Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I am the 1%. Ask me how I can help you (or choose not to).

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 1:53 p.m. EST by VladimirMayakovsky (796)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A lot of you guys are confused about the way you think the 1% thinks. Ask me. I will explain.

293 Comments

293 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Move to Somalia

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Buy me TWO tickets I want to take a "friend" along.

[-] 6 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

It's estimated that 1% of the US population are sociopaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

An even higher percentage have narcisistic personality disorder, in some ways even more destructive, because it does not present in such a clearly discerable manner.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

So true.

[-] 1 points by invient (360) 12 years ago

5% of CEO's are sociopaths, that number is likely higher... sociopaths tend to be exceptional at lying.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

you beat me to it, actually 1% of the population are pyschopaths, according to Hare, which is more less widely accepted, but it is less than that in females. Psychopaths are worse in my opinion, and there is a difference between a psycho and a socio path, but they definitely share strong similarities.

I read once Hare quoted as saying that (paraphrasing) if he couldn't study psychopathy in prisons, the next place he would go was to the stock exchange. He wrote a book called 'Snakes in Suits' with another author that studies psychopaths in the business workplace.

Not to say all stock brokers or people on wall street are psychos, just an inordinate % of them, and a great number at the very top, due to their superior skills of manipulation and ruthlessness.

What is a psychopath, for those who don't know? More or less one who lacks empathy, and all the implications that go along with that.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Yes, the difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, and whether there is really a difference have not been entirely settled. Both exhibit a lack of empathy. Some in the field seem to think the difference lies in the origin of the condition, with sociopathy more the result of environment, and psychopathy more from genetics.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

No, there is a difference. I am studying criminal psychology at the moment, i wrote a test actually on it last Wednesday. There is a difference, believe me. Here is one article that explains some of them;

Outward Behavior of a Sociopath

-Sociopaths tend to be extremely disorganized.

-They are unable to maintain normal relationships with family, friends, or co-workers.

-They are often unable to keep steady employment or housing.

-They often live literally at the fringes of society. In a study of the homeless people who live in the subway tunnels of New York City, a disproportionately large number of them were classed as sociopaths.

-Their outbreaks of violence are erratic and unplanned. Sociopaths are easier to identify and apprehend as they generally leave behind a large trail of clues.

Outward Behavior of a Psychopath-Psychopaths can be almost obsessively organized.

-They can maintain normal social relationships. They may take care of aging parents or be married with children.

-Psychopaths will often be very successful in their careers. Their need for organization is coupled with an ability to make others like and trust them. Because they intellectually understand human emotions but are unable to experience them themselves, they are masters at emotional manipulation.

-They often live in a normal house or apartment, completely indistinguishable from healthy people.

-Psychopaths will take years to plan out acts of violence and revenge. They are very difficult to catch because they will carefully plan each step of the act to ensure they will commit their crime

Summary:

1. Sociopaths and psychopaths are both classed as anti-social personality disorders.
2. Both types of person enjoy cruelty, feel lack normal human emotions of guilt, and are unable to form emotional bonds with others.
3. Sociopaths generally behave in a disorganized, erratic manner.
4. Psychopaths generally behave outwardly normal but will engage in elaborate plots to manipulate or harm those around them.

They are definitely similar, but not the same thing. There is no entry anymore is the DSM for psychopathy, but both socio and psychopaths are arttributed with anti-social personality disorder. (APD)

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

That's interesting. I did know that both are subsumed under ASPD.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

It is actually super confusing, there are other differences. For instance there is no entry for pyschopathy in the DSM (though they're thinking of changing that again) and it is not considered a mental illness, but a personality disorder. I am confused even thinking about how to explain it further, one is based on observed behaviour, another of actual traits.. i'd have to look it up lol but yeah.

Another way to think of it, is that a sociopath has less self control. They will tend to violent outbursts at random, where as a psycho is more methodical, calculating, controlled.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Yes, I see the distinction. Are these standards universally accepted or are they still under discussion? Your info is probably more current than mine.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

they are pretty much standard official in pychiatry/post secondary schools, yes, although the field is still evolving. For example, there are proposed subdivisions in pyschopathy of narcissist, sadist, anti-social and borderline, which at the moment are some categories of APD in the DSM. I'm honestly not even completely clear on it myself.

A great place to start regarding Psychopathy would be the book by Clecky called 'The Mask of Sanity' as well as anything by Robert Hare, who created the PCL-R or, Psychopathy checklist revised, which is a test that includes 20 questions based on two different levels of personality traits to measure Psychopathy which is recognized as the standard tool used in the field. A score of 28 (or some say 30) and above is considered a psychopath.

The categories, which go from a range of 0-2, 0 being the least amount, 2 the greatest, are (to quote from wikipedia;)

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"

Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
Callousness; lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".

Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Poor behavioral control
Lack of realistic long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Juvenile delinquency
Early behavior problems
Revocation of conditional release
[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Thanks for the leads.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

your very welcome. :) Thanks for bringing it up. I always found it a curious coincidence of the whole 'we are the 99%' and 1%er aspect to Occupy. Not to demonize or vilify anyone, but it's something people should be aware of at least.

[-] -3 points by bali (-3) 12 years ago

Imagine that. And they're all at the OWS protests.

[-] -3 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Not bad out of 99% of the population, right.

The way some people use statistics is almost criminal - do you think the rest of your countrymen are really that stupid.

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

What do you mean by "that stupid"?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

That stupid to take a statement like "It's estimated that 1% of the US population are sociopaths", base that statement on wikipedia, and present it to us as the whole reason for your being.

You did reply to a forum that offered the 1% as willing to discuss the matter with you - and your reply was "..1% of the US population are sociopaths.. Maybe I am that stupid but I prefer to be called simple.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

it's not based on wikipedia, it is based on decades of research by many different psychologists, criminal experts and others in the field including neuroscience etc. Refer to my above replies for more information or directions to look if you are honestly serious about understanding the phenomenon of socio- or psychopaths.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I have been had again by the setup of this computer program. Very sorry yoss33, your information was great. I was actually responding to a link that sent me to wikipedia to support their comments. No offense of any kind intended. Thanks again for the information.

[-] 1 points by yoss33 (269) 12 years ago

no prob. I do recommend looking into it. I'm no expert at this point. And again, not to demonize anyone, but the reality is that these people exist, and they cause i would even venture to say the majority of thedamage in general in terms of both white and blue collar crime, though that is conjecture, and pretty hard to measure in some ways, and maybe a bridge too far.

Part of it is genetic, as in innate predisposition, but a major part is societal. Both family upbringing, culture, the way some power structures are based, etc. One way my prof puts it is very good, genetic predisposition creates the potential for psychopathy, in many cases, but environment (family etc.) is what actuates it. Genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger, to paraphrase one way an author put it. I would suggest the concept of free will should be taken into account as well, and choice.

A complex issue in one sense, but pretty basic in terms of having a conscience, having empathy, and the very real dangers associated with this. Most serial killers have some degree of psychopathy or another, for instance. But a deeper level as to why this happens needs to be looked at. In Vietnam (or one of those asian countries, i cant recall exactly) the percentage of the population with pyschopathy is much less than 1%, so then that begs the question, why is that? What is different about that particular country?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

We have cultures closer to home that mimic the Vietnam example until we start fiddling with them.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

I don't remember saying anything about "the whole reason for (my)your being". It was a bit tongue in cheek and aimed at Vlad, the self confessed troll, with whom Iv'e had considerable discussion.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Don't try to remember - that was my personal interpretation. Sorry if I offended you.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

Your courtesy is appreciated, as it is a rare commodity here.

[-] 2 points by CancelCurrency (128) 12 years ago

You name makes your look like you are poor russian jew and just pretend to be rich. LOL.

[-] 2 points by thefly (36) 12 years ago

con man

[-] 2 points by fredastaire (203) 12 years ago

A good start is to realize the value of a company comes from the product. second in the chain of value is the producer(employees). Execs and corporations are simply the middleman between my purchase(demand) and the employees that make the product(supply). This is a concept I will be driving far and wide. Some time after the turn of the year, I will be launching and ad campaign not for a product, but to spread this concept.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

The main value of a product is marketing.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

So it's not about labor cost. Thanks for that admission.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Never confuse cost with value.

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 12 years ago

I'm not confused. I think marketing affects attainable price. If that is what you mean by value, then yes, that determines what people will pay. Not so much the cost.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

I highly doubt that a single person could be representative of 'how the 1% thinks', just as the 99% could not be represented by 99 people as to how the whole thinks.

That said, your personal opinion please.

Glass-Steagall, reinstate or leave it?

Term limits?

Campaign reform?

Let's start with these three.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

no need for term limits if you get money out of the system - if we get someone good in office i want them to be able to stay

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Reinstate.

No.

No.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Term limits and campaign reform, why not?

The business of acquiring campaign contributions has often left worthy possible candidates 'out in the cold' and the selections we are left with have at times been poor and poorer, often the better choice has been over looked by the simple expediency of 'name recognition' rather than the issues that may be of concern to the constituency.

We've had representatives in the house and in the senate that actually slept through proceedings, not because of disinterest, but because of age, so perhaps an alternative?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

We have a democracy here. People vote. If people don't like a politician, we do not need term limits to remove him/her, the people can do it themselves. Just because you don't like some politicians doesn't mean there has to be a term limit to push them out. Let the voters decide.

On the issue of money, again, it is a form of free speech. If Soros can spend millions so should the Koch brothers.

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

"On the issue of money, again, it is a form of free speech. If Soros can spend millions so should the Koch brothers."

What about neither?? If you truly believe in all the George Soros conspiracy theories, then you should support it regardless instead of just responding with talking points.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I think with George Soros is doing for the left is truly admirable. It is not a conspiracy theory for me. As a Democrat I respect Soros a lot. I think he should be allowed to spend his fortune any way he wants to change the world in a way he thinks is right. That's freedom.

However, as someone who believes in fairness, I have to grant the same right to the opposite side as well, however much I hate the Koch brothers.

One day I will be rich enough to influence politics with just my own money. I reserve the right to do so. And I think everyone else should have the same right.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

As has been pointed out several times, this is a republic. The phrase democratic republic has been used as has the phrase democratic process. Voters often feel that they have no input into this process. (not my words, mirroring others)

On the issue of money, again, if one looks at it as a form of free speech, then it would appear that those like the Kochs and Soros can buy a lot of free speech while the majority of the population can not. (again, a mirror of other's words)

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Voters feel that way because they have only one vote, while they would like to be the Kings and Queens who would determine all matters of state. Unfortunately in a democracy it doesn't work that way. If you are on the losing side of an election, you can't whine. If you are on the winning side and your candidate turns out to be a pussy like Obama, you can't complain either. Next time, run yourself. Everyone is free to do so.

Money is a form of free speech. The SCOTUS is quite clear on that.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

"Voters feel that way because they have only one vote, while they would like to be the Kings and Queens who would determine all matters of state."

Are you speaking for yourself with this statement or presuming you have an insight into the way others feel?

Please clarify.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

The latter.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

@ 'Vlad' : Absolutely and Emphatically NO !!!

YOU 'Vlad' do NOT have The Psychic Tools or Intellectual Architecture to "have an insight into the way others FEEL" !!

Mendacious Psychopath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes_in_Suits ) !

verb.sat.sap.

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

What's wrong with campaign finance reform?? I mean, do you advocate corporate personhood over legal personality??

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Anyone who pays taxes should have the right to influence (read, buy) politicians.

[-] -2 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I think anyone who is taxed should be able to buy politicians.

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

And lobbying money in general?? Do you prefer a country where businesses can invest in legislation rather than investing that same money in good ideas??

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I prefer a country where business and individuals alike can spend money promoting any cause they want. That's freedom.

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

That's a ridiculous notion of freedom where business entities enjoy all the freedoms of people but share in none of the responsibilities.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

What responsibilities do people have that businesses don't?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

Normal People (ie The 99%), With A Normal ETHICAL COMPASS Have "Responsibilities" TO :

1) Each Other,

2) Their Families,

3) Their Communities,

4) Their Children and Their Childrens' Children & to

5) This Good Earth, Our Beautiful & Only 'Shared Home' ...

'Businesses' and CORPORATIONS have no such responsibilities other than those to their shareholders to whom the next quarter's financial figures are paramount. Furthermore, those in control of These Literally and Actually UNCONSCIONABLE Corporations know that they tenure is limited and thus seek to make the biggest buck ASAP. Finally, THE BANKING CORPORATIONS are in a league of their own when it comes to this PSYCHOPATHY on 'account' OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD !!

BUT 'Vlad', we all know what your views on the matter of 'children' are, don't we ? (cf : http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-poor-and-middle-class-people-have-kids-that/ ).

Further, on the matter of your Palpable Psychopathy : http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ ll)

You're into "Mathematics" aren't you 'Vlad' ?

Well 'Impale' Your$elf on this ...

Schizophrenia + Sociopathy = 'VladimirMayakovsky' and you can take that As Axiomatic ... Q.E.D. !!!

Again re. The Dead Russian Poet who you are so desperately trying to "channel and manifest" : http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/ .

Q1 : Have You Ever Loved Anyone Other Than Yourself ?

Q2 : Have You Ever Been IN Love With Another Person ?

Try Applying Your 'Vulcanised' Mind To : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Algebra_of_Infinite_Justice !

God Have Mercy On Your (what's left of) Your Soul, 'Vlad' and "pax vobis.".

verbum satis sapienti ...

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

Do they have any other responsibility other than profit to shareholders??

While I'm not going to the extreme that some in OWS advocate whereby we abolish the limited liability of shareholders, I don't advocate that an entity whose sole purpose is to facilitate greed(not that greed can't be harnessed for positive outcome) should be given the same exact rights as people.

If I were to get caught laundering money for foreign drug cartels, as Wachovia is alleged, I don't have the option of simply merging and rebranding myself to avoid liability. I would rightfully get arrested.

If I were caught literally dumping pollutants in the Hudson River, as GE has, I'm pretty sure they would do more than fine me, and would be justified in doing so.

Remember, I'm not advocating just shutting down these corporations. I feel that greed is much like a highly volatile river. If we leave it to its own devices, we'll have nothing but floods and droughts and nothing will get done in the long-term. If we control and regulate the river effectively, we'll end up with adequate irrigation for crops, water, and energy supply. I have no doubt there exist good people controlling corporations that are left with no choice but to throw much of their shareholders money into legislation just to avoid being taken over by competition that was willing to spend more of their money on an unfair playing field rather than investing in good ideas.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

At least corporations have a legal responsibility to shareholders. Individuals are responsible for no one but themselves, legally speaking. For for corporations breaking the law, I am not for that. If you want to make penalties steeper for corporations and for corporate executives for breaking the law such that it matches that faced by individuals, I am all for it. But that is already the case. Only shareholders are protected by limited liability, not executives.

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

" If middle class Americans were not allowed to vote (and the same with lower class Americans) then American would have far more progressive policies. Who do you think votes Republican en masse? The rich states or the poor ones?"

lol. I have to admit, from experience, that you're right on this one. I work for Verizon and work in a wide variety of peoples' houses. At least in Southeastern PA, if the top 1% alone were to vote on our tax policy, it would be followed by an increase in taxes on the top 1%. The vote wouldn't even be close.

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

Oh yeah.. The reason I keep replying to your old posts is because every time you make a new post, the reply link keeps disappearing. This is a flaw on the website that hasn't been fixed.

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

So I'm assuming by your advocacy for a more progressive tax rate, our views probably aren't that much different. While I've barely grossed 6 figures the past few years, and am not one of the 1%, I'm confused that it seems so many of us in the upper quintiles are incredibly willing to see our taxes go up a little to provide relief and social mobility, it just seems politically impossible. I can't imagine it's just propaganda alone that keeps things that way.

[-] -1 points by roloff (244) 12 years ago

I think you just don't like black people

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

It is politically impossible because the middle class doesn't want higher taxes, even though they hardly pay any taxes. It is very easy for a small group of assholes like Grover Norquist get the panties of the middle class (left AND right) into a huge messy bunch just by fearmongering about higher taxes. If middle class Americans were not allowed to vote (and the same with lower class Americans) then American would have far more progressive policies. Who do you think votes Republican en masse? The rich states or the poor ones?

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

"So, if corporations are to encourage social mobility through higher wages, they are actually breaking the law. So, what if you get rid of that law? Instead, put in a law that puts social mobility as the goal for the corporations."

Nobody said to change the law for corporations to violate their fiduciary duty. Merely to change the law so they can not do so by lobbying congress financially to alter the playing field in their favor.

Your slippery slope argument about Italy is just that, a slippery slope argument. It's called an informal logical fallacy and, at best, it's a huge stretch. Also, if you think that Silvio Berlusconi didn't pimp out all of his votes to the highest bidders, you'd be wrong.

"Instead, I have another suggestion. What if the govt taxes the rich to invest in things that create social mobility indirectly, like education? Wages for low skilled labor will still remain low, but everyone will get a shot to move to high skilled labor, like finance?"

I agree with the first sentence, but it seems that's been made politically impossible. This is how the 99% coined the term. Or maybe Al Gore coined that term. I forget.

The second sentence I agreed with until you said "finance". Even I have a business degree, and know it's a field that doesn't create any real growth.. Had you mentioned STEM fields(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) I'd agree very strongly. I'm not opposed to granting disproportionate federal aid to students that pursue a degree in those fields or anything else that is highly in demand, but undesirable. My theory is that if we give tax deductions to corporations for contributing scholarship money towards the fields of their choice, the country will achieve lower unemployment and overall growth. I think businesses want to do this, but they don't want to be the only business that is financing it, lest they be investing in the growth of their competitors.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

The problem with STEM is that there are lots of people in India capable and willing to do the work for less. STEM salaries have been stagnating and in 30 years I expect an OWS protest being held by STEM graduates. I have nothing against STEM, I have a math degree, but if the money is not in STEM then the money is not in STEM. If we can import cheap talent why not do it?

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

You're looking too closely at the business-side and not enough at the relationship between business and government. For decades we've had a government that seems to answer to money. Those with money (on both sides) and businesses with money have tended toward legislation which engenders inequality at the expense of social services, labor rights, etc. which make social mobility possible. As inequality continues, so does the disproportionate amount of influence on government at the expense of other Americans who watch their voices dwindle. This has been an ongoing reflexive cycle for decades, and those that lack the resources to participate in the bidding for democracy have chosen civic engagement(in the form of protesting) as their way of having their voices heard. Right now, it's still at a stage of trying to find solutions through discussion.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Aha! So the end goal is social mobility. If the corporations do not encourage that, then we cannot let them influence the Govt. Is that your position? Here's the problem with that approach. social mobility is a thinly veiled term for more money for workers. That pushes down the bottom line. This conflicts directly with the fiduciary responsibility of corporations. So, if corporations are to encourage social mobility through higher wages, they are actually breaking the law. So, what if you get rid of that law? Instead, put in a law that puts social mobility as the goal for the corporations. That will for sure work, but that will lead to two things. 1) Corporations won't make any profits. 2) Prices will surge. Then consumers will switch to foreign made crap. Then the corporations will have to shut down. to prevent that, you will need trade barriers. That is a slippery slope towards the economy of Italy, where corporations are legally required to create jobs (and the govt is a big shareholder in most big corporations), and as a result there is now a fiscal collapse impending in Italy. Instead, I have another suggestion. What if the govt taxes the rich to invest in things that create social mobility indirectly, like education? Wages for low skilled labor will still remain low, but everyone will get a shot to move to high skilled labor, like finance?

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

"If you want to make penalties steeper for corporations and for corporate executives for breaking the law such that it matches that faced by individuals, I am all for it."

We can't physically lock them and we can't reform them. That's a HUGE distinction between corporations and people.

"Only shareholders are protected by limited liability, not executives."

Which is why I oppose abolishing limited liability. However, I've not seen any executives being arrested. The corporation is basically a vehicle they can use to do whatever they want and not face penalties. Now I doubt most of them are guilty of everything they're accused of, because they are in a position that someone else will take their place and create more profit by behaving a little bit less ethical. But when the rules of the game are going to the highest bidder, they'll tend towards investing in legislation instead of investing in themselves. We need a system whereby legislation can't be bought and regulators can never go back to the private sector or receive any money from those they are regulating.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

But you can incarcerate executives if they break the law. You may not have seen any executives arrested, but that only means you need to read the Wall Street Journal closely. Hundreds of executives get indicted every year. Not all of them go to jail because the case against them remain weak, but there is hardly any legal loophole. But if there are, feel free to close it. However, whining about how executives who offshored jobs are not put in jail makes no sense. I am not saying you do that, but the OWS folks do. Offhsoring is completely illegal. Same with crashing the markets. The banks lost a lot of money too. It is not criminal to make a bad business decision, even if that ruins lives.

[-] -3 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

PandoraK - better be giving Vladimir some credit. He DID answer your questions and without a lot of garbage along with the answer.

Way to go Vladimir - last time I checked you were well within your rights and have nothing to fear.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

A response of reinstate, no and no, opens the door for further dialogue, I guess dialogue is a bad thing for some.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Maybe for those that you identify among the "some" then again maybe not.

I am from a very "old school" but the efforts to express ideas on here has me really baffled. Since when was further dialogue required to be preceded by a putdown of someone else in order to make a valid argument of one's position.

It seems to be an unwritten law on these posts that it be done that way. Guess I should Read the Rules one more time.

I have been called everything from "this to that" on here. Can't we reach a conclusion and just call be Stupid all the time-as that is how I am beginning to feel.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Are you addressing me? Ronjj?

If so I don't think I have been rude to anyone, certainly that was not my intent.

I use the word some as a generic as it does appear that there are those who appear to believe dialogue to be something that is harmful in all 'camps'.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Sorry if I misdirected my comments. I just have a difficult time with a post like you made containing statement that I fully agree with followed by a statement such as "........some" that requires 30 words to describe. Why do we continue to diminsh our impact through words and remarks that are totally unnessary to get our point across.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Because it's polite to not accuse anyone of being un-understanding and politeness is essential to dialogue. By inserting the word some the reader can choose how to identify rather than being identified.

I note you also use the word some in referring to people.

Things would be much easier and more conductive if we refrained from making facetious statements or at times outright rude ones.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

You are very welcome for whatever I may have done that deserves thanks.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Here I am talking to myself. Just a requirement the way this posting system is set up.

Just wanted to say that PandoraK, I like you. We can talk, try to understand and that is appreciated. Thanks, my friend.

[-] 1 points by scottcohen (2) 12 years ago

How did OWS get sold out? I have never seen so many anti-OWS protesters online as there is today. Can someone please explain to me where we went wrong? Is this a wall street strategum? Are you finding the same thing? If so what can we do about it? i think we need to take it to another level.

[-] 1 points by scottcohen (2) 12 years ago

How did OWS get sold out? I have never seen so many anti-OWS protesters online as there is today. Can someone please explain to me where we went wrong? Is this a wall street strategum? Are you finding the same thing? If so what can we do about it? i think we need to take it to another level.

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 12 years ago

I don't care what they think. I care what they do. Most of the 1% are not bad or evil people. I actually think if they had a better way they would choose it. Let's be real, these people aren't that smart. Some are greedy and some are selfish. Lets not get distracted.

We need a better way to fight back. Protesting is courageous! But we have to do very big things to solve our very big problems. What worked in past is not going to work now. This is different. FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org ) Free people shouldn't act or live like slaves...

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

Wow looks like the movement is peaceful. There are corrupt people in wallstreet but the gov. Bails them out. There are also people who are the richest 1% who are hard worki Americans who do what.... Employ to 99%. Stop buying into this class warfare that people are selling. Meanwhile there are protesters attacking local businesses because they are considered wealthy that's happening in other countries and if we aren't careful it will happen here. If you want change (and I'm still not ire what the goal of this movement is so far no one can tell me that) than do it in the right way create a party vote in people you want to see run the country. Don't just shit in the street and cause insanity with no purpose or goal.

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

Your all insane who do you think employes the 99%. Why do people feel they are entitled to anything.

[-] 1 points by onemoe (78) 12 years ago

I think the 1% are victims themselves. They have been trained to care only about money. They cherish it over their own children who they don't stay home to raise, they think it's important that fashion week happens, I mean come on 25K for a pair of sunglasses(and they were not even made from any kind of precious metal or anything. There is a watch that costs over a half million, the list goes on and on. Curious if only 1% of the population is mega wealthy why is there so much expensive crap to buy. It reminds me of the Iphone app diamond I think he called it. It did nothing but it cost like 900K I think he actually sold a few it was just a pic of a diamond all about I can afford it you can not. So actually with such misguided priorities I really don't think you can help me.

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

Idiot .,are using russian name

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

Its your choice. I say support the movement. Be part of something that means something. Right now, you are a part of something that only has to do with money. How empty.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 12 years ago

the movement to do what?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

what do you think?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 12 years ago

I have no idea - that's why I am asking

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

ok. its about the American people and people around the world that want corporations out of their government and out of their economics.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 12 years ago

so why are the occupiers not occupying Washington?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

why? washington is where the politicians are. we occupy where the people are. if you can understand that, you might get a clue.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 12 years ago

you are aiming at the wrong target. Hold your representative accountable. I guess that takes too much work. The Tea Party was pretty successful in 2010 routing congress. We will revue the record & do the same in 2012. What are you guys doing? No one on Wall Street cares what you are doing. You have no power over them. The govt. fears us because we can throw them out. They love their power and we have the power to dump them.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

politics? the tea party? I laugh.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Money means something. I encourage you to get loads of it and then you will know what it means.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

no thanks, I'll pass. I have one life, and, I am hoping to make it meaningful someday. otherwise, what was the point?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

So you will intentionally stay poor so that you can complain about being poor?

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

yeah, that's it. I mean, what else could it be?

[-] 1 points by Freeman82 (8) 12 years ago

You can use your money to expose the truth about debt slavery, help America gain awareness to the fact that we're all slaves to a few global elite.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

"How can you help", 'Vlad' ?!

When You've Addressed your schizoid behaviour ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ LL)

AND when you've resolved your Identity Crises { http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/ }

But alas, I think that you'll "choose not to" ...

quel dommage ..

[-] 1 points by Freeman82 (8) 12 years ago

You can use your money to expose the truth about debt slavery, help America gain awareness to the fact that we're all slaves to a few global elite.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Since that is not true, I would rather not do that.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

VladimirMayakovsky


Aren't you a troll?


[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

You tell me.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

LoL You are. I just thought you'd man up and admit it.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

"Man-ing Up" is a bit problematic for 'Vlad' for one reason or another but mainly due to the 'Sad Sack's" lack of any Testicles (ahem!) ...

Asking him to admit to trolling (again !!!) will be futile, as The Recidivist Twerp is Clearly Schizophrenic .. because he seems to even Troll ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/my-name-is-viadimirmayakovsky-and-i-am-a-crazy-tro/ LL) .. H!M$elf !!!!

So there's no point overly "Puzzlin" Yourself Over "This Cupid Stunt" !!!

Just bat him into the long grass every time he rears one of his heads !!

respice, adspice, prospice !

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

LoL, he's an interesting one for sure. Thanks for the advice!

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Will it make you happy if I say that I am a troll?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 12 years ago

VM----------------------------

Not really.

These things become obvious after a point. Like a little mystery unfolded. It's just behavior recognition is all. Your not the menacing outright flaming kind so you good to knock around ideas with. But your a little mischievous which can more confusing to the novices in here. You may shake them up but it's good for them.

It's all good though, really. Stay away from name calling plz and have fun. We just want to learn. To every position there's the anti-position. Keep throwing darts it's fun.

[-] 1 points by PatriotMissiles (37) 12 years ago

Find ways with your own ideas, connections, and financial resources to fight the corruption that is the American way of life. Don't ask, just plan your strikes and execute them to perfection.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

the 99% message is supposed to point out the level of inequality in America. Our problem is actually with most of the .0000001%

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Why is inequality bad? How many of us can play in the NBA? There is a natural distribution of skills in the human population, in sports and otherwise, and hence a natural distribution in income.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

it's absurd, ignorant and thoughtless to think that income in a complex environment is distributed largely according to skill.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

The NBA players don't run our government. That's the difference.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I was not talking about the Govt, I was talking about income.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

The NBA's player's income doesn't run the government. That's the difference.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Neither does the 1%'s income.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

yeah it's to point out inequality.

The people creating the problems are more like the .000001%

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

yes it does

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

Why not pay your fair share of taxes?

I think the whole 'trickle down' argument has been disproven by now. What has been proven is that the 1% will take their manufacturing base and move it to countries where the cost of labour is cheaper, like China.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I do not believe in trickle down and will be happy to pay Clinton era tax rates or slightly higher. However, I am not OK with punitive taxes that basically act as wage caps. I am willing to pay taxes so that it goes to educate people and take them out of manufacturing jobs and into higher skill jobs like finance.

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

'Finance' is nothing. It's like playing in a casino all day long. It creates nothing but bubbles.

The dollar is a fiat currency, backed by nothing. The only reason it has any value is because people believe it does, just like the confederate dollars in the U.S. civil war. Once the 99% stop investing in the economy, the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Then you have zero power.

The problem is, that the 1% aren't really in a position to make demands anymore. You can't decide how much taxes you would like to pay, or where the money goes to, any more than the 99% can.

It's a democratic country, so no one should have anymore 'rights' than anyone else. If you are demanding the right to decide how much tax you want to pay, and where you want your taxes to go to, then the 99% deserves that right too.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I completely agree that the 99% has the right to vote 100% tax rates on the 1%. On the same token, I argue that the 1% has the right to fight tooth and nail to prevent that. The 1% have been winning so far and my money continues to be on the 1%.

If you do not like finance you don't have to work in finance, but you can't then complain about the money people are making in finance.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

we certainly can complain if "finance" is using our capital to make that money. hopefully, the jig is soon up for these "finance" charlatans posing as skilled experts who make money by simply taking risk with our capital (in the form of implied guarantees).

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

What would you prefer? Finance houses shut down?

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

it's simple - the employees of any financial institution which takes risks that society may have to pay for should not earn any more than the salary of a civil servant. Because of their implied taxpayer guarantee, financial institutions are, de facto, government institutions. you want to be in finance, take risk with your own capital and keep your losses your own. Make billions doing so, I donlt care. If you want me to pay up when you lose, then I want to own you. Finance has gotten a free "Put Option" for too long.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

OK, then you should nationalize the financial institutions. You up for that? That will kill the sector as no self-respecting banker will be willing to accept civil servant wages. They would just go to foreign banks. The one place where the USA still has jobs - finance - will collapse.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

oh sure, we're going to lose all that Wall Street "talent". They are charlatans and no self-respecting banker who is taking risk that others will have to eventually cover deserves more than civil servant wages. the tail-event risk taking needs to go private. the taxpayer should've owned 100% of the equity of those financial institutions after Sep 08. the mark of an unhealthy economy is that of one which employs too many people moving money around (finance). There were too many finance jobs and possibly still are.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

So you are OK with nationalization of banks? Yes or no? It has worked out great for the USSR, hence my question.

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

Well, I am not saying '100% tax rates' on the 1%, just something that would be fair. The 1% should have to pay as much taxes as the middle class in the USA does. Why not? Why is someone working in finance more or less important than say, a brain surgeon or an Architect, or a Hollywood actor?

In the 40s, 50s, 60s, and right up until the 80s, the divide between the rich and poor in the USA was acceptable. Nobody really had a reason to complain. When the corporate tax cuts started with Reagan, labour was squashed, and the 1% started making astronomical salaries while the 99% got poorer and poorer. Now today, the divide between the 1% and the 99% is at the same rate as it was in the great depression.

It's not a matter of 'liking' finance. It's a matter of realizing that the dollar only has value because people recognize it has value. It is not backed by gold, or silver, or anything. It's looking to me like the U.S. dollar is about to crash. If that happens (hypothetically), then what good is the financial industry? You might as well be bragging about all the gold you are making in 'World of Warcraft'.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I agree about eliminating tax loops. As for the rest, the world would have a bigger problem than Armageddon if the dollar crashes, so the dollar is not going to crash. As for income inequality in the 80s, it had nothing to do with the corporate tax cuts. It had to do with the start of offshoring and China's entry into the global market in 1977. You can't have China disappear. All you can do is make the rest of the USA as poor as the manufacturing folks. If that's your intent, go for it - everyone will be poor and happy. I guess misery loves company, but jealousy to me is not the optimal answer. I would prefer to have people switch from manufacturing to finance.

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

Well for starters, not everyone can 'do' finance anymore than everyone in a casino can win.

Also, I don't see why 'the world would have a bigger problem than armageddon if the dollar crashes'. Has everyone become so deluded that a fiat currency based on nothing is so magical that they can't restore it with another currency? Say a currency they create themselves, independent of the private banks?

As for the offshoring of US labour, whose fault was that? The 1%? Wasn't it the search for cheaper labour (which equals more profits), that started this whole mess to begin with? Wasn't it because the 1% wanted to use PRISON labour and CHILD labour, illegal in the U.S., so they could save a buck?

You also seem to be forgetting that using Chinese slave labour is not a solution anymore. This 99% revolution is happening worldwide. Also, you seem to be forgetting that we are running out of petroleum. We simply won't be able to keep importing everything from slave labour China.

No, the solution is NOT to make U.S. labour as poor as China. That's the ridiculous 'labor limbo' game that we have all been playing ever since the 1% decided to ship manufacturing out of their own country to take advantage of slave labour in other countries.

The solution would be to make sure that American labour is highly paid, so they can make their own products, get a fair wage for their labour, so they can in turn afford to buy the products they make themselves.

Henry Ford understood this. That is why he paid his workers well.

The 1% blew it in the 80s, when they thought they could kill American labour and American jobs, by getting people in China and Mexico to do it instead.

Now, it is all coming home to roost.

Yet, your answer is for -everyone- to play in the casino games which have bankrupted the western world? Even when your fellow Americans were evicted from their houses when YOU (the 1%) lost millions, and the government bailed YOU out? Then you gave yourselves bonuses?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

There is no way wages are going up as long as there is plenty of supply of cheap labor. Yes, offshoring was done to make a profit. Making a profit is the core part of capitalism. I am not sure what is coming home to roost for the 1% given that they are doing extremely well.

[-] 2 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

Yes, the 1% are doing extremely well...financially.

That could change if the economy crashes. What is there to prevent another stock market crash? What happens if the 99% go on a general strike, or go on a tax strike? What if the 99% decides that they will create a new currency, and cut out the Federal reserve (which is about as 'Federal' as Federal Express) What would happen if you suddenly found out that you had millions or billions of dollars in a now worthless currency?

Can you imagine this happening?

What is 'coming home to roost' is this, the anger of the American public that you see represented in Occupy wall street. It's not just in New York City, it's in seven hundred cities all over the world.

Sure, wages can go up IF the Americans start manufacturing goods for themselves again, place a tariff on imports, and decide they don't need the 1% as part of the picture. Why would they need you as part of the picture? So you can invest your millions in a now worthless currency?

The thing is, the 99% doesn't really need you at all. These people have skills, and talents. They can manufacture tangible goods, repair broken machines, grow food. All of your talents are concentrated in creating economic bubbles. However, if you can grow your own food, build your own car, fix your own car, do heart surgery on yourself, without paying someone else to do it, then I guess you don't need the 99% either.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Look, I understand that people are angry. But when winter comes heads will cool down and people will go home. This is not Libya. There isn't going to be another currency - the Euro was created after decades of work by major powers and it is not doing so well either. I like fantasies, but I live in reality.

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

Hmm, well you did say "Ask me questions, I will tell you what the 1% think."

So I did, and you answered. Sadly, there were no surprises. I think it is you who are fooling yourself in thinking this will 'go away'. This has been a long time coming, thirty years of hardship.

The 1% has chosen not to re-invest into their own country, solely for the purposes of making themselves wealthier than some countries. That was the ONE promise that was made to the American people, and the people of the world. Tax cuts would somehow, magically, result in the 1% re-investing in manufacturing and bringing jobs back to their own country.

ONE promise, and the 1% failed to deliver on that ONE promise. Yet they still seem to think they are entitled to keep all the bonuses they fraudulently made?

You are right, it's not JUST Libya anymore. It's international....ALL ACROSS THE PLANET. The United States is the epicentre.

I suppose as long as you have no fear that the dollar won't collapse, when the 99% stop buying and investing in Wall Street, and the rest of the world stops investing in Wall street, and when the ports are shut down, and when shipping shuts down, and when the nation goes on a national strike...

Then I guess you have nothing to worry about. Since after all, the dollar is based on...thin air.

[-] 1 points by professorzed (308) from Hamilton, ON 12 years ago

hmm, no reply button under Vladimir's box.

Yes, true...at the end of the chess game, the King and the pawns all go back to the same box.

Also, this is not apocalypse, except in the original greek sense of the word, 'lifting the veil' or 'revelation'.

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

Yes, it's true. The 99% have truly looked past the big green scary 1% head and seen the humblebug and charlatan behind the curtain.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

If the end of days come we will all be dead. In the mean time, I will continue to enjoy. By the way, nice apocalyptic speech.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

It's really trickle up. Take a little bit from everybody all the time ... and more often than not, not a little.

[-] 1 points by MissBirdy (-78) from Thornwood, NY 12 years ago

listen vladmir there are alot of lazy, jealous people down here @ Zuccotti, who are pretty mad at you. Stay away.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Are you at Zucchini Park? Are you showered?

[-] 0 points by MissBirdy (-78) from Thornwood, NY 12 years ago

no...I live down here and I walk by. They are foaming @ the mouth...and taking many drugs. Just giving you a heads up. Don't look too good if you go by. They may target you.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

How do you know they are angry with me?

[-] 1 points by MissBirdy (-78) from Thornwood, NY 12 years ago

From reading and listening to there rambling written posts here, and on tv.... It seems like they are angry at those who have the success they want, but are unwilling to work for. So I was just saying I wouldn't go near that mentally ill, infected, wacky bunch.....They might not like you..if you look too good. And I'll bet you do look good...sweet dreams.

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

The 0.01 % controls the 99.99% through groups like the Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Comission (TC).

You are a slave of these people also.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

How do you bring down your competitors?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

By being better than them in the services I offer.

[-] 2 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

Nice way to avoid the question. (You should be happy because I am using your words)

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I was sincere in my answer. If you are better than your competitors then you will take away business from them. That's the way it works.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

better in which way? better in capitals,connections,and ???

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Better quality work usually does the trick.

[-] 2 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

Nice way to avoid the question again.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Avoid what question? I explicitly answered it. You have to better in the quality of work. Capital, connection, all that BS means nothing in my line of work. When people pay a huge amount of money, they want the best they can get for that money.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

"You have to better in the quality of work." "When people pay a huge amount of money, they want the best they can get for that money." The above two facts is make sense for me. You are very good at using the facts.

You shoot other with pin-point facts, You take cover with general facts. That is one of the qualities required to be a dictator.

The two facts you answered may or may not bring down your competitors. For example, high-end decorators can not drive the low-end decorators out of business. Because they are in different markets.

In construction, high quality work costs more and a few contractor can do the job properly. Low quality work can be done by regular skill workers. Can a person who do high quality work take away low quality work?

High quality product can easily take over the low quality product's market if the prices are same or lower. But, this could occur within your own business establishment. If you are the patent holder, you can kill your competitors. Otherwise, I don't think so.

Can you be more specific how you kill your competitors?

[-] 1 points by jpbarbieux (137) from Palmetto Bay, FL 12 years ago

I really don't think there is a consensus of thought among the 1%. To date it appears they are will to let disturbed minds to return our society to a monopolistic and segregated one where democracy is not egalitarian.. But 'they", the 1% just keep themselves above the rue of the day.

[-] 1 points by MiKEYD (55) 12 years ago

I want a 10" penis. Can you help?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Where do you want it?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Let me know if you want it in future. Will be happy to give it to you.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Your call, but don't come whining that the 1% never gives the 99% anything. I will be happy to give it to you wherever you want it.

[Removed]

[Removed]

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

how did you gain your wealth?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

From my income. I always worked for a corporation. I have a little bit of investment income but that's small as I only invest in super safe low return investments. Like treasuries.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

So 'Vlad', let's just apply some elementary textual analysis here ...

a) You say, "I always worked for a corporation. I have a little bit of investment income but that's small as I only invest in super safe low return investments. Like treasuries.". THEREFORE, we can deduce you're NOT really a 1%er ... you're really just a desperate wannabe, aren't you ?!

b) You say, "Anyone who pays taxes should have the right to influence (read 'buy') politicians" & "I think anyone who is taxed should be able to buy politicians" & "I prefer a country where business and individuals alike can spend money promoting any cause they want. That's freedom." REALLY ? How does that sit with "... as someone who believes in fairness" ?!!

c) You say, "On the issue of money, again, it is a form of free speech. If Soros can spend millions so should the Koch brothers." & "As I am a Democrat I respect Soros a lot". REALLY ?! 'Money is a from of free speech' is it ?! So much for 'belief in fairness' !! So WTF kind of 'Democrat' are you ?!!!

d) You say, "The Chinese will never let total chaos happen and it (Shanghai) is a fine city to live in. More costly than where I live right now in the USA, but everything has its costs. I strongly encourage you to invest in China and learn Mandarin. That's the future." REALLY ?!! Do you think that your 1st, 2nd & 3rd loyalty is to MERE MONEY ?!!!!

e) No doubt I could find much more to deconstruct, if I had the stomach to read your posts below but I've reached and breached my BULLSH!T Threshold at this point.

You are a wannabe Kleptocrat, Plutocrat & Eugenicist ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-do-poor-and-middle-class-people-have-kids-that/ ) and you disgust me 'Vlad', you 'name-stealing' ( http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/mayakovsky/ ) Money-Whore.

You sell your labour to whoever it is that sees fit to employ you (and are thus just another wage slave) and you have the f*kin' temerity to look down on other people ! I'm self-employed and live on my wits ... so I perhaps I should choose to look way down on you, U CNT !!

However glib points aside, I'll be watching you as closely as my time and energies will allow because I take you to be an Excellent Representative Psychopath of The Actual 1% (though the true problem percentage is really way, way less than that). Indeed, I may well soon be writing an extensive post about just you and the people you are symptomatic off.

You can consider me your O.P.T. (Own Personal Troll) & P!SSING All Over You, will be my own personal service to 'OWS' and I look forward to emptying my metaphorical bladder on you as often as possible.

exitus acta probat ...

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

what kind of jobs, what do you do? i find it surprising to hear someone achieving that much wealth working for someone else.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Professional Services. Think one of Law, Finance, Medicine, Consulting, Accounting etc. Sorry I can't give you any more details.

Just for the record, million dollar salaries are common in the banking sector.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

Your major income is salaries+profits from derivative financial instrument.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

No.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

What is your net worth now?

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

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/von%20havenstein/FCIC%203.jpg

i have heard stories of people making tons for not really doing all that much real work. do you think this industry is overcompensated? finance is supposed to support the economy, not BE the economy. it seems part of the problem is our system has been overly financialized.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

See, here's the thing. If there was no China, no offshoring of jobs, manufacturing salaries would have grown at the same rate as finance. Finance continued on the same growth rate while manufacturing stalled. So it is not that the finance guys are making tons for not doing much. It is that manufacturing guys also used to make a ton for not doing much and now those days are gone. So, suddenly the manufacturing guys want the good run to end for the finance guys as well. That's pure jealousy. Why not just switch to finance instead? Let the Chinese do manufacturing.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you are wrong.. the manufacturing guys want the jobs brought back.. the finance guys should refuse to finance a company that out sources.. this would increase the jobs here. but the finance guys are tooo busy making a buck to care about the country. thats not jealousy.. that irresponsible financiers thats why they are being blamed.. because they did not live up to their responsibility.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

That would be illegal discrimination. You can't refuse funding to someone because you don't like their politics or how they run their business as long as it is all legal. Read the law.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you can refuse if it seems like it will lead to ruin which it has.. thats lack of fiduciary responsibility and dont pretend these financiers where so unintelligent and ignorant that they did not know this was the probable outcome.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

It has led to the ruin in standard of living of a certain segment of the population. The corporations themselves have done very well and that's where the fiduciary responsibility of bankers stop. Bankers are not responsible to make sure that the blue collar worker can still afford the suburban McMansion.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

i see,, so the government should outlaw this because it is the governments responsibility to make sure everyone can make a living.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Why is it the Govt's responsibility to ensure that everyone can make a living? Where is that in the Constitution?

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

If there was no China, there would be India. What is your point?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

My point is that finance didn't gain at the expense of non-finance. Mfg lost out because mfg was overpaid before and the correction came. Finance has continued to be overpaid but sooner or later US finance jobs will be offshored and finance salaries will drop too.

[-] 1 points by shwe (38) 12 years ago

All of top 1% (including your families) will be offshored where you belonged to if you stay at the same tracks. You will be cut off from this society and there will be no point of returns. If you do not like that, change. Be careful what you wish for!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

'promote the general welfare of' ' part of the constitution

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

General welfare is promoted through unemployment payments, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, EITC, food stamps, soon to come UHC, and in many, many other ways. General welfare doesn't mean guaranteeing overpaid jobs.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

issuing laws to prohibit behaviour that is detrimental to others is the purpose of government. you think corporations should be above this? or outside of it? this is a country. you are thinking that corporations do not have the ability to reinvent a way to survive.. an yet you expect people too.. you are backwards thinking.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

their actions have become detrimental to the country. a new law must be put in place to prohibit this behavior

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

You know, you are like a broken record that keeps repeating Soviet style propaganda. At least the soviets didn't post internet message with propaganda using American made laptops. The piles of Chinese made crap that Americans consume have done much more to hurt the job situation here. How about OWS folks take a stance and start to change their own behavior first? Stop posting from Chinese made laptops if you care so much about the welfare of the country. I double dare you, no OWS supporters is going to do that. But the corporations have to always act for the good of the country. Why are you guys such hypocrites?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

that isnt profit that is income. and no i am not hurting them.. when they start to hurt they say.. ;i cant go along with that program' and forfeit that opportunity to make money in hopes of making more else where, as people who lose jobs do . with a law.. the corporations can do the same. either make money under these parameters or close the doors. we all have to , why not corporations

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Corporations do make money under the law. Just as you are allowed to bargain and pay less to your service providers, corporations are allowed to bargain and pay less to their employees. It is completely legal, and should be. Just as you have a right to quit a job and take a better paying one, the corporations have a right to fire you and give your job to someone who would do it for less. I find it amusing that you want to reserve the right to make more money but want to deny the corporations the same right.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

corporations cannot run at a loss. thats physics. the corporations would adjust or reinvent. like the people that lose jobs are expected to do . or else cease to exist. and no they cannot make a profit to the detriment to another person. . i am prohibited by law from doing that.. why not the corporations?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

You are not prohibited by law to make a profit at the detriment of another person. Every single time you get a job and 5 other interviewees don't, you are hurting them. But that is perfectly legal. Every single time you bargain down prices for the plumber, you are hurting the plumber, but that is legal. Same goes for corporations.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

force them out? that would be their choice as in life. you can make the choice to go along with the program or you can opt out. you say that to everyone. in this case the corporate every one. there are laws in place that prohibit me from getting rich to the detriment of another . corporations should be held to a lower standard?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

So corporations can't make a profit if that squeezes someone else? Is that the law you want to pass? Corporations would exist to create high paying jobs and run at a loss?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

no.. general welfare is promoted through insuring that everything done in the country only works to the benefit of the country. and if the decisions of some greedy corporation threaten the benefit to the country they should be prohibited .

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Prohibited how? Drive them out of the country? Or institute Govt control of all corporations, like the Soviets?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you are dead set on america becoming a third world nation. and its ok with you im beginning to see where the root of the problem comes from.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I believe in equality. I cannot support Americans being 5% of the world's population and consuming 30% of the world's resources for ever. I leave that tot he socialist in the OWS movement, who want to keep the poor in China hungry forever by taking away their jobs.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

the communist government is what keeps the starvation in china not because americans have jobs. and if they did not consume 30% there would be no hope for the entire world.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I see. So Americans have to be rich compared to other nations just for the good of the world.

You know why the 1% have to be rich compared to the 99%? Same reason (or lack thereof).

[-] 1 points by MiKEYD (55) 12 years ago

Manufacturing salaries would have grown at the same rate as finance? Categorically untrue. The very nature of the job allows people to be swapped out like legos, which would always keep salaries down.

Jobs which capitalize on relationships have always paid more. Always will. I will concede your point that anyone with any intelligence should be struggling to get into a job that either a) protects its wages through state issued licenses (Doctor, Financial Analyst, CPA, Attorney) or b) has its hands on the levers of the movement of capital, taking a small slice at every turn.

We can agree on these issues, but lets not pretend it is good for America. Our scientists top out at around 250k a year, with most earning much less, which is pathetic when you consider the comparative value to society of those people.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

It is a matter of supply and demand. There are hundreds of thousands of immigrant scientists who are willing to do the same work for less.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

More people watch Monday night football than all the Occupy movement squatters worldwide.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I applaud your kids for making the right choice.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I am of average intelligence. However, I am very well educated. The country is not going to go on fire.

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

well one, i don't want to do finance. and two, you've grossly oversimplified that - there are many jobs that aren't manufacturing. and the manufacturing we do have is for high quality stuff now. that chart breaks apart at 1980 - which you can see in other charts is when income growth starts diminishing for all below the top 20, 10, and 1%. the divergence in the graph is not simply manufacturing, nor does that black line represent it.

here's income growth for the bottom 90%

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1917-81.png

after 1981

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/1982-2000.png

if you break it up by quintiles, you will see the same thing. income growth used to be relatively equally distributed, now it is largely the top 20, 10, 1%

i don't think the finance sector is paid that much more than all the others because they are actaully earning it or adding that much more value. i think a lot of our systems now are just rigged to funnel money to certain players, ie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

If you don't want to do finance then that is your choice. But finance is closest to the money and makes the most. You can't complain about that just because you don't want to do finance. This is like complaining about your friend's hot wife when you are not willing to commit yourself to marriage.

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

you are not getting my point. which is that the compensation in finance is out of line with the value added.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

That is your belief. The market believes otherwise. You don't pay the finance guys. The market does. This is why these types of debates are 1) futile and 2) irrelevant.

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

how do you work in finance? i'm an IT consultant and armchair economist and i think i get these things better than you. the central bank is the lender of last resort, not the government. and the bank is for LENDING - that idea came about because of bank runs. that is not the case here - the bank isn't suffering a run with the need to borrow money to hand out to scared depositors. the bank is losing a fuck ton of money on its idiot investments. the only thing dumber than a borrower working at mcdonald's and taking out 500k in debt is the bank stupid enough to lend him 500k.

how exactly were you going to fix this problem with 100 billion dollars? outdated, but here's hom equity vs. debt: http://www.cotohousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/6a00d83452403c69e20134878c464d970c-800wi.jpg

home equity went from 13 trillion to like 6. people are ridiculously underwater. we've had plenty of foreclosures and we need more. i have no idea at what point in time you ever think a measly 100 billion could have ever fixed anything. i don't see how "bailout out early" would have helped - when was early? and why would that do anything? there was a HUGE bubble, by economic law it was going to collapse. nothing could have stopped that. that which is unsustainable will not be sustained. poor and middle class people have been buying homes forever, that doesn't magically make a bubble. i blame people for making stupid decisions, but i put far more blame on the bank lending the credit in the first place. it was idiotic, and the bank's choice, period. again, those suppoed wizards of finance we should pay so well - they were the ones making all these loans that blew traditional lending standards out of the water. and don't blame borrowers for asking for money - it's the banks job to say no to stupid requests, it's the banks job to make sure that they lend to people that can pay money back. this is the same reason i can't go to a bank and ask for a million dollars today, or i can't go to you and ask for a cool million. you're not going to give it to me just because i asked for it. you again ignored the fed's balance sheet.

here's the latest release http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm

that's all the shit that once we get rid of it and stop pretending it's worth 100 cents on the $1 that the taxpayers are going to eat. those are my losses for the finance sector's mistakes!

look dude, i'm sure you're good at whatever you do, and maybe you produce enough value to actually justify your salary. but none of the people i know that work in finance are particularly more talented than anyone else i know. i've also had some plain out say they don't believe they actually add any real value.

i think you've come up with a convenient narrative for yourself regarding how we got here (fannie and freddie's fault) and how your bailout was a legit free market capitalistic exercise (check out the norwegian banking crisis and what they did - our bailout was far more 'socialist' than this 'socialist' country's resolution) and how the taxpayers haven't socialized any of the bank losses (besides guaranteeing frannie and freddie's crap they bought from banks, and the toxic assets on the ballooned balance sheet of the fed). the fact is, this sector has far too much power than it should have in government, and generally speaking, people are paid far too much for the value they actually add to the economy. and don't tell me ooh it's just a market thing, because a free market would have slapped the shit out of this overweight sector. not coddled it - that is a government beholden to an industry and its lobbyists thing.

there is a military industrial complex, and there's also one today in agriculture, prison, real estate, education, etc. and certainly one in finance. this is the reason we have a financial oligarchy today and have gone from a system where everyone grew to a system where only those at the top do; with all these complexes they've been able to rig the board in their favor. they are rewarded not for adding value, but for their connections and tilts of the board. we used to have capitalism, today we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

that you were not aware that i'm on the hook for the banking sector's mistakes, and that you think the government bailing out companies who fucked up big (and even praise them and recommend everyone else go get jobs at them because they are so great and so worth the money) means you are part of that problem.

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I think your mind is made up then.

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

dude are you kidding? the government saving your business is not free market. free market is warren buffet coming in to save your ass. why didn't lehman or bear stearns get bailed out? but others did? is government picking whom to save, winners and losers free market too? blockbuster is failing - should the government bail them out too? if left on their own, in an actual free market, all of those banks would have failed. that's why their asses needed a bailout! the guys you are claiming deserve their wages and have produced so much value add, all caused their businesses to fail! and they have taken half the economy with it! but no - they aren't overcompensated...

that the government pushed for home ownership is no defense of fraud. fannie and freddie only guaranteed loans that met their requirements - they could not guarantee the garbage. they actually didn't even really start buying crap until late 2005. the GSEs weren't allown to guarantee non-conforming (subprime and alt-a) mortgages, but they were losing so much share to wall street and being pressured to go chase the higher yields that everyone ele was selling, so they petitioned for a waiver from the OFHEO which was approved in late 2005. by the time they could buy junk, the market was topping both in volume and price. they were late to the party. it was private banks, lenders, rating agencies, etc. that were selling crap as AAA gold that blew up the bubble. fannie and freddie didn't help - they are big and once they could buy crap, they did, and helped the bubble keep going - but they didn't cause it. again, all of these guys that are supposedly so much more talented and were adding so much more value to the economy did.

you completely ignored the balance sheet of the federal reserve. aka crap that taxpayers are on the hook for. as part of the very not free market bailout, the banks toxic assets were transferred to taxpayers. this is where the socialized losses come in - unless you believe all that crap is worth 100 cents (or more!) on the dollar. balance sheet before mess: 750 billion. balance sheet today: 2.8 trillion. no socialized losses, eh? since this stuff is so valuable, why don't you have whatever finance organization you work for buy it all up, and off my taxpayer hands?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

The Govt should act as a lender of last resort. The Govt let Bear Sterns fail, that was one huge mistake. If Bear Sterns was bailed out, there would have been far less panic in the market. Frankly, If I were the POTUS I would have bailed out all the sub prime mortgage holders. the cost would have been only $100B or so. But then people like the OWS protesters would have cried bloody murder and the morons on CNBC would complain about moral hazard. Anyway, after making that first mistake, the Govt made a blunder when it let Lehman fail. That was such poor judgment that I almost fell from my chair. Why let the 4th largest US bank fail? I mean, being an idiot has to have its limits. What was the Govt trying to prove? That in a free market all the banks can fail and the country - fuck, the world - could plunge into total chaos? That's not free market. Free markets need a safety net when things go terribly wrong. Thankfully the Govt wizened up after the bloodbath that duly followed the Lehman bankruptcy. TARP came, and order was restored. But we could have avoided all that if we started bailing out early.

As for the rest, it could all have been avoided if we just started bailing out early. In fact, the best solution would be to not ever let poor and middle class Americans buy their homes. Pay 100% down and buy. Case closed.

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

why should anyone get bailed out? if you were a true free market capitalist, you wouldn't be bailing these guys out would you? you pay lip service to the market, but it seems to be the rigged market, not the free one. if we had a real market, ultra low interest rates set by federal reserve intervention wouldn't have been there, and million dollar mortgage broker would not have been running 10 through a day. there was so much fraud and misrepresentation going on i can't even imagine how many of those guys should really be in jail. the first guy i spoke to while i was buying my house included.

re: the banks et all, they are able to borrow at near nothing now and invest in treasuries for zero risk returns to shore up their balance sheets. what's the value add to the economy? and oh they paid everything back? last i checked TARP was still not fully paid back. no socialized loss? what about all the mortgages held by fannie and freddie that have the implicit government guarantee? what about all the stuff on the fed's balance sheet still? taxpayers aren't going to lose a penny right?
http://greshams-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Federal-Reserve-Balance-Sheet-Chart-ASSETS.png

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Why would I not provide a loan to a bank that needs it when it is virtually certain that it will be able to pay it back with interest? Loaning money to those that need it is very much part of the free market. the Govt made a loan and got repaid. How is that at odds with the free market?

The big banks all paid back TARP money, some regional ones are still struggling though. I am not sure the Govt did the right thing by bailing out the smaller banks. I think it would have been much better to merge them into the larger banks. But the public hysteria at that time was so much against the larger banks that it was not politically feasible. That's what happens when sound policy goes the way of public irrationality.

As for the mortgages, I agree that many, many Americans shouldn't have taken the loans that they did, and Fannie and Freddie should never have guaranteed them. But the Govt had this big push to increase home ownership. Personally I think that very few Americans should own their homes. The rest should rent apartments in big cities. But the American dream being what it is the Govt felt compelled to guarantee home ownership even by those who can't afford to buy a home. Again, this was bad policy, similar to the ones that you see parroted around in this forum (tariffs etc.)

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

the market has been fooled into believing otherwise. it's catching up, though. you're not a macro trader, are you?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I may be. Or may be not.

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

"the problem with capitalism is that there are so few capitalists."

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

but half of them cheat. we just had huge bailouts because of privatized profits and socialized losses. that is not what a free market believes. or what about the mortgage lenders who made millions during a rising bubble bs'ing about peoples assets and ability to pay so they could sell the mortgages to fannie/freddie? or lending people money they should never have? these people weren't overcompensated eh? they were totally worth that money for their value add to the economy?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Let me explain to you how the bailouts worked. They were loans, not handouts. The loans all got paid back with interest. So, there was no socialized loss. This is a fact, read the Govt websites.

As for the rest, the market thinks so. I am not one to question the market.

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

Do you buy regular...or...."super" unleaded?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Not sure. I mostly get car service or ride the public transportation. I hate driving.

[-] 1 points by AMH (123) 12 years ago

Sell us your profitable assets so we can have an income when you don't need us as employees.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I don't have assets that I live off of.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 12 years ago

what you are doing is not thinking - something else - give me a minute and i'll come up with the word!

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 12 years ago

How the 1% thinks is clearly evident from the global economic collapse, the spoiled environment, rampant corruption, manipulation and control of the political process, the toxic slugde pouring out of the corporate media, etc., etc.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

How can you help?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I can tell you how I got to the 1%. I didn't start there. I was a starving graduate student a few decades back. No family money or connections either.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

That's nice..I could tell you what I did also, unfortunately, our stories don't matter because that was the past.... You'll have to figure out a way to build a time machine to transport the 99% to the year 1990 when America was still a land of opportunity.....

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Let me ask YOU a very serious question. Did someone-something beyond your control erase that concept of "a land of opportunity" or did you paint a picture in your own mind of that land and decide you would not, could not, or just plain did not want to work to get there.

This is a land of opportunity not a land of free rides. This isn't exactly Disneyland - and there are not free rides there either by the way.

We often develop our own interpretations for words we use so freely. The question is really, how do we see this "land of opportunity", is it a land with the opportunity to work and make our life what we want it to be, is it a land free for the picking, is it a land where I have the right to what I want and you, someone else or the government, has the responsibility to give it to me.

Look around, how many of your like Americans, have that same picture and are under the impression that all they have to do is wait and it will be delivered on a silver platter to them and if not, that a little protesting will produce the same desired results.

[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

LOL Ron..I'm 46 ..I've got a career and worked to get there...and I've seen what's been happening to this country, the working class is under attack. Yes, it's class warfare..Only now the peasants are fighting back and you don't like it.

These people are Americans and YOU sir are just another victim of the divide and conquer tactic being used by the elite against the American populace..

I stand with these OWS protesters. Just tell me something, let me ask you a real serious question:

Don't you think we need to do something about the takeover of our government by the Corporate and Banking Elite? If you don't realize this has already happened...why don't you?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I very much agree with you and enjoy a good laugh now and then too - try not to laugh to directly at another countryman but sometimes am tempted to just like you were.

I fully agree that there is a great attempt underway to divide and conquer. I just happen to have some questions about who is really doing the dividing and conquering and who intends to be the "king of the hill" And please, DO NOT call me a victim again. I have fully enough mental power to determine when I am, have been, or am in the process of being victimized. DO NOT ever put yourself into that judgemental position regarding me.

I sure do realize that the takeover is happening today even as we speak. We can start by getting rid of a President who is putting my tax dollar to work through stupid loans to any company that is a potential candidate for bankrupty within a year, and all based on political gain- don't we have anyone looking out for our interests that can interpret a simple balance sheet, monthly financial report etc to prevent this type of middle class abuse.

Then we can move on to the Congress, our center of all laws and honor, in control of far more than any bankster could even hope for, even if that is control of a 16T$ loan deficit, a great percentage of the land and resources of this country, and every law that even touches upon the working class.

So are you more worrried about who is trying to take over or the ability of those who represent us to resist this takeover. You take all the corporate and banking elite and their lobbyists out of the picture and does that make our government any stronger or do they just get a new set of takeover artists.

I realize that it is and continues to happen and frankly I am pissed off to the n'th degree. What concerns me is that we are all bent out of shape about the results and not the real cause. We call for help and revenge aginst something that has already defeated us in your way of speaking.

If this has already happened as your state, who are your real enemies and how can you have any real impact. You HAVE to identify your enemy before you can fight a war. You are already declaring defeat and this concerns me a great deal.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I thought Occupy Wallstreet was pretty self explanatory.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

It is pretty self explanatory on a daily basis. I just don't want to get on a train that hasn't hooked the caboose on yet. (and yes I do - re: cabooses)

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

"So are you more worried about who is trying to take over or the ability of those who represent us to resist this takeover."

Answer: Both

I declare who the enemy is: Banks/Transnational Corporations and the Politicians that have been bought by them..I am concerned that this is a worldwide issue, but we as Americans have our country, alone, to be concerned with.

I am not declaring defeat, but if we don't get on board with what's wrong, if we don't stand together , we will be defeated...I am for individual freedom and liberty and against the same type of oppression that drove our forefathers to this land.

A plan which may never see the light of day and would hold everyone accountable including the populace is this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72299569/A-Vision-for-a-New-Democracy

I'm not saying that this is it...It's going to take a lot of upheaval to get something like this in place...We need to have the populace more involved in the political process..

This is a very simple plan but it would represent an important check that is missing in the legislative branch and the everyday goings on in government..

Please read it...Our system is repairable...

We do need to realize that although we have our oppressors and may have been defeated in a stealthily way..It does not mean that we as Americans can not rise up and claim for ourselves the independence that our forefathers fought for, The independence that I want for my children and yours!

We must fight against our oppressors, for they see us as nothing but slaves and cannon fodder .

Rise Up...Reclaim your humanity!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Just one request, please. We constantly express out hatred towards, "these people" those "greedy bankers" etc. Would it be possible to address our issues more in terms of systems as you did at one time before you degressed to "these people". You take all these people out and you still have a system in need of repair.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

How's that?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I don't know if you have ever been a teacher or not. But here goes - a classroom is a system, you have a student who is in some way out of bounds (ie banksters), you put that child out in the hall or to the Principal's Office, do you think that gets rid of the problem, there is another student to take his/her place and become the one out of bounds - if for not other reason that to get out of the classroom.

Some posts on here advocate taking the big bad guys out and killing them as a solution to the problem, making an assumption that no one would ever take their place. This is a corporation we are talking about here, they are lined up to take his place.

Unless you are willing to address the issue as one of a system problem, rather than a personal (CEO) problem, in my opinion, nothing gets resolved. And don't be surprised if when it is all said and done, that the new system won't be headed by someone with a jet, fancy home and car.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 12 years ago

Is capital punishment a deterrent for committing murder? I'd say somewhat...

There needs to be deterrents for white collar crime...Just letting people get away with it...Isn't the answer....

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Fully agree. But I see two separate issues:

  1. How do we deal with any white collar crime that has already been committed.

  2. How do we move forward to try to reform a system that would allow this to happen in the first place.

[-] -2 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

America is still very much a land of opportunity. I got an offer the other day to increase my income by 40%.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

and if there were 14 million of the same offers,, you would be right. but there is not. so what is your point?

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

My point is that there is opportunity for the competent.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

my point is there is not. these 14 million unemployed will never find a new job... they will slowly fall into poverty and by then we will only be wondering why there are so many more below poverty level than there were 10 yrs ago..

[-] -1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

There are jobs for them that they won't take. But yes, they will likely never find the same job that they lost. There are apple picking jobs open right now in Oregon.

[-] 1 points by thebeastchasingitstail (1912) 12 years ago

What was your major field of study?

Are you working in that field now?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Mathematics. No.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 12 years ago

This is a trick post

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I am god.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 12 years ago

No 'Vlad', You Are NOT 'god' .... You're Just A Very Naughty Boy ... and furthermore you may be dyslexic .. lol .

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 12 years ago

Frequent this website: theeconomiccollapseblog.com/

[Removed]

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

I have a question. Many here are anarchist; they support the collapse of the moneyed society. Needless to say, if this happened everything would grind to an immediate halt: all government would stop, all services would stop; all transportation would stop... banks, grocery stores, gas stations, would close... people with mortgages would lose their homes, cars would rust away on their blocks, and all would be hungry... because there would be no money.

Many would starve; in fact only those who still retain community familial connections to food sources would have the ability to stave off the hunger.

But... the rich will survive; they always do. So what I want to know is what precautions are taken to ensure that they do. Is gold the only answer or are there other vehicles of ensuring that wealth retains value? Of what significance is aristocratic privilege? On the order, of say, a House of Hanover?

I ask because I spent many years interviewing those of the Depression era. I did this for a reason: I see them as "living history," as those within living memory. It's an oral history, and a very specific and detailed history, that serves to directly address the perception of causality. Anyway, it's the one question I never completely answered.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I will move to Shanghai if that happens. The Chinese will never let total chaos happen and it is a fine city to live in. More costly than where I live right now in the USA, but everything has its costs. I strongly encourage you to invest in China and learn Mandarin. That's the future.

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

Well, no, the reason I ask is this... If it is true that aristocracy always survives, that society and economy must slowly rebuild in the wake of a depression, then how is it possible to be free of the political economy?

The power and wealth must emanate, or it is of no value; it would seem then that all must initially exist as extensions of the Crown.

This question has direct bearing on both the creation of a colonial economy and efforts to redirect following the Rev with the creation of our own currency, and a place to deposit that currency, in the form of a central bank.

Shanghai will not survive the next depression.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Oh, it is not possible to be free of the political economy. And Shanghai will survive. Thrive, in fact. No OWS nonsense there.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

It might not be possible to be free of the political economy, but you can be more free of it. It's a state worth fighting for.

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

haha... poison, it all comes down to a choice of poisons.

[-] 0 points by HowdyDoodyTime (27) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

do you have horns and drink blood? That's what I heard.

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I do not drink blood. It is unsanitary. These days I use disposable horns as the real ones are cumbersome.

[-] 0 points by HowdyDoodyTime (27) from Brooklyn, NY 12 years ago

thank you for clarifying. I don't mind if you earned yourself some $$. All the best with your future endeavors.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Always willing to be of help. Thank you for the good wishes.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

How can you help us, and who are you? Some Russian oligarch?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I am plain old American. I can help you see the world through the lens of a 1%'er.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Well, then what do you think should be done to end the economic crisis?

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

We need massive inflation. The old ways of doing it by increasing the money supply through lower interest rates is not working. We need a Keynesian solution of creating make-work. Pay one person to dig a ditch and pay another to fill it up. That will put money into the pockets of people and create demand.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Why not create work that actually improves the economy.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

That's OK too, but if we want the economy to move quickly we need make work projects.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Moving the economy up requires actual improvements to be made to the economy, not just spending.

Actual improvements to the economy are made through discoveries and inventions, so it's important to finance science programs. The space program was a good example of this, since for every dollar we put into it, we got ten dollars out in terms of economic development.

Science should also be applied in infrastructure development projects such as an intercontinental magnetic levitation train system, and new energy sources such as nuclear fission, and later nuclear fusion.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I completely agree. However, I think that won't create much jobs for those that were laid off. That will increase demand for immigrant scientists who now are by far the majority in American universities doing graduate and post graduate work, as the native population is not taught mathematics or the sciences. Instead we have the bullshit liberal arts education that leads straight to Starbucks as a barrista. And then onwards to OWS.

[-] 0 points by zorno (386) 12 years ago

Yes, but we also need plenty of manual labor to build roads, railroads, etc. We can employ many barristas and gang bangers in this manner. Some of them will have a knack for it and will go on to become scientists and engineers. The others will learn how to do productive work and get paid for it. We did this all before and need to start doing it again.

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 12 years ago

I really can't ask due to the percentage thing.

I realize the 1% is actually the 99% who work for a living and the 99% is the 1% who want a share of the ones who worked for it?

it's so confusing. I think OWS is just us kids too stupid to hold a job and too white to qualify for welfare

why call ourselves the 99% when we are only .00099% of the population?

hardly anyone claims to be on our side, thanks to dip wads breaking windows, shitting on public service vehicles, and telling the free press they have no right to be in a public park. :(

we are a disgrace

[-] 0 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

How do you feel about income limits of..let's say, 5 million per year per person?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

No to income limits.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Then how about we take another look at the values we give to certain profession incomes and products.

Such as...a valuable resource that is given a large price in order to gain profit from it..but it is a valuable resource that is needed by many for survival. Would you be in favor of reducing prices on these resources?

Also, a regular actor can make millions or billions for making movies and promoting products, but a janitor makes a measly $20,000 annually. Is this something you agree with or would you like a more fair, distributed income market where people who take up professions that help society and people directly can make a decent wage whereas people who just contribute to social media do not make outrageous lumps of money that can be put towards the good of mankind?

[-] 1 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I believe people should be paid their market wage. I do not believe in fucking around with the market. If a Janitor is jealous of the millions that actors make, then the janitor should become an actor.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

It is not as easy as you think it is. And it is not fair that people who do the dirty work get paid shit while people who affect our young children and do nothing good for the world get paid overwhelmingly.

'Fucking around with the market' is what got us into this mess. The way we look at people and what they deserve is what the market basically is. I don't see any good in paying an early childhood teacher, our public service, city cleanup people, and others a piece of shit wage for all the hard work they do.

But I merely asked for your opinion. And you ignored my other questions. I guess we'll end it here.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I think I answered them, but here goes it again. I wouldn't fuck around with the market to either lower prices for goods and services, or raise wages for what some may think is valuable work. I will let the market decide. If you think that is not fair, I won't contend that. Life is not fair. It is a jungle out there.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

And that 'jungle' is our doing. Our primitive ancestors braved their lives through multitude horrors in order for us to live decently and having learned the lessons of life. We're not supposed to be turning around in evolution.

I merely want to feel as if I'm not ruining a child's life by bringing them into this world.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

I like the jungle. My killer animal instincts come out and I win. However, if you do not like the current world environment you should definitely not bring a child to life.

Incidentally, forget our primitive ancestors. Two generations back we had the bloodiest war in the history of humanity. We are still in the jungle and my gut says the jungle is here to stay. Human beings are competitive and want to win. I know I do.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

I see. I do agree with you on your observation that the 'jungle' is here to stay, and that human beings are competitive. Though that doesn't mean I like it. But, I guess humankind is not ready for the age of enlightenment, not yet.

It seems that this jungle still needs time to run its course. But it will have an end-day.

[-] 0 points by VladimirMayakovsky (796) 12 years ago

Why do you think your way is enlightened and mine isn't? It's rather preachy and pushy. I understand that you don't like competition. That's fine, you don't have to compete. But to enforce rules such that no one else can compete as well is dictatorial.

[-] 1 points by yasminec001 (584) 12 years ago

Oh no. Competition is natural. I'm just talking about mutual respect of all life in order for our stay on this earth to be peaceful, instead of destructive and short-term. I just think we can function in a different way, with the same principles viewed with a different perspective.

I don't want to force anything on anyone. But I would like for people to sometimes see that things don't always have to be vicious and stressful. That there's 'enough' and no need for violence. But..in the end, nothing matters. There could be a higher purpose for our actions.

[-] 0 points by letsallspeaktruth (24) 12 years ago

To demonize and objectify 'the other' will never be an empowering experience...and it can never be the foundation for any 'legitimacy'...

I pity OWS and will work through whatever way possible to oppose

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 12 years ago

ah, but instead of opposition, you have added your voice to the collective. You have contributed! With arms open, welcome.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I have been reading posts and responding for several days now. It is like pulling teeth to get anyone to really express a coherent idea or belief on most of the posts. It is always about "me" under the mask of the "99%" mantra. Many of the posts sound more like a big bank CEO meeting up with someone in the men's bathroom and saying, "hi son, looking to get ahead in this mess, have I got a deal for you - land along I40 in Arizona, a great investment at an unbelievable rate and terms to die for, just look at these pictures on these links and all these testimonials, don't be a fool-buy now.

[Removed]