Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Simple Economics

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 10:33 p.m. EST by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Investment drives technological advancement. Anyone who is part of OWS and uses their computer/Facebook is being a hypocrite. I saw someone post "At OWS" on Facebook from their blackberry. It is laughable.

94 Comments

94 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by Kane (38) from Carson, CA 8 years ago

a) OWS is not a Luddite movement.

b) You're confusing direct investment in business with speculation via financial instruments.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Kans, look at unended's comments and tell me that this is not a luddite movement. And investment is by definition speculative. When goldman gave a loan to steve jobs they were hoping it would be paid back, but more importantly they were hoping it would be majorly profitable

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) 8 years ago

the sky is blue so it must be a smurf. you know they have these type questions on a real IQ test right?

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

So you are saying that investment is not necessarily speculative? Well show me an investment that is a sure thing, I'd love the tip.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) 8 years ago

yes, i do believe you understand what i was saying.

[-] 1 points by Kane (38) from Carson, CA 8 years ago

Unended represents himself, not the entire movement. If you can't comprehend how this is a collection of voices trying to start a serious conversation about what the problems are, and their severity, you're never going to understand OWS.

You're convoluting direct business loans with speculative instruments. If you can't tell the difference between cash instruments and derivative instruments I'm not sure what to say other than "go read a book".

[-] 1 points by Esposito (173) 8 years ago

Steve Jobs enlisted the help of Mark Markula to attract 'venture capital' to their enterprise. He couldn't get a business loan. He had no business.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

I am not confusing the two. It is all part of the system. You ever think banks would not be willing to make you a home loan or a business loan if they weren't hedged in some derivative?

And to be honest kane I do agree with you to some degree, but I feel like most people in OWS do not have your understanding of the way finance works. Look at all of these comments, its absurd

[-] 1 points by Kane (38) from Carson, CA 8 years ago

Yes, they would make that loan but they might expect more collateral or a higher interest rate. Not all derivatives are bad but it should be obvious that they're potentially toxic to the economy at large in a way cash instruments aren't. The degree of allowable leverage, and total value of all derivative contracts compared to actual global assets is a serious cause of concern.

On the subject of posters here: there are a lot of voices and it's a messy process but this is how Democracy works. Talk and try to avoid being a jerk so people will be receptive to your message. Good ideas are contagious and bad ones tend to be discarded with lots of words in-between. If you still want to participate by all means, keep posting.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

I agree with basically the entire first part of your post...and I agree that it cause for concern and even protest. But you are a great minority among the protesters. My problem is that people have no business arguing if they are uninformed. I am not trying to be offensive, however historically demonstrations such as this one have been successful because people knew what they were protesting about.

Trust me, I work in finance, I see what goes on. I see the greed, but I also see happy consumers. I want protesters to acknowledge the need for the financial system and corporate america, and then address what should be done to correct problems within the system. I find it so absurd that people will march from wall st to midtown and then relax with a grande macchiato at a "neighborhood" starbucks

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

I decided to go ahead and respond because I have never discouraged investment when it benefits the consumer or mankind. I also believe one of the things that is lacking is government investment of the kind that created the internet, the space program and the interstate highway system. Commercial interests only become interested in these kinds of things once they become profitable, which is usually a long time after they begin. This movement and no movement could survive long without communication. They are using those things that are available to advance the common good. Either way, I am sure you are not implying that we need more government investment, even though historically that investment has proven the best for advancing in a short period of time. The Manhattan Project is another example.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

I decided to go ahead and respond because I have never discouraged investment when it benefits the consumer or mankind. I also believe one of the things that is lacking is government investment of the kind that created the internet, the space program and the interstate highway system. Commercial interests only become interested in these kinds of things once they become profitable, which is usually a long time after they begin. This movement and no movement could survive long without communication. They are using those things that are available to advance the common good. Either way, I am sure you are not implying that we need more government investment, even though historically that investment has proven the best for advancing in a short period of time. The Manhattan Project is another example.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

If government was consistently better at doing it goods and services would never make it to the private sector. you listed 4 or 5 different projects.. Important ones no doubt, but complete government control of consumption is called communism. and that is a separate argument.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

The goods make it there when they become cheap enough to do so without support from the government or when the government incentivizes private companies to do those things, thus making them cheaper to do. I would disagree with one statement though. Complete government control of consumption is facism and totalitarianism. Communism would be complete control by the people of consumption. Because that plays against human nature, it is too utopian and ends up in centralized planning every time. That is why it does not work.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

FALSE.

I'm an inventor. INVESTMENT DOES NOT DRIVE TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT.

Curiousity and a driven individual does. Ever tried to raise money for a startup company in technology? I have. It's never "We give you money, you make it."

It's always, "You make it, show it to us, if you can get it to sell, THEN we'll give you money."

Spend some time in Technology startup circles and you'll see how technological advancement works.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

My point is that yes it takes creativity but it also takes investors to get the ball rolling. As someone in tech startups, I'm sure you know that it would literally be impossible to start a successful tech company without investors (unless the inventors were already rich and could fund themselves). Creativity provides the spark but investment is the fuel that keeps driving advancement.

You are attacking the wrong part of my argument. And tech is the perfect example of why investors are so crucial.

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

Then I think you're mistaking the primary target of OWS's complaints. The investment banks. Investment banks practically never have a hand in 1st to 3rd round startups. This generally is how startups get their funding.

Nascent stage - Friends and Family

Incubator stage - Angel investors

Profitability stage - Venture capitalists (although a lot of us call them Vulture capitalists)

Only AFTER all these stages are done do you see the large Investment banks actually go in. And often times, the large Invest banks cause parts of the start up to self destruct, because it's no longer about providing innovative quality products to the market, it's about providing share holder value.

I've been through 4 startups, and I've got my own on my technologies. I've seen a once promising biotech company get destroyed by Investment Banks. Investment Banks DON'T drive technological advancement. And they're the ones most of us are pissed at mainly for corruption of the government and that they got bailed with our tax dollars for their stupid gambling... with our investment money!

I do have a personal axe to grind with them though from my startup experiences.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

First off, I know how it works, I work in finance (not at a big bank)

I know that there are huge problems with investment banks/the government that need to be addressed, but my problem is with how most of the protesters are going about talking about and acting on the problems

this poster clears up what i mean a little bit better

http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/

[-] 1 points by quadrawack (280) 8 years ago

Well, part of the problem is we're assuming that all of the protestors are represented by the greatest faction. As an example, I'm left leaning libertarian. I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal. Not surprisingly, I find myself quite often in the republican camp. I can definitely state that the socialists, communists, marxists don't represent me. It's a situation where the loudest voices are heard. Once upon a time I was part of the Tea Party, when it was primarily similar to an indie band. And then the neo-con fascists took over it. I left in disgust.

I think it'd be more accurate to describe this as essentially people who are fed up with the corruption, because that's the one thing I hear over and over again. I also happen to be very fed up with it. Other than that, trying to wrap the group into one idealogical tent is impossible.

[-] 1 points by Mariannka (63) 8 years ago

I am amased at how Occupy works. Would like to have your input on the movement to understand it better. I am asking you to answer 10 questions and I am happy to share results if you are interested. Please, take some time for it: Thank you! http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Q3NF7QB

[-] 1 points by Shortsleevedmagician (17) from Hibbing, MN 8 years ago

We live in a capitalist society. Where else are we going to get our stuff? If we lived in a socialist society, it wouldn't be fair for us to say to supporters of capitalism "Hey, all of your belongings are produced by public enterprises," because it's the only choice you have.

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 8 years ago

These investors you’re talking about move to; Asia and Latin America long time ago. The remainders do create or redesigns technology for a subscription fee not for any humanitarian reasons.

[-] 1 points by NintyNiner (93) 8 years ago

It takes two to screw us! Politicians to hold us down, so then the Corporations can do the screwing!!! Politicians need better rules to follow to prevent lobbying! We tax payers should fund important elections, so the best person wins and not the one with the most money!!! The movement needs at least these demands!!!!!!!!!!! Pass The Word!!! Lets Get It Together!!!

[-] 1 points by BadAss0830 (68) 8 years ago

What's laughable is that RIM would rather pay Mexicans next to nothing to manufacture Blackberries than pay a U.S. working a decent living wage. You can't even opt to buy american because there are none made in america. NONE! That's laughable.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

Wrong.

Technological advancement has proceeded for all of history. It is only within the last few hundred years that more modern economic systems appeared that made investment such a big part of the picture.

Human creativity exists independent of the economic system of any particular point in history. Humans are curious and inventive. We don't NEED economics to be so. It just so happens that it is the current paradigm.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

why do you think people go through the trouble of shipping plasma screen tv's to stores across the country? because they are creative? it is all economics - The allocation of resources

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

I am talking about mass distribution of goods. The reason you have things that were produced across the country...so don't try to compare current consumption to consumption the way it was historically

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

Mass consumption of goods? You mean that rapacious appetite for things we don't really need?

Investment drives ECONOMIC advancement. If advancing an economic paradigm can be furthered by squelching innovation, then that will happen, just as much as innovation might be used as a tool for it.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

call it what you want but just take a look at the things you have and tell me it the fault does not fall on the consumer as well

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

My assertion is that innovation is intrinsic to humans. Economic motivations are not necessary for humans to innovate. This directly addresses the opening post. But rather than you providing anything that would disprove my assertion, you invoke mass consumption, then distribute blame to the consumers.

My assertion still stands. Innovation does not require economic incentive. Economics incentives can and do cause innovation. But it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition.

Humans innovate. Sometimes within an economic framework, sometimes not.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

And how do you expect innovations to get to the retail stores?

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

You just don't get the point, do you. You started by saying "Investment drives technological advancement". The implication here is that without investment there would be no technological advancement. But this is false. Technological innovation does NOT require investment. It Requires creativity and curiosity. It requires a need to be filled.

Within a capitalist economy, investment DOES drive technological innovation, but it also pushes innovation in directions it might not otherwise go. Latisse is a really good example. Why is it such a critical health issue to have inadequate eye lashes? How much money was invested in this drug for growing hair? Would the brains and technology that it took to invent this drug have done more good for society if the were applied to something else? Are there promising avenues of research for curing Alzheimer's that are terminated because their potential return on investment is too low?

Investment is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to induce innovation. It is only within our current economic structure that it looms so large.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

The only thing your argument proved, and i'm not totally disagreeing with you, it that investment causes technology to go in a different direction. You still have not showed me how goods make it to the shelves without investment. It is really not even debatable.

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

You basically changed the subject. You first said investment drives technological advancement. When I countered that assertion, you changed it to investment is what brings goods and services to the shelves.

How did goods change hands before we had economy steeped in finance? Finance is not necessary for the exchange of goods any more than investment is necessary for innovation. Finance is just the modus operandi of this culture. But finance is not like gravity - it is not an inviolate principle of the universe. It's just the way we do things for now.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

then you are blind. it is all around you. open your eyes. name one single successful corporation that didn't start with private funding, then to angel investors, and then to venture capital.

poor people with great ideas do not have to means to fund large companies

And i do not consider some inventor in his garage "technology" that advances society...it becomes that when it reaches EVERYONE

you are extremely ignorant

[-] 1 points by wavefreak58 (134) 8 years ago

Calling me ignorant only diminishes the efficacy of your other words. I did not say investment or finance had no purpose - only that they are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for either innovation or the exchange of goods. This is the fundamental ignorance within you - that you can ONLY see what is happening NOW, and that you raise what is currently going on around you to an absolute inviolate truth. 1000 years ago, finance and investment were NOT the drivers of social change. It is quite possible that 1000 years from now the drivers of social change will be utterly different yet again.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

ok, just answer how a poor steve jobs managed to manufacture and ship a billion iPods. that is all i want to know. how did they get from his brain to shelves in hong kong?

[-] 1 points by caseyarden (4) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Perhaps, but would you recommend that the movement NOT utilize the clear advantages of social networking? Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot pretty hard. Might as well use their developments against them.

[-] 1 points by caseyarden (4) from Austin, TX 8 years ago

Perhaps, but would you recommend that the movement NOT utilize the clear advantages of social networking? Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot pretty hard. Might as well use their developments against them.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

As if you are just using it for protesting...

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

That's REALLY simple economics. However, you seem to be an extreme advocate for free markets, yet you are using the internet. How can you use the internet when it was created through public funding?? Why are you driving on roads that are maintained by something other than private industry?? My point is, we're not boycotting everything created by private investment, dipshit.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Did I say anything about public funding? That has nothing to do with this discussion. But since you asked i think using success in public funding is the worst possible argument.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

" i think using success in public funding is the worst possible argument." Then boycott the internet..

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

I am not boycotting anything. My point is that private investment is historically more successful than public funding.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

That's only just as ridiculous as the argument that publicly funded endeavors are always better than privately funded ones. There exists certain areas where public funding just does better and the same applies to private funding. The questions you're asking yourself are way too broad.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

end bush tax cuts , rebuild America bridges and roads , invest in middle class not banking class thats the occupy wall street message.

[-] 1 points by smate1 (72) 8 years ago

Move the conversation towards getting the money out of campaigns first and you will gain a real voice in Washington for the things you believe in.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

dylan ratigan I like but he blames both sides like their equal and thats misleading from what really has stopped my ideals that I believe in

[-] 1 points by smate1 (72) 8 years ago

We need to focus. Blame will not unite us. This is the one issue we can all agree on. We can argue later.

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

thats true I digress

[-] 1 points by smate1 (72) 8 years ago

Spread the word...we can duke it out later.

[-] 1 points by unended (294) 8 years ago

Labor creates technology, not investment. Investment is merely the means by which capital gets assigned. You do not understand economics.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

And who pays for the labor?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Sometimes government. Sometimes private investment. This isn't a luddite revolution or an attempt to abolish all corporations. It's about companies that would rather invest in legislation to rig the playing field in their favor rather than invest in themselves to actually do something that creates value. You obviously are not listening to the protesters and have concluded this is some kind of socialist movement that hates all corporations. You're wrong. I have money invested in the stock market, yet I support this movement. Not only out of my own principles. But because I actually believe the principles advocated by the protesters will produce a business environment where companies thrive based on creating value rather than their ability to manipulate the law.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

I hope so. To be honest I think politics (in business and government) is the problem, but I think a direct attack on the financial system, in the form of occupy WALL STREET, which allows us to operate as a first world nation is not the way to go.

[-] 1 points by unended (294) 8 years ago

That is up to us, isn't it?

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

You think a small business owner has the money to fund a business before a single good is sold? No. He/she goes to the bank for a loan.

[-] 1 points by unended (294) 8 years ago

Banks can be nationalized. Then who pays?

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

No they cant. Nationalize banks result in hyperinflation. Look at zimbabwe, look at Nazi germany. The Fed was an attempt to create a nationalized bank and i know how OWS feels about the fed. And you cant stop rich people from investing their money. There needs to be and will always be private investment.

[-] 1 points by unended (294) 8 years ago

Whether or not we should do it, you see now that the choice is ours, yes? And that individual investors do not, in fact, create blackberries. People who work for a living create blackberries. And facebook. And computers.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

And I make my point again...who pays those people to work? Their companies yes but there will always have to be an initial investment. And if there is any hope for growth of mass production investment will be necessary as well.

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

So you believe the only thing that drives technological advancement is paper money? If you want to put it simply that is what you are really saying. And you are dead wrong. PASSION drives it. The problem is that in the rigged system (not a truly free market) innovation that cannot be bought is shut out. So the only remaining passion is for fake paper. People are taught to be free, free to pursue and live their passion they must first accumulate enough paper. OR they need to sell their value to someone who already sold out.

This isn't about destroying corporations. It's about freeing them. Freeing them to LIVE AND DIE in a free system. Bailouts are socialism. Is that hard to see? And we have people crying because people are complaining about the bailouts? Bizarre.

[-] 1 points by GlobalCrier (54) 8 years ago

Friday, December 22, 2006

When the Lies are Told More Often than the Truth When people in powerful positions of authority in the government, religion and international private sector state a mistruth or a fact that is outright wrong, it is taken as the truth by the establishment of that nation. Too many nations of people are misled by the half-truths of their religious and government leaders that the mass media tell to them on a regular basis. Not knowing the truth to the problems we face as a nation of people in an interdependent world makes the problems worst.

There are many good examples of this on all side, all around the world. It is the degree and magnitude that varies in the importance. The people in power that want absolute control are the biggest threat to peace and security of the world. Great Britain Empire dominated the world during the 19th and early 20th Century as the United States has since the second half of the 20th Century. It’s the sustainability of the rapidly evolving world that is in questioned. With more of the world’s resources being allocated for wartime than tools for peace and prosperity.

When one nation consumes five times its share of a non-renewable natural resource and it is borrowing the money to do so. When the so-called riches nation in the world owes more money to other nations than any other nation in the world, there is something wrong with this picture. A nation built on consumption with no savings for the future is doomed for self-destruction. The massive waist by the privilege few and the lack of decency of the great masses of poor people is the foundation of lies that are perpetrated to preserve the status quo of the establishment. http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Right, but having PASSION doesn't mean you have the MEANS to build and ship your goods around the world.

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

Sure it does. Nothing gets done otherwise. If you have no passion why would you bother trying to get your goods shipped around the world? For paper accumulation?

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

My point is that yes passion is where it starts, but how do you think those things get shipped around the world? magic? Steve Jobs had more passion than anyone, but without the big banks he could never have acted on his passion. He simply didn't have the money to turn his idea into a reality.

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Steve Jobs had more passion than anyone, but without the big banks he could never have acted on his passion. He simply didn't have the money to turn his idea into a reality." That's a great point. At the time, the banks spent time finding out where they could invest in things that actually create value. Now, the banks are sitting on trillions of dollars and can only think of ways of gambling with other peoples' money using security instruments like derivatives that are not really investments. They are simply bets placed on things that do create value and much of the money is being wasted on these bets. Unfortunately, we still have a system where banks and traders are encourage to make as much risk as possible and there are nothing riskier than derivatives.

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

You need to read a biography on him. In the end he was a globalist egomaniac who used Chinese CHILD labour to build his "dream". Those days are OVER. If we need to oppress and murder children to make gadgets.. that is not Prosperity or progression. That is plain stupid.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

please...you are writing from a computer right now that was most likely built in China. get off your high horse.

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

Oh ok, i will sit here in my guilt and keep murdering and supporting murder and child labor. Friend. We are here in the most luxurious barracks of the world wide prison system. Let's be clear, i AM GUILTY. Which is WHY i am speaking up about it! It's wrong! It's wrong that kids died to make me this computer. It's wrong that a million iraqis died. It's all very wrong. Maybe we can use this blood money to reach out to each other and make some real change? Or should we all shut up and be afraid? Come on. I am standing right beside you! I know you know it's wrong.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 8 years ago

What's wrong with using technology? I don't think OWS is against technology or investment.

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 8 years ago

you are wrong, who invested in edison? or in the guy who invented the wheel?- no one. when an idea's time has come, even a standing army cant stop it

[-] 2 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

my god not you again steve...I already explained this to you. And yes Edison had investors and was one of the most shrewd businessmen of his day. And it is about mass production of goods not just innovation. How do you think computers get to the shelves in stores? magic? You think steve jobs had enough money to start apple? no...he had investors that turned a good idea into mass production...technological advancement for a whole society.

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 8 years ago

dude, you are just wrong, we aren't protesting technology, or investment, we are protesting the fact that our freedom is gone. get informed, and join us

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

You may be 100% right. BUT...

You would not have technology without wall st. If you want your freedom back, give up technology. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 8 years ago

I believe we can live with nature and with technology too, after all we're part of nature and so is everything we make too. so we aren't protesting wall street just the thugs that are in charge at momment, and the FED bank

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Well that's fair, but just remember where everything around you comes from. I caution against pushing too far. Be careful what you wish for.

[-] 1 points by LOVEPEACE (199) 8 years ago

I wish that people didn't spend so much TIME and MONEY oppressing people so that a few other people can literally kill themselves with gluttony. Is that efficiency? You really believe that the current rigged system is the best we can do in terms of fostering and inspiring innovation and advancement? NOT EVEN CLOSE. Trillions are spent BLOCKING free market and innovation. Nobel prize winning economists ALL agree that PEACE is Prosperity. This is the problem. We are slave masters. We are dominating the world with violence. This system we are waking up to is built to kill anyone who threatens it's domination. We print money and enforce it's value with Violence. Period. And it trickles down from there.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Remove the shackles, throw out your iPad.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/corporate-oligarchy/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/thetruth-socialismcapitalismcommunismmarxism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/capitalism-versus-corporatism/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/no-war/

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/where-are-we-and-how-do-we-move-forward/

http://occupywallst.org/forum/things-wall-st-did-were-not-illegal/

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/

whats laughable is you wasting the public time when all of that serious shit is going on.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

You do realize that you would not have your computer if it wasn't for a big bank backing Apple/microsoft?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

So that's the most recent investment from banks you can come up with?? That's pretty sad. I've changed my mind. Lets burn all these useless ass banks to the ground and impale all of them for wasting our time.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

ok how about hedge funds like LS that invest in biotechs for cancer research?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Well, hedge funds are very different. When you invest in a hedge fund, you're encouraging high risk. When a bank is gambling with your 401k, it's a very different story. Especially when they are proven to be using their own money to bet against the companies they have your money invested in. Were you not paying attention when Goldman Sachs was being investigated by Congress?? Not a lot of the findings support your theory of banks having your best interests at heart.

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

do you realize that while technically true thats pointlessly irrelevant, and that if some other system had existed, all the same advances would have happened? better question, then, zombot, do you realize the only reason blackberries don't have all the capabilities of desk tops is because they keep the devices primitive in order to force you to buy 5 different devices? The miniaturization has been there for 10 years. The only reason why that happens is the evil side of your so called lovely corporate banking and etc system. holding technology back as much as possible since the invention of the electric car. when did that happen? MR bright guy "my system is responsible for technology" your system is what holds technology DOWN.

now stop being an idiot, and get clued . i provided a generous clue by four. before then you could claim mere ignorance. after then, your verging into stupid.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

All i got out of that comment is that "some other system" would have to be in place in order for those advances to be made...and what on earth would that other system be???

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

something not oppressive.. like a free market system inside of direct democracy instead of a slave and caste market system inside of corporate oligarchy.What actually happens thanks to your beloved republican corporate oligarchy "no child left behind" and etc to genius is deplorable. Your civilization tortures people for being smart instead of embracing genius. You have no business making any kind of specious argument that your civilization is civilized or advanced or that its all so wonderful because the gadgets are there. DUDE. the only reason why we don't have all electric and compressed hovercars is because the corporate world kept us stuck in 1940 cosmetically redressed oil guzzlers for 70 years.

The only reason we don't have at least electric cars- same thing. The only reason why dozens of life saving technologies are not on the market. the only reason why you think there is no cure for cancer. They are exploiting disease to make people systemically dependent upon false pseudo cures.

Every last situation you IMAGINE is some impressive demonstration of corporate ingenuity i can point out ten epic fails that proves its just garbage in and garbage out.

Those blackberries are kept primitive on purpose to have upgrades for the next 20 years without bothering to do any work at all to change the basic hard ware.


http://www.oligarchyusa.com/

http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy

http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/

According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …

http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html

http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy

To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."

Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.

To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.

OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization courtesy of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.

[-] 0 points by AntiCorp (187) 8 years ago

Rich capitalist corporations suck! When the economy turns around I'm gonna go work for a poor person.

[-] 1 points by gibsone76m (298) from Washington, NJ 8 years ago

Thats very insightful thank you for your post

[-] 0 points by RonPaulFlixdotcom (73) from Kingsville, TX 8 years ago

I ask you to imagine a once free America. Imagine an America which promoted individual liberty and personal responsibility, not a welfare state. Imagine an America where the Constitution applied to every person and every case, no matter how bad the crime or criminal at suspect. Imagine an America restrained by the Constitution, due process and the rule of law. Imagine an America devoid of secret watch lists, secret prisons and secret assassinations.

Imagine a moral society which only engaged in just war and only as a last resort. Imagine an America, where the decision to go to war, is actually one declared by congress. Imagine an America which never endorsed the use of preventive wars to promote peace. Imagine an America where torture was never acceptable, even if called "enhanced" interrogation techniques. Imagine an America in which a warrant was always required to search or seize persons or property. Imagine an America which respected the writ of habeas corpus and condemned indefinitely detaining individuals.

Imagine an America where prosperity wasn't derived from private printing presses, but from true wealth. Imagine an America not ravished by endlessly spending a fiat currency in pursuit of economic growth; all the while promoting the welfare and warfare state. Imagine an America which encouraged savings at the same time destroying that very possibility by devaluing their currency through the deceitful act of controlled monetary inflation. Imagine an America where coins were still worth their weight. Imagine an American in which gold and silver were actually legal tender.

Imagine an America where children are not arrested for front yard lemonade stands. Imagine an America where you couldn’t be arrested and jailed for gardening on your property. Imagine an America without checkpoints where blood could be drawn against one's will, and without warrant. I ask you to imagine an America where citizens could make the simple decision to drink raw milk. Imagine an America which valued personal choice and responsibility above dictating morality through law. Imagine an America which allowed companies to actually protect their property and customers. Imagine an America where individuals actually had the right to their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as they didn’t endanger others.

Imagine if rights are actually derived from creation, and not from government.

Imagine now an America in which citizens understood and respected the experiment of liberty. Imagine now an America which still embraces the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Imagine now an America where the wretched refuse, the homeless, those searching for a New Colossus could venture to experience liberty. Imagine now America no longer safeguarded the liberty they sought, but only the security and secrecy of the state.

Imagine an America where ignorance isn’t sold as wisdom; and tolerance not delivered by force. Imagine an America where politicians stood behind American principles. Imagine an America where oath to the Constitution was taken seriously and always upheld. Imagine an America of resounding liberty; not one of ever incrementally increasing tyranny. Imagine America as she once was: free and prosperous.

Now try to imagine an idea. Imagine an idea so powerful, so strong in it conviction, no army or government could stop it. Imagine a return of the respect of the Constitution. Imagine a return to due process and the rule of law in all cases. Imagine a return to sound currency and sound monetary policy. Imagine the abolishment of partaking down the dangerous path of legislating morality. Imagine a return to a foreign policy of freedom and not of preemptive wars and nation building. Imagine the return to the ideals of extending friendship to all, and having entangling alliances with no one. Above all else, Imagine Liberty and understand the responsibility having it demands from each of us. Imagine America not as your Empire but as a Republic.

Freedom is a relatively new idea, liberty a young experiment. Imagine this youthful ideal lost to simple apathy and content. Imagine a chance to restore this ideal. Imagine if we had the chance to Restore America Now.

Imagine a Revolution. A Ron Paul Revolution.