Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Where are all the boycotts?

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 11, 2011, 3:21 p.m. EST by saph4ak (0) from Cottonwood, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

As a person who keeps up with the news, every day I am reading about the occupy movements all over and am proud to see all that US American Citizens are doing to try and save our country. But when I read about police brutality it is hard to know that the United States has in many ways become a police state. It saddens me to no end, and as I wait to read or see videos I am advertised too, I here Christmas songs and deals and sales. And while all this is going on I could not help but think where are the boycotts? The 99% are the consumers, and every time we buy something we are feeding the beast. If we started a pledge to have every US Citizen not buy one thing for one day, maybe this would be a wake up call for all those in charge. We are not their peons who must obey their rules, but instead show them with our dollars that we have power and say. I reflect on the civil rights movement when African Americans were brave enough and wise enough to realize that if they were going to be treated as lesser than others then those others did not need their dollars and cents and started to only buy from African American owned businesses. I would love to see this coming from the movement, getting as many people in the United States as we can to pledge not spend a cent for one whole day! From there we can continue. One thought I had was to have as many people as possible spending as little as possible, if the powers that be want every one poor and on minimum wage with no benefits then they can get an economy that reflects that. Going without, make sacrifices in little ways or big ways. Consume less, in order to show that if the powers that be think they can do whatever they want, take our rights away to protests, trample people who want to be heard and seen, then we do not need to feed the beast. We as the 99% by being the majority have the power, we just need to find the greatest source to show those that want to control us, break us, that united together we can make a change. As someone who can not take part in the physical parts of the movement I still want to help, to contribute!



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by WarmItUp (301) 10 years ago

I boycotted all big box stores this year, as did many others. Only buying from local stores owned by those in my community. I have boycotted the big bank I was with by moving my money to a small community bank. I have boycotted chinese goods by buying as local as I can find. So yes people are boycotting, I hope you are too.

[-] 5 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

the most effective boycott and revolt any and all W-2 employed tax payers can make right now, is to get a local business license proper, set up the necessary accounts, start a business of which you either get wealthy or "lose money" to offset your liability as shown when you now file a 1040 long form and at least a schedule C. Their game, their rules and it's why huge corporations get TAX CREDITS on reported profits over over 500 billion bucks.

The sucking sound of the drying revenue, which is already lower than what goes out by a loooooong shot, will gain attention and open ears to hear the awakened people's voices.

Common sense and easy, therefore it will never happen. There is no reason why you should not get an EIC if you don't make any more than 200K per year, with our without kids.

[-] 2 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

This is a great idea and merits looking into thanks.

[-] 2 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

Everyone should do it and right now. Overload the system.

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 10 years ago

You have to sustain some profit. If you show loss every year your business could be classified as a hobby by the IRS.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 10 years ago

You have to show intent to make profit. Not everyone is able to do so. Regardless, if this happened on a large scale for a few years, that'd get the point home about all the loopholes, incentives and subsidiarys for the uber-wealthy, and legally.

[-] 2 points by Misfit138 (172) 10 years ago

Whether OWS wants to admit it or not; there simply isn't enough people on board to hold an effective boycott.

[-] 2 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

How do we go about solving this then, for it is a problem.

[-] 2 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

I agree, Walmart has been on the top of my list for some time now, they played a large part in what happened to this country.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

How so, Walmart provide high quality goods at low prices? I am very thankful that I am able to provide my family with food from Costco that would cost me a lot more if I go to the Farmers Market.

[-] 4 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

Walmart undercuts worker's wages and healthcare, buys from companies whose employees are more financially needy people than any of us (sweatshops and other derivatives of the model), and funnels our money over to these foreign corporations, depleting our wealth. At the same time, they bankrupt the competition. People's dreams of owning a small shop are gone and crushed because they can not compete, and they soon find their business closed, their means of supporting their family and livelihood gone, and the lucky ones find work for some ungodly retail store (like Walmart). The money that small businesses generate is reinvested into the community upon which they serve by over 400% more than Walmart.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

As an example, my grandmother used to have a toy store but went out of business because she could buy toys cheaper at Toys R US than the supplier. The big businesses, craft, toy, Walmart, they all have special deals with manufacturers. You really can't compete.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

So why is your grandmother better than me? Why should I pay higher prices to her just because she owns a business?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

I don't like monopolies, insider trading, cronyism.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

I don't either so why would I support your grandmother who is attempting to take a higher price from me than Walmart? I don't get ti.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Lets take a clear example of monopoly, collusion that everyone would agree on. Would you still think it a good idea to give your money to a monopoly? What if they all decided to jack the price artificially for everyone?

[-] 1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

I have no problem giving my money to a monopoly if I receive a high quality good. If they have complete market control and raise the price I will not buy it and move to a complementary good.

I just don't understand how your grandmother's business should be allowed to garner more revenue versus my occupation. What are the hurdles for getting this exalted position?

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

OK, I am done here. I cannot do anything to help you if you will support a monopoly out of greed.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

why should I worry what the owner of monopoly makes if I get what I want - a high quality good at a cheap price. Should I worry about how much money you make?

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Saying crap twice doesn't make it sound better. This is the problem with the right. They think if they keep talking and blabbing the same rhetoric, that is good enough. My advice to you is think about what is morally right, think about how supporting corrupt systems actually hurts YOU in the LONG RUN, and read a history book so that you don't repeat mistakes.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

So far you haven't answered my questions and now you are resorting to profanity.

Is this now a moral question, okay again why should your grandmother be treated differently than me and my family. Did she work harder, did she go to a better school?

I don't like corrupt systems either and that is why I am all for treating everybody the same and economic growth because with growth comes change and opportunity. Look at all the new inventions and services that have been produced over the past 30 years, it is remarkable.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

Saying it a third time means you have mental issues that I'm am not qualified to deal with.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

I'm not the one employing profanity to make my point, and I am the one with mental issues?

Since you are not answering my simple question, I will make some assumptions. It sounds like to me that you want to create a protected class of people which are all related to you and your grandmother and you want to game the system so that you received more benefits than the rest of us. You want your own brand of cronyism. Am i right?

[-] 1 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

The problem here is if your price is raised you will pay more either way, either on your complementary good or what you really wanted. And your being forced to purchase something that you did not really want, you should be able to buy what you want. But with Walmart you buy what they have to sell you, a cheaply made product that was made to be thrown out in 5 or 10 years so you buy another one, which by then will be even more poorly made. With no competition from other retailers and inside deals made with manufacturers you do not have an option to try and find something, that while a few dollars more, would last the rest of your life saving you much more money in the long run.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

"But with Walmart you buy what they have to sell you, a cheaply made product that was made to be thrown out in 5 or 10 years so you buy another one"

Is that correct? I don't generally shop at Walmart (the aisles are too crowded and the parking lot is a nightmare, and I just like to shop at small local markets) but according to the ads in the Sunday paper they seem to carry the same brand names as everybody else. And of course this is not an issue for grocery or other perishable items. By the way, it seems like everything these days is made to last 5 years or less; who keeps stuff (other than heirlooms) longer than that? A new cell phone came out and I was going to get one. I thought about it for a few weeks, but by then it was off the market. Things seem to become obsolete as soon as they hit the retail shelves.

To the other person (jflyn64) the Walmart type stores have economies of scale, and can make a small profit on each item (a tiny percent of hundreds of billions of dollars in sales is still a nice piece of change). Rose's grandmother, on the other hand, has to make a bigger profit on each unit sale just to break even. So the grandmother has to "take a higher price" than Walmart for a comparable item. Whether you should pay that higher price or go to Walmart is a value judgment you must make, based on your circumstances.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

You are absolutely correct about the advantage Walmart has over smaller stores. They can drive down prices by purchasing in bulk.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

The public believes that the Walmart goods are both quality and cheap or they would not be do successful.

Monopolies will implode on themselves due to no competition. No one is really worried about Microsoft now are they.

[-] 1 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

This is why an uneducated consumer is Walmarts best customer which is all the more reason to target Walmart with protest to educate the public on their business practices and the result of those practices. I am sure that alot of consumers who shop at Walmart already know about the negative impact these stores have on our communities and shop there to save money because they cannot afford to do otherwise or simply do not care. I am also sure there are about an equal amount of people who do not have a clue as to what happens to small local businesses and the local economy when these stores are allowed into communities. So not only should we boycott them but an all out protest in front of everyones local Walmart for the duration of the holiday season is a great idea that merits some development.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

But why should small business owners be protected when my family is not? Why are their dreams different than mine?

I can't comment of the godliness of Walmart.

[-] 2 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

And no, small business owners are not protected, they are attacked like the American dream has been since its creation, just like your dreams have been. The business model of corporate America has effectively destroyed the dream of owning a small business or being a doctor without going into extreme severity of debt and no ability to ever climb out of debt.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

But without Walmart there would be no competition for goods and prices would be higher. So why am I the one that has to pay the higher prices?

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

It is the razor's edge that many people stand on. I need the lowest price goods I can come by to feed my family in the present, but by doing so I am feeding the systematic destruction of the United States (at least as a first world country). I guess the moral is just make the changes you can stand to in the situations you can stand to without putting your family in immediate danger.

[-] 1 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

They undercut small businesses and destroyed main street America while playing a huge role in sending our jobs oversees. These are not high quality goods although they are sold cheaply. Unfortunately there are no more high quality goods available in this country except for a few holdouts still producing things here. I go out of my way to seek out things I need that are produced locally, most furnishings I have were purchased from thrift shops or estate/garage sales. These things may be old but were made in the USA and work and will continue to work far better than the things available from oversees. And while things at the local farmers market may cost a bit more these purchases are supporting you local economy and buying local ensures the money spent stays in the community it was spent in.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

Many people believe they are high quality and they are voting with their pocket books. Historically, US produced goods were always considered lower quality than European goods.

I love that I am able to purchase organic eggs and milk at Costco which is much less than the local farmers market.

[-] 2 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

Europeans have universal healthcare. They have great social services. They work less yet can afford to buy local goods and can still afford to save a little. Americans are more stressed out, working annually over 15% more hours than our European counterparts. We have more economic stresses, less time for family and everything else, and our work is probably (a vague generality like your supporting clause) a bit sloppier due to the human aspect of "production", or the making of things by human beings to be exchanged for goods or services in return. Also, we have less time (as American workers) to debate, research and discuss such issues as boycotting, where to shop, why certain stores are worse than others, cook, clean, paint, study etc... which is why we are in a predicament, such as having to have OWS, as we do now. I have worked at Vons and Whole Foods, and have found great differences in qualities of foods, and understand what you mean by knowing the difference in quality between organic (generally) and conventional. I'm glad that with our busy schedules that we have had time at least for food.

[-] 2 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

Unfortunately we, the US taxpayers, are going to paying for that European leisure (through the IMF). For some reason we are also over there defending them against a Russian invasion (someone should tell them that the Russians went home).

[-] 1 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

The defunding of the European economy happened (much like ours) in conjuncture with the lowering of corporate taxes. This same conundrum occurred simultaneously everywhere. Free trade was the original main driving force to lower tariffs on other countries to ensure our corporation could traverse the globe searching for cheap labor and no environmental protection laws. With the movement of the corporate production came the lowering of taxes to keep headquarters of corporations in rich and powerful USA, EU, and not so much in China.

The IMF has a defunding and bullying effect, with many "donations" being demanded repayment by any means necessary. This threat of potential eviction from the IMF forces countries to repay higher interest loans (like the mortgage crisis) by cutting much needed programs. The taxpayer pays their share while the corporation doesn't, resulting in a lack of funds. The lack of funds doesn't come from social programs, but from lack of income from the most labor-intensive, money funneling system of finance- the corporation. The same goes for here as everywhere.

Our bases do not make sense overseas except to aid in riot control overseas, for you're completely correct, the boogieman Russia has left. Except now it's for "counter-terrorism" purposes (i.e. the new Red Scare).

Also, Coriolanus, what's wrong with social programs that we are all taxed for to fund? I hear this argument being made by mainly Tea Partyists and Republicans, but I've never heard of a good explanation.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

"Also, Coriolanus, what's wrong with social programs that we are all taxed for to fund?"

Where did I say there was anything wrong with such programs? On the contrary, if we weren't paying to protect Europe and Japan against real or imagined enemies, and if we weren't getting ready to bail out the Europeans, we would have more funds for such programs for our own citizens.

A argument can be made that many social programs do not achieve the desired goals, and are stymied by the law of unintended consequences, but that is a different issue.

[-] 1 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

From a tactical point of view, to indebt the Europeans by American "aid"-meaning loans that have to be paid back. We are planning to potentially aid Europeans by obligating them to return our assistance. This is being done with tax payer dollars through the world bank, not the IMF, both of which are an international social program designed, initially, "generate economic growth" among other things.

This program, the IMF, is fundamentally centered on a social society. We do not have one, and therefore the "European leisure" will cease and a "European fascism"- like the one in the United States driven by corporations- will take its place at this current course.

Another fact about the matter is that before this crisis in Europe broke out, we had the money (and still do) for social programs to exist and for less working hours. We will still have it afterwards too. The problem is that the few who have all of the wealth in the country are not paying their fair share. That is where the problem lies, and I don't see how else to fund everything aside from increasing taxes on the rich, OR making them pay the full amount required by law already, without certain tax loopholes.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 10 years ago

MOST Americans have a good work ethic. In greece they rioted because the govt went bankrupt paying for social programs. europe is not better because of their work/job/hours/vacation. they do less than the average american worker and expect more from the state. who pays for this?

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

I would love to have more free time for leisure but unfortunately I can't because I have a family to feed and taxes to pay. So please tell me how eliminating Walmart makes my life better, because I don't see it.

I can't comment about living in European countries as I have only visited. My mother and father emigrated from Ireland to the US because there were no jobs there. That has changed in the past 15 years as they lowered their corporate tax rate.

[-] 3 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

1) Walmart does not have a variety of prices nor do they have quality products. Looking at the ingredient labels on makeup and seeing the list of petro-(crude-oil-based) chemicals should be a clear indication that these are not quality products. The toys are made with estrogen mimicking polycarbonate (Bisphenol A is the specific chemical released in ALL plastics at a rate (at room temperature or cooler) of .2 nanograms per hour to .8 nanograms per hour). A study released by government-funded research found the negative effects of exposure to include: abnormal weight gain, insulin resistance, prostate cancer, and excessive mammary gland development. Human levels of BPA are higher than the levels the animals were exposed to in the experiments. Not only is the the actual plastic itself harmful to consume anything out of (including plastic wrap), but the production of plastics pollute the environment with hydrochloric acid (along with vinyl chloride and dioxin (these toxins can produce sever illness like cancer, diabetes, neurological damage, reproductive and birth defects). These are your "quality products", so please enjoy.

2) The support of Walmart has indeed supported factories in countries where human rights violations occur readily, willingly, and are ingrained in the demoralization of the workforce (i.e. tactice used by supervisors to keep people working (usually fear tactice)) including, but not limited to: rape, human rights violations, workplace environments that are not sanitary, over a 12 hour day, no days off, no vacation, pay for under $.50/ hour, rent driven so high as to force workers into debt, who then have to work more to pay off their debts (an age-old tactic of perpetual indebtedness (personified in educational systems today- where students are forever indebted to banks for student loans (brilliant catch-22))). All clothes factories, unless specifically labeled "fair trade", who supply goods for Walmart come from such brutal exploitation of foreign populations. To benefit from this by purchasing from their stores is immoral, and goes against the Abrahamic religious beliefs, among other religious institutional beliefs.

3) If Walmart makes YOUR life better, good for you, but it does not for anybody it associates with except for the 1% (This number is clearly an opinion, like your statement. You are clearly entitled to your opinion, I respect that, but here's mine).

4) In a previous statement, you said, "Should I worry about how much money you make?". Well, shouldn't you? Should we not all as being created free and equal, with equal rights under the constitution, all have the right to make an earning upon which we all can not only provide food for ourselves and loved ones, but also for a roof over our heads. The luxury of a computer that you and I both have, shouldn't that be for everyone? If not, what makes us better than everyone else who can't? And are those differences something that we should allow ourselves to justify the inequality and increasing inequalities that exist between us and them? For all of the good and bad of religion, from a Christian perspective, isn't Jesus calling for an end to greed and over-accumulation of wealth? Providing for your family is good, I am not belittling you for the most noble and, at times, challenging task and responsibility that humans have. But to shop locally, for someone else who has (most of the time) higher quality goods, who exist to provide competition to the big box chains' mass produced cheap goods, isn't the knowledge that your money goes directly to someone who lives in your town, maybe even a neighbor, who can now send their children off to school, provide food for their table, and afford a roof over their head too, a much more pleasant picture. Not only are goods in local stores a higher quality (usually), but the workers are generally happier, get paid more, are more knowledgeable of the products. If they aren't you can call the owner, tell them their employee sucks, and they'll find someone better. You can call the owner directly, get what you want in, they'll order it for you. You are not sent overseas to someone waiting to take your call.

5) Higher prices are an issue repeated over infinitely. I am now at the point of that ever important issue, even more so due to the economy. Ever heard of the expression, you get what you pay for? I have shopped everywhere a shop exists. Walmart does not do price bidding for people. Price is non-negotiable. Local stores do negotiate prices. Walmart's board games and movies can be bought cheaper somewhere else (thrift stores, some local stores, online). We already went over the poor quality of products (I have in the past bought clothes that were stitched cheaply and ripped without exception (as a kid, my mom went clothes shopping there for me)).

6) Ireland has the lowest tax rate on corporations, yet they went bankrupt. In fact, since 1995, although corporate tax rate has dropped in the E.U. by 11.8% (total average- this fact was pulled from the official E.U. financial report from 2010), budget deficit has also increased astronomically during these years as a result of shorted income from the corporate finance sector. That is why countries are going bankrupt in the E.U. and not because of the social services. It is the fact that not everybody has paid their share in society that is the true cause for the unequal distribution of wealth, the financial crisis, the austerity packages (resulting in an across the board cut of social services).

side note *pulled sources from wikipedia and http://www.lenntech.com/polyvinyl-chloride-pvc.htm

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

So should we include Jewish tradition into our economic model? In my opinion a computer for every person is not required but that's the point. Each consumer should be allowed to make that decision.

I think what you are saying is that you want to equalize what every individual receives? That seems to be the general belief here with many people. If so what is the proposal, tax everybody the same percentage -70%- and then redistribute that way with everybody receiving the same stipend?

[-] 3 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

The point that I made was a reflection of how "quality goods" at Walmart are cheaper because they destroy: family structure, environment, income (etc...). The true costs of the product (living wages, pollution control and clean up, work safety environments, survivable wages, worker health) are not associated with the cost of any item(s) purchased at big box stores (the original argument you presented was about the "higher quality" of Walmart products and their "affordable prices"), not about religious influences on business structure.

Also, the point about the computer is that, according to labor statistics and unemployment rate, 1 out of every 12 people don't have the choice of buying a computer or not, for they are unemployed. The following link has last years poverty levels that tell exactly the luxuries that most of the bottom earners in America can afford.


(side note, Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and your reference was taken out of context pointing towards a miscommunication of my original point which was to show that morally, most people (over half of the world's population) would be disgusted by these products and boycott them due to religious beliefs)

The problem with taxing everybody 70% is obvious: 70% of $10,000,000 (certain CEO's annual income before taxes) still leaves the remaining 30% to be $3,000,000. After these few individuals "earn" $3,000,000 in one year, we pay them the same amount that someone who earns $16,000-$25,000 a year, or $8,000-$15,000, or unemployed?

What is the true value of the work of the people at the top? For the job duties that are required of them, I'd say no more than 10 times the lowest paid worker at most, but even 100 times the wage of the lowest paid worker is still 1/5 the total income that most CEO's of the top companies earn annually. All of this statistical jargon is to say that if a national minimum wage has been established, then what about a maximum wage?

A maximum wage would prevent people from hoarding money and either reinvest in the business, reinvest in the employees, or the remaining money is saved up for hard financial times, or given to fund the government.

The problem with both of our ideas is that the initial problem of people profiteering off of our labor while they do next to nothing except sit in meetings and have headaches all day is not addressed. Timeless and throughout history, during each and every period, the masses, us people, put our faith into the dogmatics of institutions (religion, state, corporations), and our faith is taken and abused. These systems are tyrannical to their core, and imbalanced, causing flows of power and wealth to be focused for brief periods of time until people see the abuse, tear down the system (or the system becomes de-emphasized, losing its power and popularity with the masses), and in tern, someone sees a loophole somewhere, jumps on it, creating a new system that follows the same inevitable ending. The only real solution is education, and that is becoming increasingly unaffordable for most people (including myself).

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

So your point really is about classes of people- the CEOs versus the workers?

Do you think if you put an upper limit of salary this would fix what you see as wrong? What qualifications should we set for this CEO class and for the worker class? Are you born into these roles?

[-] 1 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

I'm not talking about fictional society, I'm talking about our society, so clearly we are not born into CEO's. I also stated later (indicating an incomplete reading of my posts) how neither your idea, nor my idea would work.

Also, another clear indication of not reading previous posts fully is your comment on Jewish tradition, for that is not something that I ever stated prior to your incorrect interpretation of the proceeding statement.

This idea of yours is something I don't understand, and you should expand on about the CEOs being a class. Also, I have clearly stated when I am interpreting your ideas, while you have incorrectly summarized mine.

Instead of just bland misinformed critiques, an expansion of your thoughts should be provided to ensure a greater depth of conversation, and understanding of the subjects at hand.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

Sure, I don't question the value of somebody's work and I don't seperate people into different groups. I believe people should have the freedom to do what they want in life and if that means being a CEO and making x a year, that's fine with me. I have no comment on how well they are qualified or how good a job they do as the shareholders take care of that.

I don't care how much you make. I think you should be taxed at the same rate as everybody else. That doesn't mean I don't care for you personally. If you are in trouble or can't feed your family then it is the community that should step in to help via both religious and non religious groups.

I also don't think that government should be involved in people's purchases of goods trying to help small businesses over large businesses. Let the people decide. The people have decided that Sears no longer provides quality and value and it is the shareholders of Sears that are being hurt by that decision.

[-] 2 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

Sears was bought out by K-mart years ago. Why can't certain people provide for their family? Because they are undervalued by the people who make lots of money. Why do they make lots of money? because they say so, and their friends with weapons (the government) stand by their side to protect the rights and property of "everyone". The property that they own was build by and created by the people who do the work and then go humbly to the community to beg for their help. Is this not backwards? What help has the government given to small businesses? I'll tell you. This is a list for eligible loan and grant moneys to local businesses courtesy of grants.gov (SBA does not do small business grants or loans) 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries $6 million for most retail and service industries $28.5 million for most general & heavy construction industries $12 million for all special trade contractors $0.75 million for most agricultural industries Note how nowhere listed were eligible small business owners of shops listed. This is the only data I could get for small business aid. Nowhere is there easy access to hard numbers as to how much financial aid actually makes it to the small business owners annually (hinting at being an insignificant amount or at least less than corporations).

On the other hand, in agriculture subsidies alone, we have our representatives literally dish out BILLIONS of dollars annually to the largest farms for a plethora of crops. Billions on food alone, yet we can't afford socialized healthcare, and the privatized healthcare is expensive. $600 a month for just one person in my family to be added on, making my payments $900 a month for two people. That's almost as much as rent, and between the two alone, more than what I make a month at one job working full time.

So our society is based off of a parametrized caste system where there is still the top few people in society whom the masses of populous grant the ability to shape society to their will. If you are fine with other people telling you what to do, when and how to do it, and give up you own freedoms of personal choice and ability to choose how to function in society (i.e. to become a slave, or indentured servant, or the working poor), then yes, why do we not stop kidding ourselves and allow CEO's who are embedded with government (most high level governing officials either own or make their way into a high pay low work career after leaving office(i.e. Goldman Sachs corporation)) to take all of the money, instead of just most of what the working classes create for all of society?

So in your mind Jflynn64, what exactly was the point of freeing slaves in the civil war? For that matter, what about the 8 hour workday, sick leave, and all other worker's rights that were fought for and achieved by the working class only through blood, strikes, boycotts, and civil disobedience? Nothing? Let's just sit back and allow a natural degradation of human rights, social order, the world in which we live in, until we are are enslaved again, used until we die, and discarded to make room for more production. At what point is it that you lost hope and care for humanity?

Dollars and cents equivocate to food, life. If there is not enough wealth to go around (clearly, there is), then disease, death, starvation is inevitable for a percentage of the population. This means that the amount of concentrated wealth is directly dependent on the amount of people who starve, can't afford health insurance, a home, or food on the table (or have to make a decision on which one(s) they can afford). People who make an incomprehensible amount of money have nothing else to do with their money (which literally is directly proportionate to the amount of power and influence someone has) but to try to accumulate more wealth and more power. Contrast this last statement with the fact that people are starving because they are not able to get a job due to their not being enough competition and a concentration of wealth.

Wealth is also equivocable in terms of speech. Most people watch tv, and commercials run are paid to be out on the air and compiled by large corporations who have agendas of pushing their products onto uninformed consumers to buy their products.

I believe that, in your case, that all their time, money, and efforts, finally paid off, which may be why the Occupy movement is not quite as popular a movement as it should be.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

If it makes you feel any better the hedge fund that bought Sears and Kmart is not doing well.

Your comments are well stated and very elegant in describing the human condition. I know economics but do not know religion and philosophy and I think that is what you are trying to address?

Can we ever solve human nature, I am not sure. I will tell you I know many of those people from Goldman Sachs you write about and there are a lot of bad people and good people. So I don't have an answer for your thread as you have delved much deeper than I.

[-] 1 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

I was just pointing out that:

1) a lot of bad comes when numbers, not people, are dealt with. What makes sense on paper does not create wealth necissarily. 2) I was bringing up humanitarian points, using establishments like religion (that have established in their doctrines the facts that human suffering is bad) as support for my argument. 3) The lack of compassionate thought and real world implications of most corporate cost effective measures have caused the system to, logically, fail. Purposefully or not. Thank you for reading, and we have both walked away with something gained out of this conversation. For the record, I am not baneful or spiteful towards anyone who is just doing their job at the top, but the fact of the matter is that the saying, "don't hate the players, hate the game," is all too applicable here. This game of pushing products that no one needs, polluting the environment, killing innocent people, effectively enslaving the poor, this game has got to end, and a better one be played, if any at all.

It is all too easy to forget people, which is why we do anything in the first place.

[-] 1 points by raz (32) 10 years ago

Just because many people believe something does not make it true and people are free to do what they want with there money. I am also glad that you are happy with your purchases of eggs and milk, and if the money you save is making a difference in your life thats even better. I only have control over my own pocket book and to me supporting my local economy and the people who live around me is more important than saving a few dollars. And if you can find products made in the USA pre 1970 you will find the quality to be superior to anything made anywhere.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 10 years ago

You could be right about quality pre -1970, my evidence is only anecdotal.

[-] 1 points by imhotep3223 (81) 10 years ago

Boycott money....bring back trade.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

Occupy not-for-profit organizations.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 10 years ago

I suggest you do a little research and choose one or more corporations that you feel don't deserve your business, then start your own boycotts, like many of us have. It's going to be extremely hard to get a ton of people to agree on one target or a specific day or product to boycott. Consequently, it'll probably never happen. Although you may not think your personal boycott is making a dent, in the long run, as more get on board, the impact will be felt. Don't wait for anyone else. This is something you can start immediately. Personally, I'm boycotting probably a dozen businesses both multinational and local. Wal-mart, McDonalds Corp., GE, PepsiCo, and a number of others. I don't care if they don't feel it, to me it's the principle as much as anything. Feel free to respond if you want any more feedback or info.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 10 years ago

They are happening. Its just that so few people are doing so that businesses don't actually care.

[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 10 years ago

You ask and the KTC delivers:



Here are your boycotts.

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by TheMaster (63) 10 years ago

Nordstroms, Macys and Neiman Marcus were packed last Saturday at the local mall.

[-] 1 points by rosewood (543) 10 years ago

Boycotts are difficult for generations socialized within self indulgence, consumerism and materialism . Even some of the most aware, shirk at the thought of witholding dollars...dollars, the passport to dreams. So it seems so wrong, subconsciously, to use one's dollars like bullets for economic warfare.

When this generation and movement, can globally use targeted and coordinated economic boycotts as an effective means of containment and resistence, then we can say OWS and a generation, have fully picked up the torch of resistance and the fight for economic justice.

Until we can achieve this social and political developmental task, OWS full effectiveness and potential will not be seen.

Unfortunately Americans, and many others, are so individualized, that the capacity to have a global movement target one transnational corporation; while still doing your own personal boycotting thing; seems unachievable at present; a situation no doubt that has been noticed by the transnationals and their embeded agents, who make sure it never happens.

[-] 1 points by Briggs (36) 10 years ago

You'd be surprised when people become educated and motivated the capacities of their willpower. It is a matter of getting people on board, like Misfit 138 says, motivation, and endurance. We as a people have been in the passenger seat too long and have become complacent, I agree with you on that. However, I disagree that it is futile to persuade people to boycott- if it is, then we've already lost.

[-] 2 points by rosewood (543) 10 years ago

No I always propose boycotts; it wasn't my intention to suggest futility. I do tend to think that by the time Americans can use this effectively ; the police state will be totally out of control as the adversary is moving faster and more effectively with tactical coordination.

[-] 1 points by rosewood (543) 10 years ago

Yes, I did use the term unachievable at present lol

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 10 years ago

This poster>> AND all of you idiots on this forum don't understand the society and culture you're in and how it works and how it screws all of you.

American consumer capitalist culture is based upon a TWO CLASS SYSTEM: those who are poor and those who are rich.

By selling all of you brainwashed fools mass manufactured goods: the top 1% of your society has gotten richer off your money, while all of you have lost your jobs, had your homes repossessed and gotten poorer. And none of you understand that the rich are your enemy.

All of you consumers have been SOLD on the idea that being 'rich' enough to spend money and buy mass manufactured goods, puts you into the class of the 'rich'. What it does in puts you into the class of FOOLS, SUCKERS,.

99% of the dumbed down brainwashed masses of America still believe religiously!.. That as long as they can go SHOPPING in the fucking mall... why then that means they're not 'poor'! Even though for the past 20 years these fool have been doing their shopping on CREDIT and going into DEBT and becoming worse than wage slaves: they're now in debt for the rest of their lives. But NONE of them are about to change their religion of consumption and shopping and wasting money and buying shit they don't need, because that is the ONLY fucking culture they have, and that is the only set of amoral unethical values all of YOU have also..

America is DOOMED. Unless 99% of the masses wake up and realize that the commercial corporations that feed off them are bloodsucking vampires and that all business companies for PROFIT are their mortal enemy: they will continue to scramble and fight for more MONEY and they will continue ot have the EXACT same amoral unethical, filthy stinking values of pure greed and selfishness that the richest billionaires in the world have.

The OWS movement is quietly being effectively stifled for a good reason. 99% of the American masses DON'T WANT TO KNOW THEY ARE BEING SCREWED. They don't want to know the ugly truth, and they will NEVER help anyone as long as they live, and they will NEVER change their rotten ways. They will just be slowly ground down into utter poverty: and even THEN... they will do NOTHING ABOUT IT... just like they are doing nothing about it now. The American masses: KNOW nothing, SEE nothing, HEAR nothing, SPEAK nothing and DO nothing. Only 1% of the American people have not yet been dumbed down and completely brainwashed yet. And that is pathetic farce.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

Boycott Unit 8200

[-] 0 points by TheMaster (63) 10 years ago

I spent $3500 at Lowes last night. What a great store.