Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why OWS is wrong

Posted 2 years ago on June 23, 2012, 2:28 p.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Is there a transfer of wealth in this country from the poor to the rich....absolutely. Should we point the finger at business and the rich? Absolutely not.

What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly....ever? It doesn't happen, because they can't. They would go to jail if they did. How does a business make money? They provide a product that you vote for every time you buy it. Individuals have the power to completely destroy a business if they don't like their practices, they take their money elsewhere. So where does the transfer of wealth come from if they aren't stealing your money? Through government. One of two ways a business can steal your money is through force by government, and it happens all the time. It's a hybrid of government and corporation coming together to screw the people over. The Monsanto's and the Halliburton's only exist because government allows it to occur because these corps are lining their pocketbooks....it's a fusion of government and corporation, with government being the area at fault. For without government, business could not forcibly take your money. It isn't a lack of taxes on the rich that has caused this transfer....for the rich do not steal your money, only by government can they achieve this and what follows next.

The only other way money is redistributed to the upper class is the inflationary tax. Inflation steals money from the poor and middle class and redistributes that money to the upper class - it's a nifty little scheme and you can read about how it is accomplished by going to this site:

www.hmscoop.com

Here is the quickest overview of how inflation hurts the little guy that I can find. It summarizes a complex process that is hard to grasp by reading about it. It's overly simplified, but the theory is spot on (3 minutes).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8&feature=player_embedded

When has the biggest transfer of wealth in this country occurred? The last 40 years....after the gold standard was abandoned (1971) which was the last vestige of protection for the inflationary tax that is screwing everyone over. Check out the image of the transfer of wealth and when it began (1971) (copy and paste link below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

Or the cost of your goods since it was abandoned:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

419 Comments

419 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

When bankers effectively bribe politicians in order to dismantle regulations (that formed the bedrock of a financial system which enjoyed 7 decades of stability) ... that's corruption, stealing, criminal conduct, etc. People often say stuff like the top 1% pays a disproportionate share of the taxes, which of course only goes to further highlight the problem (they earn virtually all of the money). Moreover, taxation isn't really progressive anyway (all you need to do is compared the quality of the public infrastructure in poor neighborhoods with that of affluent neighborhoods, and you'll see what I mean).

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Who cares that it's the banks who buy out the politicians? It doesn't make any difference. I'm not saying the bankers are good guys at all. You gotta come up with a system though where the politicians cannot be bought which allows corps to screw over the people...government is the focal point. Business has to answer to you everyday...by you buying their goods. But if they screw you via government, you dont have that accountability. You have to take that out of the equation. People always talk about "oh, you just don't have the right person in office". Even if you elect a saint who is incorruptible, they eventually leave...and guaranteed somewhere down the line you get a dirty corrupt politician who will screw over the people for money once again. If you don't fix that problem, this will never go away.

[-] 2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Your claim that wealth distribution is the result of banking or business and government colluding is wrong.

The reason why Derek Jeter makes $20 million per year and 50% of wage earners make less than $26k has nothing to do with banking or money printing or inflation or business colluding with politicians. It has to do with the fact that we allocate income in this country based on bargaining power.

Allocating income based on bargaining power is completely unfair and allows a few at the top to unfairly take so much of the available income - income that they have not earned and don't deserve - that there is simply not enough income left over to pay everyone else.

Allowing income to be allocated based on bargaining power is how income is redistributed from the workers into the hands of the few at the top. It has nothing to do with banking or Monsanto.

The only fair way to allocate income is based on how hard you work..

And if we had a fair economic system that allocated income in that way, there would be no OWS because everyone would be wealthy and nearly every social problem would be fixed.

[+] -4 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

How does Derek Jeter steal money from you? Where is the transfer of wealth exactly? Do you watch baseball ever? If you do, you're part of the reason he makes 20 million.

I read your post and parts of it are very scary (while other parts i agree with). You assume we've been under capitalism...we're nowhere close to capitalism. Arguably one of the biggest foundations of capitalism is the free market....artificially manipulating interest rates is as far from that as you can get. Actually, it's exactly what you preach....government control of the economy...and it ends up in shambles unfortunately.

[-] 3 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I never said Jeter steals my money.

The transfer of wealth happens by allowing a few at the top to use their bargaining power to take most of the wealth everyone else produces.

And watching baseball is not the reason why Jeter makes $20 million. A consumer of baseball has ZERO control over how the revenue of baseball teams is allocated to the workers in baseball.

Since most of the economy is privately owned, we do have capitalism. And what you advocate, a completely unregulated, unfettered free market will make all of society's problems worse, not better! Inequality will grow completely unchecked, fraud and corruption will flourish and the poverty found in Twain's writings will return.

You can't be serious!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Since most of the economy is privately owned, we do have capitalism. And what you advocate, a completely unregulated, unfettered free market will make all of society's problems worse, not better! Inequality will grow completely unchecked, fraud and corruption will flourish and the poverty found in Twain's writings will return."

What you talk about has no basis in fact with historical evidence...at all. It sounds good..but it's wrong. Hong Kong's population went from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the wealthiest in a few short decades through the "capitalist" terror economy you speak about. You chart economic freedom (more free market) vs the amount of money people make, unemployment, GDP per capita, etc. etc.....the more free an economy..the more likely the people are to prosper.

You're completely wrong "becuase most of the economy is privately owned...we have capitalism". What is the one thing that creates demand for investment by those private firms? What's the one thing that controls the flood gates of funding in this country to certain areas of the market? The one thing that controls the entirety of the private industry to make decisions on investment etc.? The interest rate....which is the foundation for the economy to work in a healthy fashion....it is controlled by a central organization that was enacted by government. From your boy Jon Stewart (who i watch everyday) interviewing allen greenspan (40 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-sk6-gbEBc

"And watching baseball is not the reason why Jeter makes $20 million. A consumer of baseball has ZERO control over how the revenue of baseball teams is allocated to the workers in baseball."

Watching baseball absolutely increases DJ's paycheck...are you kidding me? You watch baseball your feeding the advertising/investment machine that is paying the guy. Without viewers, it would crumble.

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"Hong Kong's population went from one of the poorest countries in the world to one of the wealthiest in a few short decades through the "capitalist" terror economy you speak about."

All of our wealth comes from science and technology, not capitalism. Capitalism is just a system that allocates that wealth unfairly.

Russia also went from a poor, undeveloped, peasant society to a super power in a couple of decades. So should we also implement a tyrannical totalitarian society?

.

" You chart economic freedom (more free market) vs the amount of money people make, unemployment, GDP per capita, etc. etc.....the more free an economy..the more likely the people are to prosper."

The wealth of a country depends entirely on how long it has been developing. The US and Western Europe have been developing longer than any other country. They began industrialization over 200 years ago. They are therefore the wealthiest. The East only began developing a few decades ago.

But out of the West, the Nordic countries are the richest and they are also the most regulated with the most socialism. And in the East, China is much, much further along than India primarily because they had a socialist revolution which put an end to feudalism and their economy has more centralized control.

Also, free market countries never had zero unemployment whereas socialist countries all had full employment.

So you may need to re-check your graphs.

.

"You're completely wrong 'becuase most of the economy is privately owned...we have capitalism'...From your boy Jon Stewart..."

You also should re-check the links you give me. Greenspan did not say a central bank means we don't have capitalism. He said it means we don't have a completely unregulated free market. The US has a capitalist economic system.

.

"Watching baseball absolutely increases DJ's paycheck"

It does not increase DJ's paycheck. It increases the revenue of that baseball team. But it has absolutely no impact on how that baseball team allocates that revenue. It could increase the salaries of its vendors instead of its baseball players. Consumers of baseball HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER HOW A BASEBALL TEAM ALLOCATES ITS REVENUE AMONG ITS WORKERS.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Russia also went from a poor, undeveloped, peasant society to a super power in a couple of decades. So should we also implement a tyrannical totalitarian society?"

Yeah, and then completely collapsed..probably not the most ideal society to try to copy. The Austrians were predicting it would crash as well.

"The wealth of a country depends entirely on how long it has been developing. The US and Western Europe have been developing longer than any other country. They began industrialization over 200 years ago. They are therefore the wealthiest. The East only began developing a few decades ago."

This has no bearing on what i'm saying. These graphs are snapshots of all the countries at one point in time....your taking the data compiled from all countries and charting it against freedom. There are old countries, young countries, industrialized countries, not industrialized etc. etc....its mass data on large scales...how statistics is supposed to be applied.

"You also should re-check the links you give me. Greenspan did not say a central bank means we don't have capitalism. He said it means we don't have a completely unregulated free market. The US has a capitalist economic system."

You ask any Austrian or free market person if artificially manipulated interest rates is anywhere near free market.....not even close...its what they've been arguing against for the last 100 years.

"It does not increase DJ's paycheck. It increases the revenue of that baseball team."

Yeah, you're completely wrong...if people didn't watch baseball there would be no revenue stream....no advertising money and ticket sales and guess what...the players don't get paid. How much money do you think is tied up in croquet? Not much...because it doesn't have the viewership...its all about how many people are watching that brings in the big money. Same with any entertainment industry...viewership dries up..you're not getting paid....very simple.

"Also, free market countries never had zero unemployment whereas socialist countries all had full employment."

Yeah, full unemployment making nothing and not living the lifestyle i'd like to be in. Lets take a look at some of the socialist countries and their GDP/capita income.

USA - $48,387 Socialist China - $5,414 Cuba - $5,397 Laos-$1,320 Viet - $1,374

Average household income in US - $47,300 Average houshold income in China - $10,220

Socialism = equality = everyone is poor and noone is free

[-] 1 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom (3213) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"then completely collapsed..probably not the most ideal society to try to copy"

But if it didn't crash, totalitarianism would be a viable system to try to copy? lol. No thanks. I prefer freedom.

Our wealth comes from science, not capitalism or totalitarianism. Democracy - a society where everyone has equal freedom - is the only moral, just and fair society.

A capitalist society where some people unfairly have 50,000 times more income than others - and thus 50,000 times more freedom and political power than others - is not democratic. It is not fair, moral or just.

And a capitalist society is certainly not free for the vast majority of people who are broke.

.

" There are old countries, young countries, industrialized countries, not industrialized"

And the reason why some countries are wealthier than others has nothing to do with how free their markets are, it has to do with how long they have been industrializing.

.

"You ask any Austrian or free market person if artificially manipulated interest rates is anywhere near free market"

You don't even know what you are arguing.

You claimed that America is not capitalist. I claimed it is. As proof you gave me a link to Greenspan saying our market is not free because it is regulated. What does that have to do with whether America is capitalist?

Do you not understand the difference between capitalism - private ownership of the means of production - and free markets - an unregulated market?

.

"Yeah, you're completely wrong...if people didn't watch baseball there would be no revenue stream"

Again, you don't even know what point you are arguing.

I did not claim that consumers have no effect on the total revenue a baseball team generates.

I CLAIMED THEY HAVE NO EFFECT ON HOW THAT TEAM ALLOCATES THE REVENUE IT GETS AMONG ITS WORKERS.

I'm not sure why after several comments you are not getting this simple point.

.

"Yeah, full unemployment making nothing and not living the lifestyle i'd like to be in"

Socialism in the US would mean you were guaranteed a job that pays at least $115k per year or $230k per year if you did difficult work, working 20 hours per week and a 100% mortgage at a 0% interest rate.

There is a 95% chance that is a far, far, far better deal than you are getting in capitalism. You are getting suckered. You are a useful idiot of a few rich people who are stealing most of the money you earn each week.

.

" Lets take a look at some of the socialist countries and their GDP"

And you are being conned by these rich people with moronic claims such as the one where if we don't have a society where a few rich people at the top unfairly take most of everyone's income that America will turn into China, Cuba or Laos.

.

"Socialism = equality = everyone is poor and noone is free"

And here is yet another moronic claim that you are being conned with.

Try this:

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

Once you have cleared your head of the brainwashing, here is what the real world looks like:

Capitalism = inequality = a few are super rich and have vast freedom = everyone else is broke and has very limited freedom

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We CAN punish businesses that "screw us via government" by not buying their products. If everyone opposed to corporate financing of government stopped buying products produced by the Koch brothers and others today, they would all be out of American politics by tomorrow.

The problem in our country is the people themselves. If we choose to learn every detail of the Kardashian's lives, but nothing of our representatives, we will empower those who profit by our ignorance.

If we don't have the knowledge, we will never have the power. Even a union worker in the 50's clearly understood the simple idea that cooperating with other workers against the injustice of low wages does work.

Today, that most basic knowledge has mostly been abandoned. Wages are determined not just by supply and demand, but by what workers have been conditioned to accept. If they continue to wait on the government to pass legislation proposed by a group "honest" representatives, wages will remain low.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

good post...completely agree

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

Why OWS is right ... cos you sure did NOT prove or even show that your 'thesis' had any truth or value to it !!! So now try to calmly consider :

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Take a look at the graph....it correlates exactly with what i'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

Study these graphs to really get an idea of how you're being stolen from:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

In 1971 the delinking of the dollar to gold has allowed unlimited printing of money, stealing wealth from the lower and middle class and giving it to the upper class. From the graph what do you see? Around 1971 the percentage of the economy controlled by the 1% has increased...almost exponentially in recent decades (which correlates pretty well with the exponential increase in the money supply). The crazy thing is that inflation can even explain the jumps in the graph in the 1920's when government created money creation via fractional reserve reserve ratio's being manipulated increasing the money supply. The roaring 20's...from credit creation.

Now a lot of people here believe business to be evil, and that they should be punished. Business has always wanted to make a profit, and they occasionally do illegal acts to accomplish this. But business has always been this way, with a certain percentage of them taking part in frauds etc. Between 1930-1971 (when the middle and lower class controlled a lot more of the wealth in this country) business didn't become any more noble...there were still the frauds and illegal actions taking place...with a lot less regulations i might add...but conditions improved drastically for the middle and lower class. Then 1971 hits and it goes to hell...suddenly the middle and lower class are controlling less of the wealth and it changes directions for the worse. Did business suddenly become evil again in unison? No, they've always been selfish...so you have to look for another explanation...hence my post.

I think my thesis has a lot of validity and some data to back it up. I'm not just pulling ideas out of my a$$ and vaguely thinking i may have the answer. So what is your thesis?

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

Your thesis is presented with the words "Why OWS is wrong" and that is my perhaps pedantic, point of contention and it is to that which I reacted. You say, "Now a lot of people here believe business to be evil, and that they should be punished" and again I disagree and even suggest that you are doing your 'sound money' arguments little or no good with such sweeping generalisations as it makes a 'straw man' of your arguments really !

People here are NOT against "business" - 'Corporations' - yes ; Banksters - absolutely and thus 'The Bankster Corporations' - Definitely !!

Keep your focus where it really needs to be. Many genuine entrepreneurs and business people are the victims of Bankster Occupation and Financial Crimes and they too seek manumission and a fair service and satisfaction from the financial companies !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Point taken...part of the title was just to get people to read this to be honest . I think OWS is right in many respects.

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

LOL !!! Fairy Nuff !! You got my attention and it's a good thread too !

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

In the '70's business found that they could pay labor much less by moving our jobs overseas. Middle class income has been stagnant since then. Productivity went up, profit went up. Labor costs went down. American workers got nothing from the wealth created in the ensuing decades. The 1% plutocrats grew fat and lazy off of us!!

With this new found wealth business (that you accept are dishonest!!!) bought and paid for our govt to pass right wing laws to benefit them and hurt the 99%. Furthering the movement of wealth from 99% to the 1%

So you accept that business is not "noble". That businesses "do illegal things". Well I agree. They do! If left alone (no regs) they will screw the people. AS THEY HAVE!!!.

You do not think they should be punished? Lets just change to the gold standard!.? LMFAO!!

I don't think so. Put them in jail!! Take our money back!!! Make 'em hire Americans. Stop rewarding outsourcing. Make 'em pay more in salaries to the workers. End the obscene level of salaries they give themselves.

Gold standard indeed. Thats a good way to give these criminals a free pass. Good distraction from how banks have been reckless, and irresponsible with our money. They have misused the priviledge of doing business in this great nation.

Sorry you have misplaced the 'cause. You have glossed over the crimes against the American people! Rethink it. Review it.

Peace! and Justice for all!

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You raise many important points that I agree with. I am a lifelong Dem and vocal supporter of the 99% (that is why I am here). So I hope you don't get the wrong idea when I point out that there is one thing about the 1% that I have had in the back of my mind for a long time, and is best highlighted from the link below (which is obviously pro-Repub biased). Nevertheless, I think it is something to think about, because we all know that the 1% are no respectors of boarders, just like money is no respectors of boarders.

So the question to be asked is "What will happen when they leave?" Is the guy in this link pointing to the truth or is it pure Repub propaganda? It is an interesting question to ponder.

http://actionamerica.org/taxecon/ticktick.shtml

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"respectors of boarders"? Whassat?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sorry for the typo. Respecter of boarders.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So you are concerned the 1% may leave the USA if we increase their tax to say 90%?

If they have made their money here in America they owe us. Increase the taxes we impose when greedy, selfish people try to take OUR money out of the country to avoid their fair share of taxes.

Recently saw facebook guy changing citizenship to avoid big tax bill when FB went public. Tax him up the A#@!

Increase the tax on changing citizenship if attempting to avoid taxes. Forbid them from doing business here. I think their are fools. If they can't be patriotic enough to pay their fair share. F#@k 'em.

It's not like they would be citizens anymore! We don't owe foriegners anything do we? You wanna leave?. Leave the F#@kin money you made on us and do your future business in Uruguay, and Latvia.

See ya'. Don't let the door hit ya'. Oh and don't come back either. Oh and expect us to make every attempt to destroy any business dealing you might have (legally of course)

Peace & Love.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

That is ridiculous -you said: "In the '70's business found that they could pay labor much less by moving our jobs overseas. Middle class income has been stagnant since then." The data doesn't support your thesis...median household income has increased since the 1970's.

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Real-GDP-per-capita-and-real-median-household-income.jpg

You have a very limited understanding of the gold standard. Unfortunately people who talk the way you do, have not studied it and how it protects the people in history. From Allen Greenspan.....a supposed enemy...and before he was Fed Chairman and pure in thought:

“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.” “Gold and Economic Freedom"

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't understand.

But I do understand that middle class income HAS not gone up in any meaningful way for almost 40 years. That is clear. I know that execs now get 300-400 times more than average workers now, and 40 years ago it was only 40 times (still too much)

I know the dishonest businesses that you admitted "do illegal things" have benefit immensely from the massive profits they've reaped when they sent our jobs overseas and improved "productivity".

Now they sit on all that wealth (our money) and refuse to use it to create jobs. Which is what they agreed to do when we agreed to buy into this fallacy of tinkle down economics. Well they have breached that agreement when they failed to create jobs. We want our money back? With interest? and I think we are justified in demanding 29.99% interest!!! LNFAO..

Hows that. Is that clear? I wanna be understood. My "thesis" is that they took our money under false pretense, breached the contract with American workers, and we want our money back. With interest.

Peace

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"that middle class income HAS not gone up in any meaningful way for almost 40 years."

Which correlates exactly with my thesis.

How did they take your money?

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They took "OUR" money with the low taxes/loopholes/low regs they forced our representatives to pass. The taxpayer R&D money, the taxpayer infrastructure costs, The taxpayer military protection of their markets and resources around the world. The taxpayer education of citizens for their use. The money spent by consumers for their products. The cost to the public for all the environmental damage they've created. The economic crimes against the people with this last world economic crash. The resulting 40% loss of home value, the illegal foreclosure, the libor manipulation, the subprime loans to borrowers who qualified for better loans. It goes on and on.

And all we ask is that they be "the Job Creators"!! Well we kept our end of the bargain. And they sent our jobs overseas, busted our unions, kept our incomes low, stole our pensions.

As such they have breached the agreement!! We want our money back!!! With interest!!! 29.99% !!! Thank you very much. They should be careful we might charge some penalty fee.

I guess you don't agree? Gold standard!! Yeah!! that'll solve everything!

Peace

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

There were insanely less regulations from 1930-1971...where the average joe prospered.

Typical ignorant comment "gold standard", that will solve everything. Read a few books instead of spending your time in la la land making crap up in your head.

Do you not look at anything i show you? You must not, because Paul predicted the housing crisis...along with all the other Austrian economists.....why not look at how they correctly predicted it years before it happened and maybe pay attention to what they have to say? Or you could do the status quo thing and put all your blind faith into bernanke and the same jackasses that got us into the mess and talked about "the strength of the housing market" months before it collapsed...yeah, those are the people i wanna listen to. I like to study people who are right repeatedly...not wrong repeatedly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnuoHx9BINc

"hey took "OUR" money with the low taxes/loopholes/low regs they forced our representatives to pass."....once again...government is the root of the problem...even in your own words. You pretty much are arguing my point..you just don't realize it.

[-] 2 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Hmmm. Lets see. Whats the best way to put this. Austrian economics is the problem. Neo-liberal supply side economics correlates with 30 years of middle class wage stagnation and the wealth transfer. Coupled with the Powell Memorandum and Buckley v Valeo. Where big business and corporations began their government takeover. But lets not either of us confuse correlation with causation.

'There were insanely less regulations from 1930-1971' - There were also many abuses. Which regulations were put in place to prevent. Perhaps the amount of regulations is proportional to the size and complexity of society. I think Rwanda and Madagascar have alot less regulations. China too. But do we really want to go there? I suggest we not get our boxers in a bunch over the 'amount' of regulations.

'Paul predicted the housing crisis...along with all other Austrian economists'. Oh stop. So did Roubini. So did other Keynesian and Post-Keynesian economists. So did Marxists. So what. Should we adopt Marxism since Marxist economists correctly predicted the crash and Marxism correctly identifies capitalism's wealth transfer?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

you put that better than me.

Peace

[-] 3 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Pres. Reagan got to preside over a recovery that increased the debt and somehow he's a hero for this. He didn't have his hands tied by an austerity mentality that prevented Pres. Obama from saving hundreds of thousands of public sector/teacher and firemen jobs. In fact, I'm pretty sure public sector employment increased under Reagan. He 'spent' his way to recovery. He didn't have to deal with the batshit crazy starve the beast mentality of the TPers. This is an inconvenient truth that the neo-libs today either ignore or twist themselves up into pretzel logic to explain or get around. When all else fails - they pivot to their 'b b b but... Obama is a socialist. Yeah that's it! Obama is a socialist!!' refrain.

Unemployment increased and peaked during Reagans first term. 8% at the beginning of his re-election year and was re-elected when unemployment was 7%. And I think it was Krugman who noted that if Pres. Obama's American Jobs Act would have been passed last fall unemployment would be 7% instead of stuck at 8%. Basically Austrian economics sucks. And, sadly, Republicans are pretty much idiots.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Basically Austrian economics sucks. And, sadly, Republicans are pretty much idiots."

If you'd have listened to them about 8 years before the collapse we wouldn't be dealing with any of the mess we're in now. I'm not a republican, but such blind faith in the democratic party is just as scary. They both are one in the same. Neither parties honest politicians have a shot for president...because corps line the pocketbooks of the corruptible. Here's your boy Obama's track record thus far:

http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Aaaa. I was just messing around. I'll clarify. Todays Republican leadership is batshit crazy. Neo-libs are batshit crazy. Which also happens to be todays Republican leadership. Good Conservatives that think Fox News is 'news' and don't recognize it for the batshit crazy right wing propaganda it is - they are just sadly ignorant.

Right wing Evangelicals and gun nuts are batshit crazy. And they're idiots. They keep voting for Republicans even as it is against their economic self interest. It's basically the Jesus freaks and gun nuts that get Republicans elected. If it weren't for them, Republicans wouldn't even get enough votes to be crossing guards.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Today a talkin head stated if we had the public sector growth Reagan had the unemployment rate would be a full point lower.

And this "starve the beast" strategy I've heard at least as far back as Reagan. In that the conservatives believe they can increase military spending and cut wealthy taxes so much that to balance the budget would require cutting all the progressive programs that benefit the 99%.

It seems to be "proceeding as they have foreseen it" Mooha ha ha ha ha!

Peace

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Not all conservatives think that way...and a few of them think Reagan was a disaster.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Roubini predicted it in 2006 when it was literally staring everyone in the face...increasing housing prices since like 1996 that didn't waver at all. The Austrians predicted it in 2001...because they knew government backed over investment in housing would create a bubble...and there would be an inevitable collapse. Just like school loans...and just like the bond bubble currently. Very simple...follow the credit from Keynesian stimulus and watch the bubble form. Name a few other Keynsians who predicted it and what year. Here are a list of the Austrians:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html

Or the dotcom bubble:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions/Dot-com_bubble

Or the great depression:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Aaaa. I was just messing around. I'll clarify. Todays Republican leadership is batshit crazy. Neo-libs are batshit crazy. Which also happens to be todays Republican leadership. Good Conservatives that think Fox News is 'news' and don't recognize it for the batshit crazy right wing propaganda it is - they are just sadly ignorant. Right wing Evangelicals and gun nuts are batshit crazy. And they're idiots. They keep voting for Republicans even as it is against their economic self interest. It's basically the Jesus freaks and gun nuts that get Republicans elected. If it weren't for them, Republicans wouldn't even get enough votes to be crossing guards."

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said....although i see the other side as very much the same. MSNBC is the counterpart to fox (arguably not quite as bad...but still pretty freaking bad)....CNN...CNBC...i don't think any main stream station is a reputable news source these days. Fox and MSNBC being the worst in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"all conservative fon't think that way" Seems to me Cons want to cut taxes for the wealthy, cut regs for big corps, and cut programs for the vast majority of the American people(who aren't wealthy).

They also seem to be believe in economic survival of the fittest & blame the victim. "I got mine! if you don't have yours it must be your fault, so don't expectme to help" (very unchristian)

They also seem to have much hostility for minorities, immigrants, LGBT, womens rights, Non christians, non republicans. And I'm sure other groups I've forgotten.

If thats wrong feel free to correct me.

Peace & Love.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"There were insanely less regulations from 1930-1971' - There were also many abuses. Which regulations were put in place to prevent."

You miss my entire point....less regulations in your eyes means worse prosperity for the middle and lower class...which is exactly the opposite of what we had during 1930-1971 (check out the graph below). Your argument doesn't hold like i've reiterated a million times here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

Do you think business suddenly became any more noble during this time period (1930-1971)? That their fraudulent ways were set aside for the betterment of mankind? And that suddenly at the start of 1971 (when the middle and lower class started losing their money to the top again) their greed kicked back in to start "stealing" the money from the people again? No, they've always been greedy....even from 1930-1971...where we had less regulations and greater prosperity for the people.

You really should check out this post i made this morning...watch the movie. See what regulations can do to people....the "good" people...us 99%.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-regulations-are-evil/

Roubini predicted it in 2006 when it was literally staring everyone in the face...increasing housing prices since like 1996 that didn't waver at all. The Austrians predicted it in 2001...because they knew government backed over investment in housing would create a bubble...and there would be an inevitable collapse. Just like school loans...and just like the bond bubble currently. Very simple...follow the credit from Keynesian stimulus and watch the bubble form. Name a few other Keynsians who predicted it and what year. Here are a list of the Austrians:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html

Or the dotcom bubble:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions/Dot-com_bubble

Or the great depression:

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_predictions

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

No, I think you misunderstand my point. I think regulations are necessary for a complex and civil society. Even as there are sometimes unintended consequences.

''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.'' Adam Smith

I'm sorry if you've re-iterated a million times. I don't read a million posts. Are you advocating for less regulation? A free market or something?

From what I can tell, we had great prosperity for many decades after the Gilded Age led to the Great Depression. When top effective tax rates were raised to 60-70%. We had a thriving middle class until the neo-libs got hold of things in the 80's and drastically reduced the top tax rate and started deregulating anything they could get their hands on. That's when wealth inequality took off again. Rising to levels of the Gilded Age. And just like the Gilded Age, it was followed by a major recession that was this close to a depression. And just like the Gilded Age we have massive government corruption. Corporatocracy.

We had the gold standard during the time of the Gilded Age and the Great Depression, correct? So what is your point again?

No of course I don't think business suddenly became any more or less noble. But there was a shift Read the Powell Memorandum. That was a turning point. The beginning of business taking over government.

Business has always be driven by profit. But it's the policies that government enacts that shape socio-economic outcomes. It's the rules that are in place that shape the game. Form shapes content. The content is the same. Business is driven by profit. The form, or the rules, have changed. Policies that favor the masters.

So Austrians are good at predicting bubbles. I'll concede the point because I still say - so what. Marxism correctly predicts capitalisms wealth accumulation. According to your logic we should therefore end capitalism and adopt Marxism.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"We had the gold standard during the time of the Gilded Age and the Great Depression, correct? So what is your point again?"

This is one of the biggest mistakes people make about the gold standard. "There were panics and crashes during the gold standard." If you look at Rothbards "America's Great Depression" it shows the increase in the money supply in the 1920's via lowering of the reserve requirements for fractional reserves precipitated by the Fed (this causes credit creation...even under a gold standard)....this is how he was able to predict the bubble and the inevitable correction...he watched credit be created out of thin air through fractional reserve banking. The roaring 20's roared because of easy credit. Much like the roaring housing boom that led to the 2008 disaster. You can read his book and check the data online for free:

http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Americas%20Great%20Depression.pdf

Panics prior to the Fed under the gold standard were also because of fractional reserves....panics only occur when your money isn't in the bank...it has nothing to do with the gold standard. All of this is discussed in the website in the post...hmscoop

"So Austrians are good at predicting bubbles. I'll concede the point because I still say - so what. Marxism correctly predicts capitalisms wealth accumulation. According to your logic we should therefore end capitalism and adopt Marxism."

The problem with your statement is that we don't live under a capitalist society...and haven't for 100 years. What's the one thing that controls the flood gates of funding in this country to certain areas of the market? The one thing that controls the entirety of the private industry to make decisions on investment etc.? Arguably the most important area for the free market. The interest rate....which is the foundation for the economy to work in a healthy fashion....it is controlled by a central organization that was enacted by government. From your boy Jon Stewart (who i watch everyday) interviewing allen greenspan (40 seconds):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-sk6-gbEBc

I'm also pretty sure a free market society doesn't force citizens to use a depreciating currency as a medium of exchange. The most important parts...or the foundation for a free market haven't been in place the last 100 years.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

REgulations that protect workers are a good thing. REgulations that create barriers to entry from competing services is a very, very, very bad thing. That is what we are dealing with today.

Bullshit free trade agreements with communist nations, making it impossible for anyone who wants to run an honest retail shop to compete on pricing.

An energy industry that has made it impossible for anyone who would like to try to create something different in a community.

An education industry that could less how good of problem solvers the kids are, its all about a one size fits all test that must be passed.

Even decent banks cannot compete with the globalists. Frank-Dodd did nothing but choke out more competition for Wells/Goldman/Chase/Morgan/BOA/MS...

I think we need to start realizing that some regulations are good, and some are bad. The nation tends to be all for/against regulations, in these giant blanket statements. And it only helpe the multi nationals when we think in those terms, because there is no real discussion...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Govt is the tool of the 1% plutocrats. They aren't at the top of this scam. The 1% plutocrats are. Very easy to see that because the 1% plutocrats have all the money! get it? The 1% plutocrats pay the pols to do their bidding. The pols work for the 1% plutocrats.

Your starting to get offensive. "la la land" " crap in your head"? "read a few books"? I guess we disagree. Do you attack everyone who disagrees with you. We need to be more mature than that. schoolyard bullying tactics reflect a weak argument.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Videos of people who warned us.: I do not look at anything you send me. You wanna make a point, make a point. I don't care who warned us. I care about how it happened. Can you verbalize how it happened.? Low regs before the '70's. So what? outsourcing began in earnest at that time. Plutocrats hording profit that should have otherwise went to american workers began then. The massive redistribution of wealth from worker to 1% plutocrats began and continues. You think the lack of regs before the '70's is related. I don't see it. You ain't made the corralation.

Like YOU said it's just the natural greed of business. It's gotta be controlled. they gotta be told to hire Americans or get out.

PEACE!!!!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I mean if you don't look at anything i give you why in the world are we talking? I've looked at everything you've given me (which is nothing....nothing that backs up your agrument). Seriuosly, check out the links....at least venture into looking at my argument just a little bit...that's the whole point of the post. If you don't have the open mindedness to explore other areas then my time is lost on you because you won't change your mind no matter what.

You said:

"Govt is the tool of the 1% plutocrats. They aren't at the top of this scam. The 1% plutocrats are. Very easy to see that because the 1% plutocrats have all the money! get it? The 1% plutocrats pay the pols to do their bidding. The pols work for the 1% plutocrats."

You're arguing my point.

If saying la la land is a schoolyard bullying tactic...we grew up in extremely different areas.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The problem is the plutocrats. Govt is just the tool. We gotta go after the plutocrats, while also getting rid of their conservative tools.

More progressives, fewer conservatives.

Tac the plutocrats up the A%%. Take our money back!

Peace.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You said: "people like you"? You are not trying to bring people together!. Your comments drip with offensiveness. You want me to read your views. Write 'em in a comment!! You haven't stated one thing to do! You have only put down others. You demand some kind of precondition to a discussion. I don't submit to demands. I'll read your strategy right here. Or no where. We need each other. Lets treat each other as if we will work together for years. Elect progressives, Vote out conservatives. And protest, pressure, agitate, agitate, agitate for progressive solutions to the conservative 1% plutocrat policies that have created our problems. Sorry If my verbalized tactics are not to your liking. At least I have verbalized them. Peace & Solidarity!

My answer:

Yes, people like you...and i'll repeat it all day...not "people like you" meaning OWS. People like you meaning people who won't look at a shred of evidence that might challenge the foundation of their beliefs....because it just might rock their world a little. They'd rather be perpetually wrong than have to challenge their mindset in the slightest (challenging their mindset meaning clicking on a link in which this entire thread is about and actually reading what you're arguing against). People like you who will plug their ears and make noise so that they won't have to hear anything that challenges their mindset. People like you who will make up stupid excuses about not reading a link. You should willingly explore other areas, even if they are wrong....to at least have the knowledge that they're wrong and you're actually right.

I'm done talking to you.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If you can't put something in a comment regarding you plan I don't see why I would go further into a "link".

YOU have to give a taste. If you can't I'm not interested in submitting to your demands.

You seem to suggest that a small group of people protesting can't make a difference, I say it's the only thing that ever has.!

Tell me something, anything about your plan, strategy, tactic, goal. Maybe you are just trying to encourage hits to your website. Do you advertize on the website.? Make money based on hits?

Don't be nasty. I know you don't like the tried and true tactics of non violent protest. I know you want all these progressives to give up their right to vote. We disagree thats all.

elect progressives, Vote out Conservatives!

Peace & Love

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I did verbalize it...it's my website! Sounds good...people like you that won't even attempt to glance at a viewpoint that may shed light on ideas are lost to convincing. Wish i could say it was a pleasure discussing...but you haven't even looked at anything you've been arguing against. If i would have known this, i wouldn't have kept it up for so long.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"people like you"? You are not trying to bring people together!. Your comments drip with offensiveness.

You want me to read your views. Write 'em in a comment!!

You haven't stated one thing to do! You have only put down others.

You demand some kind of precondition to a discussion. I don't submit to demands. I'll read your strategy right here. Or no where.

We need each other. Lets treat each other as if we will work together for years. Elect progressives, Vote out conservatives. And protest, pressure, agitate, agitate, agitate for progressive solutions to the conservative 1% plutocrat policies that have created our problems.

Sorry If my verbalized tactics are not to your liking. At least I have verbalized them.

Peace & Solidarity!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Well don't click on the link....copy and paste it into google. Or just go to google and type in "hmscoop"...it will be the first link there that says "understanding banking". The graphs i talk about if you look under "understanding banking" in google it will say "Food and Energy Prices". You really need to look at it for this discussion to be worthwhile....you don't really know what i'm arguing if you don't.

If you still don't trust it, go to nortons website to check webpages for viruses

http://safeweb.norton.com/

Type in "hmscoop.com" and you'll get an all clear.

Here's what it says: hmscoop.com Summary Norton Safe Web found no issues with this site. •Computer Threats:
0 •Identity Threats:
0 •Annoyance factors: 0 Total threats on this site: 0

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If you can't verbalize it, maybe you don't understand it. Or maybe you don't believe in it entirely. In any event if there is some requirement/demand/precondition to discuss the criminal banksters with you then I opt out..

I guess the conversation is "not worthwhile" with me.

Oh well. My loss.

Peace

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Government is the tool....take away a mans tool and he is powerless.

Look at my links....for the love of god...watch my links. Take two minutes of your time. Please. And take 10 seconds of your time to look at these graphs:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

Please...just look at it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I've been warned against clicking on peoples links. Listen we agree that govt is a tool. Certainly the govt service to the 1% plutocrats is the particular failure the gocy is guilty of. The answer is not to withdraw and give up. We gotta take our govt back!!. Grow a bigger pair and make the govt serve the 99% with passage of the progressive policies we need.

Elect progressives, Vote out conservatives

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

The country allowed itself to become run by a banking cartel, centralized in a place whose morality is best described by sex in the city -- and we got the expected result. Yet nearly half the country has allowed the corporate media (centralized in that same place) to obfuscate everything. This really is about culture, and what mindset runs this country. Ironically, it's been people in New York City who started this protest, when indeed it should people who live everywhere else, who should be the most pissed off about this surreal, bizarre, and decadent arrangement.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago
[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Bankers do not make a specific pledge to the citizens to honestly represent them. Politicians do.

So when politicians choose to be bought, they shoulder the burden of blame. IMO, about 80% of the blame.

Why most ows supporters put the majority, if not all, of the blame on the person or entity that does not specifically make a promise of honesty to the citizens is beyond belief. My best guess is that statists can't honestly criticize the priests of their religion.

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

Speaking for myself, I'm no statist. I can't even really categorize my philosophy, maybe something close to a Nietzschean (constant truth seeker, always willing to criticize my own ideas, the ideas of even those I may align with in most cases, constantly refine ideas, learn more, etc.), attributes I'm not finding here unfortunately (not referring to you, just "here" in general, as in every aspect of this movement and other movements in the United States). Everything I've seen peculate from contemporary American thinking, becomes a group think festival eventually, a herd mentality (even among those who claim they rage against the machine -- so to speak).

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

People who rage against the machine tend to form together into groups who all rage against the machine in exactly the same way.

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

Implying what? No critical thinking or self-criticism within the group? Among people with rigorous intellectual acumen, this is described as a dysfunctional group dynamic. Of course this does not mean people should not cooperate towards shared goals, but cooperation does not require becoming a victim to group think or herd mentality. The other side of the coin is a dysfunctional organizational structure that renders decision making impossible, resulting in intellectual paralysis.

Unfortunately, what tends to happen in these groups (particularly large groups) is people who think very similarly tend to cluster together, which can result in a downward spiral towards extreme radicalization. Smaller affinity type groups, where it's members tend to be intellectuals, are a much different story (because these are people who tend to understand the potential pitfalls I mentioned). The only way I can see a large group avoiding these pitfalls, is if it's extremely diverse (not only in terms of race or ethnicity or sexual preference or income level, but in terms of academic background, profession, etc.), and has a mechanism for self-criticism (and rigorous debate).

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It's only a "dysfunctional" organizational structure if you think that decision making is a useful thing. The people who got upset that Occupy's General Assembly's couldn't accomplish much were the people who assumed that accomplishing things was the goal.

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

Okay, I get that .... I've been to some of these meetings (at Zuccotti), and witnessed the problems in the process. It wasn't just in terms of broad strategy (i.e. what do we want to accomplish as a movement), it was more the housekeeping stuff (the sort of boring and mundane decisions that have to be made for practical reasons, but should be easy and straightforward).

I mean, it's one of those things, if you find people dropping away from a movement, at some point you have to stop blaming people or whatever misperceptions you might think they have, and evaluate your own reasoning and approach (ergo, self criticism). I'm sorry, this is just the way humans interact, and I'm quite sure if Pierre Proudhon or any of the great anarchist thinkers were around to see this, they would at minimum interact with these criticisms in an intellectually honest way.

Moreover, I'll be brutally honest, as someone with a graduate education, and a military veteran, who isn't homeless or destitute, I don't really feel welcome at these meetings (I feel like an outsider, which is why I'm not going to attend anymore of these meetings). Maybe there were people like me around in the very beginning, but they've run off into affinity groups (and they're not at these public meetings as far as I can tell), and there seems to be an invisible sign, too much education, too opinionated, not willing to just go along with the herd without question, please don't bother.

[-] -2 points by CommonSense2345 (-5) 2 years ago

News Flash: OWS is over. Winter came and everyone left. You failed your "revolution." Why don't you stop whining that you have to work for a living and just earn your fair share? You remind of either a whining six-year-old who didn't get ice cream before dinner or a wanabe SLA without the will to persist even through the cold, forget about gunfire.

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

Newsflash : 'UnCommonlySenseless' vanishes up his own rectum !!!

Another 'Randian (x)Hat' manifests his own bullcrap !!

nosce te ipsum ... biggus dickus !

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Who do you think is more culpable? The businessman who offers the bribe or the pol who takes it?

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

Overall, I find this a very pointless thing to focus on. I mean, assigning proportion of blame is a very subjective and abstract exercise, and it doesn't solve problems. If Wall Street is part of the problem, and it's New Yorkers who start a movement to try and address these problems, one might expect them to focus on Wall Street (by sheer caveat of geographic proximity).

Sure, we need to focus on the other end, the political system, but if you think that's being ignored, then I have to wonder, have you actually been listening to anything anyone here has been saying?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

do you realize how many leftists either blame those who do not promise anything to the public or take your route and play the "above it all" card and will not answer this questions.

it's comical. it reminds me of when, after the first OJ trial, howard stern would have his interviewer ask every celebrity if OJ was guilty and 99% of them would say no or avoid it.

humor me. you think it is pointless. fine. but make a call. take a stand. think outside the box. who is more culpable. can you be honest enough to answer it?

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

dude, you're a fucking tool (seriously). I have a better idea, while you're kissing my ass, I'll explain my political ideology to you (exhaustively). If you kiss it extra special good, I'll even teach you how to add fractions.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Grow a spine, you intellectual coward.

Most people who lack the guts to answer a simple question like this won't because e answer is laughable and embarrassing. 9/11 truthers pull this shit all the time,

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

The pol. Corporations are supposed to be accountable to their shareholders. Our representatives are supposed to be accountable to us.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

couldn't agree with you more.

why that common sense eludes so many others here is astonishing.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The voter who allows it to continue.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

You can't find the guts to answer it either, can you?

Wow. Leftists are so predictable.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

There are three parties involved in your question. Between the bribe giver and bribe taker, they are equally criminal, but tell me how culpable is the person who watches that same bribe being exchanged, year after year, decade after decade, and does nothing to stop it?

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Between the bribe giver and bribe taker, they are equally criminal"

so the person who promised you he can be trusted isn't any more culpable than the 3rd party not involved in the trusted agreement?

very, very hard to understand this answer. don't get me wrong, I thank you for the answer and for being clear. but someone used this example and I wonder what you think of it. he said it is like a trusted friend betraying you for his own gain by agreeing to screw you over in cahoots with someone you never even met.

if that happened to you, are you more angry and upset with the stranger or the friend?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Exchanging bribes is one criminal act committed by two persons against society. Betraying the trust in a friendship is a separate offense.

I would be most angry at myself for letting the bribery to go on so long when I knew I was the only one who could stop it.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Exchanging bribes is one criminal act committed by two persons against society"

and only one of them made a specific pledge to the public. I can't understand why that doesn't matter to you.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Because we keep selecting candidates from the same adulterous family of party politics. The signs of disloyalty became apparent when they accepted disproportionate campaign contributions from the wealthy in comparison to the poor. It is our fault when we select party instead of integrity.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"Because we keep selecting candidates from the same adulterous family of party politics."

I agree that the candidate pool is a cesspool, but how in the world does that have any bearing on how you don't blame the person who made a specific promise to you any more than the one who didn't. while I agree with the sentiment, I don't see the connection.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In the same way I don't blame a lion for it's natural instinct to stalk it's prey, I also don't blame a corrupt politician from stalking their prey, political power. But I do blame the people who continually vote for the same politicians who are weened in the lion's den of partisan politics.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

cynicism to that extreme is no different than being extremely gullible.

pols are 97% scumbags, but they are human and they know right from wrong.

making excuses for them as if they don't is, I think, being far too kind.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Responsibility for Congress's actions ultimately lies with the people who choose them.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

See to me...even if you elect a saint...he's in office for a limited amount of time....you're always going to run into the same problem down the road (corrupt politician). Its the system of government that has to change...to cease all avenues of possible corruption through money...if you don't take the money out of politics it will never change...for there will always be at some point in the future a corrupt politician that finds his way into power.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I completely agree that the money must be taken out of politics. Does changing the system guarantee that those same lions will not dominate that system too? If so, explain that system.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

how about a 50/50 split?

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a defensible and realistic position.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It takes two to tango. I saw some very bright people paying 220k for 1200 sq ft ranches in Tampa in the mid 2000's.

That being said, the Federal Reserve knows exactly what it is doing when it lowers rates and eases credit standards.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1972) 2 years ago

I'll answer that. It's the businessman, 'cause he started it.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"he started it!"

yep, that's the kind of mature and reasoned logic I expect from ows.

Pols cannot be criticized as they are the priests of your statist religion, correct?

(that's rhetorical)

[-] 1 points by Shule (1972) 2 years ago

Oh yes.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter...people are people..whether they're in gov or business...they will always be coerced into greed if the environment is ripe for it (aka...money). You need to find a way to take that out of the equation to stop the people from getting screwed. My point is business doesn't screw you directly...they do it via government. So focus on government to stop getting screwed.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

I think it does matter and I don't see anything in your response that backs up the idea that it doesn't matter.

sure things need to change to stop it, but as it is now, who is more culpable is a legitimate question and I think it speaks volumes about the typical ows supporter that they either will not answer it or always blame the businessman entirely.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

It doesn't matter because if you don't fix the government problem (money)...you will never be able to fix the fact that they will continue to screw you over.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Why must answering a simple question rely on it "solving" something? Should cancer researchers not follow a path of research to learn more about what they are fighting if they know in advance that the cure will be found elsewhere?

Just admit you can't answer this because you know what the honest response is and it is too much reality to bear. Criticizing the priests of the statist religion will be avoided at all costs, huh?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Hey, i'm not against criticism of priests...especially the use of fear to get the masses to do what they want. It's a power wielding structure. But that doesn't mean i'm against religion.

What simple question do you want me to answer? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just am not sure as i'm lost in the threads. Who is more culpable? I think the politicians....we've elected them to be truthful and represent the people. What businessman did you elect to do that? To me it's like having a best friend that screws you over for his (government) and someone elses (business) benefit you've never met when you really trusted your friend (government)...i'm more pissed at my friend for doing it....I think that question is besides the point (because it doesn't solve the problem), but yeah..that's my answer.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you missed the point on the metaphoric use of priest.

"Who is more culpable? I think the politicians."

that was the question I was looking for an answer to.

thanks. the trusted friend and unknown 3rd party example works great.

I can't understand why so many ows types see it another way. nearly all of them.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Human decency requires no pledge. Bankers and politicians both put profits before people, equal culpability.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

"equal culpability" - ok, I disagree it is equal, but congrats for being reasonable enough to blame the pols at least as much as business.

Nearly all the boilerplate ows "thinkers" can hardly muster up ANY blame for the priests of their statist religion, politicians.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

A congrats from you is like receiving an award picked out of a toxic waste dump. You are a walking human jerk-off with banker piss dribbling down your kiss ass lips and a fucking hypocrite to boot. You bitch about the answers you receive to one of the all time stupidest questions asked in the anal history of stupid questions, and then complain because they don't kiss banker ass like you do. What a fucking revolting development your mother popped out.

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i agree that slizzo is an ass but the system is the problem - the law forces companies to maximize profit - they must put profit before people so the whole thing is a scam.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

They don't need much prodding by the law. The sole purpose behind a corporation is to make money for investors, otherwise you have non-profit organizations as the balance.

It would not take much to change a corporations charter to include being a good community citizen, because as you state a corporation is an entity defined by law... laws can be changed.. and corporations have changed over time since the British East India Co., which the most powerful corporation on earth bar none, including today.

[-] 1 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they ran opium

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

interesting article but seems we all know the story - corporations are not humans - they can be everywhere at once and do not die! here a more concise description of the problem - Noam Chomsky: A corporation is a form of private tyranny. Its directors have a responsibility to increase profit and market share, not to do good works. If they fail that responsibility, they will be removed. They have some latitude for public relations purposes, and the talk about corporate responsibility falls within that territory. But it makes no sense to regard them as benevolent institutions, freed from their institutional role. It is a public responsibility to enforce decent behavior.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That is the way I view it also - private tyranny. The only thing I might disagree with Noam on is that the corps have a ton of latitude in the public relations domain, to unduly use their money to pull the wool over the eyes of people.

[-] 2 points by flip (6755) 2 years ago

i agree - so would noam

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

private tyranny in bed with government tyranny - big mess.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

Your anger makes me laugh.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Who's angry? Cussing is fun.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

you're very angry and very funny.

deciding who is more at fault, pols for taking bribes or those who try to bribe them....causes THAT kind of reaction? too funny.

what deep, emotional attachment did I just tweak, princess?

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

How can you speak with all that banker piss dribbling out of your mouth?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

haha!

your anger and little boy rage really is entertaining. please, remain a childish imbecile so I can point and laugh some more.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Nah, after 3 days, I'm really not in a cussing mood anymore.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

usually it's business forcing regulations into government to avoid competition in the market.

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

Yes ... that as well, but this points to a systemic problem or dysfunction. Do we need an FCC or SEC, or would it be better if these functions were regulated locally within a participatory democracy framework? Do we need a bureaucrat in far away Washington dictating to us which radio stations will be licensed, or how our cable television system will be operated? I would say, emphatically, NO. Using cable television as an example, it's currently set up under a regional infrastructure (although there is a national grid of sorts). Okay, well, why shouldn't the people who live within those regions, be able to decide which stations they'd like to license (or maybe we don't need a licensing system at all ... but maybe for practical reasons we do, but whatever the case, it should be in the hands of the people, not some far away bureaucrat who winds up doing what the guy with the deepest pockets & best lobbyist wants him to do). Likewise, if we wind up concluding that a stock market is a good thing, why should it be centralized in one city, where the industry is able to accumulate a massive amount of power, and use that power to influence our political system? Why not a stock market in every city, regulated by the people? I'm not saying we won't need some uniform (and national) regulations, but at this point it's obvious that we need to make major changes.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Definitely agree

[-] 5 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly....ever?

Most of them. It's called profits.

[+] -5 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I mean..that is just ridiculous. You willingly give your money to them....to call that stealing is ridiculous. If you don't like them, don't give them your money for their products!

[-] 4 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

You willingly give your money to them

If I'm giving them money as an employee on top of them making profits, it's not theft anymore, it's slavery.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Go work somewhere else if you're not happy..other people can follow suit...they will increase wages if there is enough unhappy people....that's the beauty of a free society. Don't buy their products also...and make it known why you're not buying their products...people can follow suit on that as well.

[-] 5 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

Because clearly jobs grow on trees.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

products as well

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that's my tree (no hand outs)

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Products pretty much do grow on trees....this is america.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I've been stuck in terrible jobs before..jobs where i hated the employer...jobs that i was paid terribly...but i worked to get out of them...and i did.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Mass boycotts! Agreed. Mass strikes! Agreed. Mass quiting. That would work. I think too many people are enslaved by the debt/mtg/rent they must pay. But that would work too.

How can we get people to do that.?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

That sounds good in theory. But it has been my understanding that the biggest problem our economy has is that no one is buying private companies' services and products. Shit Son, In the last six months I've saved more money than I have ever done in my whole life. Big business keeps fucking with my government they will continue to lose my business, then they will see what it feels like to be assed out. Until big business and business in general gets their grubby, little paws off my government they can kiss their profits good bye. I believe what I spend my money on has more repercussions on the future than who I vote for. And by the look of the economy, I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion. Your mighty capitalism is shit without costumer loyalty, and because of the actions of the last decade, there ain't much loyalty towards trinket sellers

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

it's called voting withj your money

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

if we all had an equal share of money that might work to the best interest of the economy for the people

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I wish more people would do what you do. I try to do it myself. I only purchase products from companies that run their business well.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20721) 2 years ago

Exploitation of the American worker through low and decreasing wages while corporate profits are at an all time high is direct thievery by corporations.

http://dailybail.com/home/chart-us-corporate-profits-vs-employee-wages.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/01/robert-reich/robert-reich-says-ratio-corporate-profits-wages-hi/

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The first graph just shows that over the last 10 years or so the worker is better off...their wages have gone up.

This argument that there should be forced increases in earnings for workers or increases in the minimum wage actually hurts people. There are always consequences for redirecting money in an economy that noone thinks about....when you increase minimum wage or just increase employee earnings....companies will make up that money by hiring less people (as they have to pay them more), or charge more money for the goods and services they produce...making things you want to buy more expensive...and it even hurts minority groups more so as they are the one's who look for the minimum wage jobs and these jobs decrease with higher minimum wages. It sounds great, but it doesn't work. If you could increase the well being of people by increasing the minimum wage - why doesn't the government increase the minimum wage to $100/hr? Why not $1000/hr? Because everything would be ridiculously expensive and there would be huge unemployment....as the businesses have to make up the shortfall from having to pay employees ridiculous amounts.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Raising the minimum wage hurts people? Not raising wages to at least match inflation is what hurts people.

The minimum wage between 1968 and 2007, adjusted for inflation, dropped from $10 an hour to just over $5 an hour. See the chart here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:History_of_US_federal_minimum_wage_increases.svg

The dark blue shows the wages paid at that time and when they were raised. The light blue shows those wages adjusted for inflation in current dollars. Notice the light blue peak in 68, dropping quickly until 1974. That is the result of inflation. Losing 30% in just 6 years.

The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour would need to be raised to $8.11 just to keep up with inflation. Just to remain even with the minimum wage back in 1968, it would need to be raised to over $10 an hour. During that time tremendous advances in productivity have been made, but the majority of workers do not share in the wealth those advances produced. See the graph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_median_personal_income_by_education_attainment_in_the_US.png

This graph, adjusted for inflation, shows that even highly skilled professionals with bachelors, masters, and doctorates, are not receiving a fair share of the wealth that their educations helped produce. Somebody is getting screwed here, and it's not the upper 1%.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

couldn't agree more....and where does the inflation come from?? covered in my post above. that's my argument. It's worse than you think too...because the governments way of calculating the CPI has been changed many times....and organizations who calculate it how it used to be calculated have gotten inflation as high as 9% over the last couple years.

www.shadowstats.com

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20721) 2 years ago

I disagree. If everyone earned a living wage, everyone would have more money to spend and put back into the economy. It's just that it would be spread out and not just the rich folks would have some money in their pockets.

I think one of our posters, demanthegoodlife.com posts about how there is enough wealth for everyone in this country to earn over $100,000 per year. I'm not saying we all need to be equal, but yes, we need a moral economy, one that works for all people.

Also, I would say corporations don't have to be forced into doing this, hell, why don't they just start doing it for the betterment of our society? Pay people enough to live on. Did you know that many WalMart employees work full time yet they qualify for food stamps (which we all pay for) while the 6 members of the Walton family have a net worth equal to the bottom 30% of Americans? It doesn't have to be this way. Do the right thing and none of us would have to be here arguing this stuff.

[+] -4 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

If what you say is true....the minimum wage could be 100.00/hr. I'm not guessing about what i said above, there have been studies done showing that when you raise the minimum wage you screw over minority groups and people that need help the most. Business makes up these costs by not hiring as many people (which are usually minority groups as they are the ones getting minimum wage a lot of times)...or making stuff more expensive for people.

If you mean to up the pay of everyone and lower the pay of CEOs that's different....and people could force companies to do that. Boycott those companies products...don't shop at walmart and make it known why you don't shop at walmart... don't' work at those companies either...and make it known why. If enough people agree with you they will follow suit and you can put them out of business. If you have a strong enough case you could destroy them in a very short period of time.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Raising the minimum wage does not "hurt minorities" your studies are wrong. Raising minimum wage helps low income working Americans, it helps the economy in general by getting more money into the hands of consumers who WILL spend it (low income people). More consumer spending creates more demand which in turn incents companies to hire more people. Period. Therefore,.... ready?..... increasing the minimum wage creates jobs.! yay!. lets do it!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

David Neumark - Went to Harvard - Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine (among other schools) - Spent years studying minimum wage and written many papers on it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476823767508619.html

"Based on 20 years of research...........the bulk of the evidence -- from scores of studies, using data mainly from the U.S. but also from many other countries -- clearly shows that minimum wages reduce employment of young, low-skilled people...........Many people believe, for instance, that it helps low-income families. Here, too, the evidence is discouraging. There is no research supporting the claim that minimum wages reduce the proportion of families living in poverty. Research I've done with William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board and Mark Schweitzer of the Cleveland Fed indicates that minimum wages increase poverty............The accumulated evidence undermines the case for minimum wages even in the best of times."

I realize it's counter-intuitive...and raising the minimum wage sounds good...but it doesn't help. I feel like when people like you hear that someone doesn't support minimum wages you think that they don't care about people...they are inhumane...do you honestly think i don't want people to have good, peaceful, happy lives? The reason i'm against minimum wages is because of the fact it hurts the people who need money the most...not because i want to screw over the less fortunate. The problem is it's counter-intuitive, like many things involving the economy. Everything in my post was posted because i want to help people...not because i want to screw over less fortunate at the expense of the rich....hell i'm not close to being rich all.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree with the esteemed professor Neumark. You got anything else? Support OWS! Vote out anti minimum/living wage politicians!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

lol, i give up....throw a hundred facts at you and you won't bat an eye...you got your mind made up so no matter how much data i can throw at you from a different direction it doesn't matter.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah I want to raise hard working Americans pay. You want to save a few bucks for the corp 1%. You can't convince me raising minimum wage hurts because I've lived through the few increases we've had and the employment numbers were not hurt. And further more I know that hiring people is a function of supple and demand. Corps make more money. they hire more because that will allow them to make more.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, i'll go with the professor of economics who has studied the numbers for 20+ years rather than a cursory observation by someone through 1 or 2 raises in the min wage....sorry.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I could also go with a professor. Do you think no profs have determined the opposite of yours.? They're a dime a dozen. At some we have to think for ourselves And when the right wing has made these claims for decades and the problem never comes to pass you realize they are just trying to protect their corp 1% constituents. Their "evidence" doesn't change the reality I experience. So we disagree. Thats all. Support OWS! Vote out anti minimum/living wage politicians!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Wrong wrong...and wrong.

If it really helps the low income families...why doesn't the government make the minimum wage $100/hr? Perhaps you should research a little bit...instead of just guessing and coming up with vague ideas in your head that seem to make sense.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The govt doesn't raise the minumum wage to $100 because that is ridicuous! You gotta be a special kinda moron to suggest that. We have raised the minimum wage without the loss of jobs right wing corp shills claim. The problem we have is that good hard working honest working American have had their wages held down for 30 years. Instead the corp profits have gone to the lazy do nothing executive and shareholders. Give the profit to the workers who create the success of every corp. stand with the 99% not the greedy, selfish, corp 1% who are stealing our wealth and sitting on the money! Take our money back! We will spend it and generate economic activity. They horde it and count it.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20721) 2 years ago

I think the argument that increasing wages adds money to the economy is sound, although you can always find an opposite argument since economics is a social and not a hard science.

And, what you say makes a lot of sense re: lowering the pay of CEO's. Redistribute the way labor is valued and compensated. And, I agree, we should can do a lot through our own consumption to influence these companies.

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

LOL re "What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly .... ever ? It doesn't happen, because they can't. They would go to jail if they did."- Oh ye of little memory and no analysis, lol.

Ever heard of Madoff, John Corzine & MF Global or Ken Lay and Enron et al ? Are you aware of Jamie Dimon's line to congress recently -"When you bet and lose, 'The House' always wins" !

Obsequious, forelock tugging to the 0.01% is the unmistakable sign of the brainwashed and propagandised sheep which won't even bleat on the way to the slaughterhouse !!

To sum up this sad '0.01%-Worshipping' post in a word - "Disgusting" !!!

temet nosce ...

[+] -4 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Where did all these guys end up? In jail...Ken Died before he could be thrown in, enron had many that went to jail and the company fell to pieces, madoff - jail. There could potentially be one or two people that the system hasn't caught....one could argue that there are the same amount of poor people stealing from the rich that the system doesn't catch.

The problem with your argument is that you don't provide any data/proof of the transfer of wealth. It's always some vague statement about how because they're rich they stole money from you....how are they stealing money from you....you...which rich CEO has stolen your money? Please, name and place.

"When you bet and lose, the house always wins"...the derivatives market is a fraudulent market...just like fractional reserve banking..the pyramiding of money...that's also in the site i posted above.

I'm not rich by any means, and don't worship the rich.

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

'ChA0$ #23' &/or a Dead Pope's name and ordinal be your moniker or not, you need to put aside your hubris & read a little 'john/jean/johan/juan/ivan/ian' - IF you wish to understand what 'OWS' is all about :

I hope that you have the wit and inclination to sort 'wheat from chaff' and the ability to 'distil essences' - when it comes to reading the threads after the articles above.

per ardua ad astra ...

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah i read the articles...i hear krugman and i absolutely cringe. Can't stand the guy and i don't know why anyone would pay any attention to the man....he didn't have any foresight into any of the 2008 crisis...and i'm hard pressed to find anything the guys talked about that has actually been very accurate. I like to find the people who were right...who predicted the crisis years before it happened.

I also don't think that the separation of wealth is from predatory credit lending to people. People aren't stupid, you know what you're getting yourself into when you apply for a credit card...it's pretty self explanatory. You get a credit card that you pay interest for...the only question is how much interest do you have to pay. Pretty simple stuff.

Nationalizing banks and allowing the government to print money scares the crap out of me. The power to print or create money shouldn't exist....it is the nasty cycle that steals from the poor to give to the rich. If printing money worked so well, why should anyone ever work? Just print the money to pay for everything. Printing money is incredibly dangerous and leads to huge separations of wealth in countries...as the receivers of the newly created money benefit at the expense of the late receivers (your average joe). To prove the point...no fiat (money printing currency) has ever lasted....ever....it self destructs because of the unwavering human trait of greed.

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

You say that you read the articles and then proceeded to refer to Krugman who had nothing to do with any of them !! I'm not a Krugman fan myself but to be fair who other than possibly Brooksley Born and Nouriel Roubini did see The 2008 Financial Breakdown coming ?! Certainly NOT the 'Ratings Agencies', The Auditors, The Banking Corporations, The Federal Reserve or just about anyone else 'in the game'.

The Former Chairwoman of 'The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission', Brooksley Born ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born ) was one of people who saw the 2008 Financial Crisis coming and she tried to "warn" against the dangers of "Innovative Financial Products" but who was shut down by the Washington 'Financial -Political Cabal'. Anyone who wants to learn about this lady and her prescience, needs to watch "The Warning" : http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ .

Further, "nationalizing the banks" does not automatically equate to "printing money" and all money is ultimately "fiat". Finally, I think that you will gain much insight into OWS's 'raison d'etre' by watching the excellent and award winning documentary, "Inside Job" : http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ .

fiat lux ...

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The entire school of Austrian economists saw the collapse coming...many writing books about how exactly it would occur, what areas were creating the bubble...who would benefit etc.

Yeah i've seen Brooksley's documentary, she is one of the one's who warned about the derivatives market, and if i remember right it was back during the clinton admin.l

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

You simply declare that "The entire school of Austrian economists saw the collapse coming" and seem to expect that we should take that at face value. How about you name some names and put up some links as evidence of this supposed prescience.

Further re Brooksley Born - 'Regulatory Capture', whether under Reagan, Clinton or the Bushes - The US Presidency and Executive - has long been the case. All of the 'organs of state regulation' have been well and truly 'captured' by the 'High Finance and Low Morals' world of The Greedy Corporate Banksters. They take advantage of not only 'Regulatory Capture' but of 'Moral Hazard' and 'Perverse Incentives' to the fullest extent as well - as 'society' suffers enforced austerities & is coarsened and corroded for all.

ad iudicium ...

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

He had insight. He just doesnt want to admit it.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Printing money by a national bank is beneficial if it is invested in real things, such as infrastructure, that are to be owned by and benefit the public as a whole. Making gold or some other commodity into money is just another way to allow the rich to confiscate it:

Credit vs. Monetarism http://larouchepac.com/node/23058

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

(in reference to printing money) You're not accounting for the fact that it steals money via increasing the cost of goods and services....but it benefits the early receivers of the money while the people who receive it last get screwed. It also screws over the people who decide to save their money..it also creates artificial stimulus that always ends in a market correction when the malinvestment and easy credit comes crashing down.

Your assertion that the gold standard somehow makes it easy for the rich to steal from the poor has no backing by history. Look at the link below...as soon as the gold standard is abandoned...the separation of wealth begins to occur much more rapidly....while on the gold standard there is a normalization of the separation of wealth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

If the government invests in public utilities such as power plants, that would bring the cost of energy down, reducing the cost of goods and services.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Lets look at the track record of that. Government gets involved in backing student loans (aka invests in schooling)...what happens? Prices go up and quality goes down and creates a massive student loan bubble. Government gets involved in housing...what happens? Prices skyrocket and then there is a financial housing collapse...government gets involved in medicine and what happens? Prices go crazy and quality goes down. I don't believe there is much of a track record to prove your point. What happens in private industry? What happened to cell phones over the last 20 years? Cars? Computers? Calculators? Even the government is starting to utilize private contractors for military affairs overseas because of the added ingenuity and reduced costs of them doing things (i'm completely against this...but that's besides the point...actually Rachel Maddows new book "drift" goes into this in detail...far from right wing).

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

There is a substantial track record to prove my point, though it is often denied by free market types. Examples would be the economic boom that occurred after FDR's New Deal investments in infrastructure. Free marketers usually attribute this boom to WW2, but I believe it was due to improvements in infrastructure.

Another example would be the economic boom induced by JFK's investment in the space program.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940."

Continue (and these guys don't think that WW2 pulled us out of it):

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

For more detailed look (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis):

http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh02/ohanian-021008.pdf

Conclusion of study -

"Our results suggest that New Deal policies are an important contributing factor to the persistence of the Great Depression."

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

When Rand Paul demands austerity, such as when he supports the Obama Deficit Commission's recommendations to slaughter the elderly, he always says this is how the Austrian School has explained economics to him. In an interview last Sunday, for example, Paul pointed to the Austrian School of Economics outlet, the Cato Institute. He praised Cato's Christopher Edwards for urging the destruction of NASA, Medicare, and Social Security.

Jeff Steinberg's EIR piece, "The Legacy of Friedrich Von Hayek: Fascism Didn't Die With Hitler," spotlighted the role of the Austrian School in the European oligarchy's Conservative Revolution, their drive for universal fascism.

Let us now further situate the foreign enemy which has possessed Rand Paul's mind, the Austrian School economists, and their origin in the Hapsburg-British imperial war against the United States of America.

In 1876 the Hapsburg Emperor Franz Joseph hired Carl Menger (1840-1921), who would become known as the founder of the Austrian School, as tutor to his son, Crown Prince Rudolph. Menger took Prince Rudolph around Europe for three years, acquainting him with the quandary facing the undead feudalist Hapsburg family and their Austro-Hungarian Empire.

  • Republic or Empire? -

The United States had recently survived the rebellion of the slave-owners, rebels armed and instigated by the British. The American republic had survived despite the pincers, Rudolf's Uncle Maximilian being put on an imperial throne over Mexico, and British troops occupying Canada.

And Abraham Lincoln's America had counterattacked, by spreading nationalism, protectionist economics, and the drive for modern industry and technological progress, to Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, and many other nations.

Carl Menger explained to the Prince how the old feudal oligarchy of bankers and autocrats might maintain their death grip on humanity, against America's energy.

The old form of empire was breaking down. The Inquisition, the New Dark Ages religious police state imposed by the Hapsburgs on Europe, could not stand against the American ideal of separated Church and State. Austrian forces, occupying Italian principalities with mass imprisonment and executions, and Austrian sponsorship of the feudalism-mad Pope Pius IX, could not prevail against Emilio Cavour's genius. An ally of Lincoln's economist Henry Carey, Cavour unified Italy just as Lincoln became the U.S. President.

A new imperialism was required, based on global financial looting and new forms of colonial regimes outside Europe.

Carl Menger explained the new Liberal economics, worked out in concert with the British Empire.

Menger warned the Prince that the enemy doctrine of national sovereignty had spread from the arch-nationalist Lincoln to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who copied Lincoln's tariffs and railroad-building strategy.

  • The Liberal Darkness -

Menger's new dogma, that the State must not be allowed to interfere with financial freedom — the right of imperial financiers to deploy their Money Power — took its place beside other "liberal" anti-republican instruments forged in the Hapsburgs' crypts: pessimism in literature, soulless psychology, deliberate ugliness in art, crazed atonality to overpower Mozart's and Beethoven's beauty. (Carl Menger's brother, the socialist attorney Anton Menger, crystallized this assault on reason and progress into what became known as the Frankfurt School.)

Germans reacted to Menger's polemics against Lincoln and Bismarck by referring derisively to the "Austrian School" — meaning those who argue for the presumed logic of imperial Free Trade economics while declining to discuss any actual history whatsoever. This is the origin of the term, Austrian School, which has identified Menger's disciples such as Hayek and von Mises, Rand Paul's brainwashers.

Here is the Money Power against which the USA has struggled throughout its history.

In Menger's day, the extended royal family of Austria, Britain, and Belgium coordinated with international bankers for nightmare colonial experiments, such as the Congo.

Belgian King Leopold II had married Marie Henriette, archduchess of Austria. Emperor Franz Joseph's brother Maximillian had married Leopold II's sister Carlotta.

Meanwhile, Leopold II's father, Leopold I, had arranged the marriage of his niece, British Queen Victoria, to his nephew Albert.

When Menger's student, Austrian Crown Prince Rudolph, married Leopold II's daughter Stephanie in 1881, she was the heir to the Congo, a giant province of central Africa which her father had made his private property. The Belgian Congo was the scene of such brutality and mass extermination of looted natives, that it has stood since then as the very emblem of the disgrace of latter-day imperialism.

To the present day, the Austrian School and its agents condemn as tyranny Lincoln's insistence that the Union be preserved. The Von Mises Insitute's paid writer Thomas DiLorenzo, in his hilariously misnamed book The Real Lincoln, defends secession and claims that slavery would have ended peacefully if only the United States had been successfully destroyed.

In the last chapter of Friedrich von Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, Hayek demands that national governments be prevented from interfering with international trade: a global police force must be set up, to usher in the final world empire of Free Trade.

This is the heritage and rationale of the Austrian School, which teaches Rand Paul that neither the American nor any other people have the right to defend their lives and their families against the Money Power.

http://larouchepac.com/node/16441

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

Thanx for this excellent and informative comment ;-) fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Glad you liked it - 要有光.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Hey, arturo. That was informative. Are you knowledgeable about the Austrian school or was this just copied from Larouch's site?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

That was just copied, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Austrian economics. Glad you liked it though.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

What does that have to do with hard facts and data? And the other link refers to a Federal Reserve research study...zero to do with Austrians.

It would take 20 pages to go over the nonsense written above....it doesn't have anything to do with the topic...and it doesn't dispute the numbers i posted above...they are government numbers...not Austrian numbers.

When the numbers tell a different story from what your ideological perspective determines should be correct....dodging the topic usually happens.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

It explains the agenda of those who provided the hard facts and data, suggesting that they interpret the data to to support their agenda.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Reply to your post below

Yeah but we were talking about the effectiveness of FDR's new deal...not WW2 bringing us out of the recession.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

To arturo below:

Who ever said i was a libertarian?

And why would i follow a system that doesn't work, and benefits the few at the expense of the many? A system where the corrupt get bailed out at the expense of the many? A system where none of the main economists had any foresight into the coming collapse (greenspan, bernanke etc.)???

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

But it is 1947, there was no production for the war going on, its a civilian economy again.

As a libertarian, you probably think of yourself as a patriotic person. So why follow Austrian economics, which is anti American? It tries to undermine America's greatest presidents, such as Lincoln and FDR.

We have our own system of economics called the "American System":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_%28economic_plan%29

Ever hear of it?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

This is to your post below...it won't let me reply directly to it.

" then why was it that for so many years people thought that what FDR did was a good thing"

The new deal occurred from 1933 to 1936...that's what we were talking about above....not WW2. Your numbers are from WW2 period.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So, the war had ended by 1945, and by 1947, employment was still high.

-You can't reply directly to this because the level is too deep, you have to keep going up to previous links to reply.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Unemployment, GDP, personal expenditures, and net private expenditures are pretty hard numbers to fudge when they come directly from the government. I'd say that's about as reliable as they get.

The second study is from the Fed...having nothing to gain by providing that position.....actually it hurts them because it flies in the face of everything they're doing right now.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So then why was it that for so many years people thought that what FDR did was a good thing?

Here is the interpretation of some other statistics from that era. I can't link to the table, because its on a PDF, but this is the interpretation:

Table 1 shows the change in the labor force. In 1939, the official number of unemployed, at 9.5 million, was almost as large as the total number of the manufacturing workforce, at 10.3 million. By 1944, the unemployment level had fallen to 0.67 million; there was an acute labor shortage throughout all sectors of industry. This represented a reduction of the unemployment level by 8.81 million. From 1939 until 1944, the U.S. armed forces grew from 370,000 to 11.41 million. The common, but false interpretation of the war period, is that the armed forces simply absorbed the unemployed. But look at what happened to the manufacturing labor force: It grew by 7.3 million, or 70%, during the war years. In 1947, a recessionary year, the level of unemployment was 2.36 million, but never anywhere near the 1939 level, of nearly 10 million. The labor force had been changed. The industrial production of the American economy, based on an index of 1967=100, had risen from 21.7 in 1939, to 47.4 in 1944, a more than doubling. The recovery of the American economy was achieved. When combined with the preceding infrastructural and other achievements of the New Deal, the result was explosive, anti-entropic growth.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

"And why would i follow a system that doesn't work, and benefits the few at the expense of the many?"

When I say the "American System", I'm not talking about the economic system that guides US policy today. In fact, the economic system in place in America today is mostly anti-American.

An economic system is like software, different software can run on different hardware, so just because our country is called America, doesn't mean that it is running the American System.

Instead, its running on free trade and globalization, or global empire, as it was called when we fought for our independence against the British empire. Your Austrian economics is similarly a front for global empire, and was originally developed to support the Austro-Hungarian empire. Its a system intended to benefit the very few.

The "American System" was originally established by Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Henry Carey among others. It was applied by Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK, these are all the people we traditionally think of as "great Americans", since their policies benefited the vast majority of the American people.

Greenspan and Bernanke were of course either wrong or intentionally lying. It was the economist who advocates returning to the American System, Lyndon Larouche, who saw the crisis coming, warned people in advance for decades about it, and was put in jail and slandered for doing so.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

The vast majority of Austrian economists were screaming about the forming bubble yeeeaaaars before it occurred. If anyone had listened in the slightest this wouldn't have happened.

You think we have free trade? You think we live in a "free market"? Our system hasn't worked under a free market for over 100 years. Interest rates are manipulated every day...arguably the most important tool for a free market.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

So then you do advocate free trade? If so, then what do you say of the fact that Free Trade was the economic doctrine of our original enemy, the British Empire?

And are you really opposed to the Americans I mentioned, such as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey, Lincoln, FDR, JFK? If so, couldn't you see that your ideology would appear to be anti-American?

Do you consider yourself an American patriot? I'm not particularly a big flag waver myself, but I do believe in the American principles, and that the main reason for our problems these days is that we've abandoned those principles.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

John what did WWII represent? The greatest amount of government spending up till that point in history... that is what pulled us completely out of the Depression and kick started industry... government defense contracts from ships, shoes and food to tanks, millions of unemployed joining the military... it was a huge government jobs creation program.

The New Deal didn't go far enough in spending. It took WWII level expenditures to get us out of the rut.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The Dust bowl did not help.

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_02.html

The Dust Bowl got its name after Black Sunday, April 14, 1935. More and more dust storms had been blowing up in the years leading up to that day. In 1932, 14 dust storms were recorded on the Plains. In 1933, there were 38 storms. By 1934, it was estimated that 100 million acres of farmland had lost all or most of the topsoil to the winds. By April 1935, there had been weeks of dust storms, but the cloud that appeared on the horizon that Sunday was the worst. Winds were clocked at 60 mph. Then it hit.

Just prior to the Dust bowl was:

The 1918 Influenza Pandemic virus.stanford.edu/uda/

The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe" the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

once again, good post. These OWS dipshits don't know what to do with you. You point out facts that they don't want to accept, so they try to skirt the issues.

Good post.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

we should outlaw corporations, so that they cannot own more than one store, we should use the same principles behind monopolies and antitrust, to break up every corporate store in american cities and have them become owned by local businessmen in that area. Isnt that more fair?

[-] 2 points by ironm0nk (2) 2 years ago

I do agree with you that corrupted government is a primary ingredient that must be resolved but your point of view is still very narrow. I am a small business owner & although I myself am not, I do have close relations with individuals that are part of our countries 1%. And as a business owner (only speaking for myself at the moment) I undertake the responsibility of doing business in an ethical manner. This means that although it may be legal to steal (directly or indirectly) it is unethical and wrong to do so. I understand that you are saying it is the governments fault for letting companies legally get away with stealing & unethical business practices such as Credit Default Swaps but your solution is you say "taking out of the equation" something which is inherently 1/3 of the equation. Instead of trying to get across what I am saying I'll let you argue with the eloquent words of Albert Einstein.

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." - Albert Einstein

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, i can't really disagree with much of what you said. I even like the albert einstein quote. Yeah my post doesn't really resolve anything..i don't give an idea of how to correct it. I've thought about it a lot...and in short of redoing the whole system, there are a few things i think would help a lot:

My idea is to cap earnings while in office...they're supposed to be there doing a patriotic duty and if it's truly in them to want to help our society this shouldn't matter...cap earnings from all sources (lobbyists, stocks, income etc.) and tie it to some general marker for the averages in society...the point is that if they're in office, they can't be manipulated by money, and hence they will work for the people instead of a paycheck. If you don't get the money and the temptation out...things will never change. People always talk about the wrong person being in office...but even if you get a saint in office, he doesn't live forever...you will always run across another person who's influenced by greed in the future and stumble into the same problem.

Elections need to be reformed in a similar fashion to take out the monetary incentives...cap donations - and allow equal time for candidates on TV (perhaps the individuals who get to compete get a certain percentage of the populations votes). Money shouldn't dictate who gets more air time, for this is the person who could be running the country...we should hear what each and every one has to say with equal time to formulate a decision on who should best run the country. It's also just a massive waste of resources.

Along with this i also (as you could have guessed) want a revamp of the monetary system. Let interest rates be determined by the savings in the workforce.....this will stop business owners like yourself from overextending themselves because of artificially low interest rates when the market isn't ready for it (when savings aren't adequate enough to support that investment). No more artificial stimulus....allow people to use commodities if they so wish (legalize gold..but you can still keep federal reserve notes)...and get rid of fractional reserves and areas that pyramid debt (derivates) as these set the stage for boom/bust cycles.

[-] 2 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

“One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it's remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver's license.” P.J. O'Rourke

[-] 2 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

While the government is the blame for some of this, they are not the source. Example of bankers circumventing the government regulation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-insight-bankers-idUSTRE81M1S420120223

"What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly....ever? It doesn't happen, because they can't. They would go to jail if they did. How does a business make money? They provide a product that you vote for every time you buy it."

It does not matter how direct the money is stolen. The bankers have stolen money from the people via bailouts and scams. Why aren't these bankers going to jail? Oh right, they have illegitimate connections. They don't provide products, they plain outright cheat people out of their money.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

See I think that it does matter how directly they screw you over. If it's through an intermediary....you have to take care of the intermediary to fix the problem. The intermediary being the gov. If there isn't an intermediary....there ceases to be a problem.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

I see not see the point in going after intermediaries when you can just go for the throat - bankers themselves.

[-] 2 points by Oryanart (2) 2 years ago

12 year old girl finds solution to worlds economic problems !!!

Interview: http://youtu.be/d1IgiNnOZV4

Full Speech: http://youtu.be/VTS___P6APw

Arresting Ponzi Scheme Banks Pays Off

News: http://youtu.be/xt4Z3rm4r-4

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, saw that...pretty amazing.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

The Lord is my shepherd...businesses and business people have stolen directly from the people (customers). Sold MBS's and dirivatives to people on a fraudulent basis. Sold homeowners' insurance to people and then never paid the policy holders for their total loss of property (Hurricane Katrina). Sold healthcare insurance to people and then told people that their particular ailment or a procedure wasn't covered. Fraud. Theft. Direct. Criminal.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 2 years ago

And all that done under very heavy govt supervision and regulation. They only do what the elected class allows them to. The pols are to blame much more than businesspeople.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I definitely agree. Feel like people think i'm sympathetic to businessmen when i say this....but that's not the case....businessmen are just as greedy as politicians..they're people. But our point (which i don't think too many people here agree with) is that government is the focal point....or the vehicle through which they screw over the population....it's not done directly.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The problem I think is we disagree in the criminality in this buyer beware behavior. I'm against it and seek prosecution, justice, restitution for the victims. You seem to have just resigned to it. Given up!. Oh thats the way it is. We can't do anything about it. Just watch out. If someone gets caught in the scam you just blame the victim. Thats just a convenient excuse to avoid taking action. Grow a pair. Confront the criminals. TAKE OUR MONEY BACK! Support OWS! Vote out anti fin reform politicians.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm completely for attacking a business to the highest degree...when they've done something illegal.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're pretense that you haven't seen their crimes betrays your partisanship. To make excuses for corp 1% is republican talking points. To defglect blame to "government in general is republican talking points. You aren't kiddin anyone but yourself.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm an independent. but we're not talking about my ideology....why does it always have to turn into that fight? Why not talk about who's right...and the facts...rather than attacking based on something as meaningless as which side of the isle you're on.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Fact- right wing policies put in place by the 1% are at the center of our problems!

Fact- repubs proudly trumpet right wing 1% policies (cut wealthy taxes, corp taxes,, corp regulations, corp personhood)

Fact- Some Dems cave in to vote for right wing 1% policies.

Fact- answer is vote out right wing politicians, elect progressive politicians.

Left and right do matter. It has been with us throughout all human history. I won't pretend it doesn't matter. Take a stand with the progressive agenda or stand aside with the right wing corp 1%.

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

Lie - "right wing policies put in place by the 1% are at the center of our problems!":

What the Democrats and Republicans agree on is far more damaging and dangerous than what they don't.

Correction - repubs proudly trumpet right wing 1% policies (cut wealthy taxes, corp taxes,, corp regulations, corp personhood)

What you refer to is the corporate agenda, not the right wing agenda, and the corporations use BOTH wings to accomplish their goals.

Correction - Some Dems cave in to vote for right wing 1% policies.

What you refer to is the corporate agenda, not the right wing agenda, and the corporations use BOTH wings to accomplish their goals.

Correction - answer is vote out right wing politicians, elect progressive politicians.

The answer is to vote out ALL corporate puppets, which means ALL Democrats and Republicans, which can't be done, which is why we must rebel.

Correction: Left and right do matter. It has been with us throughout all human history. I won't pretend it doesn't matter. Take a stand with the progressive agenda or stand aside with the right wing corp 1%.

Left and Right are two wings of the same bird. That dichotomy has NOT "been with us throughout all human history", but the tyranny behind it has:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oNfVQ-7M-VQ/THFTY65XDgI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ohnlB1ZUoXo/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We disagree. Thats all. Take a breath, Get a grip. You won't ever convince me with your insults and threats. You cannot silence me. Give up. We've done this dance many times. I stand with the people against the 1% policies your repubs proudly trumpet.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

Facts may be inconvenient, but they are not insults, VQkag2. Truth may be damning, VQkag2, but it's still Truth. I am not a Republican, and you know that. And if you keep falsely accusing me of being one, you have my word you will one day regret it...

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't know what party you vote for. I know that by pushing the fallacy that both parties are the same you serve the republicans! I know if you refuse to recognize that our problems come from right wing policies you serve the republicans. If you encourage OWS supporters (who are progressive) not to vote you serve republicans! If you attack Pres Obama for NDAA but not republican leaders in the House who can kill it you serve the republicans! You attack Pres Obama for drones but not the House repubs who can have commitee investigations into drone use you serve the republicans. In the end you always resort to the schoolyard bullying tactics of your candidate Romney. And you frequently threaten me. You constantly change you login because you are deceptive. Give up. It's sad. You can't change me postion., Are am true and steadfast. I stand with the 99%. Vote out right wing pols. Vote in progressives

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

The only truthful thing you said in all of this was your first three words:

"I don't know..."

You are here to perpetuate Two-Party Tyranny. We are here to destroy it. You are a traitor to OWS and the 99%, VQkag2. And for that you WILL be held to account.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You may be here to destroy. You certainly are angry, hostile, offensive, and destructive. I am here to stand with the 99%!. I know the only solution is passing a progressive agenda! I protest for improvement in the lives of all the 99%. You seem only to be against Pres Obama.

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

If I seem "only to be against Pres Obama" it's to counter your constant Obamapologies and twisted pro-regime propaganda. Start praising Romney and I'll be happy to tear into Mittens.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

repubs created the illegal oil war in Iraq, your repubs have done nothing to stop drone attacks, ndaa, Not your candidate Romney nor the republican 1% tools running the house. You never complain about that when you attack Pres Obama on these issues. That is what betrays your partisanship.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO. Your like a little kid in the playground. Maybe it's time for a time out! Take a breath, Get a grip. Vote out right wing pro 1% pols (dems and repubs) Vote in progressive pols it's the only answer.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 2 years ago

OWS isn't wrong; capitalists steal the money (in reduced wages a less-than-subsistance minimum wage, in outsourcing to force wages in this country down by selling cheaper products back to Americans, who earn lower real wages, etc.) eventually resulting in a crisis. That's the capitalist system.

If and when the country ever recovers from the current crisis, the 1% will lead the populace down the same, merry road again to another crisis. And the politicians will stand on the sidelines cheering their masters on.

You are the one that's wrong, you and other reactionaries, who laughably believe the wealthy actually care about you and want to reinvest in a system, from which they have stolen.

[-] 1 points by Carroll (40) 2 years ago

John23, on the union of Congress and the corporations for the purpose of screwing the people: they do it within the capital market that IS the electoral system, and Congress uses the Treasury as its private working capital in the barter of legislation for tenure in office. The only way to disarm them also lies within that capital market. Have you found the mechanism that would restore a democratic influence over the electoral system?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Hey Carroll,

My idea for the system i didn't even cover at all. Here it is though:

My idea is to cap earnings while in office...they're supposed to be there doing a patriotic duty and if it's truly in them to want to help our society this shouldn't matter...cap earnings from all sources (lobbyists, stocks, income etc.) and tie it to some general marker for the averages in society...the point is that if they're in office, they can't be manipulated by money as they won't be able to earn more than certain amount each year which is tied directly to the american peoples income. If you don't get the money and the temptation out...things will never change. People always talk about the wrong person being in office...but even if you get a saint in office, he doesn't live forever...you will always run across another person who's influenced by greed in the future and stumble into the same problem. Elections need to be reformed in a similar fashion to take out the monetary incentives...cap donations (or set aside a certain amount from the budget every year to deal with elections) - and allow equal time for candidates on TV (perhaps the individuals who get to compete get a certain percentage of the populations votes). Money shouldn't dictate who gets more air time, for this is the person who could be running the country...we should hear what each and every one has to say with equal time to formulate a decision on who should best run the country. It's also just a massive waste of resources. Watching the primaries over the years has disgusted me with the obvious forcing of a candidate on the american people through more air time during the debates...and ridiculous post analysis of this individual by the media...while generally ignoring the rest of the candidates.

That's my idea to restore our influence.

Many people might not agree with me here, but i believe that restoring sound money, or at the very least legalizing its use, is paramount to restoring the power to the everyday person as well.

The title of my post is misleading as well...it was mainly to get people to read the post. I don't think OWS is wrong in all aspects and i believe they have many valid things to be extremely concerned about which they are voicing their opinions on. Which i also respect.

[-] 1 points by Carroll (40) 2 years ago

Yours is an idea that should be explored. If balance were restored to the system, we would find the solution to the issue of money in office and the other concerns people have here. First we need to right the system. What is out of balance is the private ownership of the nation's wealth, a wealth presumed to belong to all citizens for the pursuit of happiness. But, alas, the use of the Treasury funds, always the private property of Congress, have been corrupted in the last 150 years of modern corporate law. We need to disarm the pirates at the point of ownership by passing the financial ownership back to the people in order to counterbalance Congress's incestuous relation to special interests. What we need is a system/mechanism that is self-regulating in the way that our old enemy, free-market capitalism, does a better job of driving the buggy-whip makers out of the market vs. the central planning of Soviet state capitalism that couldn't put the right shoes on anyone's feet, right up to the day the wall fell. We need to put an invisible hand into play for the sake of democratic rule seeking a prosperous, healthy society; use the principles of capitalism as judo against its abuses. The electoral system is a capital market: it will only respond to capital forces of sufficient weight. We need to issue Stock Certificates to each individual tax payer that reflects their paid-in-capital, pro-rated to the total payments of all taxpayers and redeemable any time there is a surplus in the Treasury (2001, for instance). Challenge the ownership by Congress by creating competing ownership that can increase in value only through efficient government that solves long-term problems--leading to surpluses or lower taxes. Congress will still use their Constitutional ownership rights to barter the Treasury funds for personal gain. But now the other owners (the 800 pound gorilla of the 100% seeking gain from good government) are watching their own investments and will have something to say at the polls. Congress becomes managers of our money not sole owners for personal gain. Since no one has ever suggested making the nation's wealth the financial property of the citizens (despite the lip service--"the people's roads, money", etc.) the idea will sound strange/wrong at first blush. It must be explored back to the origins of the nation to begin to see it is actually the unwritten chapter of the Founders' project. I did write such a description starting with the gold move of 1971, but did not post due to the length it ran. I could go ahead and post it if you would like. But I would understand if your eyes are read-out by 400 posts (shouldn't have misnamed it). I also plan to explore the idea under postings that I will title Occupy the Treasury.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"use the principles of capitalism as judo against its abuses"

I like that quote.

Yeah, please post...interested in what you have to say about it.

"pro-rated to the total payments of all taxpayers and redeemable any time there is a surplus in the Treasury (2001, for instance)"

That is one hell of a way to fight this thing and throws the power back into the peoples hands.....i'm sure there are quite a few that would like to redeem some $$$ with a surplus. Puts the pressure on them to spend wisely, and will keep the people's eye on exactly what they're spending it on.

[-] 2 points by Carroll (40) 2 years ago

You got it with the short form. Here is the longer version I had prepared. It is too long to post at once, so I'll post in sections and hope the order is readable. Part 1: I have been working since 1992 on the matter of government and corporations coming together to screw the nation--through the decades of dead silence and into this present waterfall of national hysteria. My interest sprang from radical involvement during the 60's and has been a response to the question always asked back then, "Well, how would you change things?"

You seem to have studied the matter yourself and I believe you will follow my argument. I could state the solution now, but I find it is better to establish the background to our situation since the solution goes against common sense, or rather against currently perceived realities. I will share the solution as a conclusion.

I have just now stumbled into this site and have not read the 400 replies to your post or your responses, so I don't know what has been covered. I do notice you believe in developing a point, so I hope you will not mind if I develop my thoughts. I also hope you will indulge me stating certain things that are obvious so as to create a complete record. By doing so I also hope to include others who may not have considered the historical aspects. And if this thread is coming to an end, then my lengthy reply may not get in the way.

You have directed us back to the 1971 gold debacle. Let me move back from there toward the root of the situation. Next stop is roughly 100 years earlier when new corporate laws were coming to fruition. The upshot was the ability to concentrate greater wealth than before. It has been noted that the trans-continental railroads would not have been possible without these new corporate laws. For the first time Congress and the new deep pockets were in bed together and they immediately ruined American agriculture, putting it in depression and contributing mightily to the 1929 general failure.

The granting of land along the railroad to the railroads allowed the creation of company towns and a monopoly in the transportation system that the farmers relied on. I want to use this moment to make a underlying point of my thesis. Government is a business. I say that not because of this situation over a hundred years ago, but this event does start to reveal the metaphor. Like a business with a plan, Congress passed legislation that made private gain for all parties. The railroads got to screw the farmers at good profit; Congress received handsome appreciation. Other branches of government came into play as legal regress was stymied with the railroads paying fines of hundreds of dollars after many years of stalling in the courts and pocketing millions in profits. Government is business. I am describing an enterprise that is 'in fact', not in formal, official recognition.

Next stop is the political system that behaves as a capital market. The railroads used their enormous wealth to buy Congressional favor, but they were following a long tradition: buying influence is how our nation began. So let's go back to the nation's origins.

The Constitution calls for elections and stops there. There are no instructions that the people will choose moral or intelligent candidates or even candidates with good hearts. The founders were realists and knew that voters would place in office those candidates that would serve their interests, same as today. From the beginning it was understood that everyone would buy as much influence as they could afford. So a political system that operated as a capital market is our heritage.

The Founders understood this even if they didn't have those terms to describe it. Why didn't they do something to prevent it? Well, why should they be worried? The nature of wealth in that day was less harmful than today. The largest shipper might have four or five ships, but learned that when another ship was added, it became impossible to control shrinkage. The largest farmers could control but so many acres before the holdings became so distant as to be ungovernable. The wealthiest voter could not tilt the scales. And to show that they liked it that way, the Founders forbade an aristocracy, the embodiment of feudal land wealth.

So the political system worked as a capital market. The most successful people in business could afford to buy more influence and demand their interests be served. In that way legislation secured law that nurtured the middle class, its business interests, and the strongest economy for the benefit of the commonwealth. Quite a contrast to the King's law that were ruining business and had to be overthrown. (We are full circle now with King Kongress bringing ruination upon the people).

The dictates to the Congress through the electoral system represented the broad AVERAGE of business concerns. Without concentrated wealth, there was a balance. Congress took the money from the successful businesses and fulfilled their wishes which resulted in a sound climate for business in general. George Washington wanted to keep that balance by not allowing political parties since they would serve as a conduit to concentrated wealth.

How about social concerns? It was a different day; charity needs were dealt with differently. And the severe social problems brought on by the modern corporation was not even a bad dream then.

This picture of our early country as being so concerned with business may sound funny today. So I have to look back a few more hundred years to get some idea of what our nation is all about. I assume political power is a reflection of economic power. In feudal times political power rested in the owners of the land which was the basis of the economy. A hierarchy of power led through the Lords to the King. In England the King had great latitude in spending the nation's wealth for his personal whims. He did have to answer to the Lords, but not to the middle class and certainly not to the colonies.

The feudal system was being replaced by the industrial revolution and capitalism. When economic power shifted, the political power did not follow at first. The new middle class was without political representation and that had to change. What better place than in the colonies--the perfect place for a transition. We wanted a government to serve the middle class and since the Founders understood that government is a business, they realized they needed to break the powers of the King into three branches of government to keep the business from being hijacked by one group. To Congress was given the responsibility of spending the wealth of the nation to nurture the economy. It was a capitalist economy even if they didn't yet have the vocabulary that we use today. And they found a capitalist solution to mediating political power.

[-] 2 points by Carroll (40) 2 years ago

Part 2: To recap: government is a capitalist enterprise for private gain, not always an efficient one for serving the nation (as with the King), but very efficient for serving the capital owners of its wealth. No politician would own up to that despite their bank statements. I have discussed our history to establish that we came into being to secure political power for the middle class, and because that fact holds the key to our putting the nation back on track.

Our situation today is the same as a manager using the business's capital for personal gain. Once the situation is discovered, the manager is sacked. The owner of the capital expects the profit to be at his discretion for re-investment or private gain. In our case, Congress is using the capital for private gain. Everyone knows the drill: legislation bartered for re-election and other perks, a capital market funded by the money sitting in the Treasury. It is a break down of the Founders' ideal capital market and requires an adjustment within that capital market.

In terms of stacking blocks and moving them about, the solution is simple: transfer the legal private ownership of the Treasury funds away from the Congress. Only the private ownership needs to be attacked since I assume we want to keep the Constitution. Since we don't recognize the private ownership of the Treasury, there has never been a suggestion to remedy the situation. But we do recognize the 'public' ownership ('the people's money') and accept the private gain we all reap from the infrastructure; maybe we can make the intellectual leap to our owning the Treasury.

Here's how it could work: each year note the nation's revenue from personal income taxes. Note each person's tax payment (their Paid-In-Capital) and issue a Share of Stock for each dollar paid. Calculate the individual's contribution as a percent of the total payments. Each person owns that portion of any surplus or debt. The total Shares for each individual and the pro-rated value is recorded and updated each year. This requires simple programming code of data already on hand: no need to create complicated bureaucracy.

Next, the surplus/deficit for the current year is published. The exact definition of 'surplus' is open to discussion. Businesses borrow money and most always have debt. Surplus must be tied to the operating budget. With today's huge and dangerous deficit, any gain made by good government would be applied to paying down the debt to manageable levels. But at some point an annual surplus would be considered a dividend to the shareholders. 2001 comes to mind. At that point, instead of being swallowed into the pork barrel, or used to sponsor a war, the owners of the business can redeem their shares if they choose. Current value of the average person's holdings is at least <$47,000>.

How does this help?

It establishes the role of Congress as manager of the people's money, not private owners for personal gain.

It gives 100% of the individual taxpayers a financial stake in government performance in a system that can only yield gain when government is efficient and solves long-term economic and social problems.

It gives voters an objective measure of government performance. Check your Stock's share as you head for the polls. The invisible hand of people seeking gain will cause a self-correction toward good government. Nirvana is when there is the lowest possible tax payment and a surplus only when a windfall occurs (as in finding gold on Mars).

It operates within our nation's heritage. It uses capitalism to judo the abuses of capitalism.

This does not change the political system we have used from the start. Congress will still sit down with corporations, but at the far end of the table will be the 800 pound gorilla of the combined ownership of the taxpayers serving as a countervailing power. The owner of a business knows how to deal with managers that loot the till.

This is not an answer for what to do about energy, education or any of the other problems we face. It is a mechanism to keep us on track toward finding solutions. If social problems are neglected, the cost of correcting them later will be clear. Waste will be seen for what it is. There will still be differences as to how to move forward, but everyone will have a common focus to show what works or not. It took decades to work ourselves into this mess. It will take time to wiggle free, even with good tools in hand. Issue the Stock and let time work on our side.

Congress will not enact this on their own. They would scoff and refuse to turn loose of the gravy ladle. This would require an American Spring. The 1%, as private citizens, may not care as much about this particular investment as the middle class would. But they just might like the pride of ownership. Occupy the Treasury!

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I think this is a great idea, and haven't ever heard it discussed before. This would help things out greatly. It really would turn over the ownership of the money back to the people. While congress would still control the budget, it would be politically beneficial to use it in a wise fashion and they would know that the publics eyes would be on them at all times with everything they spend it on....surpluses would be political browny points while deficits would be frowned on...the exact opposite of today. Puts so many important matters in check....the militarism around the world/wars etc. The people would actually have something vested in this stuff and the amount of attention focused on it wouldn't even compare to what its like today (syria? where's syria????).

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

So what gives you the idea you know what OWS is talking about? If this post is any indication, I'd say you have no idea (of course this sort of gibberish is a dime-a-dozen at this point, I see it in the zillion neurotic ditto heads who walk by Zuccotti, deluded into thinking they're the priests of the capitalist religion, when duh, there's no real benefactors in our system).

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah i don't claim that everyone at OWS thinks the same way and has the same views....the title was more to get people to read it to get another perspective of things that could be at the root of the problem.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2690) 2 years ago

What about products we need: health care for children. emeregency medical care? medicine?

I say the insurance companies are stealing quite a bit with each health transaction.

Why do hospitals charge a person paying from their own pocket 3 times more than insurance companies are billed (when my wife went to hospital, there was a breakdown of the bill from the hospital).

Also, this assumes you have a job. Some people in the world, say Mexico, there are few jobs, and people may have literally no money for food or medical care.

Not everyone can always be employed, or enjoy a livable wage.

If the republicans have their way, they would impose this system here too, a total libertarian capitalist corpratist paradise.

How about clean water. Many places in the world that is a luxury for the poor especially.

What about businesses that are monopolies or oligarchical?

Why do we have just two sanctioned major political parties. Our State WA primaries, virtually all are dems or repubs.

Why doesn't the media give other candidates and their positions exposure: Jill Stein/ Rocky Anderson?

[-] 1 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 2 years ago

You are full of poo

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

If you have a mortgage, they stole from you directly. See the mortgage settlement, robo signing et al.

If you live in a city, a school district, a water district, a library district, they stole from them and since you share the obligation of the bonds probably you, directly by rigging the bids.

If you bought anything on credit linked to LIBOR or your city, county, state or district did they stole from you directly.

If you have a retail business that accepts credit cards they stole directly from you. (Latest scandal, Visa, Master card etc,)

The Bank scandals seem to come every other week involving 15 -18 major banks and the settlements usually run in the 100's of millions per bank. This is not including the civil suits for damages which will come to trial over the next couple of years. Of course there are other scandals which haven't touched you directly, yet, like the J.P. Morgan Chase $2 billion, no it's about $4 billion, no it is up to $5.8 billion this week, heading for$9 billion, some say.

So, should we point the finger at business and the rich? The evidence is clear. Absolutely Clear!!!. "They would go to jail if they did." unless of course, they had the foresight to make it legal. And they did.

How does accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Germany, and Ireland create American jobs again?

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 2 years ago

I had barely read to the second paragraph when I came across the rhetorical statements, “What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly....ever? It doesn't happen, because they can't. They would go to jail if they did.”

Have you just awakened from suspended animation since 2007? Are bankers wealthy businessmen? Yes. Bankers run the country now. We are entering into the “Roaring Twenties” of the 21st Century.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-nation-has-completed-a-full-circle/

Bankers determine how much ATMs will charge for a transaction, insufficient funds fees, loan origination, credit card interest rates, compounding interest, and a variety of other services.

Take compound interest.

A 30-year 5% $100,000 loan will have total payments of $193255.78 of which $93255.78 is interest. That $93,255.78 is taken from the consumer is also taken from the economy without the banker doing any work. The consumer has to work almost twice as hard to pay the interest to create more money for the bank but nothing as tangible goods or services in the real economy. Ordinary people cannot access this money without going through the bank.

Crony Capitalism and Chaos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJVDTA0uHsA&list=PLC9740BB0B0B10572&feature=view_all [right click]

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You gotta read further than the second paragraph...because it goes into a lot of the banker stuff you're talking about...especially at the website and the 2 minute video.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

After the LIBOR scandal, I don't see how anyone in their right mind could say that OWS is wrong.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

That was more to get people to read this...i think OWS is right in many ways.

LIBOR was fraud and illegal. You look at the big picture though...the Fed has been manipulating interest rates for almost 100 years.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes, the Fed manipulates interest rates suppossedly for the benefit of the country to warm up or cool down the economy whenever it is deemed necessary. I do not agree with the Fed, and think that it should either be absorbed into the Federal government or abolished outright. But the thing about LIBOR is that the rate manipulations were not done with anyone's benefit in mind except that of the banks. They were self-serving. That's the difference between the Fed and these 16 banks (actually, since the Fed is composed of a cartel of banks, the Fed should probably be investigated as well to see if they had anything to do with LIBOR).

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

There is no difference between them setting the rate or the fed. The reason they are in trouble is because the governments and only the governments want to set certain parameters and policy due to national security interests of the country in question. The national security (Economic war) aspect of a countries economics is also why very few elites ever face prosecution. The military and financial sectors of every developed nation has this relationship. The funny thing is how closely it resembles fascism.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Two things: A) the media skews what this thing is all about.

B) Im not sure why everyone is suprised that the central banks were messing with the rates...

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

A) How is the media skewing it?

B) No one should be surprised at anything these monsters do now, but LIBOR should raise the stakes of outrage to the point of spilling blood and street riots if necessary. Enough is enough of this shit!!!!! We should storm the banks and drag their sorry asses out in the street under full media coverage and hang them from the nearest lamppost. They have gone WAY beyond civility regarding their treatment. Their complete and total arrogance DEMANDS punishment on a scale equal to their completely beyond-belief criminal behavior. I thought Bernie Madoff was bad, then the TBTF insults, but THIS is so COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS that if SEVERE and HARSH punishment is not meeted out then they will know that they can continue in this TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ARROGANT and INSULTINGLY CRIMINAL activity. They MUST be stopped NOW!!!!!

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I could not agree with you more on B.

As far as A, the media tends to get the uninformed, partisan sound bites it loves.

Remember, remember the 5th of November....

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 2 years ago

I think this terminology is quite naiv.

"A Businessman ever stolen..." - This just does not fit. You need to understand that the Current Government is lead by : Corporations, Elected by Corporations (Financial Media manipulation) Paid by Corporations.

Now what government allows, is mostly manipulated trough corporations and trough lobbyist's.

Any Idea why a single payer healthcare system did not make it? Research and make your opinion - Simple because it brings more business to corporate and less to consumers.

To say governments fault? - to simple. The enabler and the enabled are the reason.

Like the Prostitute that cashes in and the customer that pays her - and the pimp that takes his share or forces he transactions.

Blaming one is always simple but there are more - even if it's just voters that don't even know why the elect a candidate (Media manipulation also corporations that increase profits the dirtier it gets.) (Less then 60% join an presidential election)

The fact that having a job should be related to a elected president - is absurt.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

My point is you cut off the head of the problem...for with restraints on government....lobbyists and corps could not buy their way in our system.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 2 years ago

What is the head of our System? The system itself? The constitution? The greed or social humanity?

Guess corporate monopolist, mafia structures and wall street (gambling with other peopled money) are the problem.

If OWS is the reminder to a failed system, then why should OWS not be be stronger as a formal protest party?

Only the fact that the so called middle class somehow works to keep there jobs for no actual profits and but is just keeps on going to a survival salary, prevents OWS to grow massive.

Jobs may matter in the next selection - But jobs for any price is are not a solution.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

OWS is exactly correct. We have a severe crisis of income disparity in this country and it is accelerating. The rich can make money easily. The poor and middle class work like slaves to get every little they have. And it's not enough. We know exactly what's happening. The rich are not job creators, demand creates jobs and the rich have the ability to respond to that need (it takes money to make money) and they make out like bandits.

Your cuddling the RICH. I'm with the OWS movement and this what we're about. We about everyone in this country 99%. You speak as though your either part of the 1% or dream of being with them and snubbing your nose down at the rest of us.

We need government and it needs us. There is a reason why we do have one don't you think John???

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I do believe they're (OWS) correct about the income disparity...no doubt. And i sympathize with that.

Yeah, i'm nowhere near being rich...i've been accused of that many times already.

I used to think like you do....it makes sense. Unfortunately these things are counter-intuitive in my opinion. Seriously, read some of the books on the other side of things...it might change your mind a little. "Meltdown" by Thomas Woods is a good one...its short....and what makes it good is these guys predicted the crisis we're in...and have predicted many of the other ones...which shows they aren't just people out their writing books that don't know anything....they've been proven right a number of times now.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Yes, I'm not familiar with every source of knowledge about the troubles with our financial system. We all agree the damned thing is broken. JPMorgan is just one of the latest to squander money away on risky shady investments. The ones that the greedy love to play along with the slots and card games in the big casinos.

But I'll make this simple. We need to have compassion. Care for our poor and help move them up into the middle class, instead what we have today, middle class slipping into ranks of the poor.

I'm an engineer for god sakes, and a damn good one. My salary has stagnated over the last decade. I have a hard time making all my ends meet. I have a BSEE and 20 yrs experience, and I'm just getting by. What happened to the days when engineers made decent money. Now I see my profession being outsourced. OutSourced!!! Engineers. I'm not a laborer. I design electronic circuits, schematic, layout, prototype and to manufacturing. Yes, we do still manufacture here, stateside. But don't hold your breath.

The government can do great things. Remember Nasa, and putting a man on the moon? The Mars Explorers? The national highway system? The National Park System? The postal system? The EPA (enacted under Nixon) to protect our environment? Hoover Dam? This is just a few but it's about all of us coming together in our best interest.

If you make it just about the money. Then we turn into greedy stingy money grubbers who just PUT MONEY OVER PEOPLE. Everything is about the almighty dollar. Then along with that they roll the myth portryed as the truth the money in the hands of the rich create ALL jobs.

I have read some Ayn Rand, does that count? I only read her because I wanted to see how vile she really was. I confirmed it. And thank god that most totally disagree with this wicked witch of rugged individualism where the weak are left to disappear and die.

And yes, I remember Reagan running a big deficit and republicans didn't care one bit. Then Clinton got in, and the republicans squawked and cried claiming that the ole US of A was nearing complete financial meltdown. Then Clinton with flame at his back the deficit down and gave the country a surplus. Then we entered Bush zone, as he greedily stole the presidency from Gore. Yes, some of us are watching John.

Personally I really dig the truth as it becomes evident. And I despise those who lie to me, even once. Lies only send down rocky dusty roads which if we travel too long will head us right off a cliff.

I came to this planet seeking truth and I will never stop. It matters and for me it's my purpose. When you discover real truth, love is close by. These two intricately woven together. Those who come from a side of anger and hate sow seeds that never grow.

Take what you want John, but see from the side of this: I really care and love this world. NOW. How do you act!

Good Luck my friend. I hope something I might have said will help in your journey through this world. Every one of us came here for something or we would not have come. Fulfill your purpose, your real purpose and it's there you will find serenity.

Come Together NOW

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah I hear ya, things aren't good at all.

Tom Woods (the guy i mentioned) would be the first guy to tell you Reagan was terrible....along with Bush. You won't get an argument there....or from me either. Repubs have the right wing goggles on when they view their presidencies...and it drives me crazy. Much like the Romney deal they got going right now. Its unfortunate that these individuals have shaped the opinion of certain aspects of the economic discussion for people. Woods isn't like that...even with Romney running now he refuses to suck up to what he views as a sell out and isn't going to be a shill and just blindly back the republican nominee.

I'm also an engineer, i graduated with a CE degree and i understand what you're saying. I really think the book is layed out in an engineers language...providing examples and data to back up what he is saying. It's more about the economy....and showing how these bubbles are predicted and what is really at the root cause....and its very short

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Ok, fair enough. I will have to read the book and broaden my mind. Generally, I'm always a healthy skeptic to new information, and never do I accept any so called fact on hearsay. My second choice after being an engineer would have been a lawyer. Every one of us desires truth, we seek it. And most I know, abhor those who lie. Especially when their lie(s) will do harm to us.

Thanks for the conversation. You R definitely a person I could agree to disagree with and do so with no loss of respect for either of us.

Come Together NOW

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm with you on the liars, and unfortunately washington has mastered the technique it seems (repubs and dems).

"Thanks for the conversation. You R definitely a person I could agree to disagree with and do so with no loss of respect for either of us."

Likewise.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

If we can intelligently discuss issues, learn, and educate ourselves we will make it. This was Thomas Jefferson's dream for our country. He saw ignorance as the very thing which could destroy everything this country could ever have hoped to be. In his wisdom, he knew truth could never make it on it's own unless we showed nothing but the utmost respect for it. Truth doesn't require polls or surveys, it's there for us, if we want, if not it doesn't need us to be propped. It exists just the same.

INdeed. Thanks again!

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

the government indirectly supports corporatism by placing so many rules on small business that they cannot sustain themselves and they are the ones who truly create jobs. Case in point... My business account is currently overdrawn, but the government is sending me notices that they will double my business license fee at the end of the month. I am also getting calls from insurance saying my government madated insurance will lapse. Im sorry folks but im just going to have to drive with no insurance this month while I figure a way to pay 50% of my income to rich bankers who dont need it so that I am not homeless. So I will be one driver with no insurance this month, however you can rest assured, for I have never ever caused an accident, so just imagine how much money I would have saved up over the past 30 years, maybe I could have had a paid for home by now.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

i agree...people here are very upset about monopolies....but regulations can create these situations by not allowing small businesses to get a start because of the insane amount of costs tied up in this. They don't realize lobbyists for these major corps go to washington to keep the very regulations in place which stop competition from entering their market.

Great example how this type of situation keeps people from getting healthy foods and helps keep the power with big agra:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uah8LBUbfc&list=PLE63E9519A47A2177&index=30&feature=plpp_video

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

What a crock of crap.Get off your knees j23

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Intelligent post.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

I thought evan less of your bull crap.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

"Inflation steals money from the poor and middle class and redistributes that money to the upper class " Is there any logic behind this statement?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yes, from Rothbard, an economist:

"To gauge the economic effects of inflation, let us see what happens when a group of counterfeiters set about their work. Suppose the economy has a supply of 10,000 gold ounces, and counterfeiters, so cunning that they cannot be detected, pump in 2000 "ounces" more. What will be the consequences? First, there will be a clear gain to the counterfeiters. They take the newly-created money and use it to buy goods and services. In the words of the famous New Yorker cartoon, showing a group of counterfeiters in sober contemplation of their handiwork: "Retail spending is about to get a needed shot in the arm." Precisely. Local spending, indeed, does get a shot in the arm. The new money works its way, step by step, throughout the economic system. As the new money spreads, it bids prices up--as we have seen, new money can only dilute the effectiveness of each dollar. But this dilution takes time and is therefore uneven; in the meantime, some people gain and other people lose. In short, the counterfeiters and their local retailers have found their incomes increased before any rise in the prices of the things they buy. But, on the other hand, people in remote areas of the economy, who have not yet received the new money, find their buying prices rising before their incomes. Retailers at the other end of the country, for example, will suffer losses. The first receivers of the new money gain most, and at the expense of the latest receivers.

Inflation, then, confers no general social benefit; instead, it redistributes the wealth in favor of the first-comers and at the expense of the laggards in the race. And inflation is, in effect, a race--to see who can get the new money earliest. The latecomers--the ones stuck with the loss--are often called the "fixed income groups." Ministers, teachers, people on salaries, lag notoriously behind other groups in acquiring the new money. Particular sufferers will be those depending on fixed money contracts--contracts made in the days before the inflationary rise in prices. Life insurance beneficiaries and annuitants, retired persons living off pensions, landlords with long term leases, bondholders and other creditors, those holding cash, all will bear the brunt of the inflation. They will be the ones who are "taxed." [2]

It isn't very hard to understand this process.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

So if I get a raise I am stealing money from the upper class and redistributing it to the poor and middle class? And 1% of $1,000,000 is a lot more than 1% of $100?

I see why it is so hard to raise minimum wage.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I wouldn't call it stealing, because it was done legally...you got a raise because you earned it through hard work. But yeah, i guess you could say that more of the percentage of $$ in the economy is controlled by the lower and middle class if you got a pay raise.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

It was the Libertarian argument that inflation is stealing from us and redistributing to the top. A reply to that. ;p

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Now see, that's the thing I don't understand about inflation (I know nothing about economics, by the way). You say, actually Rothbard says, "As the new money spreads, it bids prices up." Why? Or how? Let's say I'm a car dealer. That quote sounds to me like I would raise my prices simply because I sold more cars (the "new" money working it's way up). Don't businesses (in theory) raise their prices because THEIR costs increased? And why would my supplier raise his prices if this extra money hasn't reached him yet? What am I missing?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

More dollars chasing fewer goods, dictates higher prices. If there are five people looking to buy your product, you will charge more for that product than if just two people are interested. When more people are interested in a product the supply of that product becomes lower than if just a few people wanted the product. More money in the system means more people are in the market for your product, which would entice you to raise your prices. At least, this is how the economists frame the dilemma.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Economic theory used to teach - small production = high price as the product was expensive to make and scarce.

It also taught that high production lowered cost/price due to the standardization of the process and parts and a resulting ample supply.

It also taught that lower prices was good because it gave you a larger market place.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

That makes sense in theory. But nowadays it seems to me the supply of your average products can always keep up with demand, in a perfect scenario of course (discounting things like hurricanes disrupting the flow of raw materials and such). So, in order to raise prices, wouldn't supply have to be manipulated? That sounds like good old-fashioned greed rather than market forces. That's why I'm suspicious of the theory.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

There are a number of reasons more money causes inflation. When the rate of money grows faster it creates a situation in which there is more demand than there are goods...higher demand bids up prices of everyday things. When prices go up, businesses also have to adjust and bid up prices to protect or make sure they turn a profit. Velocity of money can also cause inflation (faster spending by people in an economy...one could argue that with more money, people will spend at a faster rate). There are lots of reasons and economists argue over how exactly it happens...but they don't argue over is the fact that it is a certainty...with more money floating around and other things being equal, prices will go up.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is the Hoover effect - the greedy see money and turn on the vacuum.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Economics isn't an easy thing to get your head around, I've noticed. But, like I stated in my response to Jesse, above, it makes sense to me in theory, but in reality, it's a little harder to understand. Let's say I sell widgets for $1 a piece and sell one a day, every day, as do all the other widget sellers. Then, for apparently no reason, people start buying two a day. If my supplier can keep me stocked (as they absolutely can nowadays with common goods, barring unforeseen disruptions or delays), what would cause me to raise my prices other that simple greed? Demand has doubled, but supply can keep pace.

It makes me question the whole theory. I feel there's something more to it. If this theory was formulated in the 19th century, I can understand the problems with supply but they don't exist nearly to that extent any more. It seems supply can (almost) always keep up with demand nowadays. Do we need a new theory?

I won't beat you to death with this question; if economists argue about the causes, you won't be able to explain it all to me in a couple paragraphs. I do appreciate your help though.

[-] -1 points by Groupthink5 (-21) 2 years ago

This is why everyone should have to take economics before graduating high school. It's bad for the country to have so many people so ignorant of even the basic principles.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hell - I was taught the basics of economics in grade school.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I agree completely, and have stated so a time or two. It's probably not required because the powers want us ignorant about it.

[-] 0 points by Groupthink5 (-21) 2 years ago

I don't think it's that, but we've lost our collective nerve to demand some standards. We keep demanding less. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore and there's no longer any such thing as shame. Some try to honestly argue that the bar for voting is too HIGH simply be asking for an ID. Even that apparently is too much to ask. So, I suppose accepting complete ignorance of economics then makes sense too.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You say; "it's a fusion of government and corporation, with government being the area at fault. For without government, business could not forcibly take your money. It isn't a lack of taxes on the rich that has caused this transfer....for the rich do not steal your money, only by government can they achieve this"

Yes, the 1% have taken control of government,. to manipulate the theft. That does not imply that they are not the thieves,. "follow the money", is a truth,. that leads to the source of the taking. Simple really.

First they steal your government,. then they steal your wealth. I agree inflation is a symptom of a broken money system,. one created by the 1% and benefiting only them, at the expense of the rest of us. THe gold standard is passe and will no longer work,. we need a monetary system based on and tied to resources,. not just some marginal useful rear metal.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm all for protecting resources, as that's the most important thing in the world. I guess my view on it for money though is some are not limited. If you're talking about a limited resource then sure, i could see that working as well...there is nothing special about gold, it's just the fact that noone can recreate it that it would work. It stops the insidious theft through inflation problem as it's impossible for anyone to counterfeit it. You want something that people cannot dilute...and unless the government can recreate a dying star it can't produce gold.

I guess my point is not that business is any more noble than government. My point is government is the focal point...get any possible way for business to manipulate government out of the system. My idea is to cap earnings while in office...they're supposed to be there doing a patriotic duty and if it's truly in them to want to help our society this shouldn't matter...cap earnings from all sources (lobbyists, stocks, income etc.) and tie it to some general marker for the averages in society...the point is that if they're in office, they can't be manipulated by money. If you don't get the money and the temptation out...things will never change. People always talk about the wrong person being in office...but even if you get a saint in office, he doesn't live forever...you will always run across another person who's influenced by greed in the future and stumble into the same problem.

Elections need to be reformed in a similar fashion to take out the monetary incentives...cap donations - and allow equal time for candidates on TV (perhaps the individuals who get to compete get a certain percentage of the populations votes). Money shouldn't dictate who gets more air time, for this is the person who could be running the country...we should hear what each and every one has to say with equal time to formulate a decision on who should best run the country. It's also just a massive waste of resources.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Yes, those are good and logical reforms for the system of elected 'representatives',. I however, do not see that sort of system as good enough,. when you seed your power to participate to another individual, they can then ignore you for 4 years, and you have no way to participate in your own democracy. I just do not see any system with elected representatives as democratic in any real way.,

Why not instead eliminate the 'representatives' and build a system where no one is handed power they can possibly misuse? There are many options that do this,. I am partial to direct voting on issue,. (electronic) with public debates in MODERATED forums, (perhaps basic knowledge tests on some of the subject being debated are required to enter the debate, and/or a proper bubbling-up system that keeps the dumb-ass/dip-shits from running amok) The decisions are then implemented through 'facilitators' who job it is to remain neutral while carrying out the will of the community. Provide a mechanism for anyone to add a vote or debate item, and let the bubbling-up system work to have pressing issues rise up,. if a 'facilitators' is seen as being non-neutral they can be replaced at any time through a vote incited by anyone and AT ANY TIME,. no more four year dictatorial reigns of corrupted power. This is just a sketch, however the point is this can be done.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, if you're headed for complete reform i can see that direction working as well, where it keeps total corruptability out of the equation. One thing you touched on is having basic knowledge tests...and i've often wondered why in the world we don't have that even with the current ridiculous system that we have now? If you're going to be a lawyer, doctor, engineer etc. you go through huge weeding processes and take extended exams...i know the engineering PE is 8 hours long. Why in the world wouldn't we want people holding public office not to go through some similar form of exam on the basics of the economy, foreign policy, history etc? The only qualifications right now are to look and talk pretty.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Good Grief! Did this person just get back from the Moon? I do believe they forgot how this nation got its wealth in the beginning... Plunder, rape, murder, annihilation of existing nationalities, civiliztions and don't forget, for the " _ _ " people, by the " _ _ " people and only the " _ _ _" people...fill in the blanks if you have the guts!! This is so bizarre....when a nation pretends to be diverse, the conditions for the other minorities gets worse. Is anyone looking at what is actually going on here? This country has started turning on and eating its own race as well! Everyone has been sold out to the highest politician, ooops! I mean bidder. What the hell is wrong with people? You all better wake up....OWS exists for very legitimate and rational reasons!!!

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

There is not enough gold in the world to back up all the goods and services that are traded back and forth all over the world. Money would become deflated and scarce while production of goods would grow exponentially. The case would be that there are lots of goods but no one could buy them (except the very rich.)That is why currency is backed by GDP.

Even though gold is at an all time high, compare it's value to the value of all the products produced by the United States. Which value is higher?

Same with commodities. They need to be compared with GDP rates, not money supply. Since the information age, our growth potential is virtually unlimited. Why would we want to go back to an era of less possibilites by limiting our growth to the amount of bullion we dig up? Why bother digging up these useless metals at all?

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

You my man, woman, whatever, are definitely in for a rude awakening. You are talking GDP in a time when global economical fall out is right in front of your faces? Why in the hell do you and your cronies believe this is some type of board game that will continue on into the next millennium or that it has some magical fix to it? There is no fix, not on this green earth, in hell, or in heaven! Have you lost the ability to see past the wall street illusion? This economical system, grid, bull shyt way of life is collapsing and all you fairy tale believers are afraid to face that fact. This nation talks a good game, can manipulate data to please the pathetic, and blow out smoke screens that always look good on paper, but yet, it can't do shyt about its future!. Good grief!!

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You my man, woman, whatever you are, anything in between are the egg who is going to have a mighty great fall.

The real world doesn't work along with your ideologies or religious concepts or whatever magical superstition your living with. You are the one for the rude awakening and fall.

Anyway, I really don't care if you don't check the comparison between commodities, gold and GDP growth, so let's just call it even stevens and end any further discussion. Go ahead and build your gold reserves, its a free country so act on your beliefs. I won't stop you. I promise!

A rude fighting match with you is at the cracker barrel bottom of my list of interests. I'd rather have an intelligent debate with someone who can think and investigate different sides of an issue then someone who only knows how to grunt like an ape.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

So, as you can see...After two weeks I read your answer. Now, why are you so hostile? Do you take all this personally? I don't...after all this mess was 2000 years in the making, and it won't be solved in a matter of decades either.

Here's what most of you should do...Read why people think Americans who believe this system will improve with hypothetical theories regarding the economy are being laughed at...Most know the truth except those who wish to remain naiive. So, take your pick....any story....any country! http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index632.htm

Also, you of all the "alleged" human race know that I could never grunt like an ape nor ever have any resemblance to one due to the fact that I don't come from any ancestry that originated in the Caucus mountains. My ancestry is Asiatic and Asiatics have melanin and having melanin is not a trait or a scientific classification that can include apes!

You are behind the times in your intelligence level aren't you?

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Who started with the hostility? "...and time will tell just who will stand and who will be left behind..."

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

Stand on what? Left behind after what? The rapture, the end of time, the revelation, the wars, the atomic annihilation, the solar flares, the fires, the floods, the Tsunami's, the land slides, the earthquakes, the murder of one another, death or rebirth? What?

To be honest, if you are living on this planet, going through this hell on earth, then by god...what makes you think you weren't already "left behind"?

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If you think that you have already lost the cause, than you have...

the only "end of times" I believe in is the one that exists in the mind, created by the human mind and blindly followed by human minds who are like sheep being herded to slaughter. We create our own destiny by what we believe

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 2 years ago

You keep turning this around...Why?
Have you an answer for "time will tell just who will stand and who will be left behind" ?
That is what I am asking. Do you actually believe the old fake turn the question around on me will make it seem as if I am thinking something other than the very question that I keep asking you?
Do you believe this is a realistic way of trying to play mental games by skirting the question? Why do you all do that? Just answer the question....what makes you believe you and others haven't already been "left behind" since "time will tell just who will stand and who will be left behind" What is there to leave behind? Life, Death, silver, gold....WHAT? Besides...YOU...you are the one that made the statement...NOT ME!!!
Just answer the question...if you have the mental capability to do so, that is!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

That's a myth..."there isn't enough gold in the world." There could be 1 oz of gold in the world, and it could be enough to sustain 20 earths....perhaps 1/10000000000000000000 of an oz could buy a house.

If you look at cultures in the past under the gold standard most experienced very mild inflation. If you argue about deflation...mild deflation is not bad for the consumer, and can actually benefit them...research paper from the fed:

http://minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf

Deflation caused by massive reductions in the money supply via fractional reserves can be disastrous for the economy...this isn't the type of deflation you see with the gold standard....which is very mild, if at all.

The reason gold is so important is because the government, or anyone for that matter, can't create it. It puts a check on the gov....not allowing it to steal your money through inflation. Until they learn how to recreate a star dying...they wont' have any luck creating it.

[-] 1 points by krmlei (103) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It is a limitied resource. It's like oil. We need to get off limited resources like oil. Money shouldn't be backed by anything in the commodities markets, not a good idea

I'm sure you understand supply and demand curves and what happens when you have a limited resource and ever increasing demands for that resource. It will cause wars. I can just see the protesters of the future holding signs: "No More Blood for Gold!" As if wars over oil are not bad enough

Okay, which country will benefit the most from the Gold Standard? Answer: China. There is more gold in China than in Australia and the US.

How much does America owe in debt? $4.7 Trillion. How much does the US own in gold? $445 Billion. - are you suggesting that the US go bankrupt?

GDP is an unlimited resource. Information is an unlimited resource. That means unlimited wealth potential. Gold is a cap on growth, just as any commodity would be.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

No fiat currency has ever lasted in the history of the world...ever. The temptation to debase it is too great. And history also shows with the debasement of a currency (the printing of money) the separation of rich and poor grows....as the rich benefit at the expense of the poor...exactly what this graph shows since the gold standard was abandoned (copy and paste it in your toolbar):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

Or check out these graphs to see what your costs have done since this period:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

Not only that, but you have to rely on government reporting to judge inflation and whether your increases in earnings every year are keeping up raises in pay at work (which a lot of people on this site are pretty upset about because they don't think their earnings are keeping up with the cost of living..and i agree with them). The gov has tweeked the way it measures inflation many times over the last few decades...if you take old equations for it we've experienced inflation of 9% at points since 2008 crisis. It is beneficial for gov to keep inflation low as they have an incredibly large system designed around those inflation numbers (social security etc.).

"How much does America owe in debt? $4.7 Trillion. How much does the US own in gold? $445 Billion. - are you suggesting that the US go bankrupt?"

The market value of gold would be raised if we went back to a gold standard...i think in 2004 it would have had to of been $2800/oz or something along those lines. Gold is not a cap on growth...gold is the foundational support for a healthy economy...an economy that can't be manipulated by the printing of money. Get that accomplished along with doing away with fractional reserves...and you'd actually have a monetary system that would protect the people. Instead of a system where if you kept a dollar from 1913 in your attic....it would be worth 4 cents today. A system that destroys the wealth of the people through a hidden tax.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

If you kept a dollar from 1913 in your attic you could sell it to a currency collector for $100 (or a lot more, depending). Call me weird, but I find a strange irony in the fact that as a currency it's worth a dollar but as a piece of paper it's worth a hundred. And that if you took that dollar into a store and tried to spend it, the clerk couldn't even accept it in exchange for goods.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I"m referring to the value of a dollar in 1913 vs now. If you had saved a dollar (say in the bank) since 1913....its worth would be just 0.05 cents of what it was back then.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I know. Sometimes I digress. The mind has a tendency to go off on unrelated tangents on occasion. Sorry.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Lol, you caught me off guard though...i guess you can turn a profit from a 1913 dollar if you think about it in those terms.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6587) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah, I make seemingly odd connections on occasion. That one kind of struck me. As currency it's become practically worthless and only by becoming "historic" or "collectable" does it regain it's value. Thanks for indulging me, john.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

what business man ever stolen money directly? By hogging up the real estate, so that the poor forever rent. it should be illegal for anyone to own more than one home without allowing their renter to rent to own. After all, we are talking about the LIONS SHARE< OF THE LOOT when it comes to where we live.

I agree with you though about government, they are the other culprit that have made it illegal to live anywhere on the earth that isnt four walled and paying a rich realtor!

[-] 1 points by CommonSense2345 (-5) 2 years ago

The rich are doing more than their fair share. 1% of the population is receiving 40% of the tax burden. They're picking up your slack. Only 40% of the population pays their income taxes. Most of those identify themselves as conservatives. What's so great about the private sector and the free market and capitalism is that you have to willingly give your money. The government can take it at gunpoint. If you have debt, it is only your fault. You chose to buy that house and that car and you didn't have to. Why should others have to pay it off for you only because you are too lazy to. The government has never helped the economy and never will. Capitalism is a cycle. The consumer buys the product or service. That money goes to the employer who uses it to pay his employees. But when you take money from the employer, he can't pay his employees. And you wonder why unemployment is so high.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

This is illegal and they were caught once again. I could give you millions of examples of how government commits fraud and illegal steals from you. Look at this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_(1913-2008).svg

This shows the money the top 1% controls in the economy. From around 1930-1971 it declined (meaning the middle to lower class gained more of the percentage of money..they were better off and things were improving). Do you think business suddenly became any more noble during this time period???? That their fraudulent ways were set aside for the betterment of mankind? And that suddenly at the start of 1971 (when the middle and lower class started losing their money to the top again) their greed kicked back in to start "stealing" the money from the people again? No, obviously not. Business has always been greedy...it doesn't start and stop on a dime. So, if that's not the case...you have to try to figure out another hypothesis that actually makes sense. Hence my post.

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 2 years ago

True, it not their fault that they are rich, it's our fault that we're not all rich. Consequently, it's better to create a new constitution, as follows:

We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:

The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.

This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).

Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?

For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The “toxic culture of greed” on Wall Street was highlighted again when Greg Smith went public with his resignation from Goldman Sachs in a scathing oped published in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html?_r=2&ref=business..

In other recent eyebrow-raisers, LIBOR rates—the benchmark interest rates involved in interest rate swaps—were shown to be manipulated by the banks that would have to pay up; and the objectivity of the ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association) was called into question, when a 50% haircut for creditors was not declared a “default” requiring counterparties to pay on credit default swaps on Greek sovereign debt.

Interest rate swaps are less often in the news than credit default swaps, but they are far more important in terms of revenue, composing fully 82% of the derivatives trade. In February, JP Morgan Chase revealed that it had cleared $1.4 billion in revenue on trading interest rate swaps in 2011, making them one of the bank’s biggest sources of profit. According to the Bank for International Settlements: Interest rate swaps are the largest component of the global OTC derivative market. The notional amount outstanding as of June 2009 in OTC interest rate swaps was $342 trillion, up from $310 trillion in Dec 2007. The gross market value was $13.9 trillion in June 2009, up from $6.2 trillion in Dec 2007.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/interestrateswap.php

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm not saying businessmen are saints and i don't doubt for a second they are greedy. But what you posted is illegal and people went to jail for it. I'm not talking about how businessmen illegally steal from people...because if caught, they go to jail or face consequences (unless they're paying of government to get them out of it...which i still say lies at the fault of government/business hybrid talked about in the post above).

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20721) 2 years ago

Here is an article that outlines how Apple exploits employees. Now, I'm not saying they're any different than other employers, but it is a good example.

The average Apple employee brings in $473,000 to Apple when you divide revenue by the number of employees, yet the average Apple employee earns a mere $25,000 per year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/business/apple-store-workers-loyal-but-short-on-pay.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

This is really a huge problem Control over production and the way labor is valued (or devalued) and how profits are shared needs to be fundamentally changed if we are to have a healthy society.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

I think what every one is stuck on is terminology here. In the simplist terms stealing taking something from someone against their will. So under that definition you could say businesses don't steal from us.

If you use words like collusion, bribery, influnence peddling, complex contract agreements, leveraged services, and so on and so on.

Then they are in fact far worse then thieves, there organized crime That's legal to operate because they stole our polititians

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

i didnt even read it. What about multimillion corporations? Monsanto for example. they'll do everything to multiply profit. Mixing fish genes with strawberries, who tha hell know what they do? Definitely something needs to be done to stop this. Do you agree?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You bet, i agree. Monsanto is a disgusting company.

But where does monsanto get its power? Government. How many people in government used to work at monsanto? How many people in monsanto used to work in the government. Not a complete list - but here's a few

"Former Monsanto employees currently hold positions in US government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Supreme Court. These include Clarence Thomas, Michael R. Taylor, Ann Veneman, Linda Fisher, Michael Friedman, William D. Ruckelshaus, and Mickey Kantor.[27] Linda Fisher has been back and forth between positions at Monsanto and the EPA."

There are also studies that the FDA has showing the dangers of genetically modified foods...but won't release because of "irreparable harm" to monsanto....again, because Monsanto pays the way for them.

How much money does monsanto give to elections? Monsanto lines the pocketbooks of people in washington.....making you irrelevant as a consumer and powerless. This was just a month or so ago check it out:

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/gmo_labeling_bill_0508120818.html

It's the corporate/government hybrid i talked about in the post.

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

seems like in order to get things right we need to overthrow such government hehehe =) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ox0Q4YIdnGI and this is not about voting process, because right candidate is outstanding, yet, there is no right candidate, but us, ready for direct action! Why this is WRONG? OWS RIP

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

What wealthy businessman has ever stolen your money directly....ever?

That banks do it constantly in the form of fees, that change indiscriminately or are designed to hit the poor specifically. The latest scandal was the overdraft fees. The algorithms were designed to make the greatest number of checks bounce using the overdraft fee, if one check bounced... even if the money to cover that check was deposited the same day or within minutes of the overdraft. A $35 bounce fee could easily escalate to a few hundred dollars over the course of a month, every month. Since those of low income were susceptible to this type of fee, it affected them the most.

[-] 2 points by PeterKropotkin (1050) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

This is more of that austrian school bullshit.

[-] 1 points by MattHolck2 (44) 2 years ago

with computer automation,

the banker did not even have to fill out the overdrawn form

to score dividends

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, attack the guys who warned you about the impending collapse years before it happened. If anyone had listened to them 10 years ago we wouldn't be in this mess.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia

How America's biggest banks took part in a nationwide bid-rigging conspiracy - until they were caught on tape

This just-completed trial in downtown New York against three faceless financial executives really was historic. Over 10 years in the making, the case allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.

The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, the banks systematically stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from "virtually every state, district and territory in the United States," according to one settlement. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being ­cheated. No thumbs were broken, and nobody ended up in a landfill in New Jersey, but money disappeared, lots and lots of it, and its manner of disappearance had a familiar name: organized crime.

By Matt Taibbi June 21, 2012

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620#ixzz1yiF4xGXV

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

People went to jail for this....it's illegal.

What rich CEO has stolen money from you personally?

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

The muni bid-rigging investigation described in the article, as large as it is in scope, is likely just the appetizer for an even broader and more serious investigation into another cartel-style corruption scheme, the manipulation of LIBOR, the interbank exchange rate often used to determine variable interest rates for things like mortgages.

Regulators in at least four different countries – the U.S., Canada, Japan, and the U.K. – are conducting a probe into the manipulation of LIBOR. At least one bank, UBS, is cooperating with authorities, and Wall Street has been abuzz with rumors in recent months that another major cooperating witness has come forward. That, coupled with news this winter and spring of dismissals of rate traders at several major banks in connection with these probes, suggests that these investigations are gaining momentum.

Many of the bigger banks have been targets. J.P. Morgan Chase, for instance, has been targeted by the Canadian probe (not that you would have heard about that in the recent congressional hearings with Jamie Dimon), along with Deutsche and HSBC. Barclays, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Citigroup, and a host of others are also being investigated.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/notes-on-wall-streets-bid-rigging-scandal-20120622#ixzz1yieEFN2h

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 2 years ago

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

[-] 0 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Bank fees are a choice- and so is writing checks with insufficient funds. I choose to "bank" with a credit union that doesn't charge fees- anyone can make that choice. Why blame the bank for your behavior? Make no sense.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I blame the bank for THEIR behavior. I don't mind taking the penalty for a bounced check, but when they process it to make all my checks bounce, thats foul.

Why do you forgive usury practices? We should all just accept that business is dishonest and unethical and that fine by you?

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Forgive? I simply refuse to be used by banks for profit. If everyone did the same, bad banks would change their ways or no longer be in business. What we (the 99%) have to realize is that we hold all the power.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Sorry they control the market, the market does not control them.

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

"Control the market"?? Not in my world. They respond tt the market or go out of business. I decide where, when and how I do busness with any bank.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

They respond tt the market or go out of business.

Thats already been proven false, to the tune of trillions of dollars.

[-] 0 points by broskinator (5) 2 years ago

or just don't bounce checks. it's pretty simple.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I could give you millions examples of how government wastes your money, or how that money goes to different business that don't deserve it..or how it is funneled to the rich at the expense of the poor (paying taxes)....this is where the massive transfer is coming from along with the inflation tax...not small frauds of business that happen here and there and are illegal..i'll try to prove it to you - check out this graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ChartofUSTop1%25IncomeShare_(1913-2008).svg

This shows the money the top 1% controls in the economy. From around 1930-1971 it declined (meaning the middle to lower class gained more of the percentage of money..they were better off and things were improving). Do you think business suddenly became any more noble during this time period???? That their fraudulent ways were set aside for the betterment of mankind? And that suddenly at the start of 1971 (when the middle and lower class started losing their money to the top again) their greed kicked back in to start "stealing" the money from the people again? No, obviously not. Business has always been greedy...it doesn't start and stop on a dime. So, if that's not the case...you have to try to figure out another hypothesis that actually makes sense. Hence my post.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Business lobbied (spent billions) for deregulation and won it. Thats the only hypothesis that makes sense. Ronals Raygunz and every administration since has sold us out. That doesn't mean that I stop holding business accountable.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

If you look at the regulations a business has to endure now compared to back in the 1930's-1971...there is absolutely no comparison.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

In some aspects. Take the Financial Industry. It is fairly well known that they have been turned loose. There may be more regulations governing entry into the market and for reporting, however, repeal of key laws have created too big to fail, the end of usury protection for consumers, and the creation of deregulated markets like those with derivatives.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm with you on derivatives...pyramiding debt in any form is fraudulent in my opinion and should be stopped. However i don't think you can time derivatives with the separation of wealth like you can the delinking of the dollar to gold in 1971. Certainly derivatives have not helped as the tax payer had to bail out the institutions that should have gone bust because of their faulty derivatives markets...but only in the last few years.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

It's a trifecta... Fair Trade, globalism, and the switch to consumerism.

The switch to consumerism I link directly to the change in banking regulations which started in the 80's. Credit Cards and other debt instruments attacked Americans savings accounts directly, along with the change in state Usury laws of this time period.

[-] -2 points by Growup6 (-125) 2 years ago

So, use that little brain inside your head, pee-sized as it may be, and stop over-drawing your checking account. With a little mental capacity, you might decide that bouncing checks is getting expensive and, you know, do that less. LOL.

Truly, it isn't possible to make the world safe enough to be that stupid.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Do you understand the concept of usury? It's a great thing that the AG's in various states and the banks themselves have admitted guilt in this scheme, they just don't give up hundreds of millions in settlements out of the goodness of their little black hearts for a none issue:

Citizens Bank Settles Overdraft Fee Lawsuit For $137.5 Million Posted: 04/26/2012 3:01 pm

"Citizens Bank is the latest bank to settle in a massive class action lawsuit over dodgy overdraft fee practices. On Wednesday, the midsize New England institution agreed to pay $137.5 million to settle the suit, which is part of a broader class action suit that involves more than 30 banks. A court must still approve Citizens' settlement.

Wednesday's agreement puts Citizens in the company of 12 other banks, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, who have agreed to pay out settlements to customers who were charged unfair overdraft fees. At issue is the financial institutions' method of reordering debit-card transactions from highest to lowest amount--rather than in the order that the transactions occurred--in order to maximize the number of overdraft fees that could be charged to a customer.

All together the settlement money, including the latest agreement by Citizens, will return approximately $750 million to customers, according to the Boston Globe. It is a chunk of change, to be sure, but it represents a very small portion of the billions of dollars banks have made in overdraft fees.

Every settlement in this overdraft lawsuit has represented a different portion of the alleged damages, according to American Banker. In the case of the Bank of America suit, which was approved last fall, the $410 million settlement represented only 10 percent of the alleged damages.

The practice of reordering transactions was a major way for banks to charge customers additional overdraft fees -- typically from $25 to $35 per transaction -- and drive revenue for themselves. Regulation of overdraft protection adopted in 2010 changed the laws to require that banks make it an optional service, rather than the default for all customers. The result of that legislation has saved consumers billions in overdraft fees -- but has taken a major bite from revenue for all banks."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/26/citizens-bank-settles-overdraft-suit_n_1456105.html

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I wouldn't consider this stealing from someone. Everyone has the option to switch banks and everyone can call their bank and ask what their overdraft fees are and what their monthly upkeep fees are. If you overdraw your bank account that's on your shoulders...you should be responsible about your money. If the overdraft fee seems incredibly unfair...take your money elsewhere...that's the genius of consumer voting...if the business isn't suiting your needs or you think they're screwing you over...take your business elsewhere and put them out of business.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Which is what eventually happened. Everyone agreed that the tactic was usury and pulled money out of the big banks. They wound up removing that fee or lowering it dramatically. Several state AG's agreed that the tactic was usury....

But until action was taken it was outright theft. That doesn't excuse the banks from doing it in the first place. The market takes forever to adjust, and pulling money out of the banks just made them change tactics, it would never put them out of business. Holdings and investments are too vast.... too big to fail.

...you should be responsible about your money.

Yeah thats real easy to preach, but if you are living pay check to pay check with small savings, as the working poor does, all it takes is one broken auto transmission and you are scrambling with your finances in turmoil.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"until action was taken it was outright theft"

Did the banks not provide the information if it was asked for? Could you not have called and inquired about the overdraft and user fees?

I lived paycheck to paycheck for quite some time...when you're in that position there's all the more reason to check into where your money is being put into and know what happens with an overdraft. I used to use cash and credit card to avoid things like that.....and if i had overdrawn my bank account i wouldn't have considered the charge stealing...because the information is readily available and it is ultimately up to me to be responsible for it....if i didn't like the fees i could have switched banks...nobody forces you to put your money into a particular bank.

I'm not sympathetic to businessmen...they will screw people over just as quick as government...but businessmen you can fire by choosing a different product or service...government you can't. They are held accountable every day by your money.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Stop making excuses for the criminal 1%! Stop being an apologist for the people who crashed the world economy and therefore stole at least 40% of home value from good honest hard working Americans.! Your argumenst are weak, spurious, and they obfuscate the truth. You are clearly anti 99%. You don't support the progressive policies that OWS would support to correct this great Bush recession.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, nothing in your statement above sounds remotely intelligent. It's like a little kid that isn't getting their way so they plug their ears and yell stuff that doesn't really further their side of the argument.

Are things messed up? You bet....are people getting screwed over...you bet. I'm trying to open a different perspective for people to direct their energies. Business is no more noble than government...i agree. But without government business ceases to be able to screw over the people....it's a business government hybrid. that's why i ask, what rich CEO has stolen money from you? The biggest chunks of redistribution of wealth come from government working with business....coupled with inflation.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Business owns govt! If govt is stealing from us it is at the behest of their corp puppet masters! Politicians are just the tools of the corp 1% criminals who are preying on you and your family. Stop making excuses for them and trying to deflect attention to the govt. It's not honest. It's not correct. Lets force our politicians to pass laws that support the 99% (progressive policies) Lets vote out politicians who support the right wing policies that the corp 1% support. Does the theft of my money have to be direct? Ridiculous! Indirect theft is still theft! You put forth an irrelevant distinction. You should recognize that your corp 1% criminals sit on top of this pyramid of theft.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

So who is ultimately reponsible....i don't disagree with the fact that business owns government....but if government wasn't able to be owned by business things would start to work for us. My point is that business doesn't screw you directly...they screw you through government....the main source of the problem....not business. Business greed is a symptom...gotta find the root cause.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Business screws me directly everyday through my wages.

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

would you support the Fair tax?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I would support an equal tax rate for everybody as soon as everybody has equal incomes. That would be fair.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You said: "You referenced 100 years back as an example of the last time we had a pure free market. Am I wrong in assuming you want to return to a pure market, free of any government intervention? Isn't that really why government must be at fault? Isn't that why your bias leads you to find information that fits this vision you have? Because government stops you from attaining this ideological vision of a free market run by the invisible hand."

My response: It depends what your definition of the free market is. I want the gov to lose its ability to steal from people through inflation, and i also want government to legalize gold and silver as a means of exchange (not force it on the system and do away with the dollar, just legalize it). If i want to protect my savings by holding only gold and silver, i should be allowed to hold it and use it as a means of exchange. I also want them to stop artificially manipulating interest rates, which would only be possible if they couldn't inflate. I would also end fractional reserve banking as this is another fraudulent form of inflation, and debt pyramiding, much like derivatives. I do think some regulations are necessary, but nothing that could deter from the things above.

I also want government stripped of its ability for greed to be a fuel for how it operates. My point is not that business is any more noble than government. My point is government is the focal point...get any possible way for business to manipulate government out of the system. My idea is to cap earnings while in office...they're supposed to be there doing a patriotic duty and if it's truly in them to want to help our society this shouldn't matter...cap earnings from all sources (lobbyists, stocks, income etc.) and tie it to some general marker for the averages in society...the point is that if they're in office, they can't be manipulated by money. If you don't get the money and the temptation out...things will never change. People always talk about the wrong person being in office...but even if you get a saint in office, he doesn't live forever...you will always run across another person who's influenced by greed in the future and stumble into the same problem.

Elections need to be reformed in a similar fashion to take out the monetary incentives...cap donations - and allow equal time for candidates on TV (perhaps the individuals who get to compete get a certain percentage of the populations votes). Money shouldn't dictate who gets more air time, for this is the person who could be running the country...we should hear what each and every one has to say with equal time to formulate a decision on who should best run the country. Money shouldn't dictate anything in the political process, otherwise it puts the power into the hands of business.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

After we clean up the government and get rid of money in politics (which I agree with), you still don't explain how labor will be protected (my main argument) from getting screwed by the business pyramid scheme. In other words, why should a business make one person a billionaire and so poorly reward all the laborers who helped make him that way? Why is it necessary to have business structures where workers must constantly fight for better wages to improve their living conditions?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I think the monetary system royally scews the average worker because your increase in earnings doesn't keep up with inflation. My post was how money is stolen from people without their knowledge...to show why the divide between the rich and the poor since 1971 is getting worse.

The only way for people to be protected against the business model scheme would be along the lines of a socialist economy.....which i don't agree with as once again power rests with the people in power...and in my opinion government is no more noble than business would be with the same power. It sets the stage for complete control of everyone by the few at the top.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Why not just make workplaces democratic?

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

Do you know that the Fair Tax is?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Sorry, I must have been thinking Flat tax. The fair tax is a consumption tax, only the amount of income you spend gets taxed. People lower in the economy spend nearly all of their income, so they would get taxed more.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Right, you want to back to the good old days of the gilded age and robber barons."

Where did you get that from?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You brought up a hundred or so years back....

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Trickle down economics was supposed to be a decent plan also and all I got was pissed on."

This isn't trickle down economics, it's far from it...we haven't been under a free market in a hundred or so years. The entire system is rigged for the upper class....read the website....

www.hmscoop.com

It explains it....i'm not arguing you're not getting screwed..i'm arguing on how you're getting screwed.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Right, you want to back to the good old days of the gilded age and robber barons.

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

So because i reference 100 years it means i want society to return in entirety to 100 years ago?

"Are you and ayn rand follower"

I don't follow anyone...i take a look at the data and if the conclusion points me in a direction then so be it. To answer your question though...no, never even been on their website.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You referenced 100 years back as an example of the last time we had a pure free market. Am I wrong in assuming you want to return to a pure market, free of any government intervention? Isn't that really why government must be at fault? Isn't that why your bias leads you to find information that fits this vision you have? Because government stops you from attaining this ideological vision of a free market run by the invisible hand.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Blah blah blah? You get a decent tax plan put in front of you and all you have to say is blah blah blah?

good luck with the current 76k pages.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Trickle down economics was supposed to be a decent plan also and all I got was pissed on.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the fair tax eliminates all personal and business income taxes,payroll, estate and capital gains taxes. RAISES real wages over 10% in the first year. saves americans 400bil wasted yearly complying with 72,000 pages of tax regulatios. PROVIDES a monthly "prebate" payments to all legal american households to offset taxes on necessities. ENDS the sale of tax favors to the rich, politically connected and special interest groups. raies the same revenue as the current system. Lowers product costs by removing business taxes and avoidance and compliance expenses now hidden.ELIMINATES the IRS. LOWERS tax rates for all americnas and capture taxes from the underground economy. creates jobs and restores the made in maerica label by making US products more competitive.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Blah...blah...blah...blah....The fair tax is a consumption tax, only the amount of income you spend gets taxed......less tax for the upper end, more tax for the lower end.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

They don't own your labor...go work somewhere else.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Obviously, your reply doesn't address the point. Why does business screw me? & with all due respect, you don't get to tell me what to do sir.

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

you didnt read what i wrote about the fair tax. there are provisions in it called "prebates". you are given money depending on your( low) income and the size of your family. in fact, the more money you have , the more you pay in taxes.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Providing Prebates. The monthly check would help offset some portion of every household’s sales tax payments, especially for families near and below the poverty line.

Major concerns include: Penalizing the Lower and Middle Classes. Individuals and families that are above poverty level and considered middle-class will bear the brunt of the tax burden for the country. This is promoted as a progressive tax, which means that the wealthy pay more and the poor and middle class pay less as a percentage of their income. This expectation will only come true, however, if individuals spend 100% of their incomes on taxable expenditures. Taxpayers – especially wealthier citizens – are not likely to choose to live paycheck-to-paycheck. The wealthy won’t likely trade investing for spending anytime soon, so this plan would indeed be regressive – meaning those with less money will end up paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I'm not telling you...i'm empowering you. Every day you spend there you cast the vote that what they're doing is ok with you. I should have phrased it "why not work somewhere else"? Didn't mean to phrase it that way.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You have no answer for business screwing me directly on my wages, do you? No, of course not, it does not fit in with your blind worship of free market ideology.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"And every freaking thing you talk about is designed to deflect from the original question, why does business screw me in the first place on my wages? Explain to me how it is people have been forced into three decades of stagnant wages. What policies forced those conditions on people?"

Isn't that the point of my post above?? The inflationary monetary system screwing everyone? Read the website i posted...www.hmscoop.com. Shows how government reporting on inflation statistics has been tweeked a number of times, and if you calculate it based on how it used to be we've seen inflation as high as 9% over the last few years. 99.9% of people out there are not getting 9% raises per year...hence your standard of living is going down...and if you're not getting any raises, you're getting screwed all the more.

look at the graph of cost of goods since the gold standard was abandoned:

http://hmscoop.com/MoneySupplyvsCommodities.html

almost the entire point of my post.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

That does not explain how business screws me. Corporations are making lots of profit, paying some people like lords and others like peasants. What does government have to do with that?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Yeah, actually i did...about 20 times.

In their view they aren't screwing you as you come to work every day...to force that view on them you need to find another job and note the fact you're being screwed....and if more people do the same thing then i'm sure they'll get the picture and pay more.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You said (from below): "How did employers force wages to remain stagnant for three decades? Magical market dust?"

David Neumark - Went to Harvard - Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine (among other schools) - Spent years studying minimum wage and written many papers on it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476823767508619.html

"Based on 20 years of research...........the bulk of the evidence -- from scores of studies, using data mainly from the U.S. but also from many other countries -- clearly shows that minimum wages reduce employment of young, low-skilled people...........Many people believe, for instance, that it helps low-income families. Here, too, the evidence is discouraging. There is no research supporting the claim that minimum wages reduce the proportion of families living in poverty. Research I've done with William Wascher of the Federal Reserve Board and Mark Schweitzer of the Cleveland Fed indicates that minimum wages increase poverty............The accumulated evidence undermines the case for minimum wages even in the best of times."

I realize it's counter-intuitive...and raising the minimum wage sounds good...but it doesn't help.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Backed off on that bogus ass force thingy real fast didn't you....and where did you get the idea that I wanted to raise the minimum wage?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

So what is your option? Force employers to pay you a certain income?

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

How did employers force wages to remain stagnant for three decades? Magical market dust?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You said: "Backed off on that bogus ass force thingy real fast didn't you....and where did you get the idea that I wanted to raise the minimum wage?"

My answer. Because every freaking thing you talk about is how your wages are too low..and as you said before...you're on minimum wage...(which i'm not slamming..i've been on it). In what other fashion could your wages be increased? Just force the company to raise your wages and keep everyone elses the same?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

And every freaking thing you talk about is designed to deflect from the original question, why does business screw me in the first place on my wages? Explain to me how it is people have been forced into three decades of stagnant wages. What policies forced those conditions on people?

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"Provide some of those options. Give details. If a person works at a minimum wage job, what options does that person have?"

Go work for another company that doesn't give so much money to the top execs...find a company that you think treats their employees well...and start at minimum wage and work your way up through hard work. And go watch the pursuit of happiness.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

options:

  • give my consent and agree to work for the wage an employer is willing to pay me
  • dissent and look for higher wages with low probability of finding them
  • expect raises and advancements to keep pace with cost of living even though statistics show stagnant wages for three decades
  • ask why wages are so low, determine a reason, and try to get the problem fixed
  • adopt the ideology of a person who wants to drive around in a car with no steering wheel and join the free market cultists
[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I just gave you an answer....if enough people agree with you they'll stop working there (and buying their product) and the business will go out of business. You have options, you are not forced to work there. That's the beauty of being free.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Provide some of those options. Give details. If a person works at a minimum wage job, what options does that person have?

[-] -3 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"That does not explain how business screws me. Corporations are making lots of profit, paying some people like lords and others like peasants. What does government have to do with that?"

Businesses have always made ridiculous profits. Your theory doesn't even make sense....so between 1930-1971 (when the middle and lower class controlled more of the $$ and things improved for them) business execs decided they would give more of their money to the people...and then right when 1971 hits all of a sudden they're going back to their old ways of hoarding all the money? The problem you have is you're incredibly angry because of your situation and willing to blame people more fortunate than you have been...whether it makes any sense or not. Why not find something that actually makes sense to blame?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Are you an Ayn Rand follower?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is not ok with me for business to "screw US indirectly". The answer is to recognize that the problem is right wing policies that the 1% corp have put in place with majority republican votes and some dems who have betrayed the progressive principles they give lip service to. Theanswer is to protest/pressure all pols to pass progressive policies to correct the right wing policies that the 1% prefer. Vote out right wing pols! Elect progressives!

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

You have a lot to say, but not really a lot to back up anything you're saying.

Some of the greatest turn arounds in the world for countries has come from free markets. Hong Kong is case and point....in 40 years it went from being one of the most impovershed countries to one of the wealthiest....because if its extreme free market. Plot countries based on how free their economies are...what do you get? The more free the economy the more likely you are to make more money, the less unemployment, the better the GDP, the better the per capita income, the happier the citizens, the better the distribution of wealth...and on and on.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah sure. I've made my money through "free market" after a long career in tech mgmt through stocks, and real estate, But that doesn't mean I think the free market is perfect. I know we gotta watch the corps or they will screw us, as they have. They destroyed our economy! They have kept wages low for almost 4 decades. The market be damned, If it ain't serving the 99% it's gotta change. I guess we disagree. Maybe these things don't matter to you. People over profits!!

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

If you support Obama or Romney, you are NOT for the people. And as I already know the first thing you put on every day is your "Vote for Obama" pin, we know your true agenda, don't we, VQkag2...

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I protest to create change for the 99%. Against the 1%. Republicans proudly trumpet the policies of the 1%. Dems have moved right, and cave in to the right when they vote for 1% right wing policies. The only answer is vote out right wing pro 1% pols (dems and repubs) Vote in progressive pols.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah they're both raisin money but dems don't get as much from 1% corps. Because the corp 1% don'tlike the reforms dems have passed. Although weak ('cause of your repubs) these reforms would get stronger if more progressive dems get elected. That is why 1% money is mainly going to repubs. Dems get celebrity, unions, lawyers, and individuals (40% of dem donations are $200 or less) Repubs don't even get 10% under $200.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

I agree...just compare the donations to obama 4 years ago to romney's donations...same corps....same $$$ lining both sides of the isle.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah they're both raisin money but dems don't get as much from 1% corps. Because the corp 1% don't like the reforms dems have passed. Although weak ('cause of your repubs) these reforms would get stronger if more progressive dems get elected. That is why 1% money is mainly going to repubs. Dems get celebrity, unions, lawyers, and individuals (40% of dem donations are $200 or less) Repubs don't even get 10% under $200.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But now wall st money is going to repubs. Almost 80% of the 1% criminals money is going to repubs. I think that should be enough for honest intelligent people to know. But finally just remember the repubs proudly trumpet the right wing policies of the 1%. Dems betray their progressive principles when they cave in and vote for those right wing policies. Vote out right wing pro 1% pols (Dems and repubs) and vote in progressive pols.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

yeah you're blinded by your ideological goggles....wake up buddy.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Wall Street Journal:

Hong Kong has become a more unequal city over the past decade, according to new government figures.

The city’s wealth gap now outstrips that of Singapore, the United Kingdom and Australia as well as other major cities notorious for inequality such as Washington and New York City, says the Hong Kong’s Census and Statistics Department. In 2011, the city’s Gini coefficient—an index from 0 to 1 that measures the wealth gap—rose to 0.537, up from 0.525 in 2001. It’s a figure that exceeds various estimates even of inequality across the border in mainland China.

The thousands of people living in Hong Kong’s notorious “cage homes” are some of the more searing images associated with the city’s poverty. But the middle class has also been squeezed, analysts say, as housing prices have surpassed even the levels seen during the city’s 1997 bubble. In recent years, as travel restrictions for mainland Chinese have loosened, rows of swanky storefronts catering to such tourists have cropped up across the city, including glittering temples to luxury handbags and jewelry, spurring resentment among Hong Kongers who feel they’ve been left out of the city’s economic boom.

In explaining Hong Kong’s entrenched wealth gap, analysts cite the economy’s overwhelming reliance on the services sector, particularly finance, which has created wealth for some but failed to provide significant numbers of well-paying jobs across the board. While income grew 60% among the city’s top 10% of earners between 2001-2010, it dropped by 20% among those in the bottom 10%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/06/19/hong-kongs-wealth-gap-gets-larger/

[-] -2 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

And what has happened to hong kong over the last number of decades?

http://www.economist.com/node/16591088/

You prove my point.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Check the date on the WSJ article. June 19, 2012.

Here's another one from months ago.

http://www.insitu.com.hk/blog/?p=2045

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Read mine! Hong kong hasn't had a free market for decades.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You used Hong Kong as an example that the free market betters the distribution of wealth. Clearly it has not bettered the distribution of wealth.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Read my article...it's talking about hong kong moving away from its roots for the last few decades...not last few months.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Read my articles, they talk about how fucked up Hong Kong is because free markets suck all the wealth to the top of the food chain. Hong Kong's free market policies make poor people poorer and rich people richer.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

"You used Hong Kong as an example that the free market betters the distribution of wealth. Clearly it has not bettered the distribution of wealth."

Until the last few decades when it has gone far away from its roots....i never said present day hong kong. Read that article i posted.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Does it even address wealth inequality? Just seems to be one long bitch fest about raising the minimum wage for poor people.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The 1% banksters and their repub tools are railing against the dodd-frank fin reform bill. I say the reform is too weak, and I know it was watered down by your republicans at the behest of the 1% wall st criminals. I also know that republicans have delayed its implementation with every ounce and tactic at their disposal. In addition all the 1% wall st money is going to repub this cycle. All of this should tell honest intelligent people that although Dodd-Frank is too weak it certainly has the correct enemies. Now we just need to vote out the pols who voted against it. and replace them with progressives who will pass stronger fin reform. but you won't support that because you are a repub plant right?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I can't click on your links. You are clearly hostile, and unstable. I believe you might try to infect my computer with a virus. You have threatened me after all.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Threats? You can't touch me. You are weak. emotional and wrong.

[-] -2 points by vvv0627 (-16) 2 years ago

Reply to VQkag2 below:

There are few things more fleeting than Internet anonymity. So you just keep thinking all that...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The stealing part came with the algorithm. A series of charges would come through and the banks software would pick the largest one to cash first.... not the order in which they were charged. This would guarantee an overdraft if you timed your deposit to cover the small check which you thought would bounce was cleared last. Now the single bounce fee would cascade to the remaining checks, which would incur bounce fees.

This is an old article explaining the scheme, but it has only been remedied last year:

http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/racket.htm

When the vast majority of the industry does it... what recourse do you have? The market fails in this case. Class action suits get filed, in the mean time the banks were averaging $30 Billion in overdraft fee revenues per year. Its theft.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Lol, we've been going back and forth all day...actually been enjoyable with decent info rather than the usual pettiness that these convo's seem to become.

I haven't looked at the article yet, but i will. You may be correct about it. My overall point is that you as the consumer have much more power over a private corporation than you do your government...and they can't legally steal from you (private corps). %99.999999 of people out there cannot provide an instance where a rich CEO stole directly from them.....but %100 of the people can say that the government has stolen from them...likewise the citizens can also say that they've been stolen from through the inflation tax as well...which is where the ultimate transfers of wealth originate from.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 2 years ago

Some people say "Let the Buyer Beware" is the kind of thing a 'con man' would enjoy. These people feel that if Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan sell something very expensive to an Alabama County which can not afford, then it is poor performance or outright fraud or stealing.

The problem is in Capitalism and in our Mixed Economy, the best way for decisions to be made is for the person responsible to do his best to try to get the right deal.

Who can watch out for our money for us.


BIRMINGHAM, Ala., May 2 (Reuters) - Alabama's bankrupt Jefferson County is laying off more government workers as prospects for reviving a local employment-tax dim.

Lay-off letters have been sent to 75 employees of Jefferson County, the home of Birmingham, that last year filed America's biggest municipal bankruptcy, officials said on Wednesday. The county already employs some 700 fewer people than a year ago.

Jefferson County in November filed for its $4.27 billion bankruptcy after the unwinding of a tentative agreement that might have cut the county's debt load by $1 billion. County finances had been savaged by massive sewer-system debt, political corruption and the loss of a vital local jobs tax.


Despite all this, the county still hadn’t fixed its sewers, as the E.P.A. had required. It needed more money, but people were so angry that officials were afraid to raise rates further.

Desperate, Jefferson County turned to Wall Street, particularly to JPMorgan Chase. The bank was able to persuade the county to agree to a bond deal with terms that included complicated interest-rate swaps. Those swaps blew up during the financial crisis of 2008, leaving the county with even more debt than it had started with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/business/jefferson-county-ala-falls-off-the-bankruptcy-cliff.html?pagewanted=all

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Cocreator (306) 2 years ago

lipstick on a pig..

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

When a businessman pays his workers less than they are worth, does not provide adequate benefits, etcetera and instead pockets the extra loot for him/herself, that businessman is taking that money from the worker. This idea is too sophisticated for you?

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Did you start the company? Should i be able to come to your house after you build it and take a couch because i don't have one?

[-] 0 points by EndGluttony (507) 2 years ago

Keep playing dumb, but you know you're full of shit. What hellish bullshit do you do for a living?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

what does that have to do with anything (my job)?

i didn't play dumb.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by spermcoffinACAB (5) 2 years ago

the rich should fucking show some humanity and at least address fucking Occupy without mocking it. it maes me want to slash their fucking faces. how can they joke about it? they'll get theirs. we'll destroy your homes lol.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

nowhere near rich..not even close.

[-] 0 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

Why OWS is wrong? That could be a book longer than War and Peace.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Derivatives weren't illegal during that time...i don't agree with them by any means...but why doesn't government do something about it? Probably because they're in bed with the major banks. Just look at campaign contributions....biggest contributors are many of the corps you mention above. Goldman sachs.....perfect example of gov corp hybrid....always have guys jumping back and forth between gov and the private sector...it's that gov/corp hybrid i talked about in the post

[-] 0 points by commonsensefolks (-55) 2 years ago

The government couldn't find it's butt with two hands, a flashlight and 3 mirrors. Seriously, the only thing the government knows how to do is create process, paper, and meetings. They aren't in bed. They're just incompetent.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

lol

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

Good post. 2 thumbs up

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 2 years ago

OWS is wrong because it is openly advocating overthrow of American government; it's wrong because it is openly promoting violent revolution; it's wrong because it's attacking America's ability to police its deviants; it's wrong because it foments hatred; it's wrong because it is very actively dumbing down all - lesser can never be a a solution.

[-] -1 points by Misaki (893) 2 years ago

Inflation steals money from the poor and middle class and redistributes that money to the upper class

Inflation doesn't happen because banks led people money.

It's due to the government spending money without first collecting it in taxes. Unlike banks, the government is not required to have a "reserve" because it can CREATE money; this money creation is, of course, another source of inflation.

The end result is higher profits for Wall Street, but not because the government directly pays Wall Street; it's because inflation (as a result of wealth transfers and deficit spending, meaning that even things like military spending are to blame) encourages people to put their money into financial markets—where Wall Street promptly takes it away through higher proficiency in those markets. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-inflation-scam/

Meaning that, yes, OWS is wrong but the accelerated work week, which would create jobs, would also reduce Wall Street's profits.

(Also relevant: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupy-movement-is-wrong-about-the-rich/)

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

Inflation can occur by banks lending people money via fractional reserves...it increases the money supply....either way inflating the money supply steals from the middle and lower class and gives to the rich...which i think we both agree with.

Banks are always the people who receive newly created money even outside of fractional reserves.