept the bullsh*t and say "that's the way it is". Nobody truly says that and believes at the same time that things fair and balanced.

And this is our country America, were talking about here.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

This could work!

Hahaha! No it can't. It's stupid. Boycott cereal! This is the funniest website on the internet! Keep 'em coming!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I also remember a boycott of tea back in the 1700's. Think it was in the Boston area. People actually switched to coffee instead of paying a hefty tax on tea. Wonder if that had any effect?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Boycotts do work. Ghandi's boycott of salt in 1930 was the spark that brought India to independence from the British. Salt is a basic need and so is cereal.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

This is the core of Capitalism. The consumer has complete control over a business.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Too bad, that's a myth.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Shame it's not. Does anyone force you to buy something? Is there only one company that offers a certain type of product? No. Therefore who has all the control.

[-] 2 points by Nuadormrac (8) 2 years ago

Actually, there is an exception to this; when legal monopolies come into play. Utility companies.... If you don't like your local electric company for whatever reason, if they get the BPU to raise electric rates, blaming it on the huricane, when they failed to trim the trees so they wouldn't be a problem (aka PSE&G), where are you going to go?

Unless you want to live by candle light, and do without power, you end up having to be a customer, and utility companies don't by and large have competition. What's more, they're subsidised monopolies, where our own tax dollars went at some point to help build up the infastructure which the companies then use.

Now some states, who went with deregulation DO allow people to shop around for the SUPPLY, but the distribution charge on the bill is still from your local utility, and is not replaceable. Legal monopolies, which are a prime example of what some have termed corporate socialism in days gone by, are not places where one could simply shop around, without moving to another state/area which uses another utility company, aka a different and even subsidised monopoly...

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You can buy solar panels if the price of electricity is too high, drill a well if water rates increase. There are always alternatives if you keep your thinking flexible.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Yes, there is always the option of living in a cave.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Life in the US of A, assures that we MUST buy stuff.

WallStreet is assured that no matter what business you buy from.

They profit.

As " a consumer", your effective control, is nil.

[-] 1 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

I remember in the 60's, people were brave enough to burn their draft cards. Corporations now know that young people just HAVE to have their crackberries and their Ugg boots and their Starbucks coffee. I see people talking about Occupy whiles having all this stuff. Self imposed austerity is the only way and we all know that young people just don't have the testicles to deny themselves anything... I know a lot of people who are attempting to live off the grid or as close as they can and it sure ain't any young people! You can sit here and talk economics until you turn blue, just stop buying cell phones! Stop buying name brand clothing! Everywhere I look someone is advertising a clothing house. Or, just yak and hope people will hand you your equality...

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

WTF are you talking about?

Just one more, with comprehension problems.

WE are not Ted Kazinski, or even Euell Gibbons.

I don't eat oak leaves, or live in a shack in the woods.

There is little you can buy that WallStreet doesn't take a cut of.

The rest of what say is presumptive BS.

[-] 0 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

Really? so, its either deny yourself nothing or live like Euell Gibbons? Oh, I'd better tell my partner who has no debt, no cell phone, doesn't eat oak leaves that his only choice is to buy everything the tv tells you to or do those things? I wonder how he functions? You are too young to know much, which is why you will fail if you don't wise up. STOP CONSUMING. His house is going to be paid off next year... he's not even CLOSE to foreclosing... because he doesn't consume and pays his bills. He PRIORITIZES. he buys only the clothes he needs, has never been in a Starbucks, refuses to drive a gas guzzling SUV... I guess you're right, he's a REPUBLICAN Euell Gibbons! I am a democrat with a computer so I'm more of a consumer. I think it's funny that a Republican is less of a consumer than a self righteous 'rebeller'.

[-] 2 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

Oh and p.s. we have an urban garden... we grow our own veggies... we're real freaks. You can continue to consume and whine about why the producers have more money and how unfair it is, or you can stop consuming and have more power.....

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 2 years ago

I too remember the 60s well. But doesn't our generation have some responsibility for the problems we see today. Make a list of everything you would like to acquire over the next 5 years. Now circle those things you probably will actually get. Like most of us you probably circled 25% or less of your list. However, most of us gave our children 75% to 100% of everything they asked for. This did not teach them the true realities of life, that your lucky if you get 25% of what you think you want in life. Many people of the younger generation today are still giving their children 75% to 100% of what they want. Notice I said want not need.

Getting angry and blaming them is not realistic, and will accomplish nothing. We all have to work together to solve these problems and take back the power of our pocketbook and consume less. Actually we are all starting to do it out of necessity now. That is part of the good that is coming out of this economic crisis. People are realizing that they don't have to have all these things to be happy.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Your thinking is far to black and white to be applicable.

Could you get it down to a couple of sentences?

Something succinct?

[-] 0 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

Stop giving the 1%'ers your money... CONSUME LESS. Kill your tv and stop the programming that you've had for the last 2-3 decades that you need to buy all this stuff... ditch the cell phone.. actually have a real interactive conversation, it's more healthy anyway. YOU DON'T NEED 20 PAIRS OF JEANS.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

I wanna see you try and shut off the TV on my wife.

I don't watch the damn thing.

Rookie.......!!!!

I already wear my jeans for a week. What else can I do?

[-] 0 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

If people weren't slaves to consumption, we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place!

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

You don't have to buy anything. If you buy from small business then Wall Street won't profit.

[-] 1 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

Because small businesses make everything they sell. They don't take deliveries from anywhere. Good plan. "I'd like a box of your homemade cereal please. And I'll need a homemade lightbulb. And do you have any homemade paper towels? Thanks!"

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 2 years ago

It is as simple as buying generic, buying energy efficient light bulbs, and there are homemade paper towels they're called rags. I rarely use paper towels, I still have a rag bag. Start small and you will be surprised how fast it will grow. By the way rags work better, too.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I used to buy quaker rolled oats, now I buy generic. It's that simple.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Another myth?

What would you have people do?

Live on someone else's front lawn and wear oak leaves for clothes?

Self imposed austerity?

It's not called a consumer society for no reason.

WallStreet or private investment firms, reap a profit on practically everything you do.

To think otherwise is naive.

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 2 years ago

Of course they will reap part of the profit, but it will be less and we will have more to use to pay down credit card debt and other debt we have, again decreasing their profit. It is just that simple.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If you owned 1000 shares of General Mills stock last year, you would have received a $2500 dividend. If you buy generic cereal instead, who will get the dividend next year? You will, in the form of lower prices.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

It would be nice, but it doesn't work that way.

WallStreet has a stake in the generic stuff too.

As well as in the entire banking, materials, manufacturing, delivery, sales and even the fuel to drive to get it.

WallStreet is in on everything.

How did you miss that?

Besides, I like Cheerios.

[-] 1 points by Judi49 (10) from Silverstreet, SC 2 years ago

Yes it does work that way, it is just that simple. Everything starts with that first small step. Go ahead eat your Cheerios. However, save somewhere else like using those homemade paper towels called rags. They really do work better.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So if you buy cheerios at $3 a box, and I buy generic at $2 a box, who provides the greater support for wall street political influence. The ingredient and manufacturing cost are about the same. The profit margin on generic is much lower and so the corporate profit is lower.

When election time comes around General mills has lots of money to contribute to candidates, the generic corporation has little.

Corporate influence is powered with money, the less we give them, the more power we have.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

It is equal.

No difference.

All dollars lead to WallStreet.

Occupy WallStreet!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Is wall street listening to the occupiers? Has wall street given even one dollar less in political contributions than they normally would?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Citizens United.

They extract even more from us.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

What is your strategy?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 2 years ago

Get the money out first.

No more lobbies, no more PACs, no more agencies like ALEC, no more constitutional rights for corporations.

Then we can look at the truth, and decide where to go next.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Totally agree. But how? They will fight hard to keep their power.

[-] 1 points by Nuadormrac (8) 2 years ago

Actually, the truth in this falls kinda on both sides, your post and what you responded to. For most things one doesn't have to buy this or that; but in a more general sense; which is I guess what he was getting at.

Take food for instance. You don't have to shop at a particular grocer, or eat a particular food, and yet one does have to buy food, in order to eat. The choice becomes eat or die. Now if one wanted to hunt their dinner, they could in the country, but in the big cities? Well unless one wants rat tar, tar to be on the menu....

People also need gas, if they're going to drive to work; which is also why with gas prices, things don't always follow the normal cycle of supply and demand. People cut out other things, to afford the gas they need to get to work, before they cut driving to work. Same goes with truckers making deliveries. Technically they could avoid buying diesal, for their trucks; but would mean, in consequence, not doing deliveries, aka not doing their job. So....

Now a local establishment, vs a big chain can be an option which people can make, but going without food altogether wouldn't be a wise deicision for those looking to remain alive next year... There is an element of practicality which enters into the range of choices people would, or could make. It's also why these things are many times termed basics, rather then luxury items....

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Please understand I am not saying to stop buying food and starve. Just buy generic and save money at the same time.

[-] 0 points by FreedomsSpeech (-5) 2 years ago

OWSers have no money.

Good luck with your boycott!

Tilting at windmills: The OWS mission.

[-] 1 points by TruNatrsChild (9) 2 years ago

You sure have enough money for an internet connection! Personally, if I was broke, away would go the internet connection and other things would come first... put your money where your mouth is and stop supporting the big cell phone corps, it's just blood money for the African nations anyway, those metals in your cell phone pay for their genocides.

[-] 0 points by WooHoo (15) 2 years ago

They also like to camp!

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17898) 2 years ago

Never mind the breakfast cereal protest, 'cut to the quick' ! Stick it to The Bankster Corporations !! Directly and just where it hurts !!!

Close any and all accounts with The Big Bankster Corps. & transfer your money to Local Credit Unions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_unions_in_the_United_States ) or to The Bank of North Dakota :

1) http://banknd.nd.gov/ ,

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota &

3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/16/bank-of-north-dakotasocia_n_463522.html .

Further, takes some steps to see just how we all got to where we are and in order to clarify OWS's 'raison d'etre', please watch The Documentary Film, 'INSIDE JOB' :

a) Free Download : http://www.multiupload.com/7B46GXEHYZ ,

b) Latest Working Link : http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ &

c) Official Movie Site & Trailer ; http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/ .

Narrated by Matt Damon ... "It's a powerhouse of a documentary that will leave you both thunderstruck and boiling with rage."

'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse. Through exhaustive research and extensive interviews with key financial insiders, politicians, journalists, and academics, the film traces the rise of a rogue industry which has corrupted politics, regulation, and academia. It was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We need to focus on a single corporate group so there is no doubt that we are responsible for their decline. The banks are an obvious target. If the 99% took every penny out of the banks, they still would have the enormous deposits of the 1%. It wouldn't hurt them nearly as much as a corporation that depends solely on sales of consumer goods. The bang for our buck would be heard much louder for a corporate group that does not depend on the wealthy consumers. I welcome suggestions on what corporate group would be better to target.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

The North Face

Offshored, made in China product. Corrupting new consumers to believe that a brand name alone is worth any questionable quality advantage.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

That is a possible target. They don't contribute to elections though, or are at least restricted from doing so.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

"I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!" Don't let Sonny the Cuckoo Bird lose his job!!!

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

This is your strategy? Good luck.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

What would be your strategy?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Didn't give a thought about it, have other less important things to take care of. Defeating evil corporations and banks come a little lower down my list of priorities at the moment. But I know what is a wrong strategy when I see one.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So why are you here?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago
  1. Coz I can.
  2. coz I have time. less hectic work these days.
  3. Coz i thought I should tell you guys a few thing about economics and finance.
  4. Coz i like to read these funny conspiracy ideas that u guys have. It's entertaining
[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Tell us about economics then. What is the most important idea we should know?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I wish there was one 'most important idea'. But may be Adam Smith's idea of specialization of labor, the whole concept of demand and supply and how prices are set, stuff like reservation price and may be even a understanding of trade agreements etc. The list is endless. Oh yes, keynesian economics, the monetarist philosophy, the concept of fiat currency, interest rates and how money/goods/services circulate in a economy.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Supply and demand is a key idea. Did you see the people literally breaking doors down to buy the latest Air Jordan shoes for $180 a pair? Why do you think the demand was so great?

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Oh I did not know that. I heard about the Black Friday incident.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

aah thats ugly.. ppl are so stupid.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So from an economic perspective, what caused this extreme demand? Was it a limited supply. Incredible advertising? Partially both?

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I doubt if it's limited supply. Sure a store can only store so many pairs. But people can always wait. But yes, supply is still a factor, advertizing too. But the point is none of those justify a stampede. I read some years ago that some guy Japan robbed and killed another person to buy an iPhone. Is that Apple's fault?