Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: How far do you want to take this?

Posted 2 years ago on Sept. 27, 2011, 11:25 a.m. EST by KyleShike (9) from Queens, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by inthegreen (3) from Oceanside, CA 2 years ago

What is this? What are the demands? What are you fighting for?

You're making the same mistakes as the people you are fighting against. We've been at war for 10 years because we didn't define success before we declared war.

You're doing the same thing.

[-] 1 points by inthegreen (3) from Oceanside, CA 2 years ago

What is this? What are the demands? What are you fighting for?

You're making the same mistakes as the people you are fighting against. We've been at war for 10 years because we didn't define success before we declared war.

You're doing the same thing.

[-] 1 points by inthegreen (3) from Oceanside, CA 2 years ago

What is this? What are the demands? What are you fighting for?

You're making the same mistakes as the people you are fighting against. We've been at war for 10 years because we didn't define success before we declared war.

You're doing the same thing.

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

All the way!

[-] 1 points by KyleShike (9) from Queens, NY 2 years ago

Yea sure, but what is that?

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

That depends on what this is.

[-] 1 points by KyleShike (9) from Queens, NY 2 years ago

I'd say this is discontent manifested in a park.

[-] 1 points by KyleShike (9) from Queens, NY 2 years ago

Like, what exactly do you want?

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

Damn right it is! I'd say we take this as far as we get until we get a response, be it positive, or negative. If positive, then we have succeeded. If negative, we go all the way (while staying peaceful and noncompliant!), which will expose the police state, and we will have succeeded. To be honest I'd prefer the former.

[-] 1 points by KyleShike (9) from Queens, NY 2 years ago

A response from whom?

I'm with ya in that keeping it full of love is imperative...

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

We could probably settle on the resignation of Jamie Dimon (head of NY FED, CEO of JP Morgan Chase). As a first step, a sign of good will.

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

I, personally, would like a response from our elected public servants.

I demand they stop ignoring the Constitution, and they abolish the FED. I demand we stop engaging in undeclared wars of aggression. I demand the troops come home. I demand deregulation of the market: Clearly this practice has failed and only allowed a few large corporations to become even larger monopolies. I demand sound money, and nullification of the debt incurred through borrowing fiat money (this goes right along with abolishing the FED). I demand those who have failed We, the People, to resign, and to be tried before a jury of their peers. I demand freedom, and the right to be left in peace.

I don't think that I am asking too much.

[-] 1 points by MKittles (36) from Maralinga, SA 2 years ago

This free market proposal intrigues me (because it is something I am right against). Why, exactly, do you propose a free market?

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4 (same as at other comment)

Note: this only works with sound money, without bailing out too-big-to-fail companies.

[-] 1 points by MKittles (36) from Maralinga, SA 2 years ago

Monopoly argument: this is qualitative and unconvincing. Underhand tactics have been excluded from this little piece. Example: what if it became illegal (under the pretense of say... water-saving) to own a vegetable garden without a license. Then consumers would have no choice as to what food they buy. Kind of like today (unless you consider one supermarket chain over another to be a choice).

Collusion argument: unfortunately insulting. We also, almost see a monopoly develop (in potential contradiction to the first argument) as one company "broke-ranks."

Undercutting: This is a ridiculous scenario. After "going in to debt" (which we are led to believe is guaranteed to be significant) to subsidise prices and drive competition out of business, we are to expect bigger companies to come in and screw the screwer? Initial startup costs make this unlikely.

Planned redundancy: This argument requires collusion to have already been debunked (which it wasn't).

Thanks for the viewpoint. Don't take my harsh criticism too much to heart. I am sure if I met you in person, it would be easier to make your case. Having said that, I am not convinced.

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

He mentions licensing. Right around his Collusion argument @2:37. It is not a practice commonly associated with a free market. If government requires it, they are essentially interfering with the market, favoring one (or more) participants. State-endorsed monopolies ensue.

When many companies collude, they will still try to please their shareholders, and will (as he does mention) undercut ever so slightly to gain more business. Eventually the others have to fall back in line, or probably undercut themselves for a bit to get back their customers.

Debts are significant in a monetary system backed by sound money. No infinite fiat money reserves, No tax-payer funded bailouts. You don't have cash or property backing your loan, and your creditors want a return of their investment? You're screwed, you go bankrupt.

Planned Obsolescence: Collusion is already taking place http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o but in a free market (not requiring licensing) anyone could start up a company to produce products that are not crap, and the customers would flock to them. That's how licensing works so well with ©, etc. (I do support © and patents, but you might even agree with me when I say that these systems have been heavily abused in the past)

[-] 1 points by MKittles (36) from Maralinga, SA 2 years ago

I think the free market inherently allows large amounts of money to pool in the hands of a few. This gives them power sufficient to create monopolies, or successfully undercut. A free market is a theoretically sound idea, but it, like travelling at the speed of light, is not something humans will perfect anytime soon.

A system needs to first and foremost meet the needs of the people, as decided by the people. A free market fulfills the wants of the people first, and maybe their needs later. Initially, need = want, but after the simulation runs for a while, the want of one person conflicts with the need of another.

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

Of course a well informed public is required in order to make responsible decisions (i.e. boycotting monopolies, responding to more needs than wants).

This is where government 'funded' public education takes root (notice that government cannot really fund anything, as it first needs to acquire the funds). It too creates a monopoly, which leads to depreciating quality of the product (education). I'd rather directly pay a teacher than have one appointed. That way I can ensure my children get the best bang for my buck. A free market education can, however, also exist in a government 'funded' environment. There need to be ways of rewarding competence, and punishing incompetence. Those fixed salaries, and non-fire able statuses need to go.

I don't want to deprive anyone from public schooling. First and foremost I advocate a voluntary society.

[-] 1 points by 0815 (58) 2 years ago

Oh, and I'd also like a response from the Banksters. I'd like them to apologize for their crimes, and turn themselves in to be tried before a jury of their peers. Somehow I don't think that would happen.