Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Maybe the 1% knows what they are doing?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 12, 2012, 3:29 a.m. EST by flyerbri (14)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do you think it's possible the 1% are doing this intentionally?

Specifically, allowing a fundamental erosion of all systems, to encourage OccupyWallStreet movements that get out of this money trap and create a system 'by the people, for the people' to come up with new solutions?

Just curious. Comments?

  • Brian My blog is bgtoe.blogspot.com

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 2 years ago

I doubt it. We are all part of the problem, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner we can all work together to create the solution. I think the 1% are playing by what they consider to be fair rules. They think we are poor losers, since they have clearly won the game fair and square.

[-] 2 points by flip (6777) 2 years ago

it is called starve the beast - look it up

[-] 1 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

yes... good one ;)

'Starve the Beast' strategy a ploy by GOP to shelter rich

http://www.dnj.com/article/20120106/OPINION02/201060317/GUEST-COLUMN-Starve-Beast-strategy-ploy-by-GOP-shelter-rich

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

Agreed.Another way to look at it is - it's also asking us to come up with strategies, right?

Do we have any other than revolution?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"If you had to guess, what adjusted gross income range would you say had the biggest gains in the number of households included within that range during the years from 1996 through 2009? Here are the choices:

A- $1 to $25,000

B- $25,000 to $50,000

C- $50,000 to $75,000

D- $75,000 to $200,000

E- $200,000 and over"

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html

It's NOT the number of households in the "poorest" or lowest brackets that are growing people, see the link and chart and sources.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

This NY Times article outlines how social mobility is not happening in the poorest and highest rungs of our society. If you're born poor, you stay poor. If you're born rich you stay rich. The middle class, however, does show some movement among it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Now now. That article DOES NOT say ALL who are born poor-stay poor and ALL who are born rich stay rich. So don't lie. Shame on you.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/search?q=inequality

Here's a fun website filled with statistical calculations you should explore. Except I suspect you won't like it much. Pokes a lot of holes in your version of "the truth". I'm sure MC will love it as much as you do.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

Neither did I say "ALL." But, I"ll say "MOST". Here's a quote from the article:

"Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth."

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

You said "social mobility is NOT happening" and the article's title just says "it's harder in America than other countries". THEN you followed that up with two "absolute" sentences. Why the exaggeration?

Using the math from the article:

"A project led by Markus Jantti, an economist at a Swedish university, found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. "

Which means that 58% of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes LEAVE that income level and move UP at least one level.

"Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths. "

65-42=23% 42% of those born in the bottom 5th stay there, 23% rise to the next 5ith (=65% staying in the bottom 2/5ths) That means that 35% of them (more than 1/3) rise higher than the bottom 2 levels. (and since you supplied the 8% that rise all the way to the top-then 35-8=27% of them end up higher than the bottom two 5ths and lower than the top 5th. Those two quintiles are referred to as "the middle class and upper middle class.")

"Skeptics caution that the studies measure “relative mobility” — how likely children are to move from their parents’ place in the income distribution. That is different from asking whether they have more money. Most Americans have higher incomes than their parents because the country has grown richer."

"Some conservatives say this measure, called absolute mobility, is a better gauge of opportunity. A Pew study found that 81 percent of Americans have higher incomes than their parents (after accounting for family size). There is no comparable data on other countries."

You're engaging in the exact same behavior I'm always calling MC out for-using only the statistics that make what you are saying SEEM to be SO EXTREMELY (and obviously) TRUE-while ignoring or refusing to include the ones that would prove otherwise.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

Not your math again.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Fine. You don't like math?

How about a sociology paper from Richard Breen, the "William Graham Sumner Professor of Sociology Co-Director, Center for Research on Inequalities and the Life Course" at Yale?

http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/breen/Geary_march_23_2010.pdf

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

No. I'm good at math, justthefacts, just can't be bothered arguing with you over silly little things that you nitpick at and don't understand. It is good that the website you like has a calculator.

I don't have time to read the whole article, but I read the beginning and the conclusion. He is looking more at "opportunity" for social mobility rather than "actual" social mobility. I understand people are generally free here, there are no actual legal impediments to mobility. Yes, sure, anyone can go to college. No one will stop you - except the bill! That is where social mobility becomes limited. It is acutally "economic" opportunity that plays a big role in the lack of social mobility.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Well again, you prove that your assumptions are so far from the facts that they should not be trusted. You might be the world's greatest mathematician-you SUCK at statistical comparisons/analysis.

He actually examines what causes and affects social mobility and one of those things is education. It doesn't play as large a role as YOU think it does. But then again, you think the only type of "calculator" one needs is the kind people keep with their checkbooks.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

I told you I don't have time to read the whole article, I read the conclusion. I told you that what I was saying was based on that. Calm yourself down.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

I am perfectly calm.

Are you saying you didn't read the NY Times article YOU brought up either?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

Good. Stay calm. It's not worth it to get all crazy. And, no. I read that one.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

You admit you read it. And your posts are evidence that you then completely misrepresented it.

THAT is one of those "silly little things" that I like to "nitpick" about.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21079) 2 years ago

What the hell are you talking about? Have you been drinking? I said I read the NY Times article which was one page long that I sent you. Not the 22 page one you sent me.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

'What the hell are you talking about? Have you been drinking? I said I read the NY Times article which was one page long that I sent you. Not the 22 page one you sent me."

I'm saying you read the NY Times article, and misrepresented it. I also said you read the "conclusion" of a paper-and misrepresented what the paper was "looking at" too.

I'm trying to point out a consistent pattern in your behavior that reflects a consistent disregard for the whole truth of any given issue. If you can cherry pick a "fact" that looks like it will support whatever claim you want to make, you'll do it. When called on it-you use misdirection to move on.

Now, where you come from, I might be "nitpicking" about "silly little things", but where I come from we call such behavior lying or dishonesty and both tend to annoy the hell out of good people.

[-] 2 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

if the 1% knew what they were doing... they wouldn't be bankrupting the middle class...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

They aren't.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/search?q=inequality

When you use statistics correctly-you find out a LOT of interesting things. One of them is who is LYING to you.

[-] 0 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

They are also, as slammers indicated, eroding their own customer base.

These are smart men and women making these decisions.

Think about this - what are the tangible benefits of their actions? Families are being reformed. Kids are moving in with their parents, and learning to get along. Community is being re-established.

People are getting less interested in the big buck and more interested in fixing the system to allow for creativity, artistry, and education....

Don't go thinking for one moment our leaders are naively letting this run it's course. I'm betting - they are perfectly aware, and doing everything they can to cushion the fall as our government undergoes a long overdue transition and entrance to the community called the world.

[-] 1 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

flyerbri... I like how optimistic you are...and your belief in people... but... honestly... while there ARE many, many very benevolent and good rich people... there are many.. who have obtained their wealth thru dishonest and destructive means and they are currently... (right now) devastating many who do not have the resources to wait for solutions... and their answers to those who have become homeless.. is it's your own fault... you should have studied finance ("stealing") instead of Art ........ ;(

[-] 2 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

Brad - MBA in international management here, undergrad in Marketing. IT is the background.

My perspective is one of a personal journey, the artsy aspect is a history of drugs - talk about perspective!

However, Brad - you could be right, they could be intentionally stealing ut I have my doubts. However, Ive worked hand in hand with many of these people and they are some very smart, and caring cookies. I'm no longer doing that work again, I burned out because of the glass ceiling. But I am convinced - they have OUR (theirs and ours) best interests at heart as they hand off the leadership of this country to a new generation they quite simply can't keep up with.

They know it's us - the internet generation - who will resolve the problems and reverse this trend of a top down management structure that's for the first time in history seen a true capability to be led bottom up....

I'm trying to form an open source code union for it so we can build such a base in the Portland area if anyone is interested :-)

bgtoe.blogspot.com is my blog

[-] 1 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

;) oh I agree... we WILL fix it... however not sure how many poor souls will hit the skids before it happens.... I curse these greedy gamblers and sold out politicians for that ... they NEED to go to jail ....

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

they aren't, the government is....and not just the Middle Incomes (we don't have "classes" in this country)...EVERYONE!...even the children of those not born yet, through massive debt to pay for social transfer payments.....

[-] 2 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

interesting.... the 1%.. now own the government.... so they are eroding their potential customer base by bankrupting the middle class... through their unproductive gambling practices .... that is the problem .... watch ... more and more big businesses will close as time goes on...

[-] -3 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

No....they are no more the government now than they have ever been....no one is bankrupting the middle incomes, except themselves, and their poor choices...

[-] 2 points by BradB2 (39) 2 years ago

just sit back and watch...while it all crumbles.... why is Sears closing 80 stores ? ....

the problem is .... there is no capital available to small business ... therefore they can't do business ... and therefore the middle class has no money to purchase anything... and that is because the 1% would be investors are now putting their money into sure bet gambling games instead of into our economy... they are bankrupting us... not the government... what do you want? .. government to control you ?

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I don't think so; doing something like that would require an incredible sense of discipline and unification of an entire class of people who basically agreed to play Russian roulette with the country and agree to be the sacrificial scapegoats when the rest of the country catches on (and if they don't then we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway so why bother?) and I just can't imagine that being the case.

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

Well, speak about the 1 % that certainly they have the power to do it , haven't they? then i doubt that someday we could say " The problem is solved, now the 1 % have consideration " and of course they are corrupt, i'm not american but if i were i think that the movement have a cause and the 99 % was blind but now it can see¡¡ By Chairez 364398.

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

Maybe a worthwhile thought experiment, but I don't see any empirical evidence suggesting this idea has any validity (particularly when it comes to movements like OWS)?

[-] 1 points by patriot4change (818) 2 years ago

Divide and conquer.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

It's more possible that the top 10th of the 1% is doing this intentionally so that they can "kill off" any remaining competition to them-and thus control EVERYTHING.

WE, the PEOPLE, have allowed a fundamental erosion of the system.

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

I am pretty sure the memo of such a conspiracy did not reach my desk. Or did I miss it? Hold on... Nope. I didn't get the memo on this conspiracy. Where did you get it?

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

This country's founded on Greek and Roman rules of law, which were clearly modeled to do three things in this order:

1) Unify the disparate populations of sphere of influence 2) Expand in influence to include as many perspectives as possible 3) Revise itself and return to step 1 when a tipping point is reached when the society becomes more exclusive than inclusive.

Just a lesson in history, it's that simple, and the leaders of our nation are clearly no fools and do what they can to ease this transition!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 2 years ago

to what end would they erode their customer base? How does that benefit them and continue their earning from commerce?

[-] 2 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

to what end? Selfless motivations. I know it's difficult to consider they may have realized how imbalanced the system is, but many of our nation's most wealthy have oaths to give away the majority of their fortune.

Let's say they stick to this. Would you, as an honorable and loving person, tired and ready to retire - sacrifice your fortune to the next corrupt person that nips at your heels? Or would you try to wait for the dust to settle and then give to the next generation leaders fueled by selfless motivation and humility?

Maybe they are fully anticipating some kind of revolution. You cant just give to a single cause because you dont want to influence the outcome anymore than you already have. So back off, let it influence itself, then give away....

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I doubt it - the movie Inside Job makes it quite clear that repelican conservatives have invested decades into the process of financial deregulation.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

maybe the repelican's are not really bad people... maybe it's just that they are not that sharp

[-] 0 points by 1169 (204) 2 years ago

that to

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that conservative activist judge ultimately appointed to the Supreme Court as documented by Inside Job was apparently bright enough to make a bundle with the tobacco industry as a client. He helped craft their denials of the harmful affects of smoking on the basis of their own pseudo science.

And the fossil fuel industry has followed . . . suit . . .

hahaha

ha ha hahaha

BWA hahahaha

followed suit

BWA Ha haha

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

Think big picture. Not detail level oriented stuff.

Agreed. The individual activities seem a little screwy. But if we're in orbit above the planet looking at all the activities occuring around the globe - there' are pretty clear directions we are headed in.

IT's a massive peace movement, a period of hard self reflection, and our leaders have wisely embraced this change and let the ambitions of the corrupt few send messages to us - the 99% - that we have to come together to set a new path as a nation.

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

The de-regulation achieves two things though. Sure, immediately it decouples the process and allows private companies to reap the profit.

But foremost, it takes ownership of government processes AWAY from the government, and puts it firmly in the hands of the people.

The next logical step is - think about this - services that come out of your paycheck on a pay per service model. You get precisely what you subscribe to - OUT of the monolithic, one size fits all equation the government currently stands for,.

It's our job to create the plumbing for this new model...

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that is insane, and not going to happen.

We cannot select which portions of our economy or our legal system fit our life style, as if we were at some a la carte luncheon.

The privatization of legitimate government function has come to an end.

the repelican party is DONE

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

Check out my blog @bgtoe.blogspot.com

If you dont want to refer to it, one thing has to be considered as we all move forward:

Exclusion, of any party, race, philosophy, religion, ideals, class - comes at a price.

We, as a nation, absolutely positively have to embrace and cherish - perspective. Sure, the (I have to laugh) 'Repelican' ideals may embrace an ideal that causes the exclusion of the 99% (I detail much more in my blog). However, the freedom our country's constitution has led to has resulted in a relatively high standard of living for the better part of 200 years. That's by design.

What's also by design is - when the system excludes variety, therefore dismantling community, then the people rise up due to the freedom of the design to alter the very design itself to include again.

Don't make the same mistakes some of the corrupt 1% is making - by excluding them as partners in this change. We need everyone, moving forward, otherwise - we're destined to not learn from our own mistakes.

Make sense?

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Make sense?

No.

You said:

The de-regulation achieves two things though. Sure, immediately it decouples the process and allows private companies to reap the profit.

But foremost, it takes ownership of government processes AWAY from the government, and puts it firmly in the hands of the people.

This is an obvious misstatement. The meltdown of Wall Street demonstrates that deregulation of the economy served neither the people nor Wall Street - and Wall Street can't see it.

It is not firmly in the hands of the people; those who have lost their homes and their retirement savings have thus far no access to redress. The impact has been nation wide.

This is no more in the hands of the people than is the price of fuel - largely driven to hover near $100.oo a barrel by speculation - the people have limited imput, and the higher the cost of fuel the slower we rebound in terms of job creation.

I don't like your ideas - they sound like repelican talking points gussied up like some friday night whore.

[-] 1 points by flyerbri (14) 2 years ago

Dont think about this as a single step a leads to b process.

Think about it like this. IF government said "YOU must get off your butt and organize a replacement government that fixes our problems. In addition, you must travel the world, and research ideas outside the box when we have failed."

What are you likely to do? give them the big fat bird, right?

So instead of telling us what to do. They are leading us down a path where we have no choice.

Step up. Or get squashed.

We're stepping up.

These are bright people, folks. Dont think they arent equally as capable as you and I are with deductive logic.... They simply want us to take ownership of the processes.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I've been saying something similar - I think - but your statement does not account for the divisions that actually exist within the infrastructure.

The repelican party is DONE

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

First you spelled Republican wrong.....Second that is common knowledge seeing as that's what fiscal conservative believe in.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

first. lets get second out of the way . . .

.

The movie Inside Job makes it quite clear: Conservatives set to implement financial deregulation as far back as the late 1970s, and part of that process included the appointment to the Supreme Court

  • Conservative Activist Judges

And it is clear - as that process began to bear fruit, Conservatives began screaming about Liberal Activist Judges, and thus distract the public from their process of Activism toward deregulation.

  • repeliKans are liars

  • repeliKans with their process of deregulation have fucked the American public.

  • repeliKans continue to lie about Global Warming

  • repeliKans will soon reap the harvest they have sown

The people are coming. You can't stop it. You can't avoid it. And in fact, you will benefit.

Unless of course, you get in the way. Then there's just no tellin'.

.

Second, lets address your first point:

.

Repelican

is a term of approbation,

a proof,

derogatory in nature,

intended to shame

and to ridicule

those who run for high office

upon a platform of lies before the whole world

and have not the decency to blush bright crimson.

they are reprehensible.

they are repulsive.

they are repellent.

they are repelicans . . . .

.

z

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

So yes my second point is true then. Second, not that I vote for either party, but the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans. I personally believe that the parties are dumb, and people should be elected on their ideas. Instead of on whether they are an elephant or an ass.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I wouldn't say that the process of blaming your opponents for your own sins as illustrated above is exactly common knowledge. With the repelicans it is standard operating procedure.

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

Well at least I knew about it. I understood it to be common knowledge, but I must have overestimated people. Don't forget the Democrats are just as evil as Republicans, considering 70% of all campaign contributions form Wall Street went to Democrats.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

you got a link for that?

Goldman Sachs gave $478,250 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election period through its political action committee - 35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans. 112

Regardless of what the rest of wall street was doing, Goldman knows where their interest lies.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Don't your own numbers tell you what you fiercely and stubbornly refuse to accept? Both sides are corrupt, they don't represent the people, they are the administrators to the bankruptcy, and in fact owned. Most every single one of them.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

35% to Democrats and 65% to Republicans.

Yes, it does. It tells me the repelicans are twice as corrupt, and supports the concept that corruption is a part of repelican party policy and ideology.

Dems apparently still have the decency to know shame - we better act quick before the repelicans rub that out too.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Frankly, I don't see anything other than your amazing ability to rationalize anyone who doesn't agree with you, is the republican enemy to all that is just and right.

Corrupt is corrupt and nobody has been forced, even allegedly less corrupt democrats, in the Whitehouse no less, to make things right.

Why? Because most all of them are corrupt.

but all in DC are magically becoming much wealthier

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Goldman contributions speak for themselves. I don't know what else to tell ya.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Well don't bother telling about billions accepted from prosection immune banksters from crooks on both sides of the aisle, or who, in the Whitehouse, has accepted more banksters money than all republican candidates put together.

I already know and do not choose to remain blind to the blantant corruption and graft of democrats too.

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I never said there was no corruption among the other party.

What I said was that between them it is clear that one party has made of corruption a matter of both party policy and ideology - and you can begin with the surreptitious process of installing conservative activist judges as shown by the documentary Inside Job.

That is what I said.

I also said I plan to vote for the President. I have said why numerous times, even though it is not my policy to plug candidates on this forum. I have said that I believe it is reasonable, under these circumstances, and especially in light of Citizens United and the flood of money into this election, to demand far greater proof of malfeasance on the part of the President than mere association would imply - and given the repelican policy of hostage taking as part of their negotiation process going back at least to the Clinton years, who can say that the rich men and party bosses have not found a way to suggest that somehow the entire economy may in fact, require the stability inspired by that lack of zeal for justice demonstrated by this current administration, despite the wave of demands for either justice or reprisal that have been growing for some time among the people.

now piss off.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Zendog is Barack's sock puppet. No wonder nothing is getting done, Barack is too busy posting on this forum.

[+] -7 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Mr. Obama will call on Congress to give him a so-called consolidation authority allowing him to propose mergers that promise to save money and help consumers and businesses. The agreement would entitle him to a yes-or-no vote from Congress within 90 days. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-for-power-to-merge-agencies.html?_r=1

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Corrupt is corrupt. Democrats are corrupt. Obama takes money from Wall Street. Eat it and know your vote will surely send the message you condone corruption.

[+] -7 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I've been saying that the repelicans combined with wall street have probably somehow found a way to hold the entire economy hostage, and that may explain the presence of so many insiders in the Presidents staff . . . .

I stumbled upon this last night -

I'm not an economist, but if this article is correct, it means wall street has made bets on the sum of global gdp for the next ten years.

Think about that. They have wagered the sum of global output - over a ten year period.

the President is an attorney, not an economist. I'm sure he wants people around him who understand what the hell is going on.

And if the shit does hit the fan - I am convinced after watching the President negotiate between current events and repelican ideology that he is the best individual to confront this issue -

assuming, as I said, it is a real and present danger.