Occupy Wall Street Thread Reposted

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 681 - 700 of total 1991 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 16, 2011 - 03:48pm PT
I'm very angry at Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, they are more successful than me.

It is answers like that make me think we should just wipe this planet out.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2011 - 03:52pm PT
Chaz said
Part of the equasion is missing.

The only thing missing from your equation is a "t."


Fatty said

So, you are suggesting that the banks make unsafe loans?????




One of your better trolls. 7/10
tooth

Trad climber
B.C.
Oct 16, 2011 - 03:55pm PT
http://youtu.be/Ka1ym7S3F3w
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:03pm PT
Fatty said
I'm very angry at Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs, they are more successful than me.


I'm still alive so I feel like I'm beating out Jobs at the moment.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:04pm PT
fattrad
What you said is a very good synopsis. (about businesses and loan requirements)
The fact that so few business can qualify for loans under rational standards is the indicator of the underlying problems.
Lack of business flow. Largely due to lack of demand. My wife and I haven't bought diddely in all of 2011. We've had to turn down nice vacation opportunities with relatives and friends because we couldn't afford the airfare. Tens of thousands of $$ we haven't been able to spend.
95% of the people buying clothes, vacation trips, cars, dishwashers, tuition to expensive colleges. That's a helluva lot more money than the top 1% who earn 25% of the total income, put into similar items. There was even a limit to the number of shoes Imelda Marcos could buy.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:11pm PT
Chaz
fattrad
It shouldn't be about envy and anger.
Here's a reasonable explanation about why the better off should pay their fair share. Written in "plain speak".
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
If course you could shrug it off as "socialist bunk" since it's written by a Nobel Prize Economist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:20pm PT
Are you saying we'd be better off if there were a limit set on what we could achieve?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:30pm PT
"Are you saying we'd be better off if there were a limit set on what we could achieve?"


 Just like a right winger to take it to an extreme....

To answer the question with a question, bluerig style: What is your definition of "better"? Who do you mean when you say "we"? And what do you consider "acheivement"?

There may be some agreement among all human beings as to a couple of the statements, but one leads me to think that its to the beholder.



Right wing wants to drop the minimum wage..... I want to put in place a maximum wage....

What is the difference?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:35pm PT
Standard, common definitions Jingy. I'm trying to simplify, not complicate. Before I go "yay" or "nay" on this, I'm trying to find out just what yay or nay means.


What would be your maximum wage set at?
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:35pm PT
Wes- Why are you even taking that bait? I mean seriously. You're allowing him to frame the debate which means you're just typing lots of words trying to explain how something isn't something else that you aren't even talking about.
lostinshanghai

Social climber
someplace
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:40pm PT
High Traverse wrote

Now we know why fattrad is all buddy buddy with Cheney, Kantor and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip). Money buys access. Access gets you political appointments.

Be Very Afraid (to quote fattrad himself)

Access gets you political appointments and more:

Well we all know Pres. Cheney and his connections and continue to have. Ok! That is just one under Bush, but he cut his connections off so he could serve his country.

How about Donald “baby” Rumsfeld that dropped from what he did [just one of many] so he could serve as well:

Remember Bush with “instill panic in this country” by telling us a minimum of 200,000 people will die from the avian flu pandemic, but it could be as bad as 2 million deaths in this country alone.

Justifying the immediate purchase of 80 million doses of Tamiflu, a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations.

So Cheney's,Bush's,Rumsfeld's U.S. placed an order for 20 million doses of this worthless drug at a price of $100 per dose. That comes to a staggering $2 billion. Your tax money at work.

Who made a profit: a big fat one at that?

Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. in 1997, a position which he held in the years prior to becoming Secretary of Defense in the Bush administration. Rumsfeld had been on the Board of Directors from the establishment of Gilead in 1987.

And you say corporations are not to blame? No we are; we should have bought shares.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
1 Million a Year?

Way f*#king more than I will ever need.
Way more than I can spend (at my current spending rate)
Way more than I need to invest.


Not to mention, even with expenses, after 3 years or "earning" 1 million a year, you'd have enough to live off the interest earned by a savings account or investment dividends.
You could retire early.

But that might lead to everyone becoming lax and not really giving a sh#t about the next generation... But how is that different from now?

The right want to completely do away with all regulation.
The right want to completely do away with the EPA.

Why?

Is it really because they think that jobs can be had by a majority of people currently unemployed? Or is it because the human beings in and around the corporations that pollute the most want to continue, without sanction, to pollute the environment to the point of un-inhabitability of plenty of US cities, where people aren't much more that a hindrance to the corporations.

And the republicans do nothing about helping "the people"....


Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Oct 16, 2011 - 05:04pm PT
Jingy,

What you're saying is what I'm trying to be cautious about. I don't want to jump on the bandwagon when the solution proposed is worse than the problem.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 05:11pm PT
"What you're saying is what I'm trying to be cautious about. I don't want to jump on the bandwagon when the solution proposed is worse than the problem."


 Chaz, be a good sport and post more of your thoughts on the subject that you have started to discuss?

What exactly are you being cautious about and what did I write that you need to be cautious about? Is "being cautious" in your world not taking a stand on anything, not stating your point, or just voting for your favorite bible-like character no matter how completely ignorant they may be?
What bandwagon are you talking about?
What solution to you think is being proposed, and how is it "worse that the problem" when the problem is not being mentioned either?


For now, I consider your questions to be trolls, just like a few others, unless you want to make more sense than blueringnuts
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:26pm PT
Great point, skipt. Well said. If you are upset that the financial sector got a bailout without real noticeable benefits to the populace as a whole that you are literally Hitler.


Kristof did a pretty good job of articulating the general sentiment and manages to cite some actual data (much of which has been cited on this forum in regard to numerous topics).


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-americas-primal-scream.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB


Some bullet points:
The frustration in America isn’t so much with inequality in the political and legal worlds, as it was in Arab countries, although those are concerns too. Here the critical issue is economic inequity. According to the C.I.A.’s own ranking of countries by income inequality, the United States is more unequal a society than either Tunisia or Egypt.

Three factoids underscore that inequality:

¶The 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

¶The top 1 percent of Americans possess more wealth than the entire bottom 90 percent.

¶In the Bush expansion from 2002 to 2007, 65 percent of economic gains went to the richest 1 percent.

More broadly, there’s a growing sense that lopsided outcomes are a result of tycoons’ manipulating the system, lobbying for loopholes and getting away with murder. Of the 100 highest-paid chief executives in the United States in 2010, 25 took home more pay than their company paid in federal corporate income taxes, according to the Institute for Policy Studies.



To underscore skipt's point he continued

Living under Communism in China made me a fervent enthusiast of capitalism. I believe that over the last couple of centuries banks have enormously raised living standards in the West by allocating capital to more efficient uses. But anyone who believes in markets should be outraged that banks rig the system so that they enjoy profits in good years and bailouts in bad years.


Funny, that seemed to be one of the major points behind the Tea Party protests. Those nazi communists.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:41pm PT
Here is a novel idea.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ctTRIFkQU&feature=feedrec_grec_index

Transaction tax to pay for all public education....


Pay particular attention to the part about the GI Bill: Costs of the program compared to the benefits America received....


HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:46pm PT
I appreciate you liking my point, but to quote Jon Stewart, maybe take it down a notch?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:50pm PT
Relevance? fatty
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:53pm PT
Entertainment has value, but yes, the amounts we pay ball players is out of whack.


To realize that there should be a limit to how much one can earn, just realize that we already limit people/corporations from being monopolies. Why do we do that if one should be able to make as much as they can? Do you know Chaz?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Oct 16, 2011 - 06:57pm PT
"Entertainment has value, but yes, the amounts we pay ball players is out of whack."

 You make it sound as though the we are you and I when you say "we pay ball players"....I'd prefer it be said that owners and fans pay ball players what they get paid...... and I don't pay ball players anything.... Unless she's doing a really good job at it too... then she may get a tip (no pun intended)
Messages 681 - 700 of total 1991 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta