Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Capitalism is at it's end.

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 5:40 p.m. EST by rbarsom (0) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I did not expect to happen like this but this is how it will happen. Born in the Arab country's and now it will start here. Not sure what will replace it but by the text book.(Marx) We will go through a revolution and there will be a dictator then there will be a form of Socialism then "To each according to his ability ,for each according to his need."!

285 Comments

285 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 13 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

More anti-capitalist/socialist vs. free market fundamentalism raging here. We're getting nowhere.

We had a compromise in this country for most of the last century, that saw a nation more prosperous and equal than the world had ever seen. That saw the rise of a middle class bestowed with personal freedom and freedom from need and despair. Was it perfect? No. Nothing ever will be. These utopian ideals on both sides will lead only to suffering.

Neoliberalism has failed us, people. Call it Reaganomics, or trickle-down. Call it free trade or globalization. It's been 30 years of walking away from the grand compromise and towards Milton Friedman's utopian ideal for a pure free market. It's created so much despair and suffering that we're in real danger of swinging towards another extreme.

You all need to stop. Look around. See the real problems. Don't rely on some abstract theories to guide you. The reality is stark. Corporations and the wealthiest have sucked us dry. GDP is just fine, and will continue to be under neoliberal policies, but the people are disenfranchised and they despair.

And you defenders of the status quo. Have you hope? Really? Change needs to come, but not with some utopian goal. The answers have been here all along. I'm a progressive, and I'm telling you to look backwards.

[-] 4 points by RightsOfMan (45) from Brownsville, TX 12 years ago

Much of the deregulation leading to this was catalyzed by Alan Greenspan and his faith in free markets. He, in no uncertain terms, publicly admitted that his free market ideals failed miserably following the 2008 market collapse. Even the architect of our current system acknowledges that it didn't work. There are good things in capitalism, socialism, etc. I agree that compromise is the answer on this one.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Agreed, it's a big part. That, unilateral disarmament on free trade agreements, discarding of sound Keynesian economics with tax cuts and military spending during booms and cries of "deficits" during busts, the lack of increases in the minimum wage, etc...We've been dismantling our society for profit for 30 years and it needs to stop.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I actually think we've been dismantling it for far longer than that...

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

You're right, but the election of Reagan as a focal point works rhetorically. He was as much a product of the prevailing "wisdom" as a practitioner. He was just so successful at upending the social contract that he stands out.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You know, I don't know if you yourself even understand the social contract - it was born of American Puritanism; it did not exist in England. But there was a distinction made between those incapable of working and those unwilling to work, for whatever reason - alcoholism being one example. Those unwilling were 'warned out," barred from the community, because there was a religious mandate to charity for all those who remained within. Those unwilling were "transported" to outlying communities of similar people and left to survive on their own. I think we need to make a similar distinction because any other is self defeating and most ultimately deprive ALL of dignity, which can only be derived through one's self-determinism. Or the ability to assertively command one's own presence, in the present and the future.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

I'm getting the idea you might just want to argue for its own sake. I don't have the time, unfortunately.

For the record, a.) I don't necessarily disagree with your points (however might consider viewing alcoholism as a sickness) and b.) the social contract is an ancient idea, but was made concrete by Rousseau, in France, in 1762.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You should review your history - the "social contract" was present in colonial America long before Rousseau was ever born.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

I understand - I think it is present in some of Plato's work, for example. The modern Enlightenment notion of it was put forth by Hobbes, Locke, and others, but especially Rousseau - and it was these ideas that affected the founders. I was more arguing with its supposed basis in American puritanism...

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

There are Lockean and Aristotelian elements in the Preamble of our Declaration, in fact, the preamble was virtually plagiarized. But I don't know how much the Fathers were influenced by any of those historically noted as authors of the "Enlightenment" - ultimately they were all discarded because all were monarchists (see John Adams).

This period of the Illuminati and the resulting French Revolution was labeled as "The Terror" - it struck fear throughout the colonies as many envisioned an infiltration here of the very same enlightened, Illuminati.

Although they considered the words of all, choices were ultimately the result of a mindset that had been continuously nurtured for well over 800 years, and had been in existence in lesser form amongst the various religious microcosms for over 150 years - their feelings were the result of real life experience weighed against Humanism, interpreted through the application of reason to biblical exegesis, and measured through Ramus logic.

If we are to tie it all to any one set cause, then it is this - "that thou shall have no other Gods before me." Because it was this one statement that empowered all to challenge and rise against aristocracy, to say, that I cannot go the way of your corruption - I must answer to a higher power. With this one statement, the concept of a free Utopia in America was born.

And I would like to add, that this is NOT a religious rant because I am very casual in religious belief - it is simply the truth of our history which must be approached devoid of an bias whatsoever.

[-] 0 points by Republicae (81) 12 years ago

Greenspan was not a Free-Marketeer, on the contrary his monetary policies prove that fact. He was an interventionist, a supporter of the Government Patronage System. He was a Mercantilist of the first order who abandoned all Free-Market Principles!

The Free-Market, which, by the way, we have not seen in this country in over 100 years, was not the cause of the Panic of 2008, the Government's policy of Patronages, of favored regulatory discrimination that creates essentially monopoly powers for certain favored corporations, especially the banks, was what caused the Panic of 2008.

You cannot blame the Free-Market when we haven't had one in this country, we have had what is essentially a Mixed Political Economy, created for the specific purpose of redistributing wealth from the working class People into the hands of those who can line up at the Fiat Monetary trough first.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/i-made-a-mistake-says-greenspan/story-e6frg9mf-1111117848644

100 years... Yay Gilded Age, huh? I think the robber barons proved the flaw in that.

[-] 0 points by Republicae (81) 12 years ago

I understand the commonly held view of the period we associate with the “robber barons” however, as usual, there are far more involved with the issue than the myth that is promoted. It is extremely important to make distinctions, just as important to day concerning the so-called 1% as it is concerning the various roles of the “robber barons”, at least I would think a clear understanding with clear distinctions are more important than mere blanket statements and blind adherence to purposeful mythology. Then, as now, there are actual market entrepreneurs and those who are political entrepreneurs, the distinction is extremely important if we are to understand the direction that should be and should not be taken in this country. It is easy to make slogans that provide a blanket description, such as the 1% or “robber barons”, such slogans serve a purpose, but they do not always accurately describe what happened or what is happening.

It should be noted that there is a difference between those who use the Government’s Patronage System to advance their wealth and those who are actual market entrepreneurs who use their own abilities, their intelligence and their business savvy to create either some new and needed product or service. The key, after all for any market entrepreneur is to provide a product and to profit from the sell of that product without any direct or indirect government assistance or any type of subsidy. The fact is that you can walk through any of the OWS protest and see that everyone of the participants enjoy the fruit of someone or some company’s labor, creativity and their ability to provide a good product at a relatively reasonable price. In a purely capitalist society it is the consumer that determines the success of a person or a company who is able to provide a product that pleases consumers. Unfortunately, we don’t have and have not had such a capitalist society for decades, we have had a mixed economy where government is deeply involved with just about every economic factor from monetary policy to labor to employment, regulating, in many instances, in ways that protect not the ability to function within a free market, but it protects a system of patronage that gives an unfair edge to those who participate in that system of patronage.

That is what is provided and has been provided by this government, do you think the “robber barons” got to the place they were simply by market entrepreneurship? NO, if you read what took place there was a system of Mercantilism, the same system that is taking place today under the guise of free-market capitalism, but is, in fact, nothing more than government sponsored corporatism, otherwise known as Fascism, the socialized system that marries the power of government with the power of corporations, they are political entrepreneurs, but they are most definitely not market entrepreneur capitalists! Political entrepreneurs use the power of influence within the political arena to again an advantage, either through subsidies or through the enactment of various types of favorable legislations, government loans, or in many cases, such political entrepreneurs promote government regulation that can and usually does harm his competitors or at least prevents his competitors from playing on the same level ground as the political entrepreneur.

We assume, based on the mythology, that “robber barons” were free market capitalists, they were not, the were Mercantilists who advanced their commercial interests in the same what that most corporations do today, through government patronages.

The fact is that even though there was the abuse of the "robber barons", the general population saw a great advance during that period. The question that must be asked is what type of system best fits and benefits the vast majority of people in this country: Market Entrepreneurship or Political Entrepreneurship....I declare that the only thing that can raise the standard of living of more people quicker than anything else is Market Entrepreneurship therefore, the fight must be against the canker of Political Entrepreneurship which is nothing more than a form of Fascism.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago

"We assume, based on the mythology, that “robber barons” were free market capitalists, they were not, the were Mercantilists who advanced their commercial interests in the same what that most corporations do today, through government patronages. "

The point is this: The conjecture that small government means less domination of said government by wealth is terribly unsupported by facts - the history of the Gilded Age says the opposite.

The prosperity of the Gilded Age was westward expansion and industrialization, and the size of government had little impact - except that in its almost absence it allowed rampant inequality and set us up for the crash(es) - not to mention a very real threat of a true socialist takeover, which FDR likely prevented.

We likely agree on such things as bank bailouts, but small government as a panacea, no way.

[-] 0 points by Republicae (81) 12 years ago

Small government, I suppose it depends on the definition, does it not? In my mind, based upon the history of this country, small government means a government limited by a strict interpretation of the Law of the Land, meaning the Constitution. If a power is not delegated to the government by that document then it is unlawful for government to proceed beyond that point. It can be certain that Big Government is not a solution for if it were then we would not face the problems we do today, nor is money the solution for there has been vast amounts of fiat money printed and floated into circulation around the world to solve all the problems if the problems were solely monetary in nature. I declare that it is a combination of issues that have converged to cause of to face the situation we now do, that a government that easily side-steps the law, that creates and promotes a patronage system and that intervenes in the markets is the major factor contributing to the problems we face today. Un-Constitutional actions, acts, legislations, regulations and patronages, such as subsidies, bailouts, secret political deals with corporations, corporations helping to write the very regulations that regulate their industries are all part of the problem. That the Federal Reserve facilitates the operations of this government and benefits it in ways that are unseen, that the WAR-Machine is facilitated by the governments usage of the fiat monetary policy of the FED, that the patronage system is facilitated by the FED and that the disparity in our society is promoted by monetary policies promoted by the FED and this government.

[-] -1 points by uslynx81 (203) 12 years ago

LOL Alan Greenspan caused these bubbles. He did not have any faith in the free market or he wouldn't have tried to control interest rates or control the amount of cash in the system. Wow go do more home work come back when you know what your talking about.

[-] 1 points by RightsOfMan (45) from Brownsville, TX 12 years ago

I watched footage of his testimony on the issue! Don't be so sure you know everything...

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 12 years ago

How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes - Go read this book now and see how a cartoon and 3 fishermen will give you greater insight to economics then 4 years at Harvard.

[-] -2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Greenspan, husband to left wing media mouthpiece Andrea Mitchel. What does that tell you?

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Neoliberal mouthpiece, aka financial right (but not Austrian right-wing),

[-] 0 points by Rebellious (1) 12 years ago

Russia has no Ron Paul and no Reagan. There is no mortgage interest tax deduction. There are no 30-year fixed-rate 20 percent on a home purchase, they must purchase mortgage insurance to cover the debt in the case of default.home loans that can be freely refinanced and prepaid. Mortgage lending is far more conservative, and Canadian mortgage lenders have a lot more equal access, and we cannot have equal opportunity without opportunity. And a successful GDP does make us take a look at what THE FUCK HAPPENED TO RUSSIA

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

"I'm a progressive, and I'm telling you to look backwards."

Oddly beautiful.

[-] 4 points by BJS3D (95) from Eugene, OR 12 years ago

If by "backwards" you mean "restoration of the core values of this country and the liberation of the unamended US Constitution from the corrupt hands of financial barons": absolutely... and, if so, 'simply beautiful'.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

And even further... the Constitution was the product of an at least 800 year history - more, the result of human desire tens of thousands of years old.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

It's a reality - want to know who we are, why we think or feel the way we do... so that we might in some way more profitably effect the future... look backwards - all the way to the birth of human consciousness, and beyond.

[-] 3 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 12 years ago

Agreed. Ultimately, it's about priorities. The Finnish and Germans think we're insane. They're right, of course. They've decided to make people a priority. They don't actually call it anything. To them, it makes complete intuitive sense: you want to take care of your most precious resource, and that's people. Period.

And ultimately, it's about opportunity costs: we have a finite amount of resources, what should we do with them? In Finland, they worked to eradicate homelessness; they're not wild-eyed marxists, or impoverished--or unhappy. Just the opposite, in fact. In the United States, we spent $1 - 4 trillion engaged in illegal wars. I love deconstructing ideas and ideals, but sometimes, it's as simple as saying: These are our priorities as a country, let's execute to make them a reality. The #OWS movement could help define that and rise about limiting labels and ideological orthodoxies which, frankly, often obscure the main issues.

Here's more on this if you're interested:

http://groobiecat.blogspot.com/2011/10/laissez-unfaire-thoughts-on-national.html

Peace.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

So right on every count.

[-] 3 points by gagablogger (207) 12 years ago

Yes. Time to General Strike.

[-] 3 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Mixed economies are part social, part capitalist. At least work for that.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Socialism as the common defense, the communal education of children, the care for the infirm, elderly, or disabled... is evolutionary and present in all societies.

[-] 2 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You know, not to sound "Marxist" because I'm not... but this desire in all for self determinism, to take care of ourselves, to assert ourselves freely as a means of directing the course of our own future (the right to pursue happiness[?]) is not Utopian, it's evolutionary. And present in all beings worldwide. But we cannot have free access without equal access, and we cannot have equal opportunity without opportunity. And a successful GDP does not equate to a successful medium income... the measure of GDP ignores the disparity of wealth as it migrates to the top.

It's the World Banks that are focused on GDP... because they finance all of it.

We need to see the real problems, you're right. And that's what this discussion or debate is all about. We want to see the real problems because we are tired of the smoke and mirrors intended to blind all.

PS: Y'all are right about Free Markets (which is not the same as the above desire to pursue as Free [but appropriately regulated] Enterprise... The "Free Market" equates to outsourcing and further disparity.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

So, I think you may have interpreted this a criticism of the movement? Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm criticizing both of what seem to be two ideological poles tearing the movement apart. A small dedicated anti-capitalist group that includes hardcore socialists, communists, RBE-proponents, and anti-monetarists of all kinds, and an equally dedicated (fanatical) group of Ron Paul libertarian free-market fundamentalists.

Self-determinism is everything. I'd like us to will a better future, not just with egocentric goals, for ourselves, but out of respect for our basic humanity, for all of our neighbors.

I happen to think the values that underlie collectivist systems most closely map to this worldview, but proponents ignore the historical examples and aspects of human nature that make such systems infeasible, utopian. I feel similarly about the other side, but have less respect for their ideological virtue - however they do certainly understand greed, which is one thing that the collectivists do not.

The truth about our human nature lies somewhere between these two opposing worldviews, and I believe (and the historical evidence agrees) that a society which reflects both aspects of humanity will function best, with greatest benefit for all.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I agree.. with one minor exception, in that I am not so certain the word Utopian should be so readily linked with this connotation of "infeasible." I see Utopia as a more "perfect place" and the desire for such a place is present within all. So I would not deride any as "Utopian." Utopia, in fact, is what America has striven for, what we have tried for 400 years to emulate - the very word is present throughout our history.

The truth of our human nature actually follows a very specific and well defined path... and on such a path, a republic some three thousand miles in breadth, absolutely cannot theoretically exist. We are an anomaly - the Utopia by design. Would we dissuade then our children from seeking to perfect?

The words of our Preamble, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." represent the most profound philosophical statement of all time - really, there are none others in all of western philosophy that so perfectly define the human condition. But it may take some critical thought in the extreme to convince others of the absolute truth of such well understood Ramus logic. And few people in America today can match the combined intellect of these Founding Fathers. It's gonna be a struggle.

[-] 2 points by Marchelo (67) 12 years ago

Well said. I would agree to your assertion that Utopian ideals are something to be striven for so long as there is a separation of individual goals and societal goals.

Individuals should strive to create their own utopian dream, but our governments should not strive to create a utopia for its citizens. It may seek to create a foundation for all to achieve their own dreams but it must not impose upon us the terms of one ideological utopia.

It pleases me greatly to see this level of dialogue here. Bravo, betuadollar and an0n! You give me hope that we may yet win this struggle.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You overlook one minor element in your statement, and that is that each and every one of us is but a government unto ourselves: we are our own masters (the executive branch), we are self conscious (the judicial branch), and we determine and choose the path of our own behavior (the legislative branch)... the nuclear family in America is a subset, a unit, of government... this government was intended to mimic as an extension of ourselves, the "perpetual" and "universal" (in Puritan definition) collective subconscious of all mankind. And as such it was expected to be, with an unbridled hope, the most successful government ever envisioned.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

I'm a libartarian and say the same

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Ok, backing up. I misread this as "say the name" and got confrontational. Need new glasses. Sorry for being a dick. Tensions are high.

Listen, yes, let's fight the takeover by the oligarchs and their fascist minions. I'm there. I don't want to be battling amongst ourselves, except, this... I've had a lot of experience out there fighting what I see as the good fight (i.e. stopping environmental destruction) and I include the Koch brothers and their ideology as part of that group of oligarchs and fascists. In fact I see them near the center of it. So when I see that same ideology being sold here as a solution, I go off.

We're not going to agree, fine, but how can I trust my supposed allies in this situation?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

All I know is that in my state, I worked with others and we got rid of a republican senator that voted for TARP and through the tea party and freedomworks, we are going to get rid of another that has also voted for TARP and has many friends in big pharma, big oil, and Wall St. Let these actions speak for themselves. You don't need to trust. There's evidence.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

I will keep it in mind, then.

[-] 4 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

an0n, I see what you're saying now. I thought all these attacks on libertarians were out of left field and was a little depressed that this movement had so quickly been co-opted by the left. I realize now that some RP supporters are really that bad. It's too bad that some won't ever take a look at RP because of how abrasive some of his supporters are.

[-] 1 points by hakuin (12) 12 years ago

Terrorists Attack United States ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s87Fk23H5Ok

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago
[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

that sounds alright except the collectivist part. I live in Utah and am not religious. I don't want to be treated as a mormon. I support gay marriage and the LGBT communities rights as minorities. If we are all collectively mormon, then the mob rule tramples on the minorities. We can't drink on Sunday and if you're not a republican here you really have no say in choosing your representatives. I want to be treated as an individual.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Ok, libArtarian.

[-] 3 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

an0n, I'm not sure where you are going with your arguments. If you agree that fascism in this country is a problem for 99% of us then let's fight it together. I'll keep my libArtarian views to myself for now and ask you not to inject your philosophy if it is beyond, what most of us can agree upon. That way we won't be divided and conquored as usual.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

I see your ideology as extreme. I think it's the reason for the division. I started pushing my ideology when it became clear the Paulians were making OWS about theirs - which I find antithetical in many, many ways to the OWS message of injustice.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

That's fine and the Paulites probably did so. Let's "go back" as you say and leave both ideologies out. Let's talk about fascism. I think we are in agreement on that.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

A little bit of the middle east peace problem. You may be a reasonable president of the Palestinian Authority but you don't speak for Hamas. Gah, I can't believe I'm Israel. :)

Yes, there's a fascism problem and it does suck. But many of yours have been calling my liberal views fascist too....

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

I'm not going to convert you and you're not going to convert me. Let's stop the soliciting. Paulites can be very irrational, I know from experience. They don't represent me.

[-] 2 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Amongst them it's like a race to the monarchy. At some point you can't even spend it all. Are they just addicts because they can't produce something to satisfy themselves? They just bet and feed?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

They are us, bro... i.e., "human."

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 12 years ago

This is right on.

[-] 1 points by ChrisArnold628 (6) from Gordon, GA 12 years ago

well i disagree.thats like saying 30 people can't go out and set up camp and start building a community and all live fine and do there parts....wait...didn't natives do that? Yes, and they where fine until we came and gave them the shaft. And i know what your thinking...so where supose to go back to living in the woods? No, why the hell would that be plausible?

Its not like because all humans have equal wealth, inspiration to better ourlives will fade, the fact is it would increase because of equal education and building things to work not building things with market strategy to make the most money out of the idea by slowly progressing it with newer models.

[-] 1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 12 years ago

funny, I always thought progress relied on moving forwards.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction there.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

That's why I pointed it out. When society has regressed, then maybe contradiction.. isn't.

[-] 1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 12 years ago

when society has regressed due to the system they imposed on themselves, maybe repeating it would be a bad thing.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

All of history seems, in some way, to be a repeat. I'm not making the pessimistic claim that there is no progress, but that sometimes the past is more progressive than the present or the near future.

I'm also not suggesting we literally go back in every way (obviously impossible) but that we look back to what was, in many ways, a more progressive time, in order to guide us on building a more progressive future.

The classical Greeks and Romans still have much to teach us. I suggest we can learn almost as much from progressive thinkers of recent history, and the models of society and economy that seemed to benefit people more than the ones we have now.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it." - Santayana

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 12 years ago

I have found common ground with you in this statement.

[-] 1 points by FamilyFoodGardens (240) 12 years ago

I think the American in the following video is doing less harm to children working in sweat shops and eating far better than the Average American and he has a much more relaxed, pleasurable and healthy life. http://www.backtoedenfilm.com

Support our petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/SoLMag/petition.html

Vote for people with family food gardens and invest in life.

Occupy your motherland!

[-] 1 points by malikov (443) from Pasadena, CA 12 years ago
[-] 0 points by 666isMONEY (348) 12 years ago

What's the matter with having a utopian goal, don't U have hope? (I'm losing mine because of "progressive" dogma like yours.)

Looking Backward: "I had visited a world incomparably more affluent than this, in which money was unknown and without conceivable use. . . . These exchanges money effected -- how equitably, might be seen in a walk from the tenement house districts to the Back Bay [Boston] -- at a cost of an army of men taken from productive labor to manage it, with constant ruinous breakdowns of its machinery, and a generally debauching influence on mankind which had justified its description, from ancient time as the "root of all evil." — Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, 1888

[-] 0 points by rabidmoderate (13) from Lawrence, KS 12 years ago

I have a lot of hope. I don't see that the world is all that bad. Flawed and sometimes absurd, but not all that bad from a historical perspective. Most people in the US don't know what real poverty is. Are the people in NYC protesting hunger? No. They are protesting greed! To me, it is not entirely clear the protesters simply want a piece of that greed for themselves. No one seems to be citing the greed of home-buyers who wanted larger, more expensive homes than they could afford. Many got a bad deal (and I am not discounting or belittling their struggles) but many were merely speculating in the market and lost. In the end the banks were the ones who got stuck with the over-valued assets. People were able to walk away from them and not go to jail for not paying their debts. No one seems to be mentioning that the banks had to pay back the bail-out money, but few home-owners have to pay the bank the difference between what the home was sold for and what it is now worth. Maybe because that doesn't fit with the fear tactics of painting bankers as evil, greedy, power-hungry oligarchs.

All the economic measures and statistics people are using are meant to inspire fear. I look around and I see that even poor people in this country have far more than they need, and I wonder what everyone is so angry about? When people say that 97% of people make less than the average salary, that just means that there are some extremely rich people in the sample. It doesn't mean that the 97% have it that bad. I am happy for the rich, most of whom make extremely large donations to non-profit organizations and many of whom are supporting the OWS movement with donations.

I am recently divorced, lost my business and have student debt and mounting consumer credit. It is no one's fault but mine (and the shared responsibility of my former spouse) that I am in this situation. I am not angry at bankers for it. I am not even angry at myself anymore. I am looking for ways to cope.

anOn is right that a good compromise is the best solution, but that doesn't mean that people can't get really rich. In the end, the banks are in the business of helping people realize their dreams, because if they weren't then they would go out of business with or without government bail-outs. There needs to be reasonable and equitable regulation of the financial markets, but no one can foresee and stop all bad ideas from taking root.

I know that the OWS campaign says that it is anti-hate, but hate the rich seems to be the main theme echoed by its followers. The enemy is "Banks" and "Corporations". There is a lot of "THEY" and "THEM" speak, which is the insidious language of bigotry. The world is developing faster than at any time in history and it is because of the investment of Banks and Corporations that every single day, the standard of living for most of the world increases, even in this economic slup. Please do not cripple these critically important institutions with your hatred and anger.

I support your right to assemble and speak your mind, whether you have nice things or angry things to say, but please stop pretending that you are going to restore democracy. That makes your movement egotistical and narcissistic. I have democracy, and though it is not perfect, it is because you live in a democratic society (that has put a Bill of Rights into place that protects me not only from corporations but from mobs like the OWS movement) that you are able to assemble and yell at the bankers. It is nice that you limited the drumming to 2 hours per day, because that at least shows that you acknowledge that when you speak loudly, other people are prevented from being heard. Hopefully you don't lose sight of the bankers' and corporate CEOs' rights as well. They still do have them.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

Ridiculous Mikey. Newt, the guy who shut down the government and demagogued Clinton's affair even while he apparently cheated on all three wives... Compromise indeed.

Not to mention both he and Clinton were part of the post-Reagan coalition of neoliberal fools.

[-] -1 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Most people look back on those years as prosperous. Certainly more so than the1932-1940 era. Call it an illusion, call it what you will, those who lived it will call it what it was.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

It was a high-wire act without a net. Just like the 20s and the Gilded Age before that. Most people see the 40s-70s as prosperous also, and there was a solid foundation for that.

[-] -2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Whatever it was, it wasn't FDR's social contract.

[-] 3 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago
[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

Had you said Bachmann, Cain, or Ron Paul, I'd probably just assume you're another kook.

But when it said "Newt Gingrich", I just thought it was so adorable that someone thinks he stands a chance of being elected president.

[-] -2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

LoL. Nice. Actually, you can replace the name Gingrich with "potted plant". A dead cat could bet Obama in 2012.

[-] 4 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

I'm pretty sure the only candidate that has consistently beat Obama in the polls is "Unnamed Republican Candidate". Once they're named, Obama beats them all except sometimes Romney wins by a point or two.

My suggestion to the RNC is to select one candidate, at random, give them a voice modulator, and a mask with a question mark on it and roll with it

[-] -2 points by MikeyD (581) from Alameda, CA 12 years ago

Wow. Either you don't read, or you are living in denial. That Uncle Tom Ex-Fed President fascist Herman Cain beat Obama in a poll just yesterday. Romney consistently beats him.

Mind you, these numbers are all meaningless because the Republicans havent even begun the 6 month process of chosing a candidate. Normally, until a candidate is chosen, no up and comer can beat a sitting president because all of the opposition has not congealed around that person yet.

Believe me, when the Republicans choose a candidate, the polls will immediately show an enormous lead over Obama. The fact they already show a mild lead should be scaring the crap out of the guy in office.

[-] 7 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

capitalism has never existed, so it can't be at an end. corporate oligarchy has existed. as long as you are attacking capitalism which does not exist your propping up corporate oligarchy.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Capitalism exists in each and every one of us as the product of self determinism. And it exists in many, many forms. Even this debate is an attempt to capitalize.

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

the form of government we have is corporate oligarchy, not capitalism. its more akin to socialism, we have a socialized nobility class and secret shadow government by , of, and for them.

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Capitalism is all about economics... it's not a form of government. But government does have a dual responsibility to promote the general welfare. Which it appears most politicians take advantage of.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

capitalism is a fiction, which does not exist, which corporate oligarchy uses to trick the conservers into participating just like they use social services to sucker in democrats. It is a theoretical form of government. It has never existed on this planet and probably can't and won't ever exist.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

If one works, one attempts to capitalize on his or her own labor. If one takes the paycheck to the bank, and deposits in an account that bears interest, one capitalizes on his dollar. If one shops for a better price one capitalizes on both his labor and his dollar. If one trades, one capitalizes. If one hunts, one capitalizes... capitalism is everywhere. It thrives even where it's been outlawed - the black market, the drug dealer, gambling, prostitution, we can go and on. Capitalism is evolutionary.

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

you seem to be conflating an economic strategy with an economic system. Capitalism as a system does not exist.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

That's exactly right - capitalism is not a system.

[-] 6 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

this system isn't capitalism, it's crony capitalism. if you can't understand the difference then i'm not sure i want you in the discussion of proposing solutions.

[-] 2 points by sewen (154) 12 years ago

Hi this is for rbarsom (above), a good explanation of the history of Capitalism (what has happened in the last 40-50 years). "Capitalism Hits the Fan" by Richard Wolff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HTkEBIoxBA . Or like you said Crony Capitalism (or Corporatocracy). http://www.just-gov.com/introduction/

[-] 0 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

What's the difference? A system based on greed is flawed anyway. Greed is not some magical concept that when left unchecked leads to functional society.

[-] 2 points by booshington (397) 12 years ago

That's the problem right there, it was left unchecked.

Industry needs to be tightly regulated and watched over in order to function in a way that benefit society as a whole. Without regulation, corporations will function in a way which benefits them the maximum amount at the expense of society.

[-] 2 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Such regulation is what I propose.

[-] 1 points by TheNewRevolution (1) 12 years ago

It's already regulated. The problem is the regulations are in favor of those in charge. America doesn't need more regulations, we need to trash the old ones and instate new fairer ones

[-] 2 points by Crossroads (19) 12 years ago

No they are NOT regulated. A corporation can rob you blind, and even with the law behind you you cannot touch a corporation in a court of law. THIS has to change.

[-] 1 points by wallstreetbanker (6) 12 years ago

a corporation can only rob you blind if you give them your money. stop giving corporations your money. buy food from a local grower. ride a bike for local transport. bank at local credit unions. buy at thrift stores. buy everything you need 2nd hand.

[-] 2 points by Crossroads (19) 12 years ago

I'm actually talking about bigger money than merely what it takes to buy food. Long story. If they rob your money by fraud and deceit and there are laws directly protecting you, they should be forced to pay you back.

However, they are heavily unregulated and untouchable. There are too many loopholes, or should I say black holes for them to steal with. Your hard-earned money will sucked into the black hole of theft to an offshore destination never be seen again. And under the present laws protecting the corporations, the gov entities could care less.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

So how do you enforce just behavior of the unscrupulous and all-powerful? What will be their Achilles heel in the end? I think that's the question at the heart of the movement. I think it's a new tender. Maybe we just break away from them. We need to examine our options.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

And you'd be amazed at how many small business people are skilled in a wide range of areas. You can do what we did and fix all the corporate junk products people threw out. Rebuild them and keep that company's profits down each quarter while giving to an ethical business and having more liquid for yourselves.

[-] 1 points by confused5percenter (6) 12 years ago

I think you are confusing corporations with chain stores. Many local grocers are incorporated. Many individuals are incorporated also. Is there a size of a business that you don't like? I.e. This size business is ok to buy from, but this other size business isn't? I'm confused. Who should I buy from exactly? And when I ride my bike, should I put my kids and my dog on the bike too?

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

You want to look for stores that are employee owned and specialize in local products with good prices which go down when a community invests in them. A good example is Woodman's out of WI.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Agreed. Along with new governing peoples.

[-] 0 points by kevinsutavee (209) 12 years ago

what is the impetus to start or maintain a corporation if it is tightly regulated and heavely taxed, i believe you made some boobish remark on a thread i saw yesterday and here you go... try to expand your horizons a bit.. you are all trying to sew the arms and legs back onto the guy who caught a grenade... here watch this PLEASE.. you have nothing to lose http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

[-] 2 points by booshington (397) 12 years ago

You can still have a successful company that grows and makes money for it's owners while having to meet regulations. You would be silly to suggest that it's impossible.

[-] 0 points by kevinsutavee (209) 12 years ago

well then call me silly.. i own several businesses how many do you own?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 12 years ago

"several businesses", huh? Sounds like you're not very confident in any of them.

[-] 0 points by kevinsutavee (209) 12 years ago

if you say so.. haha

[-] 0 points by booshington (397) 12 years ago

... you do realize there are already successful companies that operate in strictly regulated markets right?

[-] -1 points by kevinsutavee (209) 12 years ago

yes, mobile, halliburton, walmart.. and then businesses like the ones i own.. yes.. and your point?

[-] 1 points by wallstreetbanker (6) 12 years ago

greed is wanting more than you need. look around. who doesn't have more than they need..??

[-] 2 points by confused5percenter (6) 12 years ago

And Marxism is defining what other people need.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Oh I know a few cats. Might have something they don't need and not what is quintessential to their survival.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

The purpose of greed is to ensure that we survive the lean times.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

crony capitalism is where the government and corporations have gotten together to benefit the power of eachother. it is about unfair competition. it's a rigged game. capitalism is not. where it is not free from flaws, we can use intelligent government policy to remedy them.

it is a system based on self-interest, this is true. as is human nature. a system that does not acknowledge this truth is flawed anyway.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

It's true. If you are small and they all have brushes, they will paint you into a corner.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Is the intelligent governmental policy in this case laws that prevent such alliances between government and corporation?

This is what I have been proposing all along. Though I think that were such laws to be passed, many of the defining features of capitalism would disappear in favor of standardized systems (such as healthcare) for the people.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

i don't think it requires a law, i don't believe that alliance is allowed in the first place. maybe having a law would help to explicitly spell it out rather than to allow interpretations of laws that allow for it would be beneficial though. if you ask me though, things like a bailout are not constitutional in the first place.

i don't know what you mean in regards to defining features of capitalism/standardized systems/healthcare ?

[-] 0 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

One of the primary features of capitalism is that things like healthcare are run by private organizations and purchased individually. What I meant was that it seems likely that this trend would disappear to be replaced with universal healthcare (similar to what was just passed, but even stronger).

The alliance I refer to is groups lobbying politicians via money (very important) to certain ends. I'm not opposed to lobbying via argument (e.g. "hey do this cause i'ts best for the people"). The first sort of lobbying I mentioned is currently legal. I wish it weren't.

[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

actually i don't think it is - you are making it sound like they are more or less directly bribed. this is much more indirect. which is why even if you put in whatever law you think will stop it, that i think they will just continue to indirectly scratch eachother's backs.

not following you on hc. if we prevent alliances between gov and corps, why would we be more likely to have UHC? what was just passed was the opposite, a stronger alliance of them. big pharma and insurance wrote a lot of that law, and a lot of new people were fed to insurance companies.

what is wrong with individually purhcased health care plans? that is actually what the new federal exchange is hoped to be. i just watched a debate where howard dean (democrat, doctor) was hoping small businesses would just give employees money and dump them on the exchange to buy health care. this would be a market with companies competing for business, and health care consumers becoming more educated and responsible for their choices. how different is this than what ron paul (republican, libertarian, doctor) also wants?

the differents to me is that the democrats blame the current state of things on the free market, when it was really a government created mess. for example, dean wants employers out of health care there, right? so does ron. so do most people. so do employers! so why has health care been tied to employment? during ww2 wages were frozen, and businesses lobbied congress to tax exempt benefits, so they could compete for talent not by raising wages, but providing more benefits - like health care. the HMO act of 1973 also required businesses to offer some kind of plan as well iirc. a free market did not create this tie - the government did. rather than slap an exchange on top of it - we could just get rid of these tax exemptions and mandates.

for another example, we have the now decades long digital revolution where businesses have left paper documents for digital ones. the benefits are there for electronic medical records - so why have more providers not adopted them? it's because the government has mandated that paper records be kept. so they do not want to maintain 2 systems.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

i can't hit reply on your posts. do you notice if i reply to my own?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Healthcare was a bad example, and I have nothing against everybody purchasing their own in principle, only that in so many cases, people are unable to due to their financial circumstances.

The fact that the government has fucked it up already doesn't mean the system I propose wouldn't work. I think that really either would, but trying to do a middle ground between the two ends in failure, which is what we're seeing. I do concede that the government often makes bad decisions, but that doesn't mean that they can't help at all, it means they need more direction from the people who receive the benefits.

On the other point though, do you think that if such a law were passed it wouldn't help at all?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

And what makes you think more regulation, more government will check that Greed? Aren't politicians just as greedy as the next guy?

[-] 1 points by booshington (397) 12 years ago

If you put in place a tight set of rules by which say, a bank, has to operate by that allows it to conduct business and grow while protecting consumers and citizens then you have succeeded in regulation.

I know the libertarian mantra is "down with regulation!" but you really need to understand that without regulation there is nothing to stop corporations from destroying everything in their path to maximum profits.

The crisis of 2008 was caused by a lack of regulation on the financial markets. The deregulation process started with Reagan and every president since him further deregulated banks. 2008 was the result and people are still talking about how we need less regulation.

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Oh there are plenty of things stopping corporations with no regulation from destroying everything in their path without regulation. The problem is now, the biggest roadblock: the risk of failure, is being taken away by the very regulation you want put in place. Why is that so hard to see?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Absolutely. The idea is that the majority, realizing that it's best for them, will pressure the politicians into passing a law that disallows that sort of thing.

I suppose in a nutshell it's this: If people won't stop being greedy of their own free will, make them stop.

Though in a perfect world people would run for office out of a sense of duty. Then we wouldn't have this problem.

[-] 2 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

pass a law that does what? bans greed? that will probably work as well as a law that bans lust.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Metaphorically speaking. What I mean to say is a law that disallows private interests to lobby law-makers. See my reply below.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Well don't we already have that system ccrice?

"make them stop". Really now? Interesting.,..

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Iv'e heard a number of ways. The most common is a constitutional amendment that disallows the private funding of governmental officials. Even a mere law that does this would suffice. Were this to occur, would it not be that politicians would have no more reason to prefer interests of corporations unless it benefited the majority in some way?

Then, laws that allow greed explicitly would not be passed, and laws that disallow it would be passed, given that such laws are for the benefit of all (and I see no reason why they wouldn't be). Thus, we have 'made them stop'.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

i can't reply under your comment about personhood to a corporation, the link isn't there for some reason. in any case, do you have another example? iirc that decision was determined by the supreme court to be about speech. i don't see how that exactly "allows greed" and i have trouble believing there is any law that 'explicitly allows it' or any that would stop it.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Hmm. It may be that my wording is bad. By 'allows greed' I mean this in a very indirect sense, meaning in a way where practices that benefit a small group to the detriment of the majority are allowed.

Does that help?

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

So you are certain that these laws, passed by legislators who get kick backs from Corporations mind you, will have the public's best interest in mind? Also you think a little law is going to stop corporations from bribing politicians?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Certainly we can't stop those secret parking garage deals, but are you saying that because we can't stop those, we shouldn't stop the legal kinds?

I think that given enough pressure, they will pass such laws, and once those laws are passed, the only people that will run for office will be those that feel a duty to the nation. (or at least more people like that will run than they do now).

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

So you think that people who run for office have more moral character than a CEO of company? Wow...

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

do you not think they would just find ways to skirt the law? is your position not limiting free speech? the problem isn't that people are telling politicians to do crony things. the problem is that crappy politicians are listening and doing these things. and people keep on electing them.

i don't know what you even mean by a "law that allows greed explicitly" - can you give an example of one?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Here's one, the law that grants personhood to a corporation. The corporation is greedy, and thus wants personhood and the rights associated with it, and the law explicitly grants this to them.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I'm gonna jump in here, hope you don't mind.

I think the issue is that the government has been corrupted by money. 1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps. The problem is the political process that allows it. We need to get all of the money out of the political process. This includes ending corp. personhood. Establishing publicly funded campaigns and elections. There is already legislation for this - Fair Elections Now Act, from Richard Durbin IL D. This kind of thing usually goes nowhere because the BIG money crushes it in Congress everytime.

Of course, special interests should still be able to band peoople together and VOICE their concerns or issues. Just as people have their day in court for a judge to hear their case. But your not allowed to PAY the judge.

Greed is a separate issue. I think greed is best handled by strict government regulation. Think - Wall Street Banks. Their greed went unchecked and became rampant because they bought and paid for (legal corruption) their deregulation of the industry which paved the way for the meltdown.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

I agree with everything you just said for the most part.

[-] 6 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

I don't think so. We need to seriously reform this American capitalist system and make it functional, but there will be no transition to socialism via this movement.

[-] 3 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Ah, even Norway and Sweden have capitalist models. Best that we work for a social democracy. We need a full debate here before talk of marxism will be taken seriously. Hell, most Americans know next to nothing about progressives. Blame the media.

[-] 2 points by MJMorrow (419) 12 years ago

No, what will happen, in all likelihood, is that there will be a pacification of the general discontent, through an easement of the tremendous scarcity of opportunity and resources, faced by the unemployed protestors. When protestors have careers and a pathway forward, when they have less scarcity of opportunity and less scarcity of resources, the power disparity, between the rich and everyone else, will not seem so important, for the greatest number of persons. The former protestors will go forward with their lives and the political, financial and corporate elite will still be in power.

[-] 2 points by Shane (2) 12 years ago

I think the new system must incorporate more elements of Socialism. Government should not intrude in the free market and legitimate business transactions, but it absolutely has a duty to set laws and guidelines to ensure that corporations pay their fair share and taxes, and large corporations do not use their dominant positions to stifle competition. Companies that perform poorly due to mismanagement must be allowed to die. Other, more efficiently run companies, will eventually replace them. But all of this is moot without campaign finance reform to get corporate money out of politics. In a normal society, the private sector answers to the government, and the government answers to the people at large, not corporations. This is why I think it's outrageous that Wall Street firms are now calling Democratic lawmakers, and threatening them over support of your movement, which appears to me, have the support of the public at large:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66259.html

This is not to say that Obama and the Democrats should get a free pass. Considering their past record, they need to give some demonstration that they intend to act on the behalf of the people that they claim to represent, if you elect them into office again. A good start would be to publicly reject contributions from the very firms that are threatening them right now. If elected officials still do not act on your behalf, there are two options left: 1) organize your own political party, and elect your own candidates into office. If the Tea Party can do it, so can you. After all, your movement is much larger, and has broad support from all over the country. You know what Option 2) is.

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

If we had real capitalism then there would have been no bank bailouts. Those were a socialist government safety net that went to a specific industry according to its need.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

Threads like this prove that it's not the socialists chasing off the Paulites, but the other way around.

[-] 2 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

I, a man of great ability, will not be sacrificed on the alter of the "greater good". You do not have the right to take that which I create.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

You believe then that you don't have a moral obligation to give, full-well knowing that if you did so, you would help those in need?

[-] 1 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

I give an average of 12% of my post-taxes income to local charities and donate 2 hours a week to community service. My wife donates even more time than that. We committed to do what WE want to do with our time and money and shame on you for thinking you have the moral right to dictate what anyone should do with their own time and money.

Additionally, giving money to the government is hardly the best solution for helping those in need . . .

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 12 years ago

You can't win because they'll undermine your very concept of morality. You'll be left wondering why you ever thought duty, or the social contract were morally good. You'll be brainwashed into believing there is no morality beyond self-interest. You're battling Ayn Rand. Read up on her.

And don't buy the charity lines. It's a distraction from those that want to end the "theft" that is government. A society without a social contract features abuse and exploitation of the needy by the powerful.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

he never said he would not voluntarily give. he said that you do not have the right to forcefully take.

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

But if he does not voluntarily give, is he doing a moral wrong?

And if he did not give, then if we grant that by taking we will benefit the greater good, do we not have a moral obligation to do so?

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

those that follow a philosophy of personal responsibility, statistics appear to show, give greater amounts of time and money charitably, btw.

if he can and chooses not to give, i would agree it is morally wrong. however it is not my place to force him to do the right thing. if i take from him, am i not committing something morally wrong as well?

generosity of the wealth of others is no virtue. anyone can be generous with money they did not earn.

i would only consider it a moral thing to take it from someone if they had acquired it immorally in the first place.

in practical applications in the real world, where charity fails i do support government programs to pick up what is left over. not because of a social or philosophical belief of what is right however. but out of the need for social order. and i do support a progressive tax system where those with more wealth are taxed higher. as far as delivering aid i support doing it more directly (food stamps) rather than indirectly (tax refund, minimum wage)

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

I agree that by taking you might be committing a moral wrong in and of the taking itself, but the greater good that occurs if you did so and spread it evenly might outweigh this wrong, in which case I think you ought to.

If this is wrong, how so?

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

a train is coming down the tracks with 100 people you don't know on it. it's going too fast and is going to derail and kill them all. you're walking with your rather large mom next to the tracks. if you push her onto the tracks, she'll slow down the train enough that 75 people will live and only 25 will die. do you push her onto the tracks? it's for the greater good, isn't it?

[-] 1 points by crrice (68) from Durango, CO 12 years ago

Funny you should bring that up. In a case like this, I have a bias toward the person I know, my mother, to live. But were I impartial, I would think that this would be justified. Indeed, you would agree I think, suppose a different case:

You are aware than an unknowing man is driving into NYC with a nuke in his trunk, placed there by terrorists without his knowledge. You are given authority to tell a sniper to shoot him, thus preventing the explosion. You would do it, wouldn't you?

[-] 1 points by LibertyFirst (325) 12 years ago

But people are partial, and corruptible. Do you really want to give a group of partial, corruptible people the ability to take away your property if they determine it is "for the greater good"? Isn't it better that we limit the power we give any government, organization or institution so that we also limit the damage they can inflict?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I don't get it... are you saying you don't have enough lead to take out the Federal government? Surprised by that, because I think most Americans today do.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Both of these examples miss the point - and that is self determinism. We determine our own future, and not others.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

It's wrong yea... because you disregard human dignity. When self determinism is displaced by a hand out as in, "here, just take this 5 bucks and go sit in the corner while we continue to pursue as we please and make the real money" ... pride suffers a tremendous blow. All are entitled to the right to pursue happiness and thereby "achieve" their own dignity. Welfare stifles all that and that is its true purpose. And the reason why many will NEVER voluntarily accept that hand out.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I have a moral obligation to deny... and you have a moral obligation to respect my space.

[-] 1 points by xplorva (13) from Spotsylvania, VA 12 years ago

What we've had here isn't really capitalism, it's corporatism. Corporatism is the corrupted form of capitalism that is akin to fascism, where corporations align with government.Our system isn't supposed to be that way. Capitalism invites competition,and equal opportunity - corporatism wants to snuff out competition and invites governmental favoritism. Democracy cannot flourish in that environment. I do think that capitalism should be regulated by government to ensure that companies don't exploit the environment, workers and cheat consumers, etc.

I'm concerned that a lot of the anticapitalists here don't understand that true capitalism hasn't had a chance in this country so far. I don't want to undermine the system, I just want it fixed by getting rid of moneyed influences corrupting the system in their favor.

[-] 1 points by rb1754 (5) 12 years ago

I'm a filmmaker and a proponent of the Occupy Wall Street movement. This country needs change and all over the world they are hearing our message. I'm making a music video to help spread the message in popular music (the only way I know how).

Please support my project and help us work towards change. Any contribution is a good contribution.

http://www.indiegogo.com/Occupy-Wallstreet-Music-Video?a=288373&i=addr

[-] 1 points by Greentara (205) 12 years ago

And that worked well for whom? And Arab spring??!! Ask Lara Logan about that before you post

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 12 years ago

You really need to do some drugs. Anything for schizophrenia would help but pot would be best for you.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

............

    Americans are more afraid of the word 'socialism' 
      than they are of cancer, hiv or world war III.
        and they will fight it to their graves …

    Calm down people, you are only fighting a 'word' …    
      Neither socialism or capitalism exist in nature 
                  without the other…
           Alone they are mere philosophies… 

   Socialism without capitalistic freedom & incentives 
            will fail just as miserably as 
            Capitalism without regulation 
              has just demonstrated... 

  We can build a "true democracy" founded on the dreams 
           of all mankind & all ideologies...
                   We are the 99%
[-] 1 points by Republicae (81) 12 years ago

What we have in this country is not capitalism, on the contrary it is a system of Government Sponsored Mercantilism, a system of Government Patronages, but it is far from capitalism. This country has not seen pure capitalism for over a hundred years. If we are to place the blame on anything it should be this Government, the Federal Reserve and the System it has fostered to create a system of Corporatism.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

Capitalism made this country great. Fascism is destroying this country.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 12 years ago

We do not have Capitalism - we have Corporatism - it is very similar to Communism. The very few hoard all the wealth by gaming the game. All that talk about sharing the wealth - well that is all it was - just talk.

[-] 1 points by gazza11 (1) 12 years ago

Why not just not have an economic system at all? Then, everything would be free. We'd all have true freedom and true democracy.

People don't have to own the world's resources. We can choose not to.

Everybody with a job or owning a business, tomorrow, just like today, go to your place of work or your business and do your jobs, but just don't demand payment for anything -- no wages, no charges for goods and services. If we all did that, at that stroke, everything would then be free and our problems would be solved.

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Capitalism biggest enemy is its own internal crisis. How do you continue growing and accumulating in a finite world??? How do you create demand while increasing profit for the producing class, namely the 1%. Well, you create demand by stimulating the bottom, but this is anathema to Neo-liberalism, the bedrock ideology of the 1%. So what you have to do is make credit easily available, so that increasingly poor people can continue to buy you products. Eventually and inevitable, since wages are not increasing, the poor and the middle class are no longer able to pay their date. Sooner or later the bubble is bound to burst. Just like it did in 2008. When it does it eleminates capital, thus creating more space for more growth. As you can see capitalism in its Neo-liberal form can only continue to grow by this boom/bust cycle; creating and destroying capital. However this system is unsustainable in the long term, which is the reason why each bust is stronger the previous bust. In the end the biggest crisis facing capitalism is the finite resources of the earth. We are soon to reach peak levels on essential raw materials. Capitalism's myopia is not going to allow it to view past the immediate profit making scheme and in the end the system will be totally nonfunctional, thus the end of capitalism is inevitable.

[-] 1 points by JoblessBrigade (34) from New York, NY 12 years ago

The reports of its death are extremely premature, unfortunately.

[-] 1 points by Oolith (40) 12 years ago

I was pretty shocked when OWS did not even say diddles in solidarity for another, Libya had a great victory today. The whole world spoke about it. OWS voice was noticeably missing.

[-] 1 points by andrewpatrick46 (91) from Atlanta, GA 12 years ago

I predict we fall into anarchy before we have a dictator.

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

Don't forget, we have state capitalism.

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street

http://www.wikioccupywallst.org

United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 12 years ago

Problem Solved!

Let's go get a Happy Meal from McDonald's.

[-] 1 points by Mike122333 (102) 12 years ago

I wouldn't say end; just need to sand off the sharp edges.

[-] 1 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 12 years ago

Don't end capitalism. End Casino Capitalism

[-] 1 points by BigG (14) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

I'm tired of these hippies who majored in PreColombian Pottery at some liberal Arts College who are angry at me for my 3rd house in the hamptons. I worked hard social networking at the parities during business school in order to get my job on wall street. I should be able to wear my cufflinks proudly and take my helicopter to the Short Hills mall to buy clothes for my girlfriends. Don't be mad at me because you majored in something that is worthless to society and now you have to work at starbucks to pay off that stupid loan that I sold to you.

[-] 1 points by BigG (14) from Jersey City, NJ 12 years ago

I'm tired of these hippies who majored in PreColombian Pottery at some liberal Arts College who are angry at me for my 3rd house in the hamptons. I worked hard social networking at the parities during business school in order to get my job on wall street. I should be able to wear my cufflinks proudly and take my helicopter to the Short Hills mall to buy clothes for my girlfriends. Don't be mad at me because you majored in something that is worthless to society and now you have to work at starbucks to pay off that stupid loan that I sold to you.

[-] 1 points by xamtune (20) 12 years ago

yous a crazy mofo dude. if only you had read marx, but you could only reach for the shortest peice by him so... not surprising.

[-] 1 points by whatthehell (1) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not at it's end. It has always been here. It is natural. I like it. The problem is that like anything else, without the proper controls there will unacceptable outcomes. Fraud. Monopolies. Unsafety. So it needs the correct regulations. Socialism is not at it's end either. We need to educate our society. We need to ensure safety nets so we don't have huge numbers desperate and suffering people bringing down the respectability of our civilization. We need capitalism and socialism. Both are good. We need both

[-] 1 points by NYCJames (113) 12 years ago

No it's not, and nor should it be.

[-] 1 points by BlackPantherRedPower (12) 12 years ago

capitalism IS the problem, are you THAT brainwashed that you cant see that?

[-] 1 points by BlackPantherRedPower (12) 12 years ago

we should hate the rich, might i ask who caused the capitalist economic crisis... do liberals actually believe that the 99% of the population caused it, because I sure as hell know it was wealthy capitalists!!!!

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 12 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street

http://www.wikioccupywallst.org

[-] 1 points by RedBaghdad (7) 12 years ago

If you like capitalism and hate great Communism, I laugh at you now as the rope tightens around the necks of the CEOs. THEY have no hope and will soon be an outdated page in a historical text book.

[-] 1 points by RedBaghdad (7) 12 years ago

Why are people afraid so say capitalism is the problem? THAT IS A FACT!!!! We need pure Socialism!!!

[-] 1 points by Kman (171) 12 years ago

I think you're right. The question is where we evolve to next ...

EXCITING TIMES

[-] 1 points by FObama (470) 12 years ago

The Dirt Bagger Party will never accomplish this.

[-] 1 points by Fenrir (7) 12 years ago

http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout-federal-reserve-now-backstopping-75-trillion-of.html

well, I dont know what will happen, but read this link and tell me you think this shell game can continue indefinitely

[-] 1 points by LaoTzu (169) 12 years ago

Capitalism can be easily replaced with Love instead. ♥

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 12 years ago

The world is screwed, ever heard of Peak Oil? You will perhaps replace capitalism with democracy but with a loss of global agriculture sustained via an oil economy will replace democracy with fascism or pure anarchy.

Or so I have been told.

[-] 1 points by UofMgopher (4) from Roseville, MN 12 years ago

We live in a Capitalist society, but we're being run by socialist. In order for this country to work we need to put capitalists back in the Senate and the White House. Democrats want to take from taxing, capitalists want to grow by lowering taxes. I know people are hurting, but if you let that 1% make more money, we'll have more job opportunity and money....it will take time but be patient. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We'll make the cronie capitalists pay unlike Obama

[-] 1 points by jobs (26) 12 years ago

republicans vote yes on jobs bill

[-] 1 points by paulpeter (4) 12 years ago

There is a way without past examples. No man will be put above another, in wealth or status. There will be a decline in population. The world will embrace science in a great way, But a scientist will be rewarded the same as a road sweep. Or forget it.

[-] 1 points by occupythefed27 (36) 12 years ago

We need to either elect a constitutionalist or change the constitution.

[-] 1 points by Cerberus (2) from Sainte-Catherine, QC 12 years ago

Canada 'ended the fed' during the last great financial crisis.

this is what America must do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada

The Bank of Canada (French: Banque du Canada) is Canada's central bank and "lender of last resort".[1] The Bank was created by an Act of Parliament (the Bank of Canada Act)[2] on July 3, 1934 as a privately owned corporation. In 1938, the Bank became a Crown corporation belonging to the Government of Canada.[3] The Minister of Finance (on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada) holds the entire share capital issued by the Bank. "Ultimately, the Bank is owned by the people of Canada."[4] The role of the Bank is to "promote the economic and financial well-being of Canada."[5

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Jackson did it. And he warned about never giving this power over again. Not to mention all the bureaucracies.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 12 years ago

The dollar is what is dying, not capitalism. Humans will always barter with things. What will replace the dollar? The dollar had a long long run as fiat currencies go. No printed currency (fiat) has ever lasted. They always die, simply because its too tempting not to print it up when you are down on your luck.

Well gold will definitely have a role to play in what replaces the dollar. Silver too. Even if the dollar survives, we will have to return to some degree of a gold standard. The dollar must be backed by more than their promise that you, your grandchild, and their grandchildren will work it off.

Governments around the world are buying gold and silver up. (what do they know?) Its probably a good idea to think about starting to hold some physical metals in the near future, in case the dollar really does go to zero you will have something to pay rent with for little while. Some people are just buying one ounce of silver at a time at their local gold shops. Might be a good time to have some metals, just as a hedge.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

The metals are not replenishable and the very wealthy have always held them. If you look at the history, we were encouraged away from gold. It's not what backs the money. It's who controls it. And going to a gold standard devalues everything, because that metal is rare and in the hands of the same tyrants you are fighting. It's not about debt as the first debt was measured on a stick. It's about debt printing and IOU's. I feel what they know is a population that has grown past the needed number of servants. What happens to us is inconsequential.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 12 years ago

The very wealthy have always held them because they are smart enough to hedge themselves against a debt based dollar. A dollar represents debt, its a note, a promise to pay. It must be hedged accordingly because it loses its value.

It loses its value because our current policy is to print money not backed by anything. They replenish. You nailed it!

Gold HOLDS its value because its not so easily replenished. Its not that gold is worth more than it was 100 years ago. Its that the dollar is being debased by printing it up backed by promises. Their promise to make us pay. With interest.

Metals and food and things hold value within themselves. Their value doesnt rely on the performance of any ceo, or corporation. Metal holds its value because the value is already there, it can be made into anything. a spoon, a hammer, whatever. Its worth is found in its very nature.

Printed up promissory paper is only worth the paper it was printed on. Its the fraud of printing money when there's nothing backing it up that is real and tangible. Goods. Services.

If you have a 1962 dime when they were made of 95% silver you could purchase at least a gallon of gas for that. How much will a 1962 dollar bill put in your car today?

When you print money backed by nothing its like owning a Bar and pouring water in a bottle of booze that's half empty and thinking someone will continue to buy shots from you at normal price.

Thats why smart ones buy Gold and Silver etc.. and you can to. The system would rather you park your money in a bank or a bond for as long as possible, it loses its value over the years as they replenish the money supply backed by nothing. By the time you cash in, your savings lost 5 - 10% of its purchasing power every year. Because the money supply is being replenished on a credit card, so to speak.

Gold will still buy today what it bought 10, 20, 30, 100, 1,000 years ago. Does the dollar do that? no. All fiat currencies are inflationary by their very nature because they print and print and replenish with nothing to back it up. Thats fraud. Thats why fiat currencies backed by nothing always die. None have survived through all of human history, the test of time. Confidence is the only thing backing the dollar. Eventually people will see how much they've watered the dollar down and how little it buys because prices will continue to rise as long as they print fiat money

Metal has 5,000 year history, at least. What printed money anywhere has ever done that?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

There's not enough gold in the world to back the money supply. Remember, too, the Great Depression - the private ownership of gold was outlawed. And funneled to For Knox, owned the Federal Reserve, which promptly sold it all at higher rates to foreigners.

[-] 1 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 12 years ago

yes, illustrating that something is wrong with our economic policy here. And there is enough gold peg OUR dollar back to it. Other countries can decide what sort of currency they want use, what works for them.

Nebraska produces a lot of corn. Maybe Nebraska can have a local currency based on that, plus a little gold sprinkled on top.

This might help things along H.R. 1098 (Free Competition in Currency Act)

Lots of imagination out there. Lets use it. Some degree of a gold standard will have to be returned to our monetary policy though, in my view.

Cheers, betuadollar

[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I can understand one's distrust of our currency but as for a return of the gold standard, good luck with that. Also, there's a reason, you know, that there is a preferred reserve currency in the world. And I think it probably has something to do with stabilization verses volatile exchange rates.

[-] 1 points by monahan (272) 12 years ago

Agreed

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Agreed.

Marx provides the critical insight needed to understand our situation.

He predicted that this would happen - the unbridled condensation of wealth into the hands of a few.

Now here it is.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

We didn't need Marx to tell us this... that there is a continuous cycle of reform as the disparity grows between rich and poor. Even in a communist society, someone must be at the top to control the wealth. And he requires a strong military presence in light of dissent and reform to stay in power.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

The ostensibly "communist" society that you describe - the kind we saw come to power under Lenin and Stalin - is not, strictly speaking "communist" at all, rather it is a form of statist, fascist totalitarianism masquerading as true Communism.

Not unlike modern conservatives, Marx called for the complete dissolution of the state and a society where people governed themselves democratically. If you don't already know this, then sorry babe...

You really don't know Jack about Marx.

Speaking of people who are widely misunderstood. Here's a great piece by the infamous George Soros where he admits to being a proponent of 'New World Order' totalitarianism.

...Just kidding, it's about making society more Open and Free.

http://metapolitik.org/blog/soros-capitalsim

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

All societies are statist... nothing else is even remotely.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

That sentence is incomplete... Even remotely what?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Just "remotely" :)

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 12 years ago

Mmmm - K!

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Hey, it took centuries to build the form of capitalism we have today. So what makes you think communism will come as a result of one or two or three revolutions. These things happens in waves. There is no one sweeping change that's going to flip the system......

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Kneejerk anger and desperation. Too much emotion to play chess though ultimately necessary.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You can't defeat capitalism - it's present in all as the product of evolutionary desire. Look a Russia, capitalism was introduced by the "criminals." Why? Because people were determined... and starving.

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

It's not about defeating capitalism. The only thing defeating capitalism today it capitalism itself....It's consuming itself out. It's looking for all avenues of growth, yet GDP is not going to grow without destroying GDP. It's a constant recycling of the same thing. Think about it...I don't have time and space to go too deep, but you will see what I mean in your life time.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Actually I have thought about it.

[-] 1 points by abmebratu (349) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

It took centuries for capitalism to reach this point, what makes you think communism of socialism will come over one revolution. Preposterous! It will take decades for socialism to come and communism may take even more time.

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 12 years ago

I "need" some more customers.

[-] 1 points by gizmopigon (68) 12 years ago

Free Markets where limited intervention in the economy is reasonable, but where I draw the line is when Financial markets are opaque and information is blurred that when explicit government regulation are needed to protect the economy from systemic damage. Support tighter regulations on banks long as they banks are not nationalized or prevented from doing business with whom they desire.

Banks that are well ran should be left alone, and would require loans for real estate to require at least 10% down and the bank would be required to hold 5% stake in the mortgage as collateral as a means to force the banks to know who they are loaning too. Small banks would be prohibited getting into hedge funds with FDIC money, local depository funds. Most local banks usually don't get into exotic investments to begin with so it wont be such a problem.

Like this about the Canadian banking system:

Even if they lose their home, they still owe their mortgage debt.

That something I would allow banks to repo your processions car, house, computer if you cant pay the loan. If you walk away from the mortgage you still owe on it regardless.

Should a borrower opt not to put down 20 percent on a home purchase, they must purchase mortgage insurance to cover the debt in the case of default.

Canada has no Fannie Mae and no Freddie Mac. There is no mortgage interest tax deduction. There are no 30-year fixed-rate home loans that can be freely refinanced and prepaid. Mortgage lending is far more conservative, and Canadian mortgage lenders have a lot more recourse than American ones.

If banks were not forced to lend to unqualified people most Banks would not bother lending to people they know would not pay back the loan. This should also apply college loans too.

[-] 1 points by RBE (13) 12 years ago

we need a new economic model http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f04fCbFStks

[-] 1 points by bannik311 (83) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not at an end. Please contain your hyperbole. Even the countries in the middle east still embrace capitalism. It is not a perfect system, but when played by the rules it is a fair system which provides for individuals and encourages innovation

It is like a game of cards, our problem is not with the game itself. Our problem is the corrupt dealer who is skimming too much off the top and all the other players colluding to prevent anybody else from winning.

[-] 1 points by vrptx (42) 12 years ago

Sickmint79 is correct. There is nothing wrong with Capitalism but the abuse of it by cronies. Right now it is not how it should be. Re-mplement the Glass Stegall Ac. Corporations are no longer people so they are held accountable. No more Campaign support excepted by Corporations. Caps on Executives. Just these alone would make a huge difference.

[-] 1 points by confused5percenter (6) 12 years ago

Kudos to the crony capitalist statement from sickmint79! Capitalism is so misunderstood by the protestors it isn't funny anymore. It seems pretty greedy to protest against people who make more money than you, and to say they are responsible for all of our ills. If someone wants to "check" my greed, they are going to have to fight me for it! In this country I am free to be as greedy or charitable as I want. It is none of anyone's business to control that. If you want to discuss controlling the way we bundle high-risk mortgages and sell them on the stock exchange....well, that is a productive discussion to have, and a most appropriate area to regulate. I don't get the feeling people in the 99% group want to get that specific though. They seem happy saying all sorts of horrible things about the "1%ers", who I feel are mostly great people who have donated to charity in a wonderful way (Thank you Bill Gates!) Enough with the class hate!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

The reality is that if they are unemployed they are not part of the 99% that actually pays taxes; they are the part of the 99% that does not.

[-] 1 points by Meeky (186) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Don't stress yourself, capitalism will be hitting the marathons once we fix it up.

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 12 years ago

Every ideology, whether it is laissez faire capitalism or marxism ignores the most important factor, ie. human nature.

We are not rational entities. Humans are greedy, but also charitable. We take more then we need and sometimes give what we can barely miss.

What seems to work better than using an idealized model of human interaction is to create a social contract. From the New Deal until the early 1980's, a social contract helped propel the US economy and that of other Western Countries.

To abbreviate it: Social contracts work, ideologies don't.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Agreed. And there should be no closed door dealings. Transparency in government. And I have to tell you guys being from IL and knowing Durbin personally, whatever is on the books here gets ignored, so I'm hoping you're looking for a miraculously compassionate group to do the rehauling. Policy only works if we know the exact problem and can enforce its solution. Just a hurdle to recognize.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 12 years ago

usa corporation they donot oprate from usa any more.,they are international they do not care about you.,

[-] 1 points by freemeplz (14) 12 years ago

its called corporatism

[-] 1 points by MeAndWeThePeople (59) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Communism is supposed to replace capitalism but that is in a perfect world where greed does not exist

[-] 1 points by Endthefed (4) 12 years ago

End? Where has it been for 70 years?

[-] 1 points by SanityScribe (452) 12 years ago

I see a lot of talk on here about capitalism, democracy, republic ,socialism, and etc. So many people trying to make so many solutions. The solution has been laid out for you. If you think what we have here today is a result of our system, you are partialy correct. Thing is, this is not the vision that was set forth for us. The visonaries lived under real oppression, real monarchy, real destitude(first arrivals) real war(in our homeland), real revolution, real free markets, and real death threats. Then they really did a lot of work. They drafted a document that set forth a vision. To let the people control the government. Instead of letting government control the people. They did not intend for elections to elect leaders, Rather they intended to elect public servants.

This country belongs to and is supposed to be run by WE THE PEOPLE. Over the years, generations of Americans have let elected public servants to enact laws that allow forces other then WE THE PEOPLE to influence laws and regulations. Forces that have not always had Americas, or your, best interest at heart.

We don't need a new system. We need to FIX our system. The only way to do that is to ensure that our elected public servants are not sussesable to such influence. Reversing those laws, and getting money out of politics, would be a huge step. Removing and reforming campaign finance laws restores the power to WE THE PEOPLE. If enough Americans demand something, our servants MUST listen.

There is no other system in the history of man that allows for more opportunity for more people than what this country was supposed to be.

http://sanityscribe.wordpress.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Get-Money-Out-of-Politics/170454236375392

[-] 1 points by 53PercentDude (29) 12 years ago

1. END THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives power to Congress to “coin money and regulate the value thereof.” John F. Kennedy was the last President that attempted to restore this power back to where it belonged. The Federal Reserve is a private bank that is owned by powerful international banking families. The “Federal Reserve” is as “Federal” as is “Federal Express.”

2. END THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX AND THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

Adopt a Federal value added tax (VAT) OR a flat tax that is fair to all.

A VAT would fairly tax all individuals and corporations based on consumption with unprepared food and medicines being exempted from taxation. Those who can afford to purchase a luxury yacht, a private jet, a mansion with an ocean view and lavish dining at an exquisite restaurant would pay a much higher amount in consumption taxes whereas those who can only afford a picture of a yacht, a round-trip airline ticket to go to visit grandma for Christmas, a studio apartment with a parking lot view and an occasional meal at McDonalds would pay much lower taxes for their consumption. It would take very few federal employees to administer this form of taxation.

A flat tax would tax all individuals and corporations at the same percentage of their income with no deductions and no exemptions, regardless of how the income is derived. A federal tax return, regardless of the amount of income should be no longer than one page and the corresponding regulations should be no longer than 25 to 30 pages.

Either one of these forms of taxation would serve to eliminate lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

3. END ALL WARS AND ALL FOREIGN OCCUPATIONS THAT UTILIZE OUR MILITARY.

Our military should continue to be the best and most well equipped in the world but should be utilized to protect our borders from illegal invaders. Bring the troops home and see how quickly we can begin to reduce our federal debt.

4. IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL TARIFFS ON GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE PRODUCED BY U.S. CORPORATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

The United States is still the biggest market in the world. U.S. Corporations that have manufacturing operations in China, Mexico, India and other countries so as to exploit lower labor costs should be required to pay high tariffs to sell their products in the United States. I have no doubt that most of those manufacturing jobs would move back to the United States if those high tariffs were to be imposed! Let’s once again be proud of the “MADE IN THE U.S.A.” label on products that we use!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I like all of this.

[-] 1 points by ConservaLib (8) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not the problem. It is its abuse and bad business practices that are the problem, in addition to the lack of strong government oversight. Capitalism has been around successfully since a human traded a bag of wheat for a basket of fish, employed in every society and political environment in our entire history. Capitalism works and works well. Socialism is a dead end.

[-] 1 points by MEFORYOU (27) 12 years ago

Agreed. I worked for one of the bad lenders. Because I in the fraud dept was not ever allowed to see what was going on at the top or the bottom they destroyed each other and the company and got themselves indicted. All I was ever allowed to do was suspend someone, but even if they were guilty, they were a scapegoat. I asked two questions at a conference. Why do we do loan exceptions for someone who is making someone at the age of 16 buy a house 22 times in one day and we are not allowed to talk to that borrower and what will this do to our economy? I had my microphone taken away. By the time, you knew what was going on, it was too late. And Cheney was still involved with that lender although he was in office. This whole thing is a nightmare. And the reason the borrowers can't find out who now owns the mortgage is the docs were shredded. We were let go and they said there was no need for a fraud dept. We were just there to keep the heat off them and to destroy enemies. And it took the whole thing crashing down for the truth to come out. Citi bought them.

[-] 1 points by tesn1 (212) 12 years ago

There are many misguided efforts, and it seems that the OWS movement has become a platform for just about any concern. A movement needs to focus and be very clear on what it seeks to accomplish.

I have spent nearly 4 years researching and educating myself on the law and rules that make up the basis on how business is financed and how the rules affect business and the individuals who own them and work for them.

First let me say that this problem is not liberal or conservative, democrat or republican but it is a common problem we all share. One key point must be stressed we are all affected by the issue at hand.

Now, let’s look at the laws. If you look at the fall of the exchange in 1929, its cause and the reaction by the government you will find most of the problem. In 1929 only ~10% of all businesses were public and the remainder was private. ~2% of the population were involved in trading stocks and most of the individuals we very heavily leveraged (They bought on credit).

Next the market dropped, individuals lost their ability to pay off their margin accounts and wiped out the capital overnight in the banking system, Couple that with the hysteria of the people running on the banks to get there gold out and you have a recipe for disaster.

For most they were not initially affected by the falls of the exchange in 1929 but when banks failed they felt it. Businesses lost credit to operate, accounts were wiped out and small private business failed. No fault of their own but the fault of the overzealous banks. Individuals found there savings wiped out alongside the private businesses and the world plunged into the abyss.

The reaction to this was FDR. and the 1933 securities act and the 1934 securities and exchange act. What these two pieces of legislation did was strip the ability of the small private business (who did not cause the market collapse) to raise capital in a traditional form, Bonds. Direct investment was for many years the mainstay of the entrepreneur. It put the restrictions on who could invest (Qualified institutional investor) and how the investments could be sold. It stripped the ability of the individual to invest and make the high returns they became accustomed to and placed all of it into the hands of the very few 1%.

Today if you are a business owner there is a glass ceiling of about $3 million dollars where a business could potentially get debt to expand, retool, or modernize. The Wall Street and Banks prefer an Equity offering. How often do small business owners sell the majority share of the company they own under a public offering or private sale (sale to high net worth’s) to raise the capital they need. The horror stories of this arrangement are very clear. They give up control, get voted out of the company and the new share holders shut them down move the product manufacture to China to maximize the return to the High Net Worth investor (new owner).

The laws perpetuate the problem. Now remove the Glass-Steagall Act and it becomes a high net worth orgy.

Focus, access the laws, and fix the system that perpetuates the behavior.

FIX THE LAWS

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

You forgot to mention that the Fed reserve intentionally crashed the market in '29, and that they intentionally prolonged suffering throughout the 30s... And that they even outlawed the private possession of all gold, which gathered at For Knox, was sold to foreigners. And as Richard Nixon sadly concluded - the Fed government owns no gold.

[-] 1 points by phantom3 (110) 12 years ago

If it was actually 99 % I'd almost agree.

What is.the.real number?

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 12 years ago

we don't do socialism and we don't do marx. the textbook is sociology and game theory and systems theory- not dead ideology.

[-] 1 points by PJ63 (48) from St Paul, MN 12 years ago

The whole world economy thing must end. I see a future of micro economies and more small business. I see an end to the whole facade of insurance. I see a future that is affordable to the average person and is compasionate to those less fortunate (but not forced to contribute to a cause that they do not believe in) We all function better when we have a real stake in our community.

[-] 1 points by bleedingsoul (134) from Youngstown, OH 12 years ago

Great...now we'll hear for the first four years how the DEMs screwed everything up so much and the Republicans need ANOTHER four years. I don't buy it. This has been a mess for over a decade and neither party as President or Congress has any control over the fate of our economy. I'd rather see the greedy shmucks who have put a bad name of capitalism voted out of the country!

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

Capitalism is going to continue to break down because human labor isn't needed as much as it used to be. If you look around you, you can see numerous evidences of automation that were not as prevalent a decade ago. Here's a good video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

There is an unlimited amount of work to be done in the world.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

LOL! Maybe so, but not for humans. Machines pick a good portion of our fruit now, kiosks/self check outs are replacing a lot of customer service jobs, retail is changing to small scale online businesses, more medical procedures are becoming robotic controlled, most warehouses are becoming automated, wal mart has been experimenting with robots, etc. Humans are not wanting to accept the fact that our labor isn't wanted as much any more. People scream "job creation", but there's really no jobs that need to be created, definitely not enough to reduce the employment rate.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

The entrepreneur would say "find a need and fill it". Are you saying the world has run out of needs? Or that the would will run out of needs pretty soon?

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

No. I'm saying the world will soon run out of needs that only humans can fulfill.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

Humans have unlimited wants. Satisfy my most pressing want, and I just want the next thing in line. There are some specific people who have control over their materialism, but society at large never will. No matter how much more productive a machine is on a specific job, there will always be more jobs for humans to do.
You are correct in that the people with scientific and technical educations have the brightest future. It is sad there are not more students pursuing the hard sciences. Hopefully our little interaction will convince someone to change their major or go back to school.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

I disagree. I imagine a society where nearly 100% of all jobs, even potential future jobs, are automated. You've got to remember, technology increases every year, so imagine where we will be say 20 years from now.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

The future is unknowable, but history is on my side. Since the industrial revolution, vast numbers of people have been displaced by machines. Each time the claim has been there will be no work. Still unemployment does not stay up. Those people get employed in some way. In addition, the standard of living is highest in countries with the most automation, which tend to be the countries with the most free markets. Have you spent any time in third world countries and/or non-capitalistic countries? Capitalism has provided the standard of living we enjoy (I assume you live in the US) and I have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

The technology we have today is way more sophisticated and overall more efficient than what our predecessors had. People believed for 1000s of years that the earth was flat, and then the beliefs changed. What I'm getting at is past beliefs while not proven correct in the past, don't always stay that way.

Capitalism is the greatest system that we've ever had, but now it's feeding on itself and we need to progress to a more current system. Check this out: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197468/20110813/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-financial-crisis-debt-crisis-europe.htm

"Companies, Roubini said, are motivated to minimize costs, to save and stockpile cash, but this leads to less money in the hands of employees, which means they have less money to spend and flow back to companies.

Now, in the current financial crisis, consumers, in addition to having less money to spend due to the above, are also motivated to minimize costs, to save and stockpile cash, magnifying the effect of less money flowing back to companies.

"Karl Marx had it right," Roubini said in an interview with wsj.com. "At some point capitalism can self-destroy itself. That's because you can not keep on shifting income from labor to capital without not having an excess capacity and a lack of aggregate demand. We thought that markets work. They are not working. What's individually rational ... is a self-destructive process."

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

Capitalism is stable because unhindered, it is self correcting. Companies have no incentive to endlessly hoard cash. At some point they will want to invest that money to make more money. Right now they are hoarding cash because of the uncertainty in the market. Eventually this will change.

Likewise consumers, as you point out, are now saving money or "deleveraging". This is a very good thing since consumers were considerably over leveraged, not only in housing but also in personal debt. If the deleveraging is allowed to continue for both corporate and consumers the system will self correct and we will enter a period of economic growth again.

Injecting stimulus money into the economy is exactly the wrong thing to do. It prevents the deleveraging and causes instability in the system. Inefficient banks should not have been bailed out but allowed to fail.

Unfortunately the dramatic increase in the money supply have sown the seeds for serious inflation. The classic definition of inflation has three parts.

  1. Too many dollars
  2. chasing
  3. too few goods.
  4. Banks are incredibly conservative at this point so the multiplier effect of the stimulus money given to banks is around two, instead of the normal nine. When banks start landing again there will be "too many dollars" in the system.
  5. Right now people are savers rather than spenders in general. This will eventually end also. Indeed now is tapering off. this is when the "chasing" starts.
  6. The highest risk of "too few goods" comes from the possibility of price controls.although it is painful prices must he allowed to continue up to allow the system to stabilize.

Capitalism is not dying, but simply going to a necessary and healthy correction phase. The more that process is interfered with, as Roubini suggests we should do,the worse will be the outcome

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

That's weird that you would say that, because I just, like 30 mins ago, watched a video of an economist touting that Adam Smith was sort of misinterpreted, in that markets aren't self correcting. He said that, 'yes, he mentioned the invisible hand, but that was just one aspect of the book, he also believed in intervention.' Here's a link: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/modern-economics-failed-us-says-economist-graeme-maxton-131229788.html;_ylt=ArUFqHC1XJcmrfpGXgP_jWC7YWsA;_ylu=X3oDMTFjMjE5ZDU1BHBvcwM1BHNlYwNGUERhaWx5VGlja2VyQmxvZwRzbGsDbW9kZXJuZWNvbm9t

I don't think companies are hoarding cash because of the uncertainty of the market, I think it's because they have less need to spend money, particularly on human labor. Also, I didn't say consumers are saving money. I don't think they are, I think most are broke or in debt and can't afford to consume at past levels.

I think the whole concept of money is outdated. If we got rid of our monetary system for a resource based system, the world would be a much better place.

[-] 1 points by FreeMarket (42) from Wichita, KS 12 years ago

Adam Smith's advocacy of intervention was to prevent merchants from using the political system to reduce competition. The Wealth of Nations is well worth reading and I recommend it.

Businesses have unlimited wants just like people. They do not hold money just because there is nothing to spend it on. They always look at the risk/reward ratio. Right now, the uncertainty of the market means the risk is high. Until they can find an equally high reward, they will hold onto cash.

We do not have to guess if people are reducing their personal debt (deleveraging). Banks, for all their flaws, keep pretty good records. Google "US personal debt" and you will see since 2009 we have been reversing a decades long trend toward more and more personal debt. We collectively had too much debt. It is going down. Reducing personal debt is a painful but good thing.

It is fun to run up a credit card debt, but painful to pay it off. Stimulus spending is like credit card debt. When the time comes to pay, it will not be fun. The problems have not come from capitalism, but from ignoring the warnings of people like Adam Smith. Even the intervention advocated by John Maynard Keynes was tiny, compared to the spending in QE I and QE II

[-] 1 points by nycman (7) 12 years ago

actually, since the democratic controlled WH and Congress screwed up the recovery in 2009 and 2010, and is now blaming the republicans, the american people will vote out all the clown democrats in the WH and Congress, vote in the Republicans who will reestablish capitalistic economic polcies. The pendulum will swing hard away from our latest example of failed keynesian/socialist government policy.

[-] 3 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 12 years ago

except both parties support keynesianism and big government.

[-] 1 points by booshington (397) 12 years ago

This is all crazy talk.

Read some books.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 12 years ago

A resource based economy would be a good alternative to our current failing system. Check out http://www.thevenusproject.com/

A doable project that sums up the demands I've seen from the protesters. It will take time, but I don't see any other choice.

[-] 1 points by anonrez (237) 12 years ago

cool story bro

[-] 1 points by ThirdParty2012 (52) 12 years ago

Oh please....

[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

This isn't about ending Capitalism rbarsom, because the present system isn't Capitalism its Corporatism AKA Corruption run rampant. Both Wall st/the Fortune 500 and DC are in bed with each other to the exclusion of the rest of us. We need to separate their embrace.

[-] 0 points by Fedup10 (228) 12 years ago

Crazy talk. Russia and China are embracing capitalism and their middle classes are growing and you have to see it to believe the wealth that is trickling down. Russia has more billionaires than NYC by a wide margin. And a flat tax at 15 percent for everyone.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 12 years ago

I've said it before, I'll say it again. What we have isn't Capitalism. It's a soft dictatorship. There's a ruling class, and the serfs. We're the serfs. Throughout history it's always sucked to be the serfs. In this day and age it's no different.

[-] 0 points by kookla (79) 12 years ago

Capitalism is not at its "end" only predatory unregulated Capitalism. Any system needs to reflect the reality of the human condition and that human condition is a complex expression of both individuality and the human need for a social connection. We would not have survived with out both. We are at the same time unique individual expressions and a part of the whole. One cannot exist with out the other. Communism and Capitalism are the external polar opposite expressions of these human qualities of oneness and uniqueness. Any system that serves everyone will serve both these expressions. That balance is what is missing and is what the OWS movement is attempting to find.

[-] 0 points by monahan (272) 12 years ago

Obama will be our dictator

[-] 0 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 12 years ago

They've rung the bell for capitalism once or twice already and it always seems to come back from the dead.

I do think that we can kiss the Reagan Revolution ideology goodbye. It's pretty obvious now to the populace that an untamed free market is the express elevator to disaster.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

You really think what we have now is an "untamed free market"? LOL LOL LOL

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 12 years ago

I stand corrected. If I'd known that libertarian ideologues were in the house, I' d have chosen my words more carefully.

What we have is a crony-capitalist system sold to the populace via a lot of freemarket cant.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 12 years ago

Now I am with ya! :D