Thread: Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

Originally Posted by Ramil

... Money is not everything, and there are really things left in this world that money cannot buy.

and I agree with Ramil here. Some of the corporations I was involved with had nothing to do with profit/money.

Originally Posted by Seraph

I have been satisfied with their performance.

Ok, and how many of them have you been running?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Ok, and how many of them have you been running?

Could you please stop asking personal questions?

Eugene (and Oregon) place to go for coops. And Anarchy.
.Under 'Community'...
"In the 1970s, Eugene was packed with cooperative and community projects. It still has small natural food stores in many neighborhoods, some of the oldest student cooperatives in the country, and alternative schools have been part of the school district since 1971. The old Grower's Market, downtown near the Amtrak depot, is the only food cooperative in the U.S. with no employees. It is possible to see Eugene's trend-setting non-profit tendencies in much newer projects, such as the Tango Center and the Center for Appropriate Transport. In 2006, an initiative began to create a tenant-run development process for Downtown Eugene.

In the fall of 2003, neighbors noticed that "an unassuming two-acre remnant orchard tucked into the Friendly Area Neighborhood"^[30] had been put up for sale by its owner, a resident of New York City.^[31] Learning that a prospective buyer had plans to build several houses on the property, they formed a non-profit organization called Madison Meadow^[32][33] in June 2004 in order to buy the property and "preserve it as undeveloped space in perpetuity."^[32] In 2007 their effort was named Third Best Community Effort by the Eugene Weekly,^[34] and by the end of 2008 they had raised enough money to purchase the property.^[30]" Continues on to 'Anarchy' ..."then-mayor Jim Torrey described the city as "the anarchist capital of the United States."

.

More do as I say and not as I do:

Confirmed: Occupy Oakland loves banks

Scott

BBQ at Mikey's house for the occupiers?

Big Hollywood

Scott

With approximately 5% of the world's population, the United States is responsible for approximately 25% of annual global oil consumption and according to 2008 estimates has a per-person daily consumption rate more than double that of the European Union, whose population is significantly greater.

Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill?

Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

Originally Posted by nulle

Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill?

Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Scott

Originally Posted by fortheether

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Scott

Лучше не "who", а "зачем". В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

I'll wait for Al Gore and Michael Moore to "lead" the way by example.

Scott

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

That's sad, but would anyone give up a part of their salary, for instance, because the employee on their left earns less and can't afford what they can?

Originally Posted by nulle

Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

Totally agree with this.

And there is so much corporate waste in every area.
I was forced to fly twice last week to attend meetings in the morning. If the meetings had been in the afternoon, I could have taken the train. Nobody seemed to care, even after I pointed it out, I had to do it again and I don't feel confident enough right now to refuse.

My view at the moment is of a large corporate building. They've left all the lights on over the weekend, and I can see screens flaring. One massive and totally un-necessary waste of energy.

Both un necessary business flights and un necessary energy waste by corporations should simply be made illegal and punishable if companies breach it.

Two flights per employee per year is more than enough. More phone conferences, video conferences and train journeys.

If I was forced to consume less, I probably wouldn't enjoy it at first. But I can hardly argue that it wasn't needed or in the best long term interest of myself, future generations and the earth as a whole.

It's a very unhealthy and dangerious situation that developing countries are now aspiring to the same standards as the Western world. Sadly, the Earth as a whole cannot afford resource-wise for them to have it. Rather, it is we that should consume less.

In terms of consumption, didn't the USSR actually have it quite right, I mean that nobody was really poor or starving, but nobody able to consume in excess either? I think that earth might be able to just about support the level of consumption that existed there.... Or am I wrong?
Another comparison would be the way that Americans lived in the 1950s.... or had things already gone overboard by then?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Лучше не "who", а "зачем". В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

LOL!!!

In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished.

If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished.

If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

Аж слезу выжал... t2336.gif
Лампаде понравится.

Well, I suspect that it's probably not YOUR consumption that is out of proportions.
I am talking about corporations, their executives, people who inherited wealth or made it fast through banking, or shady affairs.

People who have massive houses, larger than they reasonably need, in several locations. People who drive everywhere and have multiple expensive cars in one family. Who fly on lots of expensive holidays every year, who eat excessively, have walk-in closets full of clothes they'll only use once or twice and buy endless quantities of gadgets and stuff that they don't need.

Why should you stand up for such people's right to continue to consume like greedy pigs until the earth is devoid of resources and ecologically ruined?

Originally Posted by Hanna

People who have massive houses, larger than they reasonably need, in several locations. People who drive everywhere and have multiple expensive cars in one family. Who fly on lots of expensive holidays every year, who eat excessively, have walk-in closets full of clothes they'll only use once or twice and buy endless quantities of gadgets and stuff that they don't need.

You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Why should you stand up for such people's right to continue to consume like greedy pigs until the earth is devoid of resources and ecologically ruined?

Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.

Oh dear, what has life done to you, to make you such an egoistical and totally self-centred individual?!

Never mind people of the future, your own potential children and grandchildren.... Let them live in a polluted wasteland in the future, so that the elites of today can take a few extra trips to the Maldives, have a plasma screen in every room and five sports cars... The ironic fact that you yourself can't afford this and probably never will, seems to have escaped you.

Since solidarity isn't your cup of tea, do you remember the simple message of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

How would you feel if previous generations had made your life a living hell through their arrogance, egoism and foolishness?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

I am certainly not saying I have a fool proof way of avoiding it, but limiting excessive consumption should be a good start. During the war, they rationed food and clothing, so that the distribution would be fair in a sparce economy.
Something like that could be applied to activities and products that are bad for the economy. Like cars, flights and gadgets.

If americans do not want to limit fuel consumption now - then prices like 20$ per litre will do it for them later.
And then they will sell their hummers for scrap metal...

10 years ago fuel here was 3x cheaper than it is now.
In 2000 fuel (95 gasoline) price in Latvia was about 0,60$ per litre - now - 1,80$ per litre.
And it will not get cheaper.