Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Damn Socialists

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 7:28 p.m. EST by Cicero (407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Our opponents would classify us as socialists so they can dismiss the movement. The truth is modern democracies are mixtures of socialist and capitalist principles. We saw years ago what a truly laissez-faire approach to the economy creates and it wasn't good.

The truth is businesses need some regulation but they also need some autonomy. Finding the proper balance is the key!!

160 Comments

160 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by jjrs (11) 2 years ago

I hav espent some time in Scandinavia, and I KNOW that a mix of socialism and capitalism works VERY well. The 'Socialism' part is more of 'Caring for your fellow citizens'. If it can work for them, it can work for us!!!

[-] -2 points by Gar5 (0) 2 years ago

jjrs, it's the people that make the place.

The reason Scandinavia is a nice place to live is because it is majority Scandinavian. The reason somewhere like Somalia is an unpleasant place to live is because it's majority Somalian.

The reason why USA, Canada, Europe, and Australia is turning third world is because it is bringing in millions of third worlders. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the third world is a product of third world people, and the first world is a product of first world people.

You've got to get out of this universalist thinking. People that live in different places, suprise suprise, have a different way of functioning as a country/state.

[-] 1 points by mbsss (92) 2 years ago

Scandinavia, per capita, has as many immigrants from emerging countries as North America and Europe. People do make the place--based on their ethics--not on their "isms". When we refer to the midwest ethic in the United States, we are referring to a section of the country inhabited by 1.5 million Swedes who immigrated there between 1870-1920. People can influence people too.

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

We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism. There are many here calling to change that mix towards more socialist policies, as a cure to a problem of corruption, which is quite a bit like using gasoline as a tool to put fires out.

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

Who's calling for more socialism to cure corruption? I thought regulations cured corruption, and socialist policies cured social and economic inequality. Two separate things.

In my opinion, our mix of socialism and capitalism doesn't work as well as it should because of a disproportionate number of people trying to eradicate socialism and promote capitalism. Propagandistically, I might add.

[Removed]

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

So you're saying that corruption is preventing the regulations from regulating corruption. But that's only regulations on business. I'm saying regulations on both business and government will reduce corruption in both areas at least enough so that socialist policies will actually work.

[Removed]

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

By creating laws against corruption, I also meant putting the right people into position to enact and enforce those laws. I figured that went without saying.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by kamoako (52) from Litchfield Park, AZ 2 years ago

The sad thing is that people are stuck in this ignorant ideological frame of thinking. Politics and economics beliefs are now a religion rather then ration. Which could be all thanks to propaganda by the Republican party to deem any sort of government intervention as socialist or communist. At the end of the day there are certain interest and elites who are able to perpetuate fear and propaganda simply because they have no sense of social responsibility. So unless this movement and people with educated and sound minds remain in boldness with their voices, people will fail to realize they are not wrong for wanting healthcare, education for thier kids. They need to understand that once they work 8 hours a day and still can't pay off thier bills there is a problem. And maybe just maybe if they working or even voting for an orginization that favored them rather then some ceo and profit margins to make a few wall street investors happy, then maybe things would be better.

[-] 3 points by jjrs (11) 2 years ago

I hav espent some time in Scandinavia, and I KNOW that a mix of socialism and capitalism works VERY well. The 'Socialism' part is more of 'Caring for your fellow citizens'. If it can work for them, it can work for us!!!

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Saudis are very rich too, maybe you should have sharia law in the USA too?

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

lol nice deflection to a what-if scenario that has nothing to do with scandinavia. You must be a conservative, they're good at that

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I agree but most Americans would not agree to pay half their income in taxes. So that model probably wouldn't fly in America

[-] 2 points by tritone (36) 2 years ago

Interesting article from Inc. magazine on socialist Norway, it's start-up businesses and entrepreneurial activity. 50% tax on income over $124,000, I think it said. More entrepreneurs per capita than the U.S. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

[-] 2 points by thesoulgotsoldontheroadtogold (148) 2 years ago

this is not a socialist movement... this is a human movement....

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I never said it was a socialist movement since no one understands my argument...

Premise 1: The movement is criticized as being socialist

Interim Conclusion 1: To criticize the movement on this basis means those doing so think that associating the movement with socialism will discredit it.

Premise 2: Modern Democracies are mixtures of socialism and capitalism

Main Conclusion: They criticize us fallaciously misrepresenting our ideas and the actual make up of our government because they can't criticize us based on our actual principles

[-] 2 points by Roberttherock (2) 2 years ago

It didn't work so well in South America ether. Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and many more. Milton Friedman used the Pinochet take over of Chile as an experiment. It failed and unemployment got much worse over time not better. Income distribution went out of control like you would expect with this type of system.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Milton Friedman father of trickle down economics Milton Friedman??

[-] 2 points by Dborset (9) from Manchester, NJ 2 years ago

Archie Bunker called it tinkle down economics. "Yous give tax breaks to the rich so they can tinkle down on you".

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Good one!!! Its very true.

[-] -1 points by an0n (764) 2 years ago

This. Thank you.

[-] 1 points by Bernie (117) 2 years ago

Great Post!

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 2 years ago

The very problem we are having now. We think we can find a middle ground but in the end we will all see that it will be one way or the other.

[-] 1 points by poorconservative (2) 2 years ago

So does this movement only look at 1% of the problem, or is there any chance of looking at those in the country who consistently take and give nothing back? People who have decided having kids to get more welfare is an occupation. People who have kids who can't afford them and put the burden of feeding them on their neighbors. Those who collect unemployment because it is given to them, and if they worked a job they could take they would only make 50.00 more a week, so why work at all right? How about people on welfare who don't work at all? Why is it okay for a larger than 1% group to give nothing back to society? Are they not greedy too?

Also, lets say we do get higher taxes for millionaires. If its too high, they will put their money elsewhere. Guess what, we lose that income tax revenue all together. Their 15% is a lot larger than the majority of the nation who pay 25-35% in the middle class range.

Same thing with many corporations. the US taxes them higher than many foreign countries. Guess where they legally end up residing? Not here. More jobs, which would give americans jobs, and bring in more tax revenue, because something is better than nothing right? Americans paying income tax because they aren't unemployed gives something back am I right?

Don't get me wrong, there are many changes that can be made to benefit america from attacking that 1%.. many do need to occur. However let's not focus all of the attention on them, since so many of our "99%" peers are just as greedy and just as much to blame for our economic faults.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

The world is a cruel place Mr. poorconservative. There is nothing fair about it. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The wealthy can buy politicians to insure and increase their wealth and the politicians go right along with them to get their share of the action. The wealth of many senators increases while in office by a factor of 3, 4, sometimes 5 times their actual salary. Where does this money come from? Lobbyists write laws actually create legislation which is put before our congress the peoples branch by the way. Many politicians may be fooled, still others bought and the few that still have integrity are ignored. The pharmaceutical companies alone have more lobbyists in Washington than there are members of congress. In 2010 there were 12,964 lobbyists in Washington. In that same year those same lobbyists gave over 3 billion dollars to various campaigns and institutions to "influence" our democracy.

The Supreme Court the last bastion of freedom for the American people came up with new rules to decide a Presidential Election in direct disregard for the will of the American people. Never mind that there were allegations of fraud, or that the candidates brother was the governor of the state where the incident took place. Nevermind the will of the people.

Upon election the new president appointed a new Chief Justice to the Supreme Court. With a new 5-4 conservative majority. This court has turned back the clock on civil liberties, segregation, over and over again proving itself not to be the protector of Americans and their liberites. But to protect big business and the interests of the federal government.

We disregard our constitution and the very spirit of this nation. By using our military to kill an American Citizen abroad without access to the legal system. American citizens can now be detained as enemy combatants by the very word of the president or attorney general. In total disregard for Habeaus Corpus, being denied access to the legal system, one of the most basic rights granted to every citizen.

The government can spy on us without a warrant. There is a case this year before the Supreme Court where the FBI put a GPS device on a drug dealers car without a warrant which led to his arrest. Where has the right to privacy gone? How did this case even make it this far? Just because someone is a drug dealer doesn't mean they aren't protected by the same constitution that we are.

Our rights are derived not from the government but from the consent of the governed. But our government has fallen under the impression that these rights are negotiable, that these rights are optional, that our constitution is a rough guide.

Our constitution is the supreme law of this land. It has guided us for over 200 hundred years. Brave men and women throughout our history have given their lives in the defense of it. They fought not for our government. They fought for that document. That document which guarantees to every American equal protection under the law, the right to a speedy trial, the right not to incriminate one's self, the freedom of speech, the press, petition and assembly and the right to be secure in ones possessions.

We are here today begging the American people to stand up with us and with one united voice say that this is America and we are a nation of laws the most paramount of which is our constitutional rights. And we will no longer accept the systematic erosion of our liberties. We are a free people and we will never accept anything otherwise.

[-] 1 points by poorconservative (2) 2 years ago

that was just a rant, not a reply.

[-] 1 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"The Government ought not to conduct the business of the country, it ought to regulate it so that is shall be conducted in the interests of the public" - Theodore Roosevelt

[-] 1 points by stopthat (64) 2 years ago

"Socialism" is a scare tactic that was used by the American Medical Association (A.M.A.) back when Truman tried to get a real national health plan (see Murray-Wagner-Dingell Act) along with social security. The AMA wanted to protect the wages of the physicians and started a scare campaign calling it "socialism". I'm surprised they still try to use that.

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

Any interest in Gov. Buddy Roemer, who is a moderate progressive and populist? He's running under the GOP ticket (with views that align with former Repub. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt.) Too liberal for the current GOP clown car, so he's been shut out of debates. I find him very intriguing. The platform for his candidacy is Wall Street greed and institutional corruption in Washington. He came out in support of Occupy Wall Street over a week ago and got laughed at by his GOP counterparts. Calls shit out on both parties, and doesn't take PAC money. Running on donations of $100 or less. Has support of liberals and moderates like Lawrence Lessig, Jim Hightower, and Dylan Ratigan. Take a look see:

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/12/341926/gop-presidential-candidate-buddy-roemer-listen-to-occupy-wall-street/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1z8HC9GJn8

http://www.jimhightower.com/commentary/latest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh7TBVtm5yI

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

The economic system must be accompanied by a participatory democracy and laws that limit the power of the richest, of the most powerful hand always end up controlling everything as it is now

[-] 1 points by jikemonson (2) 2 years ago

should be protesting our current administrations non business policies.

[-] 1 points by jikemonson (2) 2 years ago

you guys are idiots

[-] 1 points by Baffled (7) 2 years ago

Something like Euro-Socialism? Yeah, that is working real well. Maybe you alone have a perfect market/capital/eco/worker program figured out that 2000 years of commerce hasn't generated yet. We are all ears.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I am not proposing a socialist system for America, Nor am I proposing that we redistribute wealth in America. All I am suggesting is that we need to fix the economy and create jobs.

First of all because its the right thing to do.

Secondly, because I don't want tyranny or communism to develop in this country. But if things get so bleak for the poor. It increases the danger the rise of a tyrant.

[-] 1 points by TimeForAChange (6) 2 years ago

To make the most effective change against Wall St, please advertize citizens to withdraw their "investments" and put it in cash. Wall St is a pack of wolves and this denies them their source of parasitic income. This would radically stop the countries economic system.

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

Wall Street is criminal blood sucking vipers - yes. But grinding the system to a halt is not the solution. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We need to regulate the H%LL out of them. Because clearly their greed and reckless behavior knows no bounds. We need Glass-Stegall and more!

And their power and control over government itself is how they get away with their criminal greed. Money is their tool. But we can take away their control over government by getting money out of the political process with Election Reform. 1% buys their representation in government, 99% are left with the scraps. This must change.

[-] 1 points by dianevmc (1) 2 years ago

Cicero, hi, I can't seem to get the system to load previous forum pages to get back to your request for proposals and feedback. I wrote the following, which addresses two concerns of mine in response to your dismissive comment to another's proposal. They wrote that we should support equal rights for the Palestinian people. You wrote that we shouldn't interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, as we wouldn't want anybody doing the same to us here. (I'm a peace and social justice writer):

Re #6 proposal of equal rights for Palestinians. U.S. foreign policy IS hijacked - by Israel-firsters, who bend policy to support the disenfranchisement and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people - and we pay for it with over three billion dollars in taxpayer-funded military hardware and cash gifted to Israel each and every year. Either we are in it or we are out of it. If we financially prop up a country we own it - and demand equal rights for all, if our vaunted values are worth the paper they are printed on. What I find interesting, is that your lists of proposals avoid entirely the one thing that drives all the problems you want fixed - America's war for global empire. It will destroy us all, and should be the number-one concern. It's what's behind the curtain. It's what's draining the treasury. It's what's destroying civil liberties at home. American peace activists are in the process of having their lives destroyed by the state. Regards, Diane V. McLoughlin, mcloughlinpost.com

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

What about the millions we have given to the Palestinians over the years?

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I just think we should fix our own problems first then worry about the problems of the world.

I don't have the answer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and neither does anyone in the movement.

The movement is not about Israel its about America and I think that is where our focus should stay.

Best

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

People in the US are scared of these words: Socialism, Communism, Fascism and so forth just because of past political policies (post war) and historical weight of the words. They make you feel uncomfortable... ...and because they make you feel uncomfortable you refuse to learn from them and remain stuck in the ignorant bliss that we are in. There are new ways to go about but you'd have to get over being called and something-ist because ignorant people LOVE lables (and McDonald's)

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

You're right. People are divided by and scared of those words. With some good reason.

I do not think caring for our neediest citizens is Socialism. I think it means we, as a nation, have a heart and soul. Thats not Socialist, it's humane. Can't we just be humane, rather than Socialists? And keep Capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Great point!!!

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 2 years ago

DEAR INDIVIDUAL READING THIS, What must we as people do to fight this grave injustice inflicted upon us, by the ones who lust for power? How can we end the reign of the wicked and immoral and mete JUSTICE upon the oppressors as we have suffered from their hands-their blood stained hands... An idea of REVOLUTION-no, the act of revolution enacted by the proletarians! Must we as individuals ,as is always done, remain pawns to these people, these monoliths that we alone as individuals cannot surmounted...I surmise that we are not ignorant to the woes inflicted upon us by their enormities? We must UNIFY! Unity will be the way in which we assert ourselves!...While I realize all are not are not without income or funds and many cannot unify with this growing movement do to reasons of possible opposition and they being the people I'm question who we oppose (Wall Street), and many have responsibility they must tend to that take precedence. We must rise and vanquish this behemothto restore the equilibrium, for when disturbed it causes much chaos and strife in the hearts of man( man being neutral to represent all genders) in his mind and when mans mind and soul are in chaos as many are they rise to vanquish the pestiferous wealthy. However we should not just target these individuals, each of us individually must confront the corruption in our hearts, how can we judge the corrupt and deem them so when we cannot be amenable for ourselves we will surely be deemed hypocrites as we will be.....I am not meaning to say that this protest is in any way unjust, for far too long have we suffered, I mean that we are expected to expiate our sins -assume our parts in the problems we face and how we may have caused it. Yes, the Bankers on Wall Street are corrupt in ways we don't have evidence of without an investigation. But as we suffer soshall they, for we will make it so. But what of our government I say, my fellow citizens do not neglect to Confront the complicit in this affair for the roots of corruption are deeply seated, we have silent enemies amongst us-be warned that although succession in our goals will happen we may face a greater threat to our rights granted unto us from birth be prudent and circumspect. Another issue I wish to address is the idea of mans continual corruption as all things will be permeated with this darkness Inside our hearts.......when a system is created it always deviates from the righteous path, for nations we have learnt of in our education are littered with tales of nations that became corrupt and faded Into the ruin of collapse, we know that a society without corruption is utterly inconceivable, impossible in ways each and everyone of us know...for as long as men exist so shall our inner evil....but I digress from my original Intent of this passage and I ask forgiveness as we must forgive all in all eventual....the rising potentiality of this movement is quite an astonishment, I thought we were not capable of such things and thus I admit I had less faith in my fellow man. I see that we have all come to the realization of the need to bring the greedy to justice, although the reasons for your protesting may be unique to you, you share many goal, I had prognostications, inklings seems more appropriate of a term, that one day man would wake to realize the greater truth outside of his/her reality, and break the cycles of obsession with superficial base needs and trite motives, a dull and predictable lot we were but we've surpassed that I hope....for if not we will founder and fall Into the patterns we had grown so accustomed to, living such prosaic pedestrian lives stultified by the elite and of our own ignorance we always have the means to educate ourselves in this age, we have no limits to what we may learn based on our status in society, the powerful can no longer succeed in keeping us stupefied we have freewill to reason and learn and form our own ideas, ideas that would otherwise have died by the hands of the bigots! Our endeavours shall be crowned with fruition of our goals for our will allows it, we have broken free from the will of the oppressors.... part...now it is your turn...as Desmond Tutu stated "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." YOURS TRULY- Aaron Thomas Bridge

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Try living in a third world country and tell me if you life in America is really that bad.

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

Of course, overall, we have the best country in the world to live in. But that does not mean there is not room for improvement!

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Ok but social justice is not the answer. Greece did it. Basically the entire EU is socialist. Look at economic growth of all those countries compared to a capitalist US. Not even close in growth. Although both countries are in great debt (most for the US is from the President's reckless stimulus package), the socialists countries are going bankrupt and are facing stagflation. Before the financial crisis the US unemployment rate was at a very comfortable level, after failed policies to fix the recession, the country's economy has gotton worse but people want to blame the same people that made this country so great in the past instead of the new administration. That just shows how one-sided people are when it comes to looking at issues as a whole.

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

That is not true. I blame the political system in this country. A system that is driven by billions of dollars of campaign contributions, political donations and special interests.
The wealthy people and corporations can keep their money! Keep their money out of my government! Because it is my government too. I want my fair and equal representation in it. Who do you think the government listens to in this country? 1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps.

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Even if that was true, the rich made contributions to every campaign since the beginning of our government. When the economy is good, people don't care at all as long as the country is richer as a whole. Many occupy people are just mad at a bad economy. If the right steps were taken by our government to fix (stay out of the way), then the economy would be booming again and people would not care. Bad economics are the reasons why people start revolutions. Communism failed and social justice in Europe is starting to fail. As soon as the free market starts to work its magic again and the rich/ banks start investing in new innovation/ business expansion. Occupy will then be a headache of the past.

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

Yes, to a degree, we were all complacent when things were going well. We thought everything was fine. But is was NOT. This is the end result of the perverse distorted corrupted political system, that now must be fixed. This is the end result of decades of corruption. But this is the end. It will be fixed. Because now people can see the problems that it has caused and people are waking up and are demanding to have their democracy back. The bad economy was the wake up call. But the root cause of the problem is the political system and our diminished democracy.

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 2 years ago

You must not have understood the essays aim...and you tell me what the experience is to live a life of privation, you can't, if you're concerned aide them don't preach to me how horrible life can be, I'm aware.

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Bullshit. The fact that socialism came in ruined capitalism.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

So you are in favor of no minimum wage, no workers safety regulations, no safety standards for automobiles or electronics. Allowing children to work in factories. The creation of price-setting monopolies.

That is what a truly free-market would lead to

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Yes, yes, yes, no, no. You need to understand the effects that a minimum wage has on an economy. No measure has kept the poor in poverty than denying them an opportunity for work. I worked for 5 years for a charity full time for half the minimum wage, it allowed me to learn how to make money in my spare time, and not expect my wage to solve all my problems. I loved every minute of it and the lessons and drive I gained far out shadow the money I was paid.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

If Americans are struggling at $7.25 an hour how will they do if they made $5 per hour?

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

A minimum wage does not fix the cost of living problem. Ask why your income tax dollars are to pay the interest to the fed for the fraudulent dollars it created, and the government force you to use. $5 per hour would be great if the cost of living wasn't artificially increased by inflation.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

People can't eat life experience!

[-] 1 points by skyways4u (6) 2 years ago

T-h-e-y try SOO HARD to infected The MESSAGE by planting riots or out of hands bandits/pot-smokers individuals to protesters Peaceful gathering. I SOO HOPE, that that puppet-mastered trick for Media and Sleeping mass-Majority will fell, and more and more people join the Marsh.

I support Mission of Awakening and Global economy changing for better future of our Planet and our children, BUT, really, - ANONYMOUSLY its will NOT Working.

Lets get REAL, and gather not just feed-up shouts, but Real Platform for stepping World into NEW Direction of Equality and Peace.

To be able to transfer from chaos of Re-volution to productive E-volution we need to FIND SOLUTION to END Hunger, Human trafficking, Power abuse from Social leaders and Media , dirty money laundry from narco- war- oil global net, abuse of Nature sources and so on.

I am SOO ON - but without Leadership its seems impossible.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

Socialism in America has a different interpretation than the rest of the world. But the key word is democratic socialism, the Wikipedia encyclopedia deems the term too hard to be defining, evidently the information was edited by an uninformed right winger. Why there is so much misinformation between socialism and free-market in America? To understand we need to compare America’s economy with other economies around the world. In the United States the economic system is privately owned and controlled by corporation on Wall Street (free-market) and under these conditions the government has no sources of income but taxes and cannot provide for the well-being of its citizens. By contrast, in social countries the economic system is state owned and separately from the private sector (Wall Street.) Under this environment corporations are licensed, regulated and punished if necessary. The population are entitle to free education all the way through college, free access to hospitals and medication. They are also heavily taxed around 35% of the GDP but they do enjoy the benefits.

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

I think capitalism with a healthy dose of responsible and ethical behavior would go a long way in improving this country. I mean, get a moral compass people! (You know who you are.)

My recipe for successful capitalism - maximize profit by playing by the rules. Throw in a plenty of responsible and ethical behavior. If it gets too spicy, use your moral compass! And lastly, eschew greed.

As for helping others less fortunate and taking care of our fellow citizens who need it - this is not socialism. This is called having a HEART AND SOUL. As a nation.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

Aah, it’s all about moral and soul?

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

I'm not saying it would solve all the problems. But yes, I think it would help. In addition to some serious Election Reform.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 2 years ago

You’re partially right, BUT you cannot expect corporate capitalism to be ethically. Capitalism is about profits and economic slavery, if you do break the rules (not pay your debt) you’re hunted, prosecuted and incarcerated.

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

When I talk about ethics and responsibility I'm thinking about 2 things where there was a complete breakdown of playing by the rules and acting responsibly - the BP oil spill, which was careless and irresponsible and Wall Street in the lead up to the financial crises, which was both reckless and criminal. Both of these things could have been avoided. Had it not been for greed and lack of ethics. I do not think it is necessary to sacrifice ethics for profits. It costs more in the long run and hurts profits.

As for being hunted down, prosecuted and incarcerated. Still waiting. Wall Street is still free and seems to be doing just fine. For some unfathomable reason. In what world is this ok?

[-] 0 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Charity, and care for the poor stopped the day we outsourced it to the government.

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

I'm not sure that is entirely true. But, if you are saying you don't think the government is doing a good job, I agree with that. That is why I'm part of the protest. What do you think the government should do differently?

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Stop forcibly removing money from one person and handing 10% to someone else (90% lost to fund the bureaucracy). When you force charity, you stop it. I think most people are good and would never let their neighbour die of hunger, but when you have outsourced care for others to a bureaucracy, the people don't take social justice as a responsibility.

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

Perhaps if you had fair and equal representation in your government you would have a better chance of changing the things you do not like.
1% buys their representation. 99% are left with the scraps.

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

That would help, and I agree with you, but government has become a massive monster and what's needed is less of it. It has a definite role but has been increasing its influence for over a hundred years. It's not working.

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

System glitch. I'm replying to your earlier comment because I am not getting a "reply" option on the last comment for some reason.

Government is part of the problem. Everything the government does is for the benefit of the 1%. Because the 1% has bought and paid for this government with their billions of dollars of campaign and election contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and special interests. The government does what the 1% tells them to do. Our government does not hear the voices of the 99%. Thats the real exploitation. Our democracy is being exploited and corrupted by money.

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

And maybe that would be the result and could be accomplished if we all had equal representation in government. Maybe the government keeps getting bigger because it increases the power of the 1% who use it to bend to their will. We need to get the money out of the political process. Money speaks too loudly in our government and is drowning out the voices of the 99%

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

I agree completely, government should protect person a from exploiting person b, it should not make exploitation easier.

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

Don't be jealous of others who are successful. You are promised Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness in this country. Everything else has to be earned. Stop expecting a high standard of living without taking the risks that business owners and shareholders take.

[-] 1 points by Steve15 (385) 2 years ago

Why would anyone be jealous of a troll self made? Your ignorance shines through you post. Three sentences and one could see you're an unhappy person.

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

You're outmatched in the intellect department here steve

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

Wall Street is filled with successful businesses and the people who made those businesses great. You may occupy, but you will still be on the outside looking in.

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

Wall Street is filled with criminal corrupt greed. If you think that is success, then we clearly have a different idea of what success means.

I would not say they are "great" businesses. They had plenty of help from the government. They bought and paid for the deregulation of the industry that resulted in the financial crises. They destroyed themselves and almost the entire economy, were it not for the bailout.

You call that a success story?

[-] 1 points by wouldhavepreferred (26) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

With all due respect, I'm not jealous and I'm not envious. I love my life and I love my country. I don't expect to receive anything I have not earned. I have worked as hard as anyone - since I was 14 years old. I put myself through college, I built a business, I saved for three decades - only to watch it all evaporate due to corporate greed in the financial sector.

I don't want anything I did not earn, but I expect others to live by the same rule. I am not willing to continue standing by while members of the financial elite corrupt OUR legislative process and buy elections. I am not willing to remain silent when politicians collude with special interest in order to retain power. I am not willing to remain silent when our country wages illegitimate foreign wars while 1 of 5 American children lives in poverty.

I expect our leaders to live to the ideal of our founding fathers - for all of us - not just the privileged few.

[-] 1 points by poorconservative (2) 2 years ago

you lost your money because your peers took out loans they could not afford. Your peers live above their means and can't pay, and someone has to pay, things don't come for free. Maybe the banks shouldn't have given your peers mortgages, but lets not put all the blame on them when your peers were equally as greedy.

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

"watch it all evaporate" . Did you mean to say that overspent or mismanaged your business and weren't prepared for a business recession?

[-] 1 points by wouldhavepreferred (26) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Nope - I managed it like a champ. My bank was bought out and the new bank called my line of credit because the value of the underlying asset (my home) declined. Gave me 60 days to come up with 400k, which I did, but that left no cash to continue running the business in a recession. I liquidated my savings, my IRA, my life insurance, my kids college accounts - all so I could make good on my debts. So, yeah, I guess I was not as "prepared" for the worst recession in 90 years as other "self made" job creators were.

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

It's amazing how many people just don't get it? You never lost anything because you never had it in the first place. What you lost was borrowed from someone else (bank). It didn't belong to you so why be mad when the rightful owner wanted it back?

[-] 1 points by wouldhavepreferred (26) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Boy, you're right. I just can't compete with you. Too smart for me, I guess.

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

Get out of the streets and stop trying to "Occupy" or "Borrow money from" the successful financial institutions in the country. I work in Financial Sector and I am proud of it. I'm tired of people blaming others for their own financial mistakes.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Your attributing a line of reasoning to me that I never committed too for the record.

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

I am a proud Socialist. I think that there is nothing wrong with an economy that puts the needs of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens ahead of those of the richest.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

In a true socialism there isn't a rich or poor class to favor!

Also, command economies (found in pure socialist countries) are less efficient in their allocation of resources and what needs to be produced or what there is genuine demand for and what actually is produced. Everyones standard of living goes down except for the very poorest in society. I can't stand behind that. Social mobility and a good work ethic are staples of American history.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6233) 2 years ago

Command economies exist in Western countries as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmakLRxGbW8

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Did I say they didn't???

No I said they weren't as efficient as capitalistic economies. Your arguing against a point I never made

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6233) 2 years ago

watch the video.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I don't need to watch a video to understand economics I already do. Since socialism is concerned more with equity than demand in the economy. They don't result in an efficient allocation of resources.

In the article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" Mises argues that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned or controlled the means of production, then no rational prices could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently.

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

I would gladly sacrifice the efficient allocation of resources if it means that a child will not got to sleep hungry, however inefficiently that is achieved.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

If a child goes hungry in America it is not for the want of adequate social programs. 1 in 4 American children are on food stamps. There are programs like WIC and free school lunches to help the impoverished.

[-] 0 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Except that they soon rely on welfare from capitalist countries.

[-] 2 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 2 years ago

Learn about Finland. They are doing just fine while doing well for their people.

[-] 0 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

You are also an idiot. All socialism does is replace the wealthy business man with the wealthy politician.

[-] 1 points by kamoako (52) from Litchfield Park, AZ 2 years ago

The sad thing is that people are stuck in this ignorant ideological frame of thinking. Politics and economics beliefs are now a religion rather then ration. Which could be all thanks to propaganda by the Republican party to deem any sort of government intervention as socialist or communist. At the end of the day there are certain interest and elites who are able to perpetuate fear and propaganda simply because they have no sense of social responsibility. So unless this movement and people with educated and sound minds remain in boldness with their voices, people will fail to realize they are not wrong for wanting healthcare, education for thier kids. They need to understand that once they work 8 hours a day and still can't pay off thier bills there is a problem. And maybe just maybe if they working or even voting for an orginization that favored them rather then some ceo and profit margins to make a few wall street investors happy, then maybe things would be better.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 2 years ago

Exactly right.

[-] 1 points by go99percent (6) 2 years ago

here is why the US will not have citizens who care about their fellow citizens

Look at the tea bagger’s posts.

What’s really up with these people?

What are their motives?

Why did the tea baggers cheer and laugh at a fellow American's death at the tea party debate?

Why did a recent post hope the wall street protestors get beat to a pulp with lead night sticks ?

Why are they such racist pigs?

Why do they take such pleasure in other American’s poverty and misery?

Why are they such constant liars?

Why do they act like a subservient peasant class, who bow and scrape to the rich.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is a know fact conservatives are afraid of their own shadow yet easily resort to violent threats

Conservatives have increased gray matter in the amygdala, an area of the brain associated with processing emotion, particularly fear and respond to threatening situations with more aggression than liberals.

So they are paranoid and as the song goes “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep “

Paranoia occurs in two forms: (1) the "bad me" paranoid; and (2) the "poor me" paranoid.

Clinical Paranoia affects 2.5% of the population of the United States.

(350,000,000 x 2.5% = 8,750,000 about the size of the tea party

“The Tea Party is not a unified political movement. It consists of a wide variety of relatively disparate groups, none of which have a concrete membership. It's estimate that 18% of the public supports the Tea Party, nearly all of these people identifying themselves as Republicans. A reasonable estimate isn't possible, but active participants probably number around

five to ten million persons.” Coincidence ??

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The "bad me" type tends to be more full of rage and sadistic than the other type is.

Paranoia in all its forms tends to be organized around aggression, from sadomasochistic violence to lingering hostile mood.

Paranoia is an insidious disease which develops slowly as a secondary personality characteristic, fuses into a more or less dysfunctional coping style, and may or may not become the dominant pattern. Psychologists suspect that the cause of paranoia is found in the mothering experience, in particular, the breast-feeding experience. Successfully breast-fed infants develop the capacity to feel supported and a tolerance for frustration. Unsuccessfully breast-fed infants (those who viewed the experience as "bad" in some way) develop a distinct inability to experience self-satisfaction, tolerance, and positive relationships. Internalization of the bad experience leads to the initiation of provocative and confirmatory interactions with others, mostly through splitting (seeing things as black-white, good-bad, weak-strong) and projection (accusing others of having the disowned aspects of your self).

A full-blown "bad me" paranoid perceives threats in everything other people do, often exploding in manic, counterphobic episodes.

A full-blown "poor me" type views the world as basically unfair and persecutory, countering their anticipation of discomfort with either antisocial behavior or grandiosity.

Fox news and Rush Limbaugh have directed their brainwashing agendas directly at these paranoid people and it has worked very well.

Panic Mongering is fox news’ number one brainwashing method

Panic Mongering. one step beyond simple fear mongering. fastest way to bypass the rational brain. when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

When they are always afraid watch out !

Wrong Paul, Perry, Palin, and Bachmann all pander to these paranoids and stir them up

So there it is in a nutshell

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

uh when? most anything that people claim is free market is simply how a market reacted to government intervention. ie. why is health insurance tied to business? because the government married them with tax law during ww2 wage freezes. why don't they all have electronic medical records? because the government mandates they keep paper copies of everything anyway.

etc etc. a central bank is not created by a free market, it has men that set interest rates (instead of a market) and a free market wouldn't have bailed out all these banks.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Thats what I said "they call us socialists" when the American economy is a mixture of socialist and capitalist principle.

The failures of total laissez-faire that I was pointing too were advents of the industrial revolution...

monopolies, bad working conditions, child labor, poor wages, and corruption

I think your arguing against me when we have the same position you just don't realize it

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

i don't know about that. the vast majority of monopolies are actually created by the government. natural ones are rare, like alcoa. standard oil was another, but by the time they went to court, their market share had already declined by 1/3. they kept having to cut to fight smaller competition as well. the government certainly needed to step in and establish some basic rules during the industrial revolution - it was also one of the greatest times of growth in wealth for the country and middle class.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I realize that...

Big businesses can get their buddies in government to create barriers to market entrance by new firms.

I was only making the point that we already have socialist aspects in the way we run our economy that is all.

I never intended to start a debate on Socialism v. Capitalism or what is the approriate relationship between the two in our government

Plus not all monopolies are bad. Many utility companies have monopolies because it makes no sense to have ten companies all running different sets of electric, or water lines that would be a bad allocation of resources. Instead we give them monopolies but we regulate them to ensure that they don't take advantage of their monopoly status.

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

i can agree with that. i started one thread, why is it crashing? my bump didn't help. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-one-stimulus-everyone-can-and-will-get-behind/

i'd prefer a vbulletin :p

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

Laissez-faire would have been to let the banks fail.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

I realize that I said we are a mixture of both approaches sheesh

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

and laissez-faire would allow monopolies to form faster than the speed of light

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 2 years ago

Neve has in history before. Monopolies are maintained by government intervention.

[-] 1 points by OpenSky (217) 2 years ago

Lol well obviously you haven't heard of the steel and railroad tycoon J.P. Morgan (1837-1913). Or taken a college US government history class.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

You clearly don't understand my argument.

I am not saying socialism is the answer!

I am not saying a free market is the answer!

I am saying they call us socialists as if any vestige of socialism in a democracy is sacrilege (which arguably it is in its purest form) but we as a nation are a mixture of a free-market and socialism.

[-] 1 points by CassieK (8) from Detroit, MI 2 years ago

I agree, balance is needed. There is no one side or the other.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Thank you, you actually get what I am saying!!

[-] 1 points by CassieK (8) from Detroit, MI 2 years ago

I thought it was very simple common sense. You are welcome.

[-] 0 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

I bet none of you ever took an economics class. This rich create jobs. When was the last time you saw you or one of your friends be employed by a poor person? Do I think the 1 % have a ridiculous amount of money? Yes. But the problem with this movement is that many of you think their money is coming at the cost of regular people. That kind of thinking is nonsense. Big businesses create jobs, produce goods and services at a lower cost than others to benefit the general public, and would be WAY more efficient if there was no government regulation. So please, if many of you are going to act like you know economics, stop. Learn both sides of the argument before you act blindly.

[-] 4 points by thesoulgotsoldontheroadtogold (148) 2 years ago

i have an international business degree. the rich don't create jobs. they destroy them, and move them to asia, where they can pay peanuts. small companies create jobs.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

You sir (or madame) are exactly right. Keep fighting the good fight.

[-] 1 points by poorconservative (2) 2 years ago

do you not think these corporations were not once small businesses at some time? They were small, expanded, and expanded, and expanded some more. Oh hello corporation, once small business.

Having a degree doesn't mean jack now a days. We turned it into a requirement essentially, and now you need a degree to fax papers and get peoples coffee, but that's an entirely different problem. #Occupygreedyuniversities / #Occupypeoplewhothinkeveryjobneedsadegreesowecanthanteachyouhowtodoitanyways

[-] 1 points by thesoulgotsoldontheroadtogold (148) 2 years ago

yes, well when a company gets too big it should be put on a diet, like a person... just because things tend to get too big, doesn't make it right....

[-] -1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

The rich destroy jobs and move them to Asia. While I do believe a trading deficit with China is hurting us economically, the rich actually start jobs. Also these "small companies" you refer to do create jobs as well, but in order to start these businesses, you need a lot of money for it to thrive and expand, so I'm not really getting what you mean by the rich destroy jobs. Unless its true that poor people create jobs, then I guess I've been living in a hole all my life

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

hmmm... entrepreneurs create jobs, usually. By starting some new company or whatever you want to call it. Then, some need capital and borrow from banks or wealthy peeps, some just work their ass off until they have the capital they need. I started my company 7 years ago with the working hard style and I am doing great, thank you.
Rich people CAN help as well as banks CAN help when they lend the $ which they don't now and that's why there's high unemployment. (among many other reasons). Instead of arguing about little economic principles, stay with the big picture: how do we change things?

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

That first sentence were I said "the rich create jobs and move them to Asia", I was actually mocking a comment that someone else said. To change things we need more jobs, and to do that there needs to be more economic growth, which would without a doubt grow if the influence of this current administration was out of the picture

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

gotcha!

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

There is much evidence to the contrary that the "rich" or Big Business create jobs. There is much evidence that says innovation creates the most jobs. And the so called "rich" are generally not the innovators or inventors. Think Steven Jobs. Attached is a good article, it is not very long to read.

Yes, money is costing regular people. It is costing regular people their voice in government. 1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps. Sadly, the wealthy and big corporations, have bought and paid for our government. And who do you think the government listens to? Hint: Its not the 99%

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/occupy_wall_street_a_banker_explains_what_really_happened_to_america/

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Ok then blame/ protest the government for not representing the will of the people.

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

The government is a dog. Wall Street is its owner. The dog bites you. First you talk to the owner. Then you deal with the dog.

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

Innovation does create jobs, I agree one-hundred percent. But taking away money from the rich, who invest in new innovation does not seem to make sense. The economy will become feeble without its life support. Look at the economic growth of socialist countries, its a joke compared to the US. My response to the government: if it does not work for the people it is the right and duty of the people to destroy it and create a new one. I bet the only reason why many of these people are not protesting Washington is because 99% of people voted for Obama. If Bush was still in office many of you would be protesting a republican government.

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

I think our posts are criss-crossing! Let me just say, I DO NOT want to take money away from rich people. I want rich people and wealthy corporations to KEEP THEIR MONEY. I want them to keep their money out of my government. Because they are destroying our democracy with their money corrupting the government with it. ALL people should have fair and equal representation in government. Our government listens to and acts on behalf of the 1% who buys their representation. Our democracy is diminished, because our goverment is not paying equal attention to the 99%.

It is not Republican or Democrat , or Bush or Obama. It is the entire political system that is the problem. We have to get the money out of the political process.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Actually....

Studying to teach Social Studies I took

Intro to Economics Principles of Macroeconomics Principles of Microeconomics International Economics Thinking in Economics

The question is have you? To what school of economic thought do you identify?

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

I don't believe you took economics if you believe that less money for investors (the rich) means a better off economy

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

If businesses have a lower tax burden they have no incentive to reinvest in their businesses. The will simply pay a small tax and keep the profits.

If they have a high tax burden they will reinvest in their business so they don't have to pay the money in taxes.

Expanding a business is risky but if you were going to give the money to the government anyway then take the chance what do you have to lose.

You should take a class or two.

Lets give a real life example.

You say that less taxes on the wealthy and businesses create jobs.

Ok so why after ten years of a lower tax burden (bush tax cuts) have we lost millions of jobs. By your own reasoning the tax cuts should have created jobs. Your logic doesn't work when placed into reality.

This whole "job creator" nonsense is a last ditch effort at trickle down economics, it doesn't work when we examine the facts.

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

We lost millions of jobs because of the financial crisis where banks were handing out loans to people who couldn't afford to pay for them. These banks were being backed up by securities called CDS Securities from larger investment firms such as AIG, CItigroup, Goldman Sachs, etc. where they basically gave banks a reason to invest stupidly. Once too many of these assets turned toxic because too many people defaulted on their loans, many of these companies fell apart. Because these firms were lead investors in many businesses in the financial world, the economy went awry. Banks could not lend out loans without fear of being default so businesses could not receive loans they needed badly. This was basically pushing over the dominos. The result of this was massive layoff all over the country. The Bush tax cuts have nothing to do with massive layoffs, thats just a bad economy caused by the ignorance of lenders and buyers. On the other hand if you look at the 1920's and 80's and even the 2000's under Bush before the financial crisis, you will see that there is massive economic growth resulting from much innovation, and the money to invest in these ideas (much coming from tax cuts).

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

Yes but your argument is Taxing the rich will slow job creation.

The hidden premise here is that a lower tax burden on the wealthy = job creation.

I say that simply is not true.

The wealthy don't wake up in the morning and say "gee I wonder how many jobs I can create today"

They care only for making money. If that creates jobs fine that's great. But more often than not that involves sending jobs to China to take advantage of the low wages in a developing nation.

You never told me what Economics classes you took???

[-] 1 points by richycarmichael (10) 2 years ago

For many big businesses, yes, they do move jobs to China. By doing this they produce cheaper goods to sell into the US and in return we get to sell our goods to China. I do think China is cheating the system with their devalued currency but thats a debate for globalization. Back to the main point a majority of employers are small businesses. Obviously they don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "gee I wonder how many jobs I can create today" but they want to make more money. More money comes from expansion of that business, which would require more employees to create more goods/ send them out/ sell, etc. By wanting to make more money or what you people call "greed" they create jobs for more people by needing more regular people to help them reach their dreams. By the way I have taken a combined course of MIcro/ Macro economics in junior year of highschool. AP Economics the next year with 5 score on the AP exam, and right now I am a finance major at the College of Charleston.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

The economics and tax code that I know say that you don't pay taxes on investments in your business like adding employees, or buying capital (new machines, etc)

Where I went to school these things are called tax write offs.

And that's the heart of my argument. High taxes encourage reinvestment into ones business to escape paying taxes. If there were no taxes or very little why risk your capital by expanding your business when you can keep the profits. Its only on the money that isn't reinvested that they would pay taxes.

[-] 0 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:

http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures

Join

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/

because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for, at exactly the right time, by an e-mail from that group, in support of the above the bank-focused platform. If so, then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the above strategy as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your current Occupation & Generation.

[-] 0 points by ArrestAllCEOS (115) 2 years ago

LOL @ thinking what happened with the housing crisis was because of a pure free market. Idiots.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

No the housing crisis happened because the FED lowered interest rates so low that people looked for another investment, what they found was mortgage backed securities which no one really understood. Had the FED left interest rates at a reasonable level investors would have bought T-bills because they are a safe investment. Instead of risking billions.

Arguably the root of the problem in this particular illustration was government intervention.

[-] 1 points by Selfmademill (43) 2 years ago

Wrong. Greed created the housing bubble. Greed has created speculative bubbles since the beginning of time. The Fed merely provided stimulation to help bring us out of the 2000-02 recession. People are greedy, bubbles in assets build, they pop. Rinse and repeat. This was nothing new.

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

The Fed did not create collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 2 years ago

No but they facititated an enviroment where such things could be fostered. I am saying people with money want that money to make more money. So when they lowered interest rates. People quit buying t-bills because the interest was so low it would not even account for inflation.

So the investors looked for an alternative.

Unfortunately the alternatives were all more risky than t-bills.

I am not placing the blame solely on the FED greed was a big player too, and an unregulated financial system.