Occupy Wall Street (1 Viewer)

[fsword]

We had corporations well before the 1930's when the breakdown of the constituional order really began. We also had them in the 1960's when the breakdown was accelerated. So prior to that, we somehow dealt with corporations without throwing out the constitution.Besides that, a lot of the expansions of government have nothing to do with acting as a check on corporations. If the only expansions of government power were limited to that, I could almost live with it.But you said we need to get rid of corporations. How exactly would we do that?

What are you refering to during these periods that were "breakdowns in constituional order"?

Oh I don't know. Maybe the Federal Government suddenly having the power to tell a wheat farmer he couldn't grow wheat for his personal use.

So you think judicial decisions on the Commerce Clause broke down constitutional order? If so, how would you fix that?

Yes, I think the idea of a limited government with only enumerated powers has been mortally wounded.How would I fix that? Operating in what capacity?

Given that the court has upheld it for 80 years I'm guessing you would need some amendment to reverse it. Maybe there are other ways, but I was just curious what you would have in mind if so.

That's interesting. An amendment to basically say "We really, really mean what the Commerce Clause actually says."I would hold the opposite. The burden for changing the meaning of the constitution should have required an amendment of the people who wanted to do the changing.The battle over Prohibition worked out the way it was supposed to. The anti-liquor forces didn't pretend that the constitution enabled them to ban liquor. They sought and got an amendment to get what they wanted. Similarly, the anti-Prohibition forces got a competing amendment approved to bring back liquor. Neither side woud have imagined that they could just ban liquor sales as part of existing constitutional powers.

Senators lost the desire or will to operate as a check and balance to the Judicial branch once elections were moved to the general public rather than the state legislatures.

 

[bueno]

What can you say....?...Sometimes that tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.

Absolutely. Let's get rid of big government.

Aside from the poopers and rapers and pee throwers and people of the such....couldn't your sentiment be a facet of what these people are looking for....that big business is too intricately tied into big government?

No. He said big government. Not big business.Personally, I trust big business far more than big government. That's because government acts as a check on big business. But there is no check on big government. I'm a strong believer in checks and balances. Maybe if we had a council of corporations that could review and veto big government actions, I would trust big government to do the right thing a little more. As it stands, big government is clearly is biggest obstacle to success in this country.

1. big business take everything they can when they can - its programmed into its DNA by the profit motive - we only need look back to pre-WWI times to see how business unchecked by regulation will operate2. the check on the government is the people/democracy - at least in theory. that check seems to have been co-opted by monied power, hence the protests.3. we already have a council of corporations that check and veto government actions, its just not formalized - again, this is the essence of what is being protested.

Let's start then by getting rid of the Fed.

 

[flapgreen]

I watched a bunch of Video footage - Seems like a bunch of people with no clue who's goal is to provoke a cop to do something to them so they can yell back "We're not doing anything" and "you're on camera"...I see people taking swings at cops and I see people getting in the face of cops and not obeying orders... Like the little nagging brother trying to get a reaction from the older brother by putting his finger in his face or poking in the back seat... Then the older brother gets pissed and the youger kid screams MAAAAAAAAHHH, HE HIT ME!!!!!!Really a waste of cops time babysitting this ####. These people risk their lives every day and they need to be put in this #### #### ####### with a bunch of panzies with cameras in their face?????JEEZ.. Got to Washington DC or go Home... You're barking up the wrong tree... It's the regulations and people in DC that hold the cards.

These people are idiots.

 

[jon_mx]

I watched a bunch of Video footage - Seems like a bunch of people with no clue who's goal is to provoke a cop to do something to them so they can yell back "We're not doing anything" and "you're on camera"...I see people taking swings at cops and I see people getting in the face of cops and not obeying orders... Like the little nagging brother trying to get a reaction from the older brother by putting his finger in his face or poking in the back seat... Then the older brother gets pissed and the youger kid screams MAAAAAAAAHHH, HE HIT ME!!!!!!Really a waste of cops time babysitting this ####. These people risk their lives every day and they need to be put in this #### #### ####### with a bunch of panzies with cameras in their face?????JEEZ.. Got to Washington DC or go Home... You're barking up the wrong tree... It's the regulations and people in DC that hold the cards.

These people are idiots.

But that is a problem. These protest have nothing to do with policies. They are mainly opposed to consumerism and capitalism in general. They have no specific government policies except to tax capitalism out of existence. The big push now seems to be to try to make these camps green and self-sustaining and to establish some communistic utopia. Oh yeah, and world peace.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

family in town for the holiday. they wanted to check out the protesters to see the spectacle. funny that OWS is a tourist attraction.

less than 100 people there yesterday. half were begging for cigarette money.

It's over johnny, it's over!

 

[jon_mx]

family in town for the holiday. they wanted to check out the protesters to see the spectacle. funny that OWS is a tourist attraction.less than 100 people there yesterday. half were begging for cigarette money.It's over johnny, it's over!

It seems like a pretty good gig for the homeless for as long as they can milk it.

 

[cr8f]

My problem with the Black Friday shoppers is who is their leader? What do they want?

 

[cubd8]

This "movement" is a joke. I think more and more people agree that it's a bunch of nonsense.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This "movement" is a joke. I think more and more people agree that it's a bunch of nonsense.

I think OWS has more things in common with a "bowel movement" than an actual movement to change policy - or anything - for that matter.

 

[Zow]

Neither side woud have imagined that they could just ban liquor sales as part of existing constitutional powers.

A federal ban on cocaine and heroin should have required a constitutional amendment similar to the one for alcohol, but times have changed.

To be fair though, that's generally left up to the states. I know there was that one major constitutional law case arising out of California regarding legalizing marijuana but I cannot remember the exact issue or the outcome. Any recollection?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Neither side woud have imagined that they could just ban liquor sales as part of existing constitutional powers.

A federal ban on cocaine and heroin should have required a constitutional amendment similar to the one for alcohol, but times have changed.

To be fair though, that's generally left up to the states. I know there was that one major constitutional law case arising out of California regarding legalizing marijuana but I cannot remember the exact issue or the outcome. Any recollection?

Gonzales v. Raich. California legalized medicinal marijuana. The feds busted a medicinal marijuana grower/user in California. No state law was violated. The conviction was upheld.

 

[Zow]

Neither side woud have imagined that they could just ban liquor sales as part of existing constitutional powers.

A federal ban on cocaine and heroin should have required a constitutional amendment similar to the one for alcohol, but times have changed.

To be fair though, that's generally left up to the states. I know there was that one major constitutional law case arising out of California regarding legalizing marijuana but I cannot remember the exact issue or the outcome. Any recollection?

Gonzales v. Raich. California legalized medicinal marijuana. The feds busted a medicinal marijuana grower/user in California. No state law was violated. The conviction was upheld.

Then your statement was dead one.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Sorry if this has been posted already. Haven't been keeping up in the thread.

Priceless

 

[Jules Winnfield]

It will soon be very very cold here in Minnesota. The wind will pick up and blow hard. Stinging snow and sleet will fall from the sky. Night time temperatures will get into the -20s.

These people will get up, pack up, and be done with their stupid protest or die of exposure.

Then it will be how we should all be sorry and weep for these people who put themselves in harms way to make a stand or a statement.

Sorry, but I will not feel sorry nor will I shed a tear

 

[Daywalker]

I watched a bunch of Video footage - Seems like a bunch of people with no clue who's goal is to provoke a cop to do something to them so they can yell back "We're not doing anything" and "you're on camera"...I see people taking swings at cops and I see people getting in the face of cops and not obeying orders... Like the little nagging brother trying to get a reaction from the older brother by putting his finger in his face or poking in the back seat... Then the older brother gets pissed and the youger kid screams MAAAAAAAAHHH, HE HIT ME!!!!!!Really a waste of cops time babysitting this ####. These people risk their lives every day and they need to be put in this #### #### ####### with a bunch of panzies with cameras in their face?????JEEZ.. Got to Washington DC or go Home... You're barking up the wrong tree... It's the regulations and people in DC that hold the cards.

These people are idiots.

But that is a problem. These protest have nothing to do with policies. They are mainly opposed to consumerism and capitalism in general. They have no specific government policies except to tax capitalism out of existence. The big push now seems to be to try to make these camps green and self-sustaining and to establish some communistic utopia. Oh yeah, and world peace.

Or that the system is a joke. When banks can steal billions, pocket the profits, then go bankrupt and get bailed out getting paid again. Oh yeah, no one went to jail. Yeah nothing to get riled up over.It's not a coherent message but that's the underlying sentiment. We should all be so outraged. Have your head in the sand if you don't think the political/financial system is not rigged to a degree. And the answer to our problmes is to cut the the top-marginal income tax rates? Ha.

 

[Daywalker]

What are the chances when a portfolio manager gets insider information from a Congresmman about certain stocks he then passes that info onto his biggest clients? I'd suspect 100%. Whole thing is a joke.

 

[Statorama]

A truly wasted opportunity.

This could have had as much (if not more) momentum as the Tea Party movement did.

There are certain aspects of the system that have been corrupted and need to be changed. I get that, you get that, even the people scamming the system get that. The movement has a broad message that could be globally accepted if presented correctly.

They've let so many things go wrong, but mostly they've let the "bad faction" run wild. The Tea Party gatherings were always done with permits, and handled in a lawful fashion. People at Tea Party gatherings left their meeting areas immaculate when they left. As much as they wanted to, the media couldn't portray them as racist, frothing animals. Conversely, as much as the media wants to portray 'Occupiers' in a positive light, the "bad faction" make it damn near impossible.

The biggest thing the "bad faction" is doing though, is keeping legitimate leadership from leading their cause. No one is going to fully embrace this movement as long as it's known more for rapes and public defecation than genuine public protest. Look at that pepper spray incident. It should have been a galvanizing moment, instead it became a funny internet meme.

Letting the unions and the crazies be in charge of this thing was a huge misstep, one from which the movement may never recover.

 

[jamny]

I get the feeling this was just a trial run for what's coming in Spring 2012. Lots of fund raising and organizing over the winter. I hope it just dies out but I expect it to get real ugly next year.

 

[Rayderr]

I get the feeling this was just a trial run for what's coming in Spring 2012. Lots of fund raising and organizing over the winter. I hope it just dies out but I expect it to get real ugly next year.

I keep hearing that OWS is a "leaderless" movement. If they're leaderless, who are people donating money to? Are they just picking random people out of the crowd and saying "Hey, I support your movement. Here's a couple thousand dollars."?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

I haven't heard any of the Occupy Wall Street types say it's American wealth or that they oppose humanitarian aid to other countries. I'm sure that some of them feel that way but I don't know if it's widely shared.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

very well said.

 

[Mello]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all unless you think we should all be under one world government or some nonsense. We are competing with other nations or at least we should be. It IS America's wealth and many believe the way it is being distributed is unfair to the vast majority of Americans. People in Zambia need to fix their own country.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

 

[guderian]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

Excellent posting. Selling off their iPads and iPods would feed a family in Africa for a year.

 

[Mello]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

I don't want them to be poor but if I have to choose between Americans earning that money or someone in some other country, I'll be choosing the American. They live in my country and will be far more likely to distribute that money in a way to help other Americans.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

While I don't support OWS, I think they believe that things like the bailout of banks came from the pockets of Americans and instead of going to bankers it should go to them. The flaw in their reasoning has more to do with blaming the "bankers" instead of the government or departments that allowed this.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

I don't want them to be poor but if I have to choose between Americans earning that money or someone in some other country, I'll be choosing the American. They live in my country and will be far more likely to distribute that money in a way to help other Americans.

So?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

I don't want them to be poor but if I have to choose between Americans earning that money or someone in some other country, I'll be choosing the American. They live in my country and will be far more likely to distribute that money in a way to help other Americans.

So Americans who earn their money should only be forced to redistribute it to Americans who did not earn their money, not everyone who didn't earn their money?

 

[Mello]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

I don't want them to be poor but if I have to choose between Americans earning that money or someone in some other country, I'll be choosing the American. They live in my country and will be far more likely to distribute that money in a way to help other Americans.

So Americans who earn their money should only be forced to redistribute it to Americans who did not earn their money, not everyone who didn't earn their money?

I want all Americans to have the opportunity to earn their money regardless of the effects to those outside of this country. I also want to place rules on people who do far less to "earn" their money to force them to distribute that money in a way that will help allow all Americans that opportunity.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Replace "The %1" with "the Jewish peril" and you are getting awfully close to Nazism imo.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I want all Americans to have the opportunity to earn their money regardless of the effects to those outside of this country. I also want to place rules on people who do far less to "earn" their money to force them to distribute that money in a way that will help allow all Americans that opportunity.

 

[Card Trader]

We are competing with other nations or at least we should be.

Why do we want people in other countries to be poor?

I don't want them to be poor but if I have to choose between Americans earning that money or someone in some other country, I'll be choosing the American. They live in my country and will be far more likely to distribute that money in a way to help other Americans.

So Americans who earn their money should only be forced to redistribute it to Americans who did not earn their money, not everyone who didn't earn their money?

I want all Americans to have the opportunity to earn their money regardless of the effects to those outside of this country. I also want to place rules on people who do far less to "earn" their money to force them to distribute that money in a way that will help allow all Americans that opportunity.

Oh I'd LOOOOOOVE to hear how you'd define this. Brilliant stuff here.

 

[Vision6]

Replace "The %1" with "the Jewish peril" and you are getting awfully close to Nazism imo.

And people say suggestive thinking isn't effective #wakeup

 

[Daywalker]

Robert Reich.Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, 'Aftershock'11/28/11Restore the Basic Bargain For most of the last century, the basic bargain at the heart of the American economy was that employers paid their workers enough to buy what American employers were selling.That basic bargain created a virtuous cycle of higher living standards, more jobs, and better wages.Back in 1914, Henry Ford announced he was paying workers on his Model T assembly line $5 a day -- three times what the typical factory employee earned at the time. The Wall Street Journal termed his action "an economic crime."But Ford knew it was a cunning business move. The higher wage turned Ford's auto workers into customers who could afford to buy Model T's. In two years Ford's profits more than doubled.That was then. Now, Ford Motor Company is paying its new hires half what it paid new employees a few years ago.The basic bargain is over -- not only at Ford but all over the American economy.New data from the Commerce Department shows employee pay is now down to the smallest share of the economy since the government began collecting wage and salary data in 1929.Meanwhile, corporate profits now constitute the largest share of the economy since 1929.1929, by the way, was the year of the Great Crash that ushered in the Great Depression.In the years leading up to the Great Crash, most employers forgot Henry Ford's example. The wages of most American workers remained stagnant. The gains of economic growth went mainly into corporate profits and into the pockets of the very rich. American families maintained their standard of living by going deeper into debt. In 1929 the debt bubble popped.Sound familiar? It should. The same thing happened in the years leading up to the crash of 2008.The latest data on corporate profits and wages show we haven't learned the essential lesson of the two big economic crashes of the last 75 years: When the economy becomes too lopsided -- disproportionately benefiting corporate owners and top executives rather than average workers -- it tips over.In other words, we're in trouble because the basic bargain has been broken.Yet incredibly, some politicians think the best way to restart the nation's job engine is to make corporations even more profitable and the rich even richer -- reducing corporate taxes; cutting back on regulations protecting public health, worker safety, the environment, and small investors; and slashing taxes on the very rich.These same politicians think average workers should have even less money in their pockets. They don't want to extend the payroll tax cut or unemployment benefits. And they want to make it harder for workers to form unions.These politicians have reality upside down.Corporations don't need more money. They have so much money right now they don't even know what to do with all of it. They're even buying back their own shares of stock. This is a bonanza for CEOs whose pay is tied to stock prices and it increases the wealth of other shareholders. But it doesn't create a single new job and it doesn't raise the wages of a single employee.Nor do the wealthiest Americans need more money. The top 1 percent is already taking in more than 20 percent of total income -- the highest since the 1920s.American businesses, including small-business owners, have no incentive to create new jobs because consumers (whose spending accounts for about 70 percent of the American economy) aren't spending enough. Consumers' after-tax incomes dropped in the second and third quarters of the year, the first back-to-back drops since 2009.The recent small pickup in consumer spending has come out of their savings. Obviously this can't continue, and corporations know it. Consumer savings are already at their lowest level in four years.Get it? Corporate profits are up right now largely because pay is down and companies aren't hiring. But this is a losing game even for corporations over the long term. Without enough American consumers, their profitable days are numbered.After all, there's a limit to how much profit they can get out of cutting American payrolls or even selling abroad. European consumers are in no mood to buy. And most Asian economies, including China, are slowing.We're in a vicious cycle. The only way out of it is to put more money into the pockets of average Americans. That means extending the payroll tax cut. And extending unemployment benefits.Don't stop there. Create a WPA to get the long-term unemployed back to work. And a Civilian Conservation Corp to create jobs for young people.Hire teachers for classrooms now overcrowded, and pay them enough to attract people who are talented as well as dedicated. Rebuild our pot-holed highways. Create a world-class infrastructure.Pay for this by hiking taxes on millionaires.A basic bargain was once at the heart of the American economy. It recognized that average workers are also consumers and that their paychecks keep the economy going.We can't have a healthy economy until that bargain is restored.Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

 

[Slapdash]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

Excellent posting. Selling off their iPads and iPods would feed a family in Africa for a year.

Buying their iPads and iPods helps feed families in China.

 

[guderian]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

Excellent posting. Selling off their iPads and iPods would feed a family in Africa for a year.

Buying their iPads and iPods helps feed families in China.

I don't disagree--that's the very nature of capitalism that many of them are protesting. I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Can somebody point to some evidence of this hypocrisy? People just seem to be assuming they know what the Occupy people's views are on international redistribution of wealth.

 

[guderian]

I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Can somebody point to some evidence of this hypocrisy? People just seem to be assuming they know what the Occupy people's views are on international redistribution of wealth.

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical. Their big issue is that they want the more fortunate to redistribute their wealth to them.

 

[Slapdash]

I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Can somebody point to some evidence of this hypocrisy? People just seem to be assuming they know what the Occupy people's views are on international redistribution of wealth.

They don't seem too happy with free trade. Free trade is about the largest international wealth redistribution (and growth) mechanism humans have seen.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical.

Is this the same logic as the argument that wealthy pro-taxes advocates are hypocrites unless they're voluntarily paying extra taxes? I didn't think Maurile was one of those types.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Can somebody point to some evidence of this hypocrisy? People just seem to be assuming they know what the Occupy people's views are on international redistribution of wealth.

They don't seem too happy with free trade. Free trade is about the largest international wealth redistribution (and growth) mechanism humans have seen.

This is a pretty good response to me, and I think you might be right that there's a lot of anti-free trade sentiment amongst Occupy types. I generally tend to think of anti-free trade folks as more misinformed than hypocritical, but it's probably a combination of both.

 

[guderian]

They have a lot of technology and such that many in the world would consider to be the toys of the wealthy. They don't need a government policy to redistribute their wealth to the less fortunate--they can just do it. The fact that they don't is hypocritical.

Is this the same logic as the argument that wealthy pro-taxes advocates are hypocrites unless they're voluntarily paying extra taxes? I didn't think Maurile was one of those types.

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

 

[bueno]

What are the chances when a portfolio manager gets insider information from a Congresmman about certain stocks he then passes that info onto his biggest clients? I'd suspect 100%. Whole thing is a joke.

Where did the Congressman get the inside information?

 

[bueno]

Different OWS participants have different attitudes and objectives, so there's no single criticism that will apply to everybody. But as a general principle, I find the whole 99%-vs-1% stuff distasteful.

The majority of the OWS participants who are part of the 99% in the U.S. are part of the wealthiest 1% worldwide. Those banging the drums for a battle between the haves and the have-nots, by and large, are a bunch of haves deluding themselves that they're have-nots. If the 99%-vs-1% principle they're agitating for were applied consistently, it would be their own wealth and the wealth of their own friends and families getting "occupied" against. And yet the OWSers as a group, when they call for a more equitable distribution of wealth, seem to think they should be on the receiving end of the redistribution. They feel that poor Americans have a better claim to Warren Buffett's wealth than even poorer Zambians, because they feel it's America's wealth, rather than either Warren Buffett's wealth or humanity's wealth. That's just nationalistic tribalism fronting for self-interest; and in the context of the OWS movement, it's rather hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical at all unless you think we should all be under one world government or some nonsense. We are competing with other nations or at least we should be. It IS America's wealth and many believe the way it is being distributed is unfair to the vast majority of Americans. People in Zambia need to fix their own country.

Actually, it is Warren Buffet's wealth, not America's.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I don't think the potshots at liberals are really helping your argument. There are plenty of rich liberals that argue for policies that are against their own self-interests. And there are plenty of rich conservatives that argue for self-serving policies.I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction. Honestly that criticism can be leveled at any attempts at social welfare in this country.

 

[humpback]

If you want a better economic outcome, that's fine, but don't use rhetoric referring to humanity and economic fairness while limiting yourself to a population where you'd benefit from a re-distribution instead of a larger population where it would cost you. The very statistics that exemplify OWS (1%/99%) are based on United States economic data. Why aren't they using global data???OWSers are true liberals in that they can have a 'view' or 'position' on something yet exclude themselves from adhering to it. It's always someone else that has to suffer the negative consequences of their 'views' and, conveniently, the OWSers usually the ones to benefit.

I don't think the potshots at liberals are really helping your argument. There are plenty of rich liberals that argue for policies that are against their own self-interests. And there are plenty of rich conservatives that argue for self-serving policies.I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction. Honestly that criticism can be leveled at any attempts at social welfare in this country.

Are you seriously trying to say that the reason OWS isn't clamoring for global redistribution is because it's less likely to get any sort of political traction?I find it hard to believe people can't see the hypocrisy in this- I agree with MT.

 

[Slapdash]

I just think it's highly hypocritical of them to speak of humanity and redistribution of wealth when much of the world would consider them to be wealthy. They conveniently want wealth redistributed to 300M and not 6B because it's in their own best economic interest.

Can somebody point to some evidence of this hypocrisy? People just seem to be assuming they know what the Occupy people's views are on international redistribution of wealth.

They don't seem too happy with free trade. Free trade is about the largest international wealth redistribution (and growth) mechanism humans have seen.

This is a pretty good response to me, and I think you might be right that there's a lot of anti-free trade sentiment amongst Occupy types. I generally tend to think of anti-free trade folks as more misinformed than hypocritical, but it's probably a combination of both.

They are too focused on the negative impacts of free trade (reduction in middle class jobs and polarization in incomes) than the benefits (lower priced goods and increased global incomes/education leading to supply of innovators and demand for new products being much higher) IMO. A combination of both is probably right, though I don't see a lack of advocating income being redistributed by governments globally as a reasonable criticism. Nobody is proposing fiscal policy be done on a super-national level. The free trade angle is hypocritical in my book but that doesn't seem to be a huge focus of their arguments. Also, as far as I understand it, they have encouraged and spun off protests in several other countries.

 

[Bonzai]

Simply because one owns an iPad doesn't mean that one can't be angry at the douchbaggery that brought on the economic collapse. The "We are the 99%" slogan is catchy, but it seems to lend itself too easily to straw men.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I think advocating for global redistribution rather than domestic redistribution would be great, but it's less likely to get any sort of political traction. Honestly that criticism can be leveled at any attempts at social welfare in this country.

Are you seriously trying to say that the reason OWS isn't clamoring for global redistribution is because it's less likely to get any sort of political traction?

I think global redistribution of wealth isn't part of the political conversation in this country. The Occupy movement reflects that.