Forum Post: Paul Krugman speaks out on behalf of OWS
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 7:15 a.m. EST by lyn123
(123)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 2 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 8 months ago by gsw
2 comments 12 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
Just wanted to say that this piece--from one of the last voices of reason, from a man who has been fighting the #OWS fight since before many of its adherents learned to read--explains in very clear, plain terms the challenges before us. Because his main point is that the #OWS is right, and that's why the attacks against it are so incredibly venomous from the defenders of the privileged 1%. And, as usual, he does so eloquently, clearly, and--unlike his distractors--without hysteria.
A must read.
Excellent, spot-on article.
Thanks for the link...well worth the read.... a quote:
" the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth." By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 9, 2011
Krugman Has some balls for saying this
Joseph Stiglitz spoke out first for OWS. Now we have Paul Krugman on our side. Seems to me we are turning a lot of heads now. Still the corporate media trashing us. This is why I watch RT
Sorry, but among all the Krugman haters here, not one has pointed out a flaw in his arguments in this article.
Stiglitz and Krugman know the way
What about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?
Great Article!
I've been reading Paul Krugman's articles for a while. He has been speaking out about the problems that OWS is trying to solve for a while. I think he can be trusted.
Paul krugman is a dickhead
For all those who want to support this cause by sending food and non perishable supplies to OccupyWallStreet, I would like to share a channel used by many to send their donations. Use: Delivery.com and under the grocery tab look for Village Farm and Grocery. Buy the merchandize and use the delivery address as: OccupyWallStreet 1 Liberty Plaza Ground New York, Ny 10006 Tiffany Place 212-475-7521 Food and essential are delivered by the Deli without any delivery fee and it has a massive list of options. Just shared my 2 cents
Speaking of media manipulation and hour ago the link would take you directly to the article, now you have to log in to read it. Are they making Krugman's message harder to get to? Yes. Why are they doing it? Who knows?
I have written some babble about fascism/corporatism. Krugman's article shines the light on how the message is delivered. Does this sound like things that might be happening today, or is this just a Hollywood script
Fascism 2.0/Corporatism is a much improved and user friendly version than the original
The new version is called corporatism
Pros
• You don’t have to convert your country’s form of government anymore to get Fascism on board. Version 2.0 (Corporatism) will run right on top of capitalism flawlessly and invisibly.
• Violent suppression is no longer required. With the new media ownership comes the ability to shape opinions, create villains and demons, and use fear to motivate war, voting bias, and division of the masses. You will be able to convince most citizens that all problems are related to those who oppose you reaching your goals
• The cost of the upgrade will be paid for by tax breaks and loop holes and a very high percentage of the citizens will think that is a fair deal and will vote for politicians who openly protect your interest.
• The best feature of the Fascism 2.0 is how resilient and indestructible it is. The fact that it is invisible is without a doubt the best feature of Corporatism/fascism2.0
Cons
• 2.0 like the original Fascism is still susceptible to “uprising” virus. But thanks to the new media controls that is easily suppressed by villainizing , demonizing, demoralizing, denial of a problem or motive, not reporting etc.
• There’s one potential problem: There is one thing that leads to what we call system self-destruct. It is the greed virus. There will never be a problem as long as a greed virus does not develop. When the greed virus creeps in, it triggers the occupation virus, which will create system awareness. This will cause 2.0 to lose it’s transparency and become very opaque. The next thing that happens is internal alienation. At that point the system crashes and will require reloading. It is very likely the system will not allow 2.0 to reload on top of it because of the damage it caused
• Disclaimer: If the 2.0 crashes because the greed virus was allowed to begin the destruction of the system, you warrantee is void
Well said!
Buying propaganda has been working so well for the 1% that OWS must leave them dumfounded. You mean that not everyone has bought it?
I think that is why I am so excited about this movement. It seems that all of our past suspicion/knowledge is coming together as a result of America being pushed to the edge by lies that divide us and make people lash out against their own best interest
It seems as though the more the OWS grows, the more the dots get connected, the more the dots get connected, the more the media/messages try to add different dots and delete others. And today when they do that they also make themselves more transparent.
Greetings Folks, Please read 'The Way Forward' by the New America Foundation. It is the answer to our world's problems. There is an article about it in the New York Times called 'This Time It's Different.' It's a great article. These people are on your side, and they've got clout, intellectual and otherwise. I wish you well... John O'Grady ivanogre@gmail.com
Here is the link that John mentions: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/this-time-it-really-is-different.html
"What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is." - Paul Krugman
Well articulated article. Thanks for posting.
Keynesian economics is one of the leading contributors to the financial mess. Paul Krugman is a staunch Keynesian economist. Are you going to let this idiot be your financial mouthpiece?
you guys have no idea what that even is. you repeat it because you hear it on tv. keyns version was the opposite of what we have experienced for the last 30 years. regan set us on supply side economics (his version = trickle down economics) keyns believed in the basics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics notice it says "a return to" and not a continuation of. we have been under supply side economics and keyns model is the exact opposite.
I agree that the Keynesian system is being used against us. You must also have a clear understanding for the system. There are a lot of half truths about Kaynesian economics floating around out there. Maybe your knowledge exceeds mine. Let me ask you this, what happens when the wealth of the nation concentrates into a few hands and the people have no way of "printing" more of it? I believe if the Keynesian system used properly, to distribute wealth into infrastructure projects, social programs ect will pull money back down from the top. Naturally there are negative aspects pf this like inflation, but that is the main reason you don't print money and send it directly to the top. With the ability to put new money in the system will it not concentrate the wealth into a few hands? Simply put, like the winner in the game of monopoly?
I'm not necessarily defending the whole of Krugman (don't know enough about his principles) But, academic (actual) Keynesianism and the "Keynesianism" that we have practiced are much different things.
"And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park."
Exactly, sick of all the free market fundamentalists calling me an extremist.
I liked that story and i rarely like any story published or told by MSM. But just remember folks to be vigilant. They will try praise as a means to infiltrate, divide and conquer. Any businesses, politicians, or MSM that seems to endorse OWS take with caution and a grain of salt. Enjoy the good publicity but always be weary of it.
Not everyone is a part of the "conspiracy" to take down the movement. Remember what 99% means. He works for the NYT, but what is his record as a pulitzer prize and nobel prize winning economist? It's an interest in the common good.
Be wary? Sure, but everyone should be wary of their own potential paranoia and definitions--not everyone is down in the park or can be. 99% is a very very broad spectrum, and includes almost everyone--many of whom work in corporations (own an iPhone or smartphone or cell phone?) or work in MSM, like Krugman.
You raise a good point, because democrats tend to absorb movements; something I personally hadn't been aware of, entirely, and it was a wake up call. But Krugman? He's been fighting the good fight for many many years, and if you don't know his work, you should, because it's the work of the #OWS.
I dont typically read the Times being from the Midwest. You make some valid points and i do realize not everyone is trying to take down the movement.
But on that note you have to remember we are up against the most powerful people in the world. Who have vast resources at their disposal. I was enlightened by a former tea party member, and later checked up certain aspects of their claims, that their movement was hijacked early on.
They brought up some good points. We will have to take risks but we should not assume everyone is a true 99%. While we may represent the 99%, some of the 99% still represent the corporations and politicians. out of greed, desperation, ignorance, or propaganda.
These are the ones that can undermine and stall the whole movement. So we should be vigilant with this.
As for Krugman, I have no opinion on him personally. Mainstream news sources always throw red flags for me. I learned many years ago that the news was manipulated and edited and often very biased. Some are outright biased while others tried to be more subtle. So NYT being a rather large publication throws flags for me.
Is that not sad? Our system is so messed up, I have a hard time trusting any news sources even ones that are seeming sincere. This is the age of misinformation and smoke and mirrors. It seems like you have to suspect everyone with any influence at all to have an ulterior motive or you end up getting burned.
I'm from Michigan, so, howdy fellow midwesterner. I hear you, and understand your points; they're valid to me. But if the movement is truly 99%, that doesn't mean 99%--with exceptions to those who work in the MSM. And Krugman is about as MSM as, well, Herman Cain is a sympathetic supporter of the #OWS.
Yes, the Tea Party was "hijacked," but remember, it really wasn't all that inclusive at the outset, in spite of people's protestations to the contrary. Since its inception, the only candidates that they supported for public office were republicans--so, no, the tent over at the Tea Party wasn't too inclusive. In fact, in April 2009, there were no democrats involved in the protests, and it was immediately about the new president--Impeach Obama signs were everywhere. Hijacked? Perhaps, but they had a very right-leaning stance from the beginning...(source: April 2009 TP protest: http://tinyurl.com/cf2v2f)
I would be careful about defining who is and ins't "true 99%". I asked, for example, in other posts, this simple question: Is someone who appears to be in the 99% actually in the 99% if they provide support for candidates who defend and are in the 1% (like Herman Cain)? It's an interesting and not easily answered question.
Your point's a good one, though: it is sad that people have to be wary of MSM, but that's where we find ourselves. I think the good news is that the blogosphere, youtube, twitter, and alternative news sources are growing and becoming the "consicence" of a corporate-driven media world. #OWS shot out of the gate quickly, technologically speaking, which is pretty great. I would like to see the GA become a video recorded process so that there's full transparency--something that's missing in our current political system.
The other good news? Knowledge is power. If you read Krugman, for example, yes, there's a liberal bias to what he writes, but underneath it all is a theme of fairness and equality--and distrust of both parties. This is, at its core, is what the #OWS is all about, and Krugman lives and breathes that shit. Do the reading; do the work, empower yourself. If you like what this internationally recognized anti-corporate economist has to say--and dude, as a technical writer, I can tell you, no one says it clearer or more easily understood--then great, you've learned something. If it doesn't resonate with you, all you've lost is a few minutes, and you can ignore him from now on.
One last point, then I'll go away: If someone is going to comment on the subject of this post--Krugman's article--the least they should do is read it and figure it out for themselves whether it makes sense. The Krugman haters clearly didn't do this. To me--and I just tweeted this (@groobiecat)--it's one of the best explanations of what's going on and why the (hard) right is so afraid of the #OWS movement.
Be wary, sure, but don't ignore people who you think are "mainstream," because like it or not, that is the majority of the 99% of the population.
I think i should be more clear on what i meant by the true 99% remark. Not everyone of the 99% think we are fighting for them or think we should be. To them, we may be liberal hippie socialists as one put it after i cleaned it up some. From their perspective, we are against them and America. I still consider them the 99% from my perspective. A phrase that comes to mind here is " I may not agree with everything to you say, but i will defend your right to say it." This is similar. I do not agree with their stance but i still consider them one of the 99%.
Now here is the problem. In reality, they are really against us. They see us as socialist hippies or some other misperception.To them we are the enemy. Some people have the corporate propaganda so deeply imbedded in their head, that we might as well be terrorist. Even though we fight for these people for all 99%, we still must be wary of the ones who are very much against us.
I agree the tea party was mostly a right side agenda. The right wingers started out doing what they thought were right. It was quickly seized by a "sub group" of the GOP and then it was really twisted into a political tool that worked for the politicians, instead of bringing any change to the political system. All it ended up doing was trying to divide us more.
The same holds true for OWS. It has left wing undertones. But even as a liberal, I agree with some typically right wing changes. Because i know really they are necessary. We cannot fix only half the problem.
Overcoming the perception that we are a left wing group is something we need to work on. And i been trying to reach out to conservatives as much as possible and show them that we are all the 99% and we need to change the system because its not working for the majority. It is working for the minority. And that change involves concessions on both sides. But i truly believe we can do it. Because, unlike the politicians, we sincerely want to fix this.
I do like youtube because users can post the actual video instead of the heavily edited or the professionally shot( bias included) network video clips. You can also get many different videos of the same event in many cases which really lets you grasp the full picture from different perspectives.
Personally, I did read his article before commenting. I read or watch everything before commenting on it. I read articles and watch news, i know is going to be biased against us just so i know what the other side if facing. I do like what he says.
But i also see it in another light. The puppet may be with us but how attached are his strings? Everyone in the media has a boss unless you are the CEO. The puppet master may not be pulling the strings now, but he may be like that fisherman waiting for the perfect time to set the hook.
This is a political war of words and ideas( and lets hope it stays in that realm) and from my point of view he may be for us but still has to work for what i see is the other side. And i do not blame him or anyone else. We all have to do what is necessary to survive. I just do not want him to be used and then the hook set, once we have a level of trust for him and it comes to haunt us.
I will grow to trust him over time, probably. And when i see how much freedom and how much rope his bosses give him to write what he wants even if it would hurt the image of the ones who sign the checks then i will be more trusting.
Good points; and it sounds like you're making a serious effort to be open. And I "hear' empathy and humility in your "voice," as well--something that, well, sadly is in short supply everywhere.
"But i also see it in another light. The puppet may be with us but how attached are his strings?"
Mmm, not Paul Krugman. He's an economist, but he's been tilting at windmills--and the establishment for a long time now. He's a radical working in the mainstream world, and he's one of the great minds of his (my) generation. Paul has a weekly article, and a daily blog (called "The Conscience of a Liberal."). I believe that if you read what he says--and much of it is way beyond my comprehension as a non-economist--you'll find that just because he works for the NYT, that he has more credibility than a lot of other "non-corporate" people.
Basically, we have to be careful not to judge, in general.
As for "working for the other side," well, yes and no. The New York Times is a corporate-owned paper. They have some idiots writing for them, but they're also one of the best papers on the planet. Again, I'd be careful with the "us" vs. "them." You're trying not to do that with the right. Great. You need to be equally vigilant not to dismiss the "corporate left" entirely--and make no mistake, the NYT is a left paper, especially compared to how far to the right our country has lurched.
I will only say this: his bosses don't tell him what he can and can't blog or tweet. He's probably the only pulitzer and nobel prize winning economist on the planet--he's kinda earned some leeway from the big shots... ;)
But regardless, we all need to sift the wheat from the chaff.
BTW, if you're interested, I've posted a new thought-piece on the philosophical differences that divide at www.groobiecat.blogspot.com
Peace.
Groobeicat
Even a liberal today needs to admit that some of the things we need are typically right wing ideas.
People should have the ability to become rich. Their should be distinct classes But they should be closer together with a healthy middle class. We dont need a welfare state. People should be given the tools to succeed not supported through other peoples successes. We should take care of our young our elderly and our disabled. We should take care of our vets. We should be able to project military power anywhere in the world with ease, that doesn't mean we have to thump our chest every time two nations has a dispute. We should have a strong military but it should be use almost always for defense, and if times are good for us can be used for humanitarian assistance.
We should humble ourselves and stop sticking our nose in every one elses business. The world survived for thousands of years without us, they can handle some of their own problems without our often forced help. Taxes need to be fair but progressive and the govt needs to be smaller and more efficient. I am not saying people in the govt do not work hard many of the them do. But the red tape and other BS just makes for unnecessary expenses. The govt is overcomplicated.
States should have more rights. We should give their senators back. It is important that the people are represented but also that each state itself is represented as part of the union.
We do need to get rid of the influence of unions. Unions are a result of failure of leadership of the govt and a failure of the govt to protect its citizens. They should not even be needed. They have become corrupted and really are no different than businesses. I have seen this personally from the inside. Unions when they were started were needed. They were good. Now they are no better than the corporations.
Some of these things i gave more of an independents view on. Really that is me trying to concede to the other side.
Their are some things i will not concede on such "civil unions" and other such rights. The constitution says "We the people", Even though i am straight, the people means all the people to me. Not just the ones that have our ideals. This is the main reason i stand by this. I do not apply this to illegals through. Because they are not citizens. They are visitors without passes. They should not be entitled to all of our rights but being able to vote. I have no problem with them legally entering the country and again from experience i can say this system of becoming legal has way to much red tape ( i tried to get an ex g/f who was a brit legal. It was a nightmare.)
I really have no idea why i threw all that out there, lol
"We dont need a welfare state. People should be given the tools to succeed not supported through other peoples successes. We should take care of our young our elderly and our disabled. We should take care of our vets."
re: tools: You mean, like high quality education? Because I believe that's a basic human right. But you'll find that's not the case with many on the right, many of whom think it should be fully privatized.
re: welfare state, great, but we should also take care of the elderly and disabled (you didn't mention the poor)? Are those contradictory concepts? What's your definition of "welfare"?
re: vets, absolutely. So, you're against the cuts to the Veterans Administration which are supported by the tea party members of congress in the House?
"We should humble ourselves and stop sticking our nose in every one elses business."
Agreed. And good lucky getting "international humility" on the list of talking points with the right. Arrogance is a point of pride with that crowd--not an epithet, just the truth.
"States should have more rights. We should give their senators back. It is important that the people are represented but also that each state itself is represented as part of the union."
Not sure I understand what you mean by "give their senators back."
"We should humble ourselves and stop sticking our nose in every one elses business. The world survived for thousands of years without us, they can handle some of their own problems without our often forced help. "
BINGO. This is a standard Ron Paul plank. This is definitely an area of mutual agreement. I just think that the vast majority of the left, and many in the democratic center would no way agree to this. Oil interests? Um, yeah.
"But the red tape and other BS just makes for unnecessary expenses. The govt is overcomplicated."
Yes it is. Have you ever thumbed through the Code of Federal Regulations? I have, and it's impenetrable, and written by lawyers, who have no remote idea how to communicate a simple concept without pouring verbal shit all over it.
"Unions..." That's a tougher one. I was management in a recent strike, and a scab, and saw both sides. For most people who don't work on weekends or work 12 hour days, they can thank unions for that. I think there needs to be some oversight, but I don't think they should be abolished. Free reign by corporations--and the completely absurd, huge payoffs to CEOs who screw up companies should not be legal. Sorry, it's out of control, and it's immoral.
"Their are some things i will not concede on such "civil unions" and other such rights. The constitution says "We the people", Even though i am straight, the people means all the people to me."
Now you're getting to the crux of the matter. The irony for the TP folks is that they believe that government should stay out of our affairs--except when it shouldn't! So, gay marriage and a woman's right to choose? Those are derailed by Christian orthodoxy, and should not be denied personal freedoms. Here's the "homogeneity" of the right: One of us!! And frankly, there will probably never been common ground on these issues--although that would be nice. The old republican party (think Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan) might have been amenable, but those folks are quaintly moderate in comparison with today's republican party.
"Illegals." Well, yeah, no. Sorry, you had bad experience. But heres' the truth: Unless you're a Native American--you're an illegal immigrant. That's the bottom line. Our immigration policy is insane; absolutely nuts. Diversity is our strength, but the far right is more interested in xenophobic border closings than in accepting the phrase on Lady Liberty: Bring me your hungry, your tired, your huddled masses. Just like the drug war, we fucked up our immigration policy so much that the 9/11 hijackers were allowed to do what they did because the system is completely incompetent.
Anyway, good to hear the ideas. Sounds like some good starting points.
"re: tools: You mean, like high quality education? " - Yes affordable/free higher education. Perhaps make it govt paid at the junior college level/ first 2 years. Then self paid for any additional education beyond that. But also better lower level education. I really think education should be a year around thing. Teachers spend 1/2 a year reteaching things kids forgot over the summer. Also free/govt paid should be depending on your GPA for the previous year or if it is your first year combined GPA for high school. The GPA would be around 2.5 or so. Thus an incentive to actually apply yourself. I think we put to much on our teachers and not enough on our students. Students need to understand the importance of learning.
"What's your definition of "welfare"?" - For this specific discussion providing for people who will not help themselves. For poor, i use this analogy: If me and you are running from a bear and you trip and fall, then i will help you up but i am not going to carry you if you are still able to run on your own. Thus i do not mind help people up and providing a "cushion" when they "fall down" but i do not want to carry their weight if they are able to do it on their own.
"So, you're against the cuts to the Veterans Administration "- In short, Vets need better treatment not worse. From what i know and it may not be completely accurate. Their benefits, while in theory may seem good, are not that great in practice. We need to take care of these people, I am not saying "baby" them but they put their lives on the line for us. We need to make sure that sacrifice isnt a thank you and dump you in the gutter. I think the vet system needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. If vets were CEOs, their hospitals would all be 5 star rooms with a wet bar and a jacuzzi and room service with food that doesnt taste like it was made in a factory in indonesia. You know that isnt far from the truth too.
"Not sure I understand what you mean by "give their senators back."" - Pre 17th Amendment. The 17th changed the system to the current system. Before then State legislatures picked Senators. Thus people were represented in the House and States in the Senate. I think we need a strong federal govt probably stronger than what the founders intended. But i also think states should have a say in that govt and they really dont seem to have one to me. Since we are suppose to be union.
.....to be continued
".....communicate a simple concept without pouring verbal shit all over it."
""Unions..." That's a tougher one." - Unions were great when they started. But not now. They are corrupted. Also my biggest point here is the failure of govt. Part the governments jobs is to protect the people that it represents. And unions are not needed if the govt properly did this from day 1. Thus, if the govt did its job, unions would not of had to do the job for the govt. I believe many of the employee rights laws now came in to affect after they were already widely in practice by union members. Kind of a day late and dollar short thing.
" Now you're getting to the crux of the matter." - To me this is like saying "We the people, except Christians......". I am an atheist by the way. And i have used that argument before with the " YOU CANT DO THAT!!!" reply.
-"But heres' the truth: Unless you're a Native American--" - I dont see that at one because i ( my family) was an immigrant that we should have open boarders. My family came here by legal means from Ireland. All i am asking is that everyone else does the same. Do it legally, and i have no problem with it. But do it illegally, trying to beat the system and you are no better than the corporate CEOs to me. Your using our system to better yourself without really contributing to it or being an actually part of it. Your using the parts you like but not the parts you dont. And thats not fair to the rest of us who use the system for the good and the bad.
Krugman. What a wank. You might as well have hitler and Stalin as your poster child's.
Oh Crap...run for the hills. Remember Enron!
paul krugman is a 1%er
If Krugman starts agreeing with you, beware...
why?
Krugman and Stiglitz know the way
awesome bit. Seems that now people are growing balls to speak up about it all.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/help-me-understand/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-a-love-story/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/sociology/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/energy-101-solution/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ethics/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/break-your-left-right-conditioning/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nader-kucinich-and-paul/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/5-facts-you-should-know-about-the-wealthiest-one-p/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-am-homeless-joe-jp-morgan-chase-accidentally-for/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/can-we-end-the-fed/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-end-the-federal-reserve-and-what-do-you-replac/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/teaching-the-occupation/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-needs-structure/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-not-your-personal-billboard-for-your-politi/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/systems-theory-primer/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/organize-inform-take-action-effect-change/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/better-website-needed/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nonviolence-the-only-path/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-not-against-capitalism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-is-not-about-political-stripe-it-is-about-bas/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/national-initiative-for-democracy/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-third-political-party-the-movement-of-the-middle/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/300-fema-camps/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/ows-is-a-false-flag-operation/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-this-will-not-work/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/paradigm-shift-now/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-proposal-for-focus/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-the-bullshit-posts-and-get-organized/
Geez can't you guys do any better than the tired old frustrated progressives who have seen their chosen one fail in the White House?
Sorry to hear this. Krugman is a fool.
Sorry to hear what? Did you read it? He actually repeats--and has been repeating for many years now--what everyone else knows, to wit: there's one economy for the wealthiest bailed out and there's one economy for everyone else--including you.
Is any of what he's said false? Yes or no?
"What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families."
Address the specifics please. Calling someone a fool without explaining how or why and with no data to back up your attack makes you the fool, I'm afraid.
What an idiot Krugman is. He's an advocate of the govt largesse that the elites benefit from. He proves himself to be the supreme hypocrite with this article!
Sorry, but that's wrong, read it:
"Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland." (emphasis added).
This point--eliminating the speculation that led to the meltdown and bailout--is what your own TP compatriots believe in. Do your homework and address specifics, and perhaps people will take you more seriously.
First, I'm not a tea partier. Second, I was referring to Krugman's calls for more govt spending. You know, the money that the rich get from the govt. He advocates the means the fat cats use to fleece us then calls them out for doing so. What a maroon!
1) Not a TP'er, okay, my mistake. Apologies.
2) You misunderstand what he means by more government spending. He means to create jobs and kickstart the economy. Here's how it's supposed to work in a down economy:
a) provide stimulus money for the economy through incentives to states for public works and infrastructure projects and incentives to corporations to hire, and training and employment-focused initiatives.
b) more people working and buying goods and services--as a result of even termporary jobs due to stimulus--gets corporations to ramp up production and hire more people.
c) The people who are hired spend more in the economy, and that helps keep the engine of capitalism chugging away until it's self-sustaining.
This is macro-economics 101, and it has worked in the past. Google Work Projects Administration, the program that FDR implemented to get the economy going again. You can disagree with him on that, but at least understand what you're criticizing, and it's not about "spending money to give to the rich." That was the bailout package, not the stimulus package, which wasn't big enough to kickstart the economy.
3) He's not a maroon, which is a delicious cookie. He's a pulitzer and nobel prize winning economist who takes complex economic theory and makes it accessible to a "lay" audience.
4) He's on your side, so please read up before you accuse....
Perhaps Krugman's not a moron, I just wanted to use a disrespectful term. As to the WPA I know about it, you shouldn't assume that those with opposing views are ignorant. The New Deal didn't work, that's why it was the Great Depression. Just like today the Keynesian spending didn't work. It only prolonged the suffering. http://www.fee.org/articles/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/
Contrast that to the Panic of 1921. It was short because they took the opposite approach, cut taxes & spending allowing the economy to heal quickly: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/
So, wait, cutting taxes works to fix the economy? Just not from 2000 to 2011, right? The Bush tax cuts haven't exactly helped the economy, have they? And one of the reasons that the FDR plan started out well, and then stuttered, was that he followed contractionist policies.
Spending under Obama wasn't enough to kickstart the econmomy; Krugman said this all along. Of course, if you supported Bush, there's not much you can say about the economy, is there?
I mean, he oversaw the worst meltdown since 1929. Is that a win? That's not a win. And he has to own it. As the t-shirt says:
"I screw you all! But thanks for blaming the black guy!" - George Bush
Who you saying was a Bush supporter? Not me, that's for sure. What Bush tax cuts? It's all a shell game: http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-government-revenues Government revenue, a real measure of what the govt takes in continued to rise until the economy tanked. Then, of course, revenue dropped. Anyway, taxes aren't the only thing that affect the economy, stop pretending you don't know that.
No, FDR's policies didn't work. Just like today he stimulated an unsustainable bubble out of the economy, not a real recovery. That's why it fell apart as soon as govt spending slowed minimally. Even the New Dealers said they failed:
Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot."
I know that taxes aren't the only thing that affect the economy. Not pretending that it is.
It's not a shell game; the tax cuts remove money from the treasury, increase deficits, and are skewed to benefit the rich. That's not a shell game, it's the plain truth. Obama extended them in December last year, much to the consternation of his erstwhile supporters.
You never addressed my main points about stimulus spending--it's supposed to be a temporary process in times of cyclical recession. That's all. I'm with Krugman on this. You're not. Okay.
I do agree that deficit spending and inefficiencies need to stop. But even Madison warned against concentration of too much wealth in too few hands. You're a historian-type, you knew this, right?
We are free today substantially but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when that day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions.
One point about stimulus spending. This is about boosting aggregate demand. This is where the Keynesians fail. The aggregate demand idea is a fraud. The govt isn't going to spend the same way businesses and individuals earning a paycheck do in a free market. This is why the distortion of the economy by govt spending is an unsustainable bubble. It can only be maintained by greater & greater spending, which can't go on forever without soaring inflation.
You make a good point that tax cuts can be unfairly implemented, but that doesn't make them a bad idea. We want to take revenue away from the govt. I would like to start with ending the income tax & abolishing the IRS. That would cut govt revenue in half. If they would be kind enough to then cut govt spending to the point of at least a balanced budget the economy would recover nicely. Bear in mind that Bush (nor Obama) cut spending which is the other half of the equation. So in recent history increases in debt have occurred. This isn't an argument against tax cuts it is an argument against govt spending.
Of course I agree with Madison on the concentration of wealth. That's why I favor free markets. It is through taxes, spending, & regulation that the elites achieve this. Madison also said "...armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. "
Sorry, no, Bush didn't cut spending, and neither did Obama. That's not supported by the facts. Here are the facts on that:
Bush doubled the national debt with massive deficit every fiscal year. In fact, Bush was the first president in US history to submit a budget with a trillion dollar deficit. Obama was the second president to do that.
http://tinyurl.com/6fhbrte (source: Treasury Dept.)
These are the hard facts from the primary source. Two wars. A corporate-focused drug plan. And tax cuts that decreased revenues and increased our national debt.
Some tax cuts can be used to induce hiring (payroll tax cuts, for example), but in general, the Bush tax cuts benefited the wealthiest, and Obama signed them into law last December, while getting nothing in return. Ugh.
You favor free markets. Okay, the free market--zero regulations--is what caused this in the first place. Regulations don't make people wealthy--corporations hate regulations. No one forced those banks to offer zero down loans. And no one regulated those credit default swaps or the mortgage backed securities. AIG was free to do as it saw fit. And they got a bailout as a result.
Sorry, a typo, I meant to say that they didn't cut spending.
Actually, corporations love regulations. For example, there's no agitation on the part of big pharma to end the FDA. This because the regulatees control the regulators. It is through agencies like the FDA that big pharma controls the market.
Well, you have a point there, cheers.
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
The draft declaration isn't libertarian friendly at all. We need less govt control of the economy not more.
It's not intended to be. There are deep divisions. Libertarians are not going to like what a lot of #OWS is about. This isn't a libertarian movement. It doesn't have a label...
It may not have a label but it does seem to have an ideology & it is definitely not the ideology of liberty. The declaration is just advocating more of the same regime that the elites use to get over on us. Once again the left is being played.
You have a definition of liberty--it's not set in stone. But you do reveal the real division: you guys think you have the answer, end of story. Anyone else who doesn't, doesn't "get it." That's fine. But that' not a way to try to enter into a dialogue--if, in fact, that's the intention.
As for being played, so far, the only movement that's been played is the Tea Party movement, part of which, at least, is apparently a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers.
But thanks for the feedback.
Peace.
Groobiecat
[ There's an #OWS election process here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/come-to-the-nyc-general-assembly-on-10-15-12-to-st/ ]
[ There's a draft Declaration here: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ ]
You're right about the Tea Party (which doesn't include me). It's been co opted by the Republican establishment. Let's hope the Democrats don't do the same with OWS.
BTW, I stand by the statement that the left has been played. We live in a world of the progressive movement's creation. Hasn't worked out too well, has it?
Lastly, yes I do think I have the answers, but stating them is an invitation to dialogue, how else who you start one?
This is not the world of the progressive movement. Taxes were sooo much higher under Eisenhower. Reagan believed that closing loopholes for the rich made sense--he didn't call it class warfare. When Reagan is considered a moderate, that's somehow progressive?
No.
The country has lurched far to the right, and the deregulation of the banking industry is the free market on steroids--an irony that no one in the TP or RP supporters seem to grasp.
As for dialogue, I think you start out best by not deriding those you would talk with, to wit, by not saying that they've been "played."
Deregulation of what? The financial industry is one of the most heavily regulated there is. Just try to open a bank tomorrow without jumping through the govt's hoops, you'll see. "The data also show that, adjusted for inflation, expenditures for the category of finance and banking were cut by 3 percent during the Clinton years and rose 29 percent from 2001 to 2009, making it hard to argue that Bush deregulated the financial sector." http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
Here is a list of progressive ideas that we still have to live with: central banking - Federal Reserve, income tax, regulation of business, govt control of education, govt control of the means of communication, govt control of transportation, war on drugs, imperialism, centralization of the govt
The financial industry was seriously deregulated so that there were no bounds between speculation and lending--the result was derivatives and increasingly worthless securities. What do you think got bailed out? The financial industry melted down precisely because there was no regulation!
Income tax is progressive? Right. It's only been in place since the founding of our country. So, yeah, no, that's not a "progressive" idea.
Control of Education? How, exactly? Through the marxist local school boards?
Means of communication? LOL. Right, so, FOX is heavily regulated somehow? The MSM is all as conservative and anti-analytical as possible. Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert and some in the blogosphere are keeping the record straight.
Transportation? How so? Yes, TSA is such a burden! Of course, we helped create the terrorist threat ourselves through our indifference to the plight of the people of Afghanistan after we helped them kick out the Soviets, but whatever. Details.
War on Drugs: This is "progressive"?? How so?
Imperialism: This is "progressive"?? How so?
Centralization of Government: As in, oh, wait, since the beginning of the republic. Hmmm.
Well, hey, it's been fun "chatting"!
Peace.
Learn don't mock. The income tax was implemented in 1913 & was championed by the progressives.
Of course the govt controls education, how can there even be a question about that. They're called public schools for a reason. The universities depend on govt & corporate money, that's control.
Yes, the corporate media is controlled & yes it is heavily regulated. Try starting a TV channel tomorrow without jumping through the govt's hoops.
The govt owns the roads, most trains, buses, airports.
The war on drugs & the prohibition on alcohol were progressive causes. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 & the Harrison Tax Act of 1914 passed during the progressive era.
"Although it was highly controversial, Prohibition was widely supported by diverse groups. Progressives believed that it would improve society as generally did women, southerners, those living in rural areas and African-Americans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Development_of_the_Prohibition_movement
Imperialism was openly advocated by Teddy Roosevelt & later disguised as fighting for democracy by Wilson.
If you don't know that the progressives advocated a stronger federal govt than the people of previous eras I don't know what to say:
“We are the first Americans to hear our own countrymen ask whether the Constitution is still adapted to serve the purposes for which it was intended; the first to entertain any serious doubts about the superiority of our institutions as compared with the systems of Europe.” --Woodrow Wilson, 1885
1913: my bad. But not all taxes, which have been around since our inception. They were "income taxes" by another name...From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. Etc.
Media Regulated: This is not important. Old media is just that, old media. There are local cable channels, but cable--and radio--are not the issue and less relevant today. The Internet is the great equalizer--and thus far, that's unregulated.
Government owns highways not "the roads." And government ownership of these and the other modes of transport is egregious and beset with onerous regulations how?
Imperialism has been a part of our country--through progressives and conservatives--throughout our history. This doesn't make it progressive. Bush invaded Iraq--he wasn't terribly progressive.
You are trying to shove complex issues and history into convenient boxes. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Conflating "regulatory burden" with the highway system is illogical, for example.
The truth of the matter is that the government serves a useful purpose, and has for a long long time. Take this conversation we're having. It's a direct result of federally funded research by DARPA. If you've ever received or sent mail? You've enjoyed a government service.
Conflating all things government with all things bad isn't just illogical, it goes against what actually helped make our country as powerful as it is.
Look at Finland and Germany. These are countries that have very robust social services safety nets, highly educated populations, and yet, they're incredibly strong, economically. They just make set national priorities and execute. They don't call it progressive or socialistic or free market.
We limit ourselves by such superficial labels that, ultimately, mean nothing...